A Muslim wrote a book refuting the objections of Muhammad's marriage with Aisha here and a critic tried to "refute" him.
He said:
"The author proceeds to explain how most Islamophobes are Jews and Christians. Now, when one reads this declaration:
"The author proceeds to explain how most Islamophobes are Jews and Christians. Now, when one reads this declaration:
Fight against such of those who have been given the
Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that
which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion
of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
is it really accurate to label a Christian or Jew afraid of the
ideology preaching such things to be an "Islamophobe"? Fear of Islam for
a Christian or Jew is justifiable and would not qualify as a phobia
considering a long history of persecution of Jews and Christians in Islamic countries has proved the precarious position the People of the Book hold under Shari'a."
Reply:
The misunderstandings of Surah 9:29 in light of historical background have been clarified here and here.
As for persecution of Jews & Christians in Muslim countries: the
critic cannot analyse a religion based on what the blacksheep's done.
Anyone who has knowledge of history would know that the Christian's have
fought in the name of religion more than any other member of faith. It
would be wrong to blame Christianity on these blacksheeps and in the
same way, it would be wrong to blame Islam based on what certain
blacksheeps do. Persecution of the innocence isn't part of the shariah.
He said:
"In his introduction titled "The Glass House", the author reveals that the first way he is going to prove Muhammad was not a pedophile is by applying the logical fallacy of ad hominem tu quoque. His first claim is that Jewish law permits a man to marry a girl as young as three years of age, and Christian law permits a man to marry a girl as young as seven years of age. Regardless of what history presents us, it is illogical to hold today's Christians and Jews accountable for the actions of people calling themselves Christians and Jews hundreds of years ago."
Reply:
The author referred to the JEWISH LAW, NOT what Jews did. So, whether Jews back then married 3 years olds or not, it's still part of the Jewish law (as we shall see below), therefore a Jew cannot ignore it. Also, the author didn't hold today's Christian & Jew's accountable for what others did in the past. He was making aware that most Christians & Jews who attack Muhammad's marriage with Aisha don't know or ignore that it is allowable in their scriptures.
"In his introduction titled "The Glass House", the author reveals that the first way he is going to prove Muhammad was not a pedophile is by applying the logical fallacy of ad hominem tu quoque. His first claim is that Jewish law permits a man to marry a girl as young as three years of age, and Christian law permits a man to marry a girl as young as seven years of age. Regardless of what history presents us, it is illogical to hold today's Christians and Jews accountable for the actions of people calling themselves Christians and Jews hundreds of years ago."
Reply:
The author referred to the JEWISH LAW, NOT what Jews did. So, whether Jews back then married 3 years olds or not, it's still part of the Jewish law (as we shall see below), therefore a Jew cannot ignore it. Also, the author didn't hold today's Christian & Jew's accountable for what others did in the past. He was making aware that most Christians & Jews who attack Muhammad's marriage with Aisha don't know or ignore that it is allowable in their scriptures.
He said:
"The author fails to recognize the difference between the Jewish people as a nation and the religion known as Judaism. There is no "Jewish law" in practice today. The State of Israel does not incorporate the Torah or the Talmud in its legislation. Someone can be a Gentile and yet practice Judaism. The holy scriptures of Judaism are compiled in the Tanakh (known as the Old Testament to Christians). Nowhere in these scriptures are pedophilic relationships described or condoned. Rabbinic commentary is compiled in the Talmud; however these writings are not considered scriptural or the words of God. Even if pedophilic relationships are described and condoned in the Talmud, it does not mean that such things must be found acceptable to Jews. The contributers of the Talmud are not considered "the best examples of humanity" and nowhere in the scriptures are Jews commanded to obey them and emulate their lifestyles and teachings."
"The author fails to recognize the difference between the Jewish people as a nation and the religion known as Judaism. There is no "Jewish law" in practice today. The State of Israel does not incorporate the Torah or the Talmud in its legislation. Someone can be a Gentile and yet practice Judaism. The holy scriptures of Judaism are compiled in the Tanakh (known as the Old Testament to Christians). Nowhere in these scriptures are pedophilic relationships described or condoned. Rabbinic commentary is compiled in the Talmud; however these writings are not considered scriptural or the words of God. Even if pedophilic relationships are described and condoned in the Talmud, it does not mean that such things must be found acceptable to Jews. The contributers of the Talmud are not considered "the best examples of humanity" and nowhere in the scriptures are Jews commanded to obey them and emulate their lifestyles and teachings."
Reply:
It doesn't matter if there is no Jewish law implemented today. This does not stop the fact that the Talmud does allow 3 year old marriages:
It doesn't matter if there is no Jewish law implemented today. This does not stop the fact that the Talmud does allow 3 year old marriages:
Yebamoth 6ob:
"There was a certain town in the Land of Israel the legitimacy of whose inhabitants was disputed, and Rabbi sent R.Romanos who conducted an enquiry and found in it the daughter of a proselyte who was under the age of three years and one day,14 and Rabbir declared her eligible to live with a priest."15
"There was a certain town in the Land of Israel the legitimacy of whose inhabitants was disputed, and Rabbi sent R.Romanos who conducted an enquiry and found in it the daughter of a proselyte who was under the age of three years and one day,14 and Rabbir declared her eligible to live with a priest."15
14: And was married to a priest.
15: I.e., permitted her to continue to live with her husband
One can also refer to (Ibid - 55b & 54b-55a). It doesn't matter if the Talmud is considered word of God or not, it is still a valid source for their religion. In addition, the Jewish Tanakh says clearly:
15: I.e., permitted her to continue to live with her husband
One can also refer to (Ibid - 55b & 54b-55a). It doesn't matter if the Talmud is considered word of God or not, it is still a valid source for their religion. In addition, the Jewish Tanakh says clearly:
"On the day you were born your cord was not
cut, nor were you washed with water to make you clean, nor were you
rubbed with salt or wrapped in cloths. No one looked on you with pity or
had compassion enough to do any of these things for you. Rather, you
were thrown out into the open field, for on the day you were born you
were despised. " 'Then I passed by and saw you kicking about in your
blood, and as you lay there in your blood I said to you, "Live!" I made
you grow like a plant of the field. You grew up and developed and became
the most beautiful of jewels. Your breasts were formed and your hair grew, you who were naked and bare. " 'Later I passed by, and when
I looked at you and saw that you were old enough for love, I spread the
corner of my garment over you and covered your nakedness.
I gave you my solemn oath and entered into a covenant with you,
declares the Sovereign LORD, and you became mine. " 'I bathed you with
water and washed the blood from you and put ointments on you. I clothed
you with an embroidered dress and put leather sandals on you. I dressed
you in fine linen and covered you with costly garments. I adorned you
with jewelry: I put bracelets on your arms and a necklace around your
neck, and I put a ring on your nose, earrings on your ears and a
beautiful crown on your head. So you were adorned with gold and silver;
your clothes were of fine linen and costly fabric and embroidered cloth.
Your food was fine flour, honey and olive oil. You became very
beautiful and rose to be a queen. And your fame spread among the nations
on account of your beauty, because the splendor I had given you made
your beauty perfect, declares the Sovereign LORD."
We see here that during puberty, a female had intercourse and then this goes on to speak about nudity, descriptions of the girl, etc. So Judaism does allow marriages at puberty and even before.
He said:
"There is no such thing as "Christian law." Christianity was never intended to be a political ideology or enforced as a rule-of-law. In fact, the earliest Christian writings instructed Christians to obey the established rule-of-law of the authorities in place (ie the Roman empire.) The author's entire premise is illogical. Just because a group of people in history who followed a particular religion allowed child marriages does not mean that such practices can be attributed to the religions themselves."
"There is no such thing as "Christian law." Christianity was never intended to be a political ideology or enforced as a rule-of-law. In fact, the earliest Christian writings instructed Christians to obey the established rule-of-law of the authorities in place (ie the Roman empire.) The author's entire premise is illogical. Just because a group of people in history who followed a particular religion allowed child marriages does not mean that such practices can be attributed to the religions themselves."
Reply:
Jesus confirmed the law (Matthew 5:17-20) which means it was meant to be enforced. In addition, the critic misrepresented the Muslim, because the critic asserted that the Muslim meant that because people did these young marriages, therefore it's attributed to religions. This is not what he did. It doesn't matter whether they married young or not, it's what their SCRIPTURES say which prove such marriages are part of the religions. Verses in the Old Testament & Talmud have been shown to prove Christianity and Judaism support marriages as soon as they reach puberty (for Christianity [also see 1 Corinthians 7:36-38]) and at 3 years for Judaism.
He said:
"It's interesting to note that the author brings up Mary, the mother of Jesus, and Joseph. Relying on 2nd century AD non-canonical (not considered to be Christian scripture) writings, the author states that Mary was thirteen years old when she was betrothed to the ninety-year-old Joseph. Of course, the author forgets to mention that, unlike Joseph, proof of Muhammad's pedophilia can be found within Sahih Islamic sources such as Bukari and Muslim (which are second only to the Qur'an for reliability among 90% of all Muslims), and, unlike Muhammad, Joseph is not considered the uswa hasana (perfect human)."
Jesus confirmed the law (Matthew 5:17-20) which means it was meant to be enforced. In addition, the critic misrepresented the Muslim, because the critic asserted that the Muslim meant that because people did these young marriages, therefore it's attributed to religions. This is not what he did. It doesn't matter whether they married young or not, it's what their SCRIPTURES say which prove such marriages are part of the religions. Verses in the Old Testament & Talmud have been shown to prove Christianity and Judaism support marriages as soon as they reach puberty (for Christianity [also see 1 Corinthians 7:36-38]) and at 3 years for Judaism.
He said:
"It's interesting to note that the author brings up Mary, the mother of Jesus, and Joseph. Relying on 2nd century AD non-canonical (not considered to be Christian scripture) writings, the author states that Mary was thirteen years old when she was betrothed to the ninety-year-old Joseph. Of course, the author forgets to mention that, unlike Joseph, proof of Muhammad's pedophilia can be found within Sahih Islamic sources such as Bukari and Muslim (which are second only to the Qur'an for reliability among 90% of all Muslims), and, unlike Muhammad, Joseph is not considered the uswa hasana (perfect human)."
Reply:
False: there is no such evidence of this alleged pedophilia in Hadiths. We challenge him to show the indisputable evidence, not what his own subjective mind thinks. Below, we shall see how the critic's given criteria of pedophilia" shows Joseph is a pedophile, according to his own standard he used for Muhammad.
He said:
"Moreover, according to both the Christian scriptures and the Islamic ones, Mary was a virgin when she conceived and gave birth to Jesus; therefore, her relationship with Joseph was not a sexual one until after the birth of Christ, if ever. In fact, Mary's Perpetual virginity is an essential article of faith for the majority of Christians (including the Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Christians), and the same non-canonical writings which are used to gather information on Joseph and Mary's age, also confirm Mary's status as "ever virgin" (in The History of Joseph the Carpenter, Jesus says on Joseph's death "my mother, virgin undefiled"),[1] thus completely destroying the authors argument."
False: there is no such evidence of this alleged pedophilia in Hadiths. We challenge him to show the indisputable evidence, not what his own subjective mind thinks. Below, we shall see how the critic's given criteria of pedophilia" shows Joseph is a pedophile, according to his own standard he used for Muhammad.
He said:
"Moreover, according to both the Christian scriptures and the Islamic ones, Mary was a virgin when she conceived and gave birth to Jesus; therefore, her relationship with Joseph was not a sexual one until after the birth of Christ, if ever. In fact, Mary's Perpetual virginity is an essential article of faith for the majority of Christians (including the Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Christians), and the same non-canonical writings which are used to gather information on Joseph and Mary's age, also confirm Mary's status as "ever virgin" (in The History of Joseph the Carpenter, Jesus says on Joseph's death "my mother, virgin undefiled"),[1] thus completely destroying the authors argument."
Reply:
It doesn't matter as to whether or not Mary was a virgin. The point he was trying to make is that Mary was MARRIED at 12-13 years old to a man much older than her, yet Christians ignore this. So, he was refuting the Christians who attack Aisha's marriage, when the same standard could be applied to Joseph. Below, we shall see how the critic's given criteria of pedophilia" shows Joseph is a pedophile, according to his own standard he used for Muhammad.
He said:
"Moving on through the book, the author presents us with information about societies in history that allowed marriages at the onset of puberty. He seems to imply that because such things were permitted in the distant past and even the not-so-distant past then somehow people who believe such things are wrong are, in fact, wrong. Would the author have us stagnate the societal evolution that has served to protect human beings by abolishing slavery and child marriages? Simply because something has been practiced by human beings does not mean that the practice was morally right. Here the author reveals his dependency on yet another logical fallacy: appeal to common practice."
Reply:
Where is the proof that the Muslim's intention of mentioning the societies in history means that because such things were permitted in the distant past, and even the not-so-distant past, then somehow people who believe such things are wrong? No proof. He has assumed that the Muslim implied that because people back then used to do it, therefore people today who disagree are wrong. He didn't claim or imply this. He was simply showing the history of this so readers can be aware that that Muhammad's marriage in Aisha was nothing new. The critic is trying hard to jump to conclusions, in order to fire his logical fallacies allegations. Also notice he is calling it "child marriages" but he has not given the Islamic definition of what a child is. When the person reaches puberty physically & mentally (regardless of the age), he no longer remains a child in Islam. So Aisha's marriage with Muhammad was not a child marriage Islamically.
It doesn't matter as to whether or not Mary was a virgin. The point he was trying to make is that Mary was MARRIED at 12-13 years old to a man much older than her, yet Christians ignore this. So, he was refuting the Christians who attack Aisha's marriage, when the same standard could be applied to Joseph. Below, we shall see how the critic's given criteria of pedophilia" shows Joseph is a pedophile, according to his own standard he used for Muhammad.
He said:
"Moving on through the book, the author presents us with information about societies in history that allowed marriages at the onset of puberty. He seems to imply that because such things were permitted in the distant past and even the not-so-distant past then somehow people who believe such things are wrong are, in fact, wrong. Would the author have us stagnate the societal evolution that has served to protect human beings by abolishing slavery and child marriages? Simply because something has been practiced by human beings does not mean that the practice was morally right. Here the author reveals his dependency on yet another logical fallacy: appeal to common practice."
Reply:
Where is the proof that the Muslim's intention of mentioning the societies in history means that because such things were permitted in the distant past, and even the not-so-distant past, then somehow people who believe such things are wrong? No proof. He has assumed that the Muslim implied that because people back then used to do it, therefore people today who disagree are wrong. He didn't claim or imply this. He was simply showing the history of this so readers can be aware that that Muhammad's marriage in Aisha was nothing new. The critic is trying hard to jump to conclusions, in order to fire his logical fallacies allegations. Also notice he is calling it "child marriages" but he has not given the Islamic definition of what a child is. When the person reaches puberty physically & mentally (regardless of the age), he no longer remains a child in Islam. So Aisha's marriage with Muhammad was not a child marriage Islamically.
He said:
"He then proceeds to deceive the reader with some clever use of doublespeak. The author uses the word "mature" although the Islamic definition of the word is most certainly not how the average reader understands mature. The author states that because Aisha was not mature enough, she remained in her father's house for three years before her marriage was consummated. The author never explains to us what "maturity" really entails, especially sexual maturity. By begging the question, the author encourages the reader to assume that because Muhammad did not have sex with Aisha at the time of the marriage contract but instead waited three years, then that must mean she was mature enough for sex."
"He then proceeds to deceive the reader with some clever use of doublespeak. The author uses the word "mature" although the Islamic definition of the word is most certainly not how the average reader understands mature. The author states that because Aisha was not mature enough, she remained in her father's house for three years before her marriage was consummated. The author never explains to us what "maturity" really entails, especially sexual maturity. By begging the question, the author encourages the reader to assume that because Muhammad did not have sex with Aisha at the time of the marriage contract but instead waited three years, then that must mean she was mature enough for sex."
Reply:
Notice he accused the Muslim of committing the doublespeak fallacy (which there is zero evidence of) with the word "good." However, this critic previously himself never explained what "child marriages" are in Islam and what a child is in Islam. Instead, he just said it as if Islam allows it which shows he himself committed the doublespeak fallacy, which reveals his hypocrisy. In addition, Aisha was old enough 3 years later for sex.
"Aisha reported: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said to me: Get me the mat from the mosque. I said: I am menstruating. Upon this he remarked: Your menstruation is not in your hand."
"Aisha reported: The Messenger of Allah (may
peace be upon him) ordered me that I should get him the mat from the
mosque. I said: I am menstruating. He (the Holy Prophet) said: Do get me that, for menstruation is not in your hand."
Here, we see that Aisha went through her menses, which is a sign of puberty. Also:
'Al-Dawoodi said: Aa'ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) was reached physical maturity (at the time when her marriage was consummated)." (Sharh Muslim, 9/206 - cited here).
عائشة إذا بلغت الجارية تسع سنين فهي
امرأة
"Aisha said, if the little girl reaches nine then she is a woman." (Tirmidhi - Classed Hasan Sahih By Sheikh Albani In: Jami' Sahih Al-Adhkar & Tirmidhi - Source. Also In Sunan Nasai - cited here).
Here, she was obviously
describing herself and her acquaintances, which shows that she was
mature for her age for sex, because notice the word "woman" is used.
Women can have sex, and she affirmed she was a woman at that age, thus
could have sex.
He said:
"The author then goes on to explain the concept of annulment under Islamic law and that a girl can annul her marriage when she reaches puberty. In reality, however, it is not an easy thing for a young girl to annul her marriage. Attempts to annul such marriages have proved to be incredible undertakings for such children, and girls without access to transportation and communication with legal authorities can make it virtually impossible. For more information, read about recent cases of contemporary pedophilic Islamic marriages."
"The author then goes on to explain the concept of annulment under Islamic law and that a girl can annul her marriage when she reaches puberty. In reality, however, it is not an easy thing for a young girl to annul her marriage. Attempts to annul such marriages have proved to be incredible undertakings for such children, and girls without access to transportation and communication with legal authorities can make it virtually impossible. For more information, read about recent cases of contemporary pedophilic Islamic marriages."
Reply:
Analysing Islam on what people today do doesn't prove annulment of marriage is difficult for young females. As stated before: It would be wrong to blame Christianity on blacksheeps and in the same way, it would be wrong to blame Islam based on what certain blacksheeps do. Islam allows annulment of marriage & makes it easy, regardless if the female has just passed puberty or not. If people today have made it difficult, that doesn't become part of Islam (see here and here, page 69).
He said:
"On the surface it would appear that a girl has rights under Shari'a, but on closer examination one realizes that a girl can be married before she is old enough to consent to it, and her marriage cannot be annulled unless she can prove that something is wrong with it according to Islam's definition of "wrong."
"On the surface it would appear that a girl has rights under Shari'a, but on closer examination one realizes that a girl can be married before she is old enough to consent to it, and her marriage cannot be annulled unless she can prove that something is wrong with it according to Islam's definition of "wrong."
Reply:
The marriage is not complete until the male/female reaches puberty physically and mentally. It cannot be consummated before this & you cannot have intercourse before this.
The marriage is not complete until the male/female reaches puberty physically and mentally. It cannot be consummated before this & you cannot have intercourse before this.
"The fact that it is permissible to marry a minor girl does not imply that it is permissible to have intercourse with her, rather the husband should not have intercourse with her until she becomes able for that.
Hence the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) delayed
consummating the marriage to 'Aa'ishah (may Allaah be pleased with
her)."
Source: http://islamqa.com/en/ref/12708
Source: http://islamqa.com/en/ref/12708
"Therefore, a man can marry a small girl but he can sleep with her only after she becomes pubescent.
Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar reported in his book al-Fath that marrying a small
girl is permissible but having sex is not permissible until her puberty.
What is reported from Muhallab is conforming to the opinion of other
scholars as reported in 'Nail al-Awtar' by al-Shaukani that he said:
'All Muslim scholars have agreed upon that a father can marry his small
girl'. This means he can merely make a marriage contract; it does not
mean permitting her husband to sleep with her since she is not able to
do that."
"As for consummating the marriage, this does not happen until she is physically able for it."
Source: http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/1493/aisha
Source: http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/1493/aisha
He said:
"What the author also fails to mention is that Islam is a culture, a way of life, and a girl submerged within such a culture experiences pressure not only from her family but also from her husband's family and the community in which she lives. According to the Hadith, a virgin's silence is taken as consent! (Sahih Bukhari 9:85:79) A quiet, intimidated girl can easily be taken advantage of in such situations where her father arranges a marriage to a much older man. "
Reply:
The critic is confusing Islam with what Muslims do. Islam doesn't put pressure on them to marry/stay married as the Islamic texts do not teach this. If people today have put pressure, that doesn't become part of Islam. Regarding the Hadith:
The critic is confusing Islam with what Muslims do. Islam doesn't put pressure on them to marry/stay married as the Islamic texts do not teach this. If people today have put pressure, that doesn't become part of Islam. Regarding the Hadith:
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 85, Number 79:
"Narrated 'Aisha: I asked the Prophet, "O Allah's Apostle! Should the women be asked for their consent to their marriage?" He said, "Yes." I said, "A virgin, if asked, feels shy and keeps quiet." He said, "Her silence means her consent."
"Narrated 'Aisha: I asked the Prophet, "O Allah's Apostle! Should the women be asked for their consent to their marriage?" He said, "Yes." I said, "A virgin, if asked, feels shy and keeps quiet." He said, "Her silence means her consent."
The Hadith doesn't say or imply that a virgin cannot
object to a marriage. It says that keeping silent is a consent. The
person can CHOOSE to keep silent as the consent or can verbally object. A
similar Hadith is in Sahih
Muslim, Number 3308 and a commentary:
"We have come to know that the consent
of the woman whether previously married or not is essential for
marriage. In case of a virgin it is the duty of the father or the
guardian to consult her and seek her assent even if it is indicated by
her observing silence. But in case of a woman previously married she has
been given more right to express her consent that that of her guardian.
The reason is quite obvious. The woman who is previously married is
mature and she can easily look into the pros and cons of her marriage
contract, The virgin is comparatively shy and feel hesitant in
expressing her opinion. She is, therefore, permitted to express her
consent by observing silence." (Abdul Hamid Siddiqi Commentary - Sahih Muslim, Book 8, Number 3308 - Chapter DXLVII - Footnote 1858)
"There is no doubt that negative silence is not indicative of approval or its absence. Hence the fiqhi principle is based on the idea that no opinion can be attributed to the one who remains silent, but silence in a context where there is a need to speak is a statement. This applies if it is accompanied by circumstantial evidence which may indicate his approval." (Al-Mawsoo'ah Al-Fiqhiyyah (22/237, 238) - cited here).
Another Hadith says:
Abu Dawud, Book 5, Number 2088:
"Narated By AbuHurayrah : The Prophet (pbuh) said: An orphan virgin girl should be consulted about herself; if she says nothing that indicates her permission, but if she refuses, the authority of the guardian cannot be exercised against her will. The full information rest with the tradition narrated by Yazid." (Declared Sahih By Abu Dawud & Sheikh Albani - Source & Declared Hasan By Other Scholars - Cited Here).
"Narated By AbuHurayrah : The Prophet (pbuh) said: An orphan virgin girl should be consulted about herself; if she says nothing that indicates her permission, but if she refuses, the authority of the guardian cannot be exercised against her will. The full information rest with the tradition narrated by Yazid." (Declared Sahih By Abu Dawud & Sheikh Albani - Source & Declared Hasan By Other Scholars - Cited Here).
So as we see, the person maybe too shy to verbally agree
with the marriage, so Islam give the right for the person to consent by
observing silence. But if the person isn't too shy, there is nothing in
Islam which prevents the person from giving their opinions and objecting
to a potential marriage.
Rather, we notice that this Hadith allows her to refuse marriage
proposals. Also:
Abu Dawud, Book 5, Number 2091:
"Narrated By Abdullah ibn Abbas : A virgin came to the Prophet (pbuh) and mentioned that her father had married her against her will, so the Prophet (pbuh) allowed her to exercise her choice." (Declared Mursal By Abu Dawud - Source & Sahih By Sheikh Albani - Source & Classed Sahih By Ibn Al-Qattaan - Source. Also In Musnad Ahmad, 2469 - Declared Sahih On The Conditions Bukhari By Sheikh Arna'oot - Source & Sahih By Ahmed Shakir - Source).
Sheikh Abdul 'Aziz Nin Abdullah Al-Rajhi states that asking no permission to the virgin is a weak view, in light of the narrations we have (Source).
He said:
"Also, most girls in such countries where child marriages are commonplace have no understanding about the biology of the human body and the risks of pregnancy at such a young age. Menarche does not mean that a girl is a fully matured human being, either physically or mentally."
"Narrated By Abdullah ibn Abbas : A virgin came to the Prophet (pbuh) and mentioned that her father had married her against her will, so the Prophet (pbuh) allowed her to exercise her choice." (Declared Mursal By Abu Dawud - Source & Sahih By Sheikh Albani - Source & Classed Sahih By Ibn Al-Qattaan - Source. Also In Musnad Ahmad, 2469 - Declared Sahih On The Conditions Bukhari By Sheikh Arna'oot - Source & Sahih By Ahmed Shakir - Source).
Sheikh Abdul 'Aziz Nin Abdullah Al-Rajhi states that asking no permission to the virgin is a weak view, in light of the narrations we have (Source).
He said:
"Also, most girls in such countries where child marriages are commonplace have no understanding about the biology of the human body and the risks of pregnancy at such a young age. Menarche does not mean that a girl is a fully matured human being, either physically or mentally."
Reply:
Again, he his falsely is labeling young marriages as "child marriages" but has not given the Islamic definition of what a child is. When the person reaches puberty physically and mentally (regardless of the age), he no longer remains a child in Islam. Furthermore, the person should have reach full puberty before consummation of marriage, according to a major fiqh book (Nuh Ha Mim Keller - Reliance of the Traveller: Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law). In addition, even if most people in Middle eastern countries don't have full understanding of biology or limited, you cannot blame Islam for that. Islam doesn't discourage you from seeking knowledge, it encourages. The critic seems committing the same error of analyzing Islam based on certain followers do and don't do.
He said:
"Shari'a is not designed to protect the weak and powerless. This form of law relies on the assumption that all Muslims are good, moral people and therefore would not think to mistreat a girl in their care. Such an assumption is not only unrealistic, but it is dangerous as well."
Reply:
False, it is designed to protect and help weak and powerless people. The shariah is strict to the extant that the moment it is implemented, people would dare not to commit crimes, etc. Unlike the west, it is a deterrent against crimes, etc. In addition, the law is NOT based on assumptions that Muslims are good or will be good. There is nothing in Islam texts with states this. If that was the case, Quran wouldn't have emphasized punishments for not being good/moral. Islamic texts tell us how to objectively be good and moral people, but does not assume that we will all be this. Islam teaches not to mistreat a girl so if certain Muslims do it, you cannot analyze a religion on the blacksheeps. Every sheep has his bad herd.
False, it is designed to protect and help weak and powerless people. The shariah is strict to the extant that the moment it is implemented, people would dare not to commit crimes, etc. Unlike the west, it is a deterrent against crimes, etc. In addition, the law is NOT based on assumptions that Muslims are good or will be good. There is nothing in Islam texts with states this. If that was the case, Quran wouldn't have emphasized punishments for not being good/moral. Islamic texts tell us how to objectively be good and moral people, but does not assume that we will all be this. Islam teaches not to mistreat a girl so if certain Muslims do it, you cannot analyze a religion on the blacksheeps. Every sheep has his bad herd.
He said:
"The author brings up the "Western concept of betrothal" and yet fails to define what that exactly is. In the West girls cannot be married until they have reached the legal age of consent (which is typically 18 years of age), and if a girl wants to get married earlier than that it requires her parents' permission or a petition for emancipation. The Western law is designed to protect girls from getting married against their will and protect children from being exploited by adults."
Reply:With his last
statement, he seems to indirectly allege that Islam does not protect
children from being exploited by adults, which is false. Islam gives
MUCH more protection to children than the west will ever. The
punishments in Islam for exploiting children or young adults (i.e. for
raping) will deter / make people thing dozens of times before doing such
an act/s. Such a deterrent is seriously lacking in western laws.
Maybe that is why we find many pastors & priests molesting little
girls in the
west (this site documents heaps of them). But of course, critic focus
their
attention less on this than a marriage between two individuals who've
attained
puberty, & willingly decided to marry. Amazing.
He said:
"The author uses deceiving language once again when he refers to "Christian law" and "Biblical law." Number one, there is no modern, practical application of Biblical law anywhere. Number two, the New Testament is not a book of legislation or rule-of-law. It is a compilation of writings authored by the earliest Christians describing the ministry of Jesus and instructing Christians on moral behavior within their own lives. None of it is enforceable by one human being upon another. Even if Protestant and Catholic doctrines discourage divorce, Christian women are only beholden to the laws in which they live."
He said:
"The author uses deceiving language once again when he refers to "Christian law" and "Biblical law." Number one, there is no modern, practical application of Biblical law anywhere. Number two, the New Testament is not a book of legislation or rule-of-law. It is a compilation of writings authored by the earliest Christians describing the ministry of Jesus and instructing Christians on moral behavior within their own lives. None of it is enforceable by one human being upon another. Even if Protestant and Catholic doctrines discourage divorce, Christian women are only beholden to the laws in which they live."
Reply:It's not deceiving language when quoting from the Bible and then refer it to "Biblical laws" and referring to Christians then saying "Christian law." The Muslim said that Christianity disallows divorce and it seemed this is what the critic was trying to reply to.
1. It doesn't matter if no-one practices the Biblical law
anywhere. This wouldn't stop Christianity teaching that a when a woman
divorces, it equal adultery. (see here). The critic committed the hasty generalization fallacy by
generalizing on an entire religion (Christianity) based on what the
follows do not do. According to the critic's logic: if no
Quranic/Islamic state existed on Earth/not implemented, that would mean
that Islam doesn't teach xyz rules. Such reasoning is false.
2. The critic cannot limit the scriptures of Christianity
to only the New Testament as Jesus confirmed the law (Matthew 5:17-20)
which means it was meant to be enforced. So to say it is not a book of
law is to ignore the laws in it which Christians cannot do, if they
follow the Bible 100%.
He said:
"Just because a woman's church leaders tell her not to leave her husband, it doesn't mean that she can't."
"Just because a woman's church leaders tell her not to leave her husband, it doesn't mean that she can't."
Reply:
Notice the critic is not associating what Christians say or do to Christianity here. However, the critic associated non-Islamic acts that Muslims did with an entire religion: Islam, which shows the double standards.
He said:
"In the West, she is able to divorce her husband just as easily as an atheist, Jew, Hindu, or Muslim. The entire premise of the author's argument is based on his perception of Christianity and not fact. The very fact that he implies that there is "Christian law" should alert the reader that the author is being intellectually dishonest."
Reply:
It doesn't matter if she is able to divorce easily: this doesn't stop Christianity (Bible) from teaching that divorces are prohibited (see here). In addition, the Muslims wasn't being dishonest. He was simply using the standards of certain Christians against their Bible. Since certain Christians claim divorce in Islam is hard and difficult, this standard means they have to disagree with their Bible which teaches that you cannot divorce. This critic even said in his own article:
"In the West, she is able to divorce her husband just as easily as an atheist, Jew, Hindu, or Muslim. The entire premise of the author's argument is based on his perception of Christianity and not fact. The very fact that he implies that there is "Christian law" should alert the reader that the author is being intellectually dishonest."
Reply:
It doesn't matter if she is able to divorce easily: this doesn't stop Christianity (Bible) from teaching that divorces are prohibited (see here). In addition, the Muslims wasn't being dishonest. He was simply using the standards of certain Christians against their Bible. Since certain Christians claim divorce in Islam is hard and difficult, this standard means they have to disagree with their Bible which teaches that you cannot divorce. This critic even said in his own article:
"What the reader will notice, however, is that this book's target will likely not be atheists, secularists, humanists, etc. but will in fact be against the Jews and Christians."
So, what is the problem in using their own Bible against
certain Christian's & their standards? In addition, the Christian
law should be based on the laws of the Bible, and the laws in the Bible
are obliged to be followed (Matthew 5:17-20 & Galatians 3:10). So
there is nothing intellectually dishonest here.
He said:
"The author continues with the explanation that Islamic marriage to immature girls is "the exception, not the rule." However, when one reads what the "exception" is, then the author's argument falls apart:
...fathers are allowed to marry their immature
daughters off if they fear that delaying the marriage would mean losing
out on a great opportunity. If the girl receives a very good marriage
proposal--and the father fears that this proposal would be lost if the
decision is delayed--then he is allowed to marry her off despite her
young age.
One wonders what exactly the word "good" means here. Likely it is another example of doublespeak."
Reply:
Using this critic's false logic, we can wonder as to the meanings of most of the words he used and conclude he is committing doublespeak fallacy. This is the splitting hairs fallacy. Notice he accused the Muslim of committing the doublespeak fallacy (which there is zero evidence of) with the word "good." However, this critic previously himself never explained what "child marriages" are in Islam and what a child is in Islam. Instead, he just said it as if Islam allows it which shows he himself committed the doublespeak fallacy, which reveals his hypocrisy.
Using this critic's false logic, we can wonder as to the meanings of most of the words he used and conclude he is committing doublespeak fallacy. This is the splitting hairs fallacy. Notice he accused the Muslim of committing the doublespeak fallacy (which there is zero evidence of) with the word "good." However, this critic previously himself never explained what "child marriages" are in Islam and what a child is in Islam. Instead, he just said it as if Islam allows it which shows he himself committed the doublespeak fallacy, which reveals his hypocrisy.
He said:
"The author then appeals to moral relativity as an explanation for why Abu Bakr accepted Muhammad's marriage offer for Aisha. "It was the societal norm," he explains. Displaying an advertant denial of the facts, the author goes on to excuse such a marriage because "the Prophet wished to seal an alliance through this marriage; delaying the alliance would mean putting the fledgling Muslim polity at risk." This is ludicrous considering Abu Bakr was a member of Muhammad's tribe and viewed himself as Muhammad's brother in Islam. Why would an "alliance" be necessary with someone already considered one of Muhammad's closest allies?"
Reply:
Alliance as how he defines it is not how Islam defines it. Muhammad wanted to bring him closer to Abu Bakr & was interested in strengthening the Muslim ummah. It is because of Muhammad's legal marriage with Aisha that she became one of the greatest scholars of all time & memorized more hadiths than anyone, except Abu Huraira.
"A wife in the house of the prophet -
may Allah's prayers and peace be on him - would encourage women to call
on her to enquire about things related to their religion, just as men
did. They asked Al Sayeda Aisha about matters, which they would feel
embarrassed to ask the Prophet himself about. Al Sayeda Aisha was an
intelligent woman, which a sharp memory, renowned for relating the
Traditions (Ahadith) and for her skill in matters of religion. When the prominent companions faced a problem, tehy used to ask her and she always answered their queries satisfactory.
Abu Mossa El Ash'ari said: "Whenever we, the companions of Allah's Prophet - may Allah's prayers and peace be on him - met with a Tradition (Hadith) that needed explanation, and asked Aisha, we always found her with a satisfactory answer." Masruq said: "I have seen the leading companion of Muhammad - may Allah's prayers and peace be on him - ask her about the ordinances of Islam." Al Dhahby said: "She was one of the most prominent scholars among the Companions of Allah's Messenger - may Allah's prayers and peace be on him - used to refer to her. Her excellence was not confined to relating the Traditions and Islamic Legislations, but she was also eloquent and convincing.
Abu Mossa El Ash'ari said: "Whenever we, the companions of Allah's Prophet - may Allah's prayers and peace be on him - met with a Tradition (Hadith) that needed explanation, and asked Aisha, we always found her with a satisfactory answer." Masruq said: "I have seen the leading companion of Muhammad - may Allah's prayers and peace be on him - ask her about the ordinances of Islam." Al Dhahby said: "She was one of the most prominent scholars among the Companions of Allah's Messenger - may Allah's prayers and peace be on him - used to refer to her. Her excellence was not confined to relating the Traditions and Islamic Legislations, but she was also eloquent and convincing.
She memorised many poems and Hisham Ibn Orwa said quoting his father: "I have not anyone who is more well versed in Islamic Jurisprudence (Fiqh), medicine and poetry than Aisha."(Ahmad Muhammad El Howfy, Ph.D - Why the Prophet Muhammad Married More Than One - Page 27-28).
"She was this capable of understanding, comprehending and memorising the prophetic traditions. She could also memorise many incidents of the private life of the prophet and his seclusions. She was better than any woman in comprehending legislations for special purposes. Thus the tells (rowat) of the Traditions recorded many of the prophetic Traditions that she related, and wrote down many incidents she memorised. Scholars too referred to various views she was reported to have uttered, and to which we shall refer in the concluding part of this book.
The marriage of the prophet to Al
Sayeda Aisha was for the sake of friendship amd to create a comfortable
atmosphere in the Reverend House. On the whole it was for the benefit of
islam and the Muslims of both sexes." (Ibid - Page 29).
"It should be borne in mind that, like all acts of the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him), even this marriage had a Divine purpose behind it. Hadrat Aisha was a precocious girl and was devolving both in mind and body with rapidity peculiar to such rare personalities. She was admitted to the house of the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) just at the threshold of her puberty, the most impressionable and formative period of her life. It was the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) who nurtured her sensibilities and directed the growth of her faculties to the most fruitful channel and thus she was made to play an eminent role in the history of Islam." (Abdul Hamid Siddiqi Commentary - Sahih Muslim, Book 8, Number 3309 - Chapter DXLVII - Footnote 1860)
"It should be borne in mind that, like all acts of the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him), even this marriage had a Divine purpose behind it. Hadrat Aisha was a precocious girl and was devolving both in mind and body with rapidity peculiar to such rare personalities. She was admitted to the house of the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) just at the threshold of her puberty, the most impressionable and formative period of her life. It was the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) who nurtured her sensibilities and directed the growth of her faculties to the most fruitful channel and thus she was made to play an eminent role in the history of Islam." (Abdul Hamid Siddiqi Commentary - Sahih Muslim, Book 8, Number 3309 - Chapter DXLVII - Footnote 1860)
So if it wasn't for this marriage, Aisha would have never got all this valuable knowledge & we probably would have never too. There was great wisdom behind this marriage. In light of the historical context, this marriage was not ludicrous as this close minded critic might want us to believe.
He said:
"Loophole after loophole enables adult men to take advantage of young girls."
Reply:
Nothing in Islam allows such. Marriage is a solemn covenant in Islam (Surah Nisa 4:21) and does not allow anyone to take advantage of anyone.
He said:
"The ad hominem tu quoque continues as the author describes, yet again, the marriage of immature girls in other religions. And then he commits blatant falsehoods by declaring:
"The ad hominem tu quoque continues as the author describes, yet again, the marriage of immature girls in other religions. And then he commits blatant falsehoods by declaring:
Judaism allows a man to have sex with a three year old
girl. In Christianity, a man can have sex with a seven year old immature
girl, which subsequently invalidates her right to annul the marriage.
Nowhere in the Jewish or Christian scriptures is permission given to a
man to have sex with a child. None of the prophets or religious leaders
in those scriptures are described as taking a child-bride."
Reply:
With regards to the Jewish scriptures, it DOES allow sex with a child as shown above in Talmud:
Yebamoth 6ob:
"There was a certain town in the Land of Israel the legitimacy of whose inhabitants was disputed, and Rabbi sent R.Romanos who conducted an enquiry and found in it the daughter of a proselyte who was under the age of three years and one day,14 and Rabbir declared her eligible to live with a priest."15
"There was a certain town in the Land of Israel the legitimacy of whose inhabitants was disputed, and Rabbi sent R.Romanos who conducted an enquiry and found in it the daughter of a proselyte who was under the age of three years and one day,14 and Rabbir declared her eligible to live with a priest."15
14: And was married to a priest.
15: I.e., permitted her to continue to live with her husband
One can also refer to (Ibid - 55b & 54b-55a). Christianity allows marriage as soon as a person reasches puberty (1 Corinthians 7:36-38 & Ezekiel 16:4-14).
15: I.e., permitted her to continue to live with her husband
One can also refer to (Ibid - 55b & 54b-55a). Christianity allows marriage as soon as a person reasches puberty (1 Corinthians 7:36-38 & Ezekiel 16:4-14).
He said:
"Jesus emphasized two very important rules declaring them to be one of the greatest of laws and the summation of the Law and Prophets, respectively: Love your neighbor as yourself and in all things, do unto others as you would have them do to you. If a man truly loved his daughter, could he ever think to put her in harm's way or give her hand in marriage against her will to a much older man? Christianity defines morals. It is not, however, intended to define a society's legislature and penal code. Christianity is supposed to help a person become moral so that the laws they do come up with are just. Christianity is not supposed to tell a person exactly what laws must be put in place over a society. Humans are instead encouraged to evolve morally, and so their laws are permitted to evolve with scientific discovery and improved ethics."
Reply:
It has already shown above that Christianity does allow marriages at puberty, regardless as what age the person reaches puberty. Also, the critic is implies the assumption that if parents give their "just after post pubertal" son/daughter in marriage, that they no longer love them. This is a fallacy called False Dilemma which he committed. If a Christian gave his son/daughter in marriage just after she/he reached puberty DOES NOT mean they don't truly love him/her, because the person may want to marry at that age. Similarly, a postpubertal may agree with his/her parents and marry.
It has already shown above that Christianity does allow marriages at puberty, regardless as what age the person reaches puberty. Also, the critic is implies the assumption that if parents give their "just after post pubertal" son/daughter in marriage, that they no longer love them. This is a fallacy called False Dilemma which he committed. If a Christian gave his son/daughter in marriage just after she/he reached puberty DOES NOT mean they don't truly love him/her, because the person may want to marry at that age. Similarly, a postpubertal may agree with his/her parents and marry.
As said before: Jesus confirmed the law (Matthew 5:17-20)
which means it was meant to be enforced. Christianity is not based on
laws which people "come up with" as this would ignore the laws in the
Bible. According to this critic, Christianity's laws can change during
time and this would also imply that those laws which contradict the
Bible cannot be followed. No true Christian would agree with this
because their own Bible tells them to follow the law. Moreover, no-where
does the Bible teach that their laws evolve over time.
He said:
"Also, comparing Judaism and Christianity to Islam is like comparing apples to oranges. The Judeo-Christian religions are just that--religions. Islam is not only a religion, but it is also a political ideology and a rule-of-law intended for ALL people to follow. According to Islam, even Christians and Jews are to be subjected to Islamic rule, and although permitted to practice their religious beliefs, they are still required to obey the Islamic laws. "
"Also, comparing Judaism and Christianity to Islam is like comparing apples to oranges. The Judeo-Christian religions are just that--religions. Islam is not only a religion, but it is also a political ideology and a rule-of-law intended for ALL people to follow. According to Islam, even Christians and Jews are to be subjected to Islamic rule, and although permitted to practice their religious beliefs, they are still required to obey the Islamic laws. "
Reply:
Christians and Jews have the right to live in an Islamic state, but in doing so, that means they agree to follow the rules. Since their are secular rules enforced today, Islam does not compel Jews & Christians to stay in the Islamic state, if they don't want to follow the rules.
He said:
"Continuing to the section about consummation, the author argues that according to Islamic law:
A man may have sex with his wife when she becomes
sexually mature enough such that she is not harmed from having sex in
any way whatsoever.
Now, this is an interesting statement in deed. One has to wonder what the definition of harmed
is considering Muhammad and his fellow Muslims were not biologists or
child psychologists. It is doubtful that they understood the very
negative affects a sexual relationship could have on a child so young,
and would they have been aware of the increased risk of complications
such as cephalopelvic disproportion, obstetric fistulas, fetal death,
infant death, and maternal death? Never mind that pregnancy at such an
early age greatly increases a girl's risk of stunting her growth and
developing osteoporosis and dental problems due to the depletion of
calcium from her bones. With improved science and information about
child psychology and child growth and development, the phrase "no harm
whatsoever" expands exponentially in definition. Muhammad and his
followers, in their ignorance, may honestly not have believed any harm
could come from having sex with young girls. In that, the Prophet has an
excuse. However, this simply proves that Muhammad was not really a
knowledgeable Prophet of God with complete moral understanding, but
rather that he was a typical 7th century Arab with typical 7th century
Arabian knowledge.
Moving on to the Puberty section, the author provides a single, oversimplified definition of puberty
as "the definition of puberty according to the English language",
revealing his dependency yet again on intellectual dishonesty. He
quotes:
The time when a child's body becomes sexually mature
Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary
First of all, puberty is not necessarily a static "time"; it is also a
process. A person is in one of three states of being: (1)
pre-pubescence, (2) pubescence (meaning the person is experiencing
puberty and has not yet completed it), or (3) post-pubescence (meaning
the person has completed puberty and is now a fully mature adult).
Simply because someone is in puberty does not mean that they have
sexually matured to a safe and healthy point of having a sexual
relationship and children."
Reply:
The fact that Islam allows sex in marriage when both members are both physically & mentally mature (as proved above) there is no question of the complications arising which the critic mentioned. Aisha was fully mature when Muhammad consummated the marriage with Aisha as proved above, so there is no questin of these underage sex diseases to occur. In addition, he did have a proper moral understanding, and the morality he was taught was not typical man made subjective rules & morals which secularists hold. The Prophet (as well as Muslims) derive our morals objectively from God. The critic then gives definitions of the word puberty, then soon after, said:
He said:
"However, as our knowledge has grown, we now know that menarche does not make a girl suddenly a woman. Islam, however, cannot truly incorporate such knowledge without also admitting that Muhammad, in his ignorance, had sex with someone who should not have been having sex yet."
"However, as our knowledge has grown, we now know that menarche does not make a girl suddenly a woman. Islam, however, cannot truly incorporate such knowledge without also admitting that Muhammad, in his ignorance, had sex with someone who should not have been having sex yet."
Reply:
Both parities must reach puberty mentally and physically then they are ready for sex. Aisha did. She had a fast growth and this was expected back then, as due to food habits, the climate, etc people reached puberty quickly. So, Muhammad didn't have sex with someone he shouldn't have and this critic is in ignorance. The critic then repeated what he already said then went onto say:
He said:
"His companions also had pedophilic relationships because in their ignorance, they believed that it was not morally wrong to do so."
"His companions also had pedophilic relationships because in their ignorance, they believed that it was not morally wrong to do so."
Reply:
The Hadith the critic bought up in that link do not show at all that they had sex with them. It says they MARRIED them. Islam allows marriage BUT NOT consummation and sex, if both have not attained puberty physically and mentally. The critic needs to provide us with authentic Islamic texts which say that his companions had sex with them before they reached puberty. So far, he has not.
The Hadith the critic bought up in that link do not show at all that they had sex with them. It says they MARRIED them. Islam allows marriage BUT NOT consummation and sex, if both have not attained puberty physically and mentally. The critic needs to provide us with authentic Islamic texts which say that his companions had sex with them before they reached puberty. So far, he has not.
He said:
"The author begs the question by having the reader assume that Abu Dawud meant "physical maturity" as we understand it to mean today when he recorded: "Aisha had reached physical maturity (at the time when her marriage was consummated)."
"The author begs the question by having the reader assume that Abu Dawud meant "physical maturity" as we understand it to mean today when he recorded: "Aisha had reached physical maturity (at the time when her marriage was consummated)."
Reply:
Physical maturity of Aisha is shown in the hadiths we have. For example she had menstruated (as shown above in Bukhari). This is how our scholars have understood it: how we would see physical puberty today is how Aisha was when the marriage was consummated. If the critic doesn't think so, provide evidence that there were signs during the consummation of the marriage of her being prepubescent. Moreover, it was normal that people at that age (nine) to be sexually active (see here). Are we really to believe physical maturity did not mean as how we would define it?
Physical maturity of Aisha is shown in the hadiths we have. For example she had menstruated (as shown above in Bukhari). This is how our scholars have understood it: how we would see physical puberty today is how Aisha was when the marriage was consummated. If the critic doesn't think so, provide evidence that there were signs during the consummation of the marriage of her being prepubescent. Moreover, it was normal that people at that age (nine) to be sexually active (see here). Are we really to believe physical maturity did not mean as how we would define it?
He said:
"After tying himself in convoluted explanations about puberty and consummation of marriage, the author proceeds to reiterate his ad hominem arguments. He illogically associates the Western practice of not persecuting homosexuals with the idea that Christians somehow now view homosexuality to be moral. Providing no sources whatsoever, the author states that Abraham (who is not considered to be a prophet by the Jews and Christians), married someone sixty or seventy years his junior."
Reply:
It is not ad hominem arguments. The author was simply using the standards of Christians against them, since many Christians do not object against something (homosexuality) which is much worse than marriages at puberty (which Bible even allows as shown above). Abraham not considered a prophet by Jews and Christians? That is false.
It is not ad hominem arguments. The author was simply using the standards of Christians against them, since many Christians do not object against something (homosexuality) which is much worse than marriages at puberty (which Bible even allows as shown above). Abraham not considered a prophet by Jews and Christians? That is false.
Genesis 20:7:
"Now return the man's wife, for he is a prophet, and he will pray for you and you will live. But if you do not return her, you may be sure that you and all yours will die."
"Now return the man's wife, for he is a prophet, and he will pray for you and you will live. But if you do not return her, you may be sure that you and all yours will die."
Read the context as it shows it refers to Abraham. Regarding the
Biblical Abraham's marriage with a person (i.e. Hagar) a lot younger
than him, the Muslims didn't show proof of this. However, it is still
possible that she was a teenager when he married here:
"She was old enough to have known better than to trust the words of her master. Alas, she was probably a young teenager, like Mary, the mother of Jesus, who also trusted her master." (Source).
Also, the following states Hagar was young before marrying Abraham (Portraits of Bible Women - George Matheson - Pg.39). Since Abraham was 86 years old when Ishmael was born (Genesis 16:16), it is possible Hagar could have been decades younger than Abraham at the time of marriage.
He said:
"The blatant, unreferenced lies continue as the author declares that Rebecca was three years old when she married the forty-year-old Isaac. In the Torah, she was described as a girl physically capable of carrying jugs of water from a well and providing water to multiple camels. She was able to communicate her willingness to marry Isaac when his servant presented his offer of marriage, and she had the foresight to veil herself upon meeting her betrothed."
Reply:
Firstly, let us look at the definition of the word "lie."
Firstly, let us look at the definition of the word "lie."
"an intentionally false statement." (Oxford Dictionary, Source).
In order to prove the Muslim author was lying, he must prove that:
In order to prove the Muslim author was lying, he must prove that:
> The Muslim author knew that there was supposedly no
evidence for the Biblical Isaac's marriage with a 3 year old, and
evidence Rebecca was was much older than this.
Since the critic cannot prove this, he has no right to call the Muslim author a liar. In addition, we read:
"There are two opinions in the Midrash as to how old Rebecca was at the time of her marriage. According to the traditional counting cited by Rashi, Isaac was 37 years old at the time of the Binding of Isaac, and news of Rebecca's birth reached Abraham immediately after that event (see Rashi on Gen. 22:20). Isaac was 40 years old when he married Rebecca (Gen. 25:20), making Rebecca 3 years old at the time of her marriage." (Source).
"Rashi on Genesis 25:20, following
midrashic calculations, notes that our forefather Isaac was forty years
old when he married Rebecca - who was three years old at the time! This
calculation assumes that Abraham sent his servant to find a wife for
Isaac immediately after the episode of the Akeidah (the binding of
Isaac)." (Maimonides, Spinoza & Us: Toward An Intellectually Vibrant Judaism - By Marc Angel - Pg. 155).
There is another theory which states she was 14/15 (Ibid - Pg. 156) years old however, there is no proof for or against that she had reached puberty at that age.
He said:
"Exploring the section titled "Was Aisha Pre- or Post-Pubertal?", we read:
"Exploring the section titled "Was Aisha Pre- or Post-Pubertal?", we read:
Sure, it sounds strange that a nine or ten year old
girl would be ready for sexual intercourse, but this was over one
thousand years ago, when people used to have an average lifespan in
their twenties.
According to the author's logic: An average lifespan of
twenty makes a nine-year-old girl ready for sexual intercourse! This is
not logic! A does not equal B no matter how much the author wants us to
believe it is so."
Reply:No-where did the author claim that the age of a person's spouse/potential makes the other person physically ready for sex. This is this critic's own false preconceived assumption. It is true than in Arabic back then, the life expectancy was low and in some countries, is still low today (see here). This gives more reason as to why people back then married earlier, in order to have kids quicker. No Muslim would ever claim that the age of a person's spouse/potential makes the other person physically ready for sex.
Reply:No-where did the author claim that the age of a person's spouse/potential makes the other person physically ready for sex. This is this critic's own false preconceived assumption. It is true than in Arabic back then, the life expectancy was low and in some countries, is still low today (see here). This gives more reason as to why people back then married earlier, in order to have kids quicker. No Muslim would ever claim that the age of a person's spouse/potential makes the other person physically ready for sex.
Also, the marriage of a middle-aged/older man with a younger female is often successful and peaceful:
"When the difference (in ages) is great, e.g, exceeds fifteen or twenty years, the results may be happier. The marriage of an elderly (senescent) - not, of course, an old (senile) - man to a quite young girl, is often very successful and harmonious. The bride is immediately introduced and accustomed to moderate sexual intercourse." (Von De Velde - Ideal Marriage, It's Psychology and Technique - London, 1962 - Pg. 243).
He said:
"Inadvertantly the author reveals Aisha's ignorance about puberty and maturity by quoting:
"Inadvertantly the author reveals Aisha's ignorance about puberty and maturity by quoting:
When the girl reaches nine years of age, she is a woman.
Sunan al-Tirmidhi, Kitab al-Nikah
The author begs the question AGAIN when he then states:
From this, we can see that Aisha had the body of a
woman when she consummated her marriage with the Prophet. She was
mature, and not immature, as the Islamophobes claim.
The author had already spent considerable time
reiterating that ancient societies viewed menarche as maturity, but that
Islamic scholars now should not interpret it as such; however, when a
7th century Arab woman makes the ridiculous claim that a nine-year-old
girl is in fact a woman, the author would have us believe that this must
mean Aisha was physically mature when her marriage was consummated.
Isn't it quite possible that Aisha considered herself a woman at the age of nine because
she was married at the age of six and her husband had sex with her only
three years later? Considering that she was not a medical doctor or a
child psychologist, her statement that "when the girl reaches nine years
of age, she is a woman" only goes to show her profound ignorance. She
associated sex with adulthood, rather than associating adulthood with
sex (as it should be).
Reply:
The Hadith refers to HERSELF as being a woman, not any female who reaches nine.
"In fact, the Prophet (Sallallahu
Alaihi wa Sallam) did not take her to his house as bride till she
reached the age of puberty and was able to have sex with her. For that reason she used to say: "When a girl reaches nine years she becomes a woman" . [ Ahmad and al-Tirmizi ]." (Source).
To further support the fact it does refer to her, we also have:
'Al-Dawoodi said: Aa'ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) was reached physical maturity (at the time when her marriage was consummated)." (Sharh Muslim, 9/206 - cited here).
Also, we would like to see evidence for the critic's odd theory that: "Isn't it quite possible that Aisha considered herself a woman at the age of nine because she was married at the age of six and her husband had sex with her only three years later?" Cite the proof instead of making up theories. Also, the marriage was not completed at 6. It was completed at 9.
Also, we would like to see evidence for the critic's odd theory that: "Isn't it quite possible that Aisha considered herself a woman at the age of nine because she was married at the age of six and her husband had sex with her only three years later?" Cite the proof instead of making up theories. Also, the marriage was not completed at 6. It was completed at 9.
He said:
"The arguments take a confusing turn as the author discusses Aisha's dolls. He attempts to prove that because some adults play with dolls then Aisha could very well have been an adult even though the ahadith record that she was playing with dolls at the time her marriage was consummated. After having quoted non-sahih ahadith and Islamic scholars to prove his previous arguments, in order to defend against a sahih hadith that explains only prepubescent girls were permitted to play with dolls, the author states:
To properly understand why this argument is a weak one, we need to clarify a few things. First of all, the Islamic Law (Shari'ah) comes from the Quran and the authentic hadeeths (Prophetic sayings); these two texts--the Word of God (Quran) and His Messenger (hadeeths)--are considered the Islamic canon.
So, only the Islamic canon may be referred to in regards to underage
Islamic marriages, but the author need not limit himself to the Jewish
and Christian canons when discussing underage marriages in Jewish and
Christian societies. His double-standard is embarrassingly obvious."
Reply:
Hilarious. This critic has quote NO muhaddiths who stated the hadiths are not sahih. His blunder above to try & disregard a hadith in Abu Dawud show also shows his ignorance, and he has no right to speak on matters which he lacks the 'ilm (knowledge). Hadiths which are not in Bukhari & Muslim do not automatically become non-sahih. To analyse as to whether or not they are sahih, the sciences of Hadith has to be implemented. Ironically, this critic has absolutely no problem in citing Hadiths not in Bukhari and Muslim and using them against Muslims on his website, which reveals the double standards.
Hilarious. This critic has quote NO muhaddiths who stated the hadiths are not sahih. His blunder above to try & disregard a hadith in Abu Dawud show also shows his ignorance, and he has no right to speak on matters which he lacks the 'ilm (knowledge). Hadiths which are not in Bukhari & Muslim do not automatically become non-sahih. To analyse as to whether or not they are sahih, the sciences of Hadith has to be implemented. Ironically, this critic has absolutely no problem in citing Hadiths not in Bukhari and Muslim and using them against Muslims on his website, which reveals the double standards.
The critic then accused the author of double standards.
Since the Talmud does support underage marriages (under the age of
puberty) and the Bible supports marriages at puberty, there is no double
standards as their scriptures have been quoted as evidence.
He said:
"It would make sense that an adult woman capable of understanding such things would be forbidden from having things like dolls which are small replicas of humans and other creatures, just as the statements made in this hadith reiterate:
"It would make sense that an adult woman capable of understanding such things would be forbidden from having things like dolls which are small replicas of humans and other creatures, just as the statements made in this hadith reiterate:
Narrated 'Aisha: I used to play with the dolls in the
presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me.
When Allah's Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide
themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The
playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was
allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet
reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13)
While the author would have us accept the statements as truth made by modern-day Islamic scholars, he would have us ignore the Fateh-al-Bari, a 15th century Islamic scholar's famous commentary on the Sahih Bukhari."
Reply:
There is no evidence that during this time, the marriage was consummated. Regarding dolls: For people below puberty, they can play with dolls which have a face. For post pubertal people, the can play only with those dolls which do not have faces.
There is no evidence that during this time, the marriage was consummated. Regarding dolls: For people below puberty, they can play with dolls which have a face. For post pubertal people, the can play only with those dolls which do not have faces.
"With regard to those in which the
shape is incomplete, in which there is only a part of the limbs or
head, but the shape is not clear, there is no doubt that these are
permissible, and these are like the dolls with which 'Aa'ishah used to
play. (Narrated in al-Bukhaari, 6130; Muslim, 2440).
But if the shape is complete, and it is as if you are looking at a person - especially if it can move or speak - then I am not entirely at ease with the idea of them being permissible, because this is a complete imitation of the creation of Allaah. It seems that the dolls with which 'Aa'ishah used to play were not like this, so it is preferable to avoid them. But I cannot say that they are definitely haraam, because there are concessions granted to young children that are not granted to adults in such matters. It is natural for young children to play and have fun, they are not obliged to do any of the acts of worship so we cannot say that that they are wasting their time in idle play. But if a person wants to be on the safe side in such matters, he should cut off the head or hold it near the fire until it softens, then he should press it until the features disappear." (Majmoo' Fataawa al-Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him), 2/277-278, cited here)
But if the shape is complete, and it is as if you are looking at a person - especially if it can move or speak - then I am not entirely at ease with the idea of them being permissible, because this is a complete imitation of the creation of Allaah. It seems that the dolls with which 'Aa'ishah used to play were not like this, so it is preferable to avoid them. But I cannot say that they are definitely haraam, because there are concessions granted to young children that are not granted to adults in such matters. It is natural for young children to play and have fun, they are not obliged to do any of the acts of worship so we cannot say that that they are wasting their time in idle play. But if a person wants to be on the safe side in such matters, he should cut off the head or hold it near the fire until it softens, then he should press it until the features disappear." (Majmoo' Fataawa al-Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him), 2/277-278, cited here)
It is possible these dolls which Aisha played with were shaped in a way that it wasn't haram for an adult to play with them. Ibn Abbas stated:
"What constitutes the picture is the face so if it were to be removed then it is not a picture anymore" [Sheikh Albani declared this narration to be authentic in Silsilah Al-Saheeha, Hadith no. 1921].
"What constitutes the picture is the face so if it were to be removed then it is not a picture anymore" [Sheikh Albani declared this narration to be authentic in Silsilah Al-Saheeha, Hadith no. 1921].
He said:
"He also brings up a hadith in a less-trustworthy hadith (the Sunan Abu Dawud) to prove that Muhammad did not rebuke Aisha for not playing with dolls, therefore it must not have been forbidden for pubescent and post-pubescent women."
Reply:
The issue of dolls in Islam has already been discussed. The critic has no clue as to whether the Hadith is Sahih, hasan, etc according to the sciences of the Hadith. There are unauthentic Hadiths in Abu Dawud, but this doesn't mean that this particular Hadith is not sahih. This critic himself has quoted from unauthentic books on his site, and such examples are:
1. In this
link (which the critic later posted), the critic cited from Tabari,
when Tabari HIMSELF tells us that he only wrote down what he heard &
we should analyse as to whether these are sahih or not. See here.
2. In this
link, the critic posted Tabari and Ibn Ishaq narrations, when scholars
have CONDEMNED Ishaq for his lousiness in collecting, and deliberately
collecting weak sources. See here.
Several examples of this critic using weak sources on his site could be shown. But now when the Muslim used a Hadith not in Bukhari and Muslim (in Abu Dawud), he has a problem. Very unscholarly indeed and shows his double standards.
Several examples of this critic using weak sources on his site could be shown. But now when the Muslim used a Hadith not in Bukhari and Muslim (in Abu Dawud), he has a problem. Very unscholarly indeed and shows his double standards.
The hadith in question is:
الراوي عائشة : قدم رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ، من
غزوة تبوك – أو خيبر – وفي سهوتها ستر ، فهبت ريح فكشفت ناحية الستر ، عن بنات
لعائشة – لعب – فقال : ما هذا يا عائشة ؟ قالت : بناتي ! ورأى بينهن فرسا له جناحان
من رقاع ، فقال : ما هذا الذي أرى وسطهن ؟ قالت : فرس ، قال : وما هذا الذي عليه ؟
قالت : جناحان ، قال : فرس له جناحان ؟ قالت : أما سمعت : أن لسليمان خيلا لها
أجنحة ؟ قالت : فضحك حتى رأيت نواجذه
"Narrated Aisha: As the Messenger of Allah
(pbuh) came after the expedition to Tabuk or Khaybar, the draught raised an end
of a curtain which was hung in front of her store-room, revealing some dolls
that belonged to her. He asked: What's this? She replied: My dolls. Among them
he saw a horse with wings made of rags, and asked: What is this I see among
them? She replied: A horse. He asked: What is this that it has on it? She
replied: Two wings. He asked: A horse with two wings? She replied: Have you not
heard that Solomon had horses with wings? She said: Thereupon the Apostle of
Allah (pbuh) laughed so heartily that I could see his molar teeth." (Abu
Dawud, Number 4932 -
Source).
Now, since the critic is ignorant of the authenticity of the above narration, we shall enlighten him/her with it. This hadith is Sahih according to Abu Dawud & Sheikh Albani, but it is Hasan (Good) according to Ibn Hajar (Source). This narration is also in Musnad Ahmad, declared Sahih by Ahmed Shakir (Source). Anyone who is well acquainted with the Usool al-Hadith with never blindly assume that a hadith is not sahih, just because it's not in Bukhari or Muslim.
He said:
"This requires the assumption that Muhammad followed all of Islam's rules. Many of the Quran's verses were revealed upon necessity, and Muhammad himself violated several of its edicts. The author's premise is based upon the assumption that Shari'a was perfected at the time of this hadith's occurence (unlikely considering the Quran was still in the process of being revealed) and that Muhammad always abided by the laws presented in the Quran. In fact, Muhammad violated the Quran on several instances."
"This requires the assumption that Muhammad followed all of Islam's rules. Many of the Quran's verses were revealed upon necessity, and Muhammad himself violated several of its edicts. The author's premise is based upon the assumption that Shari'a was perfected at the time of this hadith's occurence (unlikely considering the Quran was still in the process of being revealed) and that Muhammad always abided by the laws presented in the Quran. In fact, Muhammad violated the Quran on several instances."
Reply:
The issue of dolls in Islam has already been discussed. This critic has to assume Muhammad violated the Quranic rules, when in reality he never. The article link he posted has been refuted here.
The issue of dolls in Islam has already been discussed. This critic has to assume Muhammad violated the Quranic rules, when in reality he never. The article link he posted has been refuted here.
He said:
"The author's next argument is regarding Aisha's immaturity. He mentions the ahadith commonly referenced on Islamophobic websites that Islamophobes use to prove that Aisha was immature when she was married. These ahadith are: Sahih Bukhari 3:48:805, Sahih Bukhari 3:49:829, and Sahih Muslim 37:6673. Apparently the author feels that Bassam Zawadi, an Islamic apologist who focuses on Islam vs. Christianity debates, is a more knowledgeable scholar of Arabic than the ones responsible for the widely available translations of Bukhari and Muslim ahadith, because he argues that Aisha was described as simply "young" not "immature. Apparently a girl's young age excuses her from chores like keeping the goats from eating bread dough, however it is not indicative of being too young for sexual relations. One has to wonder if the author has any daughters. "
Reply:
The critic is appealing to scholarship, however, when it comes to translations, every translator is bound to make mistranslations. Bassam Zawadi knows Arabic fluently & Islam. Moreover, the same word "Haditha" in Sahih Muslim has been been translated as "young" when describing Aisha. See the Arabic of a Sahih Muslim hadith here and translation here. Now, "young" doesn't mean prepubescent. Various people we call young today & so did people back then, yet such people have passed puberty. So, the critic cannot try and create an image as if this word has only been translated as "immature" because it certainly has not.
The critic is appealing to scholarship, however, when it comes to translations, every translator is bound to make mistranslations. Bassam Zawadi knows Arabic fluently & Islam. Moreover, the same word "Haditha" in Sahih Muslim has been been translated as "young" when describing Aisha. See the Arabic of a Sahih Muslim hadith here and translation here. Now, "young" doesn't mean prepubescent. Various people we call young today & so did people back then, yet such people have passed puberty. So, the critic cannot try and create an image as if this word has only been translated as "immature" because it certainly has not.
Assuming the assumption that "immature" is the correct
translation in those Hadiths and it & can only refer to a person
below puberty, we know in Islamic law, sex can only occur after
consummation,
and consummation only occurs after puberty (as shown above).
So the critic failed to prove whether the marriage was already
consummated or not, during that time in the Hadiths & failed to show
that prepubescent sex occurred. In addition, the issue of the chores
and goats: whether she did that or not, it has nothing to do with
whether or not the marriage was consummated at that time or not.
He said:
"Moving on to the section titled "Who Decides When a Girl is Mature?", we are told that according to Islamic law, it is the father who decides the readiness of the girl. He states:
"Moving on to the section titled "Who Decides When a Girl is Mature?", we are told that according to Islamic law, it is the father who decides the readiness of the girl. He states:
A father is the protector and maintainer of his
daughter, and he would have the best interest of the child in mind. Who
knows the daughter better than the father?
Oh, I don't know...the mother perhaps? Maybe the sister? Or how about the daughter herself?!"
Reply:
Yes it is the Father, but not only the Father. The parents can decide when they think it is ready for her to marry, but the person has to agree to a marriage. She cannot be forced into it.
Yes it is the Father, but not only the Father. The parents can decide when they think it is ready for her to marry, but the person has to agree to a marriage. She cannot be forced into it.
Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the
one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their
property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient,
guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom
ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and
scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo!
Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great."
Reply:
Appealing to a weak translation of a certain Arabic word in this verse. The Arabic word means "tap" or "beat LIGHTLY" in context of the Hadiths and this sybolic beating only occurs if the previous 2 steps fail to stop the female from dong something unlawful. For more, go here, here and here.
Appealing to a weak translation of a certain Arabic word in this verse. The Arabic word means "tap" or "beat LIGHTLY" in context of the Hadiths and this sybolic beating only occurs if the previous 2 steps fail to stop the female from dong something unlawful. For more, go here, here and here.
He said:
"Although the vast majority of fathers on this planet are not perverts and probably have their daughter's well-being at heart, the Islamic law fails to protect those girls whose fathers are sexually deviant or incredibly selfish enough to marry their daughters to much older men in order to increase their political or societal positions."
Reply:
No is doesn't sir. Islam does not compel the children to marry if they don't want to. Surah 4:34 is LIGHT beating which occurs in specific circumstances. Several Hadiths (shown in the links posted above) teach us not to harm the females but to keep them safe. The punishments in Islam for violating this act as a deterrent, which is lacking in the lenient western laws.
No is doesn't sir. Islam does not compel the children to marry if they don't want to. Surah 4:34 is LIGHT beating which occurs in specific circumstances. Several Hadiths (shown in the links posted above) teach us not to harm the females but to keep them safe. The punishments in Islam for violating this act as a deterrent, which is lacking in the lenient western laws.
He said:"The author
goes on to make a nonsensical argument about how Islamic law protects
girls whose fathers are sexually abusing them, and then moves on to
discuss marital laws in the United States. On and on he rambles about
the differences in state laws, all the while displaying his ignorance of
said laws since he fails to mention that parental permission is
required before the court-of-law in order for a girl under the age of
eighteen to be married anywhere in the United States. There are only a
few states that will allow marriage for teenages under the age of
eighteen without parental permission IF there is a pregnancy. And even
with parental approval, most states require COURT APPROVAL for teenagers
under the age of sixteen. The purpose of the law is not so that the
government can have control over teenagers' relationships, but rather to
protect children and teenagers from exploitation."
Reply:
The critic hasn't proved that Islam does not protect females whose fathers are sexually abusing them, and he will never be able to. In contrast, the western law gives a much less stricter punishment for those who commit incest as compared to the the strict and effective Islamic law. So Islam prevents child exploitation far more than the western law will ever.
The critic hasn't proved that Islam does not protect females whose fathers are sexually abusing them, and he will never be able to. In contrast, the western law gives a much less stricter punishment for those who commit incest as compared to the the strict and effective Islamic law. So Islam prevents child exploitation far more than the western law will ever.
He said:
"The author argues that it is haram for a father to oppress his daughter. Well, that's all fine and dandy, however just because something is described as sinful it doesn't prevent someone from doing just that."
Reply:
For a Muslim it does, because he would know that he would be question for sinning in the day of judgment. Even if a so called Muslim is purposefully heedless of oppressing his daughter, you cannot analyse a religion on the blacksheeps as discussed earlier.
For a Muslim it does, because he would know that he would be question for sinning in the day of judgment. Even if a so called Muslim is purposefully heedless of oppressing his daughter, you cannot analyse a religion on the blacksheeps as discussed earlier.
He said:
"He then goes on to discuss forced marriages and how they are haram. Many times coersion and pressure occurs privately in the home, so the court is usually not involved when a girl's entire community pressures her to faithfully obey her parents and abide by strict rules that segrate her from men and even her own betrothed. Would such a girl even know how to go about refusing a marriage without putting her reputation and perhaps even her life at risk? Under Islamic law, the burden of proof is placed on the girl. She must go to court in order to refuse a marriage."
Reply:
Again, the critic is falsely analysing Islam based on what certain people do. Also, the critic is false by alleging that the person mist go into court to refuse the marriage. In Islam, the person can simply deny marrying the person by letting the relevant parties know about it. What the author said is that IF YOU ARE FORCED into marriage, then she can have the marriage annulled by simply going into court. Refer to the author's book here, pages 121-125. Now, if Muslims today make it difficult on others to annul marriages, this is not a part of Islam. The critic can't go around analysing Islam based on the blacksheeps, if he wants to be consistent.
Again, the critic is falsely analysing Islam based on what certain people do. Also, the critic is false by alleging that the person mist go into court to refuse the marriage. In Islam, the person can simply deny marrying the person by letting the relevant parties know about it. What the author said is that IF YOU ARE FORCED into marriage, then she can have the marriage annulled by simply going into court. Refer to the author's book here, pages 121-125. Now, if Muslims today make it difficult on others to annul marriages, this is not a part of Islam. The critic can't go around analysing Islam based on the blacksheeps, if he wants to be consistent.
He said:
"Since marriage is not considered an individual undertaking between two people who are interested in one another but rather a contract made between two families, a girl is easily exploited and left with only complicated and difficult avenues of escape."
Reply:
Is the critic blind or what? The Muslim clearly presented a verse in the Quran in his book, page 121.
Is the critic blind or what? The Muslim clearly presented a verse in the Quran in his book, page 121.
Surah Nisa 4:19:
"O ye who believe! Ye are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should ye treat them with harshness, that ye may Take away part of the dower ye have given them,-except where they have been guilty of open lewdness; on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and Allah brings about through it a great deal of good."
"O ye who believe! Ye are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should ye treat them with harshness, that ye may Take away part of the dower ye have given them,-except where they have been guilty of open lewdness; on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and Allah brings about through it a great deal of good."
A verse not mentioned in his book but is worth briging up:
"And how could ye take it when ye have gone in unto each other, and they have Taken from you a solemn covenant?"
So, marriage in Islam IS an individual undertaking
between two people who are interested in one another. There is nothing
in Islam which encourages exploitation of anyone. If people today do
this, Islam condemns it.
He said:
"The author continues in a tiring discussion about legal marriage ages and governments and concludes the topic with an appeal to moral relativity: "It would be absolute hubris for the post-modern man to look down on the sociological norms of ancient civilizations." Well, Mr. Hashimi, it would not be hubris if that norm is supposed to be based on the lifestyle of a man claiming to be the Messenger of God and the best example of humanity."
He said:
"The author continues in a tiring discussion about legal marriage ages and governments and concludes the topic with an appeal to moral relativity: "It would be absolute hubris for the post-modern man to look down on the sociological norms of ancient civilizations." Well, Mr. Hashimi, it would not be hubris if that norm is supposed to be based on the lifestyle of a man claiming to be the Messenger of God and the best example of humanity."
Reply:
He's given no objective reason as to why it wouldn't be: "hubris if that norm is supposed to be based on the lifestyle of a man claiming to be the Messenger of God and the best example of humanity."
He's given no objective reason as to why it wouldn't be: "hubris if that norm is supposed to be based on the lifestyle of a man claiming to be the Messenger of God and the best example of humanity."
He said:
"A. "Puberty is sexual maturity" (This is an inaccurate definition.)
B. "Islamic scholars are agreed that puberty is a precondition for marriage" (This is a gross over-generalization and deceiving considering many Islamic scholars agree that menarche defines puberty. Besides, Muhammad was not answerable to Islamic scholars.)
C. "Aisha moved into the Prophet's house after she attained the age of puberty" (Puberty according to 7th century Arabia standards, not 21st...but the author fails to explain this.).
The author's logic: Since B requires A, that must mean C; therefore Muhammad is not a pedophile. Sorry, Mr. Hashimi but this simply does not add up. "
"A. "Puberty is sexual maturity" (This is an inaccurate definition.)
B. "Islamic scholars are agreed that puberty is a precondition for marriage" (This is a gross over-generalization and deceiving considering many Islamic scholars agree that menarche defines puberty. Besides, Muhammad was not answerable to Islamic scholars.)
C. "Aisha moved into the Prophet's house after she attained the age of puberty" (Puberty according to 7th century Arabia standards, not 21st...but the author fails to explain this.).
The author's logic: Since B requires A, that must mean C; therefore Muhammad is not a pedophile. Sorry, Mr. Hashimi but this simply does not add up. "
Reply:
What the critic fails to realize is that the author was giving a general definition of the word. Moreover, I don't believe the Muslim author was generalizing on all Muslim scholar. In addition, the critic needs to PROVE that "many" scholars agree that only menarche defines puberty. Ironically, this critic himself committed the "hasty generalization fallacy" a few times as shown: here and also above when he tried to generalize Islam based on the few blacksheeps. Amazing double standards. Furthermore, it was from Muhammad which the Islamic scholars concluded that puberty is a precondition for marriage. When Aisha moved into the Prophet's house, she was both physically and mentally mature as shown above. So, he was not a pedophile and the critic failed to show evidence of this.
What the critic fails to realize is that the author was giving a general definition of the word. Moreover, I don't believe the Muslim author was generalizing on all Muslim scholar. In addition, the critic needs to PROVE that "many" scholars agree that only menarche defines puberty. Ironically, this critic himself committed the "hasty generalization fallacy" a few times as shown: here and also above when he tried to generalize Islam based on the few blacksheeps. Amazing double standards. Furthermore, it was from Muhammad which the Islamic scholars concluded that puberty is a precondition for marriage. When Aisha moved into the Prophet's house, she was both physically and mentally mature as shown above. So, he was not a pedophile and the critic failed to show evidence of this.
He said:
"The article the author quotes to define pedophilia also states: "An adult who engages in sexual activity with a child is performing a criminal and immoral act and this is never considered normal or socially acceptable behavior." The criteria for pedophilia is as follows:
A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent,
intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors
involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children
(generally age 13 years or younger);
B. The person has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or
fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty;
C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.
C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.
Muhammad had sex with Aisha from the time that she was nine years old
until his death nine years later. He was 44 years her senior. Just
because 7th century Arabs may have considered Aisha a woman does not
mean that if she were born today she would be seen in the same light. A
nine-year-old girl today would still be considered a child by the very
society that relies upon the DSM-IV-TR criteria for pedophilia."
Reply:
It seems this critic is trying to mislead his readers into thinking that because she was 9 that = she was too young / not in puberty. It was not only the scholars that considered her a woman, Aisha HERSELF considered herself a woman as shown above. In addition, the critic is appealing to man made laws which define at what age a person is no longer a child and at what age the person is a child. This carries no weight at all in proving Aisha was not physically and mentally mature for sex. The evidence has already been shown that Islam allows sex when both parties are physically and sexually mature.
Reply:
It seems this critic is trying to mislead his readers into thinking that because she was 9 that = she was too young / not in puberty. It was not only the scholars that considered her a woman, Aisha HERSELF considered herself a woman as shown above. In addition, the critic is appealing to man made laws which define at what age a person is no longer a child and at what age the person is a child. This carries no weight at all in proving Aisha was not physically and mentally mature for sex. The evidence has already been shown that Islam allows sex when both parties are physically and sexually mature.
Now it is time to use the definitions the critic has given above to prove Joseph is a pedophile.
Mary was 12 years old when she was married to Joseph (Oxford Dictionary Bible Commentary).
"...it is possible that Mary gave birth to her Son when she was about thirteen or fourteen years of age." (Source).
Joseph was in his 90's around that time:
"The priests announced through Judea
that they wished to find in the tribe of Juda a respectable man to
espouse Mary, then twelve to fourteen years of age. Joseph,
who was at the time ninety years old, went up to Jerusalem among the candidates." (Source).
There was a 70 year gap between the 2. Using the definition which this critic provided:
who was at the time ninety years old, went up to Jerusalem among the candidates." (Source).
There was a 70 year gap between the 2. Using the definition which this critic provided:
"C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A."
We would therefore have to conclude that Joseph was a pedophile because of the 70+ year gap. But notice, with this same definition, the critic only attacked Prophet Muhammad but didn't attack Joseph. Amazing double standards.
He said:
"The reader should be aware that this definition is not the world's only definition. It is amusing that the author relies on an American definition when he also criticizes America for trying to protect children by enforcing such "high" legal ages of consent. The DSM-IV-TR criteria is simply what American psychologists use in order to formally diagnose the pathological disorder of pedophilia. In reality, American law enforcement uses the term "pedophile" in a much broader sense. A 54-year-old man who has sex with a nine-year-old girl would easily be labeled a pedophile according to law enforcement standards considering the typical definition of a pedophile is "an adult who is sexually attracted to young children." A man need not be exclusively attracted to children in order to be labeled as a pedophile."
Reply:
So if the Muslim was to rely on Islamic dictionaries when defining the word "puberty," do you think it would convince the western audience? Give me a break. He was showing us how the west defines puberty, because it carries more weight in the eyes of people today. Using this critic's own logic:
1. Critic's use the definition of Arabic words from Islamic dictionaries/scholars.
2. The same critic's also accuse certain Islamic rules.
3. Therefore, we should find these critic's amusing for doing this.
So if the Muslim was to rely on Islamic dictionaries when defining the word "puberty," do you think it would convince the western audience? Give me a break. He was showing us how the west defines puberty, because it carries more weight in the eyes of people today. Using this critic's own logic:
1. Critic's use the definition of Arabic words from Islamic dictionaries/scholars.
2. The same critic's also accuse certain Islamic rules.
3. Therefore, we should find these critic's amusing for doing this.
It is an illogical argument which carries no weight.
Also, since the advancement of science has proved that having sex when a
person is physically and mentally mature, there is nothing OBJECTIVELY
wrong about Muhammad's marriage with Aisha. Appealing to common
practice, the majority and man made laws do not prove anything.
Moreover, when Aisha's marriage was consummated, this does not fall into
the category of "young children" in Islam. It does in your secular man
made laws, but this isn't objective evidence against the marriage.
He said:
"As the author has proved for us with the Sahih Bukhari, Aisha was considered a young girl even after the consummation of her marriage."
"As the author has proved for us with the Sahih Bukhari, Aisha was considered a young girl even after the consummation of her marriage."
Reply:
Firstly, show where the Hadiths tells us that it was after the consumation. Secondly, the Arabic "young" used in the correct translation of the Hadiths (as Bassam Zawadi - an Arabic speaker) said DOES NOT mean immature. A person can be called a "girl" but this doesn't mean that the person is prepubescent.
Firstly, show where the Hadiths tells us that it was after the consumation. Secondly, the Arabic "young" used in the correct translation of the Hadiths (as Bassam Zawadi - an Arabic speaker) said DOES NOT mean immature. A person can be called a "girl" but this doesn't mean that the person is prepubescent.
He said:
"According to the World Health Organization, pedophilia is defined as:
A sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age.
Therefore, if Aisha had in fact experienced menarche an American psychologist might
not be able to give a formal diagnosis of pedophilia; however, in
America Muhammad would be arrested for rape and other crimes against a
minor, as would Abu Bakr for facilitating such an arrangement and, if
Muhammad ever got out of prison, for the rest of his life he would have
to register as a sex offender. American law enforcement as well as
American society would view him as a pedophile."
Reply:
His marriage was not because he had a desire to have sex with young children. It had many advantages for unity and the Muslim ummah as proved above. It has already proven above Aisha was both physically and mentally mature at consummation. Notice he is showing the consequences of man made laws, to try and give the reader objective reason to condemn the marriage. There is no objective reason. It seems this critic is on the verge of committing the "appeal to common practice" fallacy.
He said:
"The author failed to prove that the label of "pedophile" is inaccurate for a 54-year-old man who has sexual intercourse with a nine-year-old girl."
Reply:
This critic has falsely used a man made definition of the word "pedophile" based on the age consent which is also man made. It is well documented that not too long ago, several marriages under the age of 18 occurred in western and European areas. According to this critic's definitions, we are to label them for pedophilia. This is ridiculous, and is out of it's jurisdiction.
This critic has falsely used a man made definition of the word "pedophile" based on the age consent which is also man made. It is well documented that not too long ago, several marriages under the age of 18 occurred in western and European areas. According to this critic's definitions, we are to label them for pedophilia. This is ridiculous, and is out of it's jurisdiction.
The fact will always be this: Aisha was both physically and mentally mature to have sex at consummation so there is NOTHING OBJECTIVELY wrong about. Critic's can try all they like to convince subjective and emotional people by throwing attacks like: Ad Hominem attacks, appeal to ridicule,
appeal to common practice and emotion
fallacies, but it will prove nothing. Another fact is that this allegation
wasn't bought up, until a good 1200-1300 years after the Prophet's demise, as these marriages
weren't seen as immoral. We are not going to call your predecessors paedophiles now, are we?
Muslims should not worry about these incompetent critics who
think they know Islam, yet don't study our best sources which mostly aren't
available in their language. We should let rationality overcome emotions &
not fall for these silly appeal to emotion arguments. That is probably a reason why we are not non-Muslims.
Further readings:
http://letmeturnthetables.blogspot.com/2008/07/why-prophet-muhammad-married-aisha-when.html
http://call-to-monotheism.com/why_did_prophet_muhammed_marry_aisha_at_a_young_age__is_that_morally_right__what_about_paedophilia___by_dan_1988
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Polemics/aishah.html
http://muslim-responses.com/Marriage_with_Aisha/Marriage_with_Aisha_
http://islamic-replies.ucoz.com/Marriage_Aisha.html
http://islamic-replies.ucoz.com/Muhammad/Why_the_Prophet_Muhammad_Married_More_Than_One.pdf
http://www.scribd.com/doc/7567922/10-Easy-Steps-Refuting-Slander-Against-Prophet-Muhammed-pbuh-Marriage-to-Aisha
