Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Whether it's true or not, no will probably knows, but I read that his child bride later remarked to him something along the lines (strictly paraphrasing here, it's too long since I read it), that he found a religion to suit his sin. I think you get the drift of it.
I am sure that remark, "he found a religion to suit his sin" was never made by Aisha. At the time of the marriage, the religion wasn't completed but it was completed after another 10 years.
In any case, if a "child bride" makes such a remark, she is well aware of what sin is and is not a child but a grown up and mentally mature. This too indicates that the bride was much older than being a 9 year old child.
Whether it's true or not, no will probably knows, but I read that his child bride later remarked to him something along the lines (strictly paraphrasing here, it's too long since I read it), that he found a religion to suit his sin. I think you get the drift of it.
And a betrothal means she stays with parents until married. Not she goes to live with husband, and he just "waits" until she's of a mature age. So IF she was with him at 9, it was no longer a betrothal. Peace
People manipulate stories in order to make Muhammad and Islam look bad.
Two quotes, read the links for the whole story.
Those who manipulate her story to justify the abuse of young girls, and those who manipulate it in order to depict Islam as a religion that legitimises such abuse have more in common than they think. Both demonstrate a disregard for what we know about the times in which Muhammad lived, and for the affirmation of female autonomy which her story illustrates.
Pasted from <https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/sep/17/muhammad-aisha-truth>
“A great misconception prevails as to the age at which Aisha was taken in marriage by the Prophet. Ibn Sa‘d has stated in the*Tabaqat*that when Abu Bakr [father of Aisha] was approached on behalf of the Holy Prophet, he replied that the girl had already been betrothed to Jubair, and that he would have to settle the matter first with him. This shows that Aisha must have been approaching majority at the time. Again, the*Isaba, speaking of the Prophet’s daughter Fatima, says that she was born five years before the Call and was about five years older than Aisha. This shows that Aisha must have been about ten years at the time of her betrothal to the Prophet, and not six years as she is generally supposed to be. This is further borne out by the fact that Aisha herself is reported to have stated that when the chapter [of the Holy Quran] entitled*The Moon,*the fifty-fourth chapter, was revealed, she was a girl playing about and remembered certain verses then revealed. Now the fifty-fourth chapter was undoubtedly revealed before the sixth year of the Call. All these considerations point to but one conclusion, viz., that Aisha could not have been less than ten years of age at the time of her*nikah, which was virtually only a betrothal. And there is one report in the*Tabaqat*that Aisha was nine years of age at the time of*nikah.*Again it is a fact admitted on all hands that the*nikah*of Aisha took place in the tenth year of the Call in the month of Shawwal, while there is also preponderance of evidence as to the consummation of her marriage taking place in the second year of Hijra in the same month, which shows that full five years had elapsed between the*nikah*and the consummation. Hence there is not the least doubt that Aisha was*at least*nine or ten years of age at the time of betrothal, and fourteen or fifteen years at the time of marriage.
Pasted from <http://www.muslim.org/islam/aisha-age.htm>
And According to the Bibliolatrous and "Quiverfull" [quivering in fear of Yahweh the monstrous shame?] anti-birth-control Vaughn Ohlman (conservative evangelical pastor of the Duggars from 19 kids and counting]:
Quote:
We believe that not only should most people marry, they should marry in their youth. The Bible speaks of the “wife of thy youth” (Prov. 5:18; Is. 54:6; Mal. 2:14-15) and “children of the youth” (Ps. 127:4). Scripture also speaks of not letting children pass the flower of their age (1 Cor. 7:36) … Leaving the physically mature young man struggling with fornication and leaving the physically mature young woman wallowing in fruitless, barren celibacy—these are both unscriptural and ungodly actions.
Well maybe Josh Duggar was past the flower of age, but they are hardly fruitless. How does he explain an infertile couple who allegedly done everything 'right by God' no adultery etc?That Ohlman guy is nuts
Anyhow,many people use Mary to try condoning young marriage and teen pregnancy without considering the culture..
I'm not conservative but we shouldn't condone Islam or any religion that runs on male dominance and submissive wives.The Aisha story doesn't erase all the other problems.
Well maybe Josh Duggar was past the flower of age, but they are hardly fruitless. How does he explain an infertile couple who allegedly done everything 'right by God' no adultery etc?That Ohlman guy is nuts
Anyhow,many people use Mary to try condoning young marriage and teen pregnancy without considering the culture..
I'm not conservative but we shouldn't condone Islam or any religion that runs on male dominance and submissive wives.The Aisha story doesn't erase all the other problems.
The Christian named Tertullian has been identified by Jo Ann McNamara as the person who originally invested the consecrated virgin [pagan and monotheist nun movements] as the “bride of Christ” [Christian Catholic nuns] which helped to bring the independent virgin [idea] under patriarchal rule. [Assuming, so that "fragile" women could not be the head of religions and weaken countries with pacifism toward aggressors].
People manipulate stories in order to make Muhammad and Islam look bad.
Two quotes, read the links for the whole story.
Those who manipulate her story to justify the abuse of young girls, and those who manipulate it in order to depict Islam as a religion that legitimises such abuse have more in common than they think. Both demonstrate a disregard for what we know about the times in which Muhammad lived, and for the affirmation of female autonomy which her story illustrates.
Pasted from <https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/sep/17/muhammad-aisha-truth>
“A great misconception prevails as to the age at which Aisha was taken in marriage by the Prophet. Ibn Sa‘d has stated in the*Tabaqat*that when Abu Bakr [father of Aisha] was approached on behalf of the Holy Prophet, he replied that the girl had already been betrothed to Jubair, and that he would have to settle the matter first with him. This shows that Aisha must have been approaching majority at the time. Again, the*Isaba, speaking of the Prophet’s daughter Fatima, says that she was born five years before the Call and was about five years older than Aisha. This shows that Aisha must have been about ten years at the time of her betrothal to the Prophet, and not six years as she is generally supposed to be. This is further borne out by the fact that Aisha herself is reported to have stated that when the chapter [of the Holy Quran] entitled*The Moon,*the fifty-fourth chapter, was revealed, she was a girl playing about and remembered certain verses then revealed. Now the fifty-fourth chapter was undoubtedly revealed before the sixth year of the Call. All these considerations point to but one conclusion, viz., that Aisha could not have been less than ten years of age at the time of her*nikah, which was virtually only a betrothal. And there is one report in the*Tabaqat*that Aisha was nine years of age at the time of*nikah.*Again it is a fact admitted on all hands that the*nikah*of Aisha took place in the tenth year of the Call in the month of Shawwal, while there is also preponderance of evidence as to the consummation of her marriage taking place in the second year of Hijra in the same month, which shows that full five years had elapsed between the*nikah*and the consummation. Hence there is not the least doubt that Aisha was*at least*nine or ten years of age at the time of betrothal, and fourteen or fifteen years at the time of marriage.
Pasted from <http://www.muslim.org/islam/aisha-age.htm>
Oh, okay, she was 10 years old rather than 6 ... well, then, that makes it perfectly moral, right?
Here's the catch:
If we were talking about an average, everyday Joe living 1400 years ago in the Middle East, perhaps we could look the other way. We could excuse it as just the way things were back then.
But Muhammad wasn't just an average, everday Joe.
He was supposed to be a prophet of God -- someone whom God spoke to in order for the Qu'ran to be written.
The twisted idea of old men taking child-brides SHOULD have stopped right then and there. If God/Allah were at all real AND moral, one of the things that needed to end and WOULD have stopped was this child-bride nonsense. God SHOULD have told Muhammad to "knock it off" and stop taking little girls as brides and consumating the marriage the very nanosecond the girl looks mature enough.
But that's not what happened, did it.
Just like slavery in the Bible, it's amazing how often God seemed to acquiesce to human customs and traditions that are flagrantly immoral and disgusting no matter what era it occurred in. This is yet another (there are SO many) reason why you can tell these holy books were written by very mortal men without any help whatsoever from any divine beings.
The fact that God was so careful about not changing any traditions and customs and thus possibly disrupting the lives of the people (or the book's authors themselves) is quite uncanny.
If God today believes that institutions like slavery and marrying little girls are immoral -- why wouldn't God have believed the same thing 1400 years ago?
It just goes to show you that humanity controls god because humanity made-up god -- regardless of which name one decides to call him.
Oh, okay, she was 10 years old rather than 6 ... well, then, that makes it perfectly moral, right?
Here's the catch:
If we were talking about an average, everyday Joe living 1400 years ago in the Middle East, perhaps we could look the other way. We could excuse it as just the way things were back then.
But Muhammad wasn't just an average, everday Joe.
He was supposed to be a prophet of God -- someone whom God spoke to in order for the Qu'ran to be written.
The twisted idea of old men taking child-brides SHOULD have stopped right then and there. If God/Allah were at all real AND moral, one of the things that needed to end and WOULD have stopped was this child-bride nonsense. God SHOULD have told Muhammad to "knock it off" and stop taking little girls as brides and consumating the marriage the very nanosecond the girl looks mature enough.
But that's not what happened, did it.
Just like slavery in the Bible, it's amazing how often God seemed to acquiesce to human customs and traditions that are flagrantly immoral and disgusting no matter what era it occurred in. This is yet another (there are SO many) reason why you can tell these holy books were written by very mortal men without any help whatsoever from any divine beings.
The fact that God was so careful about not changing any traditions and customs and thus possibly disrupting the lives of the people (or the book's authors themselves) is quite uncanny.
If God today believes that institutions like slavery and marrying little girls are immoral -- why wouldn't God have believed the same thing 1400 years ago?
It just goes to show you that humanity controls god because humanity made-up god -- regardless of which name one decides to call him.
Did you miss the part were she was 14 or 15 when the marriage took place?
Still to young in my view, but 14 and 15 year old have sex even today with older guys.
Muhammad was a military and political leader at that time and place. The story goes, at least as I have heard it: he saw a pretty little girl and he wanted dibs on her when she got older and matured. There was no actual sex until she was a few years older. I do not think this was incredibly rare or considered immoral at that time. For that matter, I don't think it was incredible rare or considered immoral in the hills of Alabama in the early 20th century.
The problem is that to many Muslims around the world, Muhammad's actions and life 1400 years ago are considered the model to be followed today. This kind of accompanies the problem with believing that the Quran is the undisputed word of God and is beyond question, given that it decrees that hands should be lopped off for theft and flogging is the required punishment for fornication.
A problem many Christian extremists share today - witness the insane hatred towards gays, transgenders, etc. It's all a laughable misuse of questionable rules and social norms that weren't really "moral" or "proper" even for their time - even if they were normal - and which certainly have no place in the world today.
As for Muhammad, what he did was no different than what countless people of all faiths did back then - claiming "dibs" on young women was the norm. Is it "right" by today's standards? Not really, but heck, many of the Founding Fathers owned slaves, and I don't see the far right who condemns Muhammad - and all Muslims - for his actions condemning them.
People need to keep things in historical context, regardless of one's holy book or if one wants to think one religious is "right" and all the others are "wrong," and look for the greater meaning in a person's words and actions. Otherwise, everyone will eventually be considered "evil" by the standards of the world thousands of years from now, which is missing the point entirely.
Did you miss the part were she was 14 or 15 when the marriage took place?
Still to young in my view, but 14 and 15 year old have sex even today with older guys.
It doesn't matter.
I'm not quite as appalled at a 14 or 15 year-old having sex .... with other 14 and 15 year-olds, NOT some guy old enough to be her grandfather.
In addition, because it ONLY happens to girls (you don't see old women marrying young boys) it's just another one of those misogynistic "women are subhuman" kind of custom -- and it still happens TODAY.
That's the worst part of it. The Muslim law allows men of any age to marry girls at age 12, for crying out loud. Nasty ... and how many of those girls are allowed a choice in the matter? Yeah, probably very few if any at all.
Now ... I don't really get too worked up over "children" marrying older spouses in bygone eras. People in those days didn't see childhood the same way we do. Children were expected to start pulling their weight almost from the moment they started walking. They didn't have carefree childhoods full of play, school, and exploration like children today. Hell, children as young as 16 were ruling nations at one point.
However, we know a lot more today than we did then ... and allowing older men to marry children as young as 12 is not much better than church-sanctioned pedophilia. And gee where ELSE have we seen pedophilia dismissed as "no big deal" among the clergy?
It would seem that both major religions have little regard for the welfare of children. I guess because God/Allah overlooked having sex with children as being a sin, the lack of prohibition is interpreted as God saying, "Yeah, sure, have your way with her. What do I care? As long as it's a man and a girl and not a woman and a boy ... or two people of the same sex!!!! "
I'm not quite as appalled at a 14 or 15 year-old having sex .... with other 14 and 15 year-olds, NOT some guy old enough to be her grandfather.
In addition, because it ONLY happens to girls (you don't see old women marrying young boys) it's just another one of those misogynistic "women are subhuman" kind of custom -- and it still happens TODAY.
That's the worst part of it. The Muslim law allows men of any age to marry girls at age 12, for crying out loud. Nasty ... and how many of those girls are allowed a choice in the matter? Yeah, probably very few if any at all.
Now ... I don't really get too worked up over "children" marrying older spouses in bygone eras. People in those days didn't see childhood the same way we do. Children were expected to start pulling their weight almost from the moment they started walking. They didn't have carefree childhoods full of play, school, and exploration like children today. Hell, children as young as 16 were ruling nations at one point.
However, we know a lot more today than we did then ... and allowing older men to marry children as young as 12 is not much better than church-sanctioned pedophilia. And gee where ELSE have we seen pedophilia dismissed as "no big deal" among the clergy?
It would seem that both major religions have little regard for the welfare of children. I guess because God/Allah overlooked having sex with children as being a sin, the lack of prohibition is interpreted as God saying, "Yeah, sure, have your way with her. What do I care? As long as it's a man and a girl and not a woman and a boy ... or two people of the same sex!!!! "
I think you are missing the point shirina. The OP is talking about Mohammad having sex with a 9 year old, but the evidence shows that the OP is wrong in this assumption. The girl is 14 or 15 years of age.
Still to young in my opinion, but I would not call it pedophilia, which is what the OP is suggesting.
So where in all this do you see God/Allah saying it is ok to have sex with children of either sex?
A problem many Christian extremists share today - witness the insane hatred towards gays, transgenders, etc. It's all a laughable misuse of questionable rules and social norms that weren't really "moral" or "proper" even for their time - even if they were normal - and which certainly have no place in the world today.
As for Muhammad, what he did was no different than what countless people of all faiths did back then - claiming "dibs" on young women was the norm. Is it "right" by today's standards? Not really, but heck, many of the Founding Fathers owned slaves, and I don't see the far right who condemns Muhammad - and all Muslims - for his actions condemning them.
People need to keep things in historical context, regardless of one's holy book or if one wants to think one religious is "right" and all the others are "wrong," and look for the greater meaning in a person's words and actions. Otherwise, everyone will eventually be considered "evil" by the standards of the world thousands of years from now, which is missing the point entirely.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"
