> Why Prophet married a young girl? One of typical attack at Islam

[TheBoxer]

salman wrote:

well it seems you fall so low that you started to lie now. In your intro you said, you are here to debate. Thus, it is automatically understood from you speech that the intent behind your comments or questions is to debate. Secondly, your 2-3 pages long questions were clearly showing your intentions. Even if I give you the benefit of doubt then I replied to your comments and questions, why the heck did you start debating with me?

I said DISCUSSIONS AND debates in my INTRODUCTION. I did not approach this particular thread in any sort of "debate-mode." You turned it into a debate, claimed I was attacking, and then berated me for debating. I was simply looking for some clarification about Aisha's age and why some of you believe she was a mature woman at the time Muhammad consummated their marriage.

the forum rules also say that you cannot have beating around bush debates and if you are not satisfied with answers then you go to some other place where you can debate.

Who is beating around the bush? I simply don't understand why saying "the prophet Muhammad had sexual intercourse with a young girl and because of this a pedophile can marry a young girl" is considered an attack when the Islamic writings describe Aisha as being a young girl and countries that practice Sharia allow adult men to marry young girls. It seems to me like you guys are trying very hard to refute the Islamic writings.

the intention of Muslims is to learn and not debate. There is a huge difference between your intention and a Muslim's intention.

Without honest debate about questionable matters, how can you be sure that what you are learning is the truth? And why does it always come down to a person's "intention"? Isn't my intention my own business? What does it matter to you what my intention is? What matters is if what I am saying is the truth or a lie.

no, we do not expect excuse from your secularists. Your just proved the people in the history were bunch of ignorant molesters. This includes all the Prophets (peace be upon them). Shame on you for declaring your ancestors criminals for all that they did for you: preserving the society and making it a better place to live. Shame on you, for calling the Prophets of god bunch criminals for not stopping such a crime. Shame on you for blaspheming against god that he did not reveal any law or people to condemn and stop such barbaric practice.

Can you please provide an example of a prophet other than Muhammad who married a six-year-old girl and had sex with her three years later? I seriously doubt many of my ancestors had sex with nine-year-old girls.
Besides, aren't we warned against following the ways of our forefathers if they are corrupt?

When it is said to them: "Come to what Allah hath revealed; come to the Messenger": They say: "Enough for us are the ways we found our fathers following." what! even though their fathers were void of knowledge and guidance? (Quran 5:104)

llogical fallacy - appealing to modern standards does not prove that a practice of previous generations is immoral and practice of current time is moral. Time plays no relevancy whether something is moral or not moral. Changes in knolwdege, time, living standards, technology etc. does not prove that we need to change morality or we have changed for better because you have not absolute standard to judge with. Something is moral today and will be immoral by your future generations why because you believe in progression in morality and suddenly, like you, your future generations will say "we have acquire 'super' knowledge and my ancesotrs were bunch of criminals because they thought it was moral to marry 13-14 years old girl but that is child abuse etc. etc. etc." Today in your moral book is ok to marry 13-14 years old girls but let us this changes tomorrow and it becomes 22-23, will you then say that your generation and previous generations (your father, mother) were bunch of criminals and all those who passed these laws? If you say yes then you secularists prove YET again that you have no common sense and standard to determine morality.
　
And it is a straw man on your part to imply that what you just did. Let me summarize the reasons why we bring this argument since you seem to be very slow:
1 - to show you that universal law for adulthood and maturity is based on physical changes and how quickly you take the responsibility and not age. Thus, this varies from people to people and since you have abandoned both of them you cannot use your bankrupt standards to judge the universal law. Secondly, the laws are not based upon the understanding of the humans, they are based upon the orders of the Creator.
2 - to ask you why have you exempted other people from your criticism
3 - to get out of your mouth the sentence "all people in the past were bunch of ignorant criminals
4 - to show you how the modern society has bankrupted by changing the responsibility age and making people dumber and dumber. and to show you how newly invented this idea is and the words that you use

Do you even read what I write or do you just pick out words and assume I said something when in fact I said the very opposite?

I never said that it was okay for a 13-year-old girl to get married to an adult man. I really don't think 13-year-old girls should be getting married, period. The risk to their health is too great if they get pregnant, and childbearing will greatly restrict their ability to get a complete education. Please research the statistics on child marriage and poverty, child marriage and fistulas, child marriage and maternal death, child marriage and domestic abuse, etc. Child marriage is never a sign of an advanced, moral culture.

I have always maintained the belief that morality is absolute. I told you that appealing to common practice did not prove that something was moral because common practice does not define morality. Our definition of modesty, for example, might change based on the society, however modesty will always be considered a good, moral thing and immodesty will always be considered immoral. Our definition of physical maturity might change based on scientific advancement and increased knowledge, but adults having sex with children before they are fully mature will always be immoral. To the 7th century Arabs' understanding, Aisha may have been considered mature enough for sex. However, to our 21st century understanding, we know better.

A child is not a slave or a possession of her parents. When a young girl is married to an adult man, her future is being decided for her. How is that justice or equality? The girl can attempt to have the marriage annulled or obtain a divorce, but it is not an easy process for a child, and by then she may have already experienced rape and beatings. By allowing child marriages, you allow a person to be treated like a material possession (because it is the father who consents, not the girl) and put a girl in danger of being abused and raped because she is far more likely to refuse sex with her adult husband being that she is YOUNG and NOT READY FOR SEX. Several situations like this have recently made international news.

If passing laws serve to protect children why did your god not reveal it?

Because God knew that, for the most part, humans aren't stupid. He knew that if a human was moral, then he or she would treat others well and be capable of enforcing a just penal code. Seriously, you make it seem like God created a bunch of retarded ninnies who are completely incapable of maintaining law and order without God spelling everything out for them. salman, you insult God's intelligence, creativity, and wisdom.

In fact if you are going to use this then the two Christians who rapped 5 months old girl were following this law because the father loved raping his 5 month old daughter so he let his brother do as well. Similarly, if someone does not mind someone raping his daughter or himself then it is moral for him to rape someone else's daughter. If someone does not mind people causing harm to him then it is moral for him to cause harm to others.

That's not love. That's lust. That is a perversion. If a father truly loves his daughter as he loves himself, then he would not do something that would harm her because he wouldn't harm himself. If a father would not want someone to rape him, then he would not in turn rape someone if he were adhering to the Golden Rule. I don't know what your idea of "love" is, but I do not believe it is something that promotes injuring someone else to satisfy one's own sexual desires.

Try to justify rape in Christianity when the New Testament contains passages such as these:
　
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
　
The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit.
　
My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.

yeh, yet many of your girls get impregnated by guys older than them without any problem. Why do your secular countries allow it? So are they criminals as well? What is ok age to get marry according to your book?

Actually, there is something in my country called statutory rape. If an 18-year-old man has sex with a 16-year-old girl he can be charged with statutory rape if the girl is having a consensual relationship with him. Even if she does not press charges because the sex is consensual and she is "in love" with the guy he can still be convicted of statutory rape. There have been many cases of the girl's parents learning of such a relationship and pressing charges against the boyfriend. If he is found guilty, he faces imprisonment.

But we have not been discussing underage relationships between two people of the same peer group. This discussion has been about sex between a child and an adult. This is a completely different scenario.

I said it is an acdemic crime with no evidence to claim that people in the past did not even know when someone is ready for marriage. And you are exactly doing this!

No, you said a "crime of history." But no matter. The sad thing is, salman, many people in the present still do not have the wisdom to know when someone is ready for marriage, or if they do then they simply don't care. Thousands of young girls are married by their fathers every year to adult men before they are ready for the responsibilities of marriage, childrearing, and a sexual relationship.

you are a secularist because that is what secularist claim "everything should be done as long as it is not harmful and harmful is decided by my intellect" or "this or that should not be done because I do not like it". When was morailty based on people's likeness or what they want!? If people tomorrow want to wipe out Christians would you say this is also moral? This is fallacy of appealing to one person or what people want or like. Seconldy, you are appealing to a scripture and if you really want to appeal to a scripture then follow it wholeheartedly and not pick and chose. Being old does not prove that something is valid! You are jumping from secularism to scripture when you get cornered and neither of them is helping you. I have already showed you how absurd it is to use that verse to prove your claim...
　
...you are secularist/liberalist; therefore, you have to answer for the laws which are based upon it and call for it. One side you say every society is different and other side you say differences in societies are immoral and they are bunch of ignorant criminals. Answer the questions which I asked you above in this regard.

I never said such a thing, and I am not a secularist/liberalist. I am a conservative Christian. Because I want my fellow citizens to be law abiders, then I am also a law abider. I don't like imprisonment, but I do want to be treated with justice. If justice demands that I be imprisoned for a crime that I committed, then I should be imprisoned.

And there is something else that is very important:
　
And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man.
Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made man.

Every human is to be treated with justice and love because every human life is precious. The human body is to be treated with respect and treasured like the temple it is.
　
Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.

This is not secularism, salman. This is just not Islam.

not surprised to hear that. You said because they used to bury girls alive therefore we can assume that they did not have problem with marrying girls at early age either....
this does not logically prove anything either e.g., they lacked morals in all aspects. This is like saying since people of Lot committed sodomy; therefore, we can conclude that they considered murderer or rape to be moral as well.

this is a top fallacy and blunder in and of itself!

If a society sees nothing wrong with burying infant girls alive, common sense tells us that they probably wouldn't see anything wrong with an adult man having sex with a young girl. The Islamic writings tell us that Aisha was betrothed to another man before the age of six, which means the Arabs saw nothing with a man dictating his daughter's future from a very young age. Are you trying to tell me that in such a society, murder and slavery were considered moral, but sex between a child bride and her adult husband were not? Come on, salman. Now you are grasping for straws.


And I never said Aisha was a victim of Stockholm Syndrome. I was simply refuting your assertion that since Aisha did not claim to be sexually mistreated, then she wasn't. Stockholm Syndrome can easily explain why the victim of molestation would not lay such charges against the man. However, someone did write an analysis of Aisha. I'm not endorsing his claims, but you may find it interesting and something worthwhile for you to refute: The Tragedy of Aisha: a Product of Abuse on the WikiIslam site.

Firstly, we have never denied the general rule so it is about time you stop bringing this again and again. Secondly, you have to prove that she was not ready according to all these discoveries. You have to prove that every other girl in the past was not ready according to all these discoveries. Discoveries do not consider environmental, responsibility age and other factors in their studies. Hence, they can only be used as general basis and not to given an absolute idea of what happened in the past.

Thirdly, you are basing your morality upon modern standards: marriage below the age of 18 is immoral but above or at 18 is moral. I have asked twice and this is the last time, when did age become the main deciding factor for maturity and marriageable age?

I never said marriage below the age of 18 is immoral but above or at 18 is moral. I swear, salman, where do you come up with these conclusions?
　
I was simply reiterating the importance of the law in protecting the vulnerable. Children are vulnerable to exploitation by adults, sometimes even their own parents. If two post-pubescent 16-year-olds want to get married, that is not immoral. It might not be very wise, but it most certainly is not immoral. What is immoral is when a child is exploited by an adult--when a child's life is manuevered and controlled by adults in such a way that it proves detrimental to her physical and mental well-being.

A girl should be allowed to marry who she wants because ultimately it is HER life and no one else's. Under sharia law, a father's consent is all that is required to marry a girl before she has reached puberty. At puberty, if she does not want to be married, SHE is required to contest the marriage and seek divorce. However, she must have a valid reason. I'm sorry, but that is forced marriage. She was married without her permission. Fine, she can get a divorce; however, the fact remains that she was married without giving her consent.

what is your country? here I thought your views were based "love that which you love for yourself" and now you have turned your country? We are talking about the whole west and not just your particular country. By who and which principle your country somehow have the moral high ground that we need to judge this issue by? When did morality was based on standards of a particular country? Why should one follow your country's moral laws? So are you saying that the laws in other countries which contradict yours are immoral? How come they are exmpeted from your critcism? Shouldn't you be cleaning your own house (kuffaar) before attacking the Muslims?

YOU are the one who asked me about the laws in my countries, remember? **bangs head on desk**
　

you brought irrelvant points about why the law is there when no one is talking about why the law is there.

Then consider it extra information, but it most certainly was not a red herring.

straw man - I never said that westren laws are wrong because they do not allow marriages before the ages they have decided. Read carefully what people are arguing about! In fact this raises an interesting point who gave you the right to decide what is best in child's interest? why are you not letting the child exercise his freedom of doing what he wants? I thought the whole secularist and liberalists movement is all about freedom of rights. Why are you stripping the right of a child.

Regarding what the Shari'ah says then it has been made clear more than 3 times.

And I think I already provided proof that Shari'a does not allow a child to exercise her freedom of doing what she wants. It allows the father to exercise his freedom of doing what he wants.
　
And if Sharia law is the best form of law and everything else that is not Sharia is not from God and therefore wrong, then that means Western laws are wrong. Western laws that prohibit a father from marrying his underage daughter to a man 40 years her senior are wrong. That's Islamic logic.
　
And your blatant disregard for the facts, the scientific evidence and statistics, regarding the negative effects of marriage between a child and an adult is appalling. You would like me to believe that there are girls out there at the age of 9 who are capable of having healthy, normal, happy marriages with 50-year-old men. But why stop at age 9? Why not go for 7 or 8?
　
The problem is that Shari'a allows a marriage to take place between a child and an adult without the child's consent because this is what happened with Aisha and Muhammad. In my country, for example, if a 15-year-old really wants to get married, her parents would have to agree and they would have to go before the court and prove to the court that the girl is physically, emotionally, and mentally mature enough for marriage. Then, and only then, could the girl get married. This is to ensure that the marriage is her choice and that she is not being exploited in anyway, by either her parents or the prospective groom.
　
In my country, 18 is the legal age of adulthood. This is when a person can vote, be drafted in the army (males only), smoke cigarettes, get the death penalty for murder, and get married without parental permission. For an underage girl (or boy) to get married, they would first have to prove to the court that they are ready for marriage. Under Shari'a law, a girl (or boy) must prove to the court that they need an annulment or a divorce because they were not ready for marriage when their father married them without their consent. You don't see the problem with that?

do not bring up already addressed points. either refute our rebuttals or stop putting this nonsense as some sort of textual and logical evidence. How does screening prove that you are not physically mature, meaning ready for marriage? The words "young girls" are to gives age description and not her physical maturity. Go read the actual Arabic to get better understanding of the context or why these words or used. sorry, you do not Arabic so that wouldn't help you. How does playing or enjoying amusement things prove you are immature? Get your sense together!

The fact is, I looked for this hadith on this forum, and if someone did discuss it then I missed it. Crying, "You have to read the Arabic" seems a little ridiculous considering the translation says the same thing on any Islamic site that posts the Hadith. If this is such a grossly mistranslated narration, you'd expect the Islamic websites to correct it, don't you think? It clearly states: you may deduce from this event how a little girl (who has not reached the age of puberty) who is eager to enjoy amusement should be treated in this respect.

I did find an alternate translation by Ustadha Aisha Bewley on Sunnipath. com however I once found ahadith on this same website that said Muhammad put his tongue in a young boy's mouth, and when I investigated this with non-Muslim Arabic speakers they informed me that it was a poor translation.

4894. It is related that 'A'isha said, "The Abyssinians were playing with their spears and the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, acted as a screen for me while I was looking. I continued to look until I was the one to leave. So estimate how long a young girl is eager for amusement."

4938. It is related that 'A'isha said, "I saw the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, screening me with his cloak while I was watching the Abyssinians playing in the mosque until I was the one who was bored. So estimate how long a young girl is eager for amusement."

We are arguing about adulthood maturity and not age maturity.

Yes, and a "young girl" who plays with dolls and plays on swings and neglects her duties to take a nap is not an adult.

~TheBoxer

[sirajstc]

thx this was great topic :D:D

[IslamicReplies]

The Wikiislam article was pretty poor as it didn't prove Aisha was below puberty when the marriage was consummated. Will be writing a reply to their article soon. As for the religion.wikia.com article: either parts of it or all of it was taken from WikiIslam (see their references).

He didn't show any Hadiths where Aisha was prepubescent at 15. He shown what Musin Khan wrote. Moreover, they shown no proof that sexual intercourse occurred between the 2 before Aisha reached puberty. They falsely assumed it.

Also, we have an authentic Hadith saying the marriage was completed at 9:

Sahih Bukhari, Book 62, Number 64:
"Narrated By 'Aisha : That the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death)."

And Aisha describing herself at 9 as a woman:

Tirmizhi, Number 1027:
"Aisha said, if the little girl reaches nine then she is a woman."

The articles didn't prove that Aisha did not reach puberty at the time she consummated the marriage with Muhammad. In addition, they claimed in Sahih Bukhari 7:62:163 that the Arabic جارية refers to a person below puberty and therefore proves Aisha was below puberty.

Assuming that their assumption that "girl" is the correct translation and can only refer to a person below puberty, they failed to prove whether the marriage was already consummated or not, during that time in that Hadith.


Furthur readings:
Refuting Sam Shamoun's Arguments Regarding The Prophet's Marriage To Aisha

Rebuttal to Sam Shamoun's Article "Revisiting the Issue of Muhammad's Marriage with a child bride: How one Muslim Dawagandist attempts to defend the morally indefensible"

[salman]

A response from a non-Muslims - may Allah guide him to Islam, ameen. He really slapped these bunch of ignorant fools.

YouTube - ‪Prophet Mohammed charged as pedophile in American Court‬‏

YouTube - ‪Prophet Mohammed charged as pedophile in American Court‬‏