Prophet Muhammad did not marry a child

[England my lionheart]

Actually, child marriage was not common in medieval times. For example, in 14th & 15th century England, the average marriage age for women was between 18-22.
The age of consent for sex was set by law at 12 in 1275.

Yes but In an arranged marriage as in the nobility they could be promised at an early age,12 years old is still a child.

 

[England my lionheart]

Prepare for a genetic fallacy attack!
Plus the usual credentials fallacy response.

I am,it’s all they’ve got.

 

[England my lionheart]

It’s a lot like the church and the sacraments. They created rituals that Christ never formulated yet billions follow them. Doesn’t mean they are truth. For over a thousand years Christians will literally eat bread believing Christ is entering their body. I believed it when I was a child but I know it’s just superstition. People still practising today doesn’t mean it’s true or came from God’s Book.

Nice try,the problem for you is the hadith is deemed authentic and people do use it as a precedent for child marriage even today,there is no conflict between the Hadith and Quran as an age isn’t given in the Quran.

Thus we have a sizeable portion of 1.8 billion Muslims living a medaeval male dominated lifestyle where sex with children is endorsed.

 

[England my lionheart]

Yes. The exact age is not given. But, it says very vividly that the Balaghul Nikaha or the age of marriage should be with maturity, mature enough for the girl to be financially independent and to be able to handle finances on her own (inheritance), full physical growth, and no childishness. There are some who cherry pick verses, muslims and non-muslims both do that. Even scholars do that sometimes which is a method they had developed. But the better method is to read the whole book, and take context of the whole book.



Pakistan is Pakistan. There is no indication in Islam that Pakistan is the benchmark. Hope you understand that. No country or world is a benchmark.



True. For many years, many have believed it to be true. Some people do tend to be dogmatic. Some people believe that they should not question their particular dogma. That's called Thakleedh in Islam, and some of the schools of thought particularly condemn that practice and they practice Akal which is what the Qur'an teaches. Using reason, logic and Ijtihad or independent investigation.

The hadith you speak of is in the Buhari collection and his student's collection Muslim. So it's primarily Buhari, and they have conflicting reports in age. Some Muslims have adopted this dogmatic following of Buhari's collection of ahadith as if they are above the Quran. Not only some Muslims, even some atheists and Christians seem to want to believe some hadith so passionately, but the thing is, these few want to believe those hadith that they think they can use to insult billions of human beings. But, Islamic scholarship generally does not believe in hadith to that depth. It is the layman who does. Maybe some fringe scholars did propagate ahadith to be so true without question, but they are fringe. Ahadith are called Kaburul Ahad, which means ultimately it is one mans word. So you have to investigate so stringently to navigate through hadith which is called Ilme Ahadith, and even then, you should not consider it absolute.

If this is such an important hadith why didn't Imam Malik narrate it? After all, he is supposed to have the Golden Chain. That means the most authentic hadith. Not Buhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi or anyone. Not even the famous Imam Hanbal. It is Malik who had the golden chain. He didn't report this. No where. And where does this hadith come from? Aisha's own nephew Urwa. How would you know if Urwa actually reports this or not? And if he did, how would you know if he was trying to lower Aisha's age so low that it is impossible for her to have slept around with so many men prior to marrying Muhammed because the Shii's were spreading that she was a loose woman who was sleeping around with many men prior to marrying Muhammed because they were at war with her? Do you know that Shii scholars and Sunni scholars like Fakhruddhin arrazi have said that this is the case? And do you know who Imam Malik was? He was the first well known

I can't go on for too long. There is more evidence within the hadith that Aisha was much older when she got married. I say that again. There is more evidence "within the hadith" that she was much older. Just that internet polemicists are unaware and don't care because their agenda doesnt suit that kind of investigation or reporting. For example, how could the sister of Aisha who was 10 years older than her be in her late thirties when Aisha married Muhammed if Aisha was 6 years old? It's a contradiction. How is Aisha called young woman when she heard something from her parents like 10 years prior to marrying Muhammed? In Arabic there is a big difference between being called Thifl or Jaariyah. How come the girls permission is necessary for marriage according to ahadith and Aisha was 6 when she got married? To give permission according to Fikh one has to be of grown age with maturity. How come everyone has a habit of dropping the "Sahih" bomb without knowing about Muhkam and Sarih?

There are so many things scholars have studied from the time of Imam Muhajid aljabr, and this was nothing new? I can give you primary sources, secondary sources, third party sources, intense studies, it's all available in classical Islamic studies.

Cheers.

Really it doesn’t matter whether I believe the hadith is authentic or not but it does that millions do.

 

[firedragon]

Really it doesn’t matter whether I believe the hadith is authentic or not but it does that millions do.

I can see you ignored everything I said. So let's ignore the whole conversation.

Have a good day.

 

[danieldemol]

Who is Shakeel?

Anyway, don't worry. You don't need a Muslim to argue against, there are some atheists and christians in this thread who fill those shoes to argue for or against as long as it's demonising Islam and/or Muslims.

Shakeel has a couple of advantages over those atheists and Christians.

1. As a practising Muslim he his above your false accusations of demonising Islam and/or Muslims.

2. He has a deep inner understanding of his interpretation of the Quran, so were those atheists and Christians would say this authority says this, he is able to say why the authority says this. Thus I still feel that without Shakeel we are only getting half the information.

In my opinion.

 

[firedragon]

Shakeel has a couple of advantages over those atheists and Christians.

1. As a practising Muslim he his above your false accusations of demonising Islam and/or Muslims.

2. He has a deep inner understanding of his interpretation of the Quran, so were those atheists and Christians would say this authority says this, he is able to say why the authority says this. Thus I still feel that without Shakeel we are only getting half the information.

In my opinion.

Great introduction. I would like to hear the great inner understanding of the Qur'an. Always welcome. It's very rare we see such people so it is always a pleasure.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The only authoritative scripture in Islam is the Quran. All else is here say and stories which cannot be proven. Opinion is not evidence neither are hadiths.

Then I trust that you can tell us the verse of the Quran that clearly says she was 19.

 

[KWED]

Many muslim scholars today has found much and good evidence that Aisha was much older when prophet Muhammad constumated the marriage with her.

Simply not the case. Most scholars maintain the traditional view supported by scripture, and denounce the modernist apologetics as false.

More importantly, the "good evidence" you refer to is actually less reliable hadith than the ones you are rejecting, so the argument itself is incoherent.

In simple terms you are saying...
"You can't use hadith to show Aisha's age because the hadith are made up and cannot be trusted. Here are some hadith that show her to be older".
I'm sure you can see the problem there.

 

[BrightShadow]

Shakeel has a couple of advantages over those atheists and Christians.

1. As a practising Muslim he his above your false accusations of demonising Islam and/or Muslims.

2. He has a deep inner understanding of his interpretation of the Quran, so were those atheists and Christians would say this authority says this, he is able to say why the authority says this. Thus I still feel that without Shakeel we are only getting half the information.

In my opinion.

I remember Shakeel. I found Shakeel to be ignorant regarding the teachings of Islam. His faith was primarily in Ahadiths (not Quran!). IMO.

Even non-Muslims (Christians, atheists) weren't buying what he was selling but apparently you did!

On topic:
Just like any other religion - Islam has its problems. I believe some practitioners of Islam for centuries have created a murky version of their religion with all the cultural diffusion and teachings from secondary sources that were written or collected at least 214 years after their Prophet's departure. The break up into sects is a clear sign there were disputes. Regardless of how minor the disputes were - what it does is - it creates a division. While in a conflict - when each side builds a case in favor of their position - in the process - the truth gets distorted to suit the need. It starts slowly then in evolves into something that no longer represents the truth anymore! I believe that's is what happened regarding this rumor about the age of Aisha. One side accused her and the other side defended her - in the process facts about her got distorted!
Obviously - I am sure some early days clerics and Muslims shamefully took advantage of younger women due to this false presumption. Every religion have had bad practitioners. Anyhow - for the fact Muslims aren't doing it anymore should show - it is not part of the religious teachings.
This is why Muslims need to resolve their differences and shed off their sects and only believe in their primary doctrine (the Quran). Anything contradicts with Quran should be ignored. IMO
Based on the teachings of Quran - it is illogical to believe Muhammad would do such a thing of marrying a child. For marriage or divorce- a person has to give consent. It is a prerequisite! A kid cannot give consent!

Muhammad couldn't introduce something against the teachings of Islam.
[Quran 69:44-45] And if the messenger were to invent any sayings in Our name, We should certainly seize him by his right hand.

If you read about him (whatever is available) you will see he was trying to set good examples - not bad examples. So, it would be contradictory for him to provide such a crazy bad example. So, by process of deduction - you should come to the conclusion that - Mohammad couldn't have married a child! It would be inconsistent with the teachings of Quran he was trying to deliver.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Nice try,the problem for you is the hadith is deemed authentic and people do use it as a precedent for child marriage even today,there is no conflict between the Hadith and Quran as an age isn’t given in the Quran.

Thus we have a sizeable portion of 1.8 billion Muslims living a medaeval male dominated lifestyle where sex with children is endorsed.

But there is a conflict. The Quran states that Muhammad was an example to humanity which does conflict very much with a Hadith claiming He had sex with a child.

Of course it is typical that those who are biased against Islam and Muslims will cling to such hadiths to attempt to defame Muhammad instead of refer to the Quran, the Word of God which praises Him.

 

[KWED]

I believe the verse is talking about women who do not menstruate because of illness or other different reasons. Not all adult woman get menstration

You may believe that, but the consensus amongst the great Islamic scholars is that it refers to those too young to have started. Myself and others have provided the references. Simply ignoring them and repeating "but I believe otherwise" is not really a good argument, especially when you then rely on basically the same sources for your counter argument.

 

[KWED]

It does seem like it cant make up its mind sometimes

"The Quran and sunnah found to contradict themselves at times" shock!

 

[KWED]

When you cut and paste like this, you should know that there are different methods of Quran tafseer throughout history, and generally the mufassireen do not give a Fatawa, but an application of a method. And though a lot of non-muslims around the world who understand Islam through non-muslim apologists don't know that Ibn Kathir's thafseer is one of the most basic level tafseers. For you to understand the level, lets say in school kids study up to grade 17 or 18, and in England you will do an A Level exam. It is that level.

Anyway, there are 11 different tafsir methods while there are three governing methods. It's a large topic, but the bottomline is, it is not so simple like the internet anti islamic polemicists do their shallow preaching. There is much more to it.

This is not "context" like you said. Tafsir is not context. Tafsir is commentary. Context is Siyak, and only the method of Quran bi Quran tafseer uses siyak in the methodology. This is in the traditional sense.

This is why it's better to investigate further or ask someone prior to making such comments.

Hope you understand.

Nice attempt at using a red herring to muddy the waters.
Yet still, the majority of scholars regard that verse to be referring to females who have not started menstruation due to their young age.
Hope you understand.

 

[KWED]

So simple answer to this study would be? Was muhammad a pedophile? Yes or no?

The answer is probably "no". The majority of his wives and concubines were considerably older than Aisha. His first wife was about 10 years older than him and they were married for 25 years, until her death. (Although she was his boss and very rich, so there may have been ulterior motives there).

What's more, the idea of marrying and having sex with a girl of 9 does not appear to have been viewed with the revulsion that it is today, as evidenced by the fact that no scholar questioned or criticised his marriage to Aisha until recently when sceptics started referring to it as a problem with the claim that Muhammad is still a moral exemplar to all mankind.

This is the crux of the matter.
If Muhammad was just a warlord-cleric in 7th century Arabia, no one would bat an eye at his marrying and having sex with a child.
However, it is the claim that he is "the best of creation", a moral and practical role model for all to aspire to, even today, that makes his behaviour problematic. This also applies to his executing prisoners, torturing people to death, owning and trading slaves, etc.
Quite an odd choice for a supposed beacon of moral perfection, TBH.

 

[KWED]

No it isnt. Answer it. Thats what the topic is about. If you dont plan to then dont waste my time

There are some posters on here whose modus operandi is to avoid answering any questions or taking any position on any issue. They simply try to muddy the waters with red herrings in an attempt to divert attention from the actual issue. This is presumably because they recognise a problem but don't want other people examining it.

 

[KWED]

Prophet Muhammad was not a pedophile. I believe many hadiths is false. And the hadiths about Aisha's age when prophet Muhammad married her is false and fabricated. I believe some people fabricated false hadiths because they was enemies of islam. They wanted to attack prophet Muhammad and because of this they fabricated false hadiths about him.

Yes, we understand that this was your initial position, but we have moved way past that. Subsequent argues have been made. Scriptural evidence presented.
You need to address this. Simply repeated your initial, since refuted claim just makes your position look even weaker.

 

[KWED]

to marry one has to be of mature age, and fully grown, according to the Quran.

Please quote the verse that says this.

 

[KWED]

Corpus Quran translates it as "despaired". Not as prepubescent girls.

Given that you are a self-proclaimed Quran scholar, one can only assume that this is deliberate dishonesty.
The verse says "Those who have despaired of their courses...and those who have not menstruated as yet". (Arberry)
"Busted" again!

Does Yusuf Ali translate it as "young girls"? Not a single person can translate it as young girls or prepubescent girls. No one can.

The verse says "those who do not have their menses" or similar. Some translators have added a "because they are too young" qualifier, because they clearly see that as the implication given the context and the specific meaning of the Arabic words used. The consensus amongst classical scholars is the same - that it is referring to those of young age. Some tafsir specifically reference hadith were Muhammad is asked about the iddah for the very young...
"O Allah's Messenger! Some women were not mentioned in the Qur'an, the young, the old and the pregnant.'' Allah the Exalted and Most Honored sent down this Ayah, (65:4) (Ibn Kathir)

Obviously, as you have studied the Quran in more depth than all these scholars, and you are more fluent in Classical Arabic than them, we can dismiss all their texts and simply listen to you.

 

[KWED]

I don't have to know. I get to, wait for it, "Rely on the scholarship of others" (to quote you).
Who is "differing to scholars"? There are a couple of apologists here who are doing that, but I'm certainly not. On the contrary I'm quoting them and relying on them.

As I have often pointed out to apologists, when your position is based entirely on deflection and denial, it can sometimes be difficult to keep track of what you have said.