The Marriage of A'isha and Apologetic Myopia

[Debater Slayer]

Women did not have a venue to have their experiences written down, because their experiences weren't seen as important. And even then, they probably had Stockholm Syndrome, like they do today. It is not realistic to say "there is no evidence of trauma" when no one would ever record the experience of a woman, let alone a child. And the men who controlled the society would have censored what she said if she did dare speak. The fact that it happened in the past doesn't make it "not abuse", it makes it "abuse was normal" which is no excuse. Humans have innate empathy that tells them what is wrong, and I maintain that this was wrong and they knew it. That the culture allowed wrong doesn't make it ok. God told the Israelites to commit genocide. That doesn't mean it was right, by the same token. As human beings they knew it was wrong. Atrocities are atrocities. This is no different than Christian apologists excusing the rape and genocide in the Bible. All humans in all times know that this is wrong, even if it is common.

I think you make some good points, but I also believe that Muhammad's enemies probably would have still worked hard to record anything condemning him as much as they could. Of course, that still doesn't discard the argument that they might not have viewed A'isha's marriage as abusive either and so didn't bat an eye due to the cultural norms of the time, much like how slavery was common back then.

About Stockholm syndrome, when you say "like they do today," who are you referring to by "they"? I do believe that many women (and people in general, really) have Stockholm syndrome, but I'm not sure precisely which modern-day group of people you're referring to here.

 

[Debater Slayer]

What I meant by xxxx's was people, I have edited the comment for your pleasure.

Okay. Thanks for editing to clarify.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

All cultures in that time period were marrying children, what makes this particular example of the customs of that time so much more important than all the other untold stories of child marriage, and how can you possibly say that Muslims had some particular tendencies this way that all other cultures didn't have also.

What makes the details of Muhammad's marriage to Aisha so controversial is the fact that a majority of Muslims to this very day - a) don't question the notion that Aisha was 9 years old when Muhammad had sex with her; and b) view Muhammad as a man who is a moral example for humankind even in this age.

You have a problem with people retroactively enforcing 21st Century morality on 7th Century Arabia but what about the very real problem of Islam & Islamic scholars using Muhammad as a vehicle to do the opposite? Muslims claim that Muhammad was in direct contact with the sole source of morality in existence. Allah would have known the harm & suffering that would befall Aisha; whose body would have been unprepared for sex & pregnancy yet he still presumably ordained the marriage according to Muslim scripture. If Allah believed marrying and having sex with children was okay then why would he (and resultingly, why should humans) change now?

 

[Aquitaine]

As for the child abuse argument, I think the cultural context was so different back then that trying to take things at face value and apply our current standards to them may be simplistic at best. I believe there's much more to the question than "Did Muhammad marry a nine-year-old or not?"

Though I suppose the danger lies in viewing mohammad as the closest thing to a "perfect" human being.
Him apparently being the final prophet of God doesn't help either. Already, modern developed countries have surpassed mohammad's in terms of ethics: does that mean we're surpassing God's ethics also?

 

[life.period]

I want to paint on your comment about " role model" if you don't mind .

First : prophet didn't plan to marry nine years old neither he think about it .

His first wife was older than him.
She proposed to him and prophet accepted.

Prophet didn't got married for long time after her wife death.

In fact,
Ayysha was already engaged but they broke up because her father convert to Islam.

Marriage :

women from ayysha part went to prophet asking him if he accept to marry ayysha and he accepted without seeing her or knowing her. So it was arrang marriage. This was pagan tradition. Practiced by pagan Arab.

Hinduism story mention that jhansi ki rani got married in nine years old and she was fighting against British invasion. Only nine years old girl

Don't estimate power of young girl.

According to Torah prophet Isaac peace be upon him was older than prophet Muhammad when he got married to rebbakah who was only three years old.


Jews allow having intercourse with there years old girl and they quato evidence from Torah ..

 

[Debater Slayer]

I want to paint on your comment about " role model" if you don't mind .

First : prophet didn't plan to marry nine years old neither he think about it .

His first wife was older than him.
She proposed to him and prophet accepted.

Prophet didn't got married for long time after her wife death.

In fact,
Ayysha was already engaged but they broke up because her father convert to Islam.

Marriage :

women from ayysha part went to prophet asking him if he accept to marry ayysha and he accepted without seeing her or knowing her. So it was arrang marriage. This was pagan tradition. Practiced by pagan Arab.

Hinduism story mention that jhansi ki rani got married in nine years old and she was fighting against British invasion. Only nine years old girl

Don't estimate power of young girl.

According to Torah prophet Isaac peace be upon him was older than prophet Muhammad when he got married to rebbakah who was only three years old.


Jews allow having intercourse with there years old girl and they quato evidence from Torah ..

Hi, and welcome to RF.

1) He could have said no to the marriage, though. Just because it was an arranged marriage doesn't mean he had no say in accepting it. Furthermore, if Islam is supposed to be the eternal truth for humanity, why would its prophet marry according to a Pagan tradition, as you say? Islamic theology is diametrically opposed to Paganism and polytheism. You would think Muhammad wouldn't adopt Pagan traditions, no?

2) I don't have extensive knowledge of Hinduism and so don't know if such a story is believed by any major branch of Hinduism, but even if it is, that doesn't say anything about Muhammad's marriage to A'isha. Hinduism's being right or wrong doesn't reflect on Islam's truth value or lack thereof.

3) I'm not sure what you mean by "power of young girl." Which power? The "power" to give consent? Then yes, nine-year-olds are definitely incapable of giving informed consent. There's a reason the legal age of consent in today's world is usually 18. Nine-year-olds are incapable of making informed decisions about things like their own school education, much less sexual relationships.

The only thing I think one could argue to possibly explain—merely explain, not justify—Muhammad's marriage to A'isha is that the cultural and historical context of Muhammad's time was vastly different from now, but even then, the hadiths about how A'isha still played with dolls when she was married to him are deeply problematic and concerning, in my opinion, especially since Muhammad is viewed as a moral example by hundreds of millions of people.

4) I don't know about the story of Isaac's marriage to a three-year-old. That sounds quite... bizarre. I've never talked to any Jews who said that he did. Also, I think your statement that "Jews allow having intercourse with three years old girl" is dangerous and slanderous if you can't back it up with strong evidence. Is that the official position of any of the more common strains of Judaism, or is it the belief of fringe groups, if even those? It would be quite concerning if anyone believed that, but your statement that "Jews allow [...]" makes it sound to me like a significant number of Jews believe that. Is that what you intended to convey here?

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

Hi, and welcome to RF.

1) He could have said no to the marriage, though. Just because it was an arranged marriage doesn't mean he had no say in accepting it. Furthermore, if Islam is supposed to be the eternal truth for humanity, why would its prophet marry according to a Pagan tradition, as you say? Islamic theology is diametrically opposed to Paganism and polytheism. You would think Muhammad wouldn't adopt Pagan traditions, no?

2) I don't have extensive knowledge of Hinduism and so don't know if such a story is believed by any major branch of Hinduism, but even if it is, that doesn't say anything about Muhammad's marriage to A'isha. Hinduism's being right or wrong doesn't reflect on Islam's truth value or lack thereof.

3) I'm not sure what you mean by "power of young girl." Which power? The "power" to give consent? Then yes, nine-year-olds are definitely incapable of giving informed consent. There's a reason the legal age of consent in today's world is usually 18. Nine-year-olds are incapable of making informed decisions about things like their own school education, much less sexual relationships.

The only thing I think one could argue to possibly explain—merely explain, not justify—Muhammad's marriage to A'isha is that the cultural and historical context of Muhammad's time was vastly different from now, but even then, the hadiths about how A'isha still played with dolls when she was married to him are deeply problematic and concerning, in my opinion, especially since Muhammad is viewed as a moral example by hundreds of millions of people.

4) I don't know about the story of Isaac's marriage to a three-year-old. That sounds quite... bizarre. I've never talked to any Jews who said that he did. Also, I think your statement that "Jews allow having intercourse with three years old girl" is dangerous and slanderous if you can't back it up with strong evidence. Is that the official position of any of the more common strains of Judaism, or is it the belief of fringe groups, if even those? It would be quite concerning if anyone believed that, but your statement that "Jews allow [...]" makes it sound to me like a significant number of Jews believe that. Is that what you intended to convey here?

How do you feel about communal possession; (not really ever in favor king or "otherwise") oh and the whole robin hood idea (again not in favor king or "otherwise".. This isn't just about how women and men are treated but the right to even have what is simple and best one common relationship and property. Not only that they seemed to be obessed with spirits.... I
(I DONT like in shape for or value)

God (that is, Ahura Mazda, the good deity) had

created all men alike and placed the means of procreation and sustenance on

earth "so that mankind might divide them equally among themselves"17;

women and property should be held in partnership like water, fire, and pasture;

lR nobody was allowed to monopolize them, sharing was a religious

duty.1' Sharing wives and property would diminish the power of Az, concupiscence,

a force through which Ahriman (the evil deity) worked on mankind.

Az thrived on both excess and deprivation, but fulfilment in the right measure

was the remedy against it.20 Like Kavad, Mazdak was a vegetarian; and he,

too, wanted to eliminate war, hatred, and dispute, though in practice he was

responsible for massive bloodshed.21 He raised a peasant revolt. His followers

were the poor, base, weak, and ignoble plebs (al-fuqara', al-s$a, al-du"afa',

al-ghawgha'). They "would break into a man's home and take his dwelling,

his wives and his property without him being able to prevent them"22; "they

killed those who did not follow themu2'; they claimed that "they were taking

from the rich and giving to the poor, and that whoever had a surplus in respect

of landed property, women or goods had no better right to it than anyone

else."24 Mazdak himself "would take the wife of one and hand her over to

another, and likewise possessions, slaves, slavegirls and other things, such as

landed property and real estate."25 Huge numbers followed him:

And other threads::: Actually Zoroastrians did persecute others - under the Sassanids they persecuted Roman Christians while members of the Persian Church were treated quite favourably which suggests it may have been a national thing, and they persecuted those belonging to Zoroastrian sects regarded as heretical like Mazdakism or Zurvanism (which is regarded as heresy today but enjoyed the support of the Sassanid state at the time). After the Muslim conquest of Persia, Zoroastrians sometimes enlisted the aid of Muslims against members of heretical Zoroastrian sects.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

According to Xanthus of Lydia, who wrote in the fifth century B.c., the Magi


considered it right to have intercourse with their mothers, daughters, and

sisters and also to hold women in common.' The first half of this claim is

perfectly correct: Xanthus is here referring to the Zoroastrian institution of

close-kin marriage (khwidbdah), the existence of which is not (or no longer)

in doubt.2 But his belief that the Magi held women in common undoubtedly

rests on a misunderstanding, possibly of easy divorce laws and more probably

of the institution of wife lending.' In the fifth century A.D., however, we once


more hear of Persians who deemed it right to have women in common; and

this time the claim is less easy to brush aside. The Persians in question were

heretics, not orthodox Zoroastrians or their priests; their heresy was to the

effect that both land and women should be held in common, not just women

(though the first attempt to implement it did apparently concern itself with

women alone); and the heretics are described, not just by Greeks, let alone a

single observer, but also by Syriac authors and the Persians themselves as

preserved in Zoroastrian sources and the Islamic tradition. What then are we

to make of the claim the second time round?"

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

Though I suppose the danger lies in viewing mohammad as the closest thing to a "perfect" human being.
Him apparently being the final prophet of God doesn't help either. Already, modern developed countries have surpassed mohammad's in terms of ethics: does that mean we're surpassing God's ethics also?

I question it, very mid-evil Persian idea
According to Xanthus of Lydia, who wrote in the fifth century B.c., the Magi


considered it right to have intercourse with their mothers, daughters, and

sisters and also to hold women in common.' The first half of this claim is

perfectly correct: Xanthus is here referring to the Zoroastrian institution of

close-kin marriage (khwidbdah), the existence of which is not (or no longer)

in doubt.2 But his belief that the Magi held women in common undoubtedly

rests on a misunderstanding, possibly of easy divorce laws and more probably

of the institution of wife lending.' In the fifth century A.D., however, we once


more hear of Persians who deemed it right to have women in common; and

this time the claim is less easy to brush aside. The Persians in question were

heretics, not orthodox Zoroastrians or their priests; their heresy was to the

effect that both land and women should be held in common, not just women

(though the first attempt to implement it did apparently concern itself with

women alone); and the heretics are described, not just by Greeks, let alone a

single observer, but also by Syriac authors and the Persians themselves as

preserved in Zoroastrian sources and the Islamic tradition. What then are we

to make of the claim the second time round?"

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I'm pretty sure there are prophets in the Bible that married pre teens or slaves, what's the difference.

In Christianity, we do not view the patriarchs, matriarchs, prophets and Apostles as perfect moral examples to be followed. King David was an adulterer and a murderer, for example. They're people God worked with despite their flaws.

Jesus is the ultimate standard in Christianity. In Catholicism, Mary, as well, since she is also sinless. I've noticed that Islam appears to place Mohammad on a similar standing as Jesus is in Christianity. They don't view him as God, a messiah or savior, but he is viewed with the most reverence out of all the prophets and basically viewed as perfect. They treat alleged insults to him as being on the level of blasphemy, as if they worship him. Very strange. I wonder if it's due to some ethnic fervor and pride on the part of the Arabs.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

In Christianity, we do not view the patriarchs, matriarchs, prophets and Apostles as perfect moral examples to be followed. King David was an adulterer and a murderer, for example. They're people God worked with despite their flaws.

Jesus is the ultimate standard in Christianity. In Catholicism, Mary, as well, since she is also sinless. I've noticed that Islam appears to place Mohammad on a similar standing as Jesus is in Christianity. They don't him as God, a messiah or savior, but he is viewed with the most reverence out of all the prophets and basically viewed as perfect. They treat alleged insults to him as being on the level of blasphemy, as if they worship him. Very strange.

I know if we through out everything and allow another barbarian style recome ; we get always mid-evil black white dualistic barbarian style "prophets" right.. That attack, through some in the old testament examples and other lower parts; we have very good reason its the WOMAN always dies. (hopefully not always) This is what the church as tried to stop because it becomes barbaric.Out of all who dies lots wife, of course dies,who wasn't like her daughters all she did was look back.. she has to DIE I guess,(maybe all angels are men lol) and Judges 19 the levite who is "good" to his concubine, right she's an adulterous, falls in love because she not really loved. Solomon and a harem twisting a girl about her love for one man and her love for this one man (in-part true Zion). Okay well we have dealt with that; its pretty obvious to the "enlightened" that we have a classic show of abuse no one is happy, and such things; that is what the church was try to stop; even making "idols" to try to help cultures stop killing the women or forcing them into abortion, taking like bandits people property and things. Or in some cases its the other side. especially how their culture except, I do give them credit for something, I'm not saying it doesn't have anything to do or not to do with God. If anything I read in the old testament its tribal warfare.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

I know if we through out everything and allow another barbarian style recome ; we get always mid-evil black white dualistic barbarian style "prophets" right.. That attack, through some in the old testament examples and other lower parts; we have very good reason its the WOMAN always dies. (hopefully not always) This is what the church as tried to stop because it becomes barbaric.Out of all who dies lots wife, of course dies,who wasn't like her daughters all she did was look back.. she has to DIE I guess,(maybe all angels are men lol) and Judges 19 the levite who is "good" to his concubine, right she's an adulterous, falls in love because she not really loved. Solomon and a harem twisting a girl about her love for one man and her love for this one man (in-part true Zion). Okay well we have dealt with that; its pretty obvious to the "enlightened" that we have a classic show of abuse no one is happy, and such things; that is what the church was try to stop; even making "idols" to try to help cultures stop killing the women or forcing them into abortion, taking like bandits people property and things. Or in some cases its the other side. especially how their culture except, I do give them credit for something, I'm not saying it doesn't have anything to do or not to do with God. If anything I read in the old testament its tribal warfare.

It's a hard course of chauvinism, terrible over lords, which men identify with but its supposed be a love where transits in with at least a softer-side in Christ chivalry for a mate and have true not ill will or illicit brotherly love. (Also in part true Zion) That's the romantic side. anyway.

 

[Lyndon]

In Christianity, we do not view the patriarchs, matriarchs, prophets and Apostles as perfect moral examples to be followed. King David was an adulterer and a murderer, for example. They're people God worked with despite their flaws.

Jesus is the ultimate standard in Christianity. In Catholicism, Mary, as well, since she is also sinless. I've noticed that Islam appears to place Mohammad on a similar standing as Jesus is in Christianity. They don't view him as God, a messiah or savior, but he is viewed with the most reverence out of all the prophets and basically viewed as perfect. They treat alleged insults to him as being on the level of blasphemy, as if they worship him. Very strange. I wonder if it's due to some ethnic fervor and pride on the part of the Arabs.

That's not true, Muslims don't see Mohammad as sinless in fact his sins are recorded in the Koran, they also don't always see him as the greatest prophet, many see Jesus as the greatest or Abraham, Mohammad is seen as the most recent prophet, hence his significance. Islam actually teaches that all the prophets are equal in value. Jesus (Issa) is actually mentioned much more in the Koran than Mohammad.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

That's not true, Muslims don't see Mohammad as sinless in fact his sins are recorded in the Koran, they also don't always see him as the greatest prophet, many see Jesus as the greatest or Abraham, Mohammad is seen as the most recent prophet, hence his significance.

I didn't say they see him as sinless. They see him as a moral exemplar, though. We don't see prophets as necessarily moral exemplars in Christianity.

 

[Debater Slayer]

That's not true, Muslims don't see Mohammad as sinless in fact his sins are recorded in the Koran, they also don't always see him as the greatest prophet, many see Jesus as the greatest or Abraham, Mohammad is seen as the most recent prophet, hence his significance.

Most Muslims, at least Sunni ones, do view Muhammad as sinless. A lot of Qur'anists don't view him as such and believe that he was prone to sinning, and they're viewed as heretics by a lot of Sunni Muslims as a result of that, among other things.

Furthermore, most Muslims view Muhammad as both the most recent and greatest prophet. At the very least, most Muslims don't see any prophet as greater than Muhammad, but to say that Jesus, Abraham, or any other prophet is greater than him? I have never heard a single Islamic scholar or regular Muslim say that.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Most Muslims, at least Sunni ones, do view Muhammad as sinless. A lot of Qur'anists don't view him as such and believe that he was prone to sinning, and they're viewed as heretics by a lot of Sunni Muslims as a result of that, among other things.

Furthermore, most Muslims view Muhammad as both the most recent and greatest prophet. At the very least, most Muslims don't see any prophet as greater than Muhammad, but to say that Jesus, Abraham, or any other prophet is greater than him? I have never heard a single Islamic scholar or regular Muslim say that.

That's the impression I get, as well. One Muslim poster on here, a Pakistani teenager who has since been banned, was making comments to the effect of him basically worshiping Mohammad. It was pretty shocking. I've heard some people complaining of mosques in some areas were they're basically worshiping Mohammad, as well. :/

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

Most Muslims, at least Sunni ones, do view Muhammad as sinless. A lot of Qur'anists don't view him as such and believe that he was prone to sinning, and they're viewed as heretics by a lot of Sunni Muslims as a result of that, among other things.

Furthermore, most Muslims view Muhammad as both the most recent and greatest prophet. At the very least, most Muslims don't see any prophet as greater than Muhammad, but to say that Jesus, Abraham, or any other prophet is greater than him? I have never heard a single Islamic scholar or regular Muslim say that.

The Marriage of the Lamb
…9Then the angel told me to write, “Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.” And he said to me, “These are the true words of God.” 10So I fell at his feet to worship him. But he told me, “Do not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers who rely on the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” 11Then I saw heaven standing open, and there before me was a white horse. And its rider is called Faithful and True. With righteousness He judges and wages war.…

 

[Debater Slayer]

That's the impression I get, as well. One Muslim poster on here, a Pakistani teenager who has since been banned, was making comments to the effect of him basically worshiping Mohammad. It was pretty shocking. I've heard some people complaining of mosques in some areas were they're basically worshiping Mohammad, as well. :/

Worshiping Muhammad in the sense of praying to him, etc.? No, the majority scholarly consensus on that is that worshiping anyone but Allah is shirk, which is a major sin in Islam.

There's so much exaltation of Muhamamd in Muslim communities that he is viewed as a perfect human and flawless moral example, though. I can ask any of the Muslims in my proximity right now this question: "Do you love Muhammad more than your parents [and/or children, if they have any]?" And I know the answer will be "Yes," since I've asked them that question before.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Worshiping Muhammad in the sense of praying to him, etc.? No, the majority scholarly consensus on that is that worshiping anyone but Allah is shirk, which is a major sin in Islam.

Not necessarily praying to him, but saying things like "oh, if I could just taste a drop of his sweat or glimpse his face". Overt veneration of him as if he's a sacred being, similar to how Catholics and Orthodox Christians treat Christ, the Saints and holy objects.

There's so much exaltation of Muhamamd in Muslim communities that he is viewed as a perfect human and flawless moral example, though. I can ask any of the Muslims in my proximity right now this question: "Do you love Muhammad more than your parents [and/or children, if they have any]?" And I know the answer will be "Yes," since I've asked them that question before.

Yeah, that's the sort of stuff I'm getting at. It's rather odd to me and comes off as somewhat hypocritical. I mean, Catholic and Orthodox Christians at least admit that we worship Christ as God and that we venerate and pray to the Saints.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Not necessarily praying to him, but saying things like "oh, if I could just taste a drop of his sweat or glimpse his face". Overt veneration of him as if he's a sacred being, similar to how Catholics and Orthodox Christians treat Christ, the Saints and holy objects.

Oh, "If I could just taste a drop of his swear or glimpse his face" aren't very different at all from many of the things I've heard over the years. These are some of the things I've heard both from scholars and a lot of the Muslims I know, including my immediate family:

• Muhammad's sweat smelled like musk.

• Muhammad's face looked like a piece of the moon.

• Muhammad's hand "smelled better than musk and was colder than ice." (I honestly don't know what the latter is supposed to mean, since being so cold doesn't strike me as a desirable thing.)

• Muhammad had an aura of veneration so powerful that some people couldn't look at him and describe him.

Some Muslims might differ on the authenticity of some of the above descriptions, but what I do know for sure is that many Muslims revere him to such extents. Many Muslims hang his name on walls or make it their profile picture on Facebook, for example (since drawing him is haram).

Yeah, that's the sort of stuff I'm getting at. It's rather odd to me and comes off as somewhat hypocritical. I mean, Catholic and Orthodox Christians at least admit that we worship Christ as God and that we venerate and pray to the Saints.

I don't think you'll find many Muslims who will deny that they venerate Muhammad, but praying to him? That's not in line with mainstream Islamic teachings at all.