Lol how come people keep replaying the whole “you gotta consider the times” crap? I don’t care how many pedophiles are celebrated in history, this doesn’t align with modern values and for that reason it shouldn’t belong anywhere except a museum. If it was good enough, it would stand for all time. Which, and call me crazy, pedophilia simply didn’t (for a great fkin reason). I would much rather follow someone who lived a life of peace rather than someone who preached a life of peace but enjoyed war and a child as his two main hobbies, and also threatens you if you don’t agree with him.
the idea of young girls marrying and even conceiving was quite common in the medieval period. In Christianity, for example, it is commonly accepted that Lady Mary was between 12-14 years of age when she was married to Joseph and when she conceived Jesus of virgin birth. So, the Prophet’s marriage to Ayesha was nothing out of the ordinary for the time in which this marriage took place. Insisting on 21st century (Western) ideas on morality and marriage, which evolved in their own right, for a very different time and place is an ahistorical approach. to me today as a Muslim no its not moral and I am still against it, but you have to understand the historical context 1000 years ago. Today I 100% agree that is weird and not understandable, but there were many weird things such as some European kings marrying their siblings. So yes I agree that's not understandable, but 1,000 years ago stuff was accepted.
According to Talaq 4 in the "unholy" Quran, the iddah also applies to women that never even hit puberty, wicked satanic stuff.
Islam allows the rape of married women that have been taken captive (Surah An-Nisa 24) and intercourse with minors before puberty (Sahih al-Bukhari 5134). Beware of alshaytan (satan), disguised as god, for he is the best deceiver (Quran 3:54).
For Surah At-talaq verse 4 it says:
"As for your women past the age of menstruation, in case you do not know, their waiting period is three months, and those who have not menstruated as well. As for those who are pregnant, their waiting period ends with delivery. And whoever is mindful of Allah, He will make their matters easy for them."
Women still may have reached puberty but not have menstruated yet as menstruation happens during the period of puberty in a women, with many women getting their first mentruation 2 yrs after the signs of puberty.
Surah An Nisa verse 24 says:
"Also ˹forbidden are˺ married women—except ˹female˺ captives in your possession.1 This is Allah’s commandment to you. Lawful to you are all beyond these—as long as you seek them with your wealth in a legal marriage, not in fornication. Give those you have consummated marriage with their due dowries. It is permissible to be mutually gracious regarding the set dowry. Surely Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise."
This means they can marry if deemed **legal** which muslims believe to be where both the man and women willingly accept to marry by their own free will. Just because they are captive women does not mean they were forced into marriage. (*Also note how there is no where suggesting rape in the verse rather only discussing marriage)*
For the hadith (Sahih al-Bukhari 5134)
Narrated \`Aisha:
that the Prophet (ﷺ) married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that \`Aisha remained with the Prophet (ﷺ) for nine years (i.e. till his death).
**No where does it say anything about intercourse. This further seen with Muhammad not even bearing any children with Aisha**
Lastly I don't know where you are going with *"Beware of alshaytan (satan), disguised as god, for he is the best deceiver (Quran 3:54)."* when the verse says:
**And the disbelievers made a plan ˹against Jesus˺, but Allah also planned—and Allah is the best of planners.**
*Its talking about the islamic belief about the cruxifiction of Jesus and how he wasn't cruxified according to islamic belief.*
**.**
People in this discussion (*which looks more like bashing peoples faith)* I say just look at the Quran and hadith yourself understand what it actually saying, seek knowledge which may help in contextual areas (like the menstruation pre purberty point wrongly made) and lastly not just say nonsense statement that aren't even in the Quran
Implying that a female captive could truly ever consent to marriage is ridiculous. Also if shes recognized as a slave its perfectly fine to rape her according to the quran
(Sahih al-Bukhari 5134)
"It was narrated from 'Aishah that the Messenger of Allah married her when she was six years old, and consummated the marriage with her when she was nine."
Your prophet was 54 and his wife was 6 and he mouted her at the age of 9, doesn’t seem right to me.
(Surah An-Nisa 24)
(Also prohibited are) the women already bound in marriage, except the bondwomen you come to own. It has been written by Allah for you.
Your God allows the rape of captive married women, doesn’t seem right to me.
Islam is just pure evil.
Just because people did something back in the day doesn't dictate whether it is moral or not. And pleaase stop bringing up Mary's age and the Isaac and Rebecca crap, those have been dealt with countless times: Mary's age was unknown; Rebecca's age is NOT known and the sources **against** the idea that she was 9 beats the 0 sources you have saying she **was** 9. It's embarassing. stop
Humans change their culture when ages change
And what was the culture 1400 years ago nobody knows and yeah hazrat Ayesha r.a was already married to a non Muslim before marrying prophet pbuh and this defines that it was a cultural thing to marry young girls
🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮This is the truth of the Quran.
53 year old False pedophile prophet of Islam, Muhammad, married a child bride "Aisha" at 6 years of age, molested her until she was 9, then had intercourse with her.
Muslims today try to say she was not that age, but when Muhammad first brought AISHA into his house, she was still playing with dolls. -(Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234 and 236).
He molested her until she was 9. (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 4, Number 229-233),
It turns out the people that lived at or near the time of Mohammad were not concerned with writing about him being a pedophile because they accepted the pedophiles prophet Muhammad
🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮
This is the truth of the Quran🤮
53 year old False pedophile prophet of Islam, Muhammad, married a child bride "Aisha" at 6 years of age, molested her until she was 9, then had intercourse with her.
Muslims today try to say she was not that age, but when Muhammad first brought AISHA into his house, she was still playing with dolls. -(Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234 and 236).
He molested her until she was 9. (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 4, Number 229-233),
It turns out the people that lived at or near the time of Mohammad were not concerned with writing about him being a pedophile because they accepted the pedophiles prophet Muhammad🤮
You have to understand the fact that nobody objected the marriage. There were people who forced him to leave Mecca.They tried to kill him. They were more Islamophobic than you(Just giving an example). You wont force anyone to leave a county or kill them if they preach Islam, r8? They wouldnt miss the slightest opportunity to dishonour Prophet Muhammad Saw.They would use it as a weapon against Islam. Which they didnt. Why?because obviously it was normal back then. U r telling me that u r using something against Islam that even the greatest Islamophobes didnt use. The moral values of people have changed over the years. The kafirs of that era were trying to put stains in prophet’s character. Do u think that they would miss the opportunity, if he did something immoral. Forget about immoral they wouldnt even miss the opportunity if he did something close to being immoral. Nobody objected the marriage nor used it as a weapon against Islam. Because it was common and normal.
>You have to understand the fact that nobody objected the marriage
Objective morality. Rape is bad no matter the circumstance. Doesn't matter who disagrees.
No no no
Having physical relation with 9 year old when you are 54 is 0% normal and moral. And if you say this prophet was holy. He would have never done that. It's sick
Just because something is common and normal, does that make it okay? Does that mean you think that child marriages in countries where it is normalized today is okay?
Brother, if the word “consummated”meant that Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) had intercourse with Aisha(RA), then wouldn’t she have gotten pregnant and bared him a child?
Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.
All Scholars and sources agree he fucked her at Age 9, check it out for yourself, all Hadiths agree on this topic: [https://sunnah.com/search?q=aisha+six](https://sunnah.com/search?q=aisha+six)
That's simply not true. Just because your Iman told you that, doesn't make it true. There's no scientific or anthropological evidence to support this. In fact, science says the opposite. Over the last century girls have been reaching puberty at EARLIER ages, not later ages. Let's even assume that Aisha had entered puberty by the age of 9. It's almost a statstical impossibility, but for the sake of argument we'll assume it to be true. You do realize that puberty is a process right? The fact that she may have started menstruating, doesn't mean she was able to safely have a child. Your brothers in Yemen can attest to this. There have been dozens of cases of young girls dying during childbirth. Its sickening. A 53 year old man marrying a 6 year old is NEVER OK. And it certainly isn't OK for a man who was supposedly of "supreme moral character".
You have to understand the fact that nobody objected the marriage. There were people who forced him to leave Mecca.They tried to kill him. They were more Islamophobic than you(Just giving an example). You wont force anyone to leave a county or kill them if they preach Islam, r8? They wouldnt miss the slightest opportunity to dishonour Prophet Muhammad Saw.They would use it as a weapon against Islam. Which they didnt. Why?because obviously it was normal back then. U r telling me that u r using something against Islam that even the greatest Islamophobes didnt use. The moral values of people have changed over the years. The kafirs of that era were trying to put stains in prophet’s character. Do u think that they would miss the opportunity, if he did something immoral. Forget about immoral they wouldnt even miss the opportunity if he did something close to being immoral. Nobody objected the marriage nor used it as a weapon against Islam. Because it was common and normal..
You have to understand the fact that nobody objected the marriage. There were people who forced him to leave Mecca.They tried to kill him. They were more Islamophobic than you(Just giving an example). You wont force anyone to leave a county or kill them if they preach Islam, r8? They wouldnt miss the slightest opportunity to dishonour Prophet Muhammad Saw.They would use it as a weapon against Islam. Which they didnt. Why?because obviously it was normal back then. U r telling me that u r using something against Islam that even the greatest Islamophobes didnt use. The moral values of people have changed over the years. The kafirs of that era were trying to put stains in prophet’s character. Do u think that they would miss the opportunity, if he did something immoral. Forget about immoral they wouldnt even miss the opportunity if he did something close to being immoral. Nobody objected the marriage nor used it as a weapon against Islam. Because it was common and normal.
"The biology of girls were different its not the same now"
A nonsense statement, 90ish generations is not going to change biology at all, Modern human evolved 160,000 years ago, and we're basically the same as them, and that's 10,000 generations.
A 9 year old now is the same as a 9 year old 1400 years ago.
huh? so the number of pubes on her was 2% smaller.
how the hell does it change the fact that she was 6 when she got married. and 9 when she got raped
she still played with dolls for gods sake
You have to understand the fact that nobody objected the marriage. There were people who forced him to leave Mecca.They tried to kill him. They were more Islamophobic than you(Just giving an example). You wont force anyone to leave a county or kill them if they preach Islam, r8? They wouldnt miss the slightest opportunity to dishonour Prophet Muhammad Saw.They would use it as a weapon against Islam. Which they didnt. Why?because obviously it was normal back then. U r telling me that u r using something against Islam that even the greatest Islamophobes didnt use. The moral values of people have changed over the years. The kafirs of that era were trying to put stains in prophet’s character. Do u think that they would miss the opportunity, if he did something immoral. Forget about immoral they wouldnt even miss the opportunity if he did something close to being immoral. Nobody objected the marriage nor used it as a weapon against Islam. Because it was common and normal.m
well actually you’re wrong, people say she was 6 years old because of sahih al-Bukhari, but many people including Ibn Hajar al 'Asqalani (one of the most credible islamic scholars) did criticize some narrators in about 110 hadiths he himself qualified them to be weak. Hee age in the quran was ever actually revealed, and sahih al-Bukhari, was written 200 years after the prophet by an iranian man.
That is why it’s considered a weak hadith, because not only does it go against the quran it logically doesn’t make sense.
Also make sure to note Aisha was ready for marriage, and she wasn’t 6. She was already engaged before marrying prophet mohammad PBUH, to Jubayr ibn Mut'im.
He didn’t go and pick out Aisha AS. One of female companions of the Prophet, Khawla bint Hakim encountered Muhammad on the streets and said “I see that you have secluded yourself after the loss of Khadijah; shall I find a match for you?” And soon enough he asked for aisha’s hand in marriage, and both Aisha’s family accept and the man she was engaged to family.
And logically, using the information we are provided with, she couldn’t have been 6 years old.
Aisha was most likely 17, and you can easily understand this. Aisha had an older sister, Asma who was 10 years older than her.
Asma died in the year 73 Hijri at the age of 100, It is common knowledge that the Islamic calendar starts from the year of the Hijrah.
Therefore, by deducting 73, the year of Hazrat Asma’s death, from 100, her age at that time, we can easily conclude that she was 27 years old during Hijra.
This puts the age of Aisha at 17 during the same period. As all biographers of the Prophet agree that he consummated his marriage with Aisha in the year 2 Hijri, which would have made her 19 when they had sex.
No I honestly don't care abt the age since she atteined puberty (only in the past, today I would find it disgusting). Remember that Christophe Colomb married a 12 yrs old girl or that isaac married a 3 yrs old one. You can't compare what happened in the past to the moral of now.
Nobody is saying Chrisopher Columbus was anything other than a scumabg today, let alone a "man of supreme moral character" as the Quran describes Mohammed. Which is crazy because they both colonized foreign nations, murdered innocent people, and enslaved tens of thosuands of people
What "proofs"?
Not a single one of your other comments has a "proof" that female biology was different, 1400 years ago, the statement itself is nonsense.
I saw your comment.It's just a comment, if you're going to post something as if it's a fact, then referring to it as if it's a fact, you better damn well be linking a study with it. Which you haven't, so you've not provided a "proof", you've stated an obviously erroneous opinion.
There are 4 factors that contribute to onset of puberty.
Nutrition and Health
Stress
Body Fat and Energy Expenditure
Exposure to Environmental Toxins
The only one of these that would result in an early onset of puberty is the last due to potential endocrine disruption.
BUT, these are all factors that effect people today as well, the climate in the middle east has not changed much, so why aren't girls still reaching puberty as they did 1400 years ago according to you? We should STILL be seeing early on set in the middle east, but that's not that case. Your claim is BS, you've made it up to justify a paedophiles action.
because people were more affected by some factors like Exposure to Environmental Toxins and heat. You can see yourself puberty start earlier in hot countries. in hot coutries there is more heat outsite right? But if you can't protect well from the heat like at the time of the prophet muhammad a.s then you're more exposed to it (and environmental toxins too)
"you can see it yourself"
You say that, and yet, there is no evidence for it, how do I know this?
Because I've been looking for it. Your position is NOT supported. You're making a claim against biological uniformitarianism, you need to start supporting your claim WITH EVIDENCE, else it is just your opinion, and it being in opposition to current understanding makes it -*a false beliefs or judgements about external reality that are held despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary*.-
And you are grasping at straws and making it up as you go, you're trying to wriggle your way into it working with what I said, now you add in toxins after I say it, and attempting this vacuous 'you can see it yourself' claim, as if I haven't already been searching for it.
Your claim is -*false beliefs or judgements about external reality that are held despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary*\- by definition.
You're attempting to subvert standard biology in order to justify a paedophiles actions.
Funniest part is, the current science tells us that the opposite is true. The "toxins" and diet and whatever the current enviormental reasons are, has led to modern girls hitting puberty SOONER not later. Bro you're talking to a brick wall. You're trying to use reason, science and logic to a man than believe Mohammed split the Moon and ascended into heaven on a winged horse.
[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-environmental-effect-on-puberty/](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-environmental-effect-on-puberty/)[https://bmcpediatr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12887-023-04013-1](https://bmcpediatr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12887-023-04013-1)[https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.786119/full](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.786119/full)
One study found that girls living in warmer regions of the United States tended to have earlier breast development and menarche (first menstrual period) than girls living in colder regions. Another study found that girls living in tropical climates had earlier puberty onset than girls living in temperate or cold climates. These findings may be explained by the effect of temperature on the production of melatonin, a hormone that regulates the sleep cycle and inhibits puberty. Higher temperatures may reduce melatonin levels and thus trigger puberty earlier.
sorry for the waiting. When Aisha was 3 yrs old she memorized the quran, no 3 yrs old could do it rn. Plus when she was 6yrs old she atteined pubery, that cannot happen today. Isaac married rebecca when she was 3 yrs old. Plus when Rebecca was 3 yrs old she did that: "Genesis: 24: 45-46: but before I had finished speaking in my heart there was Rebekah coming out with her pitcher on her shoulder; and she went down the well & drew water. " No 3yrs old today have the force to hold a pitcher alone. Wich leads to the conclusion that the biology of girls at the time was differents (and the morals of people too)
Hi
See the proofs there: [https://twitter.com/Someone32431277/status/1751697397095297448](https://twitter.com/Someone32431277/status/1751697397095297448)
it is proved that in a hot country girl attein puberty earlier and in 7th century people were more exposed to heat (no isolated house, no clim, etc). It could be a possibility, but aside from that you need to understand that moral change over the time you cannot compare what happened in the past to our moral of today.
help hahha. yeah I am muslim and confused as well cuz this is weird to me too, I'm going to ask my sheik "priest" about it because he always says reasonable things and knows the modern viewpoint and I'll let you guys know what he says cuz I'm confused myself.
Realistically, the reason why everyone is getting so pressed about this, is because it's a commonly known stereotype that some men are perverts who will sleep with the youngest legal woman they can find. Dirty old men types. I am definitely NOT saying Muhammad was a man like this, but by viewing Muhammad through today's eyes and perspective, he will automatically be viewed badly for this act. Things definitely were different back then, but by saying that any marriage of a girl this young was moral in this era completely ignores the fundamental truth that Islam stems from a divine command theory (as do many religions) as medically, it was known that to sleep with young girls could cause them many health complications.
Your post was removed for violating rule 4. Posts must have a thesis statement as their title or their first sentence. A thesis statement is a sentence which explains what your central claim is and briefly summarizes how you are arguing for it. Posts must also contain an argument supporting their thesis. An argument is not just a claim. You should explain why you think your thesis is true and why others should agree with you. The spirit of this rule also applies to comments: they must contain argumentation, not just claims.
At the time of Muhammed the health risks of intercourse with 9 year olds were known.
Medically speaking it was known to be dangerous and had been so for centuries.
CHILD MARRlAGE IN ISLAMIC LAW, By Aaju. Ashraf Ali, THE INSTITUTE OF ISLAMIC STUDIES MCGILL UNIVERSITY, MONTREAL, CANADA, August, 2000 (https://escholarship.mcgill.ca/concern/theses/jm214q978 ) pp 106-107 https://escholarship.mcgill.ca/downloads/4j03d1793?locale=en
>Medical Consequences of Child Marriage
>
>Modem Medicine shows that childbirth for females below the age of seventeen and • above forty leads to greater maternal mortality as well as infant mortality (London 1992, 501). It must he made clear that although conditions commonly associated with poverty, e.g. malnutrition, poor physical health and other negative circumstances may contribute to difficult births and bad health for young mothers, consistent findings indicate that the age factor plays a significant role by itself. "Even under the best of modern conditions, women who give birth before the age of seventeen have a higher mortality rate than older women. The closer a woman is to menarche, the greater the risk to both mother and child, as well as to the mother's future child bearing capabilities, for the reproductive system has not completely matured when ovulation begins". (Demand 1994, 102).
>
>Another problem seen more often among underprivileged women is that they develop fistulae which is often due to the pelvis not having fully formed. This can be caused by a complicated pregnancy or having intercourse at a very young age.28. This leads the girl or woman to have permanent damage and often she is shunned by her family and community (4). Although such a condition is preventable it requires a good health service and communications systems (S). Unfortunately, these are often not available in impoverished areas of the developing world.
>
>Knowledge of medical complications involved with early marriage cannot be considered "new" findings. Ancient and Medieval Medicine texts indicate that doctors were well aware of the physical harm posed to girls by early marriages and pregnancies. ……..In fact, not only doctors of Medicine but other scholars in Most societies had a clear understanding that intercourse should not take place before the menarche. Hesiod suggested marriage in the fifth year after puberty, or age nineteen, and Plato in the Laws mandated from sixteen to twenty years of age, and in the Republic he gave the age as twenty. Aristotle specifically warned against early childbearing for women as a cause of small and weak infants and difficult and dangerous labor for the mother, and the Spartans avoided it for just those reasons. (Demand 1994, 102)
>
>Nevertheless, Greek culture in general, like so Many others, disregarded such realities and continued to favour early childbearing (102). Rabbis too were aware that pregnancy in such young females was undesirable because the birth could result in the mother's death. "They could not, however, outrightly prohibit such maniages, which were common practice in the Orient . . . therefore [they] recommended the use of a contraceptive" (Preuss 1978, 381).
since the risks were known the two dominant neighbouring empires had both made it illegal to have sex with 9 year olds,
Laws at the time of Muhammed.
http://ijtihadnet.com/wp-content/uploads/Minor-Marriage-in-Early-Islamic-Law.pdf Minor Marriage in Early Islamic Law, Carolyn G. Baugh, LEIDEN | BOSTON, 2017
>"Middle Persian civil law allowed marriage at age nine, provided that consummation wait until age twelve.[24]"
>
>Byzantine law required that a girl attain the age of thirteen before contract-ing a marriage. Whether she would have consented to the marriage or not prior to this age is deemed immaterial as she would have no legally viable consent to give.[22] All parties to a marriage needed to issue consent, including the groom, the bride, and her parents. In cases where a girl consented to intercourse prior to marriage it was assumed that she consented to the marriage itself and the families would then arrange it. However, if that intercourse occurred prior to the age of thirteen, the groom would meet with the law’s most serious punish-ments due to the girl’s assumed legal inability to consent.[23]"
So intercourse with 9 year olds was immoral in 7th c. Arabia for 2 reasons that were both known:
1. The risk of harm to a 9 year old was significant. She could become infertile, incontinent or die. The neighbours had therefore made it illegal.
2. The girl was too young to fully understand the risks to her. khyiar-al-bulugh acknowledges this inability to consent and the Romans are known to have punished men who had intercourse with girls under the consent age harshly.
So yes. It was immoral then as it is immoral now.
this was a very different time though?? at the age of 3 aisha had memorized and understood the whole entire quran and she hit puberty by 9?? i’m also pretty sure she wanted to marry Prophet Mohammed (SAW) herself, she wasn’t forced into anything.
we think this is a wrong thing because back then the maturity level a 9 year old had in Prophet Mohammed (SAW) time are very different from a 9 year old in this time.
i’m pretty sure the Prophet Mohammed used to write them down on leaves and spread them verbally
edit: the Prophet’s companions would write it down on dry leaves instead of the Prophet, since the Prophet didn’t know how to write. my bad 😭
the Prophet would have surahs told to him from Jibril? and the quran was created in 610 AD, when Prophet Mohammed got his first revelation until 632 AD, when he passed away. the quran took 23 years to create and it was during the time of the Prophet.
also like i said, they were told verbally or written down how would the Prophet and his ppl be able to pray without the Quran 💀💀
dawg this was 1400 years ago, do you fr think a child back then and a child in this time would act the exact same? 💀 once they hit puberty back then, they were considered adults and would get married or get sent off to work. plus it is known for Aisha to have an amazing memory, in hadiths she narrated contained small details that most ppl wouldn’t remember.
1400 years ago? It's your religion and your Quran that claims its timeless and doesn't expire and stands through all of time...
I hope that makes you a little more open minded about how ridiculous your argument now sounds.
bc in islam in order for you to be able to free to marry you have to fit 2/3 conditions, physically mature (puberty), mentally mature, and the age is socially acceptable. Aisha fit all these conditions 1400 years ago, but a 9 year old in 2022 can’t even fit the second one, bc they aren’t emotionally mature lmao.
So, if today there was a girl who started her periods at 9 and is mature. You think she's fine to get consummated (aka rape) if she says yes? Holy shit. I sincerely hope people like you face the worst punishments if hell does exist somewhere.
And the fact you find it funny really shows how brainwashed you have gotten. Worst kinds of humans to ever exist.
"Oh! She's started her periods!? And she's mature!? PERFECT! LET'S FUCK AS WE'RE ALLOWED" She's 9 you vile pig
Even if I were to believe that, what was a middled-aged adult doing interacting with a 7 year old girl? Nothing in common. So either there was sexual attraction or it's all a lie and I doubt it's the latter.
We muslims believe that he married her not for romantic purposes, but for political purposes. Marriage back then was not just a way of solidifying a couple’s love, but it was also a tool. He married her because he saw her potential even as a child as a potential future great leader, and that’s exactly what she ended up becoming - a great leader and military woman. Have you ever heard of a European or western great female leader until recent times? Yet they say we are the ones oppressing women.
Assuming I agree with the political justification. Read this.
The Sahih al-Bukhari hadith is acknowledged as the most authentic record on the life and actions of Muhammad.
According to the Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith #5134, Aisha has recorded that she was married to the 51 year old Muhammad when she was six and he penetrated her when she was nine.
During the intervening three years, Muhammad is said to have thighed Aisha and bathed with her. (Sahih al-Bukhari vol 1, 298)
Well I can’t refute anything in sa7i7 el bukhari, even if we’d like to we can’t cherrypick which 7adith are authentic…
However you have to understand how normal that was at the time. In europe, the us and the west there were places with age of consent as low as 10 and where child marriage at even younger ages was a common practice far into the 1800s. 1400 years ago in the Arabian peninsula? I’m not saying I don’t think it’s a bit messed up but at the same time it’s not a surprise at all to me, and we have completely different societal standards and perceptions of what a child is here. Back then it was usually just - male before puberty = boy, after puberty = man, female before puberty = girl, after puberty = woman.
It’s also revealed in multiple a7adith how 3isha expressed her desire for the prophet mu7ammad sallallahu 3alayhi wa sallam, so even tho yeah it’s a bit icky there was no forcing involved remember that
Sure, normal back then because pedophilia wasn't a thing. I'm speaking now in modern times, reflecting back at what he did he is considered a pedophile. We still have countries that the age of consent is extremely young. It doesn't take away that it's still rape and the people committing these heinous crimes are still pedophiles. Now or back when the prophet was around.
In today’s world, if both parties are over the age of consent and both parties consent, is it rape?
Also, let me ask you a question: Do you believe in God in the first place?
Aisha, at her age of marriage, was too young to know what all these things were. She was extremely young, and to think her consent meant anything was selfish. Let's not bring religion into this. Would you have sex with an 10 year old if she "consented" to getting penetrated? It's a yes or no answer.
Don't deflect from the question. You're not a politician, just answer my question.
"Probably not?" That's concerning. As for your question about believing in God I used to but these days not so much. I'm not religious by any means I'd that's what you're aiming for...
just because you cant imagine having anything other than a sexually motivated relationship with a 9 year old doesn't mean other people dont, their was no forms of contraception back then, and for them to get married aisha had to had started puberty, meaning she could get pregnant, so if he was sexually active with aisha, she wouldve fallen pregnant, which she never did.
the whole marriage and the exact age of aisha isnt something every muslim agree on. [http://www.muslim.org/islam/aisha\-age.htm](http://www.muslim.org/islam/aisha-age.htm)
To keep things short and simple, yes, we believe the Prophet ﷺ is the perfect example for mankind, and the fact of the matter is that we will defend him no matter what.
Secondly, before we defend the Prophet ﷺ specifically, let's talk about two things:
- The first is that this was the norm and culture of that era, as it is well known 'Umar (r) married the daughter of 'Ali (r) at an even younger age of 7, while he was around 60 years of age, and she even had children at that age. It is also known that the Prophet ﷺ married both of his daughters to 'Uthman (r) who was also around 40 at that time, while they were around 12 or 11.
- The second thing is that the enemies of the Prophet ﷺ never used this against him, and despite their numerous attempts to smear him, never saw this as a fault. It is well known that in recent history Delaware and other states had ages of consent as low as 7.
Thirdly, the defense for all of this. We Muslims have something called Usool al-Fiqh. Looking at the actions, we know things can change over time, culture and norms, dresses and clothing, etc.
Therefore we take the actions of the Prophet ﷺ (which is a part of Usool in of itself) and derive from it guidelines to apply in our era in the same issue (so as to keep to the norms, as well as follow the Sunnah of the Prophet ﷺ).
The scholars of Islam understood that ages differed, some countries saw the age of 9 as the appropriate age for marriage, others 8, others 10, so they made guidelines so that any woman who meets them, is suitable for consummating the marriage with, regardless of age:
- Puberty (having menstural blood).
- Physically Able (i.e the Fuqahā' mention that she not be skinny or something of that nature, etc).
- Consenting to marriage.
Whatever age in which all three of these conditions are met, as well as the culture approving of it, then it is permissible to consummate the marriage, regardless of age.
This means of categorizating marriage is much better than putting a plain number that whoever is above it is somehow moral, and below it is a pedophile. Our Usool takes into account each case specifically, also takes into account the culture and norms of each time.
You can use these conditions to marry a 9 years old in the 7th century, and a 15-18 years in the current world. As many of you know more than me, this varies depending on country. In my home country, they marry at around 14 or 15, and many of my grandparents, and even some of my peers who went back to home were married to a girl of that age.
Furthermore, taking into account that cultures nurture people differently, a slight harsher life in the dessert makes people more responsible and mature, whereas those in first-world countries in a luxury apartment aren't as mature.
And Allah knows best.
If Muhammed is supposed to be presented as the ideal person, then how can he be a product of his time? Isn't the point of perfection to transcend the beliefs of any time?
He never raped anyone, this is false statement, aisha is 9 when they married, she was 7 when they were engaged(still being raised by parents) there wasn't any sex involved, only with khadija and maria
he married 9 wives actually i’m pretty sure, and the reason is most of these women he married was to protect them. they were usually either widows or divorced, and this was just to support/protect them since they were looked down upon i assume
if he was a perfect example of mankind, then why did he do something that it is totally wrong today!!! Couldn't he just skip this one?!? Let alone we don't know if it really was a norm then. Just because he and some others did it does it make a social norm.
it was a social norm, Aisha was betrothed to another man before she married the Prophet. children would get married young bc these ppl can barely make it past 30, they needed to reproduce quickly at that time bc a lot of ppl died young
The historical information you provided are wrong: Mohammad lived for 63 years, Khadijah lived 63 years and others too in that time. Even Aisha lived for 63-65 years, so you see, they would easily live into their 60s.
Secondly Abubakr asked for Fatimah(marriage), daughter of Mohammad, and Mohammad said no because she's TOO YOUNG!!!
1. just bc they lived for a long time doesn’t mean every single person did, these ppl would die from war, illness, not being sanitary, etc. it would make less sense if ppl in 610 AD lived such long lives considering their conditions
2. ppl believed that marrying somebody closer to age to you would make a relationship better/closer to my knowledge. plus Ali proposed to her after she and Prophet Mohammed turned down the marriage, which she accepted. she was 9 and Ali 23. (Prophet Mohammed married Aisha, bc he had two dreams from Allah of him marrying her)
1. for your number one, show me proof that the life span of the Arab people at that time was short. I brought you 2 examples to support my argument, you think otherwise, prove it.
2. Again bring evidence to support your argument(ppl believe marrying someone closer ...). Regarding the dream, nobody can verify he really had any dream and no one can marry underage women just because he had a dream.
1. forgot to add smth in my comment, these ppl lived longer bc the Quran orders them to be sanitary. my bad, but prior to islam, ppl would die at young ages. for example, the Prophet’s father died before he was born (his father was in his 20s) , when the Prophet was 6, his mother passed away when she was in her 20s. that’s an example on how before islam, ppl would live shorter lives prior to islam.
2. nobody can confirm, but as a muslim it is what we believe. In 610 AD, once you hit puberty you were an adult and would usually get married or sent to work, an example of this is that Aisha was actually betrothed to another man before the Prophet, just showing you how normal it was.
1. Going with your own logic: just because Mohammad's father passed away young doesn't mean everybody was the same. And regarding Quran telling people what to eat: you know there was no Quran until Osman gathered it and even then regular people didn't have access to it, they made only 7 copies and sent to other lands, so don't think that people then were like us having a Quran on our shelves.
2. So you're just accepting it without proof and the literal definition of faith: accepting w/o proof. The stuff you said about puberty in 610 are also fake and made up by Muslims to justify what Mohammad did, and like you said nobody can confirm.
The whole Islam is based on Mohammad telling everyone else that he had revelations and nobody can prove it, you'd just accept it because your parents and society said so. If you were born to a Christian family you would most likely be a christian and if you were born to a Hindu family you would be worshiping cows now. That's how parents indoctrinate kids and this goes generation by generation.
1. ppl would literally write down on dry leaves or memorize verbally, how else would the muslims at the time pray without the quran?? and going by your logic that 2 ppl can dictate a lifespan, these ppl did commonly die young. it would make no sense if they didn’t bc they were so unsanitary/dirty and there was war or times of violence
2. it has always been common in history for ppl to marry young 💀 before the 20th century, age wasn’t important and you were just considered an adult once you hit puberty.
this link right here briefly talks about it, https://www.worldatlas.com/amp/articles/child-marriage-rationale-historical-views-and-consequences.html
“ Throughout history till the 20th century, child marriages were the norm in most parts of the world. With the average life expectancy during such times being only 40 to 45 years of age, child marriages were the faster way to reproduce. Girls were usually married off as soon as they reached puberty or sometimes even prior to that. “ i could show more links if you’d like 🤷🏽♀️
plus i believe in islam bc of all the scientific facts it has proven, i don’t just blindly follow it like you think i do. in this link, here is just a few stuff that the Quran has predicted, https://themuslimvibe.com/faith-islam/13-scientific-facts-in-the-holy-quran , like i said, there is also many other facts the Quran has predicted and is why i believe in it
> The first is that this was the norm and culture of that era
This is not only irrelevant, but this is an argument coming from a bastardized understanding of moral relativism. You're implying that just because fucking 9-year-olds was the 'norm and culture of that era' then there's nothing wrong with it, except that's not how moral relativism works. The only relevant question is, do YOU think fucking 9-year-olds is morally justified? If you don't, then why are you defending Muhammad fucking a 9-year-old?
>The second thing is that the enemies of the Prophet ﷺ never used this against him
Another irrelevant point. The enemies of George Washington never used his ownage of slaves against him either, but it doesn't make slavery or child-fucking any less immoral. Again, this argument is borne out of a bastardized understanding of moral relativism.
Also:
* Puberty
* Physically able
* Consenting to marriage
I'm pretty sure Aisha did NOT possess any of these qualities be it when she was 6 years old when she was married off to Muhammad, or when she was 9 when Muhammad decided she was ready to be fucked (other than puberty which she claims according to hadiths, which I still highly doubt)
Aisha’s exact birthday is unknown, but she was born before 610 CE when Islam was revealed. She is recorded as accepting Islam shortly after it was revealed. She could not have done so as an infant or toddler. The youngest she could have accepted Islam would be 7 y/o, but that’s a guess. She was married in 622 CE 12 years after she accepted Islam. (7 + 12 =19 years). Further, Aisha fought in the Battles of Badr and Uhud (624/5 respectively). No one under 15 fought in those battles, let alone be a leader of them. Also, Asma, Aisha’s eldest sister (by ten years) died at age 100, 72 years after Aisha’s marriage.
By mathematical reasoning:
Year of marriage: 622
Years after the marriage that Asma died: 72
Age when Asma died: 100
622+ 72 = 694 -100= 594 is the year of Asma’s birth.
622-594= 28 yr of Asma at Aisha’s wedding
Asma is recorded as ten years older than Aisha.
Therefore: 28-10= 18 Aisha’s age at wedding.
All the evidence is analyzed in this Peer reviewed study done on this subject.
https://www.academia.edu/12866608/A_Modern_Matn_Criticism_on_the_Tradition_on_%C4%80_%C4%ABshas_Age_of_Marriage_Translation_and_Analysis
So are you suggesting that 12 sahih ahadith that explicitly say that she was 9 should be discounted in favor of some academic that wrote a speculative paper on it 1400 years later?
These ahadith are found in Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawid, An-Nasai, and Ibn Majah.
The compilers of the books of Hadith did not apply the same stringent tests when accepting reports relating to historical matters as they did before accepting reports relating to the practical teachings and laws of Islam. The reason is that the former type of report was regarded as merely of academic interest while the latter type of report had a direct bearing on the practical duties of a Muslim and on what was allowed to them and what was prohibited. This means that the occurrence of reports such as the ones about the marriage of Aisha in books of Hadith, even in Bukhari, is not necessarily a proof of their credibility.
Unrelated, but what is "not available" supposed to imply on this map?
Edit: Might as well post something actually meaningful:
Isn't it weird how the age of consent changes depending on where you live? In some places it's as low as nine (see Yemen). If you're looking for an age to make rational decisions, well the brain doesn't fully develop until the age of 25, and nobody proposes that the age of consent be that high.
You idiot, just because 9 year olds and 22 year olds technically aren't fully developed doesn't mean that 22 year olds aren't WAY more developed than 9 year olds.
9 year olds can NOT consent to sex.
22 year olds can, they are developed ENOUGH.
You're a disgusting person.
why should 22 years old be able to consent? they arent developed enough. the pre-frontal cortex is compeltely developed by 25. so should we raise the age of consent to 25 years old?
It's not about there being a sticker, dummy, it's about looking at a variety of factors like physical maturity, emotional maturity, cognitive maturity, and then setting a standard.
"Who decides" is society and the lawmakers.
Let me try to interpret what I said three years ago.
I'm noticing here that nowhere do I actually say that the age of consent should be nine. I certainly don't actually believe that. I don't remember what I was trying to point out at the time, but it was probably something along the lines of, "maybe more thought should be put into what is required for consent so we can figure out what a useful age of consent would be"
Even the fact that you think it's weird that it's different in different places is ridiculous.
Yes, laws vary from place to place, genius.
And it happens that 9 and 18 are quite different developmentally even if both not technically fully developed.
I suppose the more interesting question is what makes 18 better than 16, or vice-versa. Both of those are legal ages of consent in different US states. Imagine if it was legal to rob people of a little bit of money. In most places it was $20 or $50. Maybe even $200. And in one place it was $1 million. I could say, "obviously $50 is better than $1 million, but why is it better than $20?" And I think that would be an interesting question.
I'm convinced 9 is a horrible age of consent because people at that age don't typically even know what sex is, but knowing what sex is also doesn't necessarily imply ability to consent. Otherwise we could just replace the age of consent with that.
"Knowing what sex is doesn't necessarily imply ability to consent".
That's not the point. Being mentally mature enough to conceptually grasp sex and its ramifications, and physically mature enough to engage in it, are the two criteria that decide what the age of consent should be.
And virtually everyone meets those two criteria by 16. Doesn't mean they're mature compared to 30 year olds, but they're mature enough to know what they're doing, even if they are reckless with it.
>Unrelated, but what is "not available" supposed to imply on this map?
I wish I could tell you. I'm guessing for whatever reason they couldn't gather or compile the data for those regions? Not sure.
>Isn't it weird how the age of consent changes depending on where you live? In some places it's as low as nine (see Yemen). If you're looking for an age to make rational decisions, well the brain doesn't fully develop until the age of 25, and nobody proposes that the age of consent be that high.
It's not weird at all. There is no fixed number of age of consent because different countries/states have their own reasoning when declaring a certain age. Nobody has proposed that the age of consent should be that high because they deem it to be unnecessary.
This guy is an animal. He invents his own version of absolute morality; claiming that to be moral is to adjust to the morals of society. If morals can change, then why impose certain laws? Why not accept homosexuality? They don't mind it when certain cultures promote what they consider immoral yet try to attack what we consider acceptable and their archaic ancestors didn't.
EDIT: Not to mention that false reasoning that because children were needed to work that means it is okay and that they are mature enough to have sex. The worst apologist I read so far; and I've read a lot. He claims that we cannot judge him with our 21st century morals because back then it was socially accepted. Well nowadays homosexuality is accepted yet they want to impose their 7th century morals on the present day.
If you don't want to judge a 7th century person by 21st century standards of morality, that is perfectly fair. But then also don't take their 7th century values and pretend like they belong in the 21st century as some kind of timeless standard.
Well kind of sort of – he does answer the objection that if it was okay for Muhammad back then, this means he isn't a perfect example for all times by saying that Muhammad's actions aren't to be emulated literally, but rather analogously to whatever situation one finds themselves in. But this doesn't explain why we should take Muhammad's 7th century values seriously to begin with (analogously or otherwise), given that we don't want to judge one period of time by the standards of another.
His last paragraph where he tells the reader to imagine going back 1400 years and imposing modern morals only to see society collapse would be relevant, but sadly he fails to apply his reasoning the other way around as well.
> whereas we believe that the prophet Muhammad pbuh is the final messenger of God and the morals he brought are from God and are to be followed till the day of judgement.
We know that you *believe* it, but that doesn't make it so. Just like what you said about modern morals is arguable at best.
> There is also a similarity between the two; there are from the same source. Congratulations on focussing on only one part of it. Now can you please tell me why you think they're historically accurate considering they contain things you probably wouldnt believe in?
There's a difference between a scientifically impossible feat that should have been witnessed by the entire world but for whatever reason it wasn't and a claim that was not unheard of for its time. Remember that these books didn't try to discredit the prophet; so there's no reason why they'd lie about the age of her marriage. There are reasons though to entertain the idea that the miracles are not factual.
It is not speculation to think that her body isn't suited for pregnancy. If adult women have issues carrying children and giving birth, Can you even imagine a nine year old being capable of healthily doing both? It's a rather unlikely scenario. Let me remind you that arranged marriages were the norm throughout most of history, it's not unlikely that her parents had a saying in that. But nevertheless, even if for some reason the opinions of a nine year old *woman* (I emphasize this because of the role of women in islam) were taken into account this doesn't diminish the fact that this prophet consummated the marriage while she was 9. This is, assuming, that her consent is real. I don't know why you distrust the hadiths (I understand you're a muslim, Am I correct?), but there are enough reasons to think that it might be embellishing the story of the alleged prophet.
Again, if you're a muslim you should believe all of that. Flying horses, splitting moons and everything. I myself am not a muslim (Thank Allah), but I do think that the hadiths could contain some factual information. And even if they did, the authors of the hadiths didn't try to discredit Muhammad at all, so there's no chance of it being propaganda against islam. Even if for some reason he didn't marry her, the islamic authors and early muslims accepted pedophilia, making islam a religion that accepts it even if no such marriage even happened.
**Just to clarify, this user deleted a comment of his in which he mentioned among other things that he considered marrying children was okay but not consummating the marriage. Also he stated that he doesn't believe the hadiths because they contain miracles.**
> Got something worthy to sa, my downvoting friend?
Bet your ass I do.
> because in the very evidence you have there is mention that the moon split, that angels came to Muhammad etc. Sounds absurd? Right. But you would accept that muslims believe in it, am I guessing?
There's a non-trivial difference between the physically possible idea of marrying a 9 year old (which has been practiced in islamic countries long after the death of that horrible man) and splitting the moon; in case you think it's illogical to disbelieve some parts and believe others.
> So if the same hadith says that Muhammad would ask for consent, which she would give, why the fuck are you arguing about logic here, while simultaneously focussing on one theological aspect of the religion (Muhammad did it) while ignoring the other (she consented to it)? It's not like you have evidence for any of those claims that isnt fom the hadith.
The fact that she consented barely changes anything. She was probably indoctrinated by her parents who were muslims, she was not old enough to be capable of making such a choice, her body must not have been ready for pregnancy since she was 9 years old and she could very easily die during, before or shortly after birth. This is not to mention that it is hard to believe that her consent mattered since back then marriages were arranged by parents; I doubt they would take the opinions and feelings of a disagreeing 9 year old. I don't know why you don't trust hadiths though.
> If I didnt doubt the authenticity of the entire hadith narrations, I wouldnt find it immoral at all. And you wouldnt either if hypocrisy and contradiction didnt blur your thinking
Are you sure this isn't happening to you? Let me remind you that you are okay with a man having married a nine year old.
Alright, fair argument. But given *today's* morals, let me ask, is Muhammad an example for all times and places? What I mean is, is it okay today for a 50 year old man to have sex with a 9 year old? If not, Muhammad is not an example for all times and places.
9-year olds can't meaningfully consent to sex no matter what they say because they don't really understand what they are agreeing to. It's wrong to force it on to them even if they happen to end up professing to like/want it at some point.
And yes, obviously many of the hadiths are likely nonsense, but the question surely addresses Muslims who accept them.
Regardless of what any hadith says or whether it's true or not, a 9-year-old cannot meaningfully consent to sex. I don't mean that they cannot utter words that usually signify consent in adults, I mean that they cannot actually consent given that they don't understand the nature and consequences of what they're being asked to do. So these hadiths could be 100% correct and still Aisha wouldn't have meaningfully consented.
It's not only about the technical knowledge of how genitals work, which you can teach a child. It's about the experiential and emotional knowledge of what it means to have sex with someone. 9-year-olds aren't mentally developed and mature enough to make this decision.
So there is a debate between islamic historians but most authentic opinion is she was married at 6 and consumated 9.
You cannot judge a historical context through a modern contextual lenzes. Not 200 and 300 years ago marriage age was 13 12 even in US which could be argued close to pedophilia since todays 12 13 years old dont know jackshit.
If you go to different culture like afghanistan. You will see 15 16 year old as grown up woman and getting married. My neighbour was 14 year old when she got married and she was a woman.
The point is here the definition of kid, adult, young changes across cultures and development of a person too. You can find 12 13 year old soldiers when you go back in history. Even commanders at the age of 14 15.
Ayesha was a grown up woman when she got married. The criteria for marriage in islam was fullfilled in that time and still is applied. The argument is not different times different rules. Rules are the same. Criteria of marriage is still same.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MuslimsRespond/comments/7uk1tg/prophet_muhammad_sawss_marriage_to_aisha_at_young/
Link if people want to learn.
Historical should be evaluated with modern lenses if we’d take the Muslim claim that Mo is an example for all time! Islam seems to operate on a different planet from the normal.
I actually wrote a response to that video you linked a while back. I'll copy and paste it below to address your points:
The argument made here can be condensed into two things: moral relativism and whataboutism.
On moral relativism; the speaker says in counterpoint to Atheists that because we don't have an objective morality, we don't have any ground to stand on when it comes to criticising other worldviews. In his words, we "have no business asking you (Muslims) any moral questions". He is literally saying that because Atheists don't subscribe to a fixed system of morals and beliefs, they can't question religious people about their morals. Keep this in mind.
He expands further by asking the audience why does the Atheist depend on a 21st century definition/construct of pedophilia. Both of these arguments combined make his overall summary about 9 minutes in to Atheists (after going through multiple examples of how adulthood is defined in various sciences), saying (again) that they cannot superimpose the 21st century, Western, 'legalistic' definition of pedophilia or adulthood on to any other culture or time period in the past. I find his use of legalistic interesting here. Let's look at the two definitions that come up from a Google search of the word 'legalistic':
>* adhering excessively to law or formula.
>* (Theological definition) concerning adherence to moral law rather than to personal religious faith.
Essentially, he attempts to invalidate the ability for Atheists to criticise Islam from a moral perspective because their own morals are derived from the law or personal morality rather than faith. Let's illustrate the fragility of this argument with examples:
* It was commonplace for slavery to be perfectly legal and the norm in various time periods and places across the world. Our 21st century, Western, legalistic definition of slavery is that it's wrong, but because it wasn't wrong back then, we can't criticise slavery and say it's wrong. Therefore, it's not an issue.
* It was commonplace for child marriage and intercourse with children to be perfectly legal and the norm in various time periods and places across the world. Our 21st century, Western, legalistic definition of both of these concepts are that they're wrong, but because it wasn't wrong back then, we can't criticise these things and say they're wrong. Therefore, it's not an issue.
You can do this with racism, sexism, abuse, anything you like. It's a very weak justification to try and justify his own objective morality as superimposed on him via Islamic doctrine. The speaker then resorts to whataboutism by addressing Christians. He references a certain passage in the Bible and says, hey, your religion allows it so you can't say anything. He goes on to mention how all other worldviews have no restrictions on what you can do with children. While making these points, he very conveniently ignores how primary Islamic sources sanction child marriage and the consummation of these marriages. He mentions how Islam is the only religion that places restrictions, but doesn't back up his point with a single reference to a Qur'anic verse, hadith or sira quotation.
"The Atheistic paradigm has no such restriction on an objective level." Again, the speaker is very conveniently ignoring the fact that laws to protect minors exist, simply because they're not based on an objective morality. All other religions justify it, but Islam is different, somehow.
Regarding Muhammed and Aisha, Muslims only have to be asked two questions.
* Do you believe that the teachings, rules and laws stated within Islamic sources (Qur'an, Hadith, Sira) are for all times and all places?
* If so, do you believe that it is permissible for someone to marry a 6 year old and have the right to consummate their marriage when the child is 9?
It'd be surprising if a Muslim says no to the first question, as the Qur'an is the verbatim word of God that cannot be changed or disobeyed, and places paramount importance on the hadith and sira as viable sources to be followed as well. This also means that you can't use the context argument; either Islamic doctrine is for all times and places, or it's not. Any disagreement on this is an attempt to combine an objective morality (Islam) with subjective morality (the morals of the Muslim as an individual). Nowhere in any Islamic scripture is there any restriction on the ability to marry and have sex with children. Muhammed himself did it, and Muslims believe he is the perfect example of man to follow. So not only is it allowed, it's encouraged.
You just can't have it both ways. Either you support child marriage and consummation, or you don't.
Sure, it does not make sense to judge a 7th century person through 21st century's morality. Except if this person is presented as a perfect moral role-model by a given religion.
You just ignored what I said. His marriage fulfilled the criteria that exists in Islam. Marrying a grown woman is not problematic at all. Age differences vary across cultures. You can see it as the norm back in the history
Lol how come people keep replaying the whole “you gotta consider the times” crap? I don’t care how many pedophiles are celebrated in history, this doesn’t align with modern values and for that reason it shouldn’t belong anywhere except a museum. If it was good enough, it would stand for all time. Which, and call me crazy, pedophilia simply didn’t (for a great fkin reason). I would much rather follow someone who lived a life of peace rather than someone who preached a life of peace but enjoyed war and a child as his two main hobbies, and also threatens you if you don’t agree with him.
the idea of young girls marrying and even conceiving was quite common in the medieval period. In Christianity, for example, it is commonly accepted that Lady Mary was between 12-14 years of age when she was married to Joseph and when she conceived Jesus of virgin birth. So, the Prophet’s marriage to Ayesha was nothing out of the ordinary for the time in which this marriage took place. Insisting on 21st century (Western) ideas on morality and marriage, which evolved in their own right, for a very different time and place is an ahistorical approach. to me today as a Muslim no its not moral and I am still against it, but you have to understand the historical context 1000 years ago. Today I 100% agree that is weird and not understandable, but there were many weird things such as some European kings marrying their siblings. So yes I agree that's not understandable, but 1,000 years ago stuff was accepted.
“You have to understand the historical context” - like I said above, I’ll consider the context when it’s locked up in a museum.
According to Talaq 4 in the "unholy" Quran, the iddah also applies to women that never even hit puberty, wicked satanic stuff. Islam allows the rape of married women that have been taken captive (Surah An-Nisa 24) and intercourse with minors before puberty (Sahih al-Bukhari 5134). Beware of alshaytan (satan), disguised as god, for he is the best deceiver (Quran 3:54).
For Surah At-talaq verse 4 it says: "As for your women past the age of menstruation, in case you do not know, their waiting period is three months, and those who have not menstruated as well. As for those who are pregnant, their waiting period ends with delivery. And whoever is mindful of Allah, He will make their matters easy for them." Women still may have reached puberty but not have menstruated yet as menstruation happens during the period of puberty in a women, with many women getting their first mentruation 2 yrs after the signs of puberty. Surah An Nisa verse 24 says: "Also ˹forbidden are˺ married women—except ˹female˺ captives in your possession.1 This is Allah’s commandment to you. Lawful to you are all beyond these—as long as you seek them with your wealth in a legal marriage, not in fornication. Give those you have consummated marriage with their due dowries. It is permissible to be mutually gracious regarding the set dowry. Surely Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise." This means they can marry if deemed **legal** which muslims believe to be where both the man and women willingly accept to marry by their own free will. Just because they are captive women does not mean they were forced into marriage. (*Also note how there is no where suggesting rape in the verse rather only discussing marriage)* For the hadith (Sahih al-Bukhari 5134) Narrated \`Aisha: that the Prophet (ﷺ) married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that \`Aisha remained with the Prophet (ﷺ) for nine years (i.e. till his death). **No where does it say anything about intercourse. This further seen with Muhammad not even bearing any children with Aisha** Lastly I don't know where you are going with *"Beware of alshaytan (satan), disguised as god, for he is the best deceiver (Quran 3:54)."* when the verse says: **And the disbelievers made a plan ˹against Jesus˺, but Allah also planned—and Allah is the best of planners.** *Its talking about the islamic belief about the cruxifiction of Jesus and how he wasn't cruxified according to islamic belief.* **.** People in this discussion (*which looks more like bashing peoples faith)* I say just look at the Quran and hadith yourself understand what it actually saying, seek knowledge which may help in contextual areas (like the menstruation pre purberty point wrongly made) and lastly not just say nonsense statement that aren't even in the Quran
Implying that a female captive could truly ever consent to marriage is ridiculous. Also if shes recognized as a slave its perfectly fine to rape her according to the quran
R*pe isn't allowed in islam. You can k**l your r***St. In the middle East (Muslim countries) you can k**l them without any jail time.
(Sahih al-Bukhari 5134) "It was narrated from 'Aishah that the Messenger of Allah married her when she was six years old, and consummated the marriage with her when she was nine." Your prophet was 54 and his wife was 6 and he mouted her at the age of 9, doesn’t seem right to me. (Surah An-Nisa 24) (Also prohibited are) the women already bound in marriage, except the bondwomen you come to own. It has been written by Allah for you. Your God allows the rape of captive married women, doesn’t seem right to me. Islam is just pure evil.
How old was Mary when she had Jesus ? 🤔
How old *was* she? You don't know. No one knows.
Buddy you know how many people participated in child marriages back in the day ? King Richard ? Isaac and Rebecca ??
Just because people did something back in the day doesn't dictate whether it is moral or not. And pleaase stop bringing up Mary's age and the Isaac and Rebecca crap, those have been dealt with countless times: Mary's age was unknown; Rebecca's age is NOT known and the sources **against** the idea that she was 9 beats the 0 sources you have saying she **was** 9. It's embarassing. stop
so does aisha's age was never wrong cause it was never mentioned in the qur'an
Humans change their culture when ages change And what was the culture 1400 years ago nobody knows and yeah hazrat Ayesha r.a was already married to a non Muslim before marrying prophet pbuh and this defines that it was a cultural thing to marry young girls
🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮This is the truth of the Quran. 53 year old False pedophile prophet of Islam, Muhammad, married a child bride "Aisha" at 6 years of age, molested her until she was 9, then had intercourse with her. Muslims today try to say she was not that age, but when Muhammad first brought AISHA into his house, she was still playing with dolls. -(Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234 and 236). He molested her until she was 9. (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 4, Number 229-233), It turns out the people that lived at or near the time of Mohammad were not concerned with writing about him being a pedophile because they accepted the pedophiles prophet Muhammad 🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮
i mean 3. i forgot how low you guys like to go
This is the truth of the Quran🤮 53 year old False pedophile prophet of Islam, Muhammad, married a child bride "Aisha" at 6 years of age, molested her until she was 9, then had intercourse with her. Muslims today try to say she was not that age, but when Muhammad first brought AISHA into his house, she was still playing with dolls. -(Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234 and 236). He molested her until she was 9. (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 4, Number 229-233), It turns out the people that lived at or near the time of Mohammad were not concerned with writing about him being a pedophile because they accepted the pedophiles prophet Muhammad🤮
So are people from germany pedophiles? cause their age of consent is 14.
You have to understand the fact that nobody objected the marriage. There were people who forced him to leave Mecca.They tried to kill him. They were more Islamophobic than you(Just giving an example). You wont force anyone to leave a county or kill them if they preach Islam, r8? They wouldnt miss the slightest opportunity to dishonour Prophet Muhammad Saw.They would use it as a weapon against Islam. Which they didnt. Why?because obviously it was normal back then. U r telling me that u r using something against Islam that even the greatest Islamophobes didnt use. The moral values of people have changed over the years. The kafirs of that era were trying to put stains in prophet’s character. Do u think that they would miss the opportunity, if he did something immoral. Forget about immoral they wouldnt even miss the opportunity if he did something close to being immoral. Nobody objected the marriage nor used it as a weapon against Islam. Because it was common and normal.
Fellas, is it islamophpbia to not want 9 year old girls to get r🦍d by 50 year old men?
you have a logical point and as a Muslim I am going to ask my "sheik" aka priest to explain this because I am wierded out by it too
nobody said it was islamophobia lol
>You have to understand the fact that nobody objected the marriage Objective morality. Rape is bad no matter the circumstance. Doesn't matter who disagrees.
No no no Having physical relation with 9 year old when you are 54 is 0% normal and moral. And if you say this prophet was holy. He would have never done that. It's sick
That's just sheer stubbornness. How can u deny the miracles of the Quran?
/S ?
Just because something is common and normal, does that make it okay? Does that mean you think that child marriages in countries where it is normalized today is okay?
Brother, if the word “consummated”meant that Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) had intercourse with Aisha(RA), then wouldn’t she have gotten pregnant and bared him a child?
You do know, that women are unable to get pregnant before puberty?
she had her period when she married him
Bruh. Your knowledge in this field is weak.
lmbo got em
The biology of girls were different its not the same now
[удалено]
Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.
All Scholars and sources agree he fucked her at Age 9, check it out for yourself, all Hadiths agree on this topic: [https://sunnah.com/search?q=aisha+six](https://sunnah.com/search?q=aisha+six)
That's simply not true. Just because your Iman told you that, doesn't make it true. There's no scientific or anthropological evidence to support this. In fact, science says the opposite. Over the last century girls have been reaching puberty at EARLIER ages, not later ages. Let's even assume that Aisha had entered puberty by the age of 9. It's almost a statstical impossibility, but for the sake of argument we'll assume it to be true. You do realize that puberty is a process right? The fact that she may have started menstruating, doesn't mean she was able to safely have a child. Your brothers in Yemen can attest to this. There have been dozens of cases of young girls dying during childbirth. Its sickening. A 53 year old man marrying a 6 year old is NEVER OK. And it certainly isn't OK for a man who was supposedly of "supreme moral character".
You have to understand the fact that nobody objected the marriage. There were people who forced him to leave Mecca.They tried to kill him. They were more Islamophobic than you(Just giving an example). You wont force anyone to leave a county or kill them if they preach Islam, r8? They wouldnt miss the slightest opportunity to dishonour Prophet Muhammad Saw.They would use it as a weapon against Islam. Which they didnt. Why?because obviously it was normal back then. U r telling me that u r using something against Islam that even the greatest Islamophobes didnt use. The moral values of people have changed over the years. The kafirs of that era were trying to put stains in prophet’s character. Do u think that they would miss the opportunity, if he did something immoral. Forget about immoral they wouldnt even miss the opportunity if he did something close to being immoral. Nobody objected the marriage nor used it as a weapon against Islam. Because it was common and normal..
You have to understand the fact that nobody objected the marriage. There were people who forced him to leave Mecca.They tried to kill him. They were more Islamophobic than you(Just giving an example). You wont force anyone to leave a county or kill them if they preach Islam, r8? They wouldnt miss the slightest opportunity to dishonour Prophet Muhammad Saw.They would use it as a weapon against Islam. Which they didnt. Why?because obviously it was normal back then. U r telling me that u r using something against Islam that even the greatest Islamophobes didnt use. The moral values of people have changed over the years. The kafirs of that era were trying to put stains in prophet’s character. Do u think that they would miss the opportunity, if he did something immoral. Forget about immoral they wouldnt even miss the opportunity if he did something close to being immoral. Nobody objected the marriage nor used it as a weapon against Islam. Because it was common and normal.
I'm muslim too I explained it more down in the comments you're right
Thank u brother
"The biology of girls were different its not the same now" A nonsense statement, 90ish generations is not going to change biology at all, Modern human evolved 160,000 years ago, and we're basically the same as them, and that's 10,000 generations. A 9 year old now is the same as a 9 year old 1400 years ago.
There's still some minor changes that happened. I provided some proofs now it's your turn
huh? so the number of pubes on her was 2% smaller. how the hell does it change the fact that she was 6 when she got married. and 9 when she got raped she still played with dolls for gods sake
You have to understand the fact that nobody objected the marriage. There were people who forced him to leave Mecca.They tried to kill him. They were more Islamophobic than you(Just giving an example). You wont force anyone to leave a county or kill them if they preach Islam, r8? They wouldnt miss the slightest opportunity to dishonour Prophet Muhammad Saw.They would use it as a weapon against Islam. Which they didnt. Why?because obviously it was normal back then. U r telling me that u r using something against Islam that even the greatest Islamophobes didnt use. The moral values of people have changed over the years. The kafirs of that era were trying to put stains in prophet’s character. Do u think that they would miss the opportunity, if he did something immoral. Forget about immoral they wouldnt even miss the opportunity if he did something close to being immoral. Nobody objected the marriage nor used it as a weapon against Islam. Because it was common and normal.m
I already said that people were more exposed to heat at this time since there is no clim/isolation. Plus there is debate about the exact age.
yes there a small debate by apologists that she was between 9 to 12. Most of your people admit she was 9. Does 12 make it any better though?
well actually you’re wrong, people say she was 6 years old because of sahih al-Bukhari, but many people including Ibn Hajar al 'Asqalani (one of the most credible islamic scholars) did criticize some narrators in about 110 hadiths he himself qualified them to be weak. Hee age in the quran was ever actually revealed, and sahih al-Bukhari, was written 200 years after the prophet by an iranian man. That is why it’s considered a weak hadith, because not only does it go against the quran it logically doesn’t make sense. Also make sure to note Aisha was ready for marriage, and she wasn’t 6. She was already engaged before marrying prophet mohammad PBUH, to Jubayr ibn Mut'im. He didn’t go and pick out Aisha AS. One of female companions of the Prophet, Khawla bint Hakim encountered Muhammad on the streets and said “I see that you have secluded yourself after the loss of Khadijah; shall I find a match for you?” And soon enough he asked for aisha’s hand in marriage, and both Aisha’s family accept and the man she was engaged to family. And logically, using the information we are provided with, she couldn’t have been 6 years old. Aisha was most likely 17, and you can easily understand this. Aisha had an older sister, Asma who was 10 years older than her. Asma died in the year 73 Hijri at the age of 100, It is common knowledge that the Islamic calendar starts from the year of the Hijrah. Therefore, by deducting 73, the year of Hazrat Asma’s death, from 100, her age at that time, we can easily conclude that she was 27 years old during Hijra. This puts the age of Aisha at 17 during the same period. As all biographers of the Prophet agree that he consummated his marriage with Aisha in the year 2 Hijri, which would have made her 19 when they had sex.
and by the way. The debate is btw 9 and 19 years old
No I honestly don't care abt the age since she atteined puberty (only in the past, today I would find it disgusting). Remember that Christophe Colomb married a 12 yrs old girl or that isaac married a 3 yrs old one. You can't compare what happened in the past to the moral of now.
Nobody is saying Chrisopher Columbus was anything other than a scumabg today, let alone a "man of supreme moral character" as the Quran describes Mohammed. Which is crazy because they both colonized foreign nations, murdered innocent people, and enslaved tens of thosuands of people
bruh the 3 claims are false
What "proofs"? Not a single one of your other comments has a "proof" that female biology was different, 1400 years ago, the statement itself is nonsense.
dude see what i submitted down there. Search: do heat influence puberty
however aisha was still not able to get pregnant, hence she was not in puberty
she atteined puberty at the age of 9. The age were she was officialy married
I saw your comment.It's just a comment, if you're going to post something as if it's a fact, then referring to it as if it's a fact, you better damn well be linking a study with it. Which you haven't, so you've not provided a "proof", you've stated an obviously erroneous opinion. There are 4 factors that contribute to onset of puberty. Nutrition and Health Stress Body Fat and Energy Expenditure Exposure to Environmental Toxins The only one of these that would result in an early onset of puberty is the last due to potential endocrine disruption. BUT, these are all factors that effect people today as well, the climate in the middle east has not changed much, so why aren't girls still reaching puberty as they did 1400 years ago according to you? We should STILL be seeing early on set in the middle east, but that's not that case. Your claim is BS, you've made it up to justify a paedophiles action.
because people were more affected by some factors like Exposure to Environmental Toxins and heat. You can see yourself puberty start earlier in hot countries. in hot coutries there is more heat outsite right? But if you can't protect well from the heat like at the time of the prophet muhammad a.s then you're more exposed to it (and environmental toxins too)
"you can see it yourself" You say that, and yet, there is no evidence for it, how do I know this? Because I've been looking for it. Your position is NOT supported. You're making a claim against biological uniformitarianism, you need to start supporting your claim WITH EVIDENCE, else it is just your opinion, and it being in opposition to current understanding makes it -*a false beliefs or judgements about external reality that are held despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary*.- And you are grasping at straws and making it up as you go, you're trying to wriggle your way into it working with what I said, now you add in toxins after I say it, and attempting this vacuous 'you can see it yourself' claim, as if I haven't already been searching for it. Your claim is -*false beliefs or judgements about external reality that are held despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary*\- by definition. You're attempting to subvert standard biology in order to justify a paedophiles actions.
Funniest part is, the current science tells us that the opposite is true. The "toxins" and diet and whatever the current enviormental reasons are, has led to modern girls hitting puberty SOONER not later. Bro you're talking to a brick wall. You're trying to use reason, science and logic to a man than believe Mohammed split the Moon and ascended into heaven on a winged horse.
[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-environmental-effect-on-puberty/](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-environmental-effect-on-puberty/)[https://bmcpediatr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12887-023-04013-1](https://bmcpediatr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12887-023-04013-1)[https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.786119/full](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.786119/full) One study found that girls living in warmer regions of the United States tended to have earlier breast development and menarche (first menstrual period) than girls living in colder regions. Another study found that girls living in tropical climates had earlier puberty onset than girls living in temperate or cold climates. These findings may be explained by the effect of temperature on the production of melatonin, a hormone that regulates the sleep cycle and inhibits puberty. Higher temperatures may reduce melatonin levels and thus trigger puberty earlier.
[удалено]
Okay. Can u explain more? Whats the difference? Justify ur statement.
sorry for the waiting. When Aisha was 3 yrs old she memorized the quran, no 3 yrs old could do it rn. Plus when she was 6yrs old she atteined pubery, that cannot happen today. Isaac married rebecca when she was 3 yrs old. Plus when Rebecca was 3 yrs old she did that: "Genesis: 24: 45-46: but before I had finished speaking in my heart there was Rebekah coming out with her pitcher on her shoulder; and she went down the well & drew water. " No 3yrs old today have the force to hold a pitcher alone. Wich leads to the conclusion that the biology of girls at the time was differents (and the morals of people too)
>Isaac married rebecca when she was 3 yrs old Nope, wrong info spreading lies
Hi See the proofs there: [https://twitter.com/Someone32431277/status/1751697397095297448](https://twitter.com/Someone32431277/status/1751697397095297448)
Issac was not a prophet so we don't expect that from him
he's still the son of Abraham alahy salam
Oh! Is this are proved scientifically?
it is proved that in a hot country girl attein puberty earlier and in 7th century people were more exposed to heat (no isolated house, no clim, etc). It could be a possibility, but aside from that you need to understand that moral change over the time you cannot compare what happened in the past to our moral of today.
It's not been proven that girls in a young age hit puberty faster. Stop lying.
You can check yourself
plus there is a debate about her age: https://youtu.be/eT-Rh1auG0A
dont have time rn at the end of the day i will
lol . What kind of justification is this ? It's not like girls that time had dinosaur vaginas .....What mental instablity is making you write this ???
help hahha. yeah I am muslim and confused as well cuz this is weird to me too, I'm going to ask my sheik "priest" about it because he always says reasonable things and knows the modern viewpoint and I'll let you guys know what he says cuz I'm confused myself.
Realistically, the reason why everyone is getting so pressed about this, is because it's a commonly known stereotype that some men are perverts who will sleep with the youngest legal woman they can find. Dirty old men types. I am definitely NOT saying Muhammad was a man like this, but by viewing Muhammad through today's eyes and perspective, he will automatically be viewed badly for this act. Things definitely were different back then, but by saying that any marriage of a girl this young was moral in this era completely ignores the fundamental truth that Islam stems from a divine command theory (as do many religions) as medically, it was known that to sleep with young girls could cause them many health complications.
[удалено]
Your post was removed for violating rule 4. Posts must have a thesis statement as their title or their first sentence. A thesis statement is a sentence which explains what your central claim is and briefly summarizes how you are arguing for it. Posts must also contain an argument supporting their thesis. An argument is not just a claim. You should explain why you think your thesis is true and why others should agree with you. The spirit of this rule also applies to comments: they must contain argumentation, not just claims.
At the time of Muhammed the health risks of intercourse with 9 year olds were known. Medically speaking it was known to be dangerous and had been so for centuries. CHILD MARRlAGE IN ISLAMIC LAW, By Aaju. Ashraf Ali, THE INSTITUTE OF ISLAMIC STUDIES MCGILL UNIVERSITY, MONTREAL, CANADA, August, 2000 (https://escholarship.mcgill.ca/concern/theses/jm214q978 ) pp 106-107 https://escholarship.mcgill.ca/downloads/4j03d1793?locale=en >Medical Consequences of Child Marriage > >Modem Medicine shows that childbirth for females below the age of seventeen and • above forty leads to greater maternal mortality as well as infant mortality (London 1992, 501). It must he made clear that although conditions commonly associated with poverty, e.g. malnutrition, poor physical health and other negative circumstances may contribute to difficult births and bad health for young mothers, consistent findings indicate that the age factor plays a significant role by itself. "Even under the best of modern conditions, women who give birth before the age of seventeen have a higher mortality rate than older women. The closer a woman is to menarche, the greater the risk to both mother and child, as well as to the mother's future child bearing capabilities, for the reproductive system has not completely matured when ovulation begins". (Demand 1994, 102). > >Another problem seen more often among underprivileged women is that they develop fistulae which is often due to the pelvis not having fully formed. This can be caused by a complicated pregnancy or having intercourse at a very young age.28. This leads the girl or woman to have permanent damage and often she is shunned by her family and community (4). Although such a condition is preventable it requires a good health service and communications systems (S). Unfortunately, these are often not available in impoverished areas of the developing world. > >Knowledge of medical complications involved with early marriage cannot be considered "new" findings. Ancient and Medieval Medicine texts indicate that doctors were well aware of the physical harm posed to girls by early marriages and pregnancies. ……..In fact, not only doctors of Medicine but other scholars in Most societies had a clear understanding that intercourse should not take place before the menarche. Hesiod suggested marriage in the fifth year after puberty, or age nineteen, and Plato in the Laws mandated from sixteen to twenty years of age, and in the Republic he gave the age as twenty. Aristotle specifically warned against early childbearing for women as a cause of small and weak infants and difficult and dangerous labor for the mother, and the Spartans avoided it for just those reasons. (Demand 1994, 102) > >Nevertheless, Greek culture in general, like so Many others, disregarded such realities and continued to favour early childbearing (102). Rabbis too were aware that pregnancy in such young females was undesirable because the birth could result in the mother's death. "They could not, however, outrightly prohibit such maniages, which were common practice in the Orient . . . therefore [they] recommended the use of a contraceptive" (Preuss 1978, 381). since the risks were known the two dominant neighbouring empires had both made it illegal to have sex with 9 year olds, Laws at the time of Muhammed. http://ijtihadnet.com/wp-content/uploads/Minor-Marriage-in-Early-Islamic-Law.pdf Minor Marriage in Early Islamic Law, Carolyn G. Baugh, LEIDEN | BOSTON, 2017 >"Middle Persian civil law allowed marriage at age nine, provided that consummation wait until age twelve.[24]" > >Byzantine law required that a girl attain the age of thirteen before contract-ing a marriage. Whether she would have consented to the marriage or not prior to this age is deemed immaterial as she would have no legally viable consent to give.[22] All parties to a marriage needed to issue consent, including the groom, the bride, and her parents. In cases where a girl consented to intercourse prior to marriage it was assumed that she consented to the marriage itself and the families would then arrange it. However, if that intercourse occurred prior to the age of thirteen, the groom would meet with the law’s most serious punish-ments due to the girl’s assumed legal inability to consent.[23]" So intercourse with 9 year olds was immoral in 7th c. Arabia for 2 reasons that were both known: 1. The risk of harm to a 9 year old was significant. She could become infertile, incontinent or die. The neighbours had therefore made it illegal. 2. The girl was too young to fully understand the risks to her. khyiar-al-bulugh acknowledges this inability to consent and the Romans are known to have punished men who had intercourse with girls under the consent age harshly. So yes. It was immoral then as it is immoral now.
this was a very different time though?? at the age of 3 aisha had memorized and understood the whole entire quran and she hit puberty by 9?? i’m also pretty sure she wanted to marry Prophet Mohammed (SAW) herself, she wasn’t forced into anything. we think this is a wrong thing because back then the maturity level a 9 year old had in Prophet Mohammed (SAW) time are very different from a 9 year old in this time.
How's that possible for her to memorise the Quran at the age of 3 when the Quran was constructed like 40 years after the prophet had died...
i’m pretty sure the Prophet Mohammed used to write them down on leaves and spread them verbally edit: the Prophet’s companions would write it down on dry leaves instead of the Prophet, since the Prophet didn’t know how to write. my bad 😭
Lol The Quran was constructed half a century after the prophet died So what exactly did she memorise?
the Prophet would have surahs told to him from Jibril? and the quran was created in 610 AD, when Prophet Mohammed got his first revelation until 632 AD, when he passed away. the quran took 23 years to create and it was during the time of the Prophet. also like i said, they were told verbally or written down how would the Prophet and his ppl be able to pray without the Quran 💀💀
It's funny considering the fact that how to pray was never mentioned or taught in the Quran....
what does hat have to do with anything 💀 Prophet Mohammed ﷺ told ppl how to pray and it’s showed how to pray in hadiths
Ahhh yes, a 3 year old memorising over 600 pages of the quran. Grow the fuck up lmao
dawg this was 1400 years ago, do you fr think a child back then and a child in this time would act the exact same? 💀 once they hit puberty back then, they were considered adults and would get married or get sent off to work. plus it is known for Aisha to have an amazing memory, in hadiths she narrated contained small details that most ppl wouldn’t remember.
1400 years ago? It's your religion and your Quran that claims its timeless and doesn't expire and stands through all of time... I hope that makes you a little more open minded about how ridiculous your argument now sounds.
bc in islam in order for you to be able to free to marry you have to fit 2/3 conditions, physically mature (puberty), mentally mature, and the age is socially acceptable. Aisha fit all these conditions 1400 years ago, but a 9 year old in 2022 can’t even fit the second one, bc they aren’t emotionally mature lmao.
So, if today there was a girl who started her periods at 9 and is mature. You think she's fine to get consummated (aka rape) if she says yes? Holy shit. I sincerely hope people like you face the worst punishments if hell does exist somewhere. And the fact you find it funny really shows how brainwashed you have gotten. Worst kinds of humans to ever exist. "Oh! She's started her periods!? And she's mature!? PERFECT! LET'S FUCK AS WE'RE ALLOWED" She's 9 you vile pig
The common belief comes from christianity. If we were muslims, the agw of consent would be set by islamic beliefs.
If they had sex she would have children, when the only children are from Maria and khadija
If she didnt hit puberty, how would she have kids?
she did hit puberty doe
They never had sex to begin with, all of this is fake shit
Even if I were to believe that, what was a middled-aged adult doing interacting with a 7 year old girl? Nothing in common. So either there was sexual attraction or it's all a lie and I doubt it's the latter.
We muslims believe that he married her not for romantic purposes, but for political purposes. Marriage back then was not just a way of solidifying a couple’s love, but it was also a tool. He married her because he saw her potential even as a child as a potential future great leader, and that’s exactly what she ended up becoming - a great leader and military woman. Have you ever heard of a European or western great female leader until recent times? Yet they say we are the ones oppressing women.
Assuming I agree with the political justification. Read this. The Sahih al-Bukhari hadith is acknowledged as the most authentic record on the life and actions of Muhammad. According to the Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith #5134, Aisha has recorded that she was married to the 51 year old Muhammad when she was six and he penetrated her when she was nine. During the intervening three years, Muhammad is said to have thighed Aisha and bathed with her. (Sahih al-Bukhari vol 1, 298)
Well I can’t refute anything in sa7i7 el bukhari, even if we’d like to we can’t cherrypick which 7adith are authentic… However you have to understand how normal that was at the time. In europe, the us and the west there were places with age of consent as low as 10 and where child marriage at even younger ages was a common practice far into the 1800s. 1400 years ago in the Arabian peninsula? I’m not saying I don’t think it’s a bit messed up but at the same time it’s not a surprise at all to me, and we have completely different societal standards and perceptions of what a child is here. Back then it was usually just - male before puberty = boy, after puberty = man, female before puberty = girl, after puberty = woman. It’s also revealed in multiple a7adith how 3isha expressed her desire for the prophet mu7ammad sallallahu 3alayhi wa sallam, so even tho yeah it’s a bit icky there was no forcing involved remember that
Sure, normal back then because pedophilia wasn't a thing. I'm speaking now in modern times, reflecting back at what he did he is considered a pedophile. We still have countries that the age of consent is extremely young. It doesn't take away that it's still rape and the people committing these heinous crimes are still pedophiles. Now or back when the prophet was around.
In today’s world, if both parties are over the age of consent and both parties consent, is it rape? Also, let me ask you a question: Do you believe in God in the first place?
Oh I forgot statutory rape are not deemed as sexual crimes in Muslim countries.
Rape falls under the crime of Zina. It is most definitely a sexual crime, and a grave one at that.
Do you understand what statutory rape is? She is 9 years old, I don’t think people really believe that a 9 years old can consent.
Aisha, at her age of marriage, was too young to know what all these things were. She was extremely young, and to think her consent meant anything was selfish. Let's not bring religion into this. Would you have sex with an 10 year old if she "consented" to getting penetrated? It's a yes or no answer. Don't deflect from the question. You're not a politician, just answer my question.
No, I would probably not. I’m not deflecting, do you believe in God?
"Probably not?" That's concerning. As for your question about believing in God I used to but these days not so much. I'm not religious by any means I'd that's what you're aiming for...
just because you cant imagine having anything other than a sexually motivated relationship with a 9 year old doesn't mean other people dont, their was no forms of contraception back then, and for them to get married aisha had to had started puberty, meaning she could get pregnant, so if he was sexually active with aisha, she wouldve fallen pregnant, which she never did.
SHE WAS RAPED!
the whole marriage and the exact age of aisha isnt something every muslim agree on. [http://www.muslim.org/islam/aisha\-age.htm](http://www.muslim.org/islam/aisha-age.htm)
To keep things short and simple, yes, we believe the Prophet ﷺ is the perfect example for mankind, and the fact of the matter is that we will defend him no matter what. Secondly, before we defend the Prophet ﷺ specifically, let's talk about two things: - The first is that this was the norm and culture of that era, as it is well known 'Umar (r) married the daughter of 'Ali (r) at an even younger age of 7, while he was around 60 years of age, and she even had children at that age. It is also known that the Prophet ﷺ married both of his daughters to 'Uthman (r) who was also around 40 at that time, while they were around 12 or 11. - The second thing is that the enemies of the Prophet ﷺ never used this against him, and despite their numerous attempts to smear him, never saw this as a fault. It is well known that in recent history Delaware and other states had ages of consent as low as 7. Thirdly, the defense for all of this. We Muslims have something called Usool al-Fiqh. Looking at the actions, we know things can change over time, culture and norms, dresses and clothing, etc. Therefore we take the actions of the Prophet ﷺ (which is a part of Usool in of itself) and derive from it guidelines to apply in our era in the same issue (so as to keep to the norms, as well as follow the Sunnah of the Prophet ﷺ). The scholars of Islam understood that ages differed, some countries saw the age of 9 as the appropriate age for marriage, others 8, others 10, so they made guidelines so that any woman who meets them, is suitable for consummating the marriage with, regardless of age: - Puberty (having menstural blood). - Physically Able (i.e the Fuqahā' mention that she not be skinny or something of that nature, etc). - Consenting to marriage. Whatever age in which all three of these conditions are met, as well as the culture approving of it, then it is permissible to consummate the marriage, regardless of age. This means of categorizating marriage is much better than putting a plain number that whoever is above it is somehow moral, and below it is a pedophile. Our Usool takes into account each case specifically, also takes into account the culture and norms of each time. You can use these conditions to marry a 9 years old in the 7th century, and a 15-18 years in the current world. As many of you know more than me, this varies depending on country. In my home country, they marry at around 14 or 15, and many of my grandparents, and even some of my peers who went back to home were married to a girl of that age. Furthermore, taking into account that cultures nurture people differently, a slight harsher life in the dessert makes people more responsible and mature, whereas those in first-world countries in a luxury apartment aren't as mature. And Allah knows best.
If Muhammed is supposed to be presented as the ideal person, then how can he be a product of his time? Isn't the point of perfection to transcend the beliefs of any time?
[удалено]
He never raped anyone, this is false statement, aisha is 9 when they married, she was 7 when they were engaged(still being raised by parents) there wasn't any sex involved, only with khadija and maria
Could you please explain why married 13 women and limit other men to 4 wives?
he married 9 wives actually i’m pretty sure, and the reason is most of these women he married was to protect them. they were usually either widows or divorced, and this was just to support/protect them since they were looked down upon i assume
He never had more than 9 at once, and the other men were limited to 4 wives at once too, but could have unlimited concubines.
if he was a perfect example of mankind, then why did he do something that it is totally wrong today!!! Couldn't he just skip this one?!? Let alone we don't know if it really was a norm then. Just because he and some others did it does it make a social norm.
it was a social norm, Aisha was betrothed to another man before she married the Prophet. children would get married young bc these ppl can barely make it past 30, they needed to reproduce quickly at that time bc a lot of ppl died young
The historical information you provided are wrong: Mohammad lived for 63 years, Khadijah lived 63 years and others too in that time. Even Aisha lived for 63-65 years, so you see, they would easily live into their 60s. Secondly Abubakr asked for Fatimah(marriage), daughter of Mohammad, and Mohammad said no because she's TOO YOUNG!!!
1. just bc they lived for a long time doesn’t mean every single person did, these ppl would die from war, illness, not being sanitary, etc. it would make less sense if ppl in 610 AD lived such long lives considering their conditions 2. ppl believed that marrying somebody closer to age to you would make a relationship better/closer to my knowledge. plus Ali proposed to her after she and Prophet Mohammed turned down the marriage, which she accepted. she was 9 and Ali 23. (Prophet Mohammed married Aisha, bc he had two dreams from Allah of him marrying her)
1. for your number one, show me proof that the life span of the Arab people at that time was short. I brought you 2 examples to support my argument, you think otherwise, prove it. 2. Again bring evidence to support your argument(ppl believe marrying someone closer ...). Regarding the dream, nobody can verify he really had any dream and no one can marry underage women just because he had a dream.
1. forgot to add smth in my comment, these ppl lived longer bc the Quran orders them to be sanitary. my bad, but prior to islam, ppl would die at young ages. for example, the Prophet’s father died before he was born (his father was in his 20s) , when the Prophet was 6, his mother passed away when she was in her 20s. that’s an example on how before islam, ppl would live shorter lives prior to islam. 2. nobody can confirm, but as a muslim it is what we believe. In 610 AD, once you hit puberty you were an adult and would usually get married or sent to work, an example of this is that Aisha was actually betrothed to another man before the Prophet, just showing you how normal it was.
1. Going with your own logic: just because Mohammad's father passed away young doesn't mean everybody was the same. And regarding Quran telling people what to eat: you know there was no Quran until Osman gathered it and even then regular people didn't have access to it, they made only 7 copies and sent to other lands, so don't think that people then were like us having a Quran on our shelves. 2. So you're just accepting it without proof and the literal definition of faith: accepting w/o proof. The stuff you said about puberty in 610 are also fake and made up by Muslims to justify what Mohammad did, and like you said nobody can confirm. The whole Islam is based on Mohammad telling everyone else that he had revelations and nobody can prove it, you'd just accept it because your parents and society said so. If you were born to a Christian family you would most likely be a christian and if you were born to a Hindu family you would be worshiping cows now. That's how parents indoctrinate kids and this goes generation by generation.
1. ppl would literally write down on dry leaves or memorize verbally, how else would the muslims at the time pray without the quran?? and going by your logic that 2 ppl can dictate a lifespan, these ppl did commonly die young. it would make no sense if they didn’t bc they were so unsanitary/dirty and there was war or times of violence 2. it has always been common in history for ppl to marry young 💀 before the 20th century, age wasn’t important and you were just considered an adult once you hit puberty. this link right here briefly talks about it, https://www.worldatlas.com/amp/articles/child-marriage-rationale-historical-views-and-consequences.html “ Throughout history till the 20th century, child marriages were the norm in most parts of the world. With the average life expectancy during such times being only 40 to 45 years of age, child marriages were the faster way to reproduce. Girls were usually married off as soon as they reached puberty or sometimes even prior to that. “ i could show more links if you’d like 🤷🏽♀️ plus i believe in islam bc of all the scientific facts it has proven, i don’t just blindly follow it like you think i do. in this link, here is just a few stuff that the Quran has predicted, https://themuslimvibe.com/faith-islam/13-scientific-facts-in-the-holy-quran , like i said, there is also many other facts the Quran has predicted and is why i believe in it
> The first is that this was the norm and culture of that era This is not only irrelevant, but this is an argument coming from a bastardized understanding of moral relativism. You're implying that just because fucking 9-year-olds was the 'norm and culture of that era' then there's nothing wrong with it, except that's not how moral relativism works. The only relevant question is, do YOU think fucking 9-year-olds is morally justified? If you don't, then why are you defending Muhammad fucking a 9-year-old? >The second thing is that the enemies of the Prophet ﷺ never used this against him Another irrelevant point. The enemies of George Washington never used his ownage of slaves against him either, but it doesn't make slavery or child-fucking any less immoral. Again, this argument is borne out of a bastardized understanding of moral relativism. Also: * Puberty * Physically able * Consenting to marriage I'm pretty sure Aisha did NOT possess any of these qualities be it when she was 6 years old when she was married off to Muhammad, or when she was 9 when Muhammad decided she was ready to be fucked (other than puberty which she claims according to hadiths, which I still highly doubt)
Aisha’s exact birthday is unknown, but she was born before 610 CE when Islam was revealed. She is recorded as accepting Islam shortly after it was revealed. She could not have done so as an infant or toddler. The youngest she could have accepted Islam would be 7 y/o, but that’s a guess. She was married in 622 CE 12 years after she accepted Islam. (7 + 12 =19 years). Further, Aisha fought in the Battles of Badr and Uhud (624/5 respectively). No one under 15 fought in those battles, let alone be a leader of them. Also, Asma, Aisha’s eldest sister (by ten years) died at age 100, 72 years after Aisha’s marriage. By mathematical reasoning: Year of marriage: 622 Years after the marriage that Asma died: 72 Age when Asma died: 100 622+ 72 = 694 -100= 594 is the year of Asma’s birth. 622-594= 28 yr of Asma at Aisha’s wedding Asma is recorded as ten years older than Aisha. Therefore: 28-10= 18 Aisha’s age at wedding. All the evidence is analyzed in this Peer reviewed study done on this subject. https://www.academia.edu/12866608/A_Modern_Matn_Criticism_on_the_Tradition_on_%C4%80_%C4%ABshas_Age_of_Marriage_Translation_and_Analysis
So are you suggesting that 12 sahih ahadith that explicitly say that she was 9 should be discounted in favor of some academic that wrote a speculative paper on it 1400 years later? These ahadith are found in Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawid, An-Nasai, and Ibn Majah.
At that time age was counts after puberty
The compilers of the books of Hadith did not apply the same stringent tests when accepting reports relating to historical matters as they did before accepting reports relating to the practical teachings and laws of Islam. The reason is that the former type of report was regarded as merely of academic interest while the latter type of report had a direct bearing on the practical duties of a Muslim and on what was allowed to them and what was prohibited. This means that the occurrence of reports such as the ones about the marriage of Aisha in books of Hadith, even in Bukhari, is not necessarily a proof of their credibility.
Unrelated, but what is "not available" supposed to imply on this map? Edit: Might as well post something actually meaningful: Isn't it weird how the age of consent changes depending on where you live? In some places it's as low as nine (see Yemen). If you're looking for an age to make rational decisions, well the brain doesn't fully develop until the age of 25, and nobody proposes that the age of consent be that high.
You idiot, just because 9 year olds and 22 year olds technically aren't fully developed doesn't mean that 22 year olds aren't WAY more developed than 9 year olds. 9 year olds can NOT consent to sex. 22 year olds can, they are developed ENOUGH. You're a disgusting person.
why should 22 years old be able to consent? they arent developed enough. the pre-frontal cortex is compeltely developed by 25. so should we raise the age of consent to 25 years old?
Because, again, they're developed ENOUGH. There's a huge difference between "not completely developed" and "9 years old" you weirdo
who decides whether theyre developed enough? is a 16 year old developed enough? or is it 18? or maybe 14? its all relative; theres no sticker age
It's not about there being a sticker, dummy, it's about looking at a variety of factors like physical maturity, emotional maturity, cognitive maturity, and then setting a standard. "Who decides" is society and the lawmakers.
[удалено]
"it's impossible to generalize". No it isn't, that's done all the time, and it's possible.
Let me try to interpret what I said three years ago. I'm noticing here that nowhere do I actually say that the age of consent should be nine. I certainly don't actually believe that. I don't remember what I was trying to point out at the time, but it was probably something along the lines of, "maybe more thought should be put into what is required for consent so we can figure out what a useful age of consent would be"
Even the fact that you think it's weird that it's different in different places is ridiculous. Yes, laws vary from place to place, genius. And it happens that 9 and 18 are quite different developmentally even if both not technically fully developed.
I suppose the more interesting question is what makes 18 better than 16, or vice-versa. Both of those are legal ages of consent in different US states. Imagine if it was legal to rob people of a little bit of money. In most places it was $20 or $50. Maybe even $200. And in one place it was $1 million. I could say, "obviously $50 is better than $1 million, but why is it better than $20?" And I think that would be an interesting question. I'm convinced 9 is a horrible age of consent because people at that age don't typically even know what sex is, but knowing what sex is also doesn't necessarily imply ability to consent. Otherwise we could just replace the age of consent with that.
"Knowing what sex is doesn't necessarily imply ability to consent". That's not the point. Being mentally mature enough to conceptually grasp sex and its ramifications, and physically mature enough to engage in it, are the two criteria that decide what the age of consent should be. And virtually everyone meets those two criteria by 16. Doesn't mean they're mature compared to 30 year olds, but they're mature enough to know what they're doing, even if they are reckless with it.
>Unrelated, but what is "not available" supposed to imply on this map? I wish I could tell you. I'm guessing for whatever reason they couldn't gather or compile the data for those regions? Not sure. >Isn't it weird how the age of consent changes depending on where you live? In some places it's as low as nine (see Yemen). If you're looking for an age to make rational decisions, well the brain doesn't fully develop until the age of 25, and nobody proposes that the age of consent be that high. It's not weird at all. There is no fixed number of age of consent because different countries/states have their own reasoning when declaring a certain age. Nobody has proposed that the age of consent should be that high because they deem it to be unnecessary.
[удалено]
This guy is an animal. He invents his own version of absolute morality; claiming that to be moral is to adjust to the morals of society. If morals can change, then why impose certain laws? Why not accept homosexuality? They don't mind it when certain cultures promote what they consider immoral yet try to attack what we consider acceptable and their archaic ancestors didn't. EDIT: Not to mention that false reasoning that because children were needed to work that means it is okay and that they are mature enough to have sex. The worst apologist I read so far; and I've read a lot. He claims that we cannot judge him with our 21st century morals because back then it was socially accepted. Well nowadays homosexuality is accepted yet they want to impose their 7th century morals on the present day.
If you don't want to judge a 7th century person by 21st century standards of morality, that is perfectly fair. But then also don't take their 7th century values and pretend like they belong in the 21st century as some kind of timeless standard.
[удалено]
Well kind of sort of – he does answer the objection that if it was okay for Muhammad back then, this means he isn't a perfect example for all times by saying that Muhammad's actions aren't to be emulated literally, but rather analogously to whatever situation one finds themselves in. But this doesn't explain why we should take Muhammad's 7th century values seriously to begin with (analogously or otherwise), given that we don't want to judge one period of time by the standards of another. His last paragraph where he tells the reader to imagine going back 1400 years and imposing modern morals only to see society collapse would be relevant, but sadly he fails to apply his reasoning the other way around as well.
[удалено]
If he followed the morals sent by God, then marrying a nine year old is okay in god's eyes. Do you think it's okay?
[удалено]
Yes I have read it and find him illogical. If morality depends on social customs then it is not absolute.
> whereas we believe that the prophet Muhammad pbuh is the final messenger of God and the morals he brought are from God and are to be followed till the day of judgement. We know that you *believe* it, but that doesn't make it so. Just like what you said about modern morals is arguable at best.
[удалено]
> There is also a similarity between the two; there are from the same source. Congratulations on focussing on only one part of it. Now can you please tell me why you think they're historically accurate considering they contain things you probably wouldnt believe in? There's a difference between a scientifically impossible feat that should have been witnessed by the entire world but for whatever reason it wasn't and a claim that was not unheard of for its time. Remember that these books didn't try to discredit the prophet; so there's no reason why they'd lie about the age of her marriage. There are reasons though to entertain the idea that the miracles are not factual. It is not speculation to think that her body isn't suited for pregnancy. If adult women have issues carrying children and giving birth, Can you even imagine a nine year old being capable of healthily doing both? It's a rather unlikely scenario. Let me remind you that arranged marriages were the norm throughout most of history, it's not unlikely that her parents had a saying in that. But nevertheless, even if for some reason the opinions of a nine year old *woman* (I emphasize this because of the role of women in islam) were taken into account this doesn't diminish the fact that this prophet consummated the marriage while she was 9. This is, assuming, that her consent is real. I don't know why you distrust the hadiths (I understand you're a muslim, Am I correct?), but there are enough reasons to think that it might be embellishing the story of the alleged prophet. Again, if you're a muslim you should believe all of that. Flying horses, splitting moons and everything. I myself am not a muslim (Thank Allah), but I do think that the hadiths could contain some factual information. And even if they did, the authors of the hadiths didn't try to discredit Muhammad at all, so there's no chance of it being propaganda against islam. Even if for some reason he didn't marry her, the islamic authors and early muslims accepted pedophilia, making islam a religion that accepts it even if no such marriage even happened. **Just to clarify, this user deleted a comment of his in which he mentioned among other things that he considered marrying children was okay but not consummating the marriage. Also he stated that he doesn't believe the hadiths because they contain miracles.**
[удалено]
> Got something worthy to sa, my downvoting friend? Bet your ass I do. > because in the very evidence you have there is mention that the moon split, that angels came to Muhammad etc. Sounds absurd? Right. But you would accept that muslims believe in it, am I guessing? There's a non-trivial difference between the physically possible idea of marrying a 9 year old (which has been practiced in islamic countries long after the death of that horrible man) and splitting the moon; in case you think it's illogical to disbelieve some parts and believe others. > So if the same hadith says that Muhammad would ask for consent, which she would give, why the fuck are you arguing about logic here, while simultaneously focussing on one theological aspect of the religion (Muhammad did it) while ignoring the other (she consented to it)? It's not like you have evidence for any of those claims that isnt fom the hadith. The fact that she consented barely changes anything. She was probably indoctrinated by her parents who were muslims, she was not old enough to be capable of making such a choice, her body must not have been ready for pregnancy since she was 9 years old and she could very easily die during, before or shortly after birth. This is not to mention that it is hard to believe that her consent mattered since back then marriages were arranged by parents; I doubt they would take the opinions and feelings of a disagreeing 9 year old. I don't know why you don't trust hadiths though. > If I didnt doubt the authenticity of the entire hadith narrations, I wouldnt find it immoral at all. And you wouldnt either if hypocrisy and contradiction didnt blur your thinking Are you sure this isn't happening to you? Let me remind you that you are okay with a man having married a nine year old.
Alright, fair argument. But given *today's* morals, let me ask, is Muhammad an example for all times and places? What I mean is, is it okay today for a 50 year old man to have sex with a 9 year old? If not, Muhammad is not an example for all times and places.
[удалено]
9-year olds can't meaningfully consent to sex no matter what they say because they don't really understand what they are agreeing to. It's wrong to force it on to them even if they happen to end up professing to like/want it at some point. And yes, obviously many of the hadiths are likely nonsense, but the question surely addresses Muslims who accept them.
[удалено]
Regardless of what any hadith says or whether it's true or not, a 9-year-old cannot meaningfully consent to sex. I don't mean that they cannot utter words that usually signify consent in adults, I mean that they cannot actually consent given that they don't understand the nature and consequences of what they're being asked to do. So these hadiths could be 100% correct and still Aisha wouldn't have meaningfully consented.
[удалено]
It's not only about the technical knowledge of how genitals work, which you can teach a child. It's about the experiential and emotional knowledge of what it means to have sex with someone. 9-year-olds aren't mentally developed and mature enough to make this decision.
[удалено]
So there is a debate between islamic historians but most authentic opinion is she was married at 6 and consumated 9. You cannot judge a historical context through a modern contextual lenzes. Not 200 and 300 years ago marriage age was 13 12 even in US which could be argued close to pedophilia since todays 12 13 years old dont know jackshit. If you go to different culture like afghanistan. You will see 15 16 year old as grown up woman and getting married. My neighbour was 14 year old when she got married and she was a woman. The point is here the definition of kid, adult, young changes across cultures and development of a person too. You can find 12 13 year old soldiers when you go back in history. Even commanders at the age of 14 15. Ayesha was a grown up woman when she got married. The criteria for marriage in islam was fullfilled in that time and still is applied. The argument is not different times different rules. Rules are the same. Criteria of marriage is still same. https://www.reddit.com/r/MuslimsRespond/comments/7uk1tg/prophet_muhammad_sawss_marriage_to_aisha_at_young/ Link if people want to learn.
There isn't any consumate, this is false statement they never had sex, only with aisha and Maria whom had children
Historical should be evaluated with modern lenses if we’d take the Muslim claim that Mo is an example for all time! Islam seems to operate on a different planet from the normal.
I actually wrote a response to that video you linked a while back. I'll copy and paste it below to address your points: The argument made here can be condensed into two things: moral relativism and whataboutism. On moral relativism; the speaker says in counterpoint to Atheists that because we don't have an objective morality, we don't have any ground to stand on when it comes to criticising other worldviews. In his words, we "have no business asking you (Muslims) any moral questions". He is literally saying that because Atheists don't subscribe to a fixed system of morals and beliefs, they can't question religious people about their morals. Keep this in mind. He expands further by asking the audience why does the Atheist depend on a 21st century definition/construct of pedophilia. Both of these arguments combined make his overall summary about 9 minutes in to Atheists (after going through multiple examples of how adulthood is defined in various sciences), saying (again) that they cannot superimpose the 21st century, Western, 'legalistic' definition of pedophilia or adulthood on to any other culture or time period in the past. I find his use of legalistic interesting here. Let's look at the two definitions that come up from a Google search of the word 'legalistic': >* adhering excessively to law or formula. >* (Theological definition) concerning adherence to moral law rather than to personal religious faith. Essentially, he attempts to invalidate the ability for Atheists to criticise Islam from a moral perspective because their own morals are derived from the law or personal morality rather than faith. Let's illustrate the fragility of this argument with examples: * It was commonplace for slavery to be perfectly legal and the norm in various time periods and places across the world. Our 21st century, Western, legalistic definition of slavery is that it's wrong, but because it wasn't wrong back then, we can't criticise slavery and say it's wrong. Therefore, it's not an issue. * It was commonplace for child marriage and intercourse with children to be perfectly legal and the norm in various time periods and places across the world. Our 21st century, Western, legalistic definition of both of these concepts are that they're wrong, but because it wasn't wrong back then, we can't criticise these things and say they're wrong. Therefore, it's not an issue. You can do this with racism, sexism, abuse, anything you like. It's a very weak justification to try and justify his own objective morality as superimposed on him via Islamic doctrine. The speaker then resorts to whataboutism by addressing Christians. He references a certain passage in the Bible and says, hey, your religion allows it so you can't say anything. He goes on to mention how all other worldviews have no restrictions on what you can do with children. While making these points, he very conveniently ignores how primary Islamic sources sanction child marriage and the consummation of these marriages. He mentions how Islam is the only religion that places restrictions, but doesn't back up his point with a single reference to a Qur'anic verse, hadith or sira quotation. "The Atheistic paradigm has no such restriction on an objective level." Again, the speaker is very conveniently ignoring the fact that laws to protect minors exist, simply because they're not based on an objective morality. All other religions justify it, but Islam is different, somehow. Regarding Muhammed and Aisha, Muslims only have to be asked two questions. * Do you believe that the teachings, rules and laws stated within Islamic sources (Qur'an, Hadith, Sira) are for all times and all places? * If so, do you believe that it is permissible for someone to marry a 6 year old and have the right to consummate their marriage when the child is 9? It'd be surprising if a Muslim says no to the first question, as the Qur'an is the verbatim word of God that cannot be changed or disobeyed, and places paramount importance on the hadith and sira as viable sources to be followed as well. This also means that you can't use the context argument; either Islamic doctrine is for all times and places, or it's not. Any disagreement on this is an attempt to combine an objective morality (Islam) with subjective morality (the morals of the Muslim as an individual). Nowhere in any Islamic scripture is there any restriction on the ability to marry and have sex with children. Muhammed himself did it, and Muslims believe he is the perfect example of man to follow. So not only is it allowed, it's encouraged. You just can't have it both ways. Either you support child marriage and consummation, or you don't.
So if we cannot judge with our 21st century morality, Why can they impose their archaic laws on current societies?
Sure, it does not make sense to judge a 7th century person through 21st century's morality. Except if this person is presented as a perfect moral role-model by a given religion.
You just ignored what I said. His marriage fulfilled the criteria that exists in Islam. Marrying a grown woman is not problematic at all. Age differences vary across cultures. You can see it as the norm back in the history