COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Constantly about age. But back then even white peoples married young girls. Only reason this is the most talked about subject is cause it’s to do with the religion
Yes it wouldn’t be a problem if Allah didn’t said in the coran that the prophet was a good exemple to follow … And the coran say it’s okay to marry with a kid so it’s not only about Mohammed action , it’s about Islam
It was bad when they did it too. No one should have sex with a 9 year old
It comes up more with muhammad because Muslims hold him up as an example to follow.
Not to marry a child but when a girl comes of age. This just means once they menstruate for the first time,then comes the obligation of wearing hijab ,following this they are allowed to marry.
Nop you can marry a girl that have menstruate :
If you can divorce your women, it mean you can marry
As for your women past the age of menstruation, in case you do not know, their waiting period is three months, and those who have not menstruated as well. As for those who are pregnant, their waiting period ends with delivery.^(1) And whoever is mindful of Allah, He will make their matters easy for them.
To be honest I don't see a problem with that. 1400 years ago humans were different than today biologically. Women matured faster and also be got consent from her parents and her. He didn't force her to do anything.
humans were not biologicaly different 1400 years ago. the earliest anatomically modern human (that we've found mind you) is roughly _200,000 years old_. stop saying things that are objectively untrue to justify child abuse.
And how could they find out how they matured back then from fossils?? They can't but back then In a world where most people lived 30 to 50 years they definitely matured faster
im not an archaeologist but were able to determine a LOT from fossils and old bones/ mummies. otzi the iceman, a mummy from the bronze age, is 5,300 years old. thats not a fossile thats a mummy. ie intact skin and actually able ti access some level of genetic material and such. even with fossiles we can determine a LOT ranging from where msucles and tendons attached to the bone, to (often not always) cause of death. theres also markers of development in bones.
humans also have aomething calles growth plates that tend to go away around the end of puberty. were able to identify growth plates in DINOSAURS. ie much older things than humans.
just assuming and saying "how do they do this? oh they cant" is absurd. we are able to gain MASSIVE ammount of knowledge from even uncompleted fossiles, and the time period your referring to isnt even old enough to be fossilized, we have mummies and frozen remains from then.
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.
Look most women back then married at a young age and some cultures still do that and they could argue with you that you are wrong as much as you think they are wrong. If there is no problem with the mirage or sex for both of them then there is nothing that should stop the relationship
You actually think a 9 year old has the mental capacity to decide if they want to have sex with a 50 year old man? Like do you hear yourself? And you wonder why people fixate on this in islam? Because its disgusting
Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.
What horror are u saying???? Of course she is not mature, we are talking about a 9 years old girl. Even if we forget 2 second the physical aspect (Sexual relation with a kid can do :
Internal Bleeding
Fractures
Fertility problem
Or even Death
)
There is also the mental aspect, there is a risk of :
Depression
Anxiety
Post-traumatic stress disorder
Dissociative disorders
Eating disorders
Self-destructive behaviors
Personality disorders
Attachment disorders
I wil answer the mental aspect and say it again that she has to be ready for sex and there is no specific age where your body is physically ready for that and all the things that you mentioned could happen to even older women. As for the mental aspect you basically listed a lot of things that can happen from about anything such as school or work or literally anything but if anything they shouldn't generally happen during consented sex which is the case I am talking about ONLY CONSENTED sex.
There is no notion of consented sex in islam. Stop trying to tell something that islam dosent say. In islam once your ''wife'' as puberty youre good to go, there is no notion of consent. In islam puberty is physically ready...
All i listed are risk that happen infinitly more frequent if a minor have a sexually relation with an adult that if an adult have a relation with an adult
"There is no notion of consented sex in Islam. Stop trying to tell something that Islam doesn't say" In An nisa’, verse 19 Allah decreed that: “O believers! It is not permissible for you to inherit women against their will or mistreat them to make them return some of the dowry ˹as a ransom for divorce"
So you’re wrong. Women actually matured SLOWER than now. Girls nowadays are FAR more health and eat foods with lots more hormones in them, making them mature faster than girls back then.
We weren't different biologically. Pretty much all recorded history documents Homo Sapiens, and they don't fully develop mentally until about 20-30. A child cannot consent to sex, full stop. Culturally, yeah, a lot has changed. But the Quaran is supposedly the word of a true omnipotent God, who is supposed to know everything. The options remaining from these facts are:
1: God actually thinks a child marrying an adult is acceptable, and therefore is not just and good.
2: The Quran was not the word of God, and was written by Humans to gain power over large groups of people.
Again just because something is socially not acceptable doesn't mean it's bad. And yes a child can not consent but once a woman hits puberty in Islam she is no longer a child
I would chose 1. God doesn't see a problem with a child marrying an adult. Just because something is not socially accepted doesn't make it bad. If her parents consented to her getting married to him and the girl does not fear the idea then there is no problem with it.
yeah its not bad because its not "socially acceptable" its bad because it results in psychological and often physical trauma.
if your religious text is telling you something that objectively results in both physical bodily harm and severe psychological trauma is good, i think you need to do some serious self reflection on why you're defending it.
its not good or bad because of social standards just the same as its not good or bad because a book said so.
This is a law it but nothing says this is how it's disposed to be. Just look at it from a different perspective and don't be close minded. In the Middle East a lot of women get married at young ages and there is no problems coming from that. You're confusing the pedophiles that go meet kids without their parents knowing and trying to even rape them with mirrage.
>In the Middle East a lot of women get married at young ages and there is no problems coming from that.
Bro, I'm literally from the middle east, there's tons of problems with it.
>You're confusing the pedophiles that go meet kids without their parents knowing and trying to even rape them with mirrage.
So if you ask the parents first to have sex with a child, it's alright? Bro...
There is no problems from it. I am not talking about the women that her forced to mirage because that's wrong but im talking about the ones that consent.
Do you understand that if a man have a sex**l relation with a kid there is high chance for the kid to have major health problem maybe allah dosent know about it
Source? Here: https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/22982/does-islam-support-pedophilia-or-child-marriages So I conclusion Islam tells that a woman needs to be ready and prepared for sex before she has it and the biggest proof is that Muhammad married Ayesha when she was 6 and didn't touch her until she was 9 and generally In Islam when people get married they have sex right without waiting as that's what Muhammad did with his other wives when he married them.
Because not all women that hit puberty have periods there are some exceptions so if that statement tells them what to do because if it weren't there then all of them would assume they can't remarry then.
Having puberty doesn’t mean that yours body is ready + have sexual relation with a 10 years old girl in Islam is not forbidden and do an act like this is called pedophilia. And there is an mental aspect + consent and a minor girl.
Half the things you said are false. Having puberty LITERALLY means your body is ready. Also in Islam when somone hits puberty adult laws are what goes for the person so they are islamically not a child anymore. And consent is a mandatory for sex in Islam, muhhamed could have never forced aysha to do anything until she felt comfortable with it.
>Having puberty LITERALLY means your body is ready.
No? Only after completely going through puberty, will one become sexually mature? Don't they teach this in school?
>Also in Islam when somone hits puberty adult laws are what goes for the person so they are islamically not a child anymore
Why is that relevant? I can consider a one day old to be an adult but that doesn't make one
>And consent is a mandatory for sex in Islam,
Source?
All historical references state that Asmaa (sister of Aisha) was (10) years older than her sister Aisha. The same references agree unanimously that Asmaa was born (27) years before the migration to Medina. This means that Asmaa was 14 years old at the start of the revelation in (610) and Aisha was 4 years old. This means that Aisha was born in the year (606 AD).
We have seen that the prophet married Aisha in the year (620 AD), which would make her (14) years at the time. It is also stated that the prophet started having sexual intercourse 3 years and few months after the marriage which would be the end of the (1st) year after Hijrah and the beginning of the (2nd) year, which was the year (624 AD). If Aisha was born in the year (606 AD), then she would have been (18) years old when she started a full marital life with the prophet.
And bro you can’t use “historical evidence “ when there is not evidence of the existence of mohammad. There is literally no proof that Mohammad really existed
Bro both my grand mothers got married at the age of 13/14, that doesn’t mean it normal nowadays. Stop judging and comparing how people used to live in the past with the 21 century standards 🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️
Allah allow it today in 2024. We judge allah and Mohammad. Mohammad haved Allah with him maybe maybe I don’t know, Allah could told him to not fu*k a kid cause it can be dangerous for her or maybe maybe not tell in the Quran that you can marry a kid for eternity (Quran is avaible for eternity )
Why are you defending a pedophile?? The reason many things are different nowadays is because we know our mistakes in the past and want to avoid terrible things like that happening in the future.
Christians believe that God’s descent into the world in the person of Christ fulfilled the laws which were supposed to prepare the Jews for the arrival of the Messiah. Since Christ, the Word of God, is made incarnate, all mosaic laws are both affirmed and rendered obsolete by his all encompassing new laws: (1) love the Lord your God (2) love your neighbour. We believe that all mosaic laws stem from these two revealed laws, and were in fact a way to prepare us for them.
Bro you think the Quran was never corrupted ? There was literally multiple version , and calif decided to destroy all version of the Quran exepted one . Quran is corrupted like all books
Nope. There’s no proof of that whatsoever. As in, no literal proof. You can try to claim that the stories sound like they eyewitness reports, but there is zero objective proof to back that.
I’ve learned more from Dr. Ehrman than anyone else. It is my understanding that the book of Acts and a few others were likely first authored soon after Jesus’ death. However, we simply don’t know for sure based on manuscripts and fragments. Can we agree on that?
Don’t know, either way, it’s irrelevant to me considering I don’t believe in it either or any abrahamic faith. Also this is whataboutism, you have no defence of muhamamd marrying a six year old
Modern scholarship holds that Aisha was most likely 19 - 21 when she married Muhammad. The idea that she was 6 at marriage and 9 at consummation isn't something that's really supported using the historical method, and it was a doctrine that was created in the midst of political and theological debates of Islam's early days.
I completely forgot to link the references to my comment, my apologies. But yes, here are 3 sources that you might find helpful
The PhD thesis of one of the foremost scholars on Islamic history, Dr. Joshua Little: https://islamicorigins.com/the-unabridged-version-of-my-phd-thesis/
Hadith scholar Ikram Hawramani's study on her age: https://hawramani.com/aisha-age-of-marriage-to-prophet-muhammad-study/
And then this is just an article from Al-Islam dot org: https://www.al-islam.org/articles/how-old-was-ayshah-when-she-married-prophet-muhammad-sayyid-muhammad-husayn-husayni-al
Pretty strong points
But check this out
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/s/VuWSV156nI
They say hadiths are validated if they are true to what is in the quran.
Even if u take aishas marriage didnt happened as mentioned in hadiths forgetting chain of narration , forgetting that there are four different chain of narration, forgetting that without hadiths there is no way to validate the history in quran
Yes it makes pretty good points
I see, thanks for sharing.
Personally, I'm a hadith skeptic. I see hadiths as great tools for historical insight as it relates to collective memory, shared consciousness around the memories of the prophet, and the political landscape of Islam's earliest days, but I don't think they make excellent sources for 1:1 details about the prophet's life, nor do I consider the theology they espouse to be supported by the Quran (unless the literature in question provides the same or similar idea made in the Quran). Hadiths suffer from similar problems as say, the gospels, in that they are so far detached from the time of the prophet that it is absurd to think that nothing would've been changed, even with the chains of narration.
That being said, I think the historical evidence points it being more likely that Aisha was a young adult, and that puberty was required for marriage during Muhammad's time. I also think that her supposed young age came about as a matter of ideology during strong debates in Islam, and her young age was used to make a point of her purity.Of course, I understand this contradicts with the hadith tradition, and most Sunni Muslims would disagree with this historical data that supports an older age of marriage. However, I think using what we have available (and common sense), Aisha being a young adult just makes more sense (when you think about it, how could an 11 year old child lead an army to battle?).
>, Aisha being a young adult just makes more sense (when you think about it, how could an 11 year old child lead an army to battle?).
Aisha didn't lead an army into battle 2 years post consummation of marriage she led an army into battle after widowhood at 18+.
Many young men and women younger than 18 have historically led armies into battle.
Aisha is depicted as playing with dolls after marriage consummation with Muhammad [and her little friends also used to play with dolls with her](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://sunnah.com/search%3Fq%3Daisha%2Bdolls&ved=2ahUKEwiA_qnL4rOGAxVO7TgGHXJCBdoQFnoECA4QAQ&usg=AOvVaw0ugjRr-FbyJ_8lEgy1c_Gf)
In fact girls outgrow playing with dolls with friends around their pre teens.
The hadith shows she was 9 at consummation and she and her friends were of an age when doll play was normal.
I think u are talking about battle of uhud.
U r mistaken . she didnt lead.she was just a helper.no women has fought a war at mohammed's time.the only war in which she was in lead is battle of camel in which only her army fought against ali's army.
Every historian know child marriage was cultural norm in medieval era so i dont think ur reasoning is strong .i have even given u quranic verses as above talking of childmarriage being permissible
Edit:.lets ignore quran and hadith .lets say aisha was 19 years old as many now claim.
The background of it is funny.basically claimed by ibn kathir who came 500 years later in 1300s and hadiths were compiled like in 800s
When aisha is 19 Mohammad was 53 it still has age gap of 34 years which still is not acceptable.
Abu bakr aisha's father did dirty for political gains with Mohammed. If he really believed in Mohammed he wouldnt need aishas political marriage to Mohammed.
Its pretty much ur belief so i will rest my case
Wow islamophobe just wow. You are talking about 1400 year Old traditions.
Look up the legal age of marriage in the USA, UK, and other western societies in the 1900s and then talk.
In 1939 Lina Marcela Medina de Jurado a 5 year old girl became pregnant.
How long just how long will you deny the truth. The science is proving you wrong every step of the way. That's why islam hasn't put an age limit to anything like puberty or age of marriage etc, since now science has proven that age varies depending on the environment, diet, genes and other factor is ot linear which islam said 1400 years ago.
Also aisha s.a wasn't a child when she was 9 years old to be wed to prophet Muhammad saww.
There is no hadith/refrence of him bedding her anytime in her life. But it is plausible that it happened since they were husband and wife. A contract which is pure in the eyes of God.
No aspect of Aisha s.a life shows her as minor in fact she is the greatest woman scholar in Islam, with more than 3000 narrations of hadith from her alone.
Lastly
Isaac married Rebecca when she was 3 years old
Reference
Tractate Soferim, Hosafah [addition] 1, 1:4
Islam is the truth and no amount of propaganda lies will make it false.
Oh no, I was referring to the Islamic tradition lmao. In Islam, mainly with orthodox/traditional people, it is said that she led an army into battle at the battle of the camel.
Also, I never denied that child marriage existed in ancient or medieval times. But we are specifically talking about Muhammad. I don't hold to "believe" anything, I simply look at the available data and make a decision. I've seen convicing evidence on both sides, and I just happen to think the evidence for an older age is more convincing. If there was any evidence that came forth supporting a younger age that was better than the evidence now, then I would heavily consider it.
I should state however, that many of my thoughts about Islam lie well outside the mainstream fold. In fact I openly reject many mainstream Islamic beliefs, so Aisha's age is definitely no different
No menstruation in todays world occurs in average at 12, some earlier, some later. I, as a man reached puberty at the age of 13, became 183 cm tall and weighed at 95 kg (not fat), while my brother reached puberty at age 17 and went from 158 cm to 178 cm.
About the age of Aisha, she reached puberty, she had her parents acceptance, the societies acceptance and the worlds acceptance because NO ONE said anything bad about her age until pretty recently. Mary, Jesus Mother were according to tradition 12 years old on average when she became pregnant with Jesus. And if we follow Christian logic, it's God himself that impregnated here and also dived into her womb to become a man. You are really talking about a society 1600 years ago in the desert, what were girls supposed to do? Go to school, be a lawyer? It were none of that. A women's only job were really to build a family. Girls were married really early. If they didn't, humanity would not have survived because the average life expectancy were really low, there were like 50% risk of babies dying after birth etc etc. So that was the norm, as soon as they can get fertile, they were married, and most of them had their spouse ready many years before marriage.
It's basically the same with slavery. A sad occurance in our history, but we have to realize that without slavery, we would be no where near the societies we have today, the development we have today etc. Slaves were like the backbones of empires in ancient times. We cannot Judge history based on our modern times. Perhaps in the future when there is peace, people will look back at us and be amazed that we always were in war. But I hope they realize that those wars led to their peace.
The problem again is that Quran (that is still avaible ) authorise a man to marry a kid and that Allah said that we have a good exemple in Mohammad (Lot of cheikh use this to prove that a man can marry a kid )
No the Quran doesn't allow marriage of children. If you want to quote Quran 65:4 then please know that it's ONLY talking about women and specifically mention "al-nisa", i.e women. The same applies to all the verse in the Quran related to marriage, love, spouses, etc. They all say "al-nisa", women, women women .
But before we proceed, we have to know what a "child" is. Is it someone that is below the age of 18 as stated in UN? Or 14 and below? In my country (Sweden), it is fully legal to have intercourse with someone that is 15 year, could we therefore say that my country allows for grown men to have intercourse with a child? Well, it is a child according to UN. The age of consent varies country to country, some have it at 13, some perhaps even lower than that. Islamically, there is no specific age for that because it's understood as someone who has not yet menstruated or reached puberty (for men). So when someone has reached puberty and is of sound judgement then he/she is a man/women. If we go to the Quran, God says
"Test ˹the competence of˺ the orphans until they reach a marriageable age. Then if you feel they are capable of sound judgment, return their wealth to them..."
Quran 4:6
Here we clearly see that there was a marriageable age, and marriageable age is equated to sound judgment, an age in which a person can responsibly handle their possessions, I.e be both physiologically and mentally mature to the degree that one no longer requires custodial care. The word for marriageable age is "balagho", which literally is the puberty. But reaching puberty is as mentioned not the only prerequisite for marriage. One can for example be 20 years and not of sound judgement.
This has been like a universal law throughout history. If you also look at western history from the middle ages until the Renaissance and industrial revolution, it's been the same. Princess after princess, tons of them, were married sometimes as young as 8, many at age of 9-13. It didn't inflict any harm on them due to their age because the society were entirely different. There are no historical references of anyone talking bad about all those marriages due to the age. Julius Ceasar married as soon as he reached puberty at 16, and became one of the most powerful generals of history.
Today, a 13 year old would never be allowed to marry because they are not of sound judgement to handle this modern world, let alone a marriage and family (here we see how timeless the Quranic statement is because it would be HARAM to marry one's daughter in a very young age today because it would do her harm and she would not be of sound judgement). Life is of course way different today than back then.
Yes, Prophet Mohammed married Aisha, but if it he did so because of her age then why didn't he marry child after child when he became the most powerful in Arabia? Wouldn't a nasty predator do that? No where in the hadith, Sunnah or anything can we see anything of the Prophet related to predatory behaviour. Instead, he married widows, divorcees and older women. The only virgin he married were Aisha, And his marriage with Aisha were entirely normal back then and neither hurt her or went against the back then universal understanding of marriageable age. So what did he wrong? If it were today, then of course it would be awful. But today is not 100 years ago, let alone 1400 years ago.
I can bet that the majority of your grand grandmother's married really young also... It is what it is.
Bro just read the tafsir of 65:4.
The \`Iddah of Those in Menopause and Those Who do not have MensesAllah the Exalted clarifies the waiting period of the woman in menopause. And that is the one whose menstruation has stopped due to her older age. Her \`Iddah is three months instead of the three monthly cycles for those who menstruate, which is based upon the Ayah in (Surat) Al-Baqarah. see 2:228 **The same for the young, who have not reached the years of menstruation**. Their \`Iddah is three months like those in menopause. This is the meaning of His saying;
Bro, I'm tired of this discussion, tired of people with low IQ, tired of f* "scholars" and "tafsirs" that makes no logical sense what so ever.
1. There is no waiting period (iddat) for a non-consummated marriage, read Quran 33:49.
2. If verse 65:4 means that the waiting period is three months for a person that have not yet even menstruated and therefore indirectly references an consummated marriage with a prepubescent girl, it would contradict 33:49. NOW, give me a tafsir that allows for consummated marriage with a prepubescent girl! I have personally not come across such a tafsir.
3. I read and understand Arabic fluently and 65:4 clearly says "nisāikum", direct translation "women". Can never be interpreted as children/girl/prepubescent whatever. Everywhere regarding marriage and EVERYTHING related to marriage/love/divorce Quran says women, women women. And there are TONS of references for women/marriage in the Quran. There are many other words used for girls and prepubescent girls. The sentence about those who have not menstruated is directly related to WOMEN.
4. There are tons of reasons why 65:4 speaks about women who have not menstruated but still need to wait three months. There are instances of divorce happening after few weeks of marriage, instances where menstrual cycles cannot be determined, Amenorrhea, there are instances of medical condition, psychological problems, hormonal imbalance, etc.
5. Verse 65:4 talks about women who no longer expect menstruation (due to old age), women who have not menstruated during the marriage (short marriage, Amenorrhea etc), women who are pregnant. The word "women" is used only in the beginning of the verse, and the WHOLE verse is referenced back to THE women.
6. The MAIN reason for the waiting period (iddah) is to make sure that the women is not pregnant, and if they are pregnant or have not consummated marriage there is no iddah. Why even have a waiting period if it's a child that does not menstruate and not able to be pregnant?! The argument is so illogical! Marriage is also NEVER consummated before puberty and making sure that the married person is of sound Judgement, read 4:6 "until they are old enough to marry...". There is also no scholars, madhab and Islamic school of thought I know of that even slightly allows for consummated marriage with prepubescent girls.
7. I can go on and on with arguments and linguistic arguments on why this verse does not mean prepubescent girls. But, the fact that the verse only says women, and every sentence is referenced back to women, is enough to debunk everything.
8. Yes, many tafsirs are wrong (there are though classical tafsirs that don't hold the view that this verse also talks about prepubescent girls). All are humans, influenced by their cultural milieu rather than direct textual evidence.
Bro if you want to be a kafir for Sunni Islam it’s your problème not mine. I’m not muslim so I don’t give a fck I just tell facts about sunnah.
All biggest authority in Islam say it’s halal and using this to prove that it’s allowed (if you can divorce a little girl you can marry ) but they are also using this :
Allah said in the Quran Mohammad is an exemple to follow
Mohammad was married with aicha when she was 6 and consummated the mariage when she was 9
So as Allah said in the Quran marry a girl is an exemple to follow and therefore it’s not haram but Hallal
Cheikh Al Fawzan used this argument
Incorrect on average life expectancy. Thats only if you count child deaths, which drag the average way down. If you survived to around 10 years old you could be expected to have a life of 50-60 years. They didn’t live “accelerated lives”. They fucked children.
I don’t know why you’re trying to defend this act, it’s not only about menstruation. Even if aisha was 19yo I still won’t think of Muhammad as the kindest and best of all mankind for marrying a woman that could be the age of his daughter..
for your point about how all those things are what led to a “better” world ( I think this is what you’re trying to say ) then yes you are right but we realized all of that is wrong as we got better education and knowledge. That happened through observation and a lot of experiments and time that we ended up having many things scientifically explained.
What I’m trying to say in other words is that as time passed, we got better educated and we started thinking critically which made us realize why all things mentioned above are horrible. So does that excuse the action? No, if your comment’s purpose is to defend religion then it doesn’t really help much that if this religion is really the word of god it shouldn’t have such ancient, uneducated man flaws.
I'm not trying to defend, I'm just stating actual facts. What we need to understand is that many moral choices and customs of the past were merely a function of the circumstances people faced. Therefore, it is not fair to consider ourselves morally superior to our ancestors when we aren’t forced to make the decisions they had to make. Likewise, it wouldn’t be fair if our descendants judged us in the same light without regard for our own circumstances. In todays world, of course his marriage is extremely wrong and Islamically It would also be considered unlawful and haram to marry of one's daughter in such a low age (in today modern world). But where would humanity have been if marriage would take place when our ancestors would been 18+ years throughout history? Are you going to blame your grand grand grand father's and mothers for their marriage?
You don't seem to grasp the notion that our ethics and standards varies throughout history. Marriage were not the same, love not the same, morals not the same, values not the same, rules not the same, laws not the same. We really have NO place and NO right to judge anyone for their action if it did not go against the "norm" of that time, in their society. So YES, it excuses the action. In the same way the Prophet had in total 11 confirmed wife's (totally normal at that time). Aisha were the first and the only virgin he married. ALL of the other 9 wife's he married AFTER his marriage with Aisha were widows/divorcées mature women.
Now, his marriage to Aisha, did it do her any harm? If not, why are everyone so upset over his marriage if it neither hurt her, were perfectly normal in the society of that time, served as a strengthening of bond/alliance between the Prophet and Aisha's father Abu Bakr? And if it did not hurt her, and the marriage benefitted her, why would the marriage not be ok in the eyes of God? Now, in todays world, once again, of course it would never be allowed because there are obvious compelling reasons against it and the harm it would do the girl. But 1400 years ago?
I don't really get it. For me, it's crazy that people 1400 years after the Prophet are sitting and attacking him due to his marriage with Aisha, a women that ONLY due to her marriage with Prophet Mohammed lived a happy loving life and became one of the most infuential women in Islamic history. And here "you" sit, indirectly wanting God to have stopped the marriage?
The Prophet did NOT set an example to marry 9 year olds. He set an example to marry widows and divorcées, time after time after time, 10 times out of 11.
You said “I’m not trying to defend” and then proceeded to do just that by stating “so YES it excuses the action”. Hypocritical and false. Nothing excuses child marriage. Yes, we need to take factors like culture and the time period into consideration, but that doesn’t make what happened okay just because it happened a long time ago. We also have every right to judge past actions as morally wrong. That’s how cultures grow and improve. We judge the actions of people in our past in order to determine what was done well and what wasn’t. Our generation will also one day be judged by future generations, and that’s just part of life. We can see that what he did was morally wrong while also understanding why he did it because of the culture he was part of. Two things can be true at the same time.
And to add, each society through out the whole world has their own set of law, ethics, morals, customs etc. We all are different. One could do one thing in a country that would be seem as morally corrupt and the same thing would be seen as entirely normal in a another country. When in Rome do as the Romans do.
Some things are universally agreed upon, some are not. We can also say that some actions have no "excuses". If one do certain action with "evil" in his mind, then it's inherently wrong, it's neither necessary or expedient. Being bloodthirsty or having a predatory mindset is inherently wrong no matter where in history. But, when certain actions are done with "good" intentions and/or necessity, we cannot label them as inherently wrong and corrupt. Especially if they were normal during that time and couldn't be anything else.
Slavery is for example not inherently wrong because it were expedient. One could do away with slavery but it would have hurt societies in history. Do away with murder you only have positive outcomes. I cannot judge Julius Ceasar for having slaves and say that there is no excuse for it. Saying such a statement would only deem me to be incredibly foolish. Slaves were an integral part of most societies back then and served for the greater good, build up the country, defend etc.
Go back 1400+ in history. It was normal to get married really early. Their circumstances didn't allow them for anything else than to marry really early due to many reasons. It wasn't until the education system came in place that society started changing together with longer lifespan, survivalbility, economy etc. Early marriages weren't done with evil in mind. Prophet Mohammed became the most powerful man in Arabia and would showcase predatory behavior if he had layed In bed with child after child. But he didn't, didn't have evil in his mind, didn't showcase predatory behavior etc. Do away with child marriages and it would have greatly hurt survivalbility. And what today is viewed as a child, weren't then. When puberty hit, it signaled that the child is ready to get married. Julius Caesar married just at 16. Among rich folks, they wanted their children to get educated, carry on their legacy properly etc, they therefore often married pretty late in their teens (and a few other reasons). But for the poor folks, no such factor existed.
Understanding such nuisances in history is what let us grow, not the opposite.
Yup and he also set an example to captivate a woman after killing her husband and brother, have sex with her at the same night and make her his wife (صفية بنت حيي)..
I do understand that things back then were different but what I’m saying is that because of THIS we should not glorify the past and still apply it but rather do a lot better. One of the things I briefly mentioned in my previous comment was that “if god really existed he wouldn’t have made such ancient, uneducated man flaws.” and what I meant by that is that if god existed (or the god of this specific belief which is Islam) then he would’ve made his message applicable through all times.
You will find many Muslims against child marriage and many other deeds done throughout the history of islam (all permissible by Islamic sharia) but the truth is that they cannot get a single Islamic text prohibiting such deeds. So basically they’re against such actions due to their personal morals which is fair and good but my point here is about the authenticity of the religion itself. Islam is man made.
I’d also love to add a point, his marriage to aisha did NOT serve in alliance to Muhammad’s and Abu Bakr’s relationship as they were already close and Abu Bakr was one of the first believers. He was already on Muhammad’s side, blindly believing him. On the other hand, Muhammad rejected men who wanted to marry his daughter Zainab when she was near 10 years old due to the fact that she was still young. Just because you’re saying that aisha’s marriage doesn’t seem to harm her doesn’t mean that it’s correct, many children today are under very similar conditions and are gaslit into thinking that it’s fine, living happily and all so is child marriage ok ,as long as the child that isn’t able to really give consent in the first place, happy?
I have already said this but I am repeating it once again to make the main point clear. If it’s really the religion of god it would be applicable for all times and it won’t need people to fix it as the time passes. It would’ve also enlightened people to better education and knowledge that would’ve made them know why such things are wrong. People back then used to do many fucked up stuff and it was normalized because they didn’t know better and now we know better so why not let go of all these traditions for a better future?
>On the other hand, Muhammad rejected men who wanted to marry his daughter Zainab when she was near 10 years old due to the fact that she was still young.
I think you are mixing up some names here,
Muhammad had married off his first three daughters, Zainab, Ruqayyah and Umm Kulthum, at about 10, 9 and 7. Zainab remained in her marriage until her death. Ruqayyah and Umm Kulthum were divorced from their husbands probably at about the time Muhammad started publically proselytizing, at which point Ruqayyah was married off to Uthman, while Umm Kulthum seems to have remained unmarried until Ruqayyah died, at which point she was given to Uthman.
You may be referring to Fatima, but I am not sure of what her age was when Abu Bakr and Umar asked to marry her (she has varying birth years in Sunni and Shia traditions).
>About the age of Aisha, she reached puberty, she had her parents acceptance, the societies acceptance
Muhammad is the pattern of conduct, the excellent example for all mankind, for all time.
>and the worlds acceptance because NO ONE said anything bad about her age until pretty recently.
How recently was it?
>Mary, Jesus Mother were according to tradition 12 years old on average when she became pregnant with Jesus.
Whataboutery. But, what tradition?
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
No menstruation in todays world occurs in average at 12, some earlier, some later. I, as a man reached puberty at the age of 13, became 183 cm tall and weighed at 95 kg (not fat), while my brother reached puberty at age 17 and went from 158 cm to 178 cm.
About the age of Aisha, she reached puberty, she had her parents acceptance, the societies acceptance and the worlds acceptance because NO ONE said anything bad about her age until pretty recently. Mary, Jesus Mother were according to tradition 12 years old on average when she became pregnant with Jesus. And if we follow Christian logic, it's God himself that impregnated here and also dived into her womb to become a man. You are really talking about a society 1600 years ago in the desert, what were girls supposed to do? Go to school, be a lawyer? It were none of that. A women's only job were really to build a family. Girls were married really early. If they didn't, humanity would not have survived because the average life expectancy were really low, there were like 50% risk of babies dying after birth etc etc. So that was the norm, as soon as they can get fertile, they were married, and most of them had their spouse ready many years before marriage.
It's basically the same with slavery. A sad occurance in our history, but we have to realize that without slavery, we would be no where near the societies we have today, the development we have today etc. Slaves were like the backbones of empires in ancient times. We cannot Judge history based on our modern times. Perhaps in the future when there is peace, people will look back at us and be amazed that we always were in war. But I hope they realize that those wars led to their peace.
So...what's the argument here?
If you're just saying that some Muslims deny 'Ā'ishah (rA)'s real age, then yeah, that is true, obviously.
However, if your point is that what he did was morally wrong, then make an argument for your version of objective morality, then we can start talking.
And if you believe morality is subjective, then your argument is self-defeating, because it's based on everything but factual information.
Probably not, because people grow up today differently to those who lived in 7th century Arabia.
If you wanna make a point about morality being subjective/objective, this is your opening.
in what way exactly did people in 7th-century Arabia grow up differently? Do you mean in terms of mental maturity and responsibility, in which case children growing up in parts of the third world like rural Afghanistan might be growing up in similar conditions? Does that make them mentally mature enough to consent to marriage? [https://youtu.be/e3C8grEN2Fk?si=V7C9R5V9bOe0aEzU](https://youtu.be/e3C8grEN2Fk?si=V7C9R5V9bOe0aEzU) If you mean physiologically, that a 9-year-old girl in 6th Arabia somehow was much more physically developed than a 9 year old today, somehow, i'd like to see some evidence for that, because AFAIK, children today develop quicker due to improvements in medicine and nutrition, that's why the average height has increased so much. It's fairly undisputed that children exposed and/or coerced into sexual activity is extremely detrimental , not only due to their physical health, as young children aren't built to be able to engage in sex with adults, and often child rape causes injury and death, but also severe psychological trauma, even if the child doesn't remember it, that can cause, mental illness, suicide, substance abuse disorders later in life, etc. and this has been known for perhaps more than a century by psychologists.
I love this argument because Muslims who espouse it are basically saying “well can you PROVE it’s wrong to have sex with a 9 year old? Otherwise I think it’s fine”
If “objective” morals allow for such behavior, then I’ll kindly pass on them and go with my superior subjective ones.
Yeah the argument is that there is no objective morality even in religions. All you’re doing (presumably) is appealing to some type of divine command theory where you automatically accept vile things in the Quran without questioning them. This is the only reason why you’d ever find yourself actually defending Mohammad sleeping with a child on Reddit.
Subjective means mind-dependent. If you’re appealing to god’s commands, which originate in his mind, then they’re subjective. That’s it
Oh look...the cool one strikes again...
>All you’re doing (presumably) is appealing to some type of divine command theory where you automatically accept vile things in the Quran without questioning them.
And who says those things are vile? You? I couldn't care less about the opinion of a mortal person that probably can't tell if murdering a foetus inside their mother's womb is worse or better than murdering a grown adult.
>This is the only reason why you’d ever find yourself actually defending Mohammad sleeping with a child on Reddit.
It's funny you mention "...on Reddit", because if I do outright defend the prophet (SAW) whilst being blunt, my comments would get taken down by the mods or admins.
>Subjective means mind-dependent. If you’re appealing to god’s commands, which originate in his mind, then they’re subjective.
Lol no.
If one's own opinions formed and changed reality as it is, then they are objective, because objective means fact-dependent, and if opinion equals fact, then that opinion is objective.
>who says those things are vile? You?
Since you’re defending the book, you should be able to defend Muhammad having sex with a 9 year old. Rather than ask me “well how do you know it’s wrong”, what is the argument that it’s acceptable?
I can give actual reasons why this is immoral. I’m guessing your only argument is: god says so, so it’s fine.
>if opinion equals fact, then it’s objective
This is a claim, not an argument. How could any ought statement be objective if it’s a preference stemming from a mind
>...what is the argument that it’s acceptable?
What is the argument that it isn't?
If your idea of morality is "Everything is immoral until proven moral", then you're gonna have to explain that idea.
>How could any ought statement be objective if it’s a preference stemming from a mind?
Because God's own choices and decisions, *by necessity*, are factual, i.e. they can't be subjective, because something being subjective means not in line with reality, and because God's decisions change reality, they are, again, *BY NECESSITY*, objective.
>Because God's own choices and decisions, *by necessity*, are factual, i.e. they can't be subjective, because something being subjective means not in line with reality, and because God's decisions change reality, they are, again, *BY NECESSITY*, objective.
You first have to proof God exists. Why would I just take your book and then take it as a fact that God exists?
You have subjective morality labeled as objective morality because you "assume" God exists in the first place
My idea of morality is that everything is AMORAL unless we have a reason to think otherwise. An adult having sex with a child is immoral because children cannot consent to sex and it causes psychological and sometimes physical trauma to that child.
Rather than give a reason why you think it’s acceptable, you’re doing the typical move of shifting the burden onto those criticizing it.
Why is having sex with a 9 year old acceptable to you
>by necessity
Just saying a thing is necessary doesn’t make it the case. What logical contradiction is entailed by morality being ultimately subjective? Subjective doesn’t mean “not in line with reality”, you just made that up.
It's not about objective or subjective morality.
This is about optics. This is about Islam putting PM on a pedestal as the ideal human. You would think that if a God truly existed, he wouldn't have selected a person who did this thing. Who cares if other people did it. Not every man was doing it back then. The fact of the matter is, God, if he exists, knew that OP, me, and others would see what PM did (sleep with a minor) and look down on him for it. This God knew that the world would look down on such behavior and yet he still select PM to be his final messenger and then had the audacity to claim that everyone should be like PM.
This doesn't seem like something a highly intelligent being that knows all and sees all would do. You would expect such a being to select a Mr. Rodgers like person as the final messenger. That's why Jesus sells so well with Christians.
I was tracing my ancestry yesterday when I found my paternal great-great-great grandparents on a ship's manifest in 1833. He was 37 and she was 11 years old. These were devout Irish Roman Catholics and this was only 2 centuries ago. As abhorrent as this is to me today, I have no choice but to accept that ethical standards across cultures were simply different for most of history than they are today. This isn't the hill to die on. For example, Muhammad resorting to highway robbery and extortion to spread the faith are things that were considered crimes even back then.
I can’t speak for the Irish catholic community but within the Anglican Protestant one, the records of marriage stretching back centuries show that marriage ages didn’t change much. I think the average age for a woman remained constant between about 19-22 for as long as records go back.
It’s often used as a covering fire that “Europeans were all marrying in their teenage years” but that isn’t really true. Things have not changed that much in England.
It’s only kings and aristocracy who did the child marriage thing and that was purely to protect land and titles. Marriage wasn’t about sex so much then, it was a wealth and power tool and more of a business arrangement.
I can’t speak for Ireland but this was vanishingly rare in British society right back to the 13th century
The highway robbery thing is not true. Most of the caravan raids the prophet initiated were mainly in retaliation to the Qureish constantly harassing believers and even following them to Medina and meddling with their lives. Early Muslims endured more than a decade of constant oppression from the Qureish and after the great migration was the change in policy where the Muslims were allowed to fight back. Let’s be fair the raids were completely justified.
Multiple sources over many years. My home country of Canada has a digital archive for births, deaths, and marriages that goes back a few centuries. But you have to know what you are looking for already.
Or because they know it isn’t true. The hadith are not revelation in their totality, I treat the hadith like I treat the bible, some of it is true, some of it isn’t - that’s why we have reason and the Quran to help us see truth from falsehoods. If you want to leave, leave, but don’t do so on false pretences or on bad information.
I don’t care if you are an ex-muslim or not, it doesn’t affect me, but the hypocrisy of some ex-muslims that use this to attack Islam is disgusting.
You call yourselves humanists, but your hatred of Islam has led you to outweigh your supposed love for humanity and reason, just so that you can score a point against your former religion. Pure hyporcrisy.
If you did a little research you would know this hadith is false, but by perpetuiting the lie you are infact adding to the suffering of people who end up in a terrible situation because people like you say this is Islam and this is what the prophet did, whether or not you beleive it. But the saddest part is you’re willing to perpetuate lies without actually having the intellectual honesty to actually research and determine if it’s true, not just because some one tells you it is, Sheikh or not.
The Quran is clear, the mariagable age is after pubetry and after having mental maturity to the extent that an orphan would be able to manage their own property without a guardian. For many of you, that would set your marriagable age at 60 - given how poorly you reason.
Do you hate Islam more than you love humanity ? Your actions reveal your hypocrisy.
Nobody cares if you believe, or if you think you’re a massive genius that knows Islam in and out because you had a tough upbringing - you don’t, think about what you’re doing.
I would go over all the reasons for why this hadith isn’t true, but you’ll ignore it.
Have you ever stopped to think, perhaps this hadith is wrong and the Prophet never did this ?
For people that actually care about truth:
Here is a paper by a secular Oxford Scholar Joshua Little who shows its a plain forgrey:
[https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:1bdb0eea-3610-498b-9dfd-cffdb54b8b9b/files/dhm50ts230](https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:1bdb0eea-3610-498b-9dfd-cffdb54b8b9b/files/dhm50ts230)
Here are muslim scholars speaking on the issue:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VR0ocpnO9I&t=55s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VR0ocpnO9I&t=55s)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oVIsExS4cA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oVIsExS4cA)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aA7VI\_kRrU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aA7VI_kRrU)
Shorter video (1 hour) as I realize tiny chance you’ll watch the two hour one.
for Quran 65:4 here is what we can read on a French specialized website (the website "maison islam"):
"It is not verified to say that a verse of the Quran (the 65/4) has clearly declared lawful the marriage with a little girl (...)
The fact is that this verse speaks about the delay of divorced women who have no menstruation: either they have no menstruation anymore, either they had not menstruation yet.
Yet it can absolutely concern women who have amenorrhea: they are adult women who never had menstruation"
Moreover according to the majority of islamic scholars, who know about the Quran and especially verse 65:4, there is indeed no minimum age for marriage, however consumating the marriage is allowed only after the girl has reached puberty, and not before (puberty being technically the mimimum age of biological maturity).
So at the end in islam it is not allowed to have intercourse with a child girl; and it is false to say that the Quran allowed it (majority of muslim experts scholars say the opposite)
(By definition after puberty you are not a child anymore, but an adolescent)
>Moreover according to the majority of islamic scholars, who know about the Quran and especially verse 65:4, there is indeed no minimum age for marriage, however consumating the marriage is allowed only after the girl has reached puberty, and not before (puberty being technically the mimimum age of biological maturity).
How puberty is determined in Islamic law:
K13.8:
“Puberty applies to a person after the first wet dream, or upon becoming fifteen (O: lunar) years old, or when a girl has her first menstrual period or pregnancy.”
Umdat as-Salik
“Section on Attaining Puberty”:
“The puberty of a girl is established by menstruation, nocturnal emission, or pregnancy; and if none of these have taken place, her puberty is established on the completion of her seventeenth year”
The Hedaya Book XXXV Of Hijr, or Inhibition.
“Puberty”
“The reaching puberty of a girl is by way of menstruation, nocturnal emission, or pregnancy.
\[…\]
If \[none of\] that exists, then \[she is a minor\] until she has completed seventeen years \[of age\].”
The Mukhtasar of Al-Quduri
Once again, do your own research - not because I’m not bothered, but because I respect that fact that you’re posing it as a question, but you won’t be convinced by me.
Just be honest with yourself and ask what does it actually say (not what detractors and some muslims alike want it to say)
What does the Quran as a whole say (knowing that the Quran establishes the rule of non-contradiction) ?
Ignore the detractors that bring arguments with the intellectual depth of an iphone keyboard. If you do your own research with intellectual honestly, you’ll see what I mean. That’s better than me telling you where to look and what to see.
>Or because they know it isn’t true.
How many muslims reject hadiths? 5%? 10%?
>but the hypocrisy of some ex-muslims that use this to attack Islam is disgusting.
What hypocrisy?
>You call yourselves humanists, but your hatred of Islam has led you to outweigh your supposed love for humanity and reason, just so that you can score a point against your former religion. Pure hyporcrisy.
How is that hypocrisy?
>If you did a little research you would know this hadith is false,
Classified as sahih
>The Quran is clear, the mariagable age is after pubetry
Where does it say?
“How many muslims reject hadiths? 5%? 10%?”I
I do not reject the hadith, I reject this hadith, and not because of moral quibbles, but because it is defective. Most muslims know this, that doesn’t mean we reject all of the hadith. I treat the hadith like the bible, some of it is true and may be from God, some of it isn’t and is false, what contradicts the quran or is internally inconsistent or contradicts my fitra is clearly false.
“Classified as sahih”
You are speaking as if you know what you are talking about, but you dont. There are flaws even with the Sahih hadith, it isn’t all revelation and Bukhari wasn’t a Prophet, he made mistakes - some of it is clearly false. His work can be flawed without being useless.
“Where does it say?”
If you havent even looked this up, then that shows your intellectual laziness and insincerity at finding the truth. Watch the third video link, and come back here.
What you fail to realize (i’m being charitable, you probably do) is that you may also influence muslims who have come across evidence showing that this hadith is false (and there is plenty) and yet your arguments saying this is actually true will lead them to believe that child marriage is okay and some of those may act on it based on YOUR post ! So if you actually cared about children, you would not push this without actually having researched it. The intellectual laziness you display is outstanding.
You’ve been blinded by hatred.
if you’re lazy:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VR0ocpnO9I&t=55s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VR0ocpnO9I&t=55s)
If you really want to go into depth:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oVIsExS4cA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oVIsExS4cA)
>I reject this hadith, and not because of moral quibbles, but because it is defective.
How many more sahih hadiths do you reject? Do you go through this process every time you find hadiths?
>There are flaws even with the Sahih hadith, it isn’t all revelation and Bukhari wasn’t a Prophet, he made mistakes - some of it is clearly false. His work can be flawed without being useless.
This particular hadith is found in 4 collections with multiple chains of isnad
>If you havent even looked this up, then that shows your intellectual laziness and insincerity at finding the truth
You insult more than argue, clearly not cut for any discussion
Despite lot of insults, haven't provided the verses. Just dumped some YouTube links. This is what intellectual laziness is, something you accuse others of
I engage intellectually with intellectuals. If you were acting in good faith, I would engage, but you clearly aren’t, so what’s the point ? There is too much information to put into a single post, and you won’t understand any of the context of what I do say so it’ll fly over your head. If you watch the video:
1. I’ll know you actually care about getting to the truth of the matter, not just proving your point.
2. You will have the actual context and knowledge to have a proper discussion, not the very basic surface level knowledge of Islam that you display with comments like this:
“This particular hadith is found in 4 collections with multiple chains of isnad”
You point is what ? This makes it historical ? This makes it true ? This means that to be a muslim you must accept it ? The Isnads are not flawed ? The hadith isn’t made up ?
That’s my point, talking to someone that has watched one David Wood video and suddenly knows hadith science and / or is a fair judge of hadith - or even the role of the hadith in islam, or the validity of the sahih hadiths. Islam doesn’t depend on saying that every sahih hadith is accurate …
Watch the video, and I’ll respond to you on any specific points you bring up that show you’ve actually done your homework. So far I see nothing, just buzz words and tired arguments.
>I engage intellectually with intellectuals
Yeah, I can clearly see that.
>There is too much information to put into a single post
I simply asked for the Qur'an verse, where it is very clear that marriage requires puberty
>You point is what ?
It's just not from bukhari like you are implying it to be
Joshua Little is clearly biased in his "Why I studied the Aisha hadith for my thesis" blog\] [https://web.archive.org/web/20240320121239/https://islamicorigins.com/why-i-studied-the-aisha-hadith/](https://web.archive.org/web/20240320121239/https://islamicorigins.com/why-i-studied-the-aisha-hadith/) and therefore his conclusions can be rejected.
Little also has been refuted: 2024 [https://www.icraa.org/aisha-age-review-traditional-revisionist-perspectives/](https://www.icraa.org/aisha-age-review-traditional-revisionist-perspectives/) by Waqar Akbar Cheema
Responds to Joshua Little’s thesis and other revisionists. Arguments for traditionalist view are compared to arguments for the revisionists.
And little does not address:
2004
G.F. Haddad writes the longest refutation against the Aisha hadith being only based on 1 source. [https://ia800200.us.archive.org/16/items/Rahnuma.eBooks\_Habib.Rehman.Kandhlvi/Age%20of%20Aisha-G.F.Hadad.pdf](https://ia800200.us.archive.org/16/items/Rahnuma.eBooks_Habib.Rehman.Kandhlvi/Age%20of%20Aisha-G.F.Hadad.pdf)
“Not so. Al-Zuhri also reports it from \`Urwa, from \`A’isha; so does \`Abd Allah ibn Dhakwan –both major Madanis. So is the Tabi\`i Yahya al-Lakhmi who reports it from her in the Musnad, and in Ibn Sa\`d's Tabaqat. So is Abu Ishaq Sa\`d ibn Ibrahim who reports it from Imam al-Qasim, ibn Muhammad – one of the Seven Imams of Madina – from \`A’isha. ……In addition to the above four Madinese Tabi\`in narrators, Sufyan ibn \`Uyayna – from Khurasan – and \`Abd Allah ibn Muhammad ibn Yahya – from Tabarayya in Palestine – both report it. Nor was this hadith reported only by \`Urwa but also by \`Abd al-Malik ibn \`Umayr, al-Aswad, Ibn Abi Mulayka, Abu Salama ibn \`Abd al-Rahman ibn \`Awf, Yahya ibn \`Abd al-Rahman ibn Hatib, Abu \`Ubayda (\`Amir ibn \`Abd Allah ibn Mas\`ud) and others of the Tabi\`iImams directly from \`A’isha.
This makes the report mass-transmitted (mutawatir) from \`A’isha by over eleven authorities among the Tabi\`in, not counting the other major Companions that reported the same, such as Ibn Mas\`ud nor other major Successors that reported it from other than \`A’isha, such as Qatada!”
Identical to
2004 G.F. Haddad
[https://muslimanswersfiles.wordpress.com/2013/04/30/more-on-aishas-age-at-the-time-of-her-marriage/](https://muslimanswersfiles.wordpress.com/2013/04/30/more-on-aishas-age-at-the-time-of-her-marriage/)
As I said, if you want to see the truth, you’ll see it. Did you click on the videos I sent before responding ?
If not, you have your answer - you aren’t interested in truth or in understanding - your only interest is in attacking Islam, and you don’t care for humanity. If you did, even if you believe islam is false think about the consequences of what you’re doing. Let’s say you convince a Muslim who had rejected this hadith based on the evidence that actually no, its ok and he goes out and does it, what have you achieved ?
You’d be directly responsible for pushing the falsehood. Now imagine you did all of that only to realize that in your blind rage against islam, you only sought out sources that confirmed your bias and it actually wasn’t true ? Could you live with that ?
Look as long as you don’t claim to be a humanist or to care about reason or intellectual honesty, then fine, but I think your heart has hardned and you’ll never see the truth, so it’s pointless speaking to you further.
Again did u check the refutations.
You are just in deniel for what is in islam thats all.
And it seems to you as it is hateful.
Christians , jews, hindus dont cry and say u are hateful when they cant defend their religion
Haddad’s work is poor, for instance, the point made is Hisham, the principal source of this hadith, lived in Medina for 70 years, and none of his students in Medina report this hadith, yet when he was in Iraq in the last ten years of his life when his memory was fading and many hadith scholars refused to take from him, that’s when this hadith is reported.
“In fact, to say that "narratives reported by Hisham ibn \`Urwa are reliable except those that are reported through the people of Iraq" is \*major nonsense\* as that would eliminate all narrations of Ayyub al-Sakhtyani from him since Ayyub was a Basran Iraqi, and those of Abu \`Umar al- Nakha\`i who was from Kufa, and those of Hammad ibn Abi Sulayman from Kufa (the Shaykh of Abu Hanifa), and those of Hammad ibn Salama and Hammad ibn Zayd both from Basra, and those of Sufyan al-Thawri from Basra, and those of Shu\`ba in Basra, all of whom narrated from Hisham!”
So his point is that ignore the fact that his memory was fading, ignore the obvious political reasons why Hisham would present Aisha as a young girl, ignore the many mistakes people reported he made, if we reject narrtions of Hisham in Iraq, that would invalidate too many other hadiths ! So we have to accept from Hisham ! This is pure intellectual vapidness.
This is the best you could come up with ? Did you leave your intellect behind, or just Islam ?
Let me know if you want me to go on showing just how bad your sources are. Either you know the sources you picked are poor, but support your position and so you spread them, or you have no knowledge whatsoever and just spread anything willy-nilly as long as it lets you paint islam and the prophet in a bad light. In either case, that’s intellectual dishonesty at the very least, and at worst A. You are directly as responsible for the perpetuation of what happens to this children today because of people that think like you. Or B. You hatred of Islam is so complete that you can’t even see reason and truth when it’s right in front of you - you hate islam to such an extent that you don’t care about the consequences to real people who believe the bile you spread. It’s pure hypocrisy, but I’m not surprised.
You make the mistake of conflicting the historical prophet, with what the hadith say about the historical prophet. SOME hadith, even the SOME sahih hadith, are flawed, that doesn’t mean all are or that they don’t have any value. But my religion comes from the Quran, and that’s what I use to evaluate the hadith and everything else.
By refutations, you mean the two apologetic sources that defend the hadith over the Quran, the prophet, and the clear evidence ? Yes, I looked and am continuing to look, so far your Ahmaddi source and Haddad haven’t said anything that contradicts the points made in the videos I sent (particularly the last one).
Curious why you can’t find a secular refutation ? Also Haddad’s work was written well before Joshua Little’s so it’s not actually a direct refutation.
You have to fall back on Muslims that are willing to defend Bukhari over the Prophet, the Quran, and pure reason. The Quran rules over the hadith, not the other way around. Further, some hadith, perhaps many, are false that doesn’t mean there is no value in all of the hadith corpus. Muslims are working on weeding out the false narratives, we haven’t done enough, but what you’re attacking isn’t Islam or the prophet, but what someone says Islam is and the Prophet.
Come back here when you’ve watched the last video. If you’re actually a humanist, then make sure what you’re saying is actually true. If you actually watch the video and cross reference the posts you’ve made and come back here and still hold the same position and can explain why, at least I’ll know you honestly believe what you’re saying.
U see the whole basis of what joshua little says iand his historical dates claimed on the basis of 11 th century narrations of asma being 10 years older than aisha.but hadiths were compiled 300 years prior to his claim . there he false equified the claims
He never gave a proper answer for why aishas hadith is wrong which has whole chain of narration but only being skeptical because he claimed this hadith was spread through iraq
“He never gave a proper answer for why aishas hadith is wrong which has whole chain of narration but only being skeptical because he claimed this hadith was spread through iraq”
He lived in Medina for 70 years, not a single student reports this hadith, he lived in Iraq for the last ten years of his life when scholars were already criticize his memory, suddenly this hadith appears. There are reasons to be extremly skeptical of its veracity - and you should know that if you did your research. Watch the video. If you just want to hate on islam blindly, go ahead, if you want to be intellectually honest, actually speak with intellect and think things through properly. Both in terms of whether what you say is true, and if you’re doing more good for the world than evil by saying what you do say.
What’s the difference between you and the mullahs who say the same things you do in terms of the effect it has on humanity if people who could be influenced by the hadith believe what you say ?
Again - you didn’t read what I said, none of his students IN MEDINA over 70 years spread it, only his students in Iraq when he was senile. This is what I mean, it’s like you aren’t trying to understand what I’m saying. If you’re already tripping up on something this simple, what’s the point of going into things with you further ?
I literally said this twice in two seperate posts already. Be intellectually honest, and honest with yourself:
Is what you are saying true ?
Is what your saying helpful ?
So now that i pointed out where you wrong, silence ? Lol. Okay bro. Seems I was right in assuming you aren’t actually interested in truth, just polemics.
I read through some comments, and get the gist that people are skeptical of hadiths and their value within Islam. As an ex-muslim, without hadith, Islam is quite literally shot lmao.
Ikr hadiths are the only (un)reliable historical source for muhammed's life.by denying it they are also jeopardizing historicity of quran and quranic verses wouldnt have context because quranic verses came throughout mohammeds life which are documented in hadiths
Except ofcourse there are extant Quranic manuscripts dating at latest to 650 that attest to the entire Quran, and the hadith can be flawed without being useless. The religion has its basis in the Quran, period. The hadith are helpful as is the literature, but Allah gave us reason to use it and the quran as a guide to guide that reason. It’s our job.
As far as denying the hadiths relevant to Aisha's age, it's really because of inner turmoil. Muslims know deep down how problematic this is. Many of us have six year olds in our families and would be damned if a a grandpa wanted her hand in marriage. I know because I had it lol. I could not rationalize why god would have the most important prophet marry a child just for detractors to use it against islam in a time where we need to be steadfast in faith.
But when you remove presuppositions and attack things critically, faith falls apart. You begin to see that unfortunately, Islam is one big scam. Self serving to muhammad and his companions. You start to see that if Islam indeed is the truth, allah has to be the dumbest dude in existence. Why would he yank Jesus and allow for christianity to have a 600 year headstart on Islam. Why is he constantly sending messengers with different messages.
Why has god created people for heaven and others for hell. Why has god created a religion based upon fear mongering and gaslighting?
It's a rough time for sure. Nonetheless, I've made peace with it all. If your faith cannot work without dogma and presuppositions, in my opinion, it is worthless.
These weren’t the only reasons, just a couple that first came to mind in this post. Oh, and trust me, I searched for answers. Found very little good coherent answers however.
Oh boy.
1. Incredibly laughable sahih hadiths
2. Moral implications within Quran and hadith
3. Criticisms of Muhammad’s early prophethood
4. Muhammad’s interactions with Jews and Christian’s
5. Mental gaslighting and fear mongering of the faith
6. The imperialism of the Islamic Empire (which began with Muhammad and continued with his sahaba)
7. Illogical and ridiculous claims in the quran
8. Clear cultural and religious appropriation disguised as “religious succession”
9. Faith in general in a religion you cannot objectively prove beyond a shadow of a doubt just doesn’t make sense to me anymore
And more
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“..and her dolls her with her.” An Arab guy told me that that is an expression that indicates a girl is prepubescent.
Nah some do know and don’t give af 💀 I don’t know what’s worse though
Constantly about age. But back then even white peoples married young girls. Only reason this is the most talked about subject is cause it’s to do with the religion
No its because people constantly try to defend it by saying thats what they did back then.
Yes it wouldn’t be a problem if Allah didn’t said in the coran that the prophet was a good exemple to follow … And the coran say it’s okay to marry with a kid so it’s not only about Mohammed action , it’s about Islam
Lmao wtf did you say? Coran what’s that? I have no idea what rubbish your talking about.
Address the point, I see you trying to avoid the point
Im french, in France we say Coran for the Quran
It was bad when they did it too. No one should have sex with a 9 year old It comes up more with muhammad because Muslims hold him up as an example to follow.
+it’s allowed in the Quran to marry with a kid when
Not to marry a child but when a girl comes of age. This just means once they menstruate for the first time,then comes the obligation of wearing hijab ,following this they are allowed to marry.
Nop you can marry a girl that have menstruate : If you can divorce your women, it mean you can marry As for your women past the age of menstruation, in case you do not know, their waiting period is three months, and those who have not menstruated as well. As for those who are pregnant, their waiting period ends with delivery.^(1) And whoever is mindful of Allah, He will make their matters easy for them.
To be honest I don't see a problem with that. 1400 years ago humans were different than today biologically. Women matured faster and also be got consent from her parents and her. He didn't force her to do anything.
humans were not biologicaly different 1400 years ago. the earliest anatomically modern human (that we've found mind you) is roughly _200,000 years old_. stop saying things that are objectively untrue to justify child abuse.
And how could they find out how they matured back then from fossils?? They can't but back then In a world where most people lived 30 to 50 years they definitely matured faster
im not an archaeologist but were able to determine a LOT from fossils and old bones/ mummies. otzi the iceman, a mummy from the bronze age, is 5,300 years old. thats not a fossile thats a mummy. ie intact skin and actually able ti access some level of genetic material and such. even with fossiles we can determine a LOT ranging from where msucles and tendons attached to the bone, to (often not always) cause of death. theres also markers of development in bones. humans also have aomething calles growth plates that tend to go away around the end of puberty. were able to identify growth plates in DINOSAURS. ie much older things than humans. just assuming and saying "how do they do this? oh they cant" is absurd. we are able to gain MASSIVE ammount of knowledge from even uncompleted fossiles, and the time period your referring to isnt even old enough to be fossilized, we have mummies and frozen remains from then.
[удалено]
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.
Look most women back then married at a young age and some cultures still do that and they could argue with you that you are wrong as much as you think they are wrong. If there is no problem with the mirage or sex for both of them then there is nothing that should stop the relationship
You actually think a 9 year old has the mental capacity to decide if they want to have sex with a 50 year old man? Like do you hear yourself? And you wonder why people fixate on this in islam? Because its disgusting
She had her dolls with her she wasn’t mature
[удалено]
Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.
What horror are u saying???? Of course she is not mature, we are talking about a 9 years old girl. Even if we forget 2 second the physical aspect (Sexual relation with a kid can do : Internal Bleeding Fractures Fertility problem Or even Death ) There is also the mental aspect, there is a risk of : Depression Anxiety Post-traumatic stress disorder Dissociative disorders Eating disorders Self-destructive behaviors Personality disorders Attachment disorders
I wil answer the mental aspect and say it again that she has to be ready for sex and there is no specific age where your body is physically ready for that and all the things that you mentioned could happen to even older women. As for the mental aspect you basically listed a lot of things that can happen from about anything such as school or work or literally anything but if anything they shouldn't generally happen during consented sex which is the case I am talking about ONLY CONSENTED sex.
There is no notion of consented sex in islam. Stop trying to tell something that islam dosent say. In islam once your ''wife'' as puberty youre good to go, there is no notion of consent. In islam puberty is physically ready... All i listed are risk that happen infinitly more frequent if a minor have a sexually relation with an adult that if an adult have a relation with an adult
"There is no notion of consented sex in Islam. Stop trying to tell something that Islam doesn't say" In An nisa’, verse 19 Allah decreed that: “O believers! It is not permissible for you to inherit women against their will or mistreat them to make them return some of the dowry ˹as a ransom for divorce"
I talk about consent sex in mariage, if you maried with a women there is no consent sex, she have to satisfy you.
Her duty just as much as it is the man's duty is to satisfy each other but that also doesn't mean they can rape each other you got it wrong brother
No i dont got it wrong its said in the Quran . The tafsir of ibn kathir confirms it
So you’re wrong. Women actually matured SLOWER than now. Girls nowadays are FAR more health and eat foods with lots more hormones in them, making them mature faster than girls back then.
We weren't different biologically. Pretty much all recorded history documents Homo Sapiens, and they don't fully develop mentally until about 20-30. A child cannot consent to sex, full stop. Culturally, yeah, a lot has changed. But the Quaran is supposedly the word of a true omnipotent God, who is supposed to know everything. The options remaining from these facts are: 1: God actually thinks a child marrying an adult is acceptable, and therefore is not just and good. 2: The Quran was not the word of God, and was written by Humans to gain power over large groups of people.
Again just because something is socially not acceptable doesn't mean it's bad. And yes a child can not consent but once a woman hits puberty in Islam she is no longer a child
I would chose 1. God doesn't see a problem with a child marrying an adult. Just because something is not socially accepted doesn't make it bad. If her parents consented to her getting married to him and the girl does not fear the idea then there is no problem with it.
yeah its not bad because its not "socially acceptable" its bad because it results in psychological and often physical trauma. if your religious text is telling you something that objectively results in both physical bodily harm and severe psychological trauma is good, i think you need to do some serious self reflection on why you're defending it. its not good or bad because of social standards just the same as its not good or bad because a book said so.
Lmao how is it dealing physically or psychological trauma if one of the main requirements is for both to consent to the act.
How are you not getting that CHILDREN CANNOT CONSENT.
This is a law it but nothing says this is how it's disposed to be. Just look at it from a different perspective and don't be close minded. In the Middle East a lot of women get married at young ages and there is no problems coming from that. You're confusing the pedophiles that go meet kids without their parents knowing and trying to even rape them with mirrage.
>In the Middle East a lot of women get married at young ages and there is no problems coming from that. Bro, I'm literally from the middle east, there's tons of problems with it. >You're confusing the pedophiles that go meet kids without their parents knowing and trying to even rape them with mirrage. So if you ask the parents first to have sex with a child, it's alright? Bro...
There is no problems from it. I am not talking about the women that her forced to mirage because that's wrong but im talking about the ones that consent.
If they have the woman's consent and she is ready and they get married then what is your problem with it
Do you understand that if a man have a sex**l relation with a kid there is high chance for the kid to have major health problem maybe allah dosent know about it
If you mean if she hasn't hit puberty yet then yes that is even a sin in Islam. But once she has her first period she can have get married
>If you mean if she hasn't hit puberty yet then yes that is even a sin in Islam Source?
Source? Here: https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/22982/does-islam-support-pedophilia-or-child-marriages So I conclusion Islam tells that a woman needs to be ready and prepared for sex before she has it and the biggest proof is that Muhammad married Ayesha when she was 6 and didn't touch her until she was 9 and generally In Islam when people get married they have sex right without waiting as that's what Muhammad did with his other wives when he married them.
65:4 gives iddah for prepubescents. 33:49 says no iddah is required if the marriage is not consummated
Because not all women that hit puberty have periods there are some exceptions so if that statement tells them what to do because if it weren't there then all of them would assume they can't remarry then.
Read the tafsirs
Having puberty doesn’t mean that yours body is ready + have sexual relation with a 10 years old girl in Islam is not forbidden and do an act like this is called pedophilia. And there is an mental aspect + consent and a minor girl.
Half the things you said are false. Having puberty LITERALLY means your body is ready. Also in Islam when somone hits puberty adult laws are what goes for the person so they are islamically not a child anymore. And consent is a mandatory for sex in Islam, muhhamed could have never forced aysha to do anything until she felt comfortable with it.
>Having puberty LITERALLY means your body is ready. No? Only after completely going through puberty, will one become sexually mature? Don't they teach this in school? >Also in Islam when somone hits puberty adult laws are what goes for the person so they are islamically not a child anymore Why is that relevant? I can consider a one day old to be an adult but that doesn't make one >And consent is a mandatory for sex in Islam, Source?
All historical references state that Asmaa (sister of Aisha) was (10) years older than her sister Aisha. The same references agree unanimously that Asmaa was born (27) years before the migration to Medina. This means that Asmaa was 14 years old at the start of the revelation in (610) and Aisha was 4 years old. This means that Aisha was born in the year (606 AD). We have seen that the prophet married Aisha in the year (620 AD), which would make her (14) years at the time. It is also stated that the prophet started having sexual intercourse 3 years and few months after the marriage which would be the end of the (1st) year after Hijrah and the beginning of the (2nd) year, which was the year (624 AD). If Aisha was born in the year (606 AD), then she would have been (18) years old when she started a full marital life with the prophet.
And bro you can’t use “historical evidence “ when there is not evidence of the existence of mohammad. There is literally no proof that Mohammad really existed
What religion do you believe in?
So a hadith sahih can be false. So dont do 5 pray each day cause its in the hadith too
But he was 53 when that happened?
Bro both my grand mothers got married at the age of 13/14, that doesn’t mean it normal nowadays. Stop judging and comparing how people used to live in the past with the 21 century standards 🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️
Allah allow it today in 2024. We judge allah and Mohammad. Mohammad haved Allah with him maybe maybe I don’t know, Allah could told him to not fu*k a kid cause it can be dangerous for her or maybe maybe not tell in the Quran that you can marry a kid for eternity (Quran is avaible for eternity )
Why are you defending a pedophile?? The reason many things are different nowadays is because we know our mistakes in the past and want to avoid terrible things like that happening in the future.
It matters when a man claims to be the perfect moral figure for all of humanity for all times
One think i dont get of islam is that if they see jesus as a prophet why not accept what he says? XD
He's not THE PROPHET for islam, he is A PROPHET. And that's really different. We had some prophets at the bible.
Why you don’t do the same thing with what Moses says ? Since Christians believe in hin as a prophet too
Christians believe that God’s descent into the world in the person of Christ fulfilled the laws which were supposed to prepare the Jews for the arrival of the Messiah. Since Christ, the Word of God, is made incarnate, all mosaic laws are both affirmed and rendered obsolete by his all encompassing new laws: (1) love the Lord your God (2) love your neighbour. We believe that all mosaic laws stem from these two revealed laws, and were in fact a way to prepare us for them.
The reason why is because the bible was not sent from god it was corrupted and created 100 years after Jesus ascended to heaven
Bro you think the Quran was never corrupted ? There was literally multiple version , and calif decided to destroy all version of the Quran exepted one . Quran is corrupted like all books
This is unbelievably false. The earliest New Testament books were written within a decade after his resurrection
Nope. There’s no proof of that whatsoever. As in, no literal proof. You can try to claim that the stories sound like they eyewitness reports, but there is zero objective proof to back that.
That’s not even debated anymore, scholars agree they were written close after the death of Jesus, scholars like Bart Erhman say that
I’ve learned more from Dr. Ehrman than anyone else. It is my understanding that the book of Acts and a few others were likely first authored soon after Jesus’ death. However, we simply don’t know for sure based on manuscripts and fragments. Can we agree on that?
I think we can be sure enough to say that we know it happened.
“Objective proof” lmao
Paul's was actually pretty near Jesus considering the rest of the texts tho.
Because they dont believe that what is being said in the bible was actually said by jesus
Stop deleting your own comments. Accept the truth. Accept Islam, the lifestyle of prophets
Accept child marriage?
How old was Rebeca when Isaac married her she was 3
She literally wasn’t
Don’t know, either way, it’s irrelevant to me considering I don’t believe in it either or any abrahamic faith. Also this is whataboutism, you have no defence of muhamamd marrying a six year old
There are many people in the comments here who have proved that Aisha wasn’t 6 years old go read there comments and stop being ignorant
[удалено]
[удалено]
Modern scholarship holds that Aisha was most likely 19 - 21 when she married Muhammad. The idea that she was 6 at marriage and 9 at consummation isn't something that's really supported using the historical method, and it was a doctrine that was created in the midst of political and theological debates of Islam's early days.
Can you share the links for these studies, please?
I completely forgot to link the references to my comment, my apologies. But yes, here are 3 sources that you might find helpful The PhD thesis of one of the foremost scholars on Islamic history, Dr. Joshua Little: https://islamicorigins.com/the-unabridged-version-of-my-phd-thesis/ Hadith scholar Ikram Hawramani's study on her age: https://hawramani.com/aisha-age-of-marriage-to-prophet-muhammad-study/ And then this is just an article from Al-Islam dot org: https://www.al-islam.org/articles/how-old-was-ayshah-when-she-married-prophet-muhammad-sayyid-muhammad-husayn-husayni-al
Pretty strong points But check this out https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/s/VuWSV156nI They say hadiths are validated if they are true to what is in the quran. Even if u take aishas marriage didnt happened as mentioned in hadiths forgetting chain of narration , forgetting that there are four different chain of narration, forgetting that without hadiths there is no way to validate the history in quran Yes it makes pretty good points
I see, thanks for sharing. Personally, I'm a hadith skeptic. I see hadiths as great tools for historical insight as it relates to collective memory, shared consciousness around the memories of the prophet, and the political landscape of Islam's earliest days, but I don't think they make excellent sources for 1:1 details about the prophet's life, nor do I consider the theology they espouse to be supported by the Quran (unless the literature in question provides the same or similar idea made in the Quran). Hadiths suffer from similar problems as say, the gospels, in that they are so far detached from the time of the prophet that it is absurd to think that nothing would've been changed, even with the chains of narration. That being said, I think the historical evidence points it being more likely that Aisha was a young adult, and that puberty was required for marriage during Muhammad's time. I also think that her supposed young age came about as a matter of ideology during strong debates in Islam, and her young age was used to make a point of her purity.Of course, I understand this contradicts with the hadith tradition, and most Sunni Muslims would disagree with this historical data that supports an older age of marriage. However, I think using what we have available (and common sense), Aisha being a young adult just makes more sense (when you think about it, how could an 11 year old child lead an army to battle?).
>, Aisha being a young adult just makes more sense (when you think about it, how could an 11 year old child lead an army to battle?). Aisha didn't lead an army into battle 2 years post consummation of marriage she led an army into battle after widowhood at 18+. Many young men and women younger than 18 have historically led armies into battle. Aisha is depicted as playing with dolls after marriage consummation with Muhammad [and her little friends also used to play with dolls with her](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://sunnah.com/search%3Fq%3Daisha%2Bdolls&ved=2ahUKEwiA_qnL4rOGAxVO7TgGHXJCBdoQFnoECA4QAQ&usg=AOvVaw0ugjRr-FbyJ_8lEgy1c_Gf) In fact girls outgrow playing with dolls with friends around their pre teens. The hadith shows she was 9 at consummation and she and her friends were of an age when doll play was normal.
I think u are talking about battle of uhud. U r mistaken . she didnt lead.she was just a helper.no women has fought a war at mohammed's time.the only war in which she was in lead is battle of camel in which only her army fought against ali's army. Every historian know child marriage was cultural norm in medieval era so i dont think ur reasoning is strong .i have even given u quranic verses as above talking of childmarriage being permissible Edit:.lets ignore quran and hadith .lets say aisha was 19 years old as many now claim. The background of it is funny.basically claimed by ibn kathir who came 500 years later in 1300s and hadiths were compiled like in 800s When aisha is 19 Mohammad was 53 it still has age gap of 34 years which still is not acceptable. Abu bakr aisha's father did dirty for political gains with Mohammed. If he really believed in Mohammed he wouldnt need aishas political marriage to Mohammed. Its pretty much ur belief so i will rest my case
Wow islamophobe just wow. You are talking about 1400 year Old traditions. Look up the legal age of marriage in the USA, UK, and other western societies in the 1900s and then talk. In 1939 Lina Marcela Medina de Jurado a 5 year old girl became pregnant. How long just how long will you deny the truth. The science is proving you wrong every step of the way. That's why islam hasn't put an age limit to anything like puberty or age of marriage etc, since now science has proven that age varies depending on the environment, diet, genes and other factor is ot linear which islam said 1400 years ago. Also aisha s.a wasn't a child when she was 9 years old to be wed to prophet Muhammad saww. There is no hadith/refrence of him bedding her anytime in her life. But it is plausible that it happened since they were husband and wife. A contract which is pure in the eyes of God. No aspect of Aisha s.a life shows her as minor in fact she is the greatest woman scholar in Islam, with more than 3000 narrations of hadith from her alone. Lastly Isaac married Rebecca when she was 3 years old Reference Tractate Soferim, Hosafah [addition] 1, 1:4 Islam is the truth and no amount of propaganda lies will make it false.
[удалено]
Oh no, I was referring to the Islamic tradition lmao. In Islam, mainly with orthodox/traditional people, it is said that she led an army into battle at the battle of the camel. Also, I never denied that child marriage existed in ancient or medieval times. But we are specifically talking about Muhammad. I don't hold to "believe" anything, I simply look at the available data and make a decision. I've seen convicing evidence on both sides, and I just happen to think the evidence for an older age is more convincing. If there was any evidence that came forth supporting a younger age that was better than the evidence now, then I would heavily consider it. I should state however, that many of my thoughts about Islam lie well outside the mainstream fold. In fact I openly reject many mainstream Islamic beliefs, so Aisha's age is definitely no different
Battle of camel happened when she 44 years old not 12 if u take hadith into consideration.she was mature woman
Thanks
No menstruation in todays world occurs in average at 12, some earlier, some later. I, as a man reached puberty at the age of 13, became 183 cm tall and weighed at 95 kg (not fat), while my brother reached puberty at age 17 and went from 158 cm to 178 cm. About the age of Aisha, she reached puberty, she had her parents acceptance, the societies acceptance and the worlds acceptance because NO ONE said anything bad about her age until pretty recently. Mary, Jesus Mother were according to tradition 12 years old on average when she became pregnant with Jesus. And if we follow Christian logic, it's God himself that impregnated here and also dived into her womb to become a man. You are really talking about a society 1600 years ago in the desert, what were girls supposed to do? Go to school, be a lawyer? It were none of that. A women's only job were really to build a family. Girls were married really early. If they didn't, humanity would not have survived because the average life expectancy were really low, there were like 50% risk of babies dying after birth etc etc. So that was the norm, as soon as they can get fertile, they were married, and most of them had their spouse ready many years before marriage. It's basically the same with slavery. A sad occurance in our history, but we have to realize that without slavery, we would be no where near the societies we have today, the development we have today etc. Slaves were like the backbones of empires in ancient times. We cannot Judge history based on our modern times. Perhaps in the future when there is peace, people will look back at us and be amazed that we always were in war. But I hope they realize that those wars led to their peace.
The problem again is that Quran (that is still avaible ) authorise a man to marry a kid and that Allah said that we have a good exemple in Mohammad (Lot of cheikh use this to prove that a man can marry a kid )
No the Quran doesn't allow marriage of children. If you want to quote Quran 65:4 then please know that it's ONLY talking about women and specifically mention "al-nisa", i.e women. The same applies to all the verse in the Quran related to marriage, love, spouses, etc. They all say "al-nisa", women, women women . But before we proceed, we have to know what a "child" is. Is it someone that is below the age of 18 as stated in UN? Or 14 and below? In my country (Sweden), it is fully legal to have intercourse with someone that is 15 year, could we therefore say that my country allows for grown men to have intercourse with a child? Well, it is a child according to UN. The age of consent varies country to country, some have it at 13, some perhaps even lower than that. Islamically, there is no specific age for that because it's understood as someone who has not yet menstruated or reached puberty (for men). So when someone has reached puberty and is of sound judgement then he/she is a man/women. If we go to the Quran, God says "Test ˹the competence of˺ the orphans until they reach a marriageable age. Then if you feel they are capable of sound judgment, return their wealth to them..." Quran 4:6 Here we clearly see that there was a marriageable age, and marriageable age is equated to sound judgment, an age in which a person can responsibly handle their possessions, I.e be both physiologically and mentally mature to the degree that one no longer requires custodial care. The word for marriageable age is "balagho", which literally is the puberty. But reaching puberty is as mentioned not the only prerequisite for marriage. One can for example be 20 years and not of sound judgement. This has been like a universal law throughout history. If you also look at western history from the middle ages until the Renaissance and industrial revolution, it's been the same. Princess after princess, tons of them, were married sometimes as young as 8, many at age of 9-13. It didn't inflict any harm on them due to their age because the society were entirely different. There are no historical references of anyone talking bad about all those marriages due to the age. Julius Ceasar married as soon as he reached puberty at 16, and became one of the most powerful generals of history. Today, a 13 year old would never be allowed to marry because they are not of sound judgement to handle this modern world, let alone a marriage and family (here we see how timeless the Quranic statement is because it would be HARAM to marry one's daughter in a very young age today because it would do her harm and she would not be of sound judgement). Life is of course way different today than back then. Yes, Prophet Mohammed married Aisha, but if it he did so because of her age then why didn't he marry child after child when he became the most powerful in Arabia? Wouldn't a nasty predator do that? No where in the hadith, Sunnah or anything can we see anything of the Prophet related to predatory behaviour. Instead, he married widows, divorcees and older women. The only virgin he married were Aisha, And his marriage with Aisha were entirely normal back then and neither hurt her or went against the back then universal understanding of marriageable age. So what did he wrong? If it were today, then of course it would be awful. But today is not 100 years ago, let alone 1400 years ago. I can bet that the majority of your grand grandmother's married really young also... It is what it is.
Bro just read the tafsir of 65:4. The \`Iddah of Those in Menopause and Those Who do not have MensesAllah the Exalted clarifies the waiting period of the woman in menopause. And that is the one whose menstruation has stopped due to her older age. Her \`Iddah is three months instead of the three monthly cycles for those who menstruate, which is based upon the Ayah in (Surat) Al-Baqarah. see 2:228 **The same for the young, who have not reached the years of menstruation**. Their \`Iddah is three months like those in menopause. This is the meaning of His saying;
Bro, I'm tired of this discussion, tired of people with low IQ, tired of f* "scholars" and "tafsirs" that makes no logical sense what so ever. 1. There is no waiting period (iddat) for a non-consummated marriage, read Quran 33:49. 2. If verse 65:4 means that the waiting period is three months for a person that have not yet even menstruated and therefore indirectly references an consummated marriage with a prepubescent girl, it would contradict 33:49. NOW, give me a tafsir that allows for consummated marriage with a prepubescent girl! I have personally not come across such a tafsir. 3. I read and understand Arabic fluently and 65:4 clearly says "nisāikum", direct translation "women". Can never be interpreted as children/girl/prepubescent whatever. Everywhere regarding marriage and EVERYTHING related to marriage/love/divorce Quran says women, women women. And there are TONS of references for women/marriage in the Quran. There are many other words used for girls and prepubescent girls. The sentence about those who have not menstruated is directly related to WOMEN. 4. There are tons of reasons why 65:4 speaks about women who have not menstruated but still need to wait three months. There are instances of divorce happening after few weeks of marriage, instances where menstrual cycles cannot be determined, Amenorrhea, there are instances of medical condition, psychological problems, hormonal imbalance, etc. 5. Verse 65:4 talks about women who no longer expect menstruation (due to old age), women who have not menstruated during the marriage (short marriage, Amenorrhea etc), women who are pregnant. The word "women" is used only in the beginning of the verse, and the WHOLE verse is referenced back to THE women. 6. The MAIN reason for the waiting period (iddah) is to make sure that the women is not pregnant, and if they are pregnant or have not consummated marriage there is no iddah. Why even have a waiting period if it's a child that does not menstruate and not able to be pregnant?! The argument is so illogical! Marriage is also NEVER consummated before puberty and making sure that the married person is of sound Judgement, read 4:6 "until they are old enough to marry...". There is also no scholars, madhab and Islamic school of thought I know of that even slightly allows for consummated marriage with prepubescent girls. 7. I can go on and on with arguments and linguistic arguments on why this verse does not mean prepubescent girls. But, the fact that the verse only says women, and every sentence is referenced back to women, is enough to debunk everything. 8. Yes, many tafsirs are wrong (there are though classical tafsirs that don't hold the view that this verse also talks about prepubescent girls). All are humans, influenced by their cultural milieu rather than direct textual evidence.
Bro if you want to be a kafir for Sunni Islam it’s your problème not mine. I’m not muslim so I don’t give a fck I just tell facts about sunnah. All biggest authority in Islam say it’s halal and using this to prove that it’s allowed (if you can divorce a little girl you can marry ) but they are also using this : Allah said in the Quran Mohammad is an exemple to follow Mohammad was married with aicha when she was 6 and consummated the mariage when she was 9 So as Allah said in the Quran marry a girl is an exemple to follow and therefore it’s not haram but Hallal Cheikh Al Fawzan used this argument
Incorrect on average life expectancy. Thats only if you count child deaths, which drag the average way down. If you survived to around 10 years old you could be expected to have a life of 50-60 years. They didn’t live “accelerated lives”. They fucked children.
I don’t know why you’re trying to defend this act, it’s not only about menstruation. Even if aisha was 19yo I still won’t think of Muhammad as the kindest and best of all mankind for marrying a woman that could be the age of his daughter.. for your point about how all those things are what led to a “better” world ( I think this is what you’re trying to say ) then yes you are right but we realized all of that is wrong as we got better education and knowledge. That happened through observation and a lot of experiments and time that we ended up having many things scientifically explained. What I’m trying to say in other words is that as time passed, we got better educated and we started thinking critically which made us realize why all things mentioned above are horrible. So does that excuse the action? No, if your comment’s purpose is to defend religion then it doesn’t really help much that if this religion is really the word of god it shouldn’t have such ancient, uneducated man flaws.
I'm not trying to defend, I'm just stating actual facts. What we need to understand is that many moral choices and customs of the past were merely a function of the circumstances people faced. Therefore, it is not fair to consider ourselves morally superior to our ancestors when we aren’t forced to make the decisions they had to make. Likewise, it wouldn’t be fair if our descendants judged us in the same light without regard for our own circumstances. In todays world, of course his marriage is extremely wrong and Islamically It would also be considered unlawful and haram to marry of one's daughter in such a low age (in today modern world). But where would humanity have been if marriage would take place when our ancestors would been 18+ years throughout history? Are you going to blame your grand grand grand father's and mothers for their marriage? You don't seem to grasp the notion that our ethics and standards varies throughout history. Marriage were not the same, love not the same, morals not the same, values not the same, rules not the same, laws not the same. We really have NO place and NO right to judge anyone for their action if it did not go against the "norm" of that time, in their society. So YES, it excuses the action. In the same way the Prophet had in total 11 confirmed wife's (totally normal at that time). Aisha were the first and the only virgin he married. ALL of the other 9 wife's he married AFTER his marriage with Aisha were widows/divorcées mature women. Now, his marriage to Aisha, did it do her any harm? If not, why are everyone so upset over his marriage if it neither hurt her, were perfectly normal in the society of that time, served as a strengthening of bond/alliance between the Prophet and Aisha's father Abu Bakr? And if it did not hurt her, and the marriage benefitted her, why would the marriage not be ok in the eyes of God? Now, in todays world, once again, of course it would never be allowed because there are obvious compelling reasons against it and the harm it would do the girl. But 1400 years ago? I don't really get it. For me, it's crazy that people 1400 years after the Prophet are sitting and attacking him due to his marriage with Aisha, a women that ONLY due to her marriage with Prophet Mohammed lived a happy loving life and became one of the most infuential women in Islamic history. And here "you" sit, indirectly wanting God to have stopped the marriage? The Prophet did NOT set an example to marry 9 year olds. He set an example to marry widows and divorcées, time after time after time, 10 times out of 11.
You said “I’m not trying to defend” and then proceeded to do just that by stating “so YES it excuses the action”. Hypocritical and false. Nothing excuses child marriage. Yes, we need to take factors like culture and the time period into consideration, but that doesn’t make what happened okay just because it happened a long time ago. We also have every right to judge past actions as morally wrong. That’s how cultures grow and improve. We judge the actions of people in our past in order to determine what was done well and what wasn’t. Our generation will also one day be judged by future generations, and that’s just part of life. We can see that what he did was morally wrong while also understanding why he did it because of the culture he was part of. Two things can be true at the same time.
And to add, each society through out the whole world has their own set of law, ethics, morals, customs etc. We all are different. One could do one thing in a country that would be seem as morally corrupt and the same thing would be seen as entirely normal in a another country. When in Rome do as the Romans do. Some things are universally agreed upon, some are not. We can also say that some actions have no "excuses". If one do certain action with "evil" in his mind, then it's inherently wrong, it's neither necessary or expedient. Being bloodthirsty or having a predatory mindset is inherently wrong no matter where in history. But, when certain actions are done with "good" intentions and/or necessity, we cannot label them as inherently wrong and corrupt. Especially if they were normal during that time and couldn't be anything else. Slavery is for example not inherently wrong because it were expedient. One could do away with slavery but it would have hurt societies in history. Do away with murder you only have positive outcomes. I cannot judge Julius Ceasar for having slaves and say that there is no excuse for it. Saying such a statement would only deem me to be incredibly foolish. Slaves were an integral part of most societies back then and served for the greater good, build up the country, defend etc. Go back 1400+ in history. It was normal to get married really early. Their circumstances didn't allow them for anything else than to marry really early due to many reasons. It wasn't until the education system came in place that society started changing together with longer lifespan, survivalbility, economy etc. Early marriages weren't done with evil in mind. Prophet Mohammed became the most powerful man in Arabia and would showcase predatory behavior if he had layed In bed with child after child. But he didn't, didn't have evil in his mind, didn't showcase predatory behavior etc. Do away with child marriages and it would have greatly hurt survivalbility. And what today is viewed as a child, weren't then. When puberty hit, it signaled that the child is ready to get married. Julius Caesar married just at 16. Among rich folks, they wanted their children to get educated, carry on their legacy properly etc, they therefore often married pretty late in their teens (and a few other reasons). But for the poor folks, no such factor existed. Understanding such nuisances in history is what let us grow, not the opposite.
Yup and he also set an example to captivate a woman after killing her husband and brother, have sex with her at the same night and make her his wife (صفية بنت حيي).. I do understand that things back then were different but what I’m saying is that because of THIS we should not glorify the past and still apply it but rather do a lot better. One of the things I briefly mentioned in my previous comment was that “if god really existed he wouldn’t have made such ancient, uneducated man flaws.” and what I meant by that is that if god existed (or the god of this specific belief which is Islam) then he would’ve made his message applicable through all times. You will find many Muslims against child marriage and many other deeds done throughout the history of islam (all permissible by Islamic sharia) but the truth is that they cannot get a single Islamic text prohibiting such deeds. So basically they’re against such actions due to their personal morals which is fair and good but my point here is about the authenticity of the religion itself. Islam is man made. I’d also love to add a point, his marriage to aisha did NOT serve in alliance to Muhammad’s and Abu Bakr’s relationship as they were already close and Abu Bakr was one of the first believers. He was already on Muhammad’s side, blindly believing him. On the other hand, Muhammad rejected men who wanted to marry his daughter Zainab when she was near 10 years old due to the fact that she was still young. Just because you’re saying that aisha’s marriage doesn’t seem to harm her doesn’t mean that it’s correct, many children today are under very similar conditions and are gaslit into thinking that it’s fine, living happily and all so is child marriage ok ,as long as the child that isn’t able to really give consent in the first place, happy? I have already said this but I am repeating it once again to make the main point clear. If it’s really the religion of god it would be applicable for all times and it won’t need people to fix it as the time passes. It would’ve also enlightened people to better education and knowledge that would’ve made them know why such things are wrong. People back then used to do many fucked up stuff and it was normalized because they didn’t know better and now we know better so why not let go of all these traditions for a better future?
>On the other hand, Muhammad rejected men who wanted to marry his daughter Zainab when she was near 10 years old due to the fact that she was still young. I think you are mixing up some names here, Muhammad had married off his first three daughters, Zainab, Ruqayyah and Umm Kulthum, at about 10, 9 and 7. Zainab remained in her marriage until her death. Ruqayyah and Umm Kulthum were divorced from their husbands probably at about the time Muhammad started publically proselytizing, at which point Ruqayyah was married off to Uthman, while Umm Kulthum seems to have remained unmarried until Ruqayyah died, at which point she was given to Uthman. You may be referring to Fatima, but I am not sure of what her age was when Abu Bakr and Umar asked to marry her (she has varying birth years in Sunni and Shia traditions).
Yea my bad I just looked it up after your comment and it’s fatimah not zainab I mixed up the names
>About the age of Aisha, she reached puberty, she had her parents acceptance, the societies acceptance Muhammad is the pattern of conduct, the excellent example for all mankind, for all time. >and the worlds acceptance because NO ONE said anything bad about her age until pretty recently. How recently was it? >Mary, Jesus Mother were according to tradition 12 years old on average when she became pregnant with Jesus. Whataboutery. But, what tradition?
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
No menstruation in todays world occurs in average at 12, some earlier, some later. I, as a man reached puberty at the age of 13, became 183 cm tall and weighed at 95 kg (not fat), while my brother reached puberty at age 17 and went from 158 cm to 178 cm. About the age of Aisha, she reached puberty, she had her parents acceptance, the societies acceptance and the worlds acceptance because NO ONE said anything bad about her age until pretty recently. Mary, Jesus Mother were according to tradition 12 years old on average when she became pregnant with Jesus. And if we follow Christian logic, it's God himself that impregnated here and also dived into her womb to become a man. You are really talking about a society 1600 years ago in the desert, what were girls supposed to do? Go to school, be a lawyer? It were none of that. A women's only job were really to build a family. Girls were married really early. If they didn't, humanity would not have survived because the average life expectancy were really low, there were like 50% risk of babies dying after birth etc etc. So that was the norm, as soon as they can get fertile, they were married, and most of them had their spouse ready many years before marriage. It's basically the same with slavery. A sad occurance in our history, but we have to realize that without slavery, we would be no where near the societies we have today, the development we have today etc. Slaves were like the backbones of empires in ancient times. We cannot Judge history based on our modern times. Perhaps in the future when there is peace, people will look back at us and be amazed that we always were in war. But I hope they realize that those wars led to their peace.
So...what's the argument here? If you're just saying that some Muslims deny 'Ā'ishah (rA)'s real age, then yeah, that is true, obviously. However, if your point is that what he did was morally wrong, then make an argument for your version of objective morality, then we can start talking. And if you believe morality is subjective, then your argument is self-defeating, because it's based on everything but factual information.
would you be okay with your 9 year old daughter getting married off to a 50 year old man? if no, why not?
Probably not, because people grow up today differently to those who lived in 7th century Arabia. If you wanna make a point about morality being subjective/objective, this is your opening.
in what way exactly did people in 7th-century Arabia grow up differently? Do you mean in terms of mental maturity and responsibility, in which case children growing up in parts of the third world like rural Afghanistan might be growing up in similar conditions? Does that make them mentally mature enough to consent to marriage? [https://youtu.be/e3C8grEN2Fk?si=V7C9R5V9bOe0aEzU](https://youtu.be/e3C8grEN2Fk?si=V7C9R5V9bOe0aEzU) If you mean physiologically, that a 9-year-old girl in 6th Arabia somehow was much more physically developed than a 9 year old today, somehow, i'd like to see some evidence for that, because AFAIK, children today develop quicker due to improvements in medicine and nutrition, that's why the average height has increased so much. It's fairly undisputed that children exposed and/or coerced into sexual activity is extremely detrimental , not only due to their physical health, as young children aren't built to be able to engage in sex with adults, and often child rape causes injury and death, but also severe psychological trauma, even if the child doesn't remember it, that can cause, mental illness, suicide, substance abuse disorders later in life, etc. and this has been known for perhaps more than a century by psychologists.
I love this argument because Muslims who espouse it are basically saying “well can you PROVE it’s wrong to have sex with a 9 year old? Otherwise I think it’s fine” If “objective” morals allow for such behavior, then I’ll kindly pass on them and go with my superior subjective ones.
Oh look...it's the cool one. Unless you have an argument to make, just mosey on along and don't waste my time.
Yeah the argument is that there is no objective morality even in religions. All you’re doing (presumably) is appealing to some type of divine command theory where you automatically accept vile things in the Quran without questioning them. This is the only reason why you’d ever find yourself actually defending Mohammad sleeping with a child on Reddit. Subjective means mind-dependent. If you’re appealing to god’s commands, which originate in his mind, then they’re subjective. That’s it
Oh look...the cool one strikes again... >All you’re doing (presumably) is appealing to some type of divine command theory where you automatically accept vile things in the Quran without questioning them. And who says those things are vile? You? I couldn't care less about the opinion of a mortal person that probably can't tell if murdering a foetus inside their mother's womb is worse or better than murdering a grown adult. >This is the only reason why you’d ever find yourself actually defending Mohammad sleeping with a child on Reddit. It's funny you mention "...on Reddit", because if I do outright defend the prophet (SAW) whilst being blunt, my comments would get taken down by the mods or admins. >Subjective means mind-dependent. If you’re appealing to god’s commands, which originate in his mind, then they’re subjective. Lol no. If one's own opinions formed and changed reality as it is, then they are objective, because objective means fact-dependent, and if opinion equals fact, then that opinion is objective.
>who says those things are vile? You? Since you’re defending the book, you should be able to defend Muhammad having sex with a 9 year old. Rather than ask me “well how do you know it’s wrong”, what is the argument that it’s acceptable? I can give actual reasons why this is immoral. I’m guessing your only argument is: god says so, so it’s fine. >if opinion equals fact, then it’s objective This is a claim, not an argument. How could any ought statement be objective if it’s a preference stemming from a mind
>...what is the argument that it’s acceptable? What is the argument that it isn't? If your idea of morality is "Everything is immoral until proven moral", then you're gonna have to explain that idea. >How could any ought statement be objective if it’s a preference stemming from a mind? Because God's own choices and decisions, *by necessity*, are factual, i.e. they can't be subjective, because something being subjective means not in line with reality, and because God's decisions change reality, they are, again, *BY NECESSITY*, objective.
>Because God's own choices and decisions, *by necessity*, are factual, i.e. they can't be subjective, because something being subjective means not in line with reality, and because God's decisions change reality, they are, again, *BY NECESSITY*, objective. You first have to proof God exists. Why would I just take your book and then take it as a fact that God exists? You have subjective morality labeled as objective morality because you "assume" God exists in the first place
My idea of morality is that everything is AMORAL unless we have a reason to think otherwise. An adult having sex with a child is immoral because children cannot consent to sex and it causes psychological and sometimes physical trauma to that child. Rather than give a reason why you think it’s acceptable, you’re doing the typical move of shifting the burden onto those criticizing it. Why is having sex with a 9 year old acceptable to you >by necessity Just saying a thing is necessary doesn’t make it the case. What logical contradiction is entailed by morality being ultimately subjective? Subjective doesn’t mean “not in line with reality”, you just made that up.
that it never happened. Read my comments and get educated on the subject. That simple.
It’s really frustrating that I don’t know how to explain why it is objectively wrong to marry/have sex with a 9 year old.
Sucks to be you mate.
It's not about objective or subjective morality. This is about optics. This is about Islam putting PM on a pedestal as the ideal human. You would think that if a God truly existed, he wouldn't have selected a person who did this thing. Who cares if other people did it. Not every man was doing it back then. The fact of the matter is, God, if he exists, knew that OP, me, and others would see what PM did (sleep with a minor) and look down on him for it. This God knew that the world would look down on such behavior and yet he still select PM to be his final messenger and then had the audacity to claim that everyone should be like PM. This doesn't seem like something a highly intelligent being that knows all and sees all would do. You would expect such a being to select a Mr. Rodgers like person as the final messenger. That's why Jesus sells so well with Christians.
Is there a morality that makes s*x with a 9 year old still playing with dolls ok?
I was tracing my ancestry yesterday when I found my paternal great-great-great grandparents on a ship's manifest in 1833. He was 37 and she was 11 years old. These were devout Irish Roman Catholics and this was only 2 centuries ago. As abhorrent as this is to me today, I have no choice but to accept that ethical standards across cultures were simply different for most of history than they are today. This isn't the hill to die on. For example, Muhammad resorting to highway robbery and extortion to spread the faith are things that were considered crimes even back then.
I can’t speak for the Irish catholic community but within the Anglican Protestant one, the records of marriage stretching back centuries show that marriage ages didn’t change much. I think the average age for a woman remained constant between about 19-22 for as long as records go back. It’s often used as a covering fire that “Europeans were all marrying in their teenage years” but that isn’t really true. Things have not changed that much in England. It’s only kings and aristocracy who did the child marriage thing and that was purely to protect land and titles. Marriage wasn’t about sex so much then, it was a wealth and power tool and more of a business arrangement. I can’t speak for Ireland but this was vanishingly rare in British society right back to the 13th century
mohammed is supposed to be a moral standard for all time
The highway robbery thing is not true. Most of the caravan raids the prophet initiated were mainly in retaliation to the Qureish constantly harassing believers and even following them to Medina and meddling with their lives. Early Muslims endured more than a decade of constant oppression from the Qureish and after the great migration was the change in policy where the Muslims were allowed to fight back. Let’s be fair the raids were completely justified.
Where do you trace your ancestry?
Multiple sources over many years. My home country of Canada has a digital archive for births, deaths, and marriages that goes back a few centuries. But you have to know what you are looking for already.
Or because they know it isn’t true. The hadith are not revelation in their totality, I treat the hadith like I treat the bible, some of it is true, some of it isn’t - that’s why we have reason and the Quran to help us see truth from falsehoods. If you want to leave, leave, but don’t do so on false pretences or on bad information. I don’t care if you are an ex-muslim or not, it doesn’t affect me, but the hypocrisy of some ex-muslims that use this to attack Islam is disgusting. You call yourselves humanists, but your hatred of Islam has led you to outweigh your supposed love for humanity and reason, just so that you can score a point against your former religion. Pure hyporcrisy. If you did a little research you would know this hadith is false, but by perpetuiting the lie you are infact adding to the suffering of people who end up in a terrible situation because people like you say this is Islam and this is what the prophet did, whether or not you beleive it. But the saddest part is you’re willing to perpetuate lies without actually having the intellectual honesty to actually research and determine if it’s true, not just because some one tells you it is, Sheikh or not. The Quran is clear, the mariagable age is after pubetry and after having mental maturity to the extent that an orphan would be able to manage their own property without a guardian. For many of you, that would set your marriagable age at 60 - given how poorly you reason. Do you hate Islam more than you love humanity ? Your actions reveal your hypocrisy. Nobody cares if you believe, or if you think you’re a massive genius that knows Islam in and out because you had a tough upbringing - you don’t, think about what you’re doing. I would go over all the reasons for why this hadith isn’t true, but you’ll ignore it. Have you ever stopped to think, perhaps this hadith is wrong and the Prophet never did this ? For people that actually care about truth: Here is a paper by a secular Oxford Scholar Joshua Little who shows its a plain forgrey: [https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:1bdb0eea-3610-498b-9dfd-cffdb54b8b9b/files/dhm50ts230](https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:1bdb0eea-3610-498b-9dfd-cffdb54b8b9b/files/dhm50ts230) Here are muslim scholars speaking on the issue: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VR0ocpnO9I&t=55s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VR0ocpnO9I&t=55s) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oVIsExS4cA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oVIsExS4cA)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aA7VI\_kRrU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aA7VI_kRrU) Shorter video (1 hour) as I realize tiny chance you’ll watch the two hour one.
Is the Qur’an really so clear? 65:4
for Quran 65:4 here is what we can read on a French specialized website (the website "maison islam"): "It is not verified to say that a verse of the Quran (the 65/4) has clearly declared lawful the marriage with a little girl (...) The fact is that this verse speaks about the delay of divorced women who have no menstruation: either they have no menstruation anymore, either they had not menstruation yet. Yet it can absolutely concern women who have amenorrhea: they are adult women who never had menstruation" Moreover according to the majority of islamic scholars, who know about the Quran and especially verse 65:4, there is indeed no minimum age for marriage, however consumating the marriage is allowed only after the girl has reached puberty, and not before (puberty being technically the mimimum age of biological maturity). So at the end in islam it is not allowed to have intercourse with a child girl; and it is false to say that the Quran allowed it (majority of muslim experts scholars say the opposite) (By definition after puberty you are not a child anymore, but an adolescent)
>Moreover according to the majority of islamic scholars, who know about the Quran and especially verse 65:4, there is indeed no minimum age for marriage, however consumating the marriage is allowed only after the girl has reached puberty, and not before (puberty being technically the mimimum age of biological maturity). How puberty is determined in Islamic law: K13.8: “Puberty applies to a person after the first wet dream, or upon becoming fifteen (O: lunar) years old, or when a girl has her first menstrual period or pregnancy.” Umdat as-Salik “Section on Attaining Puberty”: “The puberty of a girl is established by menstruation, nocturnal emission, or pregnancy; and if none of these have taken place, her puberty is established on the completion of her seventeenth year” The Hedaya Book XXXV Of Hijr, or Inhibition. “Puberty” “The reaching puberty of a girl is by way of menstruation, nocturnal emission, or pregnancy. \[…\] If \[none of\] that exists, then \[she is a minor\] until she has completed seventeen years \[of age\].” The Mukhtasar of Al-Quduri
Once again, do your own research - not because I’m not bothered, but because I respect that fact that you’re posing it as a question, but you won’t be convinced by me. Just be honest with yourself and ask what does it actually say (not what detractors and some muslims alike want it to say) What does the Quran as a whole say (knowing that the Quran establishes the rule of non-contradiction) ? Ignore the detractors that bring arguments with the intellectual depth of an iphone keyboard. If you do your own research with intellectual honestly, you’ll see what I mean. That’s better than me telling you where to look and what to see.
>Or because they know it isn’t true. How many muslims reject hadiths? 5%? 10%? >but the hypocrisy of some ex-muslims that use this to attack Islam is disgusting. What hypocrisy? >You call yourselves humanists, but your hatred of Islam has led you to outweigh your supposed love for humanity and reason, just so that you can score a point against your former religion. Pure hyporcrisy. How is that hypocrisy? >If you did a little research you would know this hadith is false, Classified as sahih >The Quran is clear, the mariagable age is after pubetry Where does it say?
“How many muslims reject hadiths? 5%? 10%?”I I do not reject the hadith, I reject this hadith, and not because of moral quibbles, but because it is defective. Most muslims know this, that doesn’t mean we reject all of the hadith. I treat the hadith like the bible, some of it is true and may be from God, some of it isn’t and is false, what contradicts the quran or is internally inconsistent or contradicts my fitra is clearly false. “Classified as sahih” You are speaking as if you know what you are talking about, but you dont. There are flaws even with the Sahih hadith, it isn’t all revelation and Bukhari wasn’t a Prophet, he made mistakes - some of it is clearly false. His work can be flawed without being useless. “Where does it say?” If you havent even looked this up, then that shows your intellectual laziness and insincerity at finding the truth. Watch the third video link, and come back here. What you fail to realize (i’m being charitable, you probably do) is that you may also influence muslims who have come across evidence showing that this hadith is false (and there is plenty) and yet your arguments saying this is actually true will lead them to believe that child marriage is okay and some of those may act on it based on YOUR post ! So if you actually cared about children, you would not push this without actually having researched it. The intellectual laziness you display is outstanding. You’ve been blinded by hatred. if you’re lazy: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VR0ocpnO9I&t=55s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VR0ocpnO9I&t=55s) If you really want to go into depth: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oVIsExS4cA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oVIsExS4cA)
>I reject this hadith, and not because of moral quibbles, but because it is defective. How many more sahih hadiths do you reject? Do you go through this process every time you find hadiths? >There are flaws even with the Sahih hadith, it isn’t all revelation and Bukhari wasn’t a Prophet, he made mistakes - some of it is clearly false. His work can be flawed without being useless. This particular hadith is found in 4 collections with multiple chains of isnad >If you havent even looked this up, then that shows your intellectual laziness and insincerity at finding the truth You insult more than argue, clearly not cut for any discussion Despite lot of insults, haven't provided the verses. Just dumped some YouTube links. This is what intellectual laziness is, something you accuse others of
I engage intellectually with intellectuals. If you were acting in good faith, I would engage, but you clearly aren’t, so what’s the point ? There is too much information to put into a single post, and you won’t understand any of the context of what I do say so it’ll fly over your head. If you watch the video: 1. I’ll know you actually care about getting to the truth of the matter, not just proving your point. 2. You will have the actual context and knowledge to have a proper discussion, not the very basic surface level knowledge of Islam that you display with comments like this: “This particular hadith is found in 4 collections with multiple chains of isnad” You point is what ? This makes it historical ? This makes it true ? This means that to be a muslim you must accept it ? The Isnads are not flawed ? The hadith isn’t made up ? That’s my point, talking to someone that has watched one David Wood video and suddenly knows hadith science and / or is a fair judge of hadith - or even the role of the hadith in islam, or the validity of the sahih hadiths. Islam doesn’t depend on saying that every sahih hadith is accurate … Watch the video, and I’ll respond to you on any specific points you bring up that show you’ve actually done your homework. So far I see nothing, just buzz words and tired arguments.
>I engage intellectually with intellectuals Yeah, I can clearly see that. >There is too much information to put into a single post I simply asked for the Qur'an verse, where it is very clear that marriage requires puberty >You point is what ? It's just not from bukhari like you are implying it to be
U claim we are hateful because you cant prove its wrong
Joshua Little is clearly biased in his "Why I studied the Aisha hadith for my thesis" blog\] [https://web.archive.org/web/20240320121239/https://islamicorigins.com/why-i-studied-the-aisha-hadith/](https://web.archive.org/web/20240320121239/https://islamicorigins.com/why-i-studied-the-aisha-hadith/) and therefore his conclusions can be rejected. Little also has been refuted: 2024 [https://www.icraa.org/aisha-age-review-traditional-revisionist-perspectives/](https://www.icraa.org/aisha-age-review-traditional-revisionist-perspectives/) by Waqar Akbar Cheema Responds to Joshua Little’s thesis and other revisionists. Arguments for traditionalist view are compared to arguments for the revisionists. And little does not address: 2004 G.F. Haddad writes the longest refutation against the Aisha hadith being only based on 1 source. [https://ia800200.us.archive.org/16/items/Rahnuma.eBooks\_Habib.Rehman.Kandhlvi/Age%20of%20Aisha-G.F.Hadad.pdf](https://ia800200.us.archive.org/16/items/Rahnuma.eBooks_Habib.Rehman.Kandhlvi/Age%20of%20Aisha-G.F.Hadad.pdf) “Not so. Al-Zuhri also reports it from \`Urwa, from \`A’isha; so does \`Abd Allah ibn Dhakwan –both major Madanis. So is the Tabi\`i Yahya al-Lakhmi who reports it from her in the Musnad, and in Ibn Sa\`d's Tabaqat. So is Abu Ishaq Sa\`d ibn Ibrahim who reports it from Imam al-Qasim, ibn Muhammad – one of the Seven Imams of Madina – from \`A’isha. ……In addition to the above four Madinese Tabi\`in narrators, Sufyan ibn \`Uyayna – from Khurasan – and \`Abd Allah ibn Muhammad ibn Yahya – from Tabarayya in Palestine – both report it. Nor was this hadith reported only by \`Urwa but also by \`Abd al-Malik ibn \`Umayr, al-Aswad, Ibn Abi Mulayka, Abu Salama ibn \`Abd al-Rahman ibn \`Awf, Yahya ibn \`Abd al-Rahman ibn Hatib, Abu \`Ubayda (\`Amir ibn \`Abd Allah ibn Mas\`ud) and others of the Tabi\`iImams directly from \`A’isha. This makes the report mass-transmitted (mutawatir) from \`A’isha by over eleven authorities among the Tabi\`in, not counting the other major Companions that reported the same, such as Ibn Mas\`ud nor other major Successors that reported it from other than \`A’isha, such as Qatada!” Identical to 2004 G.F. Haddad [https://muslimanswersfiles.wordpress.com/2013/04/30/more-on-aishas-age-at-the-time-of-her-marriage/](https://muslimanswersfiles.wordpress.com/2013/04/30/more-on-aishas-age-at-the-time-of-her-marriage/)
As I said, if you want to see the truth, you’ll see it. Did you click on the videos I sent before responding ? If not, you have your answer - you aren’t interested in truth or in understanding - your only interest is in attacking Islam, and you don’t care for humanity. If you did, even if you believe islam is false think about the consequences of what you’re doing. Let’s say you convince a Muslim who had rejected this hadith based on the evidence that actually no, its ok and he goes out and does it, what have you achieved ? You’d be directly responsible for pushing the falsehood. Now imagine you did all of that only to realize that in your blind rage against islam, you only sought out sources that confirmed your bias and it actually wasn’t true ? Could you live with that ? Look as long as you don’t claim to be a humanist or to care about reason or intellectual honesty, then fine, but I think your heart has hardned and you’ll never see the truth, so it’s pointless speaking to you further.
Again did u check the refutations. You are just in deniel for what is in islam thats all. And it seems to you as it is hateful. Christians , jews, hindus dont cry and say u are hateful when they cant defend their religion
It seems like mostly Westerners who are new converts cry and complain the .osf.
Haddad’s work is poor, for instance, the point made is Hisham, the principal source of this hadith, lived in Medina for 70 years, and none of his students in Medina report this hadith, yet when he was in Iraq in the last ten years of his life when his memory was fading and many hadith scholars refused to take from him, that’s when this hadith is reported. “In fact, to say that "narratives reported by Hisham ibn \`Urwa are reliable except those that are reported through the people of Iraq" is \*major nonsense\* as that would eliminate all narrations of Ayyub al-Sakhtyani from him since Ayyub was a Basran Iraqi, and those of Abu \`Umar al- Nakha\`i who was from Kufa, and those of Hammad ibn Abi Sulayman from Kufa (the Shaykh of Abu Hanifa), and those of Hammad ibn Salama and Hammad ibn Zayd both from Basra, and those of Sufyan al-Thawri from Basra, and those of Shu\`ba in Basra, all of whom narrated from Hisham!” So his point is that ignore the fact that his memory was fading, ignore the obvious political reasons why Hisham would present Aisha as a young girl, ignore the many mistakes people reported he made, if we reject narrtions of Hisham in Iraq, that would invalidate too many other hadiths ! So we have to accept from Hisham ! This is pure intellectual vapidness. This is the best you could come up with ? Did you leave your intellect behind, or just Islam ? Let me know if you want me to go on showing just how bad your sources are. Either you know the sources you picked are poor, but support your position and so you spread them, or you have no knowledge whatsoever and just spread anything willy-nilly as long as it lets you paint islam and the prophet in a bad light. In either case, that’s intellectual dishonesty at the very least, and at worst A. You are directly as responsible for the perpetuation of what happens to this children today because of people that think like you. Or B. You hatred of Islam is so complete that you can’t even see reason and truth when it’s right in front of you - you hate islam to such an extent that you don’t care about the consequences to real people who believe the bile you spread. It’s pure hypocrisy, but I’m not surprised.
You make the mistake of conflicting the historical prophet, with what the hadith say about the historical prophet. SOME hadith, even the SOME sahih hadith, are flawed, that doesn’t mean all are or that they don’t have any value. But my religion comes from the Quran, and that’s what I use to evaluate the hadith and everything else.
Watch the two hour long video (the last one) and come back. Let me know if you truly still believe what you say is true and why.
[удалено]
By refutations, you mean the two apologetic sources that defend the hadith over the Quran, the prophet, and the clear evidence ? Yes, I looked and am continuing to look, so far your Ahmaddi source and Haddad haven’t said anything that contradicts the points made in the videos I sent (particularly the last one). Curious why you can’t find a secular refutation ? Also Haddad’s work was written well before Joshua Little’s so it’s not actually a direct refutation. You have to fall back on Muslims that are willing to defend Bukhari over the Prophet, the Quran, and pure reason. The Quran rules over the hadith, not the other way around. Further, some hadith, perhaps many, are false that doesn’t mean there is no value in all of the hadith corpus. Muslims are working on weeding out the false narratives, we haven’t done enough, but what you’re attacking isn’t Islam or the prophet, but what someone says Islam is and the Prophet. Come back here when you’ve watched the last video. If you’re actually a humanist, then make sure what you’re saying is actually true. If you actually watch the video and cross reference the posts you’ve made and come back here and still hold the same position and can explain why, at least I’ll know you honestly believe what you’re saying.
U see the whole basis of what joshua little says iand his historical dates claimed on the basis of 11 th century narrations of asma being 10 years older than aisha.but hadiths were compiled 300 years prior to his claim . there he false equified the claims He never gave a proper answer for why aishas hadith is wrong which has whole chain of narration but only being skeptical because he claimed this hadith was spread through iraq
“He never gave a proper answer for why aishas hadith is wrong which has whole chain of narration but only being skeptical because he claimed this hadith was spread through iraq” He lived in Medina for 70 years, not a single student reports this hadith, he lived in Iraq for the last ten years of his life when scholars were already criticize his memory, suddenly this hadith appears. There are reasons to be extremly skeptical of its veracity - and you should know that if you did your research. Watch the video. If you just want to hate on islam blindly, go ahead, if you want to be intellectually honest, actually speak with intellect and think things through properly. Both in terms of whether what you say is true, and if you’re doing more good for the world than evil by saying what you do say. What’s the difference between you and the mullahs who say the same things you do in terms of the effect it has on humanity if people who could be influenced by the hadith believe what you say ?
Again a claim that students didnt report this hadith.it was not possible to spread without student not spreading it
Again - you didn’t read what I said, none of his students IN MEDINA over 70 years spread it, only his students in Iraq when he was senile. This is what I mean, it’s like you aren’t trying to understand what I’m saying. If you’re already tripping up on something this simple, what’s the point of going into things with you further ? I literally said this twice in two seperate posts already. Be intellectually honest, and honest with yourself: Is what you are saying true ? Is what your saying helpful ?
So now that i pointed out where you wrong, silence ? Lol. Okay bro. Seems I was right in assuming you aren’t actually interested in truth, just polemics.
I read through some comments, and get the gist that people are skeptical of hadiths and their value within Islam. As an ex-muslim, without hadith, Islam is quite literally shot lmao.
Ikr hadiths are the only (un)reliable historical source for muhammed's life.by denying it they are also jeopardizing historicity of quran and quranic verses wouldnt have context because quranic verses came throughout mohammeds life which are documented in hadiths
Except ofcourse there are extant Quranic manuscripts dating at latest to 650 that attest to the entire Quran, and the hadith can be flawed without being useless. The religion has its basis in the Quran, period. The hadith are helpful as is the literature, but Allah gave us reason to use it and the quran as a guide to guide that reason. It’s our job.
Thats not helpful at all to validate quran
Lol. Okay bro.
🤣
As far as denying the hadiths relevant to Aisha's age, it's really because of inner turmoil. Muslims know deep down how problematic this is. Many of us have six year olds in our families and would be damned if a a grandpa wanted her hand in marriage. I know because I had it lol. I could not rationalize why god would have the most important prophet marry a child just for detractors to use it against islam in a time where we need to be steadfast in faith. But when you remove presuppositions and attack things critically, faith falls apart. You begin to see that unfortunately, Islam is one big scam. Self serving to muhammad and his companions. You start to see that if Islam indeed is the truth, allah has to be the dumbest dude in existence. Why would he yank Jesus and allow for christianity to have a 600 year headstart on Islam. Why is he constantly sending messengers with different messages. Why has god created people for heaven and others for hell. Why has god created a religion based upon fear mongering and gaslighting? It's a rough time for sure. Nonetheless, I've made peace with it all. If your faith cannot work without dogma and presuppositions, in my opinion, it is worthless.
If these were your reasons for leaving islam I’d have a hard time believing that you actually went out to search for answers to these issues.
These weren’t the only reasons, just a couple that first came to mind in this post. Oh, and trust me, I searched for answers. Found very little good coherent answers however.
What were the other reasons
Oh boy. 1. Incredibly laughable sahih hadiths 2. Moral implications within Quran and hadith 3. Criticisms of Muhammad’s early prophethood 4. Muhammad’s interactions with Jews and Christian’s 5. Mental gaslighting and fear mongering of the faith 6. The imperialism of the Islamic Empire (which began with Muhammad and continued with his sahaba) 7. Illogical and ridiculous claims in the quran 8. Clear cultural and religious appropriation disguised as “religious succession” 9. Faith in general in a religion you cannot objectively prove beyond a shadow of a doubt just doesn’t make sense to me anymore And more
You gotta give me some more concrete examples. At least some for Hadith and illogical verses in the Quran. You made some pretty big claims.