Aisha bint Abu Bakr

[hasantas]

Muhammad got married at about 25 and it was very usual for someone to commit adultery upon that times. A man is biological healthful and has potential to commit such abondened sexual acts between 18-45 so easily. But nobody had witnessed such evil obscenely sins from Muhammad because if someone had known therfore he/she would express that to blame Muhammad who claimed being prophet.

Marriages of Muhammad were after 53s in which human decrease in carnal power. If Muhammad had had such carnal inclination many cases would happen while He was young but there was non.

Muhammad was used to teach moral life and He is very successful in that duty. A dissolute fellow(to impress otherwise Muhammad was never) cannot accomplish such thing.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Muhammad got married at about 25 and it was very usual for someone to commit adultery upon that times. A man is biological healthful and has potential to commit such abondened sexual acts between 18-45 so easily. But nobody had witnessed such evil obscenely sins from Muhammad because if someone had known therfore he/she would express that to blame Muhammad who claimed being prophet.

Not if the “prophet” said the women he had adultery with is now his “wife”.

Marriages of Muhammad were after 53s in which human decrease in carnal power. If Muhammad had had such carnal inclination many cases would happen while He was young but there was non.

So if someone did nothing as a young man, it’s not possible to do when older? What kind of ridiculous logic is that?

Muhammad was used to teach moral life and He is very successful in that duty. A dissolute fellow(to impress otherwise Muhammad was never) cannot accomplish such thing.

Since “morality” is “whatever Mohammad did or said”, the term is meaningless to describe him

 

[BornInMarch]

Not if the “prophet” said the women he had adultery with is now his “wife”.

So if someone did nothing as a young man, it’s not possible to do when older? What kind of ridiculous logic is that?

Since “morality” is “whatever Mohammad did or said”, the term is meaningless to describe him

That’s not how marriages in that time worked. You had to get married BEFORE you sleep with someone, or else it’s still adultery.

And the people of that region had morality before Muhammad was born. They weren’t in a State Of Nature. So they could have judged him and decided “this man is a very good man” or “this man is a creep”.

 

[SyroMalankara]

That’s what I was thinking.

Being a child-molester would be inconsistent with Muhammad’s character, and if Aisha was 9 then she would have been unable to write any of her hadiths (not even geniuses know how to write before they are 10).

Geniuses?

There are enough children under 9 with published books to refute that tale:
homeeddirectory.com/blog/homeschool-writing-course-leads-published-book-7-year-old

factmonster.com/ipka/A0768778.html

In 1641, Francis Hawkins wrote a book of manners for children called Youth Behavior. He was 8 years old at the time.

When Jason Gaes was stricken with Burkitt’s lymphoma, a rare form of cancer, at age 7, he decided to write My Book for Kids with Cansur. His twin brother, Tim, and 10-year-old brother, Adam, illustrated the book, which was published in 1987. It provides comfort and inspiration to people of all ages.

When he was 9, David Klein wrote “Irwin the Sock” for a school assignment. The story of Irwin and Irma, matching argyle socks, was submitted to the Raintree Publish-a-Book Contest and won. It was published in 1988.

 

[SyroMalankara]

That’s not how marriages in that time worked. You had to get married BEFORE you sleep with someone, or else it’s still adultery.

And the people of that region had morality before Muhammad was born. They weren’t in a State Of Nature. So they could have judged him and decided “this man is a very good man” or “this man is a creep”.

It seems that almost all of the Jews and Christians he encountered went with “creep”, and pagans went with “good” rather than be killed.

 

[jimkhong]

Here is the age of marriage in some of the modern day Muslim majority countries ,

Male 18, Female 16-Pakistan, Egypt,

Both 18- Morocco, Turkey, Iraq.

Male 21, Female 18- Algeria, Bangladesh

Male 15, Female 13 Iran

Male 16, Female 16 Jordan

Male 18, Female 14 Afghanistan,

muslim-marriage-guide.com/marriage-age.html

In my country, which runs a parallel legal system: syaria for Muslims and civil for non-Muslims, the age of marriage for Muslim girls is 16 but application can be made to the syaria court if a girl under the age of 16 wishes to marry as long as she has achieved puberty. The consent of the Chief Minister of the state also has to be obtained.

This led to a lot of controversy not least among some Muslim women NGOs. There were also a number of cases where an underaged girl got raped and the solution was for the boy to marry her.

abc.net.au/news/2016-08-06/retrial-set-for-malaysia-rape-marriage-case-lawyer-says/7697628

aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2016/08/malaysia-child-brides-160810123204474.html

 

[jimkhong]

Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu’minin: When we came to Medina, the women came to me when I was playing on the swing, and my hair was up to my ears. They brought me, prepared me, and decorated me. Then they brought me to the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) and he took up cohabitation with me, when I was nine.

I am often struck with the image of a doll left behind on a empty swing when she left to live with the prophet.

One must remember that by all accounts Aisha was loyal to Mohammad and was his favourite wife. In fact his other wife realising that he was dying, gave up their respective turns so that Mohammad slept with Aisha every night until his death. After his death, she played a pivotal role in early history of Islam.

So, it doesn’t sound like he was a child molester other than that he would have been classified as a child abuser under laws of today. But then we should see people by the standards of the day. Accounts are that he treated his wives very well but Islamic writing is even more hagiographic that Catholic life of saints. Also, as someone mentioned that with the military force at his disposal, anyone with a different view would lack a sense of self presevation.

 

[famdigy]

So my question to Muslims is, how do you explain this?
In pretty much the entire world today pedophilia (an adult having sex with a pre-pubescent child such as a 9 year old) is considered one of the most heinous and unforgivable crimes someone can commit, so why would God give revelations to one? Does “consummating a marriage” mean something different in the Muslim World than it does in the Western World? Is someone just spreading misinformation? Or did a founder of a major religion really have sex with a 9 year old?

This is s controversial topic because the reports about her age st marriage are contradictory. Aisha’s followers will believe she was 9 when she married the prophet. Every other Muslim believes she was much older.

Here are the facts about he age at marriage:

1. She was previously married to someone else before Abu Baker (her father) voided the marriage and took her back. We don’t know if her first marriage was consummated but I doubt she was a virgin when married to her 2nd husband, our prophet.
2. The only reports about her age being 6 or 9 when she was married comes from Aisha herself, no one else reports her age at marriage. Usually for historical and Hadith reports to be credible, it should come from multiple sources not just one person.
3. Aisha participated in some of the earlier battles of Islam, we know from history that children below the age of 15 were not allowed to participate in battles. Given this was only a few years after he marriage, it’s highly doubtful she was 6 or 9 years old.
4. There are many other historical reports like #3 above that cast doubt about her claims of her age st marriage.
5. It’s well documented that Aisha is a prolific liar and has lied to the prophet to his face on many occasions, add this to the fact she is the only one who tells of her age in her 2nd marriage, it’s not likely she is being truthful about the details.

 

[Cassianus]

Because of this issue alone, I’d rather follow the ja’fari shi’ite shool of jurisprudence if I was a muslim because according to their hadiths she was much older & because in shi’ism, God established a specific institution of leadership for the interpretation of doctrine & shariah law called Imamate.

 

[famdigy]

Deleted.

 

[Augustine3]

The thing I don’t understand is how Muhammad found Aisha in a 9 year old body sexually attractive?

 

[jimkhong]

The thing I don’t understand is how Muhammad found Aisha in a 9 year old body sexually attractive?

He may not have. He married her for political reasons to fore an alliance with her father. Her father later became Caliph. All four successors to Mohammad had some family ties to him, by marriage or birth.

 

[famdigy]

The thing I don’t understand is how Muhammad found Aisha in a 9 year old body sexually attractive?

We don’t believe she was 9 for the reasons above. We also don’t believe the marriage was ever consummated (a topic for another day). Aisha’s father and his two companions Omar, and Uthman were early agitators against Islam. The prophet married Abu Baker’s and Omar’s daughters while giving his own daughters in marriage to Uthman so he could create an environment where he can continue his missionary work without having to worry about these 3 agitators.

The prophet also married into other tribes so he could create political alliances and continue his missionary work with the support of the tribes he married into.

 

[jimkhong]

We don’t believe she was 9 for the reasons above. We also don’t believe the marriage was ever consummated (a topic for another day).

I hope you accept that “we” here represents a minority view in Islam. . Nothing wrong with a minority view and it helps people to understand Islam is not monolithic.

For me, Aisha’s age at marriage and consummation, whatever they are, is not an issue or the issue. We should not be judging people in the past by standards we hold today. If we do so, all of past humanity would be guilty of a multitude of sins as few in history can escape practices of torture, murder, homophobia, sexism, racism, slavery, ageism, etc etc etc. Stating that someone’s practice as a historical fact is fine if we are just differentiating what he/she did is not what we would do today. That is just historical fact.

My issue is with taking the historical fact (however it is arrived at) out of the context of the day and apply it to today’s world without regards to differing context. Thus, to say that if it is fine for Mohammad to marry a girl of 7 in his day means that it is fine to do so today - that to me ignores that context of culture, values & knowledge that informs moral judgement today in a way that it would be different for a different context in the past.

Which is the main problem for mainstream Muslims today. Taking a literalist interpretation of scriptures of any type (divine or human, meaning Quran or Hadith/Sunna) and ignoring social and historical human context usually means application of norms that may not be appropriate for the contemporary society even if it was appropriate for a society long disappeared. This has led to Muslim approval of child marriages, among other social ills.

It is interesting that to stay within the context of such a literalist thinking that arrived at a conclusion at odds with modern day values (Mohammad’s action would have been illegal in many countries today), some Muslims subscribe to an alternative interpretation of facts which allows the actions of Mohammad to be consistent with social norms of today, namely that Aisha was of age (by today’s laws) when she married Mohammad. That remains a minority view and to me, unnecessary if the intention is to reconcile Mohammad’s actions with norms of today. Mohammad did what he did because of the context of his days and we do what we do today because of the context of our day. What counts is not the action (a literalist view) but the purity of the intention (an interpretive view).

In that sense, I would disagree with the purity of intention as his marriage is not out of love for the person but for personal gain - the political ends. Even if one were to say he did it for God, it would mean that furthering God’s kingdom takes precedence over someone’s freedom to choose one’s life partner in an informed manner - Aisha had no choice as even her own account did not refer to any opinion of her own at that age. Having said that, I understand that such marriage for personal gain is acceptable in the society of that time (and maybe even in some Muslim societies today). More importantly I also accept that there is no evidence at all that he ever mistreated Aisha and by all accounts (hers and other eye witnesses) it was a very loving marriage.

I take great pains to refer to Muslims thinking and not Islamic precepts. I believe that the challenge for Muslims today is to make Islam relevant to today, instead of trying to recreate a 7th century Arabic modes of practices down to laws instituted for the social values and dress codes of those days. For that Muslims need to break away from the literalist interpretation of the Quran and see the truth contained in it behind words in the Quran. For God does not look at actions but what is in the heart. It is not what you do that saves you but why you do it; it is not scrupulously following all the actions dictated in the Quran but doing them all for the right reasons - because you love and care for your fellow men. Only then can Muslims become truly Islamic.

 

[BornInMarch]

I hope you accept that “we” here represents a minority view in Islam. . Nothing wrong with a minority view and it helps people to understand Islam is not monolithic.

For me, Aisha’s age at marriage and consummation, whatever they are, is not an issue or the issue. We should not be judging people in the past by standards we hold today. If we do so, all of past humanity would be guilty of a multitude of sins as few in history can escape practices of torture, murder, homophobia, sexism, racism, slavery, ageism, etc etc etc. Stating that someone’s practice as a historical fact is fine if we are just differentiating what he/she did is not what we would do today. That is just historical fact.

My issue is with taking the historical fact (however it is arrived at) out of the context of the day and apply it to today’s world without regards to differing context. Thus, to say that if it is fine for Mohammad to marry a girl of 7 in his day means that it is fine to do so today - that to me ignores that context of culture, values & knowledge that informs moral judgement today in a way that it would be different for a different context in the past.

Which is the main problem for mainstream Muslims today. Taking a literalist interpretation of scriptures of any type (divine or human, meaning Quran or Hadith/Sunna) and ignoring social and historical human context usually means application of norms that may not be appropriate for the contemporary society even if it was appropriate for a society long disappeared. This has led to Muslim approval of child marriages, among other social ills.

It is interesting that to stay within the context of such a literalist thinking that arrived at a conclusion at odds with modern day values (Mohammad’s action would have been illegal in many countries today), some Muslims subscribe to an alternative interpretation of facts which allows the actions of Mohammad to be consistent with social norms of today, namely that Aisha was of age (by today’s laws) when she married Mohammad. That remains a minority view and to me, unnecessary if the intention is to reconcile Mohammad’s actions with norms of today. Mohammad did what he did because of the context of his days and we do what we do today because of the context of our day. What counts is not the action (a literalist view) but the purity of the intention (an interpretive view).

In that sense, I would disagree with the purity of intention as his marriage is not out of love for the person but for personal gain - the political ends. Even if one were to say he did it for God, it would mean that furthering God’s kingdom takes precedence over someone’s freedom to choose one’s life partner in an informed manner - Aisha had no choice as even her own account did not refer to any opinion of her own at that age. Having said that, I understand that such marriage for personal gain is acceptable in the society of that time (and maybe even in some Muslim societies today). More importantly I also accept that there is no evidence at all that he ever mistreated Aisha and by all accounts (hers and other eye witnesses) it was a very loving marriage.

I take great pains to refer to Muslims thinking and not Islamic precepts. I believe that the challenge for Muslims today is to make Islam relevant to today, instead of trying to recreate a 7th century Arabic modes of practices down to laws instituted for the social values and dress codes of those days. For that Muslims need to break away from the literalist interpretation of the Quran and see the truth contained in it behind words in the Quran. For God does not look at actions but what is in the heart. It is not what you do that saves you but why you do it; it is not scrupulously following all the actions dictated in the Quran but doing them all for the right reasons - because you love and care for your fellow men. Only then can Muslims become truly Islamic.

First of all, there are also Sunni Muslims who believe Aisha was older than 9 at the time of marriage. Some Muslims scholars actually counted the events and how far each would have to be apart and concluded that Aisha would have to have been at least a teenager when she married Muhammad.

As for the thing about cultural contexts, I am afraid to tell you that Subjective Morality is incompatible with the core tenants of Islam (and Christianity too for that matter, and in fact most religions and philosophies [even Secular Humanism]). According to both religions, Right is Objectively Right and Wrong is Objectively Wrong regardless of somebody’s cultural values and/or upbringing.

One can not be a Christian AND a Moral Relativist at the same time.

“I believe in a Deity who created the world, created humanity, and commanded humanity to follow a code of morality with specific ethics. I also believe that ethics which clash irreconcilably with said code of morality are not inherently immoral because morals are a human construct.” See the inconsistency?

 

[jimkhong]

First of all, there are also Sunni Muslims who believe Aisha was older than 9 at the time of marriage. Some Muslims scholars actually counted the events and how far each would have to be apart and concluded that Aisha would have to have been at least a teenager when she married Muhammad.

As for the thing about cultural contexts, I am afraid to tell you that Subjective Morality is incompatible with the core tenants of Islam (and Christianity too for that matter, and in fact most religions and philosophies [even Secular Humanism]). According to both religions, Right is Objectively Right and Wrong is Objectively Wrong regardless of somebody’s cultural values and/or upbringing.

One can not be a Christian AND a Moral Relativist at the same time.

“I believe in a Deity who created the world, created humanity, and commanded humanity to follow a code of morality with specific ethics. I also believe that ethics which clash irreconcilably with said code of morality are not inherently immoral because morals are a human construct.” See the inconsistency?

Sure there are Shia and many others who hold similar, though not identical views, to you but many does not mean it is not a minority.

I am not talking about relativism here. I am talking about context. Christians believe the scriptures were written by men under the guidance of God. While it is written under God’s plan by His intention, it is nevertheless written by humans within the context of human history for a human audience, by a human with all his quirks & experience and usually in response to an event of human history.

Muslims’ belief is different - that your scriptures are written by God himself and therefore outside of human context. And being written by God himself, its precepts are therefore unchanging no matter how much the human context changes.

That is why mainstream Christians have always been interpretative of our scriptures while Muslims have been literalist. Before you jump, let me explain the terms. In Bible studies we study the context of the text that was written - intention of the author, the historical perspective, the background of the audience, and most importantly, how it all fits into the Church’s teachings. In Quranic studies, you study classical Arabic, what the words mean, the context in which the words are used and the philology of the words used. You do not normally go into the context unless an issue arises (eg., when two verses seemingly conflict) and even then it is only to explain the apparent conflict and not to go into a detailed hermeunetics of the situation.

That is why, Christian practices do change with the context of the situation. For example (one of the very many examples): We accept that in OT times, taking up arms to defend the religion is commendable but today, most mainstream Christians would not do so. Why? In a militaristic society, taking up arms is often the only option to deal with an existentialistic threat. But in today’s Christianity, mercy and forgiveness are the exalted ideals. Can you imagine Pope Francis seeking drones to defend the Vatican - the man won’t even use a bullet-proof Popemobile.

Context changes, and human values and social norms and practices changes with it. We were like you once and there are still fringe Christian groups like you - who believe in a literalist view of scriptures. One day you will learn to be interpretative like us too (not your definition of interpretation). Only then will there be a liberation of people who do what they have internally determined to be right rather than to blindly follow words in a book written for a time long disappeared. Only then can the Quran be eternal rather than imprisoned in 7th Arabia.

 

[Augustine3]

We don’t believe she was 9 for the reasons above. We also don’t believe the marriage was ever consummated (a topic for another day). Aisha’s father and his two companions Omar, and Uthman were early agitators against Islam. The prophet married Abu Baker’s and Omar’s daughters while giving his own daughters in marriage to Uthman so he could create an environment where he can continue his missionary work without having to worry about these 3 agitators.

The prophet also married into other tribes so he could create political alliances and continue his missionary work with the support of the tribes he married into.

Please read the following taken from an authentic hadith:

*Narrated 'Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death). (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62,)
*

 

[jimkhong]

Please read the following taken from an authentic hadith:

Narrated 'Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death). (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62,)

You may realise that such a debate is no longer about facts. Muslims believe that Mohammad was a perfect man (but that doesn’t make him God - so go figure). When confronted with an inconsistency between his actions with today’s values, Muslims end up with one of two options:

1 The facts are wrong and so, reinterpret the facts so that the facts of his life reflect the values of today. Which is why ever so often, alternative views emerge. Neither the mainstream views or these alternative views have much of evidence to stand up to them because the hagiography just sidesteps such factors.

2 The values are wrong and so reiterate the values of Mohammad’s days as the values of today. This leads to a calcification of thought and a backward-looking community yearning for a Golden Age of long past and eventually a stagnation & a blaming of others (in the current situation, the Judeo-Christian world) for the undeniable stagnation they find themselves in.

There is of course a small but (hopefully) growing number of Muslims who understand that there must be a context to the Quran and not everything Mohammad did that was acceptable then would be acceptable today. We pray for this growing group that they may eventually lead Muslims back to an Islam built on matured thinking.

 

[BornInMarch]

Context changes, and human values and social norms and practices changes with it. We were like you once and there are still fringe Christian groups like you - who believe in a literalist view of scriptures. One day you will learn to be interpretative like us too (not your definition of interpretation). Only then will there be a liberation of people who do what they have internally determined to be right rather than to blindly follow words in a book written for a time long disappeared. Only then can the Quran be eternal rather than imprisoned in 7th Arabia.

I was going to address all of your points, to explain them rationally, but this last paragraph made me so damn angry that now I do not even want to. Seriously, are you trying to be rude and offensive?!?

I am not a christian fundamentalist, and I take offense that you would automatically assume I am. I believe Jesus is the Son of God and that his moral teaching have relevance in today’s world; that does not mean that I believe in creationism or that every single letter in the bible is 100% true 100% of the time.

Frankly to me you sound like an atheist.

“Only then will there be a liberation of people who do what they have internally determined to be right rather than to blindly follow words in a book written for a time long disappeared.”

This sentence tells me that you believe morality is a human construct which can be changed at will (“killing infants is justified if society says it is”), that you think people who look to the bible for guidance are following it blindly (instead of because it makes sense to them or that they thought it through), and that the bible no longer has relevance today.

And calling the Koran “Imprisoned in 7th century Arabia” is just hand-waving away all the scientific and philosophical advancements the Islamic world contributed to society.

Don’t talk to me anymore; you’re too arrogant.

 

[toaslan]

Wiki Islam, a form of Wikipedia operated by Muslims, states: “She was the daughter of Muhammad’s best friend and head evangelist Abu Bakr. Muhammad selected the six-year-old Aisha .The paedophilic aspect of this relationship has institutionalised such marriages within Islam.”

So my question to Muslims is, how do you explain this?

So far on this thread I do not see that Mohammed, as a man greater than his times, is expected to behave in a more excellent way than do other men-- toward children, for example.

We look for intellectual and moral virtue from every man. We expect heroic virtue in the hero.

Where is Mohammed’s extraordinaryness when it comes to this little girl?

My second comment is this: when people on this thread speak of marriage WITH a 9-year old girl, I really wonder. What do you mean by marriage? What do you mean by WITH? The word implies consent, and as we all know, a girl of 9 is not mature enough to give consent. The fact that she was “married” anyway tells you something about what happened to her, and it wasn’t marriage.

Marriage means something in western civilzation that it apparently does not mean in the Muslim world. I think the equivocation obscures the issue.