Ayesha's age at marriage

[Cordoba]

<< Muhammad married her when she was 'of age' (implication, she was in her teens) >>

That's not necessarily so.

The implication as mentioned to you several times is that Lady Aisha had reached the age of puberty (whatever that age was, 9 or more), and that it was the norm for early marriages at that age to take place in the 7th. century.

I don't have time to read your other points, which are irrelevant, as the above point is the main answer to this issue.

Try not to waste our time.

 

[Montalban]

<< Muhammad married her when she was 'of age' (implication, she was in her teens) >>

That's not necessarily so.

The implication as mentioned to you several times is that Lady Aisha had reached the age of puberty (whatever that age was, 9 or more), and that it was the norm for early marriages at that age to take place in the 7th. century.

I don't have time to read your other points, which are irrelevant, as the above point is the main answer to this issue.

No, that still won't do. It's not good enough to say 'she might have been nine'. She was. I've evidenced this, with Islamic quotes. You've given me your own speculation.

Is it okay for a man to consumate a marriage with a nine year old? Is that why you've tried to show how such practices have gone on in other places?

Try not to waste our time.

I like this emotive appeal, an attempt at an 'us and them' sort of debate.

 

[Cordoba]

Whatever the age of Lady Aisha at marriage, (9 or more), she was of the right age in that era for marriage.

Try not to waste your time and other people's time, Montalban.

 

[Montalban]

Whatever the age of Lady Aisha at marriage, (9 or more), she was of the right age in that era for marriage.

So it was an example for only that particular time?

Try not to waste your time and other people's time, Montalban.

If you stop personalising this thread, that would be great.

 

[Montalban]

Whatever the age of Lady Aisha at marriage, (9 or more), she was of the right age in that era for marriage.

How can a nine year old girl be the 'right age' for marriage?

I mentioned this as a problem in one of my earliest posts. Moslems seem to believe that the moment a girl begins to mensturate, she's capable in all respects of becoming a bride. (To be exact, three months after she first mensturates).

The assumption is that the moment she's physically capable of carrying children, she's psychologically ready for motherhood too.

And this just isn't borne out by science.

The health risks to young mothers are great; mentally yes, and physically too.

So far the idea that she is ready as suggested by Cordoba is proven by the belief that she was. She was ready, because she was.

 

[Montalban]

Why can't I get an answer? Does no one love me anymore?

 

[Quoth The Raven]

Why can't I get an answer? Does no one love me anymore?

As I see it, the point of the argument is that those who are anti-Muslim cite the marriage of Ayesha and Mohammed as an example of child mollestation.Bad religion, being based on the word of a paedophile!:tsk:
The point being made is that in the past there have been plenty of examples of low age of consent - see the example of California and the age of 10 - even in what would consider themselves 'good Christian countries.' Marriage to a 10 year old would be considered child mollestation now, obviously there was no issue with it then.
Whether it be considered psychologically positive or negative in todays society is hardly the point...the events did not take place in todays society, and therefore should not be judged by what would be considered appropriate today.
I could be wrong, but I don't believe Jesus went into great depths as to what he considered to be a suitable age of consent, so what Jesus would or wouldn't have done - or in fact your own faith - is hardly relevent to the topic at hand.
Also, the point I think was being made with reference to Mohammed's enemies was that in marrying Ayesha he behaved in entirely an appropriate manner...had he not done so, people wuld have been all over it like a rash.
Whether you would judge it as child mollestation by todays standards is hardly relevent...in case you hadn't noticed, things have changed drastically. Were Mohammed alive today and in need of a spouse, I sincerely doubt the thought of marrying a 9 year old would even be entertained.
Children are still considered children now at an age where in the past they would be close to 'old maid' status.

 

[Montalban]

As I see it, the point of the argument is that those who are anti-Muslim cite the marriage of Ayesha and Mohammed as an example of child mollestation.Bad religion, being based on the word of a paedophile!:tsk:
The point being made is that in the past there have been plenty of examples of low age of consent - see the example of California and the age of 10 - even in what would consider themselves 'good Christian countries.' Marriage to a 10 year old would be considered child mollestation now, obviously there was no issue with it then.
Whether it be considered psychologically positive or negative in todays society is hardly the point...the events did not take place in todays society, and therefore should not be judged by what would be considered appropriate today.
I could be wrong, but I don't believe Jesus went into great depths as to what he considered to be a suitable age of consent, so what Jesus would or wouldn't have done - or in fact your own faith - is hardly relevent to the topic at hand.
Also, the point I think was being made with reference to Mohammed's enemies was that in marrying Ayesha he behaved in entirely an appropriate manner...had he not done so, people wuld have been all over it like a rash.
Whether you would judge it as child mollestation by todays standards is hardly relevent...in case you hadn't noticed, things have changed drastically. Were Mohammed alive today and in need of a spouse, I sincerely doubt the thought of marrying a 9 year old would even be entertained.
Children are still considered children now at an age where in the past they would be close to 'old maid' status.

Almost there. I was at pains to point out that Muslims see Muhammed as an example FOR ALL TIME; that is they don't see his behaviour as only of his time and space... it is because they believe their religion is based on revelations from an all-knowing god. Therefore al-lah should have foreseen the harm that he allowed Muhammed to make OR Muslims should confess that Muhammed's example is only of its time and what he did would not be acceptable today. However they don't. You missed the swathe of quotes I gave from current Islamic web-sites that continue to advise modern day Muslims on the matter of marriage; and they support men marrying children exactly because they accept Muhammed's example as going beyond 600s tribal Arabia.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

Almost there. I was at pains to point out that Muslims see Muhammed as an example FOR ALL TIME; that is they don't see his behaviour as only of his time and space... it is because they believe their religion is based on revelations from an all-knowing god. Therefore al-lah should have foreseen the harm that he allowed Muhammed to make OR Muslims should confess that Muhammed's example is only of its time and what he did would not be acceptable today. However they don't. You missed the swathe of quotes I gave from current Islamic web-sites that continue to advise modern day Muslims on the matter of marriage; and they support men marrying children exactly because they accept Muhammed's example as going beyond 600s tribal Arabia.

I think what Cordoba was trying to say is that it is appropriate to marry someone 'when they are of age.' If 'of age' where you come from is 26, then it's appropriate to marry a 26 year old, if it's 7 then that is appropriate. He/she was at great pains to emphasise that Ayesha's age was considered appropriate for marriage in the time in which she lived.
The fault here lies not with Allah or Mohammed, but with modern men who would take a marriage to a girl 'of age' that was appropriate for its time and twist it to allow adults to marry children, based on the age of the bride in the first instance.

 

[Montalban]

I think what Cordoba was trying to say is that it is appropriate to marry someone 'when they are of age.' If 'of age' where you come from is 26, then it's appropriate to marry a 26 year old, if it's 7 then that is appropriate.

Firstly, he never actually admitted that she was nine. He did say that she was married at the 'appropriate' age, and I then questioned him as to how a nine year old can decide (regardless what era she lived in) as an adult. If you have any evidence that she could, please present it and I'll have a look, otherwise how is it 'appropriate' at any time? He means 'accepted', anyway.

He/she was at great pains to emphasise that Ayesha's age was considered appropriate for marriage in the time in which she lived.
The fault here lies not with Allah or Mohammed, but with modern men who would take a marriage to a girl 'of age' that was appropriate for its time and twist it to allow adults to marry children, based on the age of the bride in the first instance.

You still don't argue from their understanding of it, but yours.

A Muslim does not contend that Muhammad's behaviour was for only his time. If he did, and if he did now condemn such behaviour for this era, he'd have an easier time from me (though I still believe it is wrong in an absolute sense). They do not do this. They are still giving advice to me that it's 'appropriate' exactly because Muhammad's behaviour is used as a template for men.

Muslims often tend to avoid the very foods Muhammad did, even if they're not forbidden by law. Muslims view his marriages as examples of women they can marry. Muhammad married a Christian (Mary the Copt), and a Jewess. He married an older woman. He married a nine-year old Aisha. Muslim advice will then be that it is permissible for a Muslim man to marry a Christian woman. It is permissible to marry a Jewish woman etc.

Muslim men will even prefer to pee sitting down because Muhammad did!
http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=9790&dgn=4

 

[Quoth The Raven]

I'm attempting as much as anything to try and clarify what he was trying to say, rather than argue the point of whether 'I' think it 'appropriate' for a grown man to marry a 9 year old girl. I've seen documentaries of at least one African tribe who regularly marry their girls off between the ages of 7-10, and while the whole idea is beyond my comprehension, these girls - at an age where they'd be playing with their Barbies and barely able to be responsible for their pocket money in our culture - are obviously considered in their own culture to be quite capable of shouldering the responsibilities of marriage at that age.
While your question was dodged to an extent, what you appear to be asking of Cordoba - feel free to correct me if I've misineterpreted - is an admission that his/her beliefs are wrong, and I think the best you could hope for on that score is that the marriage was appropriate 'for it's time', and a constant reference to Ayesha being 'of age' for the time. There is a constant reference to the time in which the marriage took place...I think that's the best bone you'll be getting thrown here.

 

[Montalban]

I'm attempting as much as anything to try and clarify what he was trying to say, rather than argue the point of whether 'I' think it 'appropriate' for a grown man to marry a 9 year old girl. I've seen documentaries of at least one African tribe who regularly marry their girls off between the ages of 7-10, and while the whole idea is beyond my comprehension, these girls - at an age where they'd be playing with their Barbies and barely able to be responsible for their pocket money in our culture - are obviously considered in their own culture to be quite capable of shouldering the responsibilities of marriage at that age.

Great, but Muslims don't believe this relativism. They believe that they are guided by an all-knowing God. You brining in another relativist example is irrelevant.

While your question was dodged to an extent, what you appear to be asking of Cordoba - feel free to correct me if I've misinterpreted - is an admission that his/her beliefs are wrong,

What I wanted was an admission of Aisha's age because he (and I'm assuming this) must know that such an admission is poison to western ears.
and
If he felt this behaviour was wrong.

It is difficult for him because there is a clash of values.

There is a certain path-way some Muslims take when presenting their faith to westerners, in an effort to show how wonderfully modern it is. The first page of this thread was exactly an attempt to direct people to web-sites to show that Aisha was not 9, which is, as I showed by actual Islamic evidence, not to be the case. The reason he dodged saying her age (instead using the more neutral 'appropriate' term) was because of the lack of compatibility between this Islamic value and values many westetrners share.

and I think the best you could hope for on that score is that the marriage was appropriate 'for it's time', and a constant reference to Ayesha being 'of age' for the time. There is a constant reference to the time in which the marriage took place...I think that's the best bone you'll be getting thrown here.

Hey, thanks for totally ignoring references to modern western Islamic sites advising men it's okay to marry pre-pubescent girls.

Also, there is a difference between 'marriage' and consumation. Aisha was married (according to some sources at age 6). The actual consumation of a marriage to a child is also something I've shown to be unhealthy. For you it is an understated reaction of mild bemusement. For me it is a shock and horror. I cited evidence from the UN that speaks volumes about the health risks REGARDLESS of the culture. Unless you know a way in which a 13 year old in Arabia is better able to carry a child than a 13 year old in New York.

Do you think it is appropriate to enter into such marriages?

 

[Quoth The Raven]

Great, but Muslims don't believe this relativism. They believe that they are guided by an all-knowing God. You brining in another relativist example is irrelevant.

Relativism aside, aren't most religions based on the idea that they are guided by an all knowing god?

Hey, thanks for totally ignoring references to modern western Islamic sites advising men it's okay to marry pre-pubescent girls.

Right back at ya for ignoring the fact I said in a previous post that the problem there is not with Allah and Mohammed, but with modern adult men twisting something that was - to use your word, 'acceptable' in it's time (ie: marriage of a man to a girl who at the time was the 'acceptable' age to marry) - into the right to marry a child rather than the right to marry a girl of what is now considered the 'acceptable' age.

Also, there is a difference between 'marriage' and consumation. Aisha was married (according to some sources at age 6). The actual consumation of a marriage to a child is also something I've shown to be unhealthy. For you it is an understated reaction of mild bemusement. For me it is a shock and horror. I cited evidence from the UN that speaks volumes about the health risks REGARDLESS of the culture. Unless you know a way in which a 13 year old in Arabia is better able to carry a child than a 13 year old in New York.

And again - regardless of culture - the consumation of marriage to a Californian 10 year old when that was the age of consent was just as unhealthy, however because California has moved on from the idea that 10 is a reasonable age of consent is it not such an issue? Health issues were not an issue when marriage in the early teens or earlier was the norm, because - lets face it - the information was not only not readily available, it just didn't exist. Would I marry off my 10 year old? Of course not, and I don't believe I ever said anything to suggest that I considered that to be an even vaguely correct thing to do.
As for 13 year olds carrying children, that isn't something that's restricted to married teenage Muslim girls. Unmarried teenage girls of whatever faith - or lack of - manage to find a way to fall pregnant regardless of the health risks.
Not only that, but there are some (I will reference you to the appropriate thread if you like) who consider that letting a 13 year old carry a baby to term would teach her a lesson to keep her legs closed in the future.

 

[Montalban]

Great, but Muslims don't believe this relativism. They believe that they are guided by an all-knowing God. You brining in another relativist example is irrelevant.

Relativism aside, aren't most religions based on the idea that they are guided by an all knowing god?

That is in fact what I suggested already. Thus any notion that Muslims have that their texts are inspired by a god must either mean
a) they are wrong; because it is harmful to young girls and a loving god would not set such an example (an example for all time)
or
b) god approves of men having sex with under-aged girls.

Hey, thanks for totally ignoring references to modern western Islamic sites advising men it's okay to marry pre-pubescent girls.

Right back at ya for ignoring the fact I said in a previous post that the problem there is not with Allah and Mohammed, but with modern adult men twisting something that was - to use your word, 'acceptable' in it's time (ie: marriage of a man to a girl who at the time was the 'acceptable' age to marry) - into the right to marry a child rather than the right to marry a girl of what is now considered the 'acceptable' age.

They are not 'twisting' anything. It was stated in the 600s that it was okay for men to do this. It was stated then, and has always been stated. You simply have tried argument to suggest that it was of a time and place; ignoring the modern refs I cited, now you try a re-working of these references, with, I would hazard to guess, not reading them.

Also, there is a difference between 'marriage' and consummation. Aisha was married (according to some sources at age 6). The actual consummation of a marriage to a child is also something I've shown to be unhealthy. For you it is an understated reaction of mild bemusement. For me it is a shock and horror. I cited evidence from the UN that speaks volumes about the health risks REGARDLESS of the culture. Unless you know a way in which a 13 year old in Arabia is better able to carry a child than a 13 year old in New York.

And again - regardless of culture - the consummation of marriage to a Californian 10 year old when that was the age of consent was just as unhealthy, however because California has moved on from the idea that 10 is a reasonable age of consent is it not such an issue? Health issues were not an issue when marriage in the early teens or earlier was the norm,

I have to stop this right away.
a) it is irrelevant what California did, if in fact this is what they did; you just accept that (maybe they did, but I don't just accept that this was the case). Cordoba made this assertion, I stated that it is irrelevant, even if California did do this, and you have accepted that they did - based on what?
b) early teens is a nice enough re-working from evidence I cited that shows Aisha was nine and that in Islam it can be that someone younger can be married. We are not talking about teens, not even early teens. We are talking about children. Aisha was playing with dolls when she was called to be Muhammad's wife. He had a dream of her before she was six. They married when she was six.

because - lets face it - the information was not only not readily available, it just didn't exist.

a) this ignores the fact that according to them it is based on god's word; and thus he should either know, or he approves
and
b) based on this they continue to support it.

Would I marry off my 10 year old? Of course not, and I don't believe I ever said anything to suggest that I considered that to be an even vaguely correct thing to do.

a) why not?
and
b) You seem mildly bemused by the fact that some tribes do this still

As for 13 year olds carrying children, that isn't something that's restricted to married teenage Muslim girls. Unmarried teenage girls of whatever faith - or lack of - manage to find a way to fall pregnant regardless of the health risks.

Indeed this is true; which is why they shouldn't be recommended from doing this. In Islam they are; based on a belief that its a directive from their god.

Not only that, but there are some (I will reference you to the appropriate thread if you like) who consider that letting a 13 year old carry a baby to term would teach her a lesson to keep her legs closed in the future.

What relevance does this have?

 

[Quoth The Raven]

Look, it is obvious to me that you have no interest in what anyone has to say if it doesn't further your own argument, so I will do what the other people in this thread have done and retire from trying to have any sort of intelligent conversation with you. Obviously you are not actually taking in what I am saying, and even if you were I doubt you are even vaguely interested, because I'm not waving my arms around agreeing with you that Mohammed was a paedophile.
As for the relevence of my last comment, I gues it doesn't have any as far as you're concerned, as the people who are advocating this line of reasoning aren't Muslim and so apparently don't count.

 

[Montalban]

Look, it is obvious to me that you have no interest in what anyone has to say if it doesn't further your own argument, so I will do what the other people in this thread have done and retire from trying to have any sort of intelligent conversation with you. Obviously you are not actually taking in what I am saying, and even if you were I doubt you are even vaguely interested, because I'm not waving my arms around agreeing with you that Mohammed was a paedophile.
As for the relevance of my last comment, I guess it doesn't have any as far as you're concerned, as the people who are advocating this line of reasoning aren't Muslim and so apparently don't count.

It is indeed hard to follow you; on another thread when I talk about Islam and women you raise what you believe you think I believe about the Bible, and expect me to answer that.

Here you talk about Muhammad's behaviour as relative to an age; though this is not an Islamic belief. Then you say the modern Muslims following his example are 'twisting' things around, which is not an Islamic belief. In short, it seems to me that you continue to argue from what you believe people believe in, not what they themselves believe in. Which is in fact why I urged you to read the references I gave, which consisted of primary and secondary sources, including modern ones. So, amongst all this wealth of information that has been Muslim beliefs through all these hundreds of years you would still maintain somehow that it is relevant to a particular time and place; hence you introduce ideas about some tribe somewhere, and Californian law.

Odd too you raise the issue of paedophile. You don't seem to believe that a man who has sex with a nine year old is (at least not in an absolute sense) which is probably why you kept raising the issue of 'teens' as if that ageing Aisha might make it sound better. It would mean that the UN has no right to suggest any laws for the protection of children; because by extension of your argument it would be the imposition of an opinion onto someone else's cultural norms.

I am disappointed that you would not provide me anything other than speculation on Californian laws.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

:biglaugh: Roflmao:biglaugh:

 

[Bastet]

At the risk of getting pedantic, Montalban; lady_lazarus did not introduce the stuff about Californian law.

 

[Montalban]

At the risk of getting pedantic, Montalban; lady_lazarus did not introduce the stuff about Californian law.

At the risk of pointing out the obvious I noted that already in my post where I said Cordoba did and Lady_lazarus meekly accepted it to be true. (read post #54)

I simply asked her to show me why she thought it to be true. I should have asked Cordoba as well, perhahps, but then Cordoba wasn't big on answering my direct questions anyway.

Lady_lazarus has still refused to do so - she doesn't 'have' to, but then I'm left arguing against her speculations rather than facts, and who knows, she might be correct. I don't know what the situation is in regards to Californian law, but I am at least admitting that, not accepting it on faith of someone else who also didn't support the assertion.

Do you know either way?

 

[Bastet]

At the risk of pointing out the obvious I noted that already in my post where I said Cordoba did and Lady_lazarus meekly accepted it to be true. (read post #54)

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, you contradicted yourself with your following words (emphasis mine)

...hence you introduce ideas about some tribe somewhere, and Californian law.

Can't have it both ways, sunshine.