Evidence @LeChuck
What about Sahih Bukhari, volume 5, book 58, number 234? The authority of it is second only to Quran itself. Here:
How peaceful is Islam?
- Thread starter Momochiru
- Start date
What about Sahih Bukhari, volume 5, book 58, number 234? The authority of it is second only to Quran itself. Here:
No, ability to consent matters. Which is why people would be asking similar questions if a 53 year old man had taken a mentally disabled person as his third wife.
The cynic of me says that it was exactly that: a forced marriage. Not surprisingly, Aisha's father became the first Caliph of Islam after Muhammad died.
Exactly similar to a lot of royal marriages in the other parts of the world back then. The proble is that as you said 'prophets who claim divine inspiration can't use moral relativism as an excuse'. Just because some Spanish king or some Mongol warlord have done some similar stuff, that doesn't make okay for Muhammad to do so. If he was a prophet, of course.
Exactly. Someone who is divinely inspired is not limited by the status quo at the time. They would always be on the side of what is morally right and not rely on "yeah well lots of people did it back then". It must suck to be a good and decent devout person who is left to defend or explain away a 53 year old marrying 9 or 13 year old girl by pointing out the technicalities of female puberty. It's simply wrong.
Mentally disabled? Wow.
It was an act ordained by God. He was betrothed to her but she remained with her parents for a few years. Only when she was physiologically a woman was she allowed to leave. Consent was obtained from all parties involved. Again, puberty is the one universal mitigating factor of adulthood.
Wow what?
Who says it was ordained by god? Surely we can't just ignore moral issues because the perpetrator claims their act was ordained by god. He was betrothed when she was a child, when she surely was not capable of consent. What age exactly do you think she was when 1) she was engaged and 2) the marriage was consummated?
Just ignoring my post when I quoted Bukhari, Uzz?
It looks quite clearly from it that she was six when they were betrothed, and 9 (not 13) when she went to Muhammad. It is almost impossible to be an adult (biologically) at the age of 9, but even if she was, it is still morally wrong.
Of course, it makes it okay cause it was 'ordered by God'. But then the same can be said for every bad act if the person who does it claims that it has been 'ordered by God'. Not sure if that would convince any judge though.
I also think we should be asking more questions about a God who goes around ordaining marriages between children and 53 year old men who already have multiple wives. It's not as ridiculous as the whole "Abraham kill your son for me jk lol" but it doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
Am I disputing your post about Bukhari? I never mentioned she was 13 either. Tbh, the consensus differs on the exact age and is centred on a few things.
And no, it really isn't impossible to be an adult age 9 if you have gone through the stages of puberty and started your menses. Again, this is the universal metric of your body becoming an adult. If you are biologically capable of having kids, you are an adult. Arbitrary ages of this and that are only arbitrary ages. The one distinguishable feature world wide is puberty.
Of course - in modern times we have decided collectively that 'years being alive' are a better determinant, and these vary depending on which country you're in.
Is it moral though (in any age) for a fifty something man to marry a 9 years old child (even if she is in puberty)?
While we can debate her age all night long, you are not going to find something that is more trustworthy than Bukhari that talks for her age. Especially, since the quote is from Aisha herself, not someone saying that they think that Aisha was 9 years old.
So, unless you can find some secret verse in Quran that says otherwise, she was 9 years old.
Well, it's moral issues because your relativism in modern times makes it a moral issue.
There was divine wisdom behind it - for example, as a reliable narrator of 2000+ Hadith, so much of Islam would have been lost if this marriage hadn't occurred. Some scholars say that half of Islam would be lost without Aisha (RA). Furthermore, so many revelations and Qu'ranic verses were revealed post marriage that wouldn't have been known if it wasn't for the marriage. For example, the verses on tayammum (ritual ablution without water), verses in Surah an Noor etc.
There is no evidence from Muslim or non Muslims sources that the Prophet (SAWS) was a lustful or licentious individual. If anything, he was an example to others on how to treat one's wives and gave them an honour and standing that they never had before he / Islam was around. The majority of his marriages post Khadija (RA) were to unify different political camps. The marriage to Aisha (RA) was for the benefit of Islam.
And that brings me onto another point - in Islam there are certain actions and behaviours that are ok for the Prophet (SAWS) to do but not for the rest to do and vice versa. Eg, the night prayer was obligatory for the Prophet, but not for the people. Marrying more than 4 was permissible for the Prophet (SAWS) but not for the people.
Again - the morals of it are only really relevant now. Child brides (pre-adolescence) are still a thing in India, and in the prism of 2015, morally this is wrong. I doubt you'd think it was wrong 100-150 years ago, so saying 'is it moral (in any age)...' is a stupid question as our morals adapt and change over time. In another 100-200 years, they might change again and people will think something such as usury, or interest is morally wrong.
Before I took my religion seriously, I had the same doubts and thoughts as you did, and I began to research it thoroughly, and now I no longer have those doubts.
How do you think this looks from the outside? A guy making the rules and then being above them.
Sure, but Muhammad wasn't the average Joe. What might have been okay for others, shouldn't be okay fr what is mentioned as the best person ever. And marrying a 9 years old child doesn't sound that nice.
Considering that his first marriage was with an extremely powerful rich woman (likely the richest person in Arabia) 15 years his senior, and his second marriage with basically a princess, looks far more the behaviour of an oppurtunistic person rather than a noble one.
Recite me now Al-Kafirun.
This is not a very good argument. I mean, couldn't your deity of choice have chosen to spread his message in a way that didn't include children marrying old men? After all, god is supposedly all powerful. Seems like justification after the fact.
Women have equal rights to men when it comes to education?
Would it be okay for god to do that your daughter at that age?
I've been reading some laws and ordinances of Muslim countries , some of them:
-Saudi Arabia: Conversion of a Muslim to another religion is punishable by death. Christians can not even meet to pray in private homes.The Bible is illegal. The Easter celebrations are illegal.
-Bahrein: It is forbidden to convert Muslims to any other religious faith.
-Malaysia: apostasy or renunciation of Islam is punishable by flogging ; fines,
imprisonment and even the penalty death. Marriage between a Muslim and a non- Muslim is forbidden by Islamic law
-Pakistan: proselytism by non-Muslims is prohibited. If a criminal Muslim rapes a Christian woman and she says she has accepted Islam and marries with him, the Muslim is not guilty under criminal law
-Sudan: The conversion of a Muslim to another religion is punishable by death.
-Yemen: The government does not allow the construction of new places of worship if they are not Muslims.
-Morocco: The Penal Code (Article 220) includes a penalty of 3 to 6 months imprisonment to who induces apostasy from Islam. It prohibited the sale of Bibles in Arabic. They can order the closure of a school, orphanage , etc. if this serves to convert a Muslim.
If something is wrong , correct me , but I think with this kind of religious participation in legislative issues it is quite natural the emergence of violent minorities who consider that the infidels must be eliminated.
-Saudi Arabia: Conversion of a Muslim to another religion is punishable by death. Christians can not even meet to pray in private homes.The Bible is illegal. The Easter celebrations are illegal.
-Bahrein: It is forbidden to convert Muslims to any other religious faith.
-Malaysia: apostasy or renunciation of Islam is punishable by flogging ; fines,
imprisonment and even the penalty death. Marriage between a Muslim and a non- Muslim is forbidden by Islamic law
-Pakistan: proselytism by non-Muslims is prohibited. If a criminal Muslim rapes a Christian woman and she says she has accepted Islam and marries with him, the Muslim is not guilty under criminal law
-Sudan: The conversion of a Muslim to another religion is punishable by death.
-Yemen: The government does not allow the construction of new places of worship if they are not Muslims.
-Morocco: The Penal Code (Article 220) includes a penalty of 3 to 6 months imprisonment to who induces apostasy from Islam. It prohibited the sale of Bibles in Arabic. They can order the closure of a school, orphanage , etc. if this serves to convert a Muslim.
If something is wrong , correct me , but I think with this kind of religious participation in legislative issues it is quite natural the emergence of violent minorities who consider that the infidels must be eliminated.
There is so much wrong with this.
The Islamic rulers which came to subcontinent, including Mughals (they weren't the only one but the prominent one) came here to rule and spread their religion. There was nothing 'side by side' flourishing. Hindus and Buddhists were oppressed, forcibly converted and killed, women raped. That Mughals were generous, benevolent blah blah is loads of lie and has been spread wrongly. Only difference was some of them were more barbaric, some less so and Akbar falls in 'less so' category and was comparatively better. There is nothing 'holding Akbar in high regard' etc. It is just that due to Akbar-Birbal stories and couple of movies, he is more known of Mughal rulers and given he flourished the empire, in terms of wealth etc he contributed better.
Hindus looked down on Muslims? Again, very wrong. During Mughal empire, along with Afghans and other Muslim rulers before or after, it was Hindus who were oppressed and not just oppressed, tortured. Babar was the most torturous of all from Mughal era. Though Mughals were mostly in north, there were other Islamic rulers who had come to this side of world and taken over. There were other dynasty like Adilshahi, Nizams etc in south. Again, all savages.
Khilji dynasty, of Turkic origin came earlier than Moghuls and were the worst of the lot in barbaric behavior.(and Ghazni before that, who started Islamic invasion in this side of world). The Delhi Sultanate era, of which Khilji dynasty was part, was the worst and set the tone. If compared to them, Moghuls seem better but that is not saying much. It will be saying some other terrorist organizations are less barbaric compared to ISIS.
Other thing is that the subcontinent was very very developed prior to Islamic invasion. Likes of Khilji just razed down many great learning centres etc, including Nalanda University which had some very advanced knowledge base to that time. This also refutes your Hindus and Buddhists flourished side by side point as the civilization in this part was may more advanced before. We were lot more advanced and flourishing before. Why else do you think that from Turks to Mongols and later Portuguese, Dutch, French, British (colonial era) were so keen on this side of world? The wealth available was just tremendous. Going back to Mughal, what they and others did after Delhi Sultanate era is they tried to use the knowledge base and wealth of Hindu leaders and scholars better than go about just killing and destroying like Khilji. It was in their interest to do so. That doesn't make good rulers. It will be like saying that because Colonial era gave few good things in return, their acts are justified and they were good rulers.
Many of Islamic rulers times overlapped and there was fighting within them as well of course to increase their dynasty. Thanks to Great Shivaji Maharaj there was dent on lots of Islamic rulers operations and his contribution is great in helping Hindus recover back, which was continued by Maratha empire later on. Many Hindu kingdoms then worked for or with multiple Islamic dynasties and the infighting among Hindus was main reason that Islamic rulers became powerful. Otherwise it took them multiple attempts to gain grounds here. Different Hindu leaders then worked for different dynasties. There is so much Hindus owe to Shivaji for gaining self respect and hold in this area back. He also did a great job in uniting Hindus. Sad he died early as was case with many Maratha leaders afterwards, who died prematurely.
To summarize, no Hindus and Buddhists didn't flourish in Islamic invasion era, quite the opposite. We were lot better before. No, Hindus didn't oppress Muslims it was exactly the other way. The time Hindus and Muslims united was in colonial era, as part of India then, not individual dynasties, and fought against British. By that time, Mughals and all Islamic kingdoms had almost ended and whatever was the population was Indian. The 'flourishing together or living together in harmony largely was during and post Colonial era.
Google Aurangzeb please.
I wonder if there's any thread to debate the state of Hindus in Pakistan?
Wait, did @LeChuck claim that a 9-year-old could have gone through the stages of puberty? I realise religion isn't exactly big on science but come on. That would mean she started puberty around 5-6 years of age. Girls generally begin puberty around 10-11 - and historically it started LATER than that, it dropped quite significantly in the last 200 years or so.
And this is a singularly awful quote. Doubt is usually good, getting rid of it for the sake of justifying the actions of a 7th century politician sounds horrible.
Sounds like cognitive dissonance to me.
Can't remember when or where I read/heard it, but a Christian once said the greatest triumph of faith is still believing when you have doubts. Don't agree with that sentiment either but it seems more reasonable.
I think it's about being honestly comfortable with your doubts. I'm not even pretending to understand everything despite being educated to a MA degree but it's alright. I enjoy the constant thinking, debating, re-evaluating, re-positioning etc.
I'm sorry but there's no defending marriage to a 9 year old. That's just rape. There's no other word for it.
I'm no expert but even for those times 9 seems a bit excessive. I thought 12/13 was more of a common age.
I'm no expert but even for those times 9 seems a bit excessive. I thought 12/13 was more of a common age.
Just did a quick google so both of these links could be wrong, but both are saying that the age of puberty is decreasing and can go as low as 12 years so I think its possible that at that time a 9 year old would have achieved puberty.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2465479/
http://www.mum.org/menarage.htm
erm pedophilia?
Ok. A Paedo rapist then. Doesn't cast him in a good light in any case.
Not really, unless you are sure that the age of puberty was different back then.
I am not sure for Malaysia, but the others seem correct. If I am not mistaken, Malaysia has I think a double system of law, one for Muslims and one for others. While, in theory the country is secular, but Islam still has an important role. The problem is that in the last 15 years, they have moved quite a bit from almost secular to almost Islam state.
I am pretty sure that people of the other religions can freely do all their religious duty, and Christmas for example is a national holiday. Unfortunately, I think that the treatment of atheists isn't much better than in Saudi Arabia though.
A girl of 9 is in no position to consent regardless of whether she had undergone puberty or not and it highly unlikely she did at the age of 9.
He was very cruel and his era falls little later but I guess few during Ghazni era and Khilji era will put him to shame. There is literally very little positive about Islamic leaders era for India or subcontinent, if at all. Now in 21st century one needs to move on but that should not be by twisting history and painting Mughals etc as good people. British have played big part in this twisting history and that narrative suits Western people or Muslim world because it shows that India was always invaded and the invaders brought prosperity ever. Biggest bullshit that is.
Population has gone down to 1.8% or something while at partition it was 10% at least. Same case with Bangladesh where Hindu population has declined alarmingly. Lots of atrocities still happen to Hindus in these two countries. That never makes news. I hope @LeChuck will start some thread on this as he did with #SikhLivesMatter
How often are these rules actually implemented? Saudi Arabia probably because the entire country is scum but Malaysia by all accounts is a pretty good place to live. I'd imagine there are lots of countries with rather stupid laws not just Islamic one's.
It is possible for her to have been in puberty when she was 9. Here is a list of girls who were mothers by that age:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/worlds-youngest-mum-top-10-1589383
Two problems though:
1) Chances for that are extremely low. Probably 1 in a million if we're generous.
2) Does it really changes anything? Is it morally right for a fifty something years old to marry a child (even if she was a child who was in puberty)? I really cannot see how someone might argue that it is right.
No, neither is wrong. The average age of the menarche is around 12 nowadays. This has decreased significantly recently (since the 19th century) - which means in those days the average age was almost certainly much higher, around 15-17, in all likelihood.
Again, your thoughts on the matter are based on the children of today. By all accounts, the age when a child transitioned to a man was younger than its currently.
It could just as easily have been the other way around though, decreased first then increased and then decreased again. Its not that hard for me to believe that if the age of the menarche is 12 nowadays it could have been 9 back then. And I remember reading somewhere that climate has a lot to do with it, that is in warmer countries it occurs earlier but that can easily be wrong as well.
It doesn't matter when she had her puberty. Consent was absent, clearly.
And you know this how?
I'd imagine children matured faster ( I don't mean puberty) in those days than is the case nowadays but 9 is just way too young for marriage or sex for any era. And a girl is no position to consent at 9.
Are you trying to convince me that a 9/12 year old child was so smitten with the great Prophet as to consent to marry him?
Sure, it's not impossible, but it's bloody unlikely. Balance of probability and all that.
Thats by the definition of today, a 9 or 12 year old could have been and probably was considered an adult back then. Its not that farfetch when you consider that ten/eleven year olds used to fight in wars.
Again, you are in no way qualified to say this and are basing it on your perception of children today.