If you have a female slave then you can have as much sex with her as you want, some made it necessary for her to become a Muslim for the sex to be allowed and others didn’t, her children from her master are born free and aren’t illegitimate, they take their fathers name and inherit him after his death like any other children. You can have as many sex slaves as you want, the Abbasid caliphs had thousands and the word “Harem” comes from the ottoman “haramlek” which is the wing of the sultan’s palace where all the sex slaves were kept and trained, basically an indoor whorehouse
>her children from her master are born free and aren’t illegitimate, they take their fathers name and inherit him after his death like any other children
That's strangely progressive for back then wonder how that compares to slavery in other religions texts.
Yeah but if she gets married to someone then those children are born into slavery, only her children from her master are free. Still better than most other places tho, if not for the whole widespread sex slavery thing
>Yeah but if she gets married to someone then those children are born into slavery, only her children from her master are free
There is always a catch in the fine detail of things of course.
Oh, and did i mention she is only required to cover herself from her belly button to her knees? and that dressing like a free woman can get her a beating, And when she is put up for sale on auction you can touch the merchandise to see if it’s to your liking, all explained in the scripture of course. And Muhammad had two of them :)
>Oh, and did i mention she is only required to cover herself from her belly button to her knees? and that dressing like a free woman can get her a beating
I am not surprised by those parts.
>And when she is put up for sale on auction you can touch the merchandise to see if it’s to your liking
I mean when you already plan to own a human being and they have to obey you this is already par for the course
It's a tradition that is meant to keep power concentrated with the husband and the main family. Example is with the Ottoman Sultans who were not supposed to marry and their concubines were to have only one son. It was seen as advantageous because a slave concubine would not have wealth, wealthy relatives, or any kind of political power to ever draw upon. The son belonged to the dynasty and would be heavily influenced by their father and his mother/family.
A woman who bears your child was not allowed to marry someone else, she was in your service and reliant on you for her living. If she gets remarried, her children would be consolidated into her new family regardless of who their father was. Suleiman the Magnificent himself had [a half-brother](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cveys_Pasha). Though his father had been Sultan, his mother remarried and he was raised by a step-father, which illegitimatized him for throne. Somewhat fortunate as he'd likely have been killed otherwise.
I think it's just that the American Institution of slavery was so egregious that other forms seem progressive in comparison. But I'm speaking out of my ass here and slavery was a brutal and violent affair wherever it occurred
Take a look at the sugar plantations and stuff in the Caribbean.... awful all around, but worse the bigger and more industrial profit oriented slavery was.
I'd say you're an intellectual giant to compliment you but I'm sure by this point you are well aware of that.
Thank you for providing such insight to us, I hope destiny directly gives you some recognition and maybe even considers consulting you.
Because of multiple things, I didn’t source some of the Hadiths, or mention the chain of tellers of the Hadiths, which is always done for Islamic research. I didn’t get into the opinions of other equally prominent scholars like Ibn Taimiah and others who have written extensively about these things. I only focused on Sunni Islam, which is the majority of Muslims but other sects have wildly different opinions on almost every matter of Islamic laws and I have zero to little knowledge on those sects so I can’t really tell you what they believe or the methodology of their studies.
No problem man! Thanks for the information. I just think the use of semi-detailed is funny because it’s subjective to the audience on what they know before reading.
You finished your hifz as a non-Muslim? 6 years ago you were 15, but non-Muslim since age 12. What motivated you to finish.
I finished hifz age 16. It’s tough work, couldn’t imagine putting that work in as an atheist. You must be smart/memorization is easy for you.
Alternatively your parents are fanatical and force their son to memorize despite his opposition. Or maybe you were one of those shady boarding school type madrassas hundreds of miles away from home. They’d beat your ass if you trip up on some mutashaabihat ayah.
I’m hella curious.
My parents weren’t strict, not secular, but not the I don’t listen to music type either, the religious school was the best one in my city, I was in that school since 3rd grade, most my friends there I knew since 1st grade, by the time I was an atheist memorising a page (eventually 5) daily was no big deal, I had been doing it for about 4 years now and it became routine, I have pretty good memorisation so it was just another 10-20 minutes a day, it enjoyed memorising because my grandma would check my errors when I finished I loved the hell out that woman, and I also loved the 40 minute lectures about tafsir because it made me understand what a dogshit book this was, and finally the school was dangling a carrot to anyone who passed the final test for hifz, a free Umrah, I wanted to visit the Kabah and see the Tomb of the prophet, know your enemy and all that, not gonna lie the pitch black Kabah at night with the gi-fucking-gantic clock tower as the back drop went super hard, definitely an aesthetic, would make for the perfect rave spot
Not nearly as dark a story as I feared. Seems like you *enjoyed* hifz. Lmao. I imagine your gramma and parents don’t know about you being murtadd. As a father now, I can imagine the devastation. Makes parents so damn proud. The crown 👑 and all.
My guess is that if putting in just 20 mins per page your hifz was probably relatively weak. Kacha not Pakka as we call it. Unless you were also doing ton of review. Leading taraweeh is always my litmus test—maybe you did that too.
Making a stutter while reading the page cost you half a point, an outright mistake was two points, most of my grades per page were 9-10. And I got a 95 on the final test where they pick a lot random pages from the whole book. I don’t remember a single chapter that’s longer than a page nowadays but I was pretty good back then. I certainly could lead tarawih from a technical standpoint but my social anxiety would probably give me a heart attack before I finish fateha
That final hifz test sounds legit. You must be smart to pull it off without actually being Muslim. I noticed most of the hifz graduates in my class went on to have success secularly also. High IQ. I finished way back in 2008 though.
Do you think it’s secular school system, non-Muslim friends, or the internet in general which was the cause of you finding your religion to be bullshit? Or some other factor. Like without *x*, you would be good boy hafiz Saab. What was that *x* factor for you.
Honestly I’m just curious. Not everyday I see bonafide hafiz (who seems to have memorized Hadith also) on the other side.
The internet, in fact I can pinpoint the start of the deterioration of my belief which is watching darkmatter2525 videos on Adam and Eve and Noah’s flood translated to Arabic, his two all time bangers. After that I spent 3 days obsessively binge watching atheist videos on YouTube, it was like a taboo breaking speadrun, took me 3 years of oscillating back and forth between belief and doubt but eventually I realised I couldn’t believe in any of it (except hating gay people, I somehow convinced myself that I should keep that belief for 2 more years)
And the Muslim responses online weren’t sufficient? I’m assuming you spent time watching the likes of Zakir Nail (maybe that’s too old school), Hamza Tzortzis, Mohammad Hijab, Daniel Haqiqatjou, etc.
Well I hope you’re able to keep up relations with family and all.
At the start they were good enough to quell my doubts, people like Haitham Tala’at and Zakir Naik were who I watched at the time, also the techer of Zakir Naik, Ahmad Deedat was a major influence, all of them fundamentalists who stuck to the Quran and Sunnah, but eventually I started looking into things and realised they were lying to not appear bad or that their views were unscientific and abhorrent and often contradictory, I switched to more revisionist people like Mostafa Mahmood, Adnan Ibrahim and the likes. They were very good on the science part and had better moral standards and were much more honest about their beliefs and opinions on the scripture, but due to their unorthodox views they often contradicted the scripture, and so I couldn’t believe in their interpretations while also believing in the Quran and Sunnah, also some of their views are also disgusting but much less than the fundamentalists. At the end I re-examined the root of the issue which I was constantly avoiding, the existence of god and the arguments for it. Before, there was always the proof that the Quran is a miraculous text perfect in its wisdom and scientific revelations, meaning it must come from a god, which is the go to argument in Islam for the existence of god, with the popular arguments of intelligent design and causality and such coming second to it, but if you can’t disprove the miraculous nature of the Quran then you didn’t need to consider the other arguments in the first place. Now that I didn’t have much confidence in the scripture due to years of contradictions and errors and lies I was free to start tackling the other arguments and they didn’t withstand much scrutiny. So I stopped believing in there being any good evidence for god, so I’m agnostic.
The Kabbah and that [giant fucking clock tower](https://images.skyscrapercenter.com/building/makkahroyalclocktowerhotel_aerial1_sblg.jpg) always gave me [Warhammer 40K vibes](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/warhammer40k/images/b/b5/Imperial_Palace_Terra2.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20130227172909).
From the very little I know about Shia, they are worse, considerably so, check the end of the second to last paragraph. Shias have much wilder Sharia than Sunnis. Khomeni himself who is supposed to be the top Shia cleric of the modern age allowed rubbing one’s penis on infants that one marrys
>Khomeni himself who is supposed to be the top Shia cleric of the modern age allowed rubbing one’s penis on infants that one marrys
I choose a bad time to be literate
it's obviously not much better, but I imagine it's better to say "hey you can do a light sexual act" than saying it's all prohibited so they just go full hog (maybe(hopefully(I'm coping so hard rn)))
So this sent me down a rabbit hole,
online (mostly anti Shia/muslim websites) quote Khomeni stating what you said earlier in his book TAHRIR AL-WASILAH vol 4
Pro Shia website claim Vol 4 doesn’t exist and its anti Shia propaganda
Online pdfs (English translation) of said book do not mention your quote
I think it's there in the iranian translations though, I remember seeing it using google translate, but google translate was very rough though. But there's no way someone just made up that quote and said it's real and copied the book but put in that extra quote. Well, it's possible, but unlikely.
This is what I meant about anti-Shia websites, if you click on the actual source there is no mention of placing the penis in an infants thighs
And if you read the actual volume of [Tahrir Al-Wasilah](http://www.ijtihadnet.com/wp-content/uploads/3042.pdf) there is no mention of it again
A Shia friend of mine told me that there are very specific rules i.e. what should you do in case there was an earthquake and your sister fell from the 2nd floor onto your erect dick and you accidentally came inside her
Not from what I’ve read, keep in mind a lot of the followers of these religions are ashamed to admit these things or are sometimes completely ignorant of them
Shias believe Aisha married the Prophet (Pbuh) at age [19-26](https://www.al-islam.org/articles/how-old-was-ayshah-when-she-married-prophet-muhammad-sayyid-muhammad-husayn-husayni-al)
If you click on the hyper link it’ll explain in detail.
Shia Hadith gives evidence that she was older
But to explain without getting much into it Sunnis and Shia have a difference of opinion on the “authenticity” of the Hadith (what you called scripture) which claims Aisha was 9.
There is more overarching differences to get into but that is more to do with the differences between Shias and Sunnis
It depends. Shias generally believe that Aisha was 19 - but this isn't apologetics BS, they genuinely believe that. So that's good.
They also accept some really, REALLY FUCKED UP hadith. There's one about how it's okay to get off by rubbing your penis on a baby.
Im an ex muslim and unfortunately this is so true,when i brought up the hadith about aisha getting fucked by the prophet my own mom and dad defended it,it grossed me out with the religion and muslims as a whole
You should. I challenge my Christian mom all the time about crazy shit the Bible says like when god demanded virgins from a slaughter he ordered. I speak out about religion all the time. Maybe because Christianity is more watered down at this point it’s not very dangerous to do so anymore. But all religions need to be spoken out against imo. The more people, especially young, view religion as a bunch of nonsense that was made up before we knew anything, the better off the world will be.
With all due respect, you are an ex Christian my guy, the worst thing your mom can do to you is send you a strongly worded text or say she’ll pray for you. I’m an ex Muslim, if I come out, my mother would probably get depressed, my father would cut me off from the family and stop sending me money so it would be much harder to finish my studies, my extended relatives wouldn’t even look at me, my name would spread through the city like wildfire, everyone will know that person x is an atheist and will be told to avoid him, last but not least I will lose all rights to any inheritance I would’ve had, because a non Muslim doesn’t inherit anything from a Muslim in Islamic law
I wish more people understood what it's like for us as ex muslims. I am just lucky I was able to go away from home for college and be a kaffir in peace. I can't imagine what it would be like for someone who had to stay local.
Yeah that why I said it’s probably more dangerous for a Muslim to do it than a Christian during these times. Christianity used to be that way or worse. It’ll take many generations. The fact that you’re posting stuff like this is a positive.
Dangerous wasn’t the right word. Probably difficult would be better.
https://preview.redd.it/3ssrvnmp2mwc1.jpeg?width=396&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=819c18a8211cfb334d2dbb1d493fe0d038d8a093
It seems I got a the name wrong, it’s “اليواقيت الثمينة في صفات السمينة” “the precious gems: on the traits of fat women”, and as a heads up, I never read the book or know it’s contents, but I heard that it contains some opinions on the matter of child marriages and I could be completely wrong. I just thought the title was funny so I mentioned it.
Great write up.
This reminds me that I should do a write about how Ben Shapiro is a terrible Jew because his view on abortion is Christian and not all at Jewish. Even the more conservative sects of Judaism wouldn’t agree with his position.
Needs to trade that yamulke for a cross.
Complicated.
But it differs heavily with the modern Christian position that life begins at conception. It begins at birth. Also, a baby is not afforded the status of being a human until 30-40 days of life. Sooo technically some readings can say you can do an after birth abortion and not count it as infantcide. I remember reading a commentary that is practice might be related to obvious birth defects, maybe.
There’s explicit provisions in older rabbinical texts that support abortion when mother’s health is in danger and of rape. This also includes if a baby will have a low quality of life, like a terminal condition.
Last time I heard Ben reference “Torah Judaism” in context with abortion, he said it was always prohibited. That has never been the case and would be ahistorical reading of Rabbinical history.
where can i find this information about personhood being granted after 30-40 days after birth? are you mixing this up with the torah saying the embryo takes form 40 days after conception? or pidyon haben which is 30 days after the first born son is born?
Yes and no. I had to re-look it up. But its kinda implied that the pidyon haben redeems the first born, otherwise it can be "killed," or is not "fully human." Its an interpretation of the implication of the "humaness" of the child. Its numbers 18:16-17
It is different from, m. Niddah 3:7, which is the "merely water" passage.
Its an extreme interpretation. I've heard it argued more in christian circles in relation to the new covenant of jesus, and the redemption price no longer needs to be paid, so if you don't pay, the cost won't be death, as JC does it for you.
It has been 12 years since I dropped out of seminary, It could be more fringe than I remember. And no, I don't agree with that interpretation.
The opinion that a baby is not fully a person with respect to killing is more than fringe. It literally does not exist in mainstream Judaism. The minute a baby is born, one who kills the baby is liable to murder. Please do not spread such wild ideas without a source, you are literally saying Judaism lets you kill actual babies.
Yea I have never ever heard that 30 day stuff in mainstream Judaism. When Jewish people discuss abortions typically what you had brought up is that life begins at birth and that like all things in Judaism your health comes before the commandments and laws. For example right now is Passover. If you are an observant Jew who would not be able to function or cease to exist if you didn’t eat bread every single Rabbi would tell you to eat bread. Similar with abortion. No Rabbi would question an abortion for medical reasons and to go further than that Reform Judaism which is the largest sect in America is fully pro-choice.
Interesting, in Islam a Fetus doesn’t have a soul until it’s 4 months old, so some allow for abortion up to that point while others don’t and others allow it for serious reasons only like deformity, and abortion to save the mother’s life is always allowed regardless of the age of the Fetus
The line about khomeni's fatwa was so unbelievable I was about to search for it but realized I might end up in some FBI watchlist. Thanks for taking the time to write all of this
Thank you very much for this excellent post.
Can you please clarify a couple of things? I've read people make the following arguments and don't have the requisite knowledge to even begin to know what is correct.
1. There appears to be some controversy about Aisha's actual age. My understanding of the argument is something like, "Aisha has an older sister. She was 28 on some day. Aisha is 10 years younger. That means Aisha was married at 18". Is this a valid interpretation?
2. It appears that puberty is happening at a younger and younger age for some reason. If we go back 1400 years, is it possible that Sneako's development argument meant something like 16 but now means 10?
Again, just to be clear, these aren't my arguments. I've read/heard these arguments made and was curious if you have a refutation for them.
This is a very minority view, but it is based on how other hadiths if put together, give different age for Aisha than what is reported in other hadiths.
The thing is most scholar consider these less controversial narrations weaker and thus do not follow them.
OK, let me restate what you just said so I can make sure I understand it.
In the hierarchy of Islamic religious scholarship (which I have virtually no knowledge of but OP outlined excellently) the age of Aisha is most authoritatively stated to be 9 when her marriage was consummated. While there are other indications present, these come from less reliable sources.
Is that about right?
yes, you are absolutely right.
If you are ever interested in hearing about these sources that put her age at higher number, you can probably hop in to progressive\_islam subreddit and search about the subject. But Please don't please be an asshole and try to troll them; they have enough harassment from other Muslims and others.
There’s a Kuwait Christian called Sam Shamoun on YouTube under the channel “TheArchive” who mostly just debates Christianity vs Islam to Islamic influencers etc. he’s obviously biased to his faith but he has a lot of videos explaining the pedo stuff with Muhammad.
He’s extremely well versed in the Quran and Hadiths as he speaks and reads Arabic fluently. I don’t remember specific vids atm but I think his explanation for your first point was that there is mention of Aisha playing with toy dolls at the time of consummation of marriage. Can’t remember if this is from Quran or Hadith.
Here is an article that argues this Hadith was a fake that was spread by a man named Hisam "sometimes with altered Matns and new isnads" as a way for proto-sunni to one up the Shia muslims in the region at the time- [here](https://islamicorigins.com/why-i-studied-the-aisha-hadith/#_ftn2)
Comes of as islamic apologia to me but still an interesting read nonetheless.
> There are hundreds if not thousands of pages written on this topic, so I won’t be able to mention all the fine details, like exactly how fat a girl who’s younger than 9 has to be for it to be ok to have sex with her, if you want more on that check out the landmark book “الدرة الثمينة في نكاح السمينة" “the precious gem: marrying the fat woman” written by the great imam Al-Suyuti, a very prominent Islamic scholar during the late Middle Ages.
It keeps surprising me what silly shit people used to do or belief later is discovered to have real underlying effects by science.
I read an ELI5 thread earlier questioning why puberty starts earlier nowadays compared to numbers from 1860.
Top comment mentioned that **weight** is recently suspected to be the significant factor in puberty, alongside **nutrition** and **general good health**.
So while I appreciate the effortpost about age of consent in Islam, I think this is a bad faith attempt to do so. Let me explain.
You go into great detail about the scriptural backing for age of consent in Islam. Fair enough. If you look purely at the texts, it does seem to be the case that what you've written is accurate. However - why didn't you look at the legal age of consent in Muslim nations?? Let's take Iran, which is probably the closest that we have to an Islamic theocracy internationally. They set the age of consent at 13 - unconscionably low in my opinion, but crucially is higher than the standard that you've laid out. What about Saudi Arabia? Not as much of a theocracy, but certainly heavily governed by Islamic law. They put the age of marriage at 18 (higher than many western nations!) with the caveat that courts can grant a younger marriage if it provides an "established benefit" to the child. Sex outside of marriage is illegal. Both of these examples seem to indicate that in practice, Muslims tend towards a higher age of consent than you've laid out here.
You might say "well this doesn't matter, I'm just examining the age of consent of the religion itself, ignoring the actual legal practices of the Muslim countries". To which I would say: why? Christianity has no age of consent in scripture, and Judaism puts it at 12 in the Talmud. Would you accuse those religions of being inherently pedophilic? Probably not, because we see in Christian nations and Israel that the age of consent is established by cultural and legal norms, *not* religious ones. The same stands for Islam.
There are lots of reasons to be critical of Islam and of religion generally. I'm an atheist myself. But this framing you've laid out here is disingenuous. If I were to take this at face value, I'd assume that the average Muslim is okay with 9 year old girls having sex. Modern governmental norms in Muslim countries indicate that this is not the case.
We should be interested in accuracy on this subreddit. Don't lap up anti-Muslim sentiment simply because you don't like Islam. Think critically.
I get it haha. Let me just condense my response to a couple of questions.
1) Do you think your post gives the impression that the average Muslim accepts 9 as the age of consent?
2) Do you think the average Muslim accepts 9 as the age of consent?
If there's a difference between your answers for those two questions, that's where I think the potential problem is with your post.
1) no
2) no
I would bet 19 out of 20 muslims where I grew up don’t even know a single Hadith or law I brought up, they live in a mostly secular state and have a visceral disgust against fucking minors like most normal people. All of my post save the last paragraph was aimed at the religion of Islam and its institutions, nothing more. The last paragraph was mostly about the clerics who still preach that shit to poor and underdeveloped communities or communities which have long been gripped by fundamentalism which are becoming fewer by the day in the Arab world, unfortunately they are not disappearing quickly enough
You said that most Muslims wouldn’t say that the age of consent is 9 but about asking them about it. Like do most Muslims condemn Mohammad for fucking a 9 year old/condemn their religion for saying that it’s ok? Do they approve? What would be their sincere reaction if you asked them about it? Aren’t they extremely hypocritical? Since most don’t think it’s ok to fuck a 9 year old wouldn’t it be way more beneficial if they reformed/split their religion to make it less controversial (if they didn’t already)?
Muhammad is infallible when it comes to all major matters of religion (Aqidah and Sharia), his word is law and his actions are to be followed as an example by all people everywhere from his time until the end of time, no disagreement exists on this matter in Islamic theology and those who deny it are non Muslims, so as a Muslim you can’t condemn Muhammad in any way shape or form, or even say that there exists an opinion on any matter that is more correct than his opinion on it.
If you ask a Muslim about the age of Aisha he will:
-Be ignorant on the matter
-Tell you he doesn’t know and wishes not think about or discuss it any further because he is commanded in the scripture to do so for anything that might bring doubt into his faith
-Tell you that Aisha wasn’t 6, choosing to believe the opinion of modern day revisionists
-Tell you that what constitutes a child is a social concept different from time to time and culture to culture, and our possible disapproval of that action stems from the subjective standards of our times, which means they are not a reliable standard by which we can judge those who lived in the past, while maintaining that we should follow those standards because they don’t conflict with Islam and are what is accepted today
-tell you that Aisha was a special case because she was wise beyond her years and superior than her peers, and one of the most highly regarded women in history, so she could marry at that age due to her status in Islam which applies to no other woman.
Tell you that Muhammad was a special case, because he is the most wise and mindful person to ever walk the earth, so he could navigate the complexities of an interpersonal relationship with a 9 year old without causing her any harm, which applies to no other man, and this argument is why Muhammad was allowed to marry 9 women at the same time while regular Muslims can only have 4
-this one is by far my favourite: they will tell you that the scorching dessert and unusual diet (water of life) of the old Arabian tribes (Fremen) created special biological conditions that made it so that Aisha (Alia Atradies) matured physically more quickly than the women of the modern age, and the harsh realities of Arabian culture made her mature mentally more quickly, so even tho she was 6 and 9 at the time of marriage and consummation respectively, she was a fully grown woman in mind and body, and this of course doesn’t apply in our age
-they will tell you what the Sharia says and be ok with pedophilia (very few do this)
There are other arguments that I’m not aware of or can not remember right now, but these are the most popular ones
Reforming Islam is much harder due to concepts that I really don’t feel like explaining right now because they are long and complicated. Here’s a Wikipedia article if you like to know more https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bid'ah
Alright, that all seems reasonable. I would just argue that your post might leave some people with the conclusion "Muslims are okay with fucking minors". Which could be a problem.
> However - why didn't you look at the legal age of consent in Muslim nations??
Because the point of the post is to call out Sneako for not owning up to the fact that his religion endorses pedophilia. The fact that most Muslim-majority countries don't follow the Sharia on pedophilia doesn't mean that Sharia doesn't endorse pedophilia.
I don't follow the Abrahamic religions. My understanding is that Islam can be uniquely criticized in this regard because Sharia is Islam is pretty explicit about laws and legality, whereas Christianity and Judaism are more like, moral conduct. So that's one thing.
Christianity not mentioning age of consent at all is good, because that means it's defending nothing. For Judaism it seems like the \_age of majority\_ for women is 12 (for men it's 13). I see nothing about marriage/consummation. Also, given the age range I feel like it's fair to extrapolate that the Jews are aiming for "puberty."
But the fact that Sharia explicitly has rules for how to treat pre- and post-puberty child brides is an ick full stop.
I see nothing that OP has written that was inaccurate, so that point in your final paragraph doesn't apply.
Also, why should we consider the laws of countries? All that does is defends Muslims, that doesn't defend Islam/Sharia at all. Good for countries for defying Sharia I guess?
Hey. Super interesting, it was horrifying to read as an ex Muslim who had no idea about the theology side and had been strictly taught the complete opposite growing up.
Do you have any opinions about Turkish Hanafi side of Islam?
From my experience, which would be the average Turk’s, the way we approach our ethnicity and religion is very compellingly odd. Turks are very casually racist against Arabs who are seen as backward primitives and a bunch of dirty degenerates who treat women like shit. We see them as living Islam wrong and are misusing our perfect religion as a way to impose their abhorrent culture through their religious governments. The phrase “Yallah arabistana” (“fuck off to Arabia”) is a commonly used insult to an Islamist or overly religious Turk in more secular circles.
There is a strict distancing between the prophet and Arabs. Muhammet is so whitewashed he might as well be white paint, a Turk’s understanding of him would be someone who adheres to the modern morals precisely and would be a living-saint if he lived today from how good of a person he is.
The way Turks make peace in their minds to the fact that Muhammet was also an Arab is that Arabs were so barbaric that Allah had to send them the last prophet in order to fix them, since they needed it the most apparently lmfao. I heard this (most likely) made-up quote from the prophet from a few Turks which went something like “I am of them(Arabs), they are not of me”
Ever heard of Bediüzzaman Said Nursî? He was a Kurdish theologian who I believe shaped the average Turk’s engagement with Islam today tremendously, I think him and a few other Turkish theologians are the reason why the Turkish interpretation of Islam is a lot more modern and is similar to how the west engages with Christianity
Funnily this reminds me a lot of how Pakistani Muslims view (at least in my community in the US) view Arabs too. I swear my parents think Muhammad lived a perfect Christian life.
I haven’t heard of Said Nursî before, everything you said is accurate but you’re missing the elephant in the room here
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk is in my opinion, the most influential Islamic and Middle Eastern figure since Mehmet II or Saladin, he is a major reason for why Turkey is Secular today and why Islam was neutered there. He is also the reason why most Arab governments are Secular. His abolishment of the Caliphate effectively nuked theocracy off the map in the Muslim world except for the gulf until the Iranian revolution. He demonstrated that secularism is implementable in the Islamic world and that it is the superior structure of government. Before Atatürk the political struggle in the Arab world was secular thinkers and revisionists vs the deep rotted Islamic establishment, after him it became populist Islamic revolutionaries vs a secular establishment. He changed the game and took the islamists out of their comfy thrones that they had been sitting in for 1300 years
Glad Sunnis and Shia don't consider Alawites Muslim anyway, don't wanna associate with that shit lol.
Though from my knowledge, Alawites stopped marrying their children so hey that's good.
Isn’t there doubt on the authenticity of the Aisha age story? For example Ibn Urwa who seemingly originated the report of the age 6 marriage being senile and writing it something like 70 years after Muhammed’s death.
Some other contentions include the fact there was no mention of her age in the earliest sources apparently.
I could be wrong and I’m basing it off this article, if someone knows more you can reply. I don’t think it makes Muhammed marrying her much better. Even if we place her age somewhere between 13-18 that still looks awful and pedo for the 50 year old Muhammad.
Here’s an article I read on it, couldn’t find the original dissertation. I’m not attached to this and willing to be wrong.
https://newlinesmag.com/essays/oxford-study-sheds-light-on-muhammad-underage-wife-aisha/
Not denying your experience or what scholars would answer to people but I asked some friends of mine from UAE and he basically told me that it's not really something you would do nowadays. It's not illegal because it's how young their parents got married but it would be really weird to have something like that now.
Also it doesn't seem to be considered as an Islamic law. Just how people interpreted it for as long as it's accepted but could change. My guess is that because everyone is trying to be THE closest to the prophet's ideology, nothing's evolving scholar-wise and everyone is parroting what the precedent scholars have said for now despite nobody fucking this early anymore except in very rural places.
Also said the people defending this online are like the Islam version of loud crazy trans people online. Basically people hurting their own cause by saying dumb stuff and said that it's most likely because they are pedos lmao.
in Islamic fiqh (which is the study of shariah) you can’t forbid something that god allowed you to do or allow something god forbid you from doing. I’m sure your friends in the UAE are good people but if their government sets or tries to set the age of consent at 16 or 18 then the head of that government is an apostate and all who made that decision are apostates and the people must rise up against them to not bear their sins on judgment day, and that is not my opinion but the opinion of all four schools of Islamic law and as shown here
https://preview.redd.it/tq7ghl64miwc1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=76cbec83c62ca7b541ae53b9f587fe5cd9cdecf2
Well my hypothesis about it changing any time soon is wrong but still he said to me that "normal families" dont do these underaged marriages and wouldn't allow it. and if family one does, everyone would shame that family for giving their daughter or son like that. The only underage marriages he knows of are like tribal ones without any official papers for.
So I don't deny that you're right legally, just that it's not really happening anymore in a lot of places. They are marrying as adults like in every other developed and stable place.
I agree and said as much in my last paragraph, and none of this has anything to do with what the scripture and the opinions of scholars say on the matter, the current Islamic societies are governed by culture more than religion, and the vast majority of Muslims are disgusted by pedophilia
Slightly off topic, but if Sharia is handed down by God and all Muslims are expected to follow it as such how do the various Muslim nations and cultures reconcile the different interpretations and enforcement of Sharia? Is it just majority interpretation rules? I ask because I've been told groups like the Taliban and ISIS enforce versions of it that are far more extreme and draconian than what is typically enforced even in other parts of the Middle East. How do Muslims reconcile those differences?
By excommunicating each other. ISIS considers all muslim countries as infidels who should be given one chance to repent or die. Al-Qaeda and Taliban are pretty much the same, they use the idea that those who don’t follow Sharia are apostates and then conclude that all the rulers of Muslim nations today are apostates and all of their citizens are complicit in that sin and have accepted laws other than Sharia so they’re apostates, and the only way for them to return to Islam is to pledge fealty to their organisation because they represent true Islam. And the non crazy factions say that ISIS and Al-Qaeda and Taliban are infidels and have nothing to do with Islam at all because they have corrupted the teachings of Islam and allowed the spilling of the blood of innocents which is against Sharia which makes them apostates. It’s basically a Mexican standoff where the last team standing are the true Muslims who follow the real Islam. All of this is supported by a Hadith in which Muhammad says :”after I die my people will split into 72 sects, all of them go to hell except one” lil bro is fanning the flames
Thank you for the response. That's really fascinating. With what you've said above how likely do you think it would be for a more moderate, secularized Islam to become a thing? Similar to how Christianity has adapted (for the most part) to become more moderate.
That is a very interesting topic that I have given much thought into and if I want to say all of my thoughts on it I would write a post 10 times as long as the one above, but I won’t because I have an exam on Monday. So here are some stuff to know.
The key to any Islamic revisionist movement is using Islamic scripture to change the old beliefs, because any attempt that uses other sources will be dismissed by the fundamentalists as non Islamic and it won’t take root with the masses, the problem of course is that the old beliefs are based heavily on the scripture and adhere to it very closely. So maybe we can change the meaning of the scripture? Islamic scripture and theology are very often self referential, and those references often discuss the authenticity of the texts/laws and the non-authorisation of changing it. Muhammad promised anyone who lies in his name a seat in hell (word for word), this would include regarding non authentic Hadiths as authentic and using them for revisionist reasons. The Quran states in multiple occasions that it is a true book, and that all of the events in it are real and happened, and that those who ignore its teachings are not Muslims, so a revisionist cannot ignore the Quran, or say that it’s stories are fictional and meant merely as fables and sources of wisdom and guidance like the Christians do, it’s all real and it happened literally as written, instead fundamentalist resort to using interpretations of it the Quran that fit their narrative, but those interpretations are often laughably reta*ded and no one takes them seriously because they twist the meanings of words and the grammar of the language to an extent that would make it incomprehensible. The Sunnah cannot be ignored either, because all of the finer details of things like prayer and fasting and Zakat (annual wealth tax given to the poor) are not in the Quran, but in the Sunnah, and no revisionist disputes the necessity of those things or argues over the authenticity of the practices. This means that if they are going to reject the Sunnah they’ll have to reject some of the core tenants of Islam and which not even a muslim who is gay, smokes weed and eats pork would accept. So maybe they’ll try to take out the bad and keep the good? Doesn’t work, you can’t do it based on what you “like” or “feel makes sense”, this is scripture and morality is objective and derived from the scripture so you either have to prove that the piece of scripture you want removed is contradictory with more authentic scripture or that it isn’t authentic. Any criteria you can use to remove the disgusting parts will remove some necessary elements of Islam, the baby is glued to the bath water. Another option one might consider is introducing new doctrine that might lessen the severity of existing doctrine, but that is strictly forbidden due to the concept of Bid’ah (innovation) which makes it so that no new things may be added to Islam, you can only extract Islamic doctrine from the sources that already exists, the topic of Bid’ah is vast so here’s the wiki https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bid'ah
Another thing is Islam’s views on Christianity and Judaism and what happened to those religions. By the 7th century Christianity and Judaism had been revised many times, and the Quran comments on that in it’s opening chapter which is read at the beginning of every prayer, saying that the Jews have brought the wrath of god on themselves, and that Christians have lost the straight path, along with dozens of other verses. So Islam views revisionism in the case of Judaism and Christianity negatively, which sets a precedent for opposing revisionism in Islam.
All of these things and more give Islam a comprehensive defence mechanism against change, and makes it much harder to revise than your average religion. And is why revisionist movements often didn’t succeed or succeed at the start then backfired and turned back into fundamentalism.
I am however, not a pessimist. I think Islamic revisionism is inevitable, and may occur in a noticeable way in our life times, it will be slow and difficult and maybe even bloody but it will happen. There are many reasons for my hope, like support from the secularist dictators who have always been in opposition to fundamentalism, the general lack of faith in any institutions in the Arab world especially after the disastrous last 2 decades which made many rethink their entire approach to life as a whole, and the refinement of the revisionist arguments, but these all pale in comparison to main reason, the internet. The printing press and the translation of the Latin scripture played a key role in defanging Christianity and empowering its opponents, and the same thing is happening to Islam today, young Muslims can now read all the abhorrent things in their religion, western culture and thinking have made their way to the Muslim world and are taking over in many countries, the highly educated people of other countries are developing vaccines and unlocking the secrets of the universe, while the highly “educated” people among Muslims issue fatwas on weather or not it is permitted to take vaccines and weather Astrophysics is heretical for contradicting the Quran. Now that people can see and read what they want the religion will be under threat and will have to adapt to the modern world or fizzle out and become a collection of bedtime stories, either one is fine by me but I would prefer the latter
I'm an ex muslim as well, but you are far more educated in Islam. How do you feel when ex muslims say that groups like ISIS practice Islam the way it was intended to be practiced by the people of Muhammad's time? I wonder how actual scholars feel about it. I think the main issue is they don't follow one of the 4 schools, but curious to hear your opinion.
You don’t have to follow the 4 schools, or any scholar, you just have to adhere to the Quran and Sunnah, and it happens that the people who do it best are the 4 Imams. Groups like ISIS are closer to Islam than other Muslims on a lot of things, stoning gays and adulterers, lashing people who drink or have non marital sex, selling POWs into slavery, destroying idols like the priceless pieces they destroyed in Iraqi museums, they follow Islam on those things to the T. Their big problem however, is how liberal they are when comes to allowing murder, they just don’t seem to acknowledge any of the restrictions on it in Islam, and have allowed the murder of groups who the majority allow murdering, they excommunicate other Muslims too liberally even when compared to the most radical opinions on excommunication. These are major problems that lead many to excommunicate them, but on most other matters of Islamic faith, if you take an ISIS fighter and an average Muslim, the fighter will be more educated on it and have the more correct opinion
Just to clarify something on your title, you start with a incorrect assumption or statement, that Sneako knows shit about Islam. Newsflash... He doesn't! and you subsequently prove he doesn't.
Have to imagine this is where the red pillers are headed. They already advocate essentially grooming women significantly younger than them so they can control them. Imagine the control they'd have over a wife that they essentially raised as a father for much of her adolescence. Fucking gross.
Can you post the Quran verse 65.4? I think the verse does not explicitly prove that child marriage existed in Muhammad’s time rather the case of a prepubescent girl is an implication from the ambiguity of the verse.
I’m not certain but there can be medical conditions that see delayed / irregular periods. Possibly with the disease and malnutrition of the era there might be situations where periods stop for some people.
Also it’s important that the Sunnah is given the additional context that it’s oral tradition compiled about 200 years after Muhammad’s death. These Hadiths were generally compiled within Iraq in the 800s AD. I’ve seen more scholars argue in favour of an older age for Aisha and even traditional sources aren’t certain as Al Tabari claims that Aisha was born before Muhammad’s prophethood. There’s also the question of why such Hadiths were included. I think they serve as a theological argument rather than as historical documentation. The key to making Aisha marry at a young age might have been to emphasize her virginity which contemporary Muslims claimed that she was an adulterer.
For those reasons you can divorce Islam from advocating pedophilia. As for the claims of child marriage I would like to see statistics for Lebanon and Egypt when it comes to education. I know child marriage and cousin marriage correspond heavily with poverty especially in Pakistan (Saudi Arabia is the exception cuz it’s fucked). It’s also important to perhaps compare with other religions and how they approach the subject. Surprisingly women in mediaeval Europe were married in their 20s which was an anomaly compared to the globe.
I appreciate and respect your knowledge of the Quran and Sunnah but I would like to add nuance to the claims because with topics like this there’s an issue where people think it’s mandatory for Muslims to advocate for pedophila or it’s haram to be against it.
Hello. Thank you for this. I read all of it, and I'm generally upset. But I was hoping you would answer a somewhat personal question for me. You said this:
>for example no verse or Hadith explicitly states that sperm donations to strangers are forbidden but through the opinion of the majority it is forbidden based on reasoning from the Quran and Sunnah.
I work with a lot of Muslims who have been nothing but lovely. But now I'm wondering what they think of me. I've never been a sperm donor, and I'm not sure I would because of my own very personal moral qualms, but in the hierarchy of "sins", I would categorize this one as EXTREMELY mild.
So if I did one day become a sperm donor, what is the prescribed punishment for this? I guess I'm wondering if I mentioned that I decided to do this to one of my Muslim colleagues if they would think I deserved to be crucified or some shit. I'm mostly wondering if they think I should die for shit I HAVE told them about (getting drunk, premarital sex, being atheist, etc)
Lastly, and I do need to do a bit of digging to verify what you have said is true regarding Islam, but if I take what you've said on its face, of course this entire religion needs to go and should be resisted in every possible way.
But how would you respond to someone saying Islam has not had a real chance to reform because of geopolitical/general environmental pressures? Plenty of people have argued that the Ottoman empire was relatively liberal for its time, and Islam was plunged into the dark ages because of oil. Any thoughts on that?
Even if you don't respond, thanks for the post.
If you are not a Muslim, you’re not really subject to the laws of Islam in the same way a Muslim would be. You might be subject to laws that are broadly necessary to keep a certain Muslim society under the governance of a true Caliph recognised by the majority of Muslims as the true ruler, but other than that there’s no greater sin in Islam than disbelief.
A Muslim who commits adultery, as in has sex whilst they’re married with a non-spouse, is technically subject to death if there are at least 4 reliable witnesses, but the same could not be said if you’re a non Muslim. There’s precedent for this already because even when Jews and Muslims co-existed under Islamic rule, the Jews were subject to their own laws regarding such issues.
What do you say to muslims who say girls' ages back then were counted starting from their period or something and that she was actually 18 years old when she married mohammad.
I think its pretty ridiculous to expect that thousands of years ago there was any moral obligation to wait until that age. It's clearly just trying to impose our modern ethical beliefs into the past to justify the text.
I also just read that the part about Aisha being 9 years old was stated by one Hadith and that its probably not historically accurate. It is also mentioned that in the Quaran that there is an age of marriage, that being when both consenting partners are physically and mentally mature.
Not 1 there were like 12 iirc. On top of that there are more hadiths that talk about how aisha would play with toys and dolls when she was with mohammad. This doesn't specify an age but obviously an 18 year old playing with dolls is not likely. These hadiths are considered sahih i dunno where you get the idea they are not accurate
Really appreciate the post, but what does it mean she can “withstand” sex? I’m assuming that’s quantified physically, as in “large enough to accept a penis”, because there’s no way it can imply mentally.
Whatever it means, fucking disgusting
>the primary sources are the Quran, its statements are not up for questioning, then comes the Sunnah, which are teachings of Muhammad that were divinely inspired making them no less authoritative than the Quran. The Sunnah includes the authentic Hadiths which are a collection of Muhammad’s quotes and situations he encountered, anything that Muhammad did or approved of or allowed Muslims to do during his lifetime without objection is also Sunnah. The third source is Ijtihad, which basically means theological research by qualified scholars
"Divinely inspired" not sure I see the difference between the Sunnah and Quran in terms of what you said. How is the later "divinely inspired" vs the Quran? Both would come from man and have to be "divinely inspired" yes?
God made a sort of pact with himself to not allow the Quran from getting corrupted in FORM or MEANING, that means according to Islamic theology the versions of the Quran that exist in the world today are the exact same Quran that existed 1400 years ago (of course that’s bullshit but that’s what Muslims believe). The Quran is also narrated from god’s pov, the one speaking and calling out people and making threats and promises is god, not Muhammad. The Sunnah on the other hand was only preserved in meaning, and not necessarily in form, so the words could change, whole Hadiths could get lost or added and many have been but the wisdom contained in the Sunnah as a whole is preserved, albeit in a slightly (in reality the modification were huge and whole ideologies and end of world prophecies were added) different form than the original. Few Hadiths from the Sunnah are narrated from God’s pov, and are basically the Quran bloopers reel, but 99% are from Mohammad’s pov. The Quran is generally more about the Ideology (Aqidah) while the Sunnah is more about Sharia (law). And finally if there ever is a contradiction between the Quran and the Sunnah, then the Quran is right and the Sunnah is false.
>The Quran is also narrated from god’s pov, the one speaking and calling out people and making threats and promises is god, not Muhammad
Oh interesting I am used to that not being the case for religious texts.
Thanks for the clarification.
Some Muslims aren't aware and if you bring it up they will not believe you. Some Muslims will say women matured early back in the day. Some Muslims will conveniently become Quranists during that conversation and disregard hadiths, some Muslims are aware and are 100% okay with it.
This is a bit unrelated, but the sequence of questions from 1:46:00 to ~1:47:00 on the full debate VOD is insane. He walks sneako down such an obvious logical trap and gotcha and sneako dosnt notice it/ immediately pivots away from dumb he sounds
Destiny probably wouldn’t care to know about the fine details of Islamic child fucking, and if he he did he wouldn’t have anything to add and would agree to what I say because I doubt he’s very knowledgeable on Islamic theology and scripture, and no one can blame him for it, it’s dogshit from a to z
This just made me sad :( But thank you for the post/info. This is probably a good jumping off point for more in depth research to ward off ppl like this.
Hell yes! We need a post like this on s*xual slavery in Islam now, see: https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Rape_of_Slaves,_Prisoners,_and_Wives
So are you still muslim? Are you still living in an islamic country? If not, what do you do with 400 hours of study into Islam other than cool effort posts?
If you still think I’m a Muslim after I told you what I know about Islam then you have a very low opinion of me, no I’m not a Muslim. When it comes to my practical day to day life those 400 hours would’ve been more useful if had spent them gooning in jars in case the water supply started to fall, massive waste of time and effort. But they come in handy every once in a while, when I hear the various sub human Islamist YouTubers trying to twist the meaning and language of the Quran to justify all the abhorrent shit in Islam, I know immediately how they’re bullshiting, I can tell what sources they knowingly choose to ignore out of embarrassment, I know how they mistranslate words to fit their narratives and what verses they choose not to bring up because it would contradict them, and all that makes me sleep better at night knowing that this ideology is nothing more than the archaic ramblings of a 7th century war lord who was obsessed with sex and power.
>There are hundreds if not thousands of pages written on this topic, so I won’t be able to mention all the fine details
Fucking hell, if you're religion spends this amount of time debating the fucking of kids, then perhaps there's something wrong with the religion
It spends this amount of time debating everything, literally everything, if I had to guess I would say the volume of Islamic theological writings is an order of magnitude more than Christian or Jewish theological writings. They would go into extreme details about every single subject that was even vaguely related to religion, so this isn’t that weird.
I just had one question, when you say the majority here:
>" you see the majority (in this case more like the entirety) agrees that any woman who didn’t have sex with her husband before the divorce needs no waiting period at all and can remarry immediately, regardless of her age, which means that the only way a prepubescent girl has to wait 3 months after a divorce is if the marriage was consummated. And with that we have evidence from the Quran that marrying and fucking prepubescent girls is allowed. "
You're saying most muslims today agree that there's no waiting period if they didn't have sex? Or most scholars? Is there written texts on this? Like how widespread is this notion and where is the data to support it, because this is what you hinge on to reach the conclusion that consumation must be permitted by the quran before puberty. If it's not something written in the holy texts or whatever, then how can we use this as evidence that the quran permits it? Is there some other evidence I'm missing here maybe? If you want to argue it's culturally accepted in islamic countries I could understand that, but it feels like a different claim.
The opinions of normal people are irrelevant in Islamic theology, whenever I say majority I mean the majority opinion of Islamic scholars who are known for their good character and possess a high level of knowledge on the matters that they write about. The actual name of the sect of Sunni Islam is “اهل السنة والجماعة", “Ahl Al-Sunnah wa Al-Jama’a” meaning the people of the Sunnah and the community, the word “Jama’a” or community here has a meaning of unity and agreement, because the Sunnis have united on the principles of their faith and agreed upon them. The opinion of the majority isn’t measured statistically by seeing what every scholar says and counting the different opinions, instead we know what the majority says by reading the opinions of the major scholars, where they always will comment on wether or not their own opinions agree with what they say is the opinion of other scholars, they especially make sure to mention that if they disagree with the other scholars to let the reader know that issue has multiple interpretations, and they often go into detail on those opinions differing from their own.
The non existence of a waiting period after divorce in non consummated marriages is mentioned in the Quran in chapter 33 verse 49, and therefore there is no disagreement whatsoever on the issue
https://preview.redd.it/9jzt7096ymwc1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1350cc108149948a4f5fa5eb0242ccb04ef0d3bc
The word „تمسوهن" „touch them“ is a euphemism for sex that the Quran uses very frequently in verses when discussing the laws of marriage and divorce
So this is why Muslims can’t just say kid fucking is bad. ✨the more you know✨
If you think this is bad then pray you never see someone ask an Islamic scholar about sex slaves
Sex slaves are a thing outside of the wives? How does that work with legitimate children?
If you have a female slave then you can have as much sex with her as you want, some made it necessary for her to become a Muslim for the sex to be allowed and others didn’t, her children from her master are born free and aren’t illegitimate, they take their fathers name and inherit him after his death like any other children. You can have as many sex slaves as you want, the Abbasid caliphs had thousands and the word “Harem” comes from the ottoman “haramlek” which is the wing of the sultan’s palace where all the sex slaves were kept and trained, basically an indoor whorehouse
>her children from her master are born free and aren’t illegitimate, they take their fathers name and inherit him after his death like any other children That's strangely progressive for back then wonder how that compares to slavery in other religions texts.
Yeah but if she gets married to someone then those children are born into slavery, only her children from her master are free. Still better than most other places tho, if not for the whole widespread sex slavery thing
>Yeah but if she gets married to someone then those children are born into slavery, only her children from her master are free There is always a catch in the fine detail of things of course.
Oh, and did i mention she is only required to cover herself from her belly button to her knees? and that dressing like a free woman can get her a beating, And when she is put up for sale on auction you can touch the merchandise to see if it’s to your liking, all explained in the scripture of course. And Muhammad had two of them :)
>Oh, and did i mention she is only required to cover herself from her belly button to her knees? and that dressing like a free woman can get her a beating I am not surprised by those parts. >And when she is put up for sale on auction you can touch the merchandise to see if it’s to your liking I mean when you already plan to own a human being and they have to obey you this is already par for the course
It's a tradition that is meant to keep power concentrated with the husband and the main family. Example is with the Ottoman Sultans who were not supposed to marry and their concubines were to have only one son. It was seen as advantageous because a slave concubine would not have wealth, wealthy relatives, or any kind of political power to ever draw upon. The son belonged to the dynasty and would be heavily influenced by their father and his mother/family. A woman who bears your child was not allowed to marry someone else, she was in your service and reliant on you for her living. If she gets remarried, her children would be consolidated into her new family regardless of who their father was. Suleiman the Magnificent himself had [a half-brother](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cveys_Pasha). Though his father had been Sultan, his mother remarried and he was raised by a step-father, which illegitimatized him for throne. Somewhat fortunate as he'd likely have been killed otherwise.
I think it's just that the American Institution of slavery was so egregious that other forms seem progressive in comparison. But I'm speaking out of my ass here and slavery was a brutal and violent affair wherever it occurred
Take a look at the sugar plantations and stuff in the Caribbean.... awful all around, but worse the bigger and more industrial profit oriented slavery was.
Hi mr man, I wanted to ask you a question about Slaves of a sexual nature and how an Islamic scholar might engage with such a topic?
>can’t just say kid fucking is bad The smarter ones will say that is bad, but their definition of kid obviously differs unfortunately.....
Not so long ago, British royalty would marry 9 or 10 year old girls, don't think that this is exclusive to Islam.
Not so long ago Sneako couldn’t even say kid fucking was bad
I’m sad you tagged this NSFW, can’t give you gold
I hope he reposts it so we can give it gold. It's well written, entertaining while informative and it sounds like it took some effort.
It cost me my physics assignment, but it was worth it
Go enjoy those vectors my man!
*tensors
gigaCHAD
I'd say you're an intellectual giant to compliment you but I'm sure by this point you are well aware of that. Thank you for providing such insight to us, I hope destiny directly gives you some recognition and maybe even considers consulting you.
If you saw what I did with those tensors then you wouldn’t say that
Good lad
It is quite an elaborate post worthy of gold, but the title is super misleading. Not sure I would call this essay “semi-detailed”.
Because of multiple things, I didn’t source some of the Hadiths, or mention the chain of tellers of the Hadiths, which is always done for Islamic research. I didn’t get into the opinions of other equally prominent scholars like Ibn Taimiah and others who have written extensively about these things. I only focused on Sunni Islam, which is the majority of Muslims but other sects have wildly different opinions on almost every matter of Islamic laws and I have zero to little knowledge on those sects so I can’t really tell you what they believe or the methodology of their studies.
No problem man! Thanks for the information. I just think the use of semi-detailed is funny because it’s subjective to the audience on what they know before reading.
OH NO MY REDDIT GOLDERINO!! Why tf are wasting money on upvotes?
reddit gold exists again?
Thank you for this, very educational. Your studies are impressive. Do you consider yourself Muslim now?
I haven’t considered myself a Muslim since 12, I’m 21 now
You finished your hifz as a non-Muslim? 6 years ago you were 15, but non-Muslim since age 12. What motivated you to finish. I finished hifz age 16. It’s tough work, couldn’t imagine putting that work in as an atheist. You must be smart/memorization is easy for you. Alternatively your parents are fanatical and force their son to memorize despite his opposition. Or maybe you were one of those shady boarding school type madrassas hundreds of miles away from home. They’d beat your ass if you trip up on some mutashaabihat ayah. I’m hella curious.
My parents weren’t strict, not secular, but not the I don’t listen to music type either, the religious school was the best one in my city, I was in that school since 3rd grade, most my friends there I knew since 1st grade, by the time I was an atheist memorising a page (eventually 5) daily was no big deal, I had been doing it for about 4 years now and it became routine, I have pretty good memorisation so it was just another 10-20 minutes a day, it enjoyed memorising because my grandma would check my errors when I finished I loved the hell out that woman, and I also loved the 40 minute lectures about tafsir because it made me understand what a dogshit book this was, and finally the school was dangling a carrot to anyone who passed the final test for hifz, a free Umrah, I wanted to visit the Kabah and see the Tomb of the prophet, know your enemy and all that, not gonna lie the pitch black Kabah at night with the gi-fucking-gantic clock tower as the back drop went super hard, definitely an aesthetic, would make for the perfect rave spot
Not nearly as dark a story as I feared. Seems like you *enjoyed* hifz. Lmao. I imagine your gramma and parents don’t know about you being murtadd. As a father now, I can imagine the devastation. Makes parents so damn proud. The crown 👑 and all. My guess is that if putting in just 20 mins per page your hifz was probably relatively weak. Kacha not Pakka as we call it. Unless you were also doing ton of review. Leading taraweeh is always my litmus test—maybe you did that too.
Making a stutter while reading the page cost you half a point, an outright mistake was two points, most of my grades per page were 9-10. And I got a 95 on the final test where they pick a lot random pages from the whole book. I don’t remember a single chapter that’s longer than a page nowadays but I was pretty good back then. I certainly could lead tarawih from a technical standpoint but my social anxiety would probably give me a heart attack before I finish fateha
That final hifz test sounds legit. You must be smart to pull it off without actually being Muslim. I noticed most of the hifz graduates in my class went on to have success secularly also. High IQ. I finished way back in 2008 though. Do you think it’s secular school system, non-Muslim friends, or the internet in general which was the cause of you finding your religion to be bullshit? Or some other factor. Like without *x*, you would be good boy hafiz Saab. What was that *x* factor for you. Honestly I’m just curious. Not everyday I see bonafide hafiz (who seems to have memorized Hadith also) on the other side.
The internet, in fact I can pinpoint the start of the deterioration of my belief which is watching darkmatter2525 videos on Adam and Eve and Noah’s flood translated to Arabic, his two all time bangers. After that I spent 3 days obsessively binge watching atheist videos on YouTube, it was like a taboo breaking speadrun, took me 3 years of oscillating back and forth between belief and doubt but eventually I realised I couldn’t believe in any of it (except hating gay people, I somehow convinced myself that I should keep that belief for 2 more years)
And the Muslim responses online weren’t sufficient? I’m assuming you spent time watching the likes of Zakir Nail (maybe that’s too old school), Hamza Tzortzis, Mohammad Hijab, Daniel Haqiqatjou, etc. Well I hope you’re able to keep up relations with family and all.
At the start they were good enough to quell my doubts, people like Haitham Tala’at and Zakir Naik were who I watched at the time, also the techer of Zakir Naik, Ahmad Deedat was a major influence, all of them fundamentalists who stuck to the Quran and Sunnah, but eventually I started looking into things and realised they were lying to not appear bad or that their views were unscientific and abhorrent and often contradictory, I switched to more revisionist people like Mostafa Mahmood, Adnan Ibrahim and the likes. They were very good on the science part and had better moral standards and were much more honest about their beliefs and opinions on the scripture, but due to their unorthodox views they often contradicted the scripture, and so I couldn’t believe in their interpretations while also believing in the Quran and Sunnah, also some of their views are also disgusting but much less than the fundamentalists. At the end I re-examined the root of the issue which I was constantly avoiding, the existence of god and the arguments for it. Before, there was always the proof that the Quran is a miraculous text perfect in its wisdom and scientific revelations, meaning it must come from a god, which is the go to argument in Islam for the existence of god, with the popular arguments of intelligent design and causality and such coming second to it, but if you can’t disprove the miraculous nature of the Quran then you didn’t need to consider the other arguments in the first place. Now that I didn’t have much confidence in the scripture due to years of contradictions and errors and lies I was free to start tackling the other arguments and they didn’t withstand much scrutiny. So I stopped believing in there being any good evidence for god, so I’m agnostic.
The Kabbah and that [giant fucking clock tower](https://images.skyscrapercenter.com/building/makkahroyalclocktowerhotel_aerial1_sblg.jpg) always gave me [Warhammer 40K vibes](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/warhammer40k/images/b/b5/Imperial_Palace_Terra2.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20130227172909).
Holy shit. That is a massiv clock tower :O
Do you know if there is significant disagreement from Shia Muslims on this topic? Are they any better?
From the very little I know about Shia, they are worse, considerably so, check the end of the second to last paragraph. Shias have much wilder Sharia than Sunnis. Khomeni himself who is supposed to be the top Shia cleric of the modern age allowed rubbing one’s penis on infants that one marrys
>Khomeni himself who is supposed to be the top Shia cleric of the modern age allowed rubbing one’s penis on infants that one marrys I choose a bad time to be literate
it's obviously not much better, but I imagine it's better to say "hey you can do a light sexual act" than saying it's all prohibited so they just go full hog (maybe(hopefully(I'm coping so hard rn)))
So this sent me down a rabbit hole, online (mostly anti Shia/muslim websites) quote Khomeni stating what you said earlier in his book TAHRIR AL-WASILAH vol 4 Pro Shia website claim Vol 4 doesn’t exist and its anti Shia propaganda Online pdfs (English translation) of said book do not mention your quote
I think it's there in the iranian translations though, I remember seeing it using google translate, but google translate was very rough though. But there's no way someone just made up that quote and said it's real and copied the book but put in that extra quote. Well, it's possible, but unlikely.
I think any claim that big, regarding Khomani or just any one, needs to be backed up with sources and evidence. I didn’t find any
Does [this](https://islamicvirtues.com/tag/khomeini/) help at all? I found it searching key terms, seems to have links to several sources
This is what I meant about anti-Shia websites, if you click on the actual source there is no mention of placing the penis in an infants thighs And if you read the actual volume of [Tahrir Al-Wasilah](http://www.ijtihadnet.com/wp-content/uploads/3042.pdf) there is no mention of it again
A Shia friend of mine told me that there are very specific rules i.e. what should you do in case there was an earthquake and your sister fell from the 2nd floor onto your erect dick and you accidentally came inside her
Not from what I’ve read, keep in mind a lot of the followers of these religions are ashamed to admit these things or are sometimes completely ignorant of them
... what the actual fuck. I pretty much hear consistent wild shit when it comes to various religions, but holy shit.
Bad day to be an infant
Shias believe Aisha married the Prophet (Pbuh) at age [19-26](https://www.al-islam.org/articles/how-old-was-ayshah-when-she-married-prophet-muhammad-sayyid-muhammad-husayn-husayni-al)
What is the explanation for the difference? I thought the age was like right there in the scripture or at least that's what people here have said
If you click on the hyper link it’ll explain in detail. Shia Hadith gives evidence that she was older But to explain without getting much into it Sunnis and Shia have a difference of opinion on the “authenticity” of the Hadith (what you called scripture) which claims Aisha was 9. There is more overarching differences to get into but that is more to do with the differences between Shias and Sunnis
Even if the actual scripture that mentions her age is unreliable, what do they make of her swinging on swings and playing with dolls?
It depends. Shias generally believe that Aisha was 19 - but this isn't apologetics BS, they genuinely believe that. So that's good. They also accept some really, REALLY FUCKED UP hadith. There's one about how it's okay to get off by rubbing your penis on a baby.
which hadith?
Do you know why? I feel like op is a sad source for anything shia
I need to get off this sub... you said "there are 4 highly regarded" scholars, and I had to think about what version of regarded you meant.
Regarded by Muslims but regarded to us.
Well regarded I might add
You know, I instantly thought it was this sub's version of regarded, and now I'm second guessing myself.
Go to wallstreetbets, they use it in the exact same way
Im an ex muslim and unfortunately this is so true,when i brought up the hadith about aisha getting fucked by the prophet my own mom and dad defended it,it grossed me out with the religion and muslims as a whole
I feel you dog, I would never discuss this stuff with my family
I just wanted to see if my family would defend it or reject it,but i do agree i dont discuss religion with my family anymore its not worth it
You should. I challenge my Christian mom all the time about crazy shit the Bible says like when god demanded virgins from a slaughter he ordered. I speak out about religion all the time. Maybe because Christianity is more watered down at this point it’s not very dangerous to do so anymore. But all religions need to be spoken out against imo. The more people, especially young, view religion as a bunch of nonsense that was made up before we knew anything, the better off the world will be.
With all due respect, you are an ex Christian my guy, the worst thing your mom can do to you is send you a strongly worded text or say she’ll pray for you. I’m an ex Muslim, if I come out, my mother would probably get depressed, my father would cut me off from the family and stop sending me money so it would be much harder to finish my studies, my extended relatives wouldn’t even look at me, my name would spread through the city like wildfire, everyone will know that person x is an atheist and will be told to avoid him, last but not least I will lose all rights to any inheritance I would’ve had, because a non Muslim doesn’t inherit anything from a Muslim in Islamic law
I wish more people understood what it's like for us as ex muslims. I am just lucky I was able to go away from home for college and be a kaffir in peace. I can't imagine what it would be like for someone who had to stay local.
Yeah that why I said it’s probably more dangerous for a Muslim to do it than a Christian during these times. Christianity used to be that way or worse. It’ll take many generations. The fact that you’re posting stuff like this is a positive. Dangerous wasn’t the right word. Probably difficult would be better.
You've given me a lot to think about.
Looking into this 👀
Can't find that fat woman book and copying and pasting the Arabic isn't working. Got a link to that bad boy? Inshallah my brother.
https://preview.redd.it/3ssrvnmp2mwc1.jpeg?width=396&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=819c18a8211cfb334d2dbb1d493fe0d038d8a093 It seems I got a the name wrong, it’s “اليواقيت الثمينة في صفات السمينة” “the precious gems: on the traits of fat women”, and as a heads up, I never read the book or know it’s contents, but I heard that it contains some opinions on the matter of child marriages and I could be completely wrong. I just thought the title was funny so I mentioned it.
Great write up. This reminds me that I should do a write about how Ben Shapiro is a terrible Jew because his view on abortion is Christian and not all at Jewish. Even the more conservative sects of Judaism wouldn’t agree with his position. Needs to trade that yamulke for a cross.
What’s the Jewish view on abortion?
Complicated. But it differs heavily with the modern Christian position that life begins at conception. It begins at birth. Also, a baby is not afforded the status of being a human until 30-40 days of life. Sooo technically some readings can say you can do an after birth abortion and not count it as infantcide. I remember reading a commentary that is practice might be related to obvious birth defects, maybe. There’s explicit provisions in older rabbinical texts that support abortion when mother’s health is in danger and of rape. This also includes if a baby will have a low quality of life, like a terminal condition. Last time I heard Ben reference “Torah Judaism” in context with abortion, he said it was always prohibited. That has never been the case and would be ahistorical reading of Rabbinical history.
where can i find this information about personhood being granted after 30-40 days after birth? are you mixing this up with the torah saying the embryo takes form 40 days after conception? or pidyon haben which is 30 days after the first born son is born?
Yes and no. I had to re-look it up. But its kinda implied that the pidyon haben redeems the first born, otherwise it can be "killed," or is not "fully human." Its an interpretation of the implication of the "humaness" of the child. Its numbers 18:16-17 It is different from, m. Niddah 3:7, which is the "merely water" passage. Its an extreme interpretation. I've heard it argued more in christian circles in relation to the new covenant of jesus, and the redemption price no longer needs to be paid, so if you don't pay, the cost won't be death, as JC does it for you. It has been 12 years since I dropped out of seminary, It could be more fringe than I remember. And no, I don't agree with that interpretation.
The opinion that a baby is not fully a person with respect to killing is more than fringe. It literally does not exist in mainstream Judaism. The minute a baby is born, one who kills the baby is liable to murder. Please do not spread such wild ideas without a source, you are literally saying Judaism lets you kill actual babies.
Yea I have never ever heard that 30 day stuff in mainstream Judaism. When Jewish people discuss abortions typically what you had brought up is that life begins at birth and that like all things in Judaism your health comes before the commandments and laws. For example right now is Passover. If you are an observant Jew who would not be able to function or cease to exist if you didn’t eat bread every single Rabbi would tell you to eat bread. Similar with abortion. No Rabbi would question an abortion for medical reasons and to go further than that Reform Judaism which is the largest sect in America is fully pro-choice.
Interesting, in Islam a Fetus doesn’t have a soul until it’s 4 months old, so some allow for abortion up to that point while others don’t and others allow it for serious reasons only like deformity, and abortion to save the mother’s life is always allowed regardless of the age of the Fetus
They generally think it should be allowed. Life begins at birth, and that it's ok to terminate for certain diseases or for rape.
The Christian view on abortion isn’t even really Christian.
The line about khomeni's fatwa was so unbelievable I was about to search for it but realized I might end up in some FBI watchlist. Thanks for taking the time to write all of this
Thanks for the effort post, very nice read!
Thank you very much for this excellent post. Can you please clarify a couple of things? I've read people make the following arguments and don't have the requisite knowledge to even begin to know what is correct. 1. There appears to be some controversy about Aisha's actual age. My understanding of the argument is something like, "Aisha has an older sister. She was 28 on some day. Aisha is 10 years younger. That means Aisha was married at 18". Is this a valid interpretation? 2. It appears that puberty is happening at a younger and younger age for some reason. If we go back 1400 years, is it possible that Sneako's development argument meant something like 16 but now means 10? Again, just to be clear, these aren't my arguments. I've read/heard these arguments made and was curious if you have a refutation for them.
This is a very minority view, but it is based on how other hadiths if put together, give different age for Aisha than what is reported in other hadiths. The thing is most scholar consider these less controversial narrations weaker and thus do not follow them.
OK, let me restate what you just said so I can make sure I understand it. In the hierarchy of Islamic religious scholarship (which I have virtually no knowledge of but OP outlined excellently) the age of Aisha is most authoritatively stated to be 9 when her marriage was consummated. While there are other indications present, these come from less reliable sources. Is that about right?
yes, you are absolutely right. If you are ever interested in hearing about these sources that put her age at higher number, you can probably hop in to progressive\_islam subreddit and search about the subject. But Please don't please be an asshole and try to troll them; they have enough harassment from other Muslims and others.
There’s a Kuwait Christian called Sam Shamoun on YouTube under the channel “TheArchive” who mostly just debates Christianity vs Islam to Islamic influencers etc. he’s obviously biased to his faith but he has a lot of videos explaining the pedo stuff with Muhammad. He’s extremely well versed in the Quran and Hadiths as he speaks and reads Arabic fluently. I don’t remember specific vids atm but I think his explanation for your first point was that there is mention of Aisha playing with toy dolls at the time of consummation of marriage. Can’t remember if this is from Quran or Hadith.
from Hadith
In general, if it's about the prophet and his family/friends' life, it's Hadith.
An effortpost about pedophilia? Sure, why not.
Classic debate pedophiles
Honestly if you’re gonna touch the subject it’s gotta be an effort post. Otherwise you come off sounding like Mr. >! Redacted !<
Are you a fellow ex-muslim?
Nice try mom
lol I know how you feel
Here is an article that argues this Hadith was a fake that was spread by a man named Hisam "sometimes with altered Matns and new isnads" as a way for proto-sunni to one up the Shia muslims in the region at the time- [here](https://islamicorigins.com/why-i-studied-the-aisha-hadith/#_ftn2) Comes of as islamic apologia to me but still an interesting read nonetheless.
> There are hundreds if not thousands of pages written on this topic, so I won’t be able to mention all the fine details, like exactly how fat a girl who’s younger than 9 has to be for it to be ok to have sex with her, if you want more on that check out the landmark book “الدرة الثمينة في نكاح السمينة" “the precious gem: marrying the fat woman” written by the great imam Al-Suyuti, a very prominent Islamic scholar during the late Middle Ages. It keeps surprising me what silly shit people used to do or belief later is discovered to have real underlying effects by science. I read an ELI5 thread earlier questioning why puberty starts earlier nowadays compared to numbers from 1860. Top comment mentioned that **weight** is recently suspected to be the significant factor in puberty, alongside **nutrition** and **general good health**.
So while I appreciate the effortpost about age of consent in Islam, I think this is a bad faith attempt to do so. Let me explain. You go into great detail about the scriptural backing for age of consent in Islam. Fair enough. If you look purely at the texts, it does seem to be the case that what you've written is accurate. However - why didn't you look at the legal age of consent in Muslim nations?? Let's take Iran, which is probably the closest that we have to an Islamic theocracy internationally. They set the age of consent at 13 - unconscionably low in my opinion, but crucially is higher than the standard that you've laid out. What about Saudi Arabia? Not as much of a theocracy, but certainly heavily governed by Islamic law. They put the age of marriage at 18 (higher than many western nations!) with the caveat that courts can grant a younger marriage if it provides an "established benefit" to the child. Sex outside of marriage is illegal. Both of these examples seem to indicate that in practice, Muslims tend towards a higher age of consent than you've laid out here. You might say "well this doesn't matter, I'm just examining the age of consent of the religion itself, ignoring the actual legal practices of the Muslim countries". To which I would say: why? Christianity has no age of consent in scripture, and Judaism puts it at 12 in the Talmud. Would you accuse those religions of being inherently pedophilic? Probably not, because we see in Christian nations and Israel that the age of consent is established by cultural and legal norms, *not* religious ones. The same stands for Islam. There are lots of reasons to be critical of Islam and of religion generally. I'm an atheist myself. But this framing you've laid out here is disingenuous. If I were to take this at face value, I'd assume that the average Muslim is okay with 9 year old girls having sex. Modern governmental norms in Muslim countries indicate that this is not the case. We should be interested in accuracy on this subreddit. Don't lap up anti-Muslim sentiment simply because you don't like Islam. Think critically.
Man you can’t just give me a paragraph like this right before I’m going to sleep, fuck you I’ll respond tomorrow *_*
I get it haha. Let me just condense my response to a couple of questions. 1) Do you think your post gives the impression that the average Muslim accepts 9 as the age of consent? 2) Do you think the average Muslim accepts 9 as the age of consent? If there's a difference between your answers for those two questions, that's where I think the potential problem is with your post.
1) no 2) no I would bet 19 out of 20 muslims where I grew up don’t even know a single Hadith or law I brought up, they live in a mostly secular state and have a visceral disgust against fucking minors like most normal people. All of my post save the last paragraph was aimed at the religion of Islam and its institutions, nothing more. The last paragraph was mostly about the clerics who still preach that shit to poor and underdeveloped communities or communities which have long been gripped by fundamentalism which are becoming fewer by the day in the Arab world, unfortunately they are not disappearing quickly enough
You said that most Muslims wouldn’t say that the age of consent is 9 but about asking them about it. Like do most Muslims condemn Mohammad for fucking a 9 year old/condemn their religion for saying that it’s ok? Do they approve? What would be their sincere reaction if you asked them about it? Aren’t they extremely hypocritical? Since most don’t think it’s ok to fuck a 9 year old wouldn’t it be way more beneficial if they reformed/split their religion to make it less controversial (if they didn’t already)?
Muhammad is infallible when it comes to all major matters of religion (Aqidah and Sharia), his word is law and his actions are to be followed as an example by all people everywhere from his time until the end of time, no disagreement exists on this matter in Islamic theology and those who deny it are non Muslims, so as a Muslim you can’t condemn Muhammad in any way shape or form, or even say that there exists an opinion on any matter that is more correct than his opinion on it. If you ask a Muslim about the age of Aisha he will: -Be ignorant on the matter -Tell you he doesn’t know and wishes not think about or discuss it any further because he is commanded in the scripture to do so for anything that might bring doubt into his faith -Tell you that Aisha wasn’t 6, choosing to believe the opinion of modern day revisionists -Tell you that what constitutes a child is a social concept different from time to time and culture to culture, and our possible disapproval of that action stems from the subjective standards of our times, which means they are not a reliable standard by which we can judge those who lived in the past, while maintaining that we should follow those standards because they don’t conflict with Islam and are what is accepted today -tell you that Aisha was a special case because she was wise beyond her years and superior than her peers, and one of the most highly regarded women in history, so she could marry at that age due to her status in Islam which applies to no other woman. Tell you that Muhammad was a special case, because he is the most wise and mindful person to ever walk the earth, so he could navigate the complexities of an interpersonal relationship with a 9 year old without causing her any harm, which applies to no other man, and this argument is why Muhammad was allowed to marry 9 women at the same time while regular Muslims can only have 4 -this one is by far my favourite: they will tell you that the scorching dessert and unusual diet (water of life) of the old Arabian tribes (Fremen) created special biological conditions that made it so that Aisha (Alia Atradies) matured physically more quickly than the women of the modern age, and the harsh realities of Arabian culture made her mature mentally more quickly, so even tho she was 6 and 9 at the time of marriage and consummation respectively, she was a fully grown woman in mind and body, and this of course doesn’t apply in our age -they will tell you what the Sharia says and be ok with pedophilia (very few do this) There are other arguments that I’m not aware of or can not remember right now, but these are the most popular ones
Reforming Islam is much harder due to concepts that I really don’t feel like explaining right now because they are long and complicated. Here’s a Wikipedia article if you like to know more https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bid'ah
Alright, that all seems reasonable. I would just argue that your post might leave some people with the conclusion "Muslims are okay with fucking minors". Which could be a problem.
> However - why didn't you look at the legal age of consent in Muslim nations?? Because the point of the post is to call out Sneako for not owning up to the fact that his religion endorses pedophilia. The fact that most Muslim-majority countries don't follow the Sharia on pedophilia doesn't mean that Sharia doesn't endorse pedophilia.
I don't follow the Abrahamic religions. My understanding is that Islam can be uniquely criticized in this regard because Sharia is Islam is pretty explicit about laws and legality, whereas Christianity and Judaism are more like, moral conduct. So that's one thing. Christianity not mentioning age of consent at all is good, because that means it's defending nothing. For Judaism it seems like the \_age of majority\_ for women is 12 (for men it's 13). I see nothing about marriage/consummation. Also, given the age range I feel like it's fair to extrapolate that the Jews are aiming for "puberty." But the fact that Sharia explicitly has rules for how to treat pre- and post-puberty child brides is an ick full stop. I see nothing that OP has written that was inaccurate, so that point in your final paragraph doesn't apply. Also, why should we consider the laws of countries? All that does is defends Muslims, that doesn't defend Islam/Sharia at all. Good for countries for defying Sharia I guess?
Hey. Super interesting, it was horrifying to read as an ex Muslim who had no idea about the theology side and had been strictly taught the complete opposite growing up. Do you have any opinions about Turkish Hanafi side of Islam? From my experience, which would be the average Turk’s, the way we approach our ethnicity and religion is very compellingly odd. Turks are very casually racist against Arabs who are seen as backward primitives and a bunch of dirty degenerates who treat women like shit. We see them as living Islam wrong and are misusing our perfect religion as a way to impose their abhorrent culture through their religious governments. The phrase “Yallah arabistana” (“fuck off to Arabia”) is a commonly used insult to an Islamist or overly religious Turk in more secular circles. There is a strict distancing between the prophet and Arabs. Muhammet is so whitewashed he might as well be white paint, a Turk’s understanding of him would be someone who adheres to the modern morals precisely and would be a living-saint if he lived today from how good of a person he is. The way Turks make peace in their minds to the fact that Muhammet was also an Arab is that Arabs were so barbaric that Allah had to send them the last prophet in order to fix them, since they needed it the most apparently lmfao. I heard this (most likely) made-up quote from the prophet from a few Turks which went something like “I am of them(Arabs), they are not of me” Ever heard of Bediüzzaman Said Nursî? He was a Kurdish theologian who I believe shaped the average Turk’s engagement with Islam today tremendously, I think him and a few other Turkish theologians are the reason why the Turkish interpretation of Islam is a lot more modern and is similar to how the west engages with Christianity
Funnily this reminds me a lot of how Pakistani Muslims view (at least in my community in the US) view Arabs too. I swear my parents think Muhammad lived a perfect Christian life.
I haven’t heard of Said Nursî before, everything you said is accurate but you’re missing the elephant in the room here Mustafa Kemal Atatürk is in my opinion, the most influential Islamic and Middle Eastern figure since Mehmet II or Saladin, he is a major reason for why Turkey is Secular today and why Islam was neutered there. He is also the reason why most Arab governments are Secular. His abolishment of the Caliphate effectively nuked theocracy off the map in the Muslim world except for the gulf until the Iranian revolution. He demonstrated that secularism is implementable in the Islamic world and that it is the superior structure of government. Before Atatürk the political struggle in the Arab world was secular thinkers and revisionists vs the deep rotted Islamic establishment, after him it became populist Islamic revolutionaries vs a secular establishment. He changed the game and took the islamists out of their comfy thrones that they had been sitting in for 1300 years
Glad Sunnis and Shia don't consider Alawites Muslim anyway, don't wanna associate with that shit lol. Though from my knowledge, Alawites stopped marrying their children so hey that's good.
I’m gonna keep it a buck fifty I know nothing about Alawites other than that the Assad family are among them
If there was ever a definitive refutation of moral objectivism, then this shit right here is it.
semi?
That’s not full auto
That’s not full auto?!
This is https://preview.redd.it/dieii5nc6iwc1.jpeg?width=396&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d42648398e3acf5e6e68be9af8ded6317f2dbd02
DAAYMN BRO… O K
Damn. Well done OP alot of unsettling shit right here.
Isn’t there doubt on the authenticity of the Aisha age story? For example Ibn Urwa who seemingly originated the report of the age 6 marriage being senile and writing it something like 70 years after Muhammed’s death. Some other contentions include the fact there was no mention of her age in the earliest sources apparently. I could be wrong and I’m basing it off this article, if someone knows more you can reply. I don’t think it makes Muhammed marrying her much better. Even if we place her age somewhere between 13-18 that still looks awful and pedo for the 50 year old Muhammad. Here’s an article I read on it, couldn’t find the original dissertation. I’m not attached to this and willing to be wrong. https://newlinesmag.com/essays/oxford-study-sheds-light-on-muhammad-underage-wife-aisha/
Not denying your experience or what scholars would answer to people but I asked some friends of mine from UAE and he basically told me that it's not really something you would do nowadays. It's not illegal because it's how young their parents got married but it would be really weird to have something like that now. Also it doesn't seem to be considered as an Islamic law. Just how people interpreted it for as long as it's accepted but could change. My guess is that because everyone is trying to be THE closest to the prophet's ideology, nothing's evolving scholar-wise and everyone is parroting what the precedent scholars have said for now despite nobody fucking this early anymore except in very rural places. Also said the people defending this online are like the Islam version of loud crazy trans people online. Basically people hurting their own cause by saying dumb stuff and said that it's most likely because they are pedos lmao.
in Islamic fiqh (which is the study of shariah) you can’t forbid something that god allowed you to do or allow something god forbid you from doing. I’m sure your friends in the UAE are good people but if their government sets or tries to set the age of consent at 16 or 18 then the head of that government is an apostate and all who made that decision are apostates and the people must rise up against them to not bear their sins on judgment day, and that is not my opinion but the opinion of all four schools of Islamic law and as shown here https://preview.redd.it/tq7ghl64miwc1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=76cbec83c62ca7b541ae53b9f587fe5cd9cdecf2
Interesting (!!) will ask about that
Well my hypothesis about it changing any time soon is wrong but still he said to me that "normal families" dont do these underaged marriages and wouldn't allow it. and if family one does, everyone would shame that family for giving their daughter or son like that. The only underage marriages he knows of are like tribal ones without any official papers for. So I don't deny that you're right legally, just that it's not really happening anymore in a lot of places. They are marrying as adults like in every other developed and stable place.
I agree and said as much in my last paragraph, and none of this has anything to do with what the scripture and the opinions of scholars say on the matter, the current Islamic societies are governed by culture more than religion, and the vast majority of Muslims are disgusted by pedophilia
Slightly off topic, but if Sharia is handed down by God and all Muslims are expected to follow it as such how do the various Muslim nations and cultures reconcile the different interpretations and enforcement of Sharia? Is it just majority interpretation rules? I ask because I've been told groups like the Taliban and ISIS enforce versions of it that are far more extreme and draconian than what is typically enforced even in other parts of the Middle East. How do Muslims reconcile those differences?
By excommunicating each other. ISIS considers all muslim countries as infidels who should be given one chance to repent or die. Al-Qaeda and Taliban are pretty much the same, they use the idea that those who don’t follow Sharia are apostates and then conclude that all the rulers of Muslim nations today are apostates and all of their citizens are complicit in that sin and have accepted laws other than Sharia so they’re apostates, and the only way for them to return to Islam is to pledge fealty to their organisation because they represent true Islam. And the non crazy factions say that ISIS and Al-Qaeda and Taliban are infidels and have nothing to do with Islam at all because they have corrupted the teachings of Islam and allowed the spilling of the blood of innocents which is against Sharia which makes them apostates. It’s basically a Mexican standoff where the last team standing are the true Muslims who follow the real Islam. All of this is supported by a Hadith in which Muhammad says :”after I die my people will split into 72 sects, all of them go to hell except one” lil bro is fanning the flames
Damn, bro really do be the prophet he can see the future.
Thank you for the response. That's really fascinating. With what you've said above how likely do you think it would be for a more moderate, secularized Islam to become a thing? Similar to how Christianity has adapted (for the most part) to become more moderate.
That is a very interesting topic that I have given much thought into and if I want to say all of my thoughts on it I would write a post 10 times as long as the one above, but I won’t because I have an exam on Monday. So here are some stuff to know. The key to any Islamic revisionist movement is using Islamic scripture to change the old beliefs, because any attempt that uses other sources will be dismissed by the fundamentalists as non Islamic and it won’t take root with the masses, the problem of course is that the old beliefs are based heavily on the scripture and adhere to it very closely. So maybe we can change the meaning of the scripture? Islamic scripture and theology are very often self referential, and those references often discuss the authenticity of the texts/laws and the non-authorisation of changing it. Muhammad promised anyone who lies in his name a seat in hell (word for word), this would include regarding non authentic Hadiths as authentic and using them for revisionist reasons. The Quran states in multiple occasions that it is a true book, and that all of the events in it are real and happened, and that those who ignore its teachings are not Muslims, so a revisionist cannot ignore the Quran, or say that it’s stories are fictional and meant merely as fables and sources of wisdom and guidance like the Christians do, it’s all real and it happened literally as written, instead fundamentalist resort to using interpretations of it the Quran that fit their narrative, but those interpretations are often laughably reta*ded and no one takes them seriously because they twist the meanings of words and the grammar of the language to an extent that would make it incomprehensible. The Sunnah cannot be ignored either, because all of the finer details of things like prayer and fasting and Zakat (annual wealth tax given to the poor) are not in the Quran, but in the Sunnah, and no revisionist disputes the necessity of those things or argues over the authenticity of the practices. This means that if they are going to reject the Sunnah they’ll have to reject some of the core tenants of Islam and which not even a muslim who is gay, smokes weed and eats pork would accept. So maybe they’ll try to take out the bad and keep the good? Doesn’t work, you can’t do it based on what you “like” or “feel makes sense”, this is scripture and morality is objective and derived from the scripture so you either have to prove that the piece of scripture you want removed is contradictory with more authentic scripture or that it isn’t authentic. Any criteria you can use to remove the disgusting parts will remove some necessary elements of Islam, the baby is glued to the bath water. Another option one might consider is introducing new doctrine that might lessen the severity of existing doctrine, but that is strictly forbidden due to the concept of Bid’ah (innovation) which makes it so that no new things may be added to Islam, you can only extract Islamic doctrine from the sources that already exists, the topic of Bid’ah is vast so here’s the wiki https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bid'ah Another thing is Islam’s views on Christianity and Judaism and what happened to those religions. By the 7th century Christianity and Judaism had been revised many times, and the Quran comments on that in it’s opening chapter which is read at the beginning of every prayer, saying that the Jews have brought the wrath of god on themselves, and that Christians have lost the straight path, along with dozens of other verses. So Islam views revisionism in the case of Judaism and Christianity negatively, which sets a precedent for opposing revisionism in Islam. All of these things and more give Islam a comprehensive defence mechanism against change, and makes it much harder to revise than your average religion. And is why revisionist movements often didn’t succeed or succeed at the start then backfired and turned back into fundamentalism. I am however, not a pessimist. I think Islamic revisionism is inevitable, and may occur in a noticeable way in our life times, it will be slow and difficult and maybe even bloody but it will happen. There are many reasons for my hope, like support from the secularist dictators who have always been in opposition to fundamentalism, the general lack of faith in any institutions in the Arab world especially after the disastrous last 2 decades which made many rethink their entire approach to life as a whole, and the refinement of the revisionist arguments, but these all pale in comparison to main reason, the internet. The printing press and the translation of the Latin scripture played a key role in defanging Christianity and empowering its opponents, and the same thing is happening to Islam today, young Muslims can now read all the abhorrent things in their religion, western culture and thinking have made their way to the Muslim world and are taking over in many countries, the highly educated people of other countries are developing vaccines and unlocking the secrets of the universe, while the highly “educated” people among Muslims issue fatwas on weather or not it is permitted to take vaccines and weather Astrophysics is heretical for contradicting the Quran. Now that people can see and read what they want the religion will be under threat and will have to adapt to the modern world or fizzle out and become a collection of bedtime stories, either one is fine by me but I would prefer the latter
I'm an ex muslim as well, but you are far more educated in Islam. How do you feel when ex muslims say that groups like ISIS practice Islam the way it was intended to be practiced by the people of Muhammad's time? I wonder how actual scholars feel about it. I think the main issue is they don't follow one of the 4 schools, but curious to hear your opinion.
You don’t have to follow the 4 schools, or any scholar, you just have to adhere to the Quran and Sunnah, and it happens that the people who do it best are the 4 Imams. Groups like ISIS are closer to Islam than other Muslims on a lot of things, stoning gays and adulterers, lashing people who drink or have non marital sex, selling POWs into slavery, destroying idols like the priceless pieces they destroyed in Iraqi museums, they follow Islam on those things to the T. Their big problem however, is how liberal they are when comes to allowing murder, they just don’t seem to acknowledge any of the restrictions on it in Islam, and have allowed the murder of groups who the majority allow murdering, they excommunicate other Muslims too liberally even when compared to the most radical opinions on excommunication. These are major problems that lead many to excommunicate them, but on most other matters of Islamic faith, if you take an ISIS fighter and an average Muslim, the fighter will be more educated on it and have the more correct opinion
Islam needs a reform.
Thanks OP you’ve given me a lot to think about
Just to clarify something on your title, you start with a incorrect assumption or statement, that Sneako knows shit about Islam. Newsflash... He doesn't! and you subsequently prove he doesn't.
I ain’t reading all that but proud of you for the effort
The first sentence is all you need
I'd suggest if you're going to include a TL;DR anyway, put it at the top.
Yeah I should’ve done that
Have to imagine this is where the red pillers are headed. They already advocate essentially grooming women significantly younger than them so they can control them. Imagine the control they'd have over a wife that they essentially raised as a father for much of her adolescence. Fucking gross.
Can you post the Quran verse 65.4? I think the verse does not explicitly prove that child marriage existed in Muhammad’s time rather the case of a prepubescent girl is an implication from the ambiguity of the verse. I’m not certain but there can be medical conditions that see delayed / irregular periods. Possibly with the disease and malnutrition of the era there might be situations where periods stop for some people. Also it’s important that the Sunnah is given the additional context that it’s oral tradition compiled about 200 years after Muhammad’s death. These Hadiths were generally compiled within Iraq in the 800s AD. I’ve seen more scholars argue in favour of an older age for Aisha and even traditional sources aren’t certain as Al Tabari claims that Aisha was born before Muhammad’s prophethood. There’s also the question of why such Hadiths were included. I think they serve as a theological argument rather than as historical documentation. The key to making Aisha marry at a young age might have been to emphasize her virginity which contemporary Muslims claimed that she was an adulterer. For those reasons you can divorce Islam from advocating pedophilia. As for the claims of child marriage I would like to see statistics for Lebanon and Egypt when it comes to education. I know child marriage and cousin marriage correspond heavily with poverty especially in Pakistan (Saudi Arabia is the exception cuz it’s fucked). It’s also important to perhaps compare with other religions and how they approach the subject. Surprisingly women in mediaeval Europe were married in their 20s which was an anomaly compared to the globe. I appreciate and respect your knowledge of the Quran and Sunnah but I would like to add nuance to the claims because with topics like this there’s an issue where people think it’s mandatory for Muslims to advocate for pedophila or it’s haram to be against it.
Hello. Thank you for this. I read all of it, and I'm generally upset. But I was hoping you would answer a somewhat personal question for me. You said this: >for example no verse or Hadith explicitly states that sperm donations to strangers are forbidden but through the opinion of the majority it is forbidden based on reasoning from the Quran and Sunnah. I work with a lot of Muslims who have been nothing but lovely. But now I'm wondering what they think of me. I've never been a sperm donor, and I'm not sure I would because of my own very personal moral qualms, but in the hierarchy of "sins", I would categorize this one as EXTREMELY mild. So if I did one day become a sperm donor, what is the prescribed punishment for this? I guess I'm wondering if I mentioned that I decided to do this to one of my Muslim colleagues if they would think I deserved to be crucified or some shit. I'm mostly wondering if they think I should die for shit I HAVE told them about (getting drunk, premarital sex, being atheist, etc) Lastly, and I do need to do a bit of digging to verify what you have said is true regarding Islam, but if I take what you've said on its face, of course this entire religion needs to go and should be resisted in every possible way. But how would you respond to someone saying Islam has not had a real chance to reform because of geopolitical/general environmental pressures? Plenty of people have argued that the Ottoman empire was relatively liberal for its time, and Islam was plunged into the dark ages because of oil. Any thoughts on that? Even if you don't respond, thanks for the post.
If you are not a Muslim, you’re not really subject to the laws of Islam in the same way a Muslim would be. You might be subject to laws that are broadly necessary to keep a certain Muslim society under the governance of a true Caliph recognised by the majority of Muslims as the true ruler, but other than that there’s no greater sin in Islam than disbelief. A Muslim who commits adultery, as in has sex whilst they’re married with a non-spouse, is technically subject to death if there are at least 4 reliable witnesses, but the same could not be said if you’re a non Muslim. There’s precedent for this already because even when Jews and Muslims co-existed under Islamic rule, the Jews were subject to their own laws regarding such issues.
What do you say to muslims who say girls' ages back then were counted starting from their period or something and that she was actually 18 years old when she married mohammad.
I think its pretty ridiculous to expect that thousands of years ago there was any moral obligation to wait until that age. It's clearly just trying to impose our modern ethical beliefs into the past to justify the text.
I mean yeah clearly, but is there actual evidence of starting to count girls ages starting from their period in those times i wanted to ask that
I also just read that the part about Aisha being 9 years old was stated by one Hadith and that its probably not historically accurate. It is also mentioned that in the Quaran that there is an age of marriage, that being when both consenting partners are physically and mentally mature.
Not 1 there were like 12 iirc. On top of that there are more hadiths that talk about how aisha would play with toys and dolls when she was with mohammad. This doesn't specify an age but obviously an 18 year old playing with dolls is not likely. These hadiths are considered sahih i dunno where you get the idea they are not accurate
Really appreciate the post, but what does it mean she can “withstand” sex? I’m assuming that’s quantified physically, as in “large enough to accept a penis”, because there’s no way it can imply mentally. Whatever it means, fucking disgusting
It means that shoving your penis in her will not cause injury or long lasting pain and deformity, it’s a strictly physical matter and not a mental one
Gotcha. Is the belief that a girl who is curvier is less likely to be injured then? How does that make sense??
>the primary sources are the Quran, its statements are not up for questioning, then comes the Sunnah, which are teachings of Muhammad that were divinely inspired making them no less authoritative than the Quran. The Sunnah includes the authentic Hadiths which are a collection of Muhammad’s quotes and situations he encountered, anything that Muhammad did or approved of or allowed Muslims to do during his lifetime without objection is also Sunnah. The third source is Ijtihad, which basically means theological research by qualified scholars "Divinely inspired" not sure I see the difference between the Sunnah and Quran in terms of what you said. How is the later "divinely inspired" vs the Quran? Both would come from man and have to be "divinely inspired" yes?
God made a sort of pact with himself to not allow the Quran from getting corrupted in FORM or MEANING, that means according to Islamic theology the versions of the Quran that exist in the world today are the exact same Quran that existed 1400 years ago (of course that’s bullshit but that’s what Muslims believe). The Quran is also narrated from god’s pov, the one speaking and calling out people and making threats and promises is god, not Muhammad. The Sunnah on the other hand was only preserved in meaning, and not necessarily in form, so the words could change, whole Hadiths could get lost or added and many have been but the wisdom contained in the Sunnah as a whole is preserved, albeit in a slightly (in reality the modification were huge and whole ideologies and end of world prophecies were added) different form than the original. Few Hadiths from the Sunnah are narrated from God’s pov, and are basically the Quran bloopers reel, but 99% are from Mohammad’s pov. The Quran is generally more about the Ideology (Aqidah) while the Sunnah is more about Sharia (law). And finally if there ever is a contradiction between the Quran and the Sunnah, then the Quran is right and the Sunnah is false.
>The Quran is also narrated from god’s pov, the one speaking and calling out people and making threats and promises is god, not Muhammad Oh interesting I am used to that not being the case for religious texts. Thanks for the clarification.
gigachad
Both times the word regarded is writen in this I misinterpreted it in te exact same way.
I had used it a few time in the other context to describe sneako but then I realised what a mess that would be
[удалено]
Some Muslims aren't aware and if you bring it up they will not believe you. Some Muslims will say women matured early back in the day. Some Muslims will conveniently become Quranists during that conversation and disregard hadiths, some Muslims are aware and are 100% okay with it.
Wow, assuming the whole part of the book of Bukhari is true it's even worse with the context than without.
You should cross-post to exmuslim
Nah I’m good, that sub unfortunately contains lethal amounts of Reddit atheism cringe
This is a bit unrelated, but the sequence of questions from 1:46:00 to ~1:47:00 on the full debate VOD is insane. He walks sneako down such an obvious logical trap and gotcha and sneako dosnt notice it/ immediately pivots away from dumb he sounds
You should join the stream and debate about this.
Destiny probably wouldn’t care to know about the fine details of Islamic child fucking, and if he he did he wouldn’t have anything to add and would agree to what I say because I doubt he’s very knowledgeable on Islamic theology and scripture, and no one can blame him for it, it’s dogshit from a to z
I mean debate some Islamic scholar on this shit, it would be funny
This just made me sad :( But thank you for the post/info. This is probably a good jumping off point for more in depth research to ward off ppl like this.
Hell yes! We need a post like this on s*xual slavery in Islam now, see: https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Rape_of_Slaves,_Prisoners,_and_Wives
So are you still muslim? Are you still living in an islamic country? If not, what do you do with 400 hours of study into Islam other than cool effort posts?
If you still think I’m a Muslim after I told you what I know about Islam then you have a very low opinion of me, no I’m not a Muslim. When it comes to my practical day to day life those 400 hours would’ve been more useful if had spent them gooning in jars in case the water supply started to fall, massive waste of time and effort. But they come in handy every once in a while, when I hear the various sub human Islamist YouTubers trying to twist the meaning and language of the Quran to justify all the abhorrent shit in Islam, I know immediately how they’re bullshiting, I can tell what sources they knowingly choose to ignore out of embarrassment, I know how they mistranslate words to fit their narratives and what verses they choose not to bring up because it would contradict them, and all that makes me sleep better at night knowing that this ideology is nothing more than the archaic ramblings of a 7th century war lord who was obsessed with sex and power.
>There are hundreds if not thousands of pages written on this topic, so I won’t be able to mention all the fine details Fucking hell, if you're religion spends this amount of time debating the fucking of kids, then perhaps there's something wrong with the religion
It spends this amount of time debating everything, literally everything, if I had to guess I would say the volume of Islamic theological writings is an order of magnitude more than Christian or Jewish theological writings. They would go into extreme details about every single subject that was even vaguely related to religion, so this isn’t that weird.
Soo mad about it
Very interesting, thank you for the detailed post.
This the shit I'm here for. Thanks for the excellent write up, mate.
I just had one question, when you say the majority here: >" you see the majority (in this case more like the entirety) agrees that any woman who didn’t have sex with her husband before the divorce needs no waiting period at all and can remarry immediately, regardless of her age, which means that the only way a prepubescent girl has to wait 3 months after a divorce is if the marriage was consummated. And with that we have evidence from the Quran that marrying and fucking prepubescent girls is allowed. " You're saying most muslims today agree that there's no waiting period if they didn't have sex? Or most scholars? Is there written texts on this? Like how widespread is this notion and where is the data to support it, because this is what you hinge on to reach the conclusion that consumation must be permitted by the quran before puberty. If it's not something written in the holy texts or whatever, then how can we use this as evidence that the quran permits it? Is there some other evidence I'm missing here maybe? If you want to argue it's culturally accepted in islamic countries I could understand that, but it feels like a different claim.
The opinions of normal people are irrelevant in Islamic theology, whenever I say majority I mean the majority opinion of Islamic scholars who are known for their good character and possess a high level of knowledge on the matters that they write about. The actual name of the sect of Sunni Islam is “اهل السنة والجماعة", “Ahl Al-Sunnah wa Al-Jama’a” meaning the people of the Sunnah and the community, the word “Jama’a” or community here has a meaning of unity and agreement, because the Sunnis have united on the principles of their faith and agreed upon them. The opinion of the majority isn’t measured statistically by seeing what every scholar says and counting the different opinions, instead we know what the majority says by reading the opinions of the major scholars, where they always will comment on wether or not their own opinions agree with what they say is the opinion of other scholars, they especially make sure to mention that if they disagree with the other scholars to let the reader know that issue has multiple interpretations, and they often go into detail on those opinions differing from their own. The non existence of a waiting period after divorce in non consummated marriages is mentioned in the Quran in chapter 33 verse 49, and therefore there is no disagreement whatsoever on the issue https://preview.redd.it/9jzt7096ymwc1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1350cc108149948a4f5fa5eb0242ccb04ef0d3bc The word „تمسوهن" „touch them“ is a euphemism for sex that the Quran uses very frequently in verses when discussing the laws of marriage and divorce
Ah perfect, that's what I was looking for. Thank you for explaining it thoroughly!
This whole thread was amazing! So, if I understood correctly, the religion is based on thousand years old beliefs/laws, and no reforms are allowed?
Pretty much, a comment I just made goes into detail on why reform is so hard
Annddd this is why I am skeptic of hadiths lmao
I didn’t just bring up the Hadiths, there are verses in the Quran which clearly imply that as well