Can I honestly ask a serious question?

Defender OF Faith

keyboardmouse wrote: »

Ok, So Muhammad is the most perfect human ever?

How about this as question the first:

Source, Sirat Rasulallah — "Life of the Prophet of Allah" The oldest extant biography of Muhammad, written by Ibn Ishaq.


"Kinana al-Rabi, who had the custody of the treasure of Banu Nadir, was brought to the apostle who asked him about it. He denied that he knew where it was. A Jew came (Tabari says "was brought"), to the apostle and said that he had seen Kinana going round a certain ruin every morning early. When the apostle said to Kinana, "Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?" He said "Yes". The apostle gave orders that the ruin was to be excavated and some of the treasure was found. When he asked him about the rest he refused to produce it, so the apostle gave orders to al-Zubayr Al-Awwam, "Torture him until you extract what he has." So he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama and he struck off his head, in revenge for his brother Mahmud."


The "most perfect human" orders torture for the extraction of "booty"?

defender of the faith....I'm all ears

I suggest before coming here with a story regarding Muhammad(pbuh) you do some research in some Islamic sites* to verify its authenticity and soundness as clearly which ever site did you copy this story from did not this job, I highly doubt you actually read the Seerah Ibn Ishaq wrote, even if you did I suggest you read one of the more recent biographies as those written in the 7th/8th Century contain incidents and information which have no validity and are based solely on what the writher/author have heard & at the time Islamic methodology was just developing hence the methods for differentiating between what’s true and false were just beginning to be established.

It goes back to what I was telling DonkeyOaty in that the only sources of Information regarding Muhammad(pbuh) are Islamic sources and the story you mentioned is found among in one of the oldest biographies written about Muhammad(pbuh); at that time the writers of Seerah were transmitting reports in the exact manner through which they received them. Can they then be held liable if any objectionable accounts should arise? To translate this into laymen's terms, early Scholars of Seerah have simply refused accountability by avoiding the task of historical criticism. Therefore, any spurious accounts are not to be attributed to him.

Biography writers such as Al Tabari acknowledged that they merely reported what they heard and that they in no way shape or form stand by any falsehood therein:
In his Tarikh/History included in an important set of statements in the introduction of his book, which states:

“Hence, if I mention in this book a report about some men of the past, which the reader or listener finds objectionable or worthy of censure because he can see no aspect of truth nor any factual substance therein, let him know that this is not to be attributed to us but to those who transmitted it to us and we have merely passed this on as it has been passed on to us."
[al-Tabari, Tarikh al-Tabari: Tarikh al-Umam wal-Muluk/History of Nations and Kings]

Interesting though if you visit nearly any Anti-Islamic site 99% of the sources they use when speaking about Muhammad (pbuh) are either Al Tabari history or Ibn Ishaq biography.

Before responding to this claim about Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) lets first look at what prophet Muhammad(pbuh) taught about torture so we are clear about Islam's stance on torture, and even when compared to the characteristics of Muhammad(pbuh) I wrote in posts 1 & 2 we can see that such action does not befit the prophet(pbuh) so any Muslim who knows his prophet will quickly be sceptical about such story.

Hisham ibn HakimI heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Allah would torment those who torment people in the world.[Bukhari]

The prophet (pbuh) have said: Verily, Allah will torture those who torture people in this world. [Muslim]

The prophet (pbuh) have said: Do not torture the creation of Allah the Exalted.
[Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 188]

“It is a major sin leading to Hellfire for someone to torture an animal, let alone another person. Ibn Umar reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said: A woman was punished because of a cat she had imprisoned until it died; thus, she entered Hellfire because of it. She did not give it food or water while it was imprisoned, neither did she set it free to eat from the vermin of the earth.” [Bukhari]

Quoted and cited from :http://www.faithinallah.org/is-it-permissible-in-islam-to-torture-people/

Next let’s take a look at what the Qur’an says in relation to those taken as prisoners of wars, because surely if anyone deserve to be tortured for information it should be those prisoners of wars to extract Intel and information:

“O Prophet, say to whoever is in your hands of the captives, "If Allah knows [any] good in your hearts, He will give you [something] better than what was taken from you, and He will forgive you; and Allah is Forgiving and Merciful."
But if they have treacherous designs against thee, (O Messenger!), they have already been in treason against Allah, and so hath He given (thee) power over them. And Allah so He Who hath (full) knowledge and wisdom.
(The Noble Quran, 8:70-71)"

The following explanation of Noble Verses 8:70-71 was taken from the commentary of Abdullah Yusuf Ali's (may Allah Almighty rest his soul) English translation:
The Meaning of the Holy Qur'an [1]. Foot notes #1237 and #1238, page 432: http://qurango.com/download/yusuf3.pdf

"This is a consolation to the prisoners of war. In spite of their previous hostility, Allah will forgive them in His mercy if there was any good in their hearts, and confer upon them a far higher gift than anything they have ever lost.
Note how comprehensive Allah’s care is. He encourages and strengthens the Muslims, at the same time condemning any baser motives that may have entered their minds. He consoles the prisoners of war and promises them better things if there is any good in them at all. And He offers comfort to those who have left their homes in His Cause, and knits them into closer fellowship with those who have helped them and sympathized with them.
If the kindness shown to them is abused by the prisoners of war when they are released, it is not a matter of discouragement to those who showed the kindness. Such persons have in their treachery shown already their treason to Allah, in that they took up arms against Allah's Prophet, and sought to blot out the pure worship of Allah. The punishment of defeat, which opened the eyes of some of their comrades, evidently did not open their eyes. But Allah knows all, and in His wisdom will order all things for the best. The Believers have done their duty in showing such clemency as they could in the circumstances of war. For them "Allah sufficeth" (Noble Verse 8:62)"

Now back to the story you presented:

The claim that Prophet Muhammad (p) tortured Kinana is based on a non-valid source (i.e. it's something that traditional Muslim scholarship and scholarly methodologies have never accepted) as the 'story' is baseless in that it has no narration and no source to it. Of course if you're one of those unscrupulous people who believes anything you may accept it but if you are a person of discernment and scholarship (regardless of whether you are Muslim or not) you are not going to accept it.

Even if one was not to know the invalidity of the story about Kinana being tortured one would find it highly suspicious as Islam forbid torture as per the explicit Prophetic teaching about the prohibition of torture & the Quranic verses from which I have highlighted some earlier.

With regard to as to why the story is written in a Muslim book if this is a false story, as I mentioned earlier the truth is there are many false stories and stories without any validation written down by the early biographers. The key here is, it's for people to discern what is valid and what is invalid using the classical methodology which Muslim scholars have used for centuries

Now back to the Kinana issue. The source of this story is invalid as I mentioned, not because the source is weak, but because there is no source! So let’s take a look at what actually happened to Kinana:

"Having left Medina and settled at Khaibar, the Banu Nadir started hatching a wide-spread conspiracy against Islam. Their leaders, Sallam Ibn Abi-al Huqauaiq, Huyayy Ibn Akhtab, Kinana al-Rabi and others came to Mecca, met the Quraish and told them that Islam could be destroyed."
(Allama Shibli Nu'Mani, Sirat-Un-Nabi, volume II, p 106)

This goes to show that Kinana was a war criminal. Let's read on...

" While describing the battle of Khaibar, the history writers have committed a serious blunder in reporting a totally baseless report, which has become a common place. It is said that the Prophet ( Peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) had granted amnesty to the Jews on condition that they would not hide anything. When Kinana Ibn Rabi' refused to give any clue to the hidden treasures, the Prophet ( peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) ordered Zubair to adopt stern measures to force a disclosure. Zubair branded his chest with a hot flint again and again, till he was on the point of death. At last he ordered Kinana to be put to death and all the Jews were made slaves.
The whole truth in the story is that Kinana was put to death. But it was not for his refusal to give a clue to the hidden treasure. He was put to death because he had killed Mahmud Ibn Maslama (also Muslima). Tabari had reported it in unambiguous words: " Then the Holy Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) gave Kinana to Muhammad Ibn Maslama (Muslima), " and he put him to death in retaliation of the murder of his own brother, Mahmud Ibn Maslama (Muslima)."

In the rest of the report, both Tabari and Ibn Hisham have quoted it from Ibn Ishaq, but Ibn Ishaq does not name any narrator. Traditionalists, in books on Rijal, have explicitly stated that Ibn Ishaq used to borrow from the Jews stories concerning the battle of the Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). As Ibn Ishaq does not mention the name of any narrator whatsoever in this case, there is every likelihood of the story of having been passed on by the Jews.

That a man should be tortured with burns on his chest by the sparks of a flint is too heinous a deed for a Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) who had earned for himself the title of Rahma'lil Alamin (Mercy for all the worlds). After all, did he not let the woman who had sought to poison him go scot free? Who would expect such a soul to order human body to be so burnt for the sake of a few coins?

As a matter of fact, Kinana Ibn Rabi Ibn al-Huquaiq had been granted his life on the condition that he would never break faith or make false statements. He had also given his word, according to one of the reports, that if he did anything to the contrary, he could be put to death. Kinana played false, and the immunity granted to him was withdrawn. He killed Mahmud Ibn Maslama (Muslima) and had, therefore to suffer for it, as we have already stated on the authority of Tabari." (Allama Shibli Nu'Mani, Sirat-Un-Nabi, volume II, p 173-174)
Extract from Sirat-un-Nabi Volume II by Shibli Nomani((1857 –1914)

In conclusion don’t expect me to accept a story that:
*Has no evidence or source
*Is not in the Qur'an or Hadith Texts
*Has never been accepted by Muslim scholarship
*Contradicts the prophet's own prohibition of torture.


*Few recommended sites:
http://islamqa.info/en
http://www.onislam.net/english/index.php
Relevant sources cited beside the text.

I kindly invite you to re-evaluate your conclusions regarding Muhammed(pbuh) if it was based on this story alone, if you find any incident that occurred in His life (pbuh) not befitting to someone we believe to be the most perfect Man to have walked this earth and a perfect example in every aspect of life you can present it here, otherwise I politely invite you to read the Seerah/Biographies of Muhammed(pbuh) referenced numerous times in this thread, so you can understand this Man more as it's evident you know little to nothing about him other then what you read and heard from Anti-Islamic sites.

sbsquarepants

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Your questions were answered your simply refusing to read the answer provided, and keep bringing up the same question over and over again.

Yes, you did provide an answer. Unfortunately it was a ridiculous one - all answers are not created equal. 9 year old girl is a woman because she says so and cos some other bloke reckons they mature quicker in the heat is what those of us with less stunted critical faculties call "nonsense"

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

It takes a sentence to ask a question but sometimes an essay to answer.

Your essays may make you feel better, or that your defending the faith or whatnot - but ultimately all you're doing is waffling. That may well fly with brainwashed slaves to your prophet, but not so much with anyone who is inclined to think for themselves, or call shenanigans on your so called "answers" and I use that word in it's loosest possible sense.
When kids ask difficult questions of their parents they are sometimes dismissed with "because I said so" - your essays amount to very little more than that I'm afraid.
More words does not automatically mean more substance.

Wurzelbert

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Yes, you did provide an answer. Unfortunately it was a ridiculous one - all answers are not created equal. 9 year old girl is a woman because she says so and cos some other bloke reckons they mature quicker in the heat is what those of us with less stunted critical faculties call "nonsense"



Your essays may make you feel better, or that your defending the faith or whatnot - but ultimately all you're doing is waffling. That may well fly with brainwashed slaves to your prophet, but not so much with anyone who is inclined to think for themselves, or call shenanigans on your so called "answers" and I use that word in it's loosest possible sense.
When kids ask difficult questions of their parents they are sometimes dismissed with "because I said so" - your essays amount to very little more than that I'm afraid.
More words does not automatically mean more substance.

very true...and i would like to add that quoting from muslim or islamist websites does not really prove or disprove anything regarding islam or mohammed...that’s like trying to prove hitler was right all along by quoting from mein kampf in a way...same basically applies to islam-critical sites, hence i try to refrain from posting links that “disprove” muslim beliefs, though the web is full of them...any such sites may be food for thought, nothing more...

sticking to the known facts and reading "god’s own words", the quran, is really all one needs to form an opinion on islam, irrespective of what some zealots write on the web...

and yes, some people need to learn to get to the point in a few sentences...many of us here do not have the time to read through essays all the time, many have full-time jobs and other responsibilities and no saudi or comparable financial backing as propagandists...

alwald

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

A Dog bark will never reach the moon, so keep barking...

Well that's mean, it's a very very low level here that you reached....the truth is that you have no justification for the prophet's marriage to a child so you start provoking....

Wurzelbert

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

[...].
When you study Pharmacology you refer to books written by Pharmacologist when you study physiology you refer to books written by physiologist..

When studying Hitler you refer back to his book mein kampf and when studying Islam at 3rd level or any education institution you will refer back to what Muslim Scholars the Qur'an and Hadith have to say.

The difference is that those Anti-Islamic sites will twist and manipulate information and take sources and incidents out of context in their failed attempt to vilify Islam, we use the same sources they used against them by showing the deceits and lies the most notable example is the story of Kinanna presented recently.

of course you do...but as an intelligent (and enlightened) human being you will always be aware that there is a whole different world out there...yet of course tunnel vision is characteristic of all true believers to some extent, and faith transcends rationality anyway...maybe enlightenment is just what islam needs in order to catch up with the world...anyhow, your sort of circular reasoning just won’t cut it in a discussion with kuffar like me...

Defender OF Faith

Wurzelbert wrote: »

of course you do...but as an intelligent (and enlightened) human being you will always be aware that there is a whole different world out there...yet of course tunnel vision is characteristic of all true believers to some extent, and faith transcends rationality anyway...maybe enlightenment is just what islam needs in order to catch up with the world...anyhow, your sort of circular reasoning just won’t cut it in a discussion with kuffar like me...

Tunnelled vision is an example of your gross misinterpretation of the verse you presented in the "Ask about Islam" thread, tunnelled vision is your claim in the "Anti-Islam" rally thread presenting a verse interpreting it as saying Muslims are ordered to kill non-Muslims and when prove wrong you say "I don't want to argue about religion..." a similar massage is repeated again in this thread.

These comments my friend are a golden example of tunneled vision you ironically claim I possess:

Wurzelbert wrote: »

well i dunno…the quran commands all muslims to convert or kill all non-believers unless they submit to muslim domination and pay the jizya…and that after you have conquered and plundered their country and defeated them already…so it may be the other way around, people may be secular muslims and let others live in peace even as infidels…the quran does not give an option for peaceful coexistence and tolerance, forbids it in fact.

Wurzelbert wrote: »

well yes, just that spoofer and opportunist – which he was and worse – spawned a religion of nowadays 1.5+ billion people…so cannot be dismissed that easily…

Wurzelbert wrote: »

i would not even put so much weight on mohammed’s paedophile inclinations, the fact that he was a warlord and basically a bandit says enough about the founder of the “religion of peace”…

*

Wurzelbert wrote: »

and the fact that there is practically zero modern research and science going on in the muslim world these days, that’s probably due the rather medieval nature of the religion and the overall backwardness of more or less all muslim countries…

Wurzelbert wrote: »

yet are you trying to say people without fluent classical arabic cannot comment on the quran? seriously? i always refer to the translated version (by abdullah yusuf ali) i have, and i think most of it is easy enough to understand…like for example 9:29 “fight those who believe not in allah [...]”…or how would you interpret that? and this here is not a discussion between scholars about academic details anyway…

if islam was indeed the religion of peace, love and tolerance, then we would have to attest that a large number of muslims and muslim scholars have clearly and completely misunderstood it all for some 1400 years and maybe somebody should go and explain it to them…and as i have said before, a look at how islam came to be, at its history and at mohammed’s life and all, and at what’s been going on to this day in the name of allah is really enough to form a not entirely positive opinion on islam, no need to get lost in details…

and to all the numerous muslim scholars and experts around here: if anyone can point me to a more accurate translation of the quran, please do so and i might buy it.

*

What's interesting that once I explained the verse and presented you with a "More accurate translation of the Qur'an" your narrow minded bigotry was exposed

Wurzelbert wrote: »

so when the quran says “fight them” you think it should be interpreted as “buy them a drink and give them a cookie”...? don’t be ridiculous…i understand you are trying to defend your religion here, and i respect that in a way, yet this is really silly now…
…

*

Clearly your highness, who have learned nothing about Islam other then from Anti-Islamic sources and when we open a discussion to explain your false interpretations you claim we have a "Tunnelled vision" the Irony..

*Post number 457/480/470 AntiIslam rally AH thread
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=93570473

Wurzelbert

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Tunnelled vision is an example of your gross misinterpretation of the verse you presented in the "Ask about Islam" thread, tunnelled vision if your claim in the "Anti-Islam" rally thread presenting a verse interpreting it as saying Muslims are ordered to kill non-Muslims and when prove wrong you say "I don't want to argue about religion..." a similar massage is repeated again in this thread. Tunnelled vision is your fear.

This comment my friend is a golden example of tunnelled vision you ironically claim I possess:




*


*

What's interesting that once I explained the verse and presented you with a "More accurate translation of the Qur'an" your narrow minded bigotry was exposed
*

Clearly the only individual suffering from severe tunnelled version here is your self who learned nothing about Islam other then from Anti-Islamic sources and when we open a discussion you claim we have a "Tunnelled vision" the Irony..
*Post number 457/480/470 AntiIslam rally AH thread
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=93570473

i forgot to mention that smugness and arrogance are also characteristic of far too many muslims in our time...

Tom Dunne

Wurzelbert wrote: »

i forgot to mention that smugness and arrogance are also characteristic of far too many muslims in our time...

Any more of this gross generalisation and you will be taking a holiday from the forum.

Attack the post, not the people.

Defender OF Faith

Wurzelbert wrote: »

i forgot to mention that smugness and arrogance are also characteristic of far too many muslims in our time...

I will let your own comments speak for you..

Wurzelbert wrote: »

roadblocks – metaphorically – at europe’s outer borders might be a good idea…even though that cancer from the sands of the orient has metastasised within europe already and it is probably too late anyway…

Wurzelbert wrote: »

.....i am sure islam is holding back asian muslim nations as well, just compare to the non-muslim ones...

Wurzelbert wrote: »

well i dunno…the quran commands all muslims to convert or kill all non-believers unless they submit to muslim domination and pay the jizya…and that after you have conquered and plundered their country and defeated them already…so it may be the other way around, people may be secular muslims and let others live in peace even as infidels…the quran does not give an option for peaceful coexistence and tolerance, forbids it in fact.

^^ I had to make a quick comment on this, Review post #207 and a small advice you might want to actually pick up a Qur'an and read it for yourself rather then encapsulating yourself in what you read and see in Anti-Islamic sites only..

Wurzelbert wrote: »

and the fact that there is practically zero modern research and science going on in the muslim world these days, that’s probably due the rather medieval nature of the religion and the overall backwardness of more or less all muslim countries…

Wurzelbert wrote: »

well yes, just that spoofer and opportunist – which he was and worse – spawned a religion of nowadays 1.5+ billion people…so cannot be dismissed that easily…

" whole heartily agree that the amount of extremists is much too high! But to generalize and condemn a large population is too much in there line of thinking. Please explain to me how you think that the 44 million Muslims in Europe are not respective of the society they call home."

Wurzelbert wrote: »

well, they tend to stay amongst themselves, often live in ghettos, do not mix with the locals much, many never (bother to) learn german/french/etc. properly, to many their host countries’ laws are below the sharia, and there are strong currents in many european muslim populations to enforce just that…

Wurzelbert wrote: »

erm, mohammed’s own conquests, looting and plundering like - just another arab warlord - and the spreading of islam by sword and fire for a number of pre-crusade centuries maybe…?

Wurzelbert wrote: »

there are many factors contributing to the radicalisation of so many young muslims, yet the problem per se sits within the muslim community and islam itself…

Wurzelbert wrote: »

and yes, i have not read an actual biography of the man and am not planning to do so right now…i own a quran and have read a thing or two about the man in the past four or so decades…and a glance at muslim activities today and in the past 1400 years is really all one needs to form an opinion

Wurzelbert wrote: »

okay, i really shouldn't bother replying to any of your posts anymore...yet in case you really do not know, the simplified version is this:

here we have a religion founded by a warlord, a religion that has a call to aggression against “non believers” in its holy book, a religion that has positioned itself as the enemy of christianity and the west since day one and was spread by sword and fire over the centuries, initially by its founder himself...that alone could be enough already.

"...and nearest among them in love to the believers will you find those who say, 'We are Christians,' because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant" (5:82).

Keep exposing yourself, the bigotry is evident in your posts; your more Anti-Islam then any Anti-Islamic site I have visited myself, at least they use some sort of "Evidence to support their statement" but your words are your pure emotional sentiment..

Narrow minded and tunneled vision you say...


And when they hear ill speech, they turn away from it and say, "For us are our deeds, and for you are your deeds. Peace will be upon you; we seek not the ignorant."[28:55]

Wurzelbert

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

I will let your own comments speak for you..




^^ I had to make a quick comment on this, Review post #207 and a small advice you might want to actually pick up a Qur'an and read it for yourself rather then encapsulate yourself your self in what you read and see in Anti-Islamic sites..


" whole heartily agree that the amount of extremists is much too high! But to generalise and condemn a large population is too much in there line of thinking. Please explain to me how you think that the 44 million Muslims in Europe are not respective of the society they call home."



Keep exposing yourself, your more Anti-Islam then any Anti-Islamic site I have visited myself...


And when they hear ill speech, they turn away from it and say, "For us are our deeds, and for you are your deeds. Peace will be upon you; we seek not the ignorant."[28:55]

i think you need to take it easy here, maybe check your pulse - should not be too much over 60/sec. - and take a deep breath...this is the western world and people are allowed to have different and conflicting opinions and beliefs, so i have no problem with you being anti everything but islam...and what’s wrong with being anti-islam anyway? why would i be pro-islam as a catholic european? of course, back where your people are from i would get beheaded on the spot while your brethren in faith would stand in a circle and shout allāhu akbar...

Tom Dunne

Wurzelbert wrote: »

of course, back where your people are from i would get beheaded on the spot while your brethren in faith would stand in a circle and shout allāhu akbar...

Enough. Take a month off.

Defender OF Faith

alwald wrote: »

Well that's mean, it's a very very low level here that you reached....the truth is that you have no justification for the prophet's marriage to a child so you start provoking....

It's true that a Dog barks will never reach the moon what's false about this statement? but let me clarify that it was not directed at him nor anyone in particular but rather to show that to us Muslims the words of those who insults and try vilify and defame the prophet without proof or evidence are worthless and they can continue barking and shouting such insult because as they say "The fire of your enemy is in your heart"

If you or him felt insulted in anyway I deeply apologies as my words were not directed to anyone here but rather to symbolism a meaning.

Original post removed ~

Here's my explanation regarding Muhammad(pbuh) Marriage to Aisha(ra) which appear that neither you nor the person prior to you had attempted to read and understand with an open and critical mind even though I continually gave reference to it, I invite you to review it and the accompanying references/sources provided and then show me how still it's unjustified:

Thank you for asking the question as I wanted to speak about this issue more but did not think that the thread was suitable to go into the details that I will go through now, I invite you to read the following with an open mind, and if you doubts the authenticity of anything I say tell me and I will provide the complete authentic source.

In India the legal age of marriage is 16 while in US states the age of marriage varies from 12 in state of Massachusetts to 15 in South Carolina. Who is to say which country has the morally acceptable legal age of marriage, India or the US? We have to realize that neither is false & that this is not an issue of morality.

This is because in different time,places, and contexts the age of marriage varies. In fact the Christian believe that Marry(pbuh) mother of Jesus married Joseph when she was 12 and he was 90 years old, but do we point the finger and blame Joseph for such a marriage? No! it was clearly in accordance with the laws and costumes of his time and I cannot force my standards living in the west in 21st century to something that happened and was accepted in society 2000+ years ago.

Hence the question does not deal with morality but rather the laws and customs of the country. Prior to 1886 the age of consent for sexual relationship in marriage in the US was 6 years old this was moved to 10 years old in the state of California in 1887, before finally in 1897 it was moved to 14 years old, and there after the remaining state followed with the age of marriage in some being as young as 12 as stated before.

Muhammad(pbuh) marriage to Aisha was in accordance with the laws and costume of his time, this is supported by the fact that before her marriage to Muhammad(pbuh), Aisha was previously engaged to a man named Jober Ibn Al-Moteam.

"Colin Turner, a UK professor of Islamic studies, states that since such marriages between an older man and a young girl were customary among the Bedouins, Muhammad's marriage would not have been considered improper by his contemporaries. Karen Armstrong, the British author on comparative religion, has affirmed that "There was no impropriety in Muhammad's marriage to Aisha. Marriages conducted in absentia to seal an alliance were often contracted at this time between adults and minors who were even younger than Aisha. This practice continued in Europe well into the early modern period."*

I would like to point out that in Islam there is no fixed age of marriage, whenever a person reaches the age of puberty he or she is fit for marriage. Nikah, the marital contract, may be made earlier but consummation of marriage can take place only after puberty is attained. It's also important to note that a women cannot be forced into marriage, and a marriage is only valid if she gives her consent:

O you who believe! You are forbidden to inherit women against their will, and you should not treat them with harshness, that you may take away part of the dowry you have given them, unless they commit open illegal sexual intercourse. And live with them honourably. If you dislike them, it may be that you dislike a thing and Allah brings through it a great deal of good.(4:19)

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “A previously-married woman has more right concerning herself than her guardian, and the permission of a virgin should be sought (regarding marriage), and her permission is her silence.”


The objective of marriage in Islam as defined by the Qur'an is to create love and mercy, establish a place of tranquillity for both couples; this cannot be archived if a girl is forced unwilling into marriage. And of His signs is that He created for you from yourselves mates that you may find tranquillity in them; and He placed between you affection,love and mercy. Indeed in that are signs for a people who give thought. 30:21

Your question now maybe is how can a girl of 9 year of age have reached puberty? to begin with she must have reached puberty otherwise the marriage would not have been consummated and the prophet would never commit such an act(pbuh). It's enough proof that Aisha herself have said: ‘When a girl is nine years old, she is a woman (meaning, she has attained puberty).’ (Tirmidhi, Hadith 1109) indicating that she considered her self a fully mature and capable women even at what appears to be such a young age.

Form this it's important to note that how a 9 year old mature 1400 years ago is not the same as the 9 year old today. According to the French philosopher Montesquieu in the "Spirit of laws" which was used in developing the American constitution, that in hot climate such as the 6th century Arabian desert women were marriageable at 8,9 or 10 years of age.

So If you ask "Did Muhammad, peace be upon him, marry a girl too young for marriage?" the answer is: "NO. He did not" Aisha was not a child but in fact was a women who had reached puberty by the time of her marriage and considered herself a fully capable and mature adult proven by her intelligence and intellect in narrating more then 2000 sayings of her Husband, being bestowed with the greatest honour in Islam that is given the title of "The Mothers of the Believers"

However when an ignorant foolish person calls the prophet a "paedophile", this means that the father of Aisha and her mother facilitated such relationship two of the most honourable people in the history of Islam, in fact his enemies at Qurish insulted him in every possible way, and if this marriage was in anyway considered a shame for the prophet they would have jumped at the opportunity to insult him further using this marriage. It's also to note that Muhammed (pbuh) first wife was 15 years older then him and was a widow, 5 of his wives were widowed, Aisha was the only virgin he married (pbuh).

Every single one of the prophet marriages were not to satisfy his "sexual desires" but each one of them were without an exception for important reasons, performed to rehabilitate divorced and widowed women, or to strengthen bonds between friends and tribes. Some were done as an act of compassion toward a conquered foe. In the society of those times, they were regarded as acts of nobility and kindness.

The Prophet did not burden her with tough responsibilities of a wife and provided her ample opportunities to enjoy her age. He married women of all age groups, elder to him like Khadija (RA), of his own age like Sauda (RA), younger but mature of age like Zainab (RA) and much younger like Aisha (RA).

For a source of Muhammed wives and the reasons behind his marriage:
http://www.ispi-usa.org/muhammad/appendix2.html


Before I finish I think it's important to speak a little bit about Aisha our supposed "Victim" here and the deep,strong love shared between her and our prophet (pbuh) as it would make no sense for a girl to love a man that "forced her to marry him and molested her" as the foolish and ignorant say, but instead repulse and strongly hate & despise him

Everything we know about their marriage is coming to us from her, she's saying only the best thing about her husband Muhammed. She is praising him,loving him and caring about him.

He used to take Aisha for a romantic walk in the desert, and then he would tell her “Aisha, let’s race!”, and the first time she won. Then later on, Aisha gained weight, and raced the prophet SAW again, but this time he won and jokingly told her “This time I won!”. She use to tease him and play trick on him, but still he was a very caring and a loving husband to her.

The prophet stopped a whole army, in times of hostility in the desert, to look for Aisha’s misplaced bead necklace. Now this is love! The prophet used to mend his clothes and look after the domestic affairs of Aisha’s household, to make life easier for her. That is love!

Once the prophet was fixing his shoes and Aisha happened to look to his blessed forehead and noticed that there were beads of sweat on it. Mesmerized by the beauty of her beloved husband, Aisha remained transfixed staring at him long enough until the prophet noticed. So he asked her “what’s the matter?” Aisha replied “If Abu Bukair, the poet, saw you, he would know that his poem was written for you”.

Aisha explained “Abu Bukair said that if you looked to the majesty of the moon, it twinkles and lights up the world for everybody to see”. Would you think this romantic scene ended there? Then you’re terribly wrong, because theirs was a non-stop love story full of romance. The Prophet got up, walked to Aisha, kissed her between the eyes, and told her “I swear by Allaah ya Aisha, you are like that to me and more”.


Aa'ishah speaks about how she would take a sip and then the Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w) would do so from the same spot her lips touched.

A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) says: “The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) would kiss me before leaving for prayers, and he would not perform an ablution.”

Once Aisha asked the Prophet (pbuh) “How is your love for me?”

“Like the rope’s knot,” he replied, indicating that it is strong and secure. And time after time thereafter, she would ask him: “How is the knot?”

And he would reply: “Ala haaliha” [in the same condition].


This man loved this women so much so that he died in her house, with his head on her lap, and the last thing she did was cleaning a tooth stick for him and putting it in his mouth and in this condition he passed away.

For the rest of her life she narrated for him and never said a single bad word about her husband and she never even considered to look at another man for the rest of her life. In her heart and mind she was still married to Muhammed.

We know that Aisha (RA) was considered the most learned among the all the Companions of the Holy Prophet (PBUH). The following testifies to this.

Abu Musa al-Ashari[companion] says: "Never had we (the companions) any difficulty for the solution of which we approached Aisha and did not get some useful information from her".

She narrated some 2210 Ahadith from the Prophet (PBUH) and this was possible only because she lived with him for nine years and that too at a young age when people have a sharp memory and great sense of observation. Then she lived for about 46 years after the death of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) and continued to teach the people matters of religion especially those related to household affairs and marital life. No other wife of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) did the similar job that may be compared with her blessed endeavors. She remains to be one of the greatest Scholars in Muslim History and played an important diplomatic role and leadership role in the war between Ali and muawiyah over the Caliphate, in stopping bloodshed and restoring peace. The Qur'an it self makes a reference to her.

"Aisha's importance to revitalizing the Arab tradition and leadership among the Arab women highlights her magnitude within Islam. Aisha became involved in the politics of early Islam and the first three caliphate reigns: Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman. During a time in Islam when women were not expected, or wanted, to contribute outside the household, Aisha delivered public speeches, became directly involved in war and even battles, and helped both men and women to understand the practices of Muhammad"*2.


As shown Aisha love for the prophet(pbuh) is more then evident, I don't think there is a better romance story between two lovers then that of Aisha and Muhammed(pbuh).

Who are you to superimpose your hangups and personal issues with other people, supposing what you would do in similar cases is what you think everyone would do? Both Muhammad(pbuh) and Aisha loved each other deeply and had a very happy and stable Marriage; who are you to impose your own standards and norms into a marriage that happened 1400 years ago and decide what should and should not happen?

You have to understand Islam is all about the worship of only one God, and not making any partners with Him in worship. That is the focus of Islam. Muhammed(pbuh) loving relationship with Aisha(ra) is a vibrant example to every Muslim on how we should approach and treat our wives and loved ones.

Sources:
*2Discourses on Women's Biographies and Cultural Identity: Twentieth-Century Representations of the Life of 'A'isha Bint Abi Bakr
http://www.academicroom.com/article/discourses-womens-biographies-and-cultural-identity-twentieth-century-representations-life-aisha-bint-abi-bakr
http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/20...isha-when.html
http://pearlsofislam.tumblr.com/post...adiths-on-love
http://www.islamnewsroom.com/news-we-need/23

Follow up:[Poster Question in Bold]

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

"first of, no 12 year old can be married in the states, 15 in a very rare case with the permission of a judge."

"The age of consent is sixteen. With parental consent and/or the consent of a judge, males can marry at fourteen years of age and females can marry at the age of twelve. On May 17, 2004, Massachusetts became the first state to recognize same-sex marriage. Common law marriage is not recognized."
http://family.findlaw.com/marriage/state-by-state-marriage-age-of-consent-


"Secondly you missed the crux of my question. also I do not use the term pedophile as an insult, it is simply a descriptive term for someone that has sex with children which you freely admit Mo did."

By definition a Pedophile is "a person who is sexually attracted to children" or an exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent childre
Muhammed was not sexually attracted to children nor did he marry Aisha for such purpose review my answer ~

"Also "child bride" is a larger problem in muslim countries, probably stems from the head honcho having a penchant for the young and the whole massive disparity with female education! Also it's worth noting Mo was 53 when having sex with a 9yo so his later marriage to mostly widowed women is hardly surprising bearing what age he would have then been!"

His first marriage was to a widowed women 15 years older then him, review my answer ~

"now I appreciate you shall engage in mental gymnastics to present this as normal"

I was detailing the life and customs 1400 years ago during a 7th century and put Muhammad(pbuh) marriage to Aisha in the context of the time ~

"as I will freely admit it was different times but could the messenger of God not have said sex with children is wrong?"

Review my answer as you seem to have not read it probably, you continue to compare a 9 year old living 1400 years ago with a 9 year old now, and I have explicitly discussed how Aisha is not a child by today definition of a Child and or that 1400 years ago, she herself have said: ‘When a girl is nine years old, she is a woman (meaning, she has attained puberty).’ (Tirmidhi, Hadith 1109) indicating that she considered her self a fully mature and capable women even at what appears to be such a young age.

alwald

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

If you or him felt insulted in anyway I deeply apologies as my words were not directed to anyone here but rather to symbolism a meaning.

I will never feel offended or insulted in a virtual forum, however as I said just the fact that you had to use this sentence is in itself a sign that you are short of arguments, this is a forum where we debate not a place in which we insult or provoke each other.

I have previously read the answer that you quoted, but for me nothing justifies the marriage to a child, it's just beyond me no matter what age we live in it's tough to accept, I am sure that parents will share my point, more so if the most perfect man in the world is the one who married a child then for me this man isn't the most perfect at all, just my own opinion and I don't need to refer to a hadith that isn't even verified and that can be interpreted in hundreds of ways.

Defender OF Faith

alwald wrote: »

I have previously read the answer that you quoted, but for me nothing justifies the marriage to a child, it's just beyond me no matter what age we live in it's tough to accept, I am sure that parents will share my point

Aisha(ra) was not a child, lets review the definition of a child shall we?
A child according to the universal Biological definition (both Social & Legal definition are not universal and varies between countries,cultures and places)

"a young human being below the age of puberty"

Aisha(Ra) had already reached puberty when the prophet had married her and in fact under Islamic law the marriage is only permissible once a women is capable of bearing children(reached puberty) and is wise enough to decide so despite her age she does not fall under this definition. It's enough proof that Aisha herself have said: ‘When a girl is nine years old, she is a woman (meaning, she has attained puberty).’ (Tirmidhi, Hadith 1109/Graded:Sahih) these are her own words! what more do you want?

A child can also be defined as:
"an immature or irresponsible person"

Aisha(Ra) was the furthest thing from being immature and irresponsible the Hadith she narrates and the fact that she's praised in the Qur'an and given the title of "The Mother of the Believer" are enough of a testimony to her maturity and capability as a women.

She narrated some 2210 Ahadith from the Prophet (PBUH) and this was possible only because she lived with him for nine years and that too at a young age when people have a sharp memory and great sense of observation. Then she lived for about 46 years after the death of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) and continued to teach the people matters of religion especially those related to household affairs and marital life. No other wife of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) did the similar job that may be compared with her blessed endeavors. Abu Musa al-Ashari[companion] says: "Never had we (the companions) any difficulty for the solution of which we approached Aisha and did not get some useful information from her".

As I shown in my answer Aisha love for the prophet(pbuh) is more then evident, and to Muhammed(pbuh) Aisha was described in his own words as the person most beloved to his heart.

Who are you to superimpose your hangups and personal issues with other people, supposing what you would do in similar cases is what you think everyone would do? Both Muhammad(pbuh) and Aisha loved each other deeply and had a very happy and stable Marriage; who are you to impose your own standards and norms into a marriage that happened 1400 years ago and decide what should and should not happen?

You have to understand Islam is all about the worship of only one God, and not making any partners with Him in worship. That is the focus of Islam. Muhammed(pbuh) loving relationship with Aisha(ra) is a vibrant example to every Muslim on how we should approach and treat our wives and loved ones.

alwald wrote: »

just my own opinion and I don't need to refer to a hadith that isn't even verified and that can be interpreted in hundreds of ways.

Who made you a Scholar of Hadith all of a sudden? the Hadith is verified and is accepted in the Islamic tradition as authentic and Sahih it's enough proof for you that it's narrated by Al-Tirmidhi one of the greatest Scholars of Hadith and authenticated by Scholar Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani one of the leading Scholars of Hadith in the last century.
If you wish to prove them wrong your welcome to study the Sciences of Hadith and prove otherwise.

The Hadith is plain and clear and can only be interpreted in one way, and that's Aisha(Ra) was not a Child nor did she even consider herself to be one but rather a women and a great leader of Islam. The enemies at Qurish insulted the prophet in every possible way, and if this marriage was in anyway considered a shame for the prophet they would have jumped at the opportunity to insult him further using this marriage.

Again feel free to study Arabic and the Sciences of Hadith along with Usool al Fiqh that lays the foundations for the appropriate and acceptable methods of interpretation, and show me these "Hundreds of interpretation" your talking about, talk is cheap my friend...

Interestingly it was not until 1905 that his marriage to Aisha was brought up in criticism, about 60,000 books alone were written to target and him and his teachings in just a span of 150 years from 1800 to 1950 and yet they continue to spread as I said before a Dog's bark will never reach the moon...

Your free to have your opinion even though it's supported by nothing other then your own sentiment, codes and standards; but I couldnt care less what you believe; your welcome to believe and hold onto it since in your head it's the only way that will make you feel that Muhammed(pbuh) is not as perfect as we claim, it's but a bare drop of blood in the vast ocean.

alwald

A Dog's bark will never reach the moon is a sentence that applies to you too, you believe in sentences and book(s) that were written centuries ago, how can they be verified? there is a high possibility that they have been altered, changed or invented. how can somebody say for sure that she wasn't a child? where are the evidence? a hadith for me is not an evidence it's just a way of believing blindly in something, then you are talking about all the scholars but they are biased since they have already a faith and they will not go against it.....I only use common sense and logic not my sentiment by the way.

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Who are you to superimpose your hangups and personal issues with other people, supposing what you would do in similar cases is what you think everyone would do? Both Muhammad(pbuh) and Aisha loved each other deeply and had a very happy and stable Marriage; who are you to impose your own standards and norms into a marriage that happened 1400 years ago and decide what should and should not happen?

It's not about me and what I want, its about the society and our morals, it's only human not to marry a child can't you see it?

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Again feel free to study Arabic

I doubt you speak the language yourself and if you do then rest assured that I speak it better than you 100%.

Defender OF Faith

alwald wrote: »

"its about the society and our morals, it's only human not to marry a child can't you see it"

Seriously just who are you to decide the morals and standards of society 1400 years ago? who are you to interfere and subject your own ruling in a marriage in which both sides were happy and pleased with that occurred 1400 years ago? In the US the consentual age of marriage was 6 years old prior to 1886 not even close to 676 AD who are you to decide that at the time in accordance with their costumes and standards that it was wrong?

alwald wrote: »

A Dog's bark will never reach the moon is a sentence that applies to you too, you believe in sentences and book(s) that were written centuries ago, how can they be verified? there is a high possibility that they have been altered, changed or invented.

When a Scholar decide whether a Hadith is authentic or not it has nothing to do with his faith, it's purely a Scholarly work and a whole branch in Islam called the Sciences of Hadith a rigours field with volumes written on the subject, which you are welcome to open a thread or ask in the "Ask about Islam" thread, to understand the basic process involved in preserving the Hadith and determining its validity, instead of speaking blindly on the topic without knowledge, I will provide an article linked below on the matter however. Once a Hadith is deemed Sahih by the Scholars as the one mentioned above then it's taken as close to the literal uncorrupted and unaltered word of the narrators.

There are two canonical collections of authentic hadiths in Islam namely Bukhari which contain 3000 Hadith out for the 300,000 Bukhari collected, he placed rigorous rules when deciding whether a Hadith is deemed authentic to be placed in his book and spent 16 years making it, and hence along with Sahih Muslim it's considered among the most authentic books of Islam after the Qur'an.

The hadith mentioned previously regarding Aisha was reported by Al-Tirmidhi another renowned scholar of Hadith and a student of Bukhari his collection was revised by Sheikh Imam Nasiruddin al-Albani one of the 20th century greatest and most renowned Scholars of Hadith and the Hadith in question was graded as Sahih or authentic.

Where is your evidence that she was not a Child? I already presented all of my evidence in the post previous to the above and shown how while only 9 in the 7th century Arabian desert she was not nor even compare to the 9 Year old of the 21st century Aisha was a leader and a Scholar and in fact had already reached puberty at such an age, who are you again to subject your morals into a society that lived 1400 years ago? so far you refuted 0% of what I have written other then rejecting the Hadith given. Heck even Islamophobes and Anti-Islamic sites,historians and authors of biographies accept authentic Hadith as sayings attributed to Muhammed(pbuh) and build their arguments on them.

To add I both speak and write Arabic fluently, in fact Arabic is my mother tongue.

*A comprehensive article explaining and discussing the preservation of Hadith by the Muslim Scholars over the generations:
http://www.islamicboard.com/general/134298848-preservation-hadith.html(The brother 1st post(Comprehensive explanation) and 4rd post (brief/summary)
Classification of Hadith: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/Ulum/asb7.html
Further reading: https://islamicsciences.wordpress.com/2006/12/14/the-preservation-of-hadith-over-the-generations/

alwald

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Seriously just who are you to decide the morals and standards of society 1400 years ago? who are you to interfere and subject your own ruling in a marriage in which both sides were happy and pleased with that occurred 1400 years ago? In the US the consentual age of marriage was 6 years old prior to 1886 not even close to 676 AD who are you to decide that at the time in accordance with their costumes and standards that it was wrong?

Who are you to decide about the morals 1400 years ago? who are you to decide that they were happy? who are you or the scholars that you keep mentioning to decide that a hadith is authentic or not? I am not talking about the USA in this forum, open another topic if you want to discuss about marriage in the USA

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

When a Scholar decide whether a Hadith is authentic or not it has nothing to do with his faith, it's purely a Scholarly work and a whole branch in Islam called the Sciences of Hadith a rigours field with volumes written on the subject, which you are welcome to open a thread or ask in the "Ask about Islam" thread, to understand the basic process involved in preserving the Hadith and determining its validity, instead of speaking blindly on the topic without knowledge, I will provide an article linked below on the matter however. Once a Hadith is deemed Sahih by the Scholars as the one mentioned above then it's taken as close to the literal uncorrupted and unaltered word of the narrators.

A scholar is a muslim before becoming a scholar, he's human before being a scholar and he has a faith prior to becoming a scholar. Based on that scholars obviously will disregard any hadith that is deemed against the religion or against the prophet, there is no common sense there there is only faith and the fact that they are muslims and as such talking about them and refering to them is being biased.

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

The hadith mentioned previously regarding Aisha was reported by Al-Tirmidhi another renowned scholar of Hadith and a student of Bukhari his collection was revised by Sheikh Imam Nasiruddin al-Albani one of the 20th century greatest and most renowned Scholars of Hadith and the Hadith in question was graded as Sahih or authentic.

Where is your evidence that she was not a Child? I already presented all of my evidence in the post previous to the above and shown how while only 9 in the 7th century Arabian desert she was not nor even compare to the 9 Year old of the 21st century Aisha was a leader and a Scholar and in fact had already reached puberty at such an age, who are you again to subject your morals into a society that lived 1400 years ago? so far you refuted 0% of what I have written other then rejecting the Hadith given. Heck even Islamophobes and Anti-Islamic sites,historians and authors of biographies accept authentic Hadith as sayings attributed to Muhammed(pbuh) and build their arguments on them.

I won't refer to any hadith, don't you realise that I am not a muslim and as such I refuse to refer to a hadith or to the coran as the ultimate truth, I refer to my intelligence and to common sense as opposed to sentences that were written centuries ago.

By my standard a hadith isn't an evidence and as such you are the person who is referring blindly to a couple of sentences to forgive the prophet and to prove that he wasn't wrong, meanwhile for me it's crystal clear, no human is perfect, no human is a prophet, the prophet committed several mistakes and the worse one of them is the marriage to a child - I don't need any evidence or a hadith since I am not a believer - and I can't find any excuse or explanation for such behavior.

sbsquarepants

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

If you or him felt insulted in anyway I deeply apologies as my words were not directed to anyone here but rather to symbolism a meaning.

I wasn't offended, I viewed it as final proof that you have no answer worth a damn and so resort to childlike "na na na na na, I can't hear you" behaviour. It would be better, for you as a person, to actually ponder on these issues rather than slavishly deny their existence. This insistence on the absolute unquestionable perfection of somebody with such glaringly obvious and disgusting flaws in their character is just idiotic. There is really no other word for it.

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

It's enough proof that Aisha herself have said: ‘When a girl is nine years old, she is a woman (meaning, she has attained puberty).’ (Tirmidhi, Hadith 1109/Graded:Sahih) these are her own words! what more do you want? .

When you were 15 or 16 (a full decade older than your prophets child bride) I'm sure you thought you were a full grown man and knew it all. Now (I'm not even sure what age you are) you should really see that you were wrong, you were in fact a child not a man. Now think back when you were six, think of every six year old you have ever known - any obvious mature adults spring to mind?
Didn't think so!

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

A child can also be defined as:
"an immature or irresponsible person".

As above. Know a lot of mature 6 year olds do you? See a lot of 6 year olds running businesses, organising the work force, fighting oppression, running for office and so on do you? Or are they more concerned with playing on their bikes?

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Aisha(Ra) was the furthest thing from being immature and irresponsible the Hadith she narrates and the fact that she's praised in the Qur'an and given the title of "The Mother of the Believer" are enough of a testimony to her maturity and capability as a women.

Eh, no it's not. Not to anyone with an ounce of sense anyway.

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

The Hadith is plain and clear and can only be interpreted in one way.

And there in lies the problem. There is usually only 1 reason why anything is deemed unquestionable and that is because it just won't stand up to questioning. That should be your first clue that something is just not right with it. (your second should be that there's a 50 year claiming it's fine to screw 9 year olds)
If it's not ok for Garry Glitter, how is ok for anyone else? The answer is because we aren't approaching the Gary Glitter case with the closed minded view that he is perfect and therefore everything he does must also be perfect. Think before you defend. It will make you a better person.

Defender OF Faith

alwald wrote: »

Who are you to decide about the morals 1400 years ago? who are you to decide that they were happy? who are you or the scholars that you keep mentioning to decide that a hadith is authentic or not? I am not talking about the USA in this forum, open another topic if you want to discuss about marriage in the USA

Your the one assuming moral superiority here not me, what happened 1400 was in accordance with the norms and costumes of the time and both Muhammed(pbuh) and Aish(Ra) were extremely happy,pleased and loved each other as I have proved, so who are you to decide they weren't? and since you don't accept the Hadith how did you know they weren't? why are you imposing your own standards on something that occurred 1400 years ago? I brought up USA because it's extremely relevant to show how your own costumes which your judging Muhammad(pbuh) by changes with time when at the time their law allowed the consensual age of marriage to be at 6, it was considered normal and a standard at the time.

alwald wrote: »

A scholar is a muslim before becoming a scholar, he's human before being a scholar and he has a faith prior to becoming a scholar. Based on that scholars obviously will disregard any hadith that is deemed against the religion or against the prophet....

What are you basing this on? Have you studied the sciences of Hadith? for your information determining whether a Hadith is authentic or not has nothing to do with the actual text of the Hadith. Review the articles I cited regarding the sciences of Hadith ~

The story of Kinana was narrated by a Muslim Scholar when it clearly contradict the ethics of the prophet & his teachings, but it was his role as a Scholar to narrate everything he heard and left the job of historical criticism and determining the authenticity to latter scholars

alwald wrote: »

I won't refer to any hadith, don't you realise that I am not a muslim and as such I refuse to refer to a hadith or to the coran as the ultimate truth, I refer to my intelligence and to common sense as opposed to sentences that were written centuries ago.

How did you know that Aisha was 9 when she married Muhammad(pbuh) if you were not referring to a Hadith? your simply accepting an authentic Hadith when it suit your purpose and rejecting another Hadith when it does not. The only source that indicated Aisha(Ra) age of marriage to the prophet was a Hadith so your basing your conclusion upon a Hadith yet reject another Hadith because it simply does not suit your purpose.

alwald wrote: »

By my standard a hadith isn't an evidence...

Great then why are you here arguing about Muhammed(pbuh) marriage to Aisha when your whole source and basis for the argument is a Hadith?

alwald

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Your the one assuming moral superiority here not me, what happened 1400 was in accordance with the norms and costumes of the time and both Muhammed(pbuh) and Aish(Ra) were extremely happy,pleased and loved each other as I have proved, so who are you to decide they weren't? and since you don't accept the Hadith how did you know they weren't? why are you imposing your own standards on something that occurred 1400 years ago? I brought up USA because it's extremely relevant to show how your own costumes which your judging Muhammad(pbuh) by changes with time when at the time their law allowed the consensual age of marriage to be at 6, it was considered normal and a standard at the time.

Who are you to decide what is wrong or right about what happened 1400 years ago? who are you and the entire believers in Muhammed to decide that marrying a child 1400 years ago was right? I couldn't care about what is said in hadith since it's irrelevant to me, I don't care about a hadith that was written by worshipers to justify an awful behavior, a creepy behavior in fact by my standards and by the standards of many people.
You bringing the USA to draw sympathy, that's all, again if you want to talk about the USA open another topic as this is not the right place.

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

What are you basing this on? Have you studied the sciences of Hadith? for your information determining whether a Hadith is authentic or not has nothing to do with the actual text of the Hadith. Review the articles I cited regarding the sciences of Hadith ~

The story of Kinana was narrated by a Muslim Scholar when it clearly contradict the ethics of the prophet & his teachings, but it was his role as a Scholar to narrate everything he heard and left the job of historical criticism and determining the authenticity to latter scholars

How did you know that Aisha was 9 when she married Muhammad(pbuh) if you were not referring to a Hadith? your simply accepting an authentic Hadith when it suit your purpose and rejecting another Hadith when it does not. The only source that indicated Aisha(Ra) age of marriage to the prophet was a Hadith so your basing your conclusion upon a Hadith yet reject another Hadith because it simply does not suit your purpose.


Great then why are you here arguing about Muhammed(pbuh) marriage to Aisha when your whole source and basis for the argument is a Hadith?

I have no interest, desire, faith or time to study any hadith at all, they are just nonsense to me and I refuse to live by what's written on them.

The fact that Aicha was 9 is a well known fact, whether it was written in a hadith or not is irrelevant, I couldn't careless, what I care about is the fact that she was a child and as such by my standard the marriage is considered more an act of pedophilia than anything else.

sbsquarepants

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

How did you know that Aisha was 9 when she married Muhammad(pbuh) if you were not referring to a Hadith? your simply accepting an authentic Hadith when it suit your purpose and rejecting another Hadith when it does not. The only source that indicated Aisha(Ra) age of marriage to the prophet was a Hadith so your basing your conclusion upon a Hadith yet reject another Hadith because it simply does not suit your purpose.


Great then why are you here arguing about Muhammed(pbuh) marriage to Aisha when your whole source and basis for the argument is a Hadith?

I don't mean to speak for alwald, or for anyone else for that matter - but my problem is not whether Aisha was 6 years old at marriage and 9 years old for sex - I have no way of knowing if any of that is even remotely accurate. My problem is that you, and all other muslims believe that to be true and yet you still harp on about how perfect mohammed is.
It makes not one iota of difference whether it's true or not, whether it's "perfect" Mo getting lovey dovey with Aisha, Gary glitter raping some poor Vietnamese kid, any disgusting pervert sex tourist taking advantage of some CHILDS poverty for their own sexual kicks, or 2 completely fictional characters from a novel or a film.
50 year old men having sex with 9 year old girls is disgusting, in absolute terms - there is never a circumstance that renders that acceptable, never has been, never will be. It is a disgusting act that could only be perpetrated by a disgusting man.
Frankly you need a better role model, the one you fawn over at present is a bit of a dirt bird.

Defender OF Faith

alwald wrote: »

Who are you to decide what is wrong or right about what happened 1400 years ago? who are you and the entire believers in Muhammed to decide that marrying a child 1400 years ago was right? I couldn't care about what is said in hadith since it's irrelevant to me, I don't care about a hadith that was written by worshipers to justify an awful behavior, a creepy behavior in fact by my standards and by the standards of many people.

It was the costumes and standards of the Arabs who lived 1400 in 7th Centaury Arabian desert at the time who are you to impose your own standards on them? Throughout history each society had its own customs and traditions if Muhammed(pbuh) marriage to Aisha was wrong his enemies would not have waited until 1905 to criticize him for it! in fact there's no one that Hated Muhammed(pbuh) more then his enemies in Quraish, these people use to throw the intestines of slaughtered sheep in front of his door step and insult him in any way possible, yet they did not shame him because of his marriage to Aisha(Ra) who are you to consider your standards and views superior to a nation that lived 1400 years ago?

"Colin Turner, a UK professor of Islamic studies, states that since such marriages between an older man and a young girl were customary among the Bedouins, Muhammad's marriage would not have been considered improper by his contemporaries. Karen Armstrong, the British author on comparative religion, has affirmed that "There was no impropriety in Muhammad's marriage to Aisha. Marriages conducted in absentia to seal an alliance were often contracted at this time between adults and minors who were even younger than Aisha. This practice continued in Europe well into the early modern period."*

Aisha(Ra) was not a child, she was a women, great leader and Scholar of Islam elvated and given the titled of "The mother of the believers" by her marriage to Muhammad(pbuh), She was one of 3 wives that memorized the full 6323 verses of the Qur'an. "Aisha's importance to revitalizing the Arab tradition and leadership among the Arab women highlights her magnitude within Islam. Aisha became involved in the politics of early Islam and the first three caliphate reigns: Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman. During a time in Islam when women were not expected, or wanted, to contribute outside the household, Aisha delivered public speeches, became directly involved in war and even battles, and helped both men and women to understand the practices of Muhammad"*2.
Seriously how can this women be a child? your argument is baseless with nothing to support it other then your very own sentiment. The role this great women played in the history of Islam is tremendous and cannot be performed by a "Child".

Both of them loved each other, who are you to interfere in a relationship that happened 1400 years ago and declare Aisha a "Child" based on an evidence which you don't even accept! and reject the words of Aisha(Ra) herself who never viewed herself as such and never one day opposed to her marriage to her husband! and yet you come here and deem it as unacceptable based solely in your views and standards and try impose them to a society that lived 1400 years ago!

alwald wrote: »

You bringing the USA to draw sympathy, that's all, again if you want to talk about the USA open another topic as this is not the right place.

How can I draw sympathy from a historical fact? In the US it was considered ok and compatible with the customs at the time for a 6 year old to get married and that was only in 1886, compare that to the customs in 667AD, I was trying to draw no sympathy, just outlying your hypocrisy, by pointing the finger at something which happened 1400 years ago when the great leaders and Men of the USA considered prior to 1886 it to be acceptable with their standards at the time for a girl to marry at a young age.

Even today there are states that allow marriages with ages as little as 12 and others 16 while some 18 which is right and wish is wrong? At the time of the Arabs it was considered a norm and a standard for a Girl to marry once she attain puberty Aisha(Ra) attained her puberty at the age of 9 and was no longer a child in the eyes of the Arabs and truly when you reflect on her actions and sayings she was never a Child to begin with.

alwald wrote: »

I have no interest, desire, faith or time to study any hadith at all, they are just nonsense to me and I refuse to live by what's written on them.
The fact that Aicha was 9 is a well known fact,

Good so where is your evidence that Aisha was a child? Show me your proof & evidence, where are your "fact" derived from? every fact has it source cite me the source of this "fact"
empty talk is useless ironically there are facts that suggest Aisha was 18 at the time of her marriage, and the only way to refute this is using the Hadith which according to you is "Non sense written by worshippers"

"Bring forth your proof if you are truthful." [Surah al-Baqarah: 111] So far you have not cited any reputable historian or source in any of your posts and answers that reflected nothing other then your own personal opinions.

*https://www.dur.ac.uk/sgia/profiles/?mode=staff&id=494 C. (Colin) Turner, Islam: The Basics, Routledge Press, p.34-35 & Karen Armstrong, Muhammad: Prophet for Our Time, HarperPress, 2006, p.167
*2: Elsadda, Hoda (Spring 2001). "Discourses on Women's Biographies and Cultural Identity: Twentieth-Century Representations of the Life of 'A'isha Bint Abi Bakr" (Feminist Studies,Inc.) 27 (1). / http://www.academicroom.com/article/discourses-womens-biographies-and-cultural-identity-twentieth-century-representations-life-aisha-bint-abi-bakr

sbsquarepants

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

How can I draw sympathy from a historical fact? In the US it was considered ok and compatible with the customs at the time for a 6 year old to get married and that was only in 1886, compare that to the customs in 667AD, I was trying to draw no sympathy, just outlying your hypocrisy.

It was also considered ok to keep black people as slaves. It was considered ok - that doesn't mean it was ok. We all accept (well mostly) that that was wrong - it is wrong now and it was no less wrong then. Just like it was no less wrong in absolute terms for a 50 year old man to have sex with a 9 year old girl - it is rendered no less perverted and disgusting by being common (if it even was common).

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Good so where is your evidence that Aisha was a child?"

Seriously - you want fúcking proof that a 6 year old is a child?
Say that out loud and listen to how ridiculous you sound!

alwald

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

It was the costumes and standards of the Arabs who lived 1400 in 7th Centaury Arabian desert at the time who are you to impose your own standards on them? Throughout history each society had its own customs and traditions if Muhammed(pbuh) marriage to Aisha was wrong his enemies would not have waited until 1905 to criticize him for it! in fact there's no one that Hated Muhammed(pbuh) more then his enemies in Quraish, these people use to throw the intestines of slaughtered sheep in front of his door step and insult him in any way possible, yet they did not shame him because of his marriage to Aisha(Ra) who are you to consider your standards and views superior to a nation that lived 1400 years ago?

If this was their tradition and habits then this is the creepiest tradition ever, it's the worst thing that ever happened, sleeping with a child is one of the worse crime that anybody can commit, how can anybody sleep well and live well after committing such a horrific and awful crime?? even more so how can anybody defend it is beyond me!!

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Aisha(Ra) was not a child

Yes she was, this is a fact, no one can say the opposite.

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

How can I draw sympathy from a historical fact? In the US it was considered ok and compatible with the customs at the time for a 6 year old to get married and that was only in 1886, compare that to the customs in 667AD, I was trying to draw no sympathy, just outlying your hypocrisy.

You want to draw sympathy because you make a comparison between the medieval age and what happened a century ago, you do it to prove that it's all right, it's grand, it happened also in the USA so let's move on, unlike you I condemn it, no matter where it happened, no matter when it happened, I am against it regardless if it happened yesterday or 14 centuries ago, all those who were involved in a marriage to a child are pedophiles and creeps no matter where or when they lived.

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Good so where is your evidence that Aisha was a child? Show me your proof & evidence, where are your "fact" derived from? every fact has it source cite me the source of this "fact"
empty talk is useless ironically there are facts that suggest Aisha was 18 at the time of her marriage, and the only way to refute this is using the Hadith which according to you is "Non sense written by worshippers"

It's a well known fact, no need for a proof here, so basically you want to prove that everything is in the hadith, this is a joke, as I said and I won't repeat it many times, I won't refer to hadith, I refuse to believe in a medieval sentences and books that were written by -based on my consideration- thugs, criminals, rapists and pedophiles, these people aren't and will never be the purest and most perfect men that lived on earth.

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

"Bring forth your proof if you are truthful." [Surah al-Baqarah: 111] So far you have not cited any reputable historian or source in any of your posts and answers that reflected nothing other then your own personal opinions.

I don't need a proof to show that a child isn't suitable to marriage, it's laughable that you are asking for proof regarding this issue.

Defender OF Faith

alwald wrote: »

It's a well known fact, no need for a proof here, so basically you want to prove that everything is in the hadith, this is a joke...

I didn't ask you to prove anything in Hadith am saying how did you know that Aisha was 9 where did you derive this fact from? Someone can come here and claim Aisha was 18 and say it's a "fact" a fact without proof or evidence to support it is not a fact..

"Bring forth your proof if you are truthful." [Surah al-Baqarah: 111] So

alwald wrote: »

I don't need a proof to show that a child isn't suitable to marriage, it's laughable that you are asking for proof regarding this issue.

You need to prove to me how a child living in 6th century Arabian desert was not suitable for marriage not a child living in the 21st century Europe

alwald wrote: »

If this was their tradition and habits then this is the creepiest tradition ever, it's the worst thing that ever happened, sleeping with a child is one of the worse crime that anybody can commit, how can anybody sleep well and live well after committing such a horrific and awful crime?? even more so how can anybody defend it is beyond me!!...

What your basically assuming that ALL these Arabs committed and participated in what you call a "Crime". Your also assuming that all the Americans and their leaders prior to 1886 were criminals and pedophiles? Indeed such a conclusion would make the one making this conclusion a very stupid man, because only a very stupid arrogant man would accuse an entire race and nation of being Criminals and pedophiles.

Again who are you to use 21st century standards and judge something which occurred 1400 years ago? Girls during the Biblical and Islamic days used to be married off at young ages when they either had their first periods, or their breasts start showing off. Marry(pbuh) according to the Christians married Jospeh when he was 90 years old while she was 12. In other words, when they turn into "women", then they get married off, they are no longer considered "Children".

alwald

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

I didn't ask you to prove anything in Hadith am saying how did you know that Aisha was 9 where did you derive this fact from? Someone can come here and claim Aisha was 18 and say it's a "fact" a fact without proof or evidence to support it is not a fact.

Well known facts don't need proof, I won't repeat myself again, this is basically the last time that I will answer a similar question.

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

You need to prove to me how a child living in 6th century Arabian desert was not suitable for marriage not a child living in the 21st century Europe

I don't need to prove to you anything, a child is a child, if you can't see it then this is your problem.

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

What your basically assuming that ALL these Arabs committed and participated in what you call a "Crime". Your also assuming that all the Americans and their leaders prior to 1886 were criminals and pedophiles? Indeed such a conclusion would make the one making this conclusion a very stupid man, because only a very stupid arrogant man would accuse an entire race and nation of being Criminals and pedophiles.

You are short of arguments and then you start insulting, your post was escalated to a mod and I won't answer this part as I don't engage in insults no matter what, this is another difference between myself and yourself aside from using common sense and logic.

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Again who are you to use 21st century standards and judge something which occurred 1400 years ago? Girls during the Biblical and Islamic days used to be married off at young ages when they either had their first periods, or their breasts start showing off. Marry(pbuh) according to the Christians married Jospeh when he was 90 years old while she was 12. In other words, when they turn into "women", then they get married off, they are no longer considered "Children".

No matter who you are talking about, Joseph, Marry, Muhamed, A random Bedouin.....my position is the same, an action of pedophelia cannot be justified, more so if we are talking about "the most perfect man" that lived on earth.

Defender OF Faith

Post deleted by mistake and re-posted:

alwald wrote: »

Well known facts don't need proof, I won't repeat myself again, this is basically the last time that I will answer to a similar question.

Ironically you were accusing me beforehand in the "Women right thread" of "Dodging your questions" while your pretty much doing the samething here.

Answer the question if it's well established fact it should be easy:

Show and provide evidence and proof to support this "Fact"
How difficult can this be? In fact there are many who believe Aisha(Ra) to be 18 when she married the Prophet this is another "Fact" hence prove to me your "Fact" is true

alwald wrote: »

I don't need to prove to you anything, a child is a child, if you can't see it then this is your problem.

While I don't like citing Wikipedia the following list they presented is quite accurate and cited well by them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_birth_mothers

Notice how many "Children" aged 9 are reported to have given birth, these were only recent finding and I counted 29 reported case during this century and the previous, let alone a 6th Century Arabian desert

"Girls during the Biblical and Islamic days used to be married off at young ages when they either had their first periods, or their breasts start showing off. Once these event happened she is no longer a "Child" but rather a women.In other words, when they turn into "women", then they get married off, they are no longer considered "Children".

A child according to the universal Biological definition (both Social & Legal definition are not universal and varies between countries,cultures and places)

"a young human being below the age of puberty"

Once a female menstruate she had automatically reached puberty and is capable of having children and clearly is no longer a child, basic physiology.

This was the standard at the time they considered a Girl to be a Women the moment she had her fist menstruation.

You need to prove to me that Aisha(Ra) a 6th century Girl aged 9 was a Child and was not suitable for marriage. It's your claim not mine the burden of the proof is on you


A simple look into history will show that Aisha(Ra) was not a child, she was a women, great leader and Scholar of Islam elvated and given the titled of "The mother of the believers" by her marriage to Muhammad(pbuh), She was one of 3 wives that memorized the full 6323 verses of the Qur'an. "Aisha's importance to revitalizing the Arab tradition and leadership among the Arab women highlights her magnitude within Islam. Aisha became involved in the politics of early Islam and the first three caliphate reigns: Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman. During a time in Islam when women were not expected, or wanted, to contribute outside the household, Aisha delivered public speeches, became directly involved in war and even battles, and helped both men and women to understand the practices of Muhammad"*"
Seriously how can this women be a child? The role this great women played in the history of Islam is tremendous and cannot be performed by a "Child".

According to the definition of Paedophilia:

"Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Adult sexual fondness for and activity with children. Pedophilia is a form of paraphilia (deviant sexual behavior)."

People at the time did not consider a Girl who menstruated as a Child. When looking at the Definition it's clear that it did not specifcy an age but rather said "Children" those who have not yet reached puberty. Clearly through time people cultures and standards differ on whom or what they considered a "Child" to be. Notice how a Paedophile has an "Exclusive" attraction to only children those below puberty.


The Prophet married women of all age groups, elder to him like Khadija (RA), of his own age like Sauda (RA), younger but mature of age like Zainab (RA) and much younger like Aisha (RA). Every single one of the prophet marriages were not to satisfy his "sexual desires" but each one of them were without an exception for important reasons, performed to rehabilitate divorced and widowed women, or to strengthen bonds between friends and tribes. Some were done as an act of compassion toward a conquered foe. In the society of those times, they were regarded as acts of nobility and kindness.

For a source of Muhammed wives and the reasons behind his marriage:
http://www.ispi-usa.org/muhammad/appendix2.html

alwald wrote: »

You are short of arguments and then you start insulting, your post was escalated to a mod and I won't answer this part as I don't engage in insults no matter what, this is another difference between myself and yourself aside from using common sense and logic.

Interestingly that you have not attempted to refute my answer or prove it to be false since it was not directed at you at all take a look carefully at what I said:

What your basically assuming that ALL these Arabs committed and participated in what you call a "Crime". Your also assuming that all the Americans and their leaders prior to 1886 were criminals and pedophiles? Indeed such a conclusion would make the one making this conclusion[I NEVER SAID THAT YOU MADE THIS CONCLUSION Re-Read what I said I even place a "?" mark.] a very stupid man, because only a very stupid arrogant man would accuse an entire race and nation of being Criminals and pedophiles.

And it's certainly true the one who accuse a whole race and nation of being criminals and pedophiles is certainly very arrogant if not stupid...

*Discourses on Women's Biographies and Cultural Identity: Twentieth-Century Representations of the Life of 'A'isha Bint Abi Bakr
http://www.academicroom.com/article/discourses-womens-biographies-and-cultural-identity-twentieth-century-representations-life-aisha-bint-abi-bakr

maggiepip

On the basis of the argument , just did more reading there on the age of marriage and age of consent back in those times in the US and Europe, never realised it was common place for girls as young as 8,9,10 to be getting married. The age of consent in Delaware USA was 7 up until 1960!!! They certainly were different times.....

Defender OF Faith

maggiepip wrote: »

On the basis of the argument , just did more reading there on the age of marriage and age of consent back in those times in the US and Europe, never realised it was common place for girls as young as 8,9,10 to be getting married. The age of consent in Delaware USA was 7 up until 1960!!! They certainly were different times.....

Truly it was a different time! it was norm back years ago to see girls being married off at very young ages. In most cultures, such as the 6th centaury Arabian culture the marriage would have been consummated at the onset of puberty.

“Traditionally, across the globe, the age of consent for sexual union was a matter for the family to decide, or a tribal custom. In most cases, this coincided with signs of puberty, menstruation for a woman and pubic hair for a man.
Sir Edward Coke in 17th century England ‘made it clear that the marriage of girls under 12 was normal, and the age at which a girl who was a wife was eligible for a dower from her husband’s estate was 9.

In his book, The Emphatic civilization, (Penguin, NY, 200) Jeremy Rifkin points out that the concept of adolescence only emerged during the last decade of the nineteenth century and the first three decades of the twentieth century. Society started to think of childhood as extending beyond puberty, into the later teenage years. Before that, children were considered to graduate into adulthood with the onset of puberty.”

*

I talked about who and what is a "Child" in my previous post, but I find it silly to think a person will judges and call the people living at the time paedophiles and criminals, as your imposing your own standards and culture into them.

*Extract from What’s Wrong in America: A Look at Troublesome Issues in Our Country By Arthur Siccan
Quoted from: http://discover-the-truth.com/2013/09/09/age-of-consent-in-european-american-history/

alwald

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

While I don't like citing Wikipedia the following list they presented is quite accurate and cited well by them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_birth_mothers

Notice how many "Children" aged 9 are reported to have given birth, these were only recent finding and I counted 29 reported case during this century and the previous, let alone a 6th Century Arabian desert

"Girls during the Biblical and Islamic days used to be married off at young ages when they either had their first periods, or their breasts start showing off. Once these event happened she is no longer a "Child" but rather a women.In other words, when they turn into "women", then they get married off, they are no longer considered "Children".

A child according to the universal Biological definition (both Social & Legal definition are not universal and varies between countries,cultures and places)

"a young human being below the age of puberty"

Once a female menstruate she had automatically reached puberty and is capable of having children and clearly is no longer a child, basic physiology.

This was the standard at the time they considered a Girl to be a Women the moment she had her fist menstruation.

It's ridiculous to go and look for all these excuses just to forgive your prophet, no matter what you will write or say nothing can excuse the action of a pedophile especially if this pedophile is considered to be the "most perfect man on earth", he is meant to give guidance to all muslims in the entire history including today's muslims so how can a pedophile guide muslims in the age in which we live right now? how can muslim follow a pedophile blindly?....for me only idiots can follow and worship a pedophile.

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

According to the definition of Paedophilia:

"Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Adult sexual fondness for and activity with children. Pedophilia is a form of paraphilia (deviant sexual behavior)."

People at the time did not consider a Girl who menstruated as a Child. When looking at the Definition it's clear that it did not specifcy an age but rather said "Children" those who have not yet reached puberty. Clearly through time people cultures and standards differ on whom or what they considered a "Child" to be. Notice how a Paedophile has an "Exclusive" attraction to only children those below puberty.

this definition only confirms what I am saying, a 9 year old is a child and as such the actions of muhamed are considered pedophilia, only a fool can't see it and understand it.

maggiepip

alwald wrote: »

It's ridiculous to go and look for all these excuses just to forgive your prophet, no matter what you will write or say nothing can excuse the action of a pedophile especially if this pedophile is considered to be the "most perfect man on earth", he is meant to give guidance to all muslims in the entire history including today's muslims so how can a pedophile guide muslims in the age in which we live right now? how can muslim follow a pedophile blindly?....for me only idiots can follow and worship a pedophile.




this definition only confirms what I am saying, a 9 year old is a child and as such the actions of muhamed are considered pedophilia, only a fool can't see it and understand it.

To be fair though then most of the world was too, and most of the laws allowed it. Shouldn't be followed by example today though obviously.

alwald

maggiepip wrote: »

To be fair though then most of the world was too, and most of the laws allowed it. Shouldn't be followed by example today though obviously.

That's exactly my point, I focused first on mohamed since this is a forum about Islam, muslims are meant to follow him and he is meant to be an example for everybody regardless of the century in which they live, the fact that people now are still defending his actions and his marriage to a child is beyond me, I just can't understand it.

Most of the world was mad and indeed the laws allowed it however most of today's world recognize that it was wrong and they condemn it, they don't find excuses for it.

maggiepip

alwald wrote: »

That's exactly my point, I focused first on mohamed since this is a forum about Islam, muslims are meant to follow him and he is meant to be an example for everybody regardless of the century in which they live, the fact that people now are still defending his actions and his marriage to a child is beyond me, I just can't understand it.

Most of the world was mad and indeed the laws allowed it however most of today's world recognize that it was wrong and they condemn it, they don't find excuses for it.

Thats a very good point.

Defender OF Faith

alwald wrote: »

this definition only confirms what I am saying, a 9 year old is a child .

Continue dodging my question...prove to me that Aisha(Ra) a 6th century Girl aged 9 was a Child and was not suitable for marriage


But I dont think you can you know why?
Because no matter how hard you look for a source to prove that Aisha was 9 it's going to end up referring to a Hadith which according to you is "not evidence" and is "The words of worshippers.." and in which " there is a high possibility that they have been altered, changed or invented" making your whole argument frail and weak since you build it based on something which you dont even believe to be true and that hold to you no credibility.

So you either accept the Hadith that says Aisha(Ra) was 9 and as such accept every single authentic Hadith in the process including the one in which Aisha in her own words have said;

‘When a girl is nine years old, she is a woman (meaning, she has attained puberty).’ (Tirmidhi, Hadith 1109) indicating that she considered her self a fully mature and capable women even at what appears to be such a young age.

Or reject the Hadith and as such you can no longer argue that Aisha(Ra) was actually 9 with that you will reject every single authentic Hadith presented.

Or you can choose and play the "Pick and toss" game and accept only the Hadith that suits your purpose.

alwald wrote: »

It's ridiculous to go and look for all these excuses just to forgive your prophet

I am not giving excuses point out a single sentence were I am giving him an excuse our prophet have not made a mistake to be excused I was explaining to your highness how Aisha(Ra) was not a child contrary to your though and how she was one of the greatest women in the history of Islam. By you calling the prophet a pedophilia you painted the whole Arab race at the time with the same brush, something as I have said only the ignorant and stupid would do.

A simple look into history will show that Aisha(Ra) was not a child, she was a women, great leader and Scholar of Islam elvated and given the titled of "The mother of the believers" by her marriage to Muhammad(pbuh), She was one of 3 wives that memorized the full 6323 verses of the Qur'an. "Aisha's importance to revitalizing the Arab tradition and leadership among the Arab women highlights her magnitude within Islam. Aisha became involved in the politics of early Islam and the first three caliphate reigns: Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman. During a time in Islam when women were not expected, or wanted, to contribute outside the household, Aisha delivered public speeches, became directly involved in war and even battles, and helped both men and women to understand the practices of Muhammad"*"
Seriously how can this women be a child? The role this great women played in the history of Islam is tremendous and cannot be performed by a "Child".

This is not me giving excuses this is me presenting the issue in its context, time and place and using the actual words of this "Child" along with the work of actual historians that studied history to prove my point and what did you use? nothing 0 source 0 reference 0 citation other then your own emotional sentiment.

*Discourses on Women's Biographies and Cultural Identity: Twentieth-Century Representations of the Life of 'A'isha Bint Abi Bakr
http://www.academicroom.com/article/discourses-womens-biographies-and-cultural-identity-twentieth-century-representations-life-aisha-bint-abi-bakr

alwald

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

‘When a girl is nine years old, she is a woman (meaning, she has attained puberty).’ (Tirmidhi, Hadith 1109) indicating that she considered her self a fully mature and capable women even at what appears to be such a young age.

I am not giving excuses point out a single sentence were I am giving him an excuse our prophet have not made a mistake to be excused I was explaining to your highness how Aisha(Ra) was not a child contrary to your though and how she was one of the greatest women in the history of Islam.

This is not me giving excuses this is me presenting the issue in its context, time and place and using the actual words of this "Child" along with the work of actual historians that studied history to prove my point and what did you use? nothing 0 source 0 reference 0 citation other then your own emotional sentiment.

Just like in our previous debate we are going in a circle, I always base my words and analysis on common sense and logic, you in the other hand you base everything on a hadith(s) and you refuse to admit the reality based on the time in which we live in, you refuse to say that indeed Muhamed made a horrible mistake not as a human being but as the leader of the entire Muslim world.

Your faith and your religion are yours, I will never try to make you change it but I will always state my point and remain true to myself.

I don't have the time nor the desire to continue this debate, my point is clear and thats what matters to me, I rather spend time on my Xbox than here going in a circle and repeating myself over and over.

Defender OF Faith

alwald wrote: »

Just like in our previous debate we are going in a circle, I always base my words and analysis on common sense and logic, you in the other hand you base everything on a hadith(s) and you refuse to admit the reality based on the time in which we live in, you refuse to say that indeed Muhamed made a horrible mistake not as a human being but as the leader of the entire Muslim world.

Classic! accusing me of going in circles while for the 5th time so for you continue to fail in providing a single evidence,source,citation or a historian words to show that Muhammed(pbuh) made a mistake.

You should look at what Tariq Ramadan himself says about the marriage since he appears to have a credible position in your heart, you might be interested in his book "The Messenger; The Meanings of the Life of Muhammad"- By Tariq Ramadan where has set himself the task of extracting the Prophet from the cement of blind devotion,unfortunately Tariq used the Authentic Hadith in his writing and therefore the book might be of little value to yourself, regardless I think it would be an interesting read to you my friend.

alwald wrote: »

I don't have the time nor the desire to continue this debate, my point is clear and thats what matters to me, I rather spend time on my Xbox than here going in a circle and repeating myself over and over.

Of course enjoy playing your Xbox

maggiepip

If Aisha wasn't 9 or theres no proof of her actual age, who said she was 9 in the first place? Genuine question.

Defender OF Faith

maggiepip wrote: »

If Aisha wasn't 9 or theres no proof of her actual age, who said she was 9 in the first place? Genuine question.

Aisha age was explicitly mentioned in the Sahih Hadith however my friend alwald reject the sahih Hadith as "The fabricated words of worshipers" hence am asking on whose authority is he saying Aisha age was 9 when he rejects the Hadith & what proof and evidence did he use to establish such a fact from a source other then the Hadith.

I am actually interested as their might be another source regarding the life of the prophet outside the Hadith and the work of Islamic scholars which I am unaware of but alwald is, unfortunately he does not want to share it.

maggiepip

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Aisha age was explicitly mentioned in the Sahih Hadith however my friend alwald reject the sahih Hadith as "The fabricated words of worshipers" hence am asking on whose authority is he saying Aisha age was 9 when he rejects the Hadith & what proof and evidence did he use to establish such a fact from a source other then the Hadith.

I am actually interested as their might be another source regarding the life of the prophet outside the Hadith and the work of Islamic scholars which I am unaware of but alwald is, unfortunately he does not want to share it.

Just read summarised quotes from the Hadith regarding Aisha, her age of marriage and her relationship with Mohammed. To be honest its a bit unsettling. Are you saying its untrue that she wasn't said age? (Forgive my very basic manner but I know very little about Islam and am trying to gain some knowledge)

Defender OF Faith

maggiepip wrote: »

Just read summarised quotes from the Hadith regarding Aisha, her age of marriage and her relationship with Mohammed. To be honest its a bit unsettling. Are you saying its untrue that she wasn't said age? (Forgive my very basic manner but I know very little about Islam and am trying to gain some knowledge)

Dont worry my sister, ask what you feel like asking even if you feel it could be offensive since in your own word you know little about Islam hence regardless of what you say I and the brothers around will excuse you

I would like to see the source/site you read the Hadith from if that's fine by you, If you cannot supply the link simply Quote what is said; but regarding your question I never denied Aisha(Ra) age review my posts #135,128 and more importantly 113 where I made clear reference to her age and explained in detail the nature of her loving,caring and romantic relationship and marriage to Muhammed(pbuh), this whole chat was me trying to explain and not excuse that history makes it clear that Aisha was in fact nowhere close to being a Child and demonstrated feats that a women aged 100 today cannot produce, the problem arise from the correlation between the 21st century 9 year old and the 6th century 9 year old as if they are in anyway the same.

My question was directed specifically toward alwald, since he rejected the Hadith the only source of Aisha age as far as I am aware, hence I was asking him from which authority or source did he find out that Aisha age was 9 if he does not accept the Hadith.

RikuoAmero

but regarding your question I never denied Aisha(Ra) age review my posts #135,128 and 113 where I made clear reference to her age.

So then, Aisha was 9 years old when the marriage was consummated? Correct?
If anyone today said s/he had intercourse with a 9 year old child, would it not be the correct response to say that that person did something wrong? To prosecute said person and to get the child away from them?

‘When a girl is nine years old, she is a woman (meaning, she has attained puberty).’ (Tirmidhi, Hadith 1109) indicating that she considered her self a fully mature and capable women even at what appears to be such a young age.

So let me see if I understand you correctly. When it comes to the very controversial topic of Aisha, the child bride of Mohammed, you take the course that Mohammed did not do anything wrong. He did not molest a child because...the girl in question said, at age nine, that she was a fully mature woman? Merely because she is physically capable of pregnancy?

Okay
1) Why is it that when it comes to deciding whether a child is mature enough, you take the child at their word? If a six year says they're mature, do you agree with them merely because they say so? A five year old, four year old?
2) Why is the start of puberty considered "good enough" by you to consider a girl child a woman?
3) I read the rest of this thread while I was on the bus today. You mentioned something at least once along the lines of Muhammed being the most perfect man there ever was (and yet this isn't worshipping the man...?) and I think you mentioned something about Muslims trying to emulate Muhammed's actions. Should Muslim men then be allowed to marry 6 year old girls, and consummate the marriage when the girl is 9? What if I were to convert to Islam tomorrow, and to meet a female relative of yours at that age? Would it be all right then for me to have intercourse with her?
4) If I'm caught having intercourse with a young girl, does it become not-child molestation if the child says she's a mature woman? Does that somehow or ought to stop the police from arresting me, and of me going through a trial? Should a judge and/or jury take this statement from the child into consideration when they decide as to whether or not I committed statutory rape?

Mate, I mean no disrespect, but you sound extremely gullible to me. You're willing to take statements of maturity FROM CHILDREN as fact, and use that to paint a pretty picture of someone you respect.

maggiepip

Ok thank you. Apologies but I can't create a link from my phone to what I read but they were original quotes, not interpretations. A bit off topic but something I am very impressed with is Mohammads / Islam teachings of kindness and compassion towards animals. This was way ahead of the times.

Defender OF Faith

First let me welcome you to this forum/thread as am assuming this is your first response Riku, just to say in case your wondering it will take me sometime to write a response to your refutation of my argument in the God existence thread ~

RikuoAmero wrote: »

So then, Aisha was 9 years old when the marriage was consummated? Correct?
If anyone today said s/he had intercourse with a 9 year old child, would it not be the correct response to say that that person did something wrong? To prosecute said person and to get the child away from them?

Of course! by the standards of today that's, review post # 123 and 128 for further details.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

So let me see if I understand you correctly. When it comes to the very controversial topic of Aisha, the child bride of Mohammed, you take the course that Mohammed did not do anything wrong. He did not molest a child because...the girl in question said, at age nine, that she was a fully mature woman? Merely because she is physically capable of pregnancy?

Review post number 113 where this "Child molester" accusation was refuted and answer, & to understand that Aisha(Ra) was not considered fully mature just merely because she was physically capable of pregnancy.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Okay
1) Why is it that when it comes to deciding whether a child is mature enough, you take the child at their word? If a six year says they're mature, do you agree with them merely because they say so? A five year old, four year old?

Review post # 128 to where we discussed the concept of a "Child" followed by post # 113 to understand Aisha(Ra) character more.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

2) Why is the start of puberty considered "good enough" by you to consider a girl child a woman?

Review post #130

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Should Muslim men then be allowed to marry 6 year old girls, and consummate the marriage when the girl is 9? What if I were to convert to Islam tomorrow, and to meet a female relative of yours at that age? Would it be all right then for me to have intercourse with her?

Review post # 113 issue of marriage discussed there.

Review the posts referenced and if you wish direct your response to them accordingly as the Issue of Aisha(Ra) was discussed at length and you brought nothing new to the table, and hence it's better to address the answers already given.

RikuoAmero

Of course! by the standards of today that's, review post # 123 and 128 for further details.

Okay, so in 123, your argument is that Aisha was this great wise woman who had somehow memorised the entire quran. When did she do this? By the time she was 9? What does memorising one book have to do with determining whether or not a person is mature? I too was a child prodigy, I had a great head for facts and figures. In fact, I started far earlier than Aisha. I was reading by age two and was going through encyclopedias before I started school. (I wonder if you'll doubt my claim. A normal person would, since 4 year olds reading encyclopedias is not something you see every day. If you do doubt it, why do you doubt me but not the claim for Aisha?)
As for Aisha not being a child...dude, her age was in the SINGLE DIGITS. While yes there have been documented cases of girls starting puberty at that age, that says nothing to their mental or emotional maturity. For you to argue that Aisha was not a child is to throw every accepted meaning of the world child out the window.
As for what you say she did, about leading men in battle and delivering speeches...was this done before or after she had sex with a 50 year old man while she herself was age 9?

yet you come here and deem it as unacceptable based solely in your views and standards and try impose them to a society that lived 1400 years ago!

Remind me again which person here is saying Muhammed did no wrong and, more importantly, that Muslims should emulate his actions?

Now as for 128...wait, in that one you're arguing that she wasn't age 9 when she did the dirty with Mu. You're contradicting yourself. When I asked as to whether she was 9 you said "Of course!"
All you talk about in 128 is the physical maturity of a girl with the onset of puberty. You don't even attempt to acknowledge there the emotional, mental or psychological factors. That does nothing to answer my question as to why, when you attempt to determine if a child is mature, for you, all you apparently need is to ask them "Are you mature?" and for them to respond in the positive.
I notice that for you, a young child can give consent to sex, thus for you, the concept of statutory rape is meaningless. Does this mean you feel that you can commit statutory rape, and that the law ought not to apply to you, or Muslim men?

2) She is wise enough to understand and know the duty and responsibilities of marriage
3) The marriage is only valid if the women agrees and give consent.

So where does that leave the law of statutory rape? What if a girl child is brought up in an Islamic household and is taught to submit to her husband, even if she marries him at a young age?

Basically, the problem I and the others have here is that you and other Muslims put Muhammed on a pedestal, call him the greatest man who ever lived and, most importantly, that other people should strive to emulate his actions.
Sorry but NO! Betrothing a child at AGE SIX? Marrying at age nine, and apparently it's all right simply because the child says yes?

Defender OF Faith

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Okay, so in 123, your argument is that Aisha was this great wise woman who had somehow memorised the entire quran. When did she do this? By the time she was 9? What does memorising one book have to do with determining whether or not a person is mature?..

The Qur'an is composed of 6232 verses and 603 pages which she not only memorized but understood and was an authority in when it came to interpretation. Aisha was 18 when the prophet(pbuh) have died she lived with him 10 years during which she accumlated a vast wealth of knowledge narrating more then 2000+ Hadith

Aisha (RA) was considered the most learned among the all the Companions of the Holy Prophet (PBUH). The following testifies to this.

Abu Musa al-Ashari[companion] says: "Never had we (the companions) any difficulty for the solution of which we approached Aisha and did not get some useful information from her".

RikuoAmero wrote: »

As for Aisha not being a child...dude, her age was in the SINGLE DIGITS. While yes there have been documented cases of girls starting puberty at that age, that says nothing to their mental or emotional maturity.

What are you basing this on? where is your sources that says that Aisha was immature during this age? dont present me with empty statement and please back them up using evidence and citations, from historians and experts who have studied her life.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

As for what you say she did, about leading men in battle and delivering speeches...was this done before or after she had sex with a 50 year old man while she herself was age 9?

Is your problem relates the age gap between them?

That was during her life time with and after Muhammed(pbuh) for her such great feat to come from a women in a time and age where it was the norm for the Arabs to bury their daughters alive out of shame and exclude them from all their affairs, indicate a suburb maturity,leadership and talents possessed by Aisha(Ra)

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Remind me again which person here is saying Muhammed did no wrong and, more importantly, that Muslims should emulate his actions?

I dont think you have reviewed my posts refer back to post number 113 where the issue of marriage was discussed, and no muhammed(pbuh) did not make a mistake it was in accordance with the Customs and norms of the time who are you to impose your own standards on a marriage between two people who deeply loved each other which happened 1400 years ago?

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Now as for 128...wait, in that one you're arguing that she wasn't age 9 when she did the dirty with Mu. You're contradicting yourself. When I asked as to whether she was 9 you said "Of course!"

These words relates to my discussion with Alwald and hence are not the subject of the matter here.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

All you talk about in 128 is the physical maturity of a girl with the onset of puberty. You don't even attempt to acknowledge there the emotional, mental or psychological factors

If your issue regards the emotional,mental and psychological state of Aisha(Ra) then she had no problem evident by her relationship with Muhammed(pbuh).

RikuoAmero wrote: »

I notice that for you, a young child can give consent to sex, thus for you, the concept of statutory rape is meaningless. Does this mean you feel that you can commit statutory rape, and that the law ought not to apply to you, or Muslim men?

No a child cannot give a consent for sex nor marriage stop putting words in my mouth.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

So where does that leave the law of statutory rape? What if a girl child is brought up in an Islamic household and is taught to submit to her husband, even if she marries him at a young age?

It's not part of the Islamic tradition for a women to submit to her husband where are you getting this rubbish from? we Submit to Allaah alone and no human is worthy enough to be submitted to.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Basically, the problem I and the others have here is that you and other Muslims put Muhammed on a pedestal, call him the greatest man who ever lived and, most importantly, that other people should strive to emulate his actions.

I invite you to actually read a Biography about Muhammed(pbuh) so you can understand the greatest of this man as you clearly haven't. I have referenced plenty through the thread, if they are not credible enough for you there are several biographies written by renowned modern Western Historians who looked and studied Muhammed's life in detail from which I can recommend a few ~

Again I have said nothing new which I have not said beforehand bare one thing take the time to review and read the posts I referenced carefully and make your replay to them so we can at least move this discussion rather then having to repeat stuff over again.

RikuoAmero

Defender, statutory rape is what it is. It is when an adult has sex with a child, who is a person under the age of 18, irregardless of whether that child says yes. It does not matter whether she started bleeding once a month or says yes.
Now, you also say that Mu did no wrong simply because of the time he lived in. Do you not realise the utter stupidity of this statement? If Mu is the greatest man who ever lived, then this means that since his death, humanity has not progressed AT ALL in terms of human rights or of learning how to treat one another. However, that is clearly false, since we have gone a long way into learning how to treat one another.

Okay, since you're constantly trumpeting the "times that Mu lived in"...hypothetical scenario. Let's say Mu lived in a time and in a tribe that practised ritual cannibalism of first born children. If Mu partook of this practice, would this not fill you with horror, because it's Mu? Does the fact that it was Mu somehow stop the action (the consumption of children) from being wrong? Why is it that if literally anyone else were to try and do this practice, you and I would both be filled with horror, but that somehow you give a bye to Mu?

Defender OF Faith

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Defender, statutory rape is what it is. It is when an adult has sex with a child, who is a person under the age of 18, irregardless of whether that child says yes. It does not matter whether she started bleeding once a month or says yes

This is the legal 21 century definition of a Child which did not apply 1400 years ago and even today varies through out the world countries and states, in India the age appears to be 16 and in the US it varies from 12-15 through the various states, A Muslim must observe the legal age of marriage in his/her respective country state, as following the law of the land we live in as long as it allows us freedom to practice our religion is an obligation.

“Traditionally, across the globe, the age of consent for sexual union was a matter for the family to decide, or a tribal custom. In most cases, this coincided with signs of puberty, menstruation for a woman and pubic hair for a man.
Sir Edward Coke in 17th century England ‘made it clear that the marriage of girls under 12 was normal, and the age at which a girl who was a wife was eligible for a dower from her husband’s estate was 9.

In his book, The Emphatic civilization, (Penguin, NY, 200) Jeremy Rifkin points out that the concept of adolescence only emerged during the last decade of the nineteenth century and the first three decades of the twentieth century. Society started to think of childhood as extending beyond puberty, into the later teenage years. Before that, children were considered to graduate into adulthood with the onset of puberty.”

*

*Extract from What’s Wrong in America: A Look at Troublesome Issues in Our Country By Arthur Siccan

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Now, you also say that Mu did no wrong simply because of the time he lived in. Do you not realise the utter stupidity of this statement? If Mu is the greatest man who ever lived, then this means that since his death, humanity has not progressed AT ALL in terms of human rights or of learning how to treat one another.

Look closer home...

maggiepip wrote: »

On the basis of the argument , just did more reading there on the age of marriage and age of consent back in those times in the US and Europe, never realised it was common place for girls as young as 8,9,10 to be getting married. The age of consent in Delaware USA was 7 up until 1960!!! They certainly were different times.....

Point out one teaching of the prophet Muhammed(pbuh) which coincide with human rights and conflicts with what you consider normal treatment of each other.

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

He is the one who defended the rights of all humanity 1400 years ago.
He defended men's, women's and children rights
He commanded and fostered the love between relatives and neighbors
He established a coexistence relationship between Muslims and Non-Muslims
He organized the relationship between the members of the family putting duties on sons and daughters towards the parents
He fought injustice, called for justice, love, unity and cooperation for the good.
He called for helping the needy, visiting the patients, love and exchanging advises between people.
He prohibited (by orders from God) bad manners such as stealing, lying, torturing and murdering.
He is the one who changed our lives and manners to be better:
A Muslim doesn't steal
A Muslim doesn't lie
A Muslim doesn't drink alcohol.
A Muslim doesn't commit adultery
A Muslim doesn't cheat
A Muslim doesn't kill innocent people
A Muslim doesn't harm his neighbors
A Muslim obeys his parents and helps them
A Muslim is kind to young and elderly people, to women and to weak people.
A Muslim doesn't torture humans or even animals, and does not harm trees
A Muslim loves his wife and takes care of his children and show mercy towards them until the last day of his life.
A Muslim's relationship towards his parents never stops even when they die

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Okay, since you're constantly trumpeting the "times that Mu lived in"...hypothetical scenario. Let's say Mu lived in a time and in a tribe that practised ritual cannibalism of first born children. If Mu partook of this practice, would this not fill you with horror, because it's Mu? Does the fact that it was Mu somehow stop the action (the consumption of children) from being wrong? Why is it that if literally anyone else were to try and do this practice, you and I would both be filled with horror, but that somehow you give a bye to Mu?

1400 years ago Girls were married once they reached puberty, a habit which was present in the western and American world all the way until early modern European and american society.

Professor Richard Wortley and Professor Stephen Smallbone, both of whom state that prior to the 1900s girls married very young,

“In Medieval and early modern European societies, the age of marriage remained low, with documented cases of brides as young as seven years, although marriages were typically not consummated until the girl reached puberty (Bullough 2004). Shakespeare’s Juliet was just 13, and there is no hint in the play that this was considered to be exceptional. The situation was similar on the other side of the Atlantic; Bullough reports the case in 1689 of a nine-year-old bride in Virginia. At the start of the nineteenth century in England, it was legal to have sex with a 10 year-old girl.”

Internet Child Pornography: Causes, Investigation, and Prevention By Richard Wortley, Stephen Smallbon page 10

“Until the late 20th century U.S. age of consent laws specifically names males as perpetrators and females as victims. Following English law, in which the age was set at 12 in 1275 and lowered to 10 in 1576, ages of consent in the American colonies were generally set at 10 or 12. The laws protected female virginity, which at the time was considered a valuable commodity until marriage. The theft of a girl’s chastity was seen as a property crime against her father and future husband. If two people were married and had sex, no matter what their age, no crime was committed because a woman was her husband’s property. In practice, too, the consent laws only protected white females, as many non-white females were enslaved or otherwise discriminated against by the legal system.”

Sex and Society, Volume 1 page 54

Merril D. Smith says that the age which a girl could marry was 10 to 13 in most societies

“To that end, from ancient times to the present, many societies have acted to try to safeguard children from rape and other forms of sexual degradation, though they might define sexual degradation differently from era to era and from place to place. One way societies have tried to protect young girls is through laws that designate a statutory age of consent. Such laws prohibit men from having sexual relations with females under a specified age on legal theory that they are too young and immature to make informed decision and, therefore, are incapable of giving a legal consent. Historically, the age of consent was set at 10 or 13 years, depending on the era and the culture, and tended to coincide with female puberty, which was also the age at which a female could marry without parental permission.”

Encyclopedia of Rape by Merril D. Smith page 40

Many more can be cited but these should be enough to make the point.

"Girls during the Biblical and Islamic days used to be married off at young ages when they either had their first periods, or their breasts start showing off. Once these event happened she is no longer a "Child" but rather a women.In other words, when they turn into "women", then they get married off, they are no longer considered "Children".

Your "Hypothetical scenario" does not even compare to the issue at hand, and was restricted to a "Tribe" not a whole society or nation.

I kindly repeat my invitation for you to actually read a Biography about Muhammed(pbuh) so you can understand this Man and his teachings as you dont appear to have. I have referenced plenty through the thread, if they are not credible enough for you there are several biographies written by renowned modern Western Historians who looked and studied Muhammed's life in detail from which I can recommend a few.

Defender OF Faith

maggiepip wrote: »

Ok thank you. Apologies but I can't create a link from my phone to what I read but they were original quotes, not interpretations. A bit off topic but something I am very impressed with is Mohammads / Islam teachings of kindness and compassion towards animals. This was way ahead of the times.

Not of topic at all! if anything it's a good way to break away from the issue that was debated today to exhaustion. I intend along with the brothers around to discuss any issue pertaining Muhammed(pbuh) in this thread with the intention of solely informing those around who we believe Muhammed to be and why we hold him in such high regard, and how he's completely innocent of the gross remarks and insults thrown at him today & refuting the evidence of those who claim he was.
We believe that Muhammed(pbuh) mercy encompassed all of creations Humans and animals alike and this reflected clearly in his treatment of animals:

The prophet Muhammad (saw) was kind to every living creature and this kindness knew no limits. He was very kind to animals as well. Arabs, like all ignorant and illiterate people, were very unkind to their animals. It was very common in Arabia to put a collar round the neck of a camel, but this practice was stopped on the Prophet's orders.
In pre Islamic times, pagan superstitions and polytheistic practices included acts of torture and cruelty to animals. Islam condemned this and put a stop to all such practices. When Prophet Muhammad and his companions migrated to Medina, they noticed that people cut off camels’ humps and the fat tails of sheep for food. The Prophet forbade them from them from doing this and said, “Whatever is cut off an animal while it is still alive, is carrion and is unlawful to eat.”

It was also forbidden to shear their hair or tails. Prophet Muhammad (saw) said that the tail was the brush and fan of these animals and hair was their quilt. He also forbade people to keep animals tied to their working equipment for a long time and said, "Don't make the backs of animals your chairs." Animal fights were also made unlawful. Another custom was to tie up an animal and practise arrow shooting on it. This was also prohibited.

It is related that the Prophet(pbuh), once saw a donkey which had been branded on its face and he said, "May Allah curse the one who branded it." As people had to brand their camels and sheep in order to identify them, they were told to brand them on parts which were not so tender.

Once the Prophet (saw) was on a journey with his companions and they stopped for rest at a certain place. A bird had laid an egg there. A man took away the egg and the bird began beating her wings in a state of great distress. The Prophet (saw) inquired who had hurt her by taking her egg. When the man admitted that he had done that, the Prophet (saw) asked him to return the egg to the nest.

The Prophet(Pbuh) said, “Whoever kills a sparrow or anything bigger than that without a just cause, God will hold him accountable on the Day of Judgment.” The listeners asked, “O Messenger of God, what is a just cause?” He replied, “That he will kill it to eat, not simply to chop off its head and then throw it away.” He further emphasis this by saying: “If someone kills a sparrow for sport, the sparrow will cry out on the Day of Judgment, “O Lord! That person killed me in vain! He did not kill me for any useful purpose.”

One of Prophet Muhammad’s companions narrates, “We were on a journey and during the Prophet’s absence, we saw a bird with its two chicks; we took them. The mother bird was circling above us in the air, beating its wings in grief. When Prophet Muhammad returned he said, “Who has hurt the feelings of this bird by taking its chicks? Return them to her.”

It is related that the Prophet(pbuh), once passed by a camel that was so emaciated that its back had almost reached its stomach. He said, "Fear Allah in these beasts who cannot speak."

Prophet Muhammad (saw) once told a story to his companions. There was a man who went on a journey and on his way felt very thirsty. He found a well and went down into it and drank water. When he came out of the well he saw a dog that was also very thirsty and was licking the salty ground with his tongue. Thinking that the animal was thirsty like him, he again went down into the well, filled his leather socks with water and gave it to the dog. Allah was so pleased with this action of the man that He granted him Paradise. There is another story about a woman going to Hell who starved her cat to death.

Prophet Muhammad (saw), by his own example, had instilled this kind of behavior in his companions, who, after him, set an example for other people. This is shown by the following incident. It is reported by Abdullah Ibn Jafar (ra) that he passed by a grazing field and saw an Abyssinian slave guarding a herd of goats. A dog came and sat in front of him. He took out a loaf of bread and gave it to the dog that ate it. Then he gave the second and third loaves of bread to the dog that ate them all. He inquired of the slave how many loaves of bread he got daily from his master. He replied that he got as many as he saw.

At this, he asked why he gave all his bread to the dog. The slave replied that the dog did not belong to that place and must have come hoping for food from a long distance, hence he did not like his effort to be wasted. Abdullah (ra) said that he liked his action so much that he bought the slave along with the goats and the grazing field from his master, set him free and gave him all the goats and the grazing field. The slave thanked him and prayed for him and gave all the goats and the grazing field in charity and went away.

Source: The Muslim Journal - Vol.29 No. 4, Edited by: Ajalur Rahmait, Encyclopaedia of Seerah, Vol. 1
Cited from:
http://www.beautifulislam.net/prophethood/muhammad_mercy.htm#animals http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/3493/
http://islam.about.com/od/islamsays/a/animalwelfare.htm
http://www.islamawareness.net/Animals/animals4.html
Citation and references to each incident mentioned will be provided if requested.

httpete

...!!

httpete

I can't believe what I'm reading here. Someone saying that a middle aged man having sex with a 9 year old is fine. Truly unbelievable, I never thought I'd see a statement like that on this forum.

So what if it was widespread centuries ago. Slavery, torture, genocide, pedophilia, female genital mutilation, etc....Just because these may have been common occurrences in ancient times doesn't mean they were ever right. They are all disgraceful as is plain to see to all today as humanity has thankfully progressed beyond the dark ages. Well almost everywhere, there are still a few holes kips around the world where some of the above practises are still in existence.

I have several nieces around the ages of 9 and 10 and I have to say it is truly sick stuff to say that it is ok for a middle aged man to have sex with them. These are children, they are completely vunerable and they are not capable of deciding things for themselves. That's why there are laws against crimes like grooming, it's recognised that children need protection from sexual predators.

Young people are even tryed for crimes in juvenille courts until the age of something like 17 as it is recognised that their responsibility is diminished as they are not mentally equivalent to an adult....nevermind a NINE year old!

I still can't believe someone is trying to justify this here...If there was no state law against this practise would this poster then have no problem with men having sex with 9 year olds?

To re-iterate slavery, torture, genocide, pedophilia, female genital mutilation always were and always will be immoral and disgusting...Seriously you can't truly believe what you are writing in saying that having sex with 9 year olds is ok..have you any relations around that age, would you think it would be ok for a man to have sex with them?

Shocking stuff to read that this is the Muslim view on the acceptable age of consent...althought I doubt consent comes into it in alot of the cases based on the attitude displayed above.