The Muhammad and Aisha controversy

[basics]

Do you know how many of these things you can find in all religions? Take for example the story of Abraham and Hagar. Hagar was a slave of Abraham and Abraham raped her and when she left the house to escape god emerged in front of her and demanded to go back. There is selective islamophobia here by certain cycles that love to reminds us about how Muhammad was a pedophile but deliberately hide the fact that there are many stories like this in christian bible and jewish Torah. Selective outrage

Papay,

Where does it say that Abraham raped Hagar or that she had to escape him? According to what is written Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to bear him a son which she did and it was Sarah who had her and Ishmael ejected because he kept tormenting Isaac whom Sarah bore at a later stage. There was no rape or escaping on Hagar's part. That comes from the word of God.

[Infidel144]

These are not the originals. The real author doesn't even seem to try referencing what he talks about, just like you chose not to link to the site you were copy pasting them from. There isn't much to check there that makes it easy as there is no reference whatsoever but a quick look shows that it even contains outright contradictions.

I did not copy paste Dr. Haddad's responses to Amjad from a site. I copy pasted from the document:
"More on ‘Ā’isha’s Age at the Time of Her Marriage
A Dialogue Between “The Learner” and Shaykh Gibril F. Haddad"


But Setekh should know this, since I have used these in discussion previously in the forum including with Setekh.


But since these are not the originals, perhaps Setekh will link to where he got his arguments from.

For example, in the question about Aisha's participation in the battle of Uhud, he first writes that Aisha did not participate and that she merely bid farewell from Medina, and then a sentence later he says that Aisha did participate to carry water to fighters but that she was 12 at the time. The author shows us that any contradiction is fine as long as Aisha's age is reported as underage.

This response shows that Setekh, in his attempt to discredit Dr. Haddad by showing a contradiction, is not paying attention to what he is reading.
Amjad's argument referred to both Badr and Uhud ("Ayesha (ra) accompanied the Muslims in the battle of Badr and Uhud" and "Ayesha's (ra) participation in the battle of Badr and Uhud".
Dr. Haddad responded to both:
"`A'isha did not participate in Badr at all but bade farewell to the combatants as they were leaving Madina, as narrated by Muslim in his Sahih."
and
"On the day of Uhud (year 3), Anas, at the time only twelve or thirteen years old, reports seeing an eleven-year old `A'isha and his mother Umm Sulaym having tied up their dresses and carrying water skins back and forth to the combatants, as narrated by al-Bukhari and Muslim."
Perhaps Setekh should pay more attention to what he is reading, then he would be less likely to discredit himself.

In other examples, he doesn't even provide a proper argument. He states that al-Dhahabi is more reliable than Abi al-Zinadbut doesn't provide the slightest reasoning. We also have to accept that a 2-3 year old baby as a young girl.

This is another argument borrowed from Amjad who claims:

According to this tradition, Ayesha (ra) had not only been born before the revelation of the referred surah, but was actually a young girl (jariyah), not an infant (sibyah) at that time. Obviously, if this narrative is held to be true, it is in clear contradiction with the narratives reported by Hisham ibn `urwah. I see absolutely no reason that after the comments of the experts on the narratives of Hisham ibn `urwah, why we should not accept this narrative to be more accurate.

Dr. Haddad responds:
"A two year old is not an infant. A two year old is able to run around, which is what jariya means. As for "the comments of the experts" they concur on 6 or 7 as the age of marriage and 9 as the age of cohabitation."

Perhaps where this copy-paste fails the most is that you can't really reproduce the original document, Gibril Haddad's responses. If you search online you will mostly find different versions of this copy-paste with suspiciously no chain link to the original poster. At least, from Moiz Amjad's perspective, we have a direct link to his article on his website where we can see the original document. With Gibril Haddad's responses we can not do that. I gave up after spending half an hour trying to find it. What I come across was that it's mostly hosted on Western anti-Islam websites almost exclusively.

What Setekh should say is that he cannot reproduce the original document. But much as with his earlier attempt to discredit Dr. Haddad, he only discredits himself.

You copy or type who the Learner and the responder are at the end of your post. You/the real author present Dr. Gibril Haddad as a respectable scholar while Moiz Amjad is presented as if he's a random Muslim, when in fact he too studied Arabic language and the Quran but under an other respectable Islamic scholar Javed Ahamd Ghamidi.

The real author?
As Dr. Haddad says:
"Objective research shows that the beaten track is right on…and Allah knows best."

[PointOfViewGun]

I did not copy paste Dr. Haddad's responses to Amjad from a site. I copy pasted from the document:
"More on ‘Ā’isha’s Age at the Time of Her Marriage
A Dialogue Between “The Learner” and Shaykh Gibril F. Haddad"
But Setekh should know this, since I have used these in discussion previously in the forum including with Setekh.
But since these are not the originals, perhaps Setekh will link to where he got his arguments from.

Interestingly, despite making a direct comment on it, you still chose not to provide us with a link to the document. In my post that you responded to earlier you can see that I referenced to a number of books by Bukhari and Tabari as well as some Hadith stories providing their direct name or reference numbers.

This response shows that Setekh, in his attempt to discredit Dr. Haddad by showing a contradiction, is not paying attention to what he is reading.
Amjad's argument referred to both Badr and Uhud ("Ayesha (ra) accompanied the Muslims in the battle of Badr and Uhud" and "Ayesha's (ra) participation in the battle of Badr and Uhud".
Dr. Haddad responded to both:
"`A'isha did not participate in Badr at all but bade farewell to the combatants as they were leaving Madina, as narrated by Muslim in his Sahih."
and
"On the day of Uhud (year 3), Anas, at the time only twelve or thirteen years old, reports seeing an eleven-year old `A'isha and his mother Umm Sulaym having tied up their dresses and carrying water skins back and forth to the combatants, as narrated by al-Bukhari and Muslim."
Perhaps Setekh should pay more attention to what he is reading, then he would be less likely to discredit himself.

Ah, yes, you got me. I misread. A dire mistake requiring capital punishment I guess...

Again, Haddad provides no basis on where it is stated that the prohibition was not applied to non-combatants. If the prohibition was only applied to boys then they would be still allowed to accompany to help with other stuff just like the argument that non-combatants of any age were allowed, but, that is not the case. People under 15 were not told that they could not fight while helping with other stuff but that they could not come at all.

This is another argument borrowed from Amjad who claims:
Dr. Haddad responds:
"A two year old is not an infant. A two year old is able to run around, which is what jariya means. As for "the comments of the experts" they concur on 6 or 7 as the age of marriage and 9 as the age of cohabitation."

This doesn't really address him not providing the slightest reasoning for the claim that al-Dhahabi is more reliable than Abi al-Zinadbut. I though you were talking about reading more carefully.

Even the infamous WikiIslam website tries to argue that jariya is not a mature woman but a girl that has not reached the age of puberty. That's an age range of 10 to 14 as the cutoff. Jariya doesn't simply mean someone that can run around. That's a downright stupid criteria. Trying to pass a 2 year old as a jariya has no merit.

What Setekh should say is that he cannot reproduce the original document. But much as with his earlier attempt to discredit Dr. Haddad, he only discredits himself.

Apparently, you can not do it too, hence, you have not provided it. As far as anyone's concerned Haddad didn't even write any of these.

The real author?
As Dr. Haddad says:
"Objective research shows that the beaten track is right on…and Allah knows best."

Is that a deflection from your/the real author's misrepresentation of the two sides of the argument in this case? Why did you not address that?

[Prodromos]

If not that you are looking at what amounts to what many have already pointed out an example of elite child marriage. Common occurrence in lots of cultures across lots of history.

There's that claim again. Thus far neither Mongrel nor Rifleman have been able to support it. Where's your evidence that having sex with 9-year-old girls was common in Arabia? Note that we're talking about sex, Conon, not marriage.

Or maybe you meant Aisha was a perpetual virgin and the marriage was never consummated?

In any case how would pedophilia being common mean that Muhammad was not a pedophile?

[PointOfViewGun]

Or maybe you meant Aisha was a perpetual virgin and the marriage was never consummated?

There is proof that she was a perpetual virgin.

[Prodromos]

1- Provide it.
2- Is this belief shared by the major Islamic authorities?

[PointOfViewGun]

1- Provide it.
2- Is this belief shared by the major Islamic authorities?

I already provided the reasoning for it. You've ignored it repeatedly... I don't really care if all 7 billion on Earth doesn't believe it. Facts and logic are not formed by belief.

[conon394]

There's that claim again. Thus far neither Mongrel nor Rifleman have been able to support it. Where's your evidence that having sex with 9-year-old girls was common in Arabia? Note that we're talking about sex, Conon, not marriage.

No the preponderance of evidence is she was married at 7 seven and consummated at menstruation. Again not outside the norms of the time - for elites. I reiterate not common in general where virginity and thus no question about who the father is, and political agreement trumped the gag factor -yes there was child marriage and it was not a surprise. Although if you read enough accounts about sacked cities soldiers run amok they did not make to make age judgments especially if the goal was terror. Oops Wullff she's only 9 you just kill her not rape first...

"If not, why, in a moment look to see
The blind and bloody soldier with foul hand
Defile the locks of your shrill-shrieking daughters; "

I notice the Bard did not have Harry put an age limit on that.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/...eedAccess=true
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en...xq_M5dylxM-vbA

In any case aside from nod to Plato and Athens (contra the cited Lacey 1968, more recent data pushes back age of marriage for women in Athens more close to what Plato says was correct). the age of 9 was not a wild departure in from norms in elite circles. Its true in the lower classes age of marriage was later but out of economic reasons. A girl was a valuable source of labor to poor households that could not afford, neither servants, nor slaves , nor hired men and the time to raise an appropriate dowry was not short. Lets recall elites at various times were cool with marring siblings or very close relatives. The corporate needs of State, Nation, Clan, Family whatever come first. The extended childhood till after HS or Collage, grow-up find you own dream/career/path is very much an affect of very recent western society. The world was not always a fun place (nor is often now). The famous Corinthian Courtesan Neaira might have ended up married to a wealthy Athenian citizen and probably won a case to claim citizenship - a nice end, but as a foundling in Corinth she was turned out for sex shows and prostitution as young as six or maybe nine (six is likely an exaggeration).

For comparison say Alexander the evidence is sufficient to say he was both a drunkard (and a angry one) and bisexual and was willing to bang anyone who turned his head. The evidence for Mohamed is he was content with the elite norms of his society and took a child bride. To call him a pedophile would I think require more than that. Systematic evidence of preferring relations with children over adults (although you have to admit that includes any women who is menstruating).

Thus you could make a reasonable argument that the Aisha marriage shows a contrast between Jesus and Mohamed (and of course their followers). Jesus did effectively disengage what would become Christianity from Jewish customs and laws. Mohamed's religion carried Medieval Arab customs with it. That is a reasonable argument - calling Mohamed a pedophile is not.

[Infidel144]

There's that claim again. Thus far neither Mongrel nor Rifleman have been able to support it. Where's your evidence that having sex with 9-year-old girls was common in Arabia? Note that we're talking about sex, Conon, not marriage.

Not sure that this answers that question as you frame it, but in response to "The Learner" saying:

To begin with, I think it is the responsibility of all those who believe that marrying a girl as young as nine years old was an accepted norm of the Arab culture, to provide at least a few examples to substantiate their point of view. I have not yet been able to find a single dependable instance in the books of Arab history where a girl as young as nine years old was given away in marriage. Unless such examples are given, we do not have any reasonable grounds to believe that it really was an accepted norm.

Dr. Haddad states that:
"Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim:
• Abu Tughlub ibn Hamdan married the daughter of `Izz al-Dawla Bakhtyar when she was three and paid a dowry of 100,000 dinars. This took place in Safar 360 H. (Ibn al-Athir, al-Kamil).
• Al-Shafi`i in al-Umm reported that he saw countless examples of nine-year old pubescent girls in Yemen. Al-Bayhaqi also narrates it from him in the Sunan al-Kubra as does al-Dhahabi in the Siyar.
• Al-Bayhaqi narrated with his chains in his Sunan al-Kubra no less than three examples of Muslim wives that gave birth at age nine or ten.
• Hisham ibn `Urwa himself (whom the objector claims to know enough to forward the most barefaced judgments on his reliability) married Fatima bint al-Mundhir when she was nine years old (al-Muntazam and Tarikh Baghdad).
• Our liege-lord `Umar married Umm Kulthum the daughter of `Ali and Fatima at a similar age per `Abd al-Razzaq, Ibn `Abd al-Barr and others."
op.cit.

No the preponderance of evidence is she was married at 7 seven and consummated at menstruation.

The "preponderance of evidence" is 6, not 7 (I think, though I will have to re-check when I have the time, there is one hadith that says 7) for the marriage, and that the consummation was at 9. I don't recall offhand a mention of menstruation. Dr. Haddad whom I have cited above states (as preface for a response to a claim was made by Maulana Muhammad ‘Alī) :
"There is no dispute that ‘Ā’isha had reached puberty at the time of the consummation of her marriage"
‘Ā’isha’s Age at the Time of Her Marriage
by GF Haddad – Shawwāl 1426 / November 2005

“They continue to call this ‘often a disputed subject’
because their hearts refuse to accept the evidence.”
-- Shaykh Gibril F. Haddad

[Prodromos]

My question was about pre-Islamic, 6th- or 7th-century Arabia, to be exact. How common was it for an adult to have sex with a 9-year-old wife? Infidel, your examples (I think) are from the Islamic period. Conon, your examples are instances of prostitution and war, not marriage, and mostly from Ancient Greece rather than 6th-century Arabia. Do we just have no information at all about the marriage practices of 6th-century Arabia?

[conon394]

@Dr Legend.

No if you read the available portion of the first link it was about marriage, age of consent and the earliest common age for sex in a relationship. I opted for it specifically because it no about Arabs, covering, Greece, Rome, Medical Europe and at the end Colonial America. The Pedestry coverage of Greece is important since it is one again a elite institution (much like early child marriage). - starting young and consummated at or around puberty. Again you keep seeking 'common' when the point is that in certain circumstance sex with young girls did occur - be in elite marriages, or the affections of the elite, or as noted in war and proposition. It also useful to recall just how expectations for life at birth were (childhood and birth being great mortality points). The modern world's ability to extend childhood on for almost two decades is a relatively new luxury.

The "preponderance of evidence" is 6, not 7 (I think, though I will have to re-check when I have the time, there is one hadith that says 7)

It immaterial in the context she could have been married at birth. Elite betrothals or actual marriages are common enough at early ages - Marriage for most of time was a family contract usually designed around some family interest not personal choice.

The question remains does a 9 year old bride stand out as pedophilia in a Medieval context involving elites. As a singular event it does not rise to that. If the Man surrounded himself with female child wives that would be a different story. It is fair to ague that the man shows himself to be a man of his culture and not challenging it. Plato never claimed to have divine inspiration but he could observe that it was better for women to not be pregnant as soon as possible and that girls at 17 or older made better mothers.

[Prodromos]

This is all it says:

SUMMARY

Age of Consent throughout history has usually coincided with the age of puberty although at sometimes it has been as early as seven. Early on age of consent was a familial or tribal matter and only became a legal one in the Greco-Roman period. The Roman tradition served as the base for Christian Europe as well as the Christian Church itself which generally, essentially based upon biological development, set it at 12 or 14 but continued to set the absolute minimum at seven. In the past century there has been a tendency to raise the age of consent but the reasons for the change have not always been clear and the issue has been further complicated by the reluctance of many contemporary historians to recognize what the actual age of consent in the past has been. This failure has distorted the importance of biology on age of consent in the past.

This is in reference to marriage, not actual sex? And it doesn't mention 6th-century Arabia.

[conon394]

This is in reference to marriage, not actual sex? And it doesn't mention 6th-century Arabia.

So you did not read the second link which allow s reading more of the paper.

Why are you so concerned about 6th century Arabs? The simple fact is child marriages were not uncommon among elites when they were consummated is fairly opaque. One can assume at or around puberty or is that just what the sources assert. In this context it matters very much that my sources is not Arab because to have a controversy about Muhammad and Aisha (now) - you need first to prove a world where the average Joe, or Marcus, We Han, or Sophocles, would been shocked at elite child marriage or sex in that contact at or before puberty. Elites have a tenancy to be above the rules or at least think they are are.

[Prodromos]

Well, you only mentioned the first link. The second link is a book. This is all it says:



That is a ridiculously sanitized and blatantly false portrayal of Muhammad's marriage to Aisha, as has already been explained amply in this thread. It contradicts the consensus view of all the major Islamic authorities. Where did the author get his information?

In any case it tells us nothing about pedophilia in Arabia prior to Islam. Where are all these Arabs marrying and having sex with 9-year-olds before Islam arrived? It seems that the author has no examples of Arab pedophiles other than Muhammad.

If we're going to blame Muhammad's pedophilia on Arab culture, we'll need a lot more evidence than that. It makes no difference either way, but I've noticed there's this tendency among apologists to attribute Islam's evils to "Arab culture", but I wouldn't be surprised if, like most popular myths, it had no basis in reality.

[conon394]

If we're going to blame Muhammad's pedophilia

What pedophilia? You did not get to the end I see where a 9 year old bride was able to get a divorce in Colonial America because her marriage was not consummated, the point being had a husband had sex with her she would have no grounds for divorce.

You can take an absolute judgment of history - and than you have a lot of dislike to hand out for most of history. You can follow Aeschylus and ask that the judgment be it a person, place, nation was better than worse in the eyes of fair judge (at the time). You can also ask did a person do better than that. In this case that a man with as much power as Muhammad could not move away from the elite norm of child marriage is disappointing.

In any case the Arabs of the day look to have practiced what was typical sex generally at or around puberty and marrage earlier which leaves open to when a man might chose to consummate a marriage. In any version of the story he was urged into the marriage by associates - which would imply an acceptance of the practice. Notably after the death of his adult wife. He did not subsequently marry more young girls... Pedophile is not a useful description. A harsh judgment for providing a norm that the house of Saud or the Taliban can us today is not unfair. A charge of Pedophilia is just baiting.

[Prodromos]

All that has already been addressed and refuted in past posts. I really don't know what more to tell ya, Conon. :/

[Heathen Hammer]

Like it was a secret or something. I am aware.

One question still remains: Who would declare that absurd monster a HOLY MAN?

I don't think he was "holy" in a Western "pagan" sense, however in contest of Abrahamic religions, Muhammad, such as he was, a pedo rapist warlord with voices in his head, doesn't really stand out.
I mean Abraham himself was a vile disgusting excuse of a human being. Yahweh is a psychotic vengeful genocidal diety which murders millions for slight transgressions, but is perfectly fine with rapey war criminals. That's according to "holy scriptures" themselves.

[fkizz]

The Mohammaed was a paedo meme is boring.

During the time period, girls where bred as soon as they started their periods. Common practice throughout the world including Christian Europe. Child mortality rates meant you had to start young and had to have a lot of kids to stand a chance of enough surviving.

Plus Nobility marriages or Royal marriages had all kinds of screwed up set ups, plenty of them incestuous and even illegal by modern standards.

The purpose back then was literally reproduction. In middle ages girls would be married and having children as soon as they would have their first period, as you say. Not out of fetishism but literal survival, infant death rate was very high, and not guaranteed they would even survive until their late 20s or 30s, that could happen but such life expectancy would be sort of a luxury.

And for boys, they would be ready to be ready to be sent to frontlines as soon as their puberty hit, too.

Example: Clausewitz had its first battle at 13 y.o.

[95thrifleman]

I don't think he was "holy" in a Western "pagan" sense, however in contest of Abrahamic religions, Muhammad, such as he was, a pedo rapist warlord with voices in his head, doesn't really stand out.
I mean Abraham himself was a vile disgusting excuse of a human being. Yahweh is a psychotic vengeful genocidal diety which murders millions for slight transgressions, but is perfectly fine with rapey war criminals. That's according to "holy scriptures" themselves.

Lets not forget the bible advocating the rape of daughters to protect an angel's ass

From Genesis 19/8: 8 Behold now, I have two daughters that have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes; only unto these men do nothing; forasmuch as they are come under the shadow of my roof.'

So it's ok to have your virgin daughters raped but don't touch the men claiming to be god's messengers....

[Heathen Hammer]

Lets not forget the bible advocating the rape of daughters to protect an angel's ass

From Genesis 19/8: 8 Behold now, I have two daughters that have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes; only unto these men do nothing; forasmuch as they are come under the shadow of my roof.'

So it's ok to have your virgin daughters raped but don't touch the men claiming to be god's messengers....

Yep, an incest and human sacrifice were also present. Come to think of it, Satan was the only positive character in the whole thing.