The prophet peace be upon him and his wives

[Kerr]

Well, no. We're not discussing pedophilia. It was a response to someone who thought that marriage between young couples is wrong. Which is about as immoral as homosexuality, that is you get to pick and choose what you see as immoral, but you can't impose your standards on others.

I wasn´t talking about marriage, I was talking about sex :sarcastic.

 

[Bismillah]

I thought we were discussing Muhammed marrying a 9-year old girl. At least, I was.

Well you replied to the wrong quote then.

The Prophet married Aisha 1 year after Hijrah! This is a known fact!

According to Sahih Bukhari, Aisha is reported to have said that at the time
Surah Al-Qamar, the 54th Chapter of the Quran, was revealed, "I was a
young girl"

The 54th surah of The Quran was revealed nine years before Hijrah. So
Aisha was a young girl (jariyah), and not an infant (sibyah) at that time

THE PROPHET MARRIED AISHA ONE YEAR AFTER HIJRAH! SO
NOW WE KNOW SHE WAS A YOUNG GIRL, 9 YEARS BEFORE
HIJRAH

SO EVEN IF FOR EXAMPLE SHE WAS 7 YEARS OLD WHEN SHE
SAID "I WAS A YOUNG GIRL", THEN SHE MARRIED THE PROPHET
10 YEARS AFTER THAT!
WHICH MEANS SHE WAS OVER 17 YEARS OLD WHEN THE
PROPHET MARRIED HER

According to a number of narratives, Aisha accompanied the Muslims in the
Battle of Badr and Uhud. It was usual for women to accompany men in
battle so they can help in looking after the wounded.

It was a strict rule that noone under the age of 15 was allowed to accompany
anyone in battle!
BATTLE OF BADR WAS 2 YEARS AFTER HIJRAH AND BATTLE OF
UHUD WAS 3 YEARS AFTER HIJRAH!
REMEMBER PROPHET MUHAMMAD MARRIED HER 1 YEAR
AFTER HIJRAH!
WHICH MEANS SHE COULD NEVER HAVE BEEN 9 YEARS OLD
WHEN THE PROPHET MARRIED HER!

It is a known fact that the Asma, (the elder sister of Aisha) was 10 years
older than Aisha. It is reported that Asma died 73 years after Hijrah when
she was 100 years old!
Now, Obviously if Asma was 100 years old 73 years after Hijrah, then Asma
should have been 27 or 28 years old at the time of Hijrah!
If Asma was 27 or 28 years old at Hijrah, then Aisha would be 17 or 18
years old at Hijrah!
REMEMBER PROPHET MUHAMMAD MARRIED AISHA 1 YEAR
AFTER HIJRAH!
SO THAT MEANS AISHA WAS 18 OR 19 YEARS OLD WHEN SHE
GOT MARRIED

Tabari in his treatise on Islamic history, while mentioning Abu Bakr (father
of Aisha) reports that Abu Bakr had four children and all four were born
during pre Islamic period!

If Aisha was born before in the Pre Islamic period, then she would be more
than 13 years old during Hijrah!
REMEMBER PROPHET MARRIED HER 1 YEAR AFTER HIJRAH,
WHICH MEANS SHE WOULD BE MORE THAT 14 YEARS OLD
DURING THE TIME OF MARRIAGE!

According to Ibn Hisham, Aisha accepted Islam quite some time before
Umar ibn Khattab. Umar ibn Khattab accepted Islam roughly 7 years before
Hijrah!
Obviously, she would have been a young girl when she accpeted Islam!
If you add 7 years to a young girl! You can think for yourselves!
REMEMBER PROPHET MARRIED HER 1 YEAR AFTER HIJRAH!

According to Ibn Hajar, Fathima (daughter of Prophet) was 5 years older
than Aisha!
Fathima was born more than 5 years before Muhammad was a Prophet!
That means Fathima was born more than 19 years before Hijrah!
PROPHET MARRIED AISHA ONE YEAR AFTER HIJRAH!
SO THIS AGAIN PROVES AISHA WAS OVER 15 YEARS OLD WHEN
THE PROPHET MARRIED HER

Did Prophet Muhammad really marry a 9 year old? This is a lie spread about Our Beloved Prophet!

Also Auto could you please reference my response to slavery in Islam?

 

[Autodidact]

Also Auto could you please reference my response to slavery in Islam?

Sorry, you lost me. Which?

 

[Bismillah]

in islamic law the topic of slavery is covered at great length.[1] the qur'an (the holy book) and the hadith (the sayings of muhammad) see slavery as an exceptional condition that can be entered into under certain limited circumstances.[2] only children of slaves or non-muslim prisoners of war could become slaves, never a freeborn muslim.[3] they also consider manumission of a slave to be one of many meritorious deeds available for the expiation of sins.[4] according to sharia, slaves are considered human beings and possessed of some rights on the basis of their humanity. In addition, a muslim slave is equal to a muslim freeman in religious issues and superior to the free non-muslim.[5]

in practice, slaves played various social and economic roles from emir to worker. Slaves were widely employed in irrigation, mining, pastoralism and the army. Even some rulers relied on military and administrative slaves to such a degree that they seized power. However, people do not always treat with slaves in accordance with islamic law. In some cases, the situation has been so harsh as to have led to uprisings such as zanj rebellion.[6] however, this was usually the exception rather than the norm, as the vast majority of labour in the medieval islamic world consisted of free, paid labour.[7]

compare this with the abhorrent practices of slavery in s. And n. America as well as the sugar producing colonies like french new guinea and haiti. I've read a sickening description of the potosi mine where locals and african slaves were forced to work themselves to death in one of the largest silver mines in the world. They worked through mercury pools and inhaled the vapors everyday succumbing to a torturous death. Climbed rickety bridges up and down the mountain with people frequently falling to their deaths. They replaced the mules with people because the mules would die too fast to be cost effective. Starving and living in squalid conditions the potosi mines led to the deaths of millions of slaves and took from the city and its inhabitants the largest concentration of silver in a mine ever found. All they left behind was poverty and death. Please the types of slavery common in the middle east is not even comparable to the repugnant system employed in the new world.

Also can anyone find any fault in the line of reasoning presented on the marriage between the Prophet and Aisha?

 

[Autodidact]

Quote:
in islamic law the topic of slavery is covered at great length.[1] the qur'an (the holy book) and the hadith (the sayings of muhammad) see slavery as an exceptional condition that can be entered into under certain limited circumstances.[2] only children of slaves or non-muslim prisoners of war could become slaves, never a freeborn muslim.[3] they also consider manumission of a slave to be one of many meritorious deeds available for the expiation of sins.[4] according to sharia, slaves are considered human beings and possessed of some rights on the basis of their humanity. In addition, a muslim slave is equal to a muslim freeman in religious issues and superior to the free non-muslim.[5]
Quote:
in practice, slaves played various social and economic roles from emir to worker. Slaves were widely employed in irrigation, mining, pastoralism and the army. Even some rulers relied on military and administrative slaves to such a degree that they seized power. However, people do not always treat with slaves in accordance with islamic law. In some cases, the situation has been so harsh as to have led to uprisings such as zanj rebellion.[6] however, this was usually the exception rather than the norm, as the vast majority of labour in the medieval islamic world consisted of free, paid labour.[7]

compare this with the abhorrent practices of slavery in s. And n. America as well as the sugar producing colonies like french new guinea and haiti. I've read a sickening description of the potosi mine where locals and african slaves were forced to work themselves to death in one of the largest silver mines in the world. They worked through mercury pools and inhaled the vapors everyday succumbing to a torturous death. Climbed rickety bridges up and down the mountain with people frequently falling to their deaths. They replaced the mules with people because the mules would die too fast to be cost effective. Starving and living in squalid conditions the potosi mines led to the deaths of millions of slaves and took from the city and its inhabitants the largest concentration of silver in a mine ever found. All they left behind was poverty and death. Please the types of slavery common in the middle east is not even comparable to the repugnant system employed in the new world.

Now did you notice how you compared two different things--Islamic law vs. Western practice? Actually, an idealized, pro-Muslim gloss of Islamic law, at that. Not really fair, is it? After all, the Bible commands Christians to be kind to their slaves, so if you compare religious law to religious law, they come off the same. Or you could compare actual practice to actual practice.

The fact remains that slavery has been practiced throughout the history of Islam, and is only coming under control in modern times because it's finally being reigned in my humanist values, as Christianity was starting in the 17th century. The fact also remains that slavery--all slavery--is immoral. Do you disagree?

Therefore, throughout its history, Islam has been practiced in such a way as to be immoral, and is only catching up to modern values now that it's being forced to.

 

[Autodidact]

Also can anyone find any fault in the line of reasoning presented on the marriage between the Prophet and Aisha?

What line of reasoning is that? The one where it's o.k. for God's prophet to do things that would be wrong for anyone else? The one where it's o.k. because he wasn't doing it out of lust? The one where it's o.k. because her parents permitted it? Because yes, I find fault with any line of reasoning that rationalizes child marriage. It's wrong. It was wrong then and it's wrong now. It's a good thing that civilized countries don't practice it.

 

[Bismillah]

Now did you notice how you compared two different things--Islamic law vs. Western practice?

Ok, show me when slaves in the Middle East were treated as brutally and on such a huge scale as they were in the New World.

however, this was usually the exception rather than the norm, as the vast majority of labour in the medieval islamic world consisted of free, paid labour.[7]

Pretty much the answer is you can't. Compare this with what slavery means in Southern America.

What line of reasoning is that? The one where it's o.k. for God's prophet to do things that would be wrong for anyone else? The one where it's o.k. because he wasn't doing it out of lust? The one where it's o.k. because her parents permitted it? Because yes, I find fault with any line of reasoning that rationalizes child marriage. It's wrong. It was wrong then and it's wrong now. It's a good thing that civilized countries don't practice it.

Auto, did you even read the paragraphs?

 

[Autodidact]

Ok, show me when slaves in the Middle East were treated as brutally and on such a huge scale as they were in the New World.

Why? What does the New World have to do with our discussion? Remember, a Muslim in this thread claimed that Islam ended slavery. I think we've proved that false. We're done.

Pretty much the answer is you can't. Compare this with what slavery means in Southern America.

Why? Do you really think, "The other guy is even worse" is a defense for immoral behavior? Try this. A man is arrested for murder. He claims, "Hey, that other guy killed two people." Doesn't work, does it?

Auto, did you even read the paragraphs?

Yes, what's your point? That child marriage is moral? Because it isn't, and I really can't think of a good argument as to why it would be.

 

[Bismillah]

Why? What does the New World have to do with our discussion? Remember, a Muslim in this thread claimed that Islam ended slavery. I think we've proved that false. We're done.

Tell me does Islam mandate that Muslims cannot be enslaved? Yes. Does Islam mandate that basic human rights of slaves be established? Yes. Is Islam's ultimate goal to be the one and only religion? Yes.

These three statements are facts. Now if Islam's ultimate goal is that all inhabitants of the world are Muslims, that would make slavery illegal internationally. Since Islam gives certain rights to slaves, that would make the scenerio of an industrial country powered by slaves, such as the New World against the mandates of its teachings. Furthermore, since there are great incentives to free slaves in Islam (i.e the rewards for doing so is enormous) the practice of slavery is not only prohibited from proliferating like it did in the Southern states of America, but also discouraged through positive incentives. So yes, it is arguable that Islam takes a stance against slavery.

Why? Do you really think, "The other guy is even worse" is a defense for immoral behavior? Try this. A man is arrested for murder. He claims, "Hey, that other guy killed two people." Doesn't work, does it?

You are ignoring the realities of the situation. The status of slaves in the New World cannot be compared in their treatment as opposed to slavery in the Middle East. Slavery takes on a whole new meaning in the way that it was indulged in by the Europeans.

Yes, what's your point? That child marriage is moral? Because it isn't, and I really can't think of a good argument as to why it would be.

It really is tiresome arguing with someone who doesn't even know what they are arguing against. The article makes a claim that Aisha was not a child when she was married. Unless you can point out a flaw in the article's line of reasoning, then your whole argument is baseless.

 

[Aquitaine]

After just flicking through the first few pages I am honestly shocked at how far some of the Muslim members here are going in order to justify pedophilia - it's crazy!

 

[Bismillah]

Please flick through the article I posted

 

[Autodidact]

Tell me does Islam mandate that Muslims cannot be enslaved? Yes.

Oh sure, no problem. Heck, Judaism did that a few centuries earlier. As long as you enslave the non-Muslims it's O.K. Does that sound moral to you? Heck, even white americans didn't enslave other white americans.

Does Islam mandate that basic human rights of slaves be established? Yes.

Obviously not, since being free of slavery is a basic human right. If you think a slave has basic human rights, it clearly demonstrates how your religion has screwed up your morality.

Is Islam's ultimate goal to be the one and only religion? Yes.

Yes, that's one of the big problems with it.

These three statements are facts. Now if Islam's ultimate goal is that all inhabitants of the world are Muslims, that would make slavery illegal internationally.

I suppose, in the mythical world in which Islam has managed to conquer or subdue the entire world, there would not be slavery. Of course, that world has never existed and never will exist, so it's a bit academic.

Since Islam gives certain rights to slaves, that would make the scenerio of an industrial country powered by slaves, such as the New World against the mandates of its teachings.

No, not really.

Furthermore, since there are great incentives to free slaves in Islam (i.e the rewards for doing so is enormous) the practice of slavery is not only prohibited from proliferating like it did in the Southern states of America, but also discouraged through positive incentives.

In reality, what happened is that they were forced to import more and more slaves, until Africa was decimated by the practice.

So yes, it is arguable that Islam takes a stance against slavery.

Sorry, don't see how that follows.

Meanwhile, back in reality, Muslim Arab slave traders dominated the world's slave markets for centuries. They captured and imported literally millions of non-Muslims from outside the Caliphate, and they continued to do so until the rest of the world finally made them stop--except in those Muslim countries where the rest of the world has not yet succeeded.

You are ignoring the realities of the situation.

No, you are.

The status of slaves in the New World cannot be compared in their treatment as opposed to slavery in the Middle East

So why do you keep comparing it?

. Slavery takes on a whole new meaning in the way that it was indulged in by the Europeans.

So what? Are you trying to argue that slavery is moral when Muslims do it? If not, what on earth is your point.

Remember, arguing that the other guy killed two people does not make your murder o.k. Again, your religion seems to have dulled your moral and logical sense, as this is simple and obvious. It doesn't matter what happened to the poor Africans the Muslim Arabs sold to Americans, what matters is that the Arabs sold them, and also sold millions more to other Arabs back home.

It really is tiresome arguing with someone who doesn't even know what they are arguing against. The article makes a claim that Aisha was not a child when she was married. Unless you can point out a flaw in the article's line of reasoning, then your whole argument is baseless.

I already responded to that. If not, then great, and please spread the word far and wide to the world's Muslims, who, believing different, continue to sell their young daughters into marriage. What matters is what Muslims think. And most of them think she was 9, and that was just fine.

In fact, Muslims in this thread have defended their prophets marriage to a 9-year old Aisha, not a 17-year old. That is what matters.

 

[Autodidact]

Please flick through the article I posted

Please present an argument, if you have one. I'm fascinated to hear your defense of child marriage. Go for it.

 

[Bismillah]

Obviously not, since being free of slavery is a basic human right. If you think a slave has basic human rights, it clearly demonstrates how your religion has screwed up your morality.

Really? Then show me an instance where slaves were used to prop up industries like they were in N. and S. America. You cannot and that is the point. Islam prohibits such wide scale brutalization and practice and effectively prohibits an economy from being based on slave labor i.e cotton plantations. That is the point. Slavery never spread throughout the Middle East as it did in the Americas.

Yes, that's one of the big problems with it.

What's the problem?

In reality, what happened is that they were forced to import more and more slaves, until Africa was decimated by the practice.

Listen, those who enslaved in Africa were not carrying out their Muslim duties. It is clear that one of the most important duties of a believer was to spread their faith. Instead, these slavers barred these Africans from learning of Islam in order to ensure a large pool of potential slaves. If they carried out their Muslim duties, then this pool would have been significantly smaller.

It's obvious that since Islam prohibited the treatment of slaves that their counterparts received in the New World that Islam prohibits an economy based on slavery. And what actually happened was that throughout the Middle East, labor was done by freedmen who were paid for their work. Obviously very different from the death camps the Europeans ascribed to their slaves.

Since an economy cannot relay on slave labor, cannot enslave Muslims, and the positive incentives to releasing a slave were well known. Then yes, Islam prohibited slavery from becoming a practice that was integral to the country, limited the pool of potential slaves, and effectively took steps to free those in society who are slaves.

For the record, I'm not going to reply of this issue again in this thread since it is not of the same topic. If you wish, please make a new thread and we can continue arguing there.

I already responded to that. If not, then great, and please spread the word far and wide to the world's Muslims, who, believing different, continue to sell their young daughters into marriage. What matters is what Muslims think. And most of them think she was 9, and that was just fine.

In fact, Muslims in this thread have defended their prophets marriage to a 9-year old Aisha, not a 17-year old. That is what matters.

No you did not respond. In fact, no one has responded to it. What matters is that I don't have to defend child marriage. If you cannot find a claim that refutes the line of logic that ascertains the marriage to have been between two consenting adults then stop bringing back this line. It's a red herring meant to slander the Prophet and ignore the truth.

 

[Autodidact]

Really? Then show me an instance where slaves were used to prop up industries like they were in N. and S. America.

Why? What on earth does it have to do with our discussion? Are you trying to argue that Arab slavery is somehow moral?

You cannot and that is the point. Islam prohibits such wide scale brutalization and practice and effectively prohibits an economy from being based on slave labor i.e cotton plantations. That is the point. Slavery never spread throughout the Middle East as it did in the Americas.

Slavery was practiced in every Muslim country until secular forces beat it down. Slavery is still practiced in several backward Muslim countries. Slavery was a feature of life in Saudi Arabia until the 1950's. Slavery spread throughout the Middle East, from the 9th to the 19th century. I already provided several articles stating that fact; would you like some more?

What's the problem?

Seeking world domination and not respecting other people's freedom of religion. Duh. Once again your religion retards your moral sense. You no longer seem able to recognize right from wrong. Unless you think it's right for people to seek to impose their religion on others?

Listen, those who enslaved in Africa were not carrying out their Muslim duties.

Well they sure weren't denying them. True, Islam does not require slavery, but it certainly permits it. Are you claiming that it prohibits it?

It is clear that one of the most important duties of a believer was to spread their faith. Instead, these slavers barred these Africans from learning of Islam in order to ensure a large pool of potential slaves. If they carried out their Muslim duties, then this pool would have been significantly smaller.

that's true. It wasn't the slavery that was the problem, but the failure to proselytize. Of course, I have a problem with proselytizing, so I don't quite see it the way you do.

It's obvious that since Islam prohibited the treatment of slaves that their counterparts received in the New World that Islam prohibits an economy based on slavery.

Could you cite the passage in the quran that prohibits an economy based on slavery? Because the economy of the Muslim Caliphate, even its basic social fabric, was completely dependent on slavery.

And what actually happened was that throughout the Middle East, labor was done by freedmen who were paid for their work.

Sure it was. And the rest of it was done by slaves. Just as in every country that employs slaves.

Obviously very different from the death camps the Europeans ascribed to their slaves.

Please, this "the other guy murdered two people" argument reflects very poorly on you. I'm not even going to stoop to arguing which form of slavery is worse. The fact is, the poster who asserted that Islam liberated the slaves is wrong. In fact, Islam enslaved the liberated. That is the reality.

Since an economy cannot relay on slave labor,

Although it did.

cannot enslave Muslims,

Yes, that's a primitive tribal morality, exactly the same as Judaism and Christianity,

and the positive incentives to releasing a slave were well known.

Yes, brownie points in heaven. What's your point?

Then yes, Islam prohibited slavery from becoming a practice that was integral to the country, limited the pool of potential slaves, and effectively took steps to free those in society who are slaves.

Nice theory. Meanwhile, in reality, Islam enslaved millions of free people. And that is immoral. Hence, Islam is immoral.

It doesn't matter how you try to pretty it up. Arab traders were the chief engine of the slave trade for over 1000 years. Where Islam went, slavery followed. They bought, kidnapped and sold millions of free people who had done nothing to harm them. And now you're trying to justify it, which is almost as bad. It makes me sick.

For the record, I'm not going to reply of this issue again in this thread since it is not of the same topic. If you wish, please make a new thread and we can continue arguing there.

If you like you may do so. I advise against it, because the more you defend Arab slavery, the worse you make Islam look.

No you did not respond. In fact, no one has responded to it. What matters is that I don't have to defend child marriage. If you cannot find a claim that refutes the line of logic that ascertains the marriage to have been between two consenting adults then stop bringing back this line. It's a red herring meant to slander the Prophet and ignore the truth.

If you don't believe Aisha was a child, then you're not the problem. The problem is the millions of Muslims that do. Please go persuade them they're wrong, so they will stop abusing their daughters in this manner. Thank you.

 

[bowingtoGod]

Really? How many slaves did Muhammed own?

I don't know. But the fact at how many he liberated, and one he even adopted, should say something.

 

[Autodidact]

I don't know. But the fact at how many he liberated, and one he even adopted, should say something.

Well, according to Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya,
"These are the names of Muhammad's male slaves: Yakan Abu Sharh, Aflah, 'Ubayd, Dhakwan, Tahman, Mirwan, Hunayn, Sanad, Fadala Yamamin, Anjasha al-Hadi, Mad'am, Karkara, Abu Rafi', Thawban, Ab Kabsha, Salih, Rabah, Yara Nubyan, Fadila, Waqid, Mabur, Abu Waqid, Kasam, Abu' Ayb, Abu Muwayhiba, Zayd Ibn Haritha, and also a black slave called Mahran."

That's 27 males slaves alone. Do you disagree?

I agree that the slave-owner who frees some of his slaves is less immoral than the slave-owner who frees none. He's still immoral, though, because slavery is wrong.

Tell me, bowing, is slavery right or wrong?

 

[bowingtoGod]

Well, according to Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya,
"These are the names of Muhammad's male slaves: Yakan Abu Sharh, Aflah, 'Ubayd, Dhakwan, Tahman, Mirwan, Hunayn, Sanad, Fadala Yamamin, Anjasha al-Hadi, Mad'am, Karkara, Abu Rafi', Thawban, Ab Kabsha, Salih, Rabah, Yara Nubyan, Fadila, Waqid, Mabur, Abu Waqid, Kasam, Abu' Ayb, Abu Muwayhiba, Zayd Ibn Haritha, and also a black slave called Mahran."

That's 27 males slaves alone. Do you disagree?

I agree that the slave-owner who frees some of his slaves is less immoral than the slave-owner who frees none. He's still immoral, though, because slavery is wrong.

Tell me, bowing, is slavery right or wrong?

You know in the end he freed them all right?
And yes slavery is wrong. What does that have to do with anything?

 

[Autodidact]

You know in the end he freed them all right?

No, I did not. Well, now I read that he died without any, but was that because he freed them, or just because he died in poverty?

And yes slavery is wrong. What does that have to do with anything?

Slavery is wrong.
Slavery is Islamic.
Islam is wrong.

 

[bowingtoGod]

No, I did not. Well, now I read that he died without any, but was that because he freed them, or just because he died in poverty?


Slavery is wrong.
Slavery is Islamic.
Islam is wrong.

He freed them -_-

If the Prophet (saws) wanted too, he could of been the richest man in the world. He had control of all of Arabia and his influence was fast expanding. But he choose to live a simple life in poverty.

Slavery is not Islamic. You are a bigot, one of the worst kinds of atheists. Not simply "I don't believe in God" But "I hate Him" Astaghfirullah.