Novel about Muhammed's child bride scrapped

Pompey Magnus

Link

The protective wall that Islam has built up around Muhammed strikes again as plans to release a novel about the prophet's child bride A'isha is scrapped over fears it could spark Muslim violence. The best part is that it wasn't even a Muslim who started the fuss, it was a University professor in Texas, Denise Spellberg, who contacted Islamic figures and websites informing them of this book and basically stirring sh*t.

Oh dear, so now telling the truth about how Muhammed had sex with a nine year old child is offensive. I suppose this is the Islamic equivalent of the Da Vinci Code, except unlike the Da Vinci Code this seems to have been well researched and based in fact.

Galvasean

But the truth can be disturbing, how can that be beautiful?

aidan24326

Defenders of islam aren't fond of the truth unfortunately. It can be very inconvenient sometimes.

Schuhart

aidan24326 wrote: »

Defenders of islam aren't fond of the truth unfortunately. It can be very inconvenient sometimes.

In fairness, in this particular case the action seems to be taken by people outside Islam in anticipation of protests.

I think its more a case that if people don't assert their right to free expression, they will find it eroding. Do the publishers think their right to publish is worth standing up for? Obviously not.

So we might be better placed giving out on this occasion about gutless secularists rather than defenders of Islam. Gutless secularists run when confronted with a situation that might involve them risking their safety in defence of their beliefs, as they see that as something that should only happen to people with dark skin in far away places.

Zillah

From what I've read the book isn't even particularily offensive, she maintains that they had a very loving relationship.

Though I'm not clear on what age she puts A'isha, which could of course cause problems. If I were a Muslim I wouldn't like to admit that God's prophet was a child molestor.

brianthebard

aidan24326 wrote: »

Defenders of islam aren't fond of the truth unfortunately. It can be very inconvenient sometimes.

well is it stated in the koran that she was nine?If so then like everything else in the book they have to believe its true don't they?

Zillah

brianthebard wrote: »

If so then like everything else in the book they have to believe its true don't they?

I'd like to introduce you to the concept of faith. This will not be pleasant or easy, but it is the reality of religious belief.

Schuhart

brianthebard wrote: »

well is it stated in the koran that she was nine?If so then like everything else in the book they have to believe its true don't they?

Just to be clear, the Quran does not state her age. That comes from the Hadiths, the collection of sayings attributed to Mohammed. But the Hadiths are very important in interpreting the Quran. Put simply, a valid Hadith is next door to being as good as the Quran.

Some Hadiths are known to be unreliable. The problem Islamic scholars have is that to discount the reliability of the ones stating Aisha's age when her marriage was consummated would undermine an amount of other stuff they rely on.

If you're interested, this post has links to the relevant Hadiths. That thread also has some discussion relevant to the scholarly debates about her age.

PDN

Much better to write a book trashing Jesus than trashing Mohammed. That way you only get a few placards waved at you (always helps the sales) rather than any actual danger. But you can still pretend you're being daring and living dangerously.

Dades

PDN wrote: »

Much better to write a book trashing Jesus than trashing Mohammed. That way you only get a few placards waved at you (always helps the sales) rather than any actual danger. But you can still pretend you're being daring and living dangerously.

Indeed!
Dan Brown must have taken a look at Salman Rushdie and decided a fatwa wasn't for him.

The Mad Hatter

Dades wrote: »

Indeed!
Dan Brown must have taken a look at Salman Rushdie and decided a fatwa wasn't for him.

Also, there aren't any poorly-researched conspiracy theory books about Islam for Brown to staple a flimsy plot and one-dimensional characters onto.

studiorat

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Also, there aren't any poorly-researched conspiracy theory books about Islam for Brown to staple a flimsy plot and one-dimensional characters onto.

Zillah

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Also, there aren't any poorly-researched conspiracy theory books about Islam for Brown to staple a flimsy plot and one-dimensional characters onto.

Mon Dieu that was a bad novel. It beggars belief that its so popular.

larryone

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Oh dear, so now telling the truth about how Muhammed had sex with a nine year old child is offensive. I suppose this is the Islamic equivalent of the Da Vinci Code, except unlike the Da Vinci Code this seems to have been well researched and based in fact.

Truth? Why are you so sure it's truth? Did you know her personally?
There are a number of sources (Ibn Hajar, Ibn Katir, Abda’l-Rahman, etc...) that put her at a different age, possibly as old as 20.
It's really anybodys guess what age she was, but the truth is that she was fairly young getting married. Also anybodys guess as to when the marriage was consumated.

Pompey Magnus

larryone wrote: »

Truth? Why are you so sure it's truth? Did you know her personally?
There are a number of sources (Ibn Hajar, Ibn Katir, Abda’l-Rahman, etc...) that put her at a different age, possibly as old as 20.
It's really anybodys guess what age she was, but the truth is that she was fairly young getting married. Also anybodys guess as to when the marriage was consumated.

How would Muhammed have first slept with her when she was 20 if he died when she was 18?

larryone

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

How would Muhammed have first slept with her when she was 20 if he died when she was 18?

And you're so sure she was 18 when he died, because...?

pH

larryone wrote: »

It's really anybodys guess what age she was, but the truth is that she was fairly young getting married. Also anybodys guess as to when the marriage was consumated.

Fine, as long as we're all equally happy to agree that "it's anyone's guess if anything in the Hadiths or the Koran if true or not not" and we'll all agree that no one can be sure about truth of the supposed sayings and dictation of a 6th century merchant from Mecca, and therefore they are irrelevant and people who spend large chunks of their lives studying them or looking for meaning in them are wasting their time.

larryone

pH wrote: »

Fine, as long as we're all equally happy to agree that "it's anyone's guess if anything in the Hadiths or the Koran if true or not not" and we'll all agree that no one can be sure about truth of the supposed sayings and dictation of a 6th century merchant from Mecca, and therefore they are irrelevant and people who spend large chunks of their lives studying them or looking for meaning in them are wasting their time.

The idea that he had sex with a nine year old girl comes from unreliable hadith and bad translations.
http://www.ilaam.net/Articles/Ayesha.html
Fair enough, when I said "It's anyones guess", I was being a bit hasty. But if you look at the evidence you might come to a reasoned conclusion.
The theory was declared as "truth" without citing sources, evidence or otherwise.

pH

larryone wrote: »

The idea that he had sex with a nine year old girl comes from unreliable hadith and bad translations.
http://www.ilaam.net/Articles/Ayesha.html
Fair enough, when I said "It's anyones guess", I was being a bit hasty. But if you look at the evidence you might come to a reasoned conclusion.
The theory was declared as "truth" without citing sources, evidence or otherwise.

Oh this is too much, now you're saying that the "truth" in Islam is all about evidence and sources? Seriously? The religion which has done everything possible including threats of violence to stop anyone approaching early writings with any form of academic vigour?

Nah you must be be joking, in fact I'm chuckling here to myself.

Evidence and truth indeed, you're doing exactly exactly what all theists do, deciding for yourself which bits are 'true' and looking desperately for ways to ignore bits that no longer suit.

Thanks though, you made me smile.

Pompey Magnus

larryone wrote: »

The theory was declared as "truth" without citing sources, evidence or otherwise.

To quote Pontius Pilate, "What is truth?". No-one can be 100% certain of anything in history, so we rely on historical documents to give ourselves a good idea.

I can't know exactly what went on between Mohammed and A'isha when she was nine, perhaps he was a perfect gentleman with his child bride and waited until she was a reasonable age. All we have to go on are the Hadiths and Muslim tradition and they say that at six Mohammed married A'isha and at nine he had sex with her. This is generally accepted to be what happened. In terms of this book the experts on Islamic history who oppose it do so on literary grounds rather than historical grounds. The say that the novel is poorly written and portrays Mohammed in a bad light, they don't actually come out and say that the basic claims are untrue. If the experts who sympathise with Islam aren't willing to go down this road then I get suspicious as to just how accurate the Islamic Center of Toledo's article that you provided really is.

The fact is that there are historical accounts written by Muslims which specifically say that A'isha was nine, the link you provide seems to be written from a 20th Century North American perspective on how such a marriage is improper. It provides no hard evidence to prove that A'isha was an adult, just conjecture. It also doesn't provide any reason why the writer of the Hadiths would create a lie about the age of Muhammed's wife.

You seem to dislike the idea of Mohammed having sex with a nine year old, would your opinion of him change if this was what actually happened?

Schuhart

larryone wrote: »

The idea that he had sex with a nine year old girl comes from unreliable hadith and bad translations.

This is not the case. Reputable Islamic scholars accept the hadith, and account for Mohammed's actions in terms of reasons like the marriage being for political reasons, the general cultural acceptability of children being married to mature men at that time and speculation that girls may have matured earlier.

Accounts like the one you linked are really just attempts to pretend a well accepted tradition doesn't exist.

toiletduck

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Also, there aren't any poorly-researched conspiracy theory books about Islam for Brown to staple a flimsy plot and one-dimensional characters onto.

Cha-Ching!

larryone

pH wrote: »

Oh this is too much, now you're saying that the "truth" in Islam is all about evidence and sources? Seriously? The religion which has done everything possible including threats of violence to stop anyone approaching early writings with any form of academic vigour?

No, I'm not. Truth in Islam is all about faith. With the quran, most muslims dont question it. With the hadith, there's faith in the text itself and also faith in this whole verification process, which many muslims just dismiss out of hand. As would I if I was a muslim.

pH wrote: »

Evidence and truth indeed, you're doing exactly exactly what all theists do, deciding for yourself which bits are 'true' and looking desperately for ways to ignore bits that no longer suit.

No, I'm trying to point out that that's what the original poster was doing. I was putting forward a different point of view.

larryone

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I can't know exactly what went on between Mohammed and A'isha when she was nine, perhaps he was a perfect gentleman with his child bride and waited until she was a reasonable age. All we have to go on are the Hadiths and Muslim tradition and they say that at six Mohammed married A'isha and at nine he had sex with her. This is generally accepted to be what happened. In terms of this book the experts on Islamic history who oppose it do so on literary grounds rather than historical grounds. The say that the novel is poorly written and portrays Mohammed in a bad light, they don't actually come out and say that the basic claims are untrue. If the experts who sympathise with Islam aren't willing to go down this road then I get suspicious as to just how accurate the Islamic Center of Toledo's article that you provided really is.

Fair enough, but I'm saying you shouldn't discount the evidence to the contrary.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

You seem to dislike the idea of Mohammed having sex with a nine year old, would your opinion of him change if this was what actually happened?

I dislike the idea of anyone having sex with a nine year old. My opinion probably wouldn't change that much, there's alot of things I've read about him and islam in general that I find distasteful.

The Mad Hatter

toiletduck wrote: »

Cha-Ching!

:eek:

I'm off to write a 'novel'.

Schuhart

larryone wrote: »

No, I'm not. Truth in Islam is all about faith. With the quran, most muslims dont question it. With the hadith, there's faith in the text itself and also faith in this whole verification process, which many muslims just dismiss out of hand. As would I if I was a muslim.

I'm not sure this quite catches it. You're right that there can be much discussion about the validity of this or that Hadith. But the nature of the Quran, being verses delivered by Mohammed in a trance, means that without the Hadith not much sense can be made of it.

Verses depend on people knowing the context in which they were delivered - which is not recorded in the Quran. For the sake of argument, the infamous verse 9:5,

009.005
YUSUFALI: But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

PICKTHAL: Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

SHAKIR: So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

This can only be mitigated as not meaning that pagans/idolators must be sought out and put to the sword if they refuse to convert if the context in which Mohammed spoke them is taken into account. That’s basically what responsible Islamic scholars do, explaining this judgement was delivered in respect of people who could not be trusted to keep peace agreements and posed a deadly threat to the early Muslims.