We are Against Hate, Not Faith
Aisha: child-marriage and Menarche.
jonmc
Preface.
It is a well known fact that Mohammed married (in the sense of betrothed) Aisha when she was six years old and that the consummation of this marriage tool place when she was 9 lunar years old (therefore about 8½ years old).
Many people today see this marriage as child-abuse or paedophilia{1} which would, today, render Mohammed guilty of “statutory rape”{2}
Not surprisingly, this charge infuriates many Muslims who believe that this action of Mohammed’s is perfectly correct, moral and justified. The result is a number of apologetic defences based around a number of arguments which include:
- Aisha was really about 17 years old when married.
- Aisha and/or her parents had given consent.
- At that time “everybody did it” (i.e. marry nine year old girls).
- Marrying Aisha didn’t break any laws at the time.
- Aisha was “mature” at age nine.
- Aisha was a woman at age nine.
- Just because Mohammed did it, it doesn’t mean that Muslims have to.
-
Back then life expectancy was very short, so women had to start giving birth early to keep the human population going.
In this article I do not intend to directly rebut all these assertions but rather to give sources that do coupled to a brief summary of the arguments against these apologetic statements, thus anyone who wishes to check my statements may certainly do so.
Apologetic argument#1.
Aisha was really about 17 years old when married.
Source: http://www.defending-islam.com/page184.html
The article shows that the ahadith that suggest an older age are either Da’eef (weak) or Murdhu (fabricated) narrations. In contrast, writing about the ahadith that support Aisha being nine (lunar) years old at consummation Haddad states: “This makes the report mass-transmitted (mutawātir) from Aisha by over eleven authorities among the Tabiun [second-generation Muslim], not counting the other major Companions that reported the same, such as Ibn Mas‘ūd nor other major Successors that reported it from other than Aisha, such as Qatada!” What is important is that this is the highest quality possible for a hadith’s Isnad/Sanad{3}. Furthermore, such hadith are collected by all the major Sunni collections and supported by many Koran commentators.{4}
In short, Aisha’s young age, nine, at consummation is indisputable – except by those in denial of fact that is.
Apologetic argument#2.
That Aisha and/or her parents had given consent.
This is the most ludicrous of all the arguments. In cases of sex-with-a-minor (i.e. with a child below the age of consent) consent, no matter by whom it is given, is irrelevant. This form of rape is known under a variety of terms including “Statutory rape”{5}. The charge of rape is “statutory” precisely because “consent” is irrelevant – the law deems the child incapable of giving “informed consent” below the age-of-consent and if the parents give consent, this simply makes them child-panders (child-pimps) in the eyes of the law and also liable to prosecution.
Age-of-consent is a variable. In general it was set at a lower age earlier in history. In the English law mentioned in{5}, it was initially 12 but, approx. 200 years later was reduced to 10. In more modern times, the ages of consent have trended upwards the norm is now 14 to 18, with outliers at 12 and 21 years, excepting the Muslim world. This trending has been a response to several factors including both the developing idea of “childhood” and also the increasing Medically-based awareness that very early sexual intercourse is particularly damaging for girls{6}. Thus today we know that marriage at a very young age with the resulting sexual intercourse and risks of pregnancy is emotionally and (often) physically damaging for girls.
Thus under most modern jurisdictions Mohammed is guilty of statutory rape. This is an indisputable fact. However, it is also a fact that in his time (7th century) this sort of child-protection did not exist, thus at the time Mohammed was not guilty of this immoral crime.
Thus this apologia revolves around whether we should judge Mohammed (Muslims would say we must never judge Mohammed of course!) by the mores of his times, or whether we should regard his precedents as subject to judgement in any age.
In other words is Mohammed just a “man of his times” or is he “the man for all time”? More on this below.
Apologetic argument#3.
At that time “everybody did it” (marry nine year old girls).
That “everybody did it” back in the days of Mohammed is hardly a ringing endorsement for the “seal of the prophets”, the “ihsan al-Kamil” (“man made perfect”) and the “excellent example” (K.33:21) for all mankind for all time. If Mohammed really is these things and Allah really is the “all knowing” etc. of Islamic hagiography then surely Mohammed should be setting “eternal” examples, not just following the mores of his times – thus demonstrating that he is a “man of his times” – nothing more. (I develop this argument further in #4 below).
But did “everybody” marry nine-year old girls in the seventh century A.D.?
This Muslim-authored article: http://rasoulallah.net/index.php/en/articles/article/11704 recounts the age of marriage in the Bible (the article actually refers to Old Testament examples), Rome, Greece and Medieval Europe. Where an age is given the range is 12-14 (with one exception of 10 in the reign of the Roman emperor Augustus). Whilst still too young, this Muslim site clearly proves that “everybody” was not having sex with nine (actually ~8½) year old girls. This source http://womenofhistory.blogspot.co.uk/2007/08/medieval-marriage-childbirth.html suggests that typically in Medieval Europe ages at marriage were 16-18. Another Muslim source http://islamnewsroom.com/news-we-need/1783 (despite several factual errors) more or less supports the 12-14 years old as the norm. To be fair it does note some exceptions with marriages as young as 6 or 7 – just like Aisha who was married to Mohammed at 6 – or a few younger. What the site is careful not to say is what were the ages of the bridegrooms. This article http://educators.medievaltimes.com/1-5-marriage.html indicates that the bridegrooms were typically 17 years old to the brides’ 12 years – not ~50 to 6 as per Mohammed and Aisha.
I could continue to quote sources, but the general trend is clear: “everybody” was NOT marrying girls at age six and having sex with them at age nine and, almost as important, almost nobody aged 50+ was marrying 6 year old girls.
Thus this apologetic argument is patently false.
Mohammed’s behaviour was exceptional. This is not to say that it was unique, but it can’t be termed normal. In fact, with complete justification, Mohammed’s behaviour can be labelled as abnormal – even for his times.
Another element to this apologia is that “no-one objected to the marriage” therefore it was “normal” either “at that time” or “in Arabia”.
I’ve already shown that it wasn’t the norm “at that time”, but was it the norm in Arabia? I can find many Muslims sources (go search) that assert that such marriages were “normal” at this time, but curiously I have yet to find a single source{8} quoted in any of these articles to support this assertion. Thus this part of the apologia remains just that – an assertion with no real evidence to back it up{9}, examples of child-marriage post-dating Islam do not count since Mohammed had then set the precedent! The fact that Muslim sources (with their inevitable bias) do not record objections does not prove that there were not any.
Apologetic argument#4.
Marrying Aisha didn’t break any laws.
This is a variant of argument#3. In this variant the idea is that if such marriage was legal “back then” this absolves Mohammed of any culpability.
One apologist wrote that “in his marriage to Aisha [legally speaking] Mohammed didn’t violate anything”.
Except Aisha of course.
I’m sure the irony of his comment totally escaped him.
This article: http://www.answering-christianity.com/aisha.htm{10} argues that “Muhammad’s marriage with Aisha was 100% legal and acceptable by all laws” of that time. Setting aside the point that even for “that time” this grandiose statement is provably false, what the writer is arguing (in garish colours on his website) is that Mohammed’s only duty is to keep within the laws of the time in Arabia.
What is ironic is that the laws Mohammed must be following are “laws of Jahilliyah” – i.e. pre-Islamic laws since (as the article states) the marriage was “accepted by all of the people back then including the enemies of Islam, the pagans”. (emphasis mine).
I am quite happy to concede this argument but, by the same token, its corollary must be accepted: this makes Mohammed a “man of his times” not “a man for all time”. As such the apologetic argument effectively denies the prophet-hood of Mohammed since it states that he had no duty to speak or act for the future, but only stick to the laws of his times.
Allah is claimed to be “all-knowing”, “the creator” etc. etc. in the Koran. As such, Allah must have known that by this marriage Mohammed was setting a precedent for all time. As the commentator Maududi says: “no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Quran has held as permissible.” Thus by marrying Aisha at age 6 and having sex with her at age 9, Mohammed legitimises this for all time – if only because the Koran does not forbid it, which in turn means that Allah must think it is a good thing for nine year old girls to have sex, even though today we know this is harmful, otherwise the “All-knowing” would (or should) have sent a ‘revelation’ to forbid this.
Thus this argument not only collapses in the face of modern science, but in doing so seriously calls into question the omniscience of the Islamic god and the validity of Mohammed’s claim to prophet-hood.
Apologetic argument#5.
Aisha was “mature” at age nine.
This is not to be confused with argument#6. This argument, almost as ludicrous as #2, is that through some fantastical “magical” (or “miraculous”) process Aisha was “all growed up” at age nine.
The only basis in fact is the possibility that she suffered from “precocious puberty”. This is a disease which often leads to stunted growth along with mental and physical problems. Of particular concern for girls is the fact that bone-growth stops early and thus the pubic bones are often too small to permit the normal delivery of a child. Whilst there are accounts of very young mothers (see here and here) you will notice that many had to deliver by Caesarean section or other assisted means and that in some earlier cases the mother died whilst attempting to give birth.
If, therefore, Aisha suffered from this condition which could mean that she was physically mature, albeit stunted, by age nine (though mental maturity is another matter) then, given the risks to her life that pregnancy would involve, Mohammed the “mercy for all mankind” should have refrained from consummating the marriage at all.
It could be argued that since Aisha never did fall pregnant this did not matter in her case since obviously Allah knew that one (or the other, or both) were infertile, but this neglects the precedent-setting example of Mohammed.
Again this argument calls into question the omniscience of the Islamic god and the validity of Mohammed’s claim to prophet-hood on the same grounds as #4.
Apologetic argument#6.
This argument can be set out in the ditty:
When Aisha had her Menarche,
To this must we all hark,
“Then was she a lady,
Ready for a baby.”
Once again there is a grain of truth in this argument in that many ancient societies accepted menarche as the sign that a girl was ready for marriage, sex, pregnancy and childbirth.
But it is a misconception that when a young girl has her menarche, she is “ready for pregnancy”. Science tells us this is very rare. Instead, the average time for a girl to become pregnant following menarche (and assuming regular intercourse) is one to two years.
Given that the evidence points to the fact that on average girls underwent menarche at a median age range between 12 and 14 years old in medieval and older times (see here and here) this is not too bad a “rule of thumb” especially given the lack of medical knowledge and the risk of uncertainty about a person’s age. Even in the Medieval Middle East, Mohammed’s era, the age range for menarche was 12-13 years old. Note that the lower end is consistent with other groups, it is merely that the upper median limit is lower.
The ideas that: (1) nine was a common age for menarche at this time, and: (2) living in hot climes accelerates menarche, have little basis in fact as the sources http://www.mum.org/menarage.htm and{11} show, despite earlier studies to the contrary.
In turn this means that Aisha’s menarche at age nine was an outlier in terms of data; in other words she is the exception, not the rule. (This would apply whether she suffered from precocious puberty or not. If she did not, this only makes her case more of an “extreme” instance.)
If we take it that Mohammed only acted within the “jahilliyah” (ignorance) of his times, then we can indeed accept that his behaviour was “acceptable to his society”, but this idea is (again) destructive to Mohammed’s prophet-hood.
However, the argument revolves around the idea that Aisha had reached menarche. Thus it behoves us to question whether or not this was true. Were it not the apologists’ argument is utterly destroyed.
There are a number of hadith that pertain to this issue{12}. In these verses Aisha speaks of playing with dolls whilst “a little girl”. This is innocuous enough, but the Arabic word translated as “little girl” is “jariya” or “jaria”. This word has a range of meanings including “slave girl, female slave, bondmaid, bondwoman, odalisque girl, odalisque” (all these basically mean “sex-slave”). I am sure that Muslims would object strenuously to me describing Aisha as “Mohammed’s sex-slave”, but jariya also means “a pre-pubescent girl”{13}. Again this makes little difference, it is just that jariya is unambiguous as to meaning. But this goes deeper: In Islam “images”, including three-dimensional ones, are forbidden.
The prohibition of images is based on K.7:148. “And the people of Moses made in his absence, out of their ornaments, the image of a calf. It had a sound. Did they not see that it could neither speak to them nor guide them to the way? They took it for worship and they were wrong-doers.” This is a Meccan verse. It was probably recited before Aisha’s marriage and was certainly recited at least a year before Mohammed consummated the marriage. The hadith on this topic are even harder to date, but it is likely that the final ruling on images dates to the early Medinan period, since it’s basis is late Meccan.
Islamic opinion is divided as to whether or not dolls are permitted as an exception to the general rule. Amongst those who do permit the use of dolls it is only amongst “jariya”, others say that dolls are totally forbidden and Aisha only played with them before the narrations were received (this is a weak opinion in that it flies in the face of the evidence below).
Note: this also torpedoes the sub-argument that a grown-up (i.e. post-menarchal or older) Aisha was playing with dolls. All jurists state this is forbidden.
This source:http://www.muslimconverts.com/e-books/image/image_disc.htm recounts how Aisha was playing with dolls at the time of either Khaibar or Tabuk. The consensus is that it was the earlier battle of Khaibar. This makes Aisha a fourteen year old girl at the time. To be allowed to play with dolls at this age, Aisha must still be a “jariya” – a pre-pubertal girl.
Remember: this is five years after Mohammed consummated his marriage with Aisha. If she is pre-pubertal at 14 she is certainly pre-menstrual at 9.
Hence for Aisha to be playing with dolls at the time of Khaibar, it can only have been a “dispensation” for her on the grounds of her being a “jariya” since this period was some five years into the Medinan period and thus the ruling on images was already received.
Hence the apologists’ argument collapses completely.
Aisha was pre-pubescent and pre-menarchal when Mohammed consummated his marriage with her.
Is there any other evidence? Yes, but it is tangential to the case of Aisha.
The Koran in Sura 65:4 says: “… and for those who have no courses (i.e. they are still immature) their Iddah is three months likewise…” The Arabic here is unambiguous: “those who have no courses” refers to pre-menarchal girls. The point is that if Islam actually forbade consummation of marriage with pre-menarchal girls, there would be no need for this prescription since the “iddah” is the period of time a divorced woman must wait before re-marriage to ensure that she is not pregnant and as such it only applies to women who have had their marriages consummated.
Maududi comments in his Tafseer on K.65:4: “They may not have menstruated as yet … because of young age, …Here, one should bear in mind the fact that according to the explanations given in the Qur’an the question of the waiting period arises in respect of the women with whom marriage may have been consummated, for there is no waiting-period in case divorce is pronounced before the consummation of marriage. (Al-Ahzab: 49). Therefore, making mention of the waiting-period for the girls who have not yet menstruated, clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away the girl in marriage at this [young] age but it is also permissible for the husband to consummate marriage with her. Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Qur’an has held as permissible.” Thus Maududi states clearly that Mussalmen can marry and have sex with girl-children before they reach menarche and that this is a “halal” action for all time.
Note: The above also dynamites the argument of those who claim that Islam forbids sex with girls before menarche.
Thus a careful study of the Islamic sources shows that Aisha was a “jariya” (pre-menarchal) girl when Mohammed consummated the marriage. This destroys the apologetic argument that because Aisha had passed menarche she was “ripe for marriage”.
- – - – -
Excursus:
The last two arguments have been:
-
Aisha was “special” because she was fully mature at age nine, and
-
the belief that “Menarche marks maturity”.
Both of these arguments, even if we accept them, have problems.
(1) In this case, the problem is that Islam uses a “special circumstance” to establish a general rule. The point here is that since Mohammed married a nine-year old, such an act must be considered lawful (“halal”) within Islam. Were this not so, then Mohammed would have committed an unlawful act, which would mean that he wasn’t the ihsan al-Kamil “the perfect being” of Islam, nor was he rightly guided etc. In short, if this act was illegal in Islam, then Mohammed can’t be a prophet much less “the seal of the prophets” and the bearer of “the final and perfect revelation”.
Since such an act is therefore halal, it is legal for any and every Mussalman to marry and have sex with a nine-year old{14}- if he chooses.
Alternatively, if we take it that Aisha was special to Islam – as many Muslims claim, then Mohammed’s marriage to her would have been a “special dispensation” for him alone. There is precedent for this within the Koran where Mohammed is relieved of the need to limit himself to four wives, unlike other Mussalmen. It follows that no (other) Mussalman should follow this practice of marrying a girl as young as nine (whether past menarche or not), But since there is no mention of this in the Islamic Canon and the practice of Mussalmen marrying young girls is known today, this latter argument collapses.
(2) The problem with this argument is that it is simply false. The idea that “menarche marks maturity” whilst not unreasonable in ancient times due to lack of knowledge and largely true in those periods of history when menarche was typically delayed to 17 or even 18, this belief simply does not stand up to modern medical science which tells us that maturation extends well beyond this point-in-time and especially so in those that pass menarche early. Thus whilst Aisha was (theoretically) fertile, neither her mind nor her body was “ready for a baby” at age nine.
It can be argued that Mohammed would not know this and that he simply acted in accordance with the mores of his times. This is quite likely true. But a prophet is not supposed to be just a “man (or woman) of his (her) times”. Mohammed is purported to be the “excellent example” for all mankind for all time – as such he must transcend his times. Thus this argument in fact diminishes Mohammed to no more than an “average Joe” – albeit a remarkably persuasive and charismatic one.
However the problem is larger than matters concerning Aisha and Mohammed: given that we now know from medical science that a girl isn’t “ready for a baby” at age nine, one has to ask why Allah did not send a revelation forbidding Mohammed having sex with Aisha until she was mature? The hadith record that Abu Bakr was surprised that Mohammed hadn’t consummated his marriage to Aisha when she was nine (see here). What a golden opportunity for Allah to explain that she wasn’t mature enough for sex! Yet Allah was silent on this issue.
Compare and contrast: how Allah ‘revealed’ verses to legitimise Mohammed’s sexual relationship with Maryam (Hafsa’s slave), his desire for his adopted son’s wife and his unique permission to marry as many women as he wanted. “Curiouser and Curiouser”{15}.
- – - – -
Apologetic argument#7.
Just because Mohammed did it, it doesn’t mean that Muslims have to!
Let me acknowledge that this is a truism. There is no command in the Islamic Canon for fifty+ year old men to marry six year old girls and have sex with them at age nine.
Let us be profoundly glad that this is so.
However since Muslims are told to follow Mohammed’s example and Mohammed’s acts are, by definition, legal (halal) there is no prohibition on such marriages either, as Maududi states (above).
Ayatollah Khomeini, one of the most famous (or infamous) Islamic clerics of the twentieth century, wrote in his book “Tahreer Al Wasila”: “A man is not to have sexual intercourse with his wife before she is nine years old, whether regularly or occasionally, but he can have sexual pleasure from her, whether by touching or holding her, or rubbing against her, even if she is as young as an infant. However, had he penetrated her without deflowering her, then he holds no responsibility towards her. But if a man penetrates and deflowers the infant (…), then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life.” Note that Khomaini makes no mention of menarche in his ruling.
Sadly we still find today that Mussalmen do indeed marry very young girls, sometimes for entirely sexual purposes.
See here, here, here, here, here, here (this took place in the U.K.), here{16}and here for a mere handful of examples. (links correct as of Jan 20th 2013).
That at least some of these cases are paedophiles indulging themselves I would not doubt. Neither do I claim that such crimes do not exist in the West{17}.
However, I will point out that in the West such things are just that – crimes.
This article details how “wealthy Arabs” ‘marry’ very young wives for a short period before “divorcing” them and then (at least in some cases) “marrying” another.
This is clearly a form of prostitution, probably linked to paedophilia.
Given that each marriage takes place (1) before witnesses, (2) with a “Wali” (guardian) present for the girl, (3) that she is given her bride-price (Mahr) and that (4) she gives consent (if only through silence), then the four requirements of legal Islamic marriage are all met.
Where there is an illegality is in the actions of the girls who are not waiting out their “Iddah” before ‘re-marrying’ another client, pardon me – “Husband”, for another week or two.
Thus from the perspective of Sharia Law{18} the actions of these ‘men’ is entirely legal, it is only the girls who are committing “sins and crimes” (scrimes?) by not waiting out their Iddah.
What a surprise that it is the women (who are often driven to this by poverty) who are the only ones culpable under Sharia Law!
Let me be fair here: given that Islamic law often takes account of a person’s intentions in rendering judgement (or tries to), I suspect that many Islamic Jurists would take a very dim view of these Mussalmen’s actions. Whether they could go beyond calling it “reprehensible” (the least favourable of the “halal” levels) to say that such behaviour is actually unlawful (“haram”) I do not know. Given what Maududi (and Khomeini) said on this issue, I suspect not.
What the continuance of the practice of child-marriage does show quite clearly is that the Koran and Mohammed were utterly wrong not to ban such practices or else to make it clear that (just like his number of wives) this was something for Mohammed alone.
Either would have prevented these legalised forms of child sexual abuse.
Apologetic argument#8.
Back then life expectancy was very short, so women had to start giving birth early to keep the human population going.
This is another false argument based on the conflation of two different things.
Life expectancy refers to the average length of life from birth and in ancient societies the rates of infant mortality were very high. Thus we find that life expectancy in Ancient Greece and Rome was a mere 25 years and in the medieval Islamic caliphate it was about 35 years.
But if we look at average life-span instead, which looks at how long people lived once they had passed the infant stage{19}, then in the case of Rome once a person reached the age of 5 life-span jumps to 48 – almost doubling life expectancy. Similarly we find well recorded examples of Greeks (mainly philosophers) who lived to be nonogenarians.
In mediaeval Britain, if you reached age 21, life expectancy was an additional 43 years, so you could expect to live for 64 years (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy) whereas according to this source http://www.sarahwoodbury.com/life-expectancy-in-the-middle-ages/ people of the middle ages typically lived to middle-to-late forties, a somewhat lower figure.
Thus it seems that people lived long enough that even if they had families in their middle to late twenties or early thirties they would often live long enough to rear them to “adulthood” (12-17 years).
Quoting very short life expectancies, which includes infant mortality, is misleading. If most adults died by 25 for instance, there would be a case for having babies as soon as possible, but if people typically lived to almost fifty once past the infant mortality period, then medieval women would have had almost the same reproductive period as modern women in which to raise a family, with the caveat that they might have orphaned rather young children.
Recalling the problems posed by very early pregnancy and childbirth with its higher risk of neonatal death, very early pregnancy would be contra-indicated as a survival strategy during these times. It would be better to let the woman reach mid to late teens so that her chances of surviving pregnancy and child-birth were higher, thus increasing the average number of her offspring.
Even today girls younger than 15 are five times more likely to die in childbirth than women in their 20s.
Did the Arabs have particularly short life-spans due to the harshness of their environment? A quick survey shows the following: Mohammed himself reached 63, abu Bakr 61, Hafsa lived to between 60-63. Khadijah and Juwaryyia (aka Jorieh) reached 65 and Aisha reached 67. Sawda may have lived into her 80′s (her date of birth is uncertain) and Um Salma is recorded as having lived to 84. Zainab Bint Jahsh made it to 53. Um Habiba (aka Ramleh) reached 73. Safiya Bint Huyai died aged ~64. Maymunah lived to her 70′s. Of all his wives only Zeinab bint Khazimeh had a short life, she died in her 30′s. From this quick study of Mohammed’s own family we can see that life-spans were not very different from today.
Whilst I would not claim that this is “proof” of 7th Century Arabs living a “normal” (by modern standards) life-span, it indicates that the “people only lived for 25 years” type argument is as wrong for Arabia as it is for elsewhere at that time.
Thus, once again, the apologetic argument has little or no basis in fact.
Conclusion.
Taking the apologetic arguments in turn:
- That Aisha was really about 17 years old when married.
- Authoritative hadith and scholarly consensus show this is false.
- That Aisha and/or her parents had given consent.
- This is an irrelevant argument in cases of child-sex.
- That at that time “everybody did it” (marry nine year old girls).
- This is false. Such actions were exceptions not the norm.
- Marrying Aisha didn’t break any laws.
-
This argument calls into question Mohammed’s ‘prophet-hood’ (it makes him a “man of his times” not the example for all time).
- That Aisha was “mature” at age nine.
-
This is either an argument from magic or disease. If either is true it makes Aisha the exception not the norm. The Koran and Mohammed should have made this clear. Neither do. The status of Mohammed as a prophet and Allah as an omniscient god are called into question by this apologia.
- That Aisha was a woman at age nine.
-
Today we know that early menarche does not “make a girl a woman”, ready for marriage, sex and pregnancy. Again this argument makes Aisha the exception. See response to 5.
-
Just because Mohammed did it, it doesn’t mean that Muslims have to.
-
True – it is not a religious obligation, but Mussalmen do marry very young girls today, following Mohammed’s example and Sharia law’s permission. This is also an irrelevant argument when discussing Mohammed’s behaviour.
-
Very short life expectancies in Mohammed’s time means that early marriage and pregnancy was essential.
-
This argument is false. Infants don’t reproduce and it is the high levels of infant mortality that create these very low life-spans{20}. Once Medieval people reached early teens, they could expect to live ~50 years in total. Many people, including most of Mohammed’s own family, lived much longer.
On examination it can be seen that none of these apologetic arguments stands up to scrutiny.
They are either false (1,3,8), irrelevant (2,7) to the objections, or they create as many problems as they attempt to answer(4,5,6).
I find arguments 4-6 particularly strange in that they thoroughly undermine the claims Mohammed makes to be a prophet and the claims of Allah to be an all-knowing, omniscient god. In these cases I can only conclude that the Muslim proponents of these arguments have not thought them through, otherwise it is hard to imagine why Muslims would advance arguments so destructive to the central tenets of their own faith{21}.
Also read…..Aisha: child-marriage and Menarche – revisited
Further reading and sources:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/childbrides.htm#s2
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/prepubescent.htm
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/prepubescent2.htm#culture
http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Wood/pedophile.htm{22}
http://www.mum.org/menarage.htm
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Aisha_and_Puberty{23}
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0002152/
https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/jspot/pigs_are_haram_paedophiles_are_halal
http://www.sarahwoodbury.com/life-expectancy-in-the-middle-ages/
http://www.defending-islam.com/page184.html
http://www.ebnmaryam.com/vb/t192382.html
http://www.muslimconverts.com/e-books/image/image_hadit.htm
http://www.muslimconverts.com/e-books/image/image_disc.htm
www.muhaddith.org/islam_answers/earlymarriage-part2.doc
http://www.muhaddith.org/earlymarriage/EarlyMarriage-part1.html
http://www.answering-christianity.com/aisha.htm
http://www.tazkiyah.info/Tazkiyah/docs/Islam_&_Music.doc
Footnotes and references.
-
In clinical terms Mohammed’s behaviour is probably “borderline” in terms of paedophilia. However most laymen (i.e. those outside the medical/clinical professions) use a more colloquial definition based on “showing any interest in sex with a child”. On this more everyday definition, Mohammed is a paedophile.
-
This is the American legal term for a person having sex with a minor child. Other jurisdictions use other terms.
-
The Isnad or Sanad of a hadith is the chain of narrators (usually) starting with Mohammed and ending up with the final narrator before the hadith was written down in a collection.
-
Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, al-Nasa’i, ibn Majah, ibn Hisham, al-Tabari, ibn Kathir, ibn Qayyim.
-
The earliest reference to this dated to the English 1275 “Statue of Westminster” which outlawed sex with a girl younger than 12 years. In 1285 the offence was made a capital one (i.e. it carried the death-penalty).
-
Two points need to be made. If we take the “age of marriage” then Aisha was six when married, not nine – the age of consummation. By similar logic we should not infer that other young marriages were immediately consummated either.
-
Muslim sources, if only by their absence, suggest that their were no objections. But the questions remain: would Muslims have objected to the actions of “Allah’s messenger”? And: would Muslims have recorded non-Muslim objections to this action of “Allah’s messenger”? Or would they have quietly glossed over the issue? At 1400 years remove, the questions are unanswerable.
-
Except from the Muslim perspective that “since Mohammed did it, it must be right and proper” type ‘arguments’.
-
This is a rather poor article since it’s “sources” are mostly other articles on the same site. Circular reasoning on a grand scale!
-
See the sources in this article: http://klingschor.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/ayshiah-bint-abu-bakrs-maturity-at-time.html
- Sahih Bukhari 7:62:118,163; Abu Dawud 3:1130; Sahih Bukhari 3:48:829, ibid 6:60:274.
-
http://www.tazkiyah.info/Tazkiyah/docs/Islam_&_Music.doc, “points to be kept in mind”. The uses other than “pre-pubescent girl” are all somewhat pejorative in that you refer to your slaves as with an implication of legal minority cf. Calling black slaves “boy”.
-
Let me add that under some versions of Shariah Law the girl would have to have passed menarche and this is not to say that it is obligatory for Mussalmen to do so, just that there can be no legal (Sharia) objection to him doing it. Also there is a Shariah requirement that both parties are fit (physically capable) for intercourse.
-
“Curiouser and curiouser” said Alice, quite forgetting her grammar. (Alice’s adventures in Wonderland. Lewis Carroll.)
-
The Sharia court’s objection was to elements of “threat and force” not age.
-
Given the various paedophilia scandals that have come to light and still are doing so, to attempt to do so would fly in the face of fact.
-
Let me add a rider: according to the Law books I have.
-
Some lists take life span from later ages such as 14 or even 18.
-
To be very crude about this: if 1/3 children die before age 1, then even if those living beyond this age lived to 60, average age expectancy is 40 years. Since a greater proportion than this often died before 5 (of all the childhood diseases: measles, whooping cough, etc.) then it is easy to see how life expectancies from birth could fall to 20-30 whilst those who made it to adult-hood lived near-normal (in modern terms) life-spans.
-
It’s almost as if in the endeavour to avoid shooting themselves in the foot they’ve aimed few feet higher.
-
I think that WikiIslam makes an error. It suggest that the Bukhari ahadith Vol.1 Bk.6 No.293 & Vol.2 Bk.26 No.631 give the date of Aisha’s menarche. I do not see that the texts support this.
-
This is a polemical piece but it contains some good points.
50 Responses to Aisha: child-marriage and Menarche.
Leave a reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
NOTICE
Faithfreedom.org is banned in most of the Islamic countries. Please use a proxyserver, such as Tor.
Read it for Free
AGE OF MARRIAGE ACCORDING TO QURAN & SUNNA:
______________________________________________
Noble Verse(s) 17:34
[017:034] Come not nigh to the orphan’s property except to improve it, until he attains the ”age of full strength”; and fulfil (every) ”engagement”, for (every) engagement will be enquired into (on the Day of Reckoning).
[004:006] Make trial of orphans until they reach the age of marriage; if then ye find sound judgment in them, release their property to them; but consume it not wastefully, nor in haste against their growing up.
[024:059] But when the children among you ”come of age”, let them (also) ask for ”permission”, as do those senior to them (in age): Thus does God make clear His Signs to you: for God is full of knowledge and wisdom.
Bukhari :: Book 9 :: Volume 86 :: Hadith 101
Narrated ‘Aisha:
Allah’s Apostle said, “It is essential to have the consent of a virgin (for the marriage). I said, “A virgin feels shy.” The Prophet; said, “Her silence means her consent.” Some people said, “If a man falls in love with an orphan slave girl or a virgin and she refuses (him) and then he makes a trick by bringing two false witnesses to testify that he has married her, and then she attains the age of puberty and agrees to marry him and the judge accepts the false witness and the husband knows that the witnesses were false ones, he may consummate his marriage.”
Did Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) forcibly married Aisha(ra)?
http://realityofislam.wordpress.com/marriage/
The Real Age of Aisha (R.A) At Time Of Her Marriage
http://islamiat101.blogspot.in/2012/10/the-real-age-of-aisha-ra-at-time-of-her.html
JONMC COM MICK:
That Aisha and/or her parents had given consent.This is an irrelevant argument in cases of child-sex.BROTHERS/SISTER ACCORDING TO A FAMILY SYSTEM WHO R THE MOST RESPONSIBLE PERSON ABOUT A GIRL? NO DOUBT IS HER PARENTS,THEY NEVER ALLOW A ILLEGAL SYSTEM/ILLEGAL MARRIAGE……….
3)EVERY BODY DID IT IS JUST AWAIRNESS OF THE PEOPLE WHO LIVED 14 ,15TH CENTURY .DURING THESE DAY CHILD MARRIAGE IS COMMON IN EVERY SOCIETY ,ITS A REPLAY FOR SOME CHRISTIAN/ORIENTALIST THEY BEGINNERS OF THE FAKE DRAMA ‘PEDOPHILIA’
& THEY SAYS IT ORIGINATED FROM ISLAM.
MY LAST POST NUMBER OF QURANIC/HADEETH I PROVED THE REQUIREMENT OF MATURITY/PERMISSION REQUIRED FOR THE MARRIAGE:IT ENOUGH REQUIRED FOR US………..
4)PUBERTY = MATURITY = MARRIAGE
——————————————————————————–
The above points having been presented, some additional details on a few of them is worthwhile. An interesting article on the age at which people married in Biblical times is Ancient Israelite Marriage Customs, by Jim West, ThD—a Baptist minister. This article states that:
“The wife was to be taken from within the larger family circle (usually at the outset of puberty or around the age of 13) in order to maintain the purity of the family line;”
This is just one reference to the fact that the onset of puberty was considered the age at which young people could marry. That people in Biblical times married at an early age is widely endorsed. While discussing the meaning of the word ‘almah, which is the Hebrew word for “young woman” or “adolescent female”, Gerald Segal says:
“It should be noted, however, that in biblical times females married at an early age”.3
In spite of its somewhat arrogant Western talk of “primitive cultures”, An Overview of the World’s Religions makes it clear that puberty is an age old symbol of adulthood:
“Almost all primitive cultures pay attention to puberty and marriage rituals, although there is a general tendency to pay more attention to the puberty rites of males than of females. Because puberty and marriage symbolize the fact that children are acquiring adult roles, most primitive cultures consider the rituals surrounding these events very important. Puberty rituals are often accompanied with ceremonial circumcision or some other operation on the male genitals. Female circumcision is less common, although it occurs in several cultures. Female puberty rites are more often related to the commencement of the menstrual cycle in young girls.”
Some female authors agree:
“Puberty is defined as the age or period at which a person is first capable of sexual reproduction, in other eras of history, a rite or celebration of this landmark event was a part of the culture.” (Rites of Passage: Puberty, by Sue Curewitz Arthen)
“Getting your period” marks a rite of passage for young girls entering womanhood (From the Women’s Resource Center)
Another contemporary reference relating marriage age to puberty is an article on Central Africa, which says: “. . . women marry soon after puberty”4. The previous quotations, and plenty of others which were not used, should prove to any intelligent person what anthropologists and historians already know: in centuries past, people were considered ready for marriage when they reached puberty.
It should be mentioned that from an Islamic point of view, many problems in society today can be traced back to the abandonment of early marriage. Due to the way that Almighty God has created man and woman, i.e. with strong sexual desires, people should marry young. In the past, this was even more true since life expectancy was very low (i.e. you were considered “old” if you made it to 40!). Not only does marriage provide a legal outlet for people with strong sexual desires, but it usually produces more children. One of the main purposes of marriage is to produce children—”be fruitful and multiply” as the Bible says (Genesis 8:17). This was especially important in the past, when people did not live for as long as they do now and the infant morality rate was much higher.
Just for the sake of clarity: you state that Aisha attained puberty at age nine?
A 9-year old Thai girl gave birth:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/thai_girl.htm
Starting at around age 9, girls begin to gain about 17% to 18% of their adult height. If someone has commented that you are “all hands and feet,” it’s true! Your limbs grow first, then your trunk. Most girls grow fastest about six months before they start their first period (menarche).
You’ll probably gain weight in puberty — most girls do. You may notice more body fat along the upper arms, thighs, and upper back. Your hips will grow rounder and wider; your waist will become narrower.
http://teens.webmd.com/girls/facts-about-puberty-girls
Nine year old girls that give birth is a tragedy, for both the girl and the baby. It is enslavement and a horror. Shabeer, you should be ashamed. Your arguments are week and reveal a demented view (like all of Islam). Who cares what they did 1,400 years ago? It’s essential to do what is right NOW. Menarche does not mean maturity. Period. Just like a boy having his first erection does not mean he’s ready to be a father.
And this proves what, Shabeer?
Dimnah seems intelligent enough, but you’ll pardon me if call him or her out.
C’mon, Dimnah, you seemed shocked at the article, you asked for sources, and when you see the sources you feign disgust with a word like “distasteful”, implying you’ve never seen these hadith before.
And then you come back with a question of translation for one word in one hadith, and quote a fatwa, and even show us the Arabic?
But you’ve never seen/heard these hadith before. Hmmm.
You say you’re not trying to justify child marriage, and even claim to have disdain for the idea, but it seems to me that you are really trying to protect Islam and Mohammed from its own perverseness by claiming bad translations and how you’re “tired” of that.
I don’t think so.
Next!
Obviously I know the sources. It was clear from my first reply and I never claimed I did not. You can blame my use of the word distasteful to a British sense of understatement.
More to the point: You kind of mix up the order of my replies here.
I read the article, found a false statement which annoyed me and complained about that. Eventually someone answers by quoting lots of (late) hadiths (note that I did not ask for the sources and certainly not in the translations I just complained about). I also see a quote from a (modern) dictionary. Specifically the dictionary remark then forces me to argue my point in more detail. For this I use (as an example) a single (early) hadith to show what an 8th century jurist thought the terms meant.
I will repeat myself yet again: the only point I took issue with is the translation of a single yet crucial word. Why? Because I care for the truth. And that should be ample reason not?
If you’re going to refer to ONE word from one hadith out of all the hadiths related to this subject and object because it does not directly translate to another word, but all the other hadiths tell the same story with all the correct translations, you’re not going for “truth”… you’re obfuscating.
And if you already knew the sources, then why did you ask for them again?
So what is it, Dimnah? You can’t have it both ways: you either completely condemn Mohammed’s pedophilia (you implied that you did) or you don’t. No obfuscating over one word from one hadith out of several. What is it?
Well in fact none of the hadiths in question claim consummation. I am not going to repeat my arguments. You can read them all below.
You can claim the word consummation is irrelevant here. But since the accusation is that Muhammad had sex with a nine year old I’d say the meaning of the word is pretty important.
But don’t worry you can still complain he married a nine year old girl if you want. I’m not disputing that fact here.
Oh and I will repeat myself: I did not ask for the sources. CGW quoted them and we had quite an interesting dicussion.
I have one very simple question to ask – what is the prerequisite to be a Muslim? I know one thing – having a normal IQ is not one of them !
How could any human being, I repeat any human being, ever consider these verses as from a holy book?
Qur’an 33:51 “You may have whomever you desire; there is no blame.”
Tabari VIII:187 “The [sixty-two-year old] Messenger of Allah married Mulaykah. She was young and beautiful. One of the Prophet’s wives came to her and said, ‘Are you not ashamed to marry a man who killed your father during the day he conquered Mecca?” She therefore took refuge from him.”
Qur’an 66:1 “O Prophet! Why forbid yourself that which Allah has made lawful to you? You seek to please your consorts.”
Qur’an 66:4 “If you (women) turn in repentance to him, it would be better. Your hearts have been impaired, for you desired (the ban) [on how many girls Muhammad could play with at a time]. But if you back each other up against (Muhammad), truly Allah is his protector, and Gabriel, and everyone who believes – and furthermore, the angels will back (him) up.”
Qur’an 66:5 “Maybe, if he divorces you (all), Allah will give him in exchange consorts better than you – submissive, faithful, obedient, adorers who worship, who travel, and are inclined to fasting – previously married or virgins.”
“It is a well known fact that Mohammed married (in the sense of betrothed) Aisha when she was six years old and that the consummation of this marriage tool place when she was 9 lunar years old (therefore about 8½ years old).”
Well that is not quite true. If you were to go back to the original Arabic source texts you would not find the word consummate. Rather it says that she was handed over to him when she was nine. Now that might mean that the marriage was consummated, but it doesn’t necessarily follow from the text and is therefore certainly not a fact.
Now I am not trying to justify anything here, child marriages is a serious problem in Islamic countries (and also in a country like India for that matter). But I am tired of people who quote bad English translations and then take the text for a ride.
Any girl under 16 must be considered a child and deserve the protection of her community.
Religions that exploit young girls and condone early relations are evil.
I read that in the Koran it allows men to masturbate with babies. What sort of wickedness is this?. Further to this I saw a video about Khomeni who used this advice from the Koran to violate a toddler. Ugh!!
I wholeheartedly agree with you that girls should be protected and no religion should condone child molestation in any form. And in fact unfortunately in Islam the example of Aisha is used as justification (for instance by Khomeini).
However what I commented about here was the fact that people read things in the text that simply aren’t there to begin with. And that really doesn’t help these debates any further.
I do suggest you check your source regarding the masturbation and babies bit. There are many strange things in the Quran, but this is certainly not one of them (and masturbation actually is a sin under sharia law).
“Aisha said, “The Apostle of Allah married me when I was seven years old.” (The narrator Sulaiman said: “Or six years.”). “He had intercourse with me when I was 9 years old.”
Abu-Dawud 2:2116
Narrated Hisham’s father: Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married ‘Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed (sic – consummated) that marriage when she was nine years old.
Sahih Bukhari 5:58:236
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 Bukhari 7:62:64
Narrated ‘Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that ‘Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death).” what you know of the Quran (by heart)’
Sahih Bukhari 7:62:65
Narrated ‘Ursa: The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with ‘Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).
Sahih Bukhari 7:62:88
In Sahih Bukhari, vol. 7, No. 64, the root word used is “dakhala”. From the Hans-Wehr Arabic-English Dictionary:
to enter, to pierce, to penetrate, to consummate the marriage, cohabit, sleep with a woman.
Hans-Wehr Arabic-English Dictionary, P. 273
“It is not illegal for an adult male to ‘thigh’ or enjoy a young girl who is still in the age of weaning; meaning to place his male member between her thighs, and to kiss her.”
Ayatu Allah Al Khumaini’s, “Tahrir Al wasila,” p. 241, issue number 12
“Praise be to Allah and peace be upon the one after whom there is no [further] prophet.
After the permanent committee for the scientific research and fatwahs (religious decrees) reviewed the question presented to the grand Mufti Abu Abdullah Muhammad Al-Shemary, the question forwarded to the committee by the grand scholar of the committee with reference number 1809 issued on 3/8/1421 (Islamic calendar). The inquirer asked the following:
It has become wide spread these days, and especially during weddings, the habit of mufa’khathat of the children (mufa’khathat literally translated means “placing between the thighs” which means placing the male member between the thighs of a child). What is the opinion of scholars knowing full well that the prophet, the peace and prayer of Allah be upon him, also practiced the “thighing” of Aisha – the mother of believers – may Allah be please with her.
After the committee studied the issue, they gave the following reply:
It has not been the practice of the Muslims throughout the centuries to resort to this unlawful practice that has come to our countries from pornographic movies that the kufar (infidels) and enemies of Islam send. As for the prophet, peace and prayer of Allah be upon him, thighing his fiancée Aisha. She was six years of age and he could not have intercourse with her due to her small age. That is why [the prophet] peace and prayer of Allah be upon him placed his [male] member between her thighs and massaged it softly, as the apostle of Allah had control of his [male] member not like other believers.”
http://www.sout-al-haqe.com/pal/musical/mofakhaza.ram
THIGHING OF FEMALE CHILDREN In Islam
There is an evil practice among the Arabs called “Mufakhazat Alzigaar”, loosely translated as the thighing of children. There is no proper English translation for this practice, simply because it is not a Western norm. Thigh is the part in humans between the hip and the knee. The nearest evil practice to thighing in English would probably be child-molesting. However, thighing is infinitely more evil than child-molesting. It is done by an adult man to a female child, with the sanction of religion. Now let us see how it is practiced on a female child and who began that evil practice. According to an official Fatwa issued in Saudi Arabia the prophet Muhammad began to practice thighing on his child-bride, A’isha when she was six years old until she reached nine years (Fatwa No.31409). The hadith which we quoted earlier mentioned that the prophet Muhammad started having real sex with A’isha ONLY when she reached the age of nine. Therefore, Muslim scholars collectively agree, by virtue of divine example, a child becomes an adult, available for sexual intercourse as soon as she reaches the age of nine.
http://islamandtheabuseofwomen.blogspot.com/2011/12/thighing-of-female-children-in-islam.html
“My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse took over and wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was brought in while Muhammad was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. The other men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old. Neither a camel nor a sheep was slaughtered on behalf of me.”
Al-Tabari, Vol. 9, p. 131
Thanks for showing us some of the sources. Indeed the texts are distasteful to say the least.
Unfortunately I still argue that every source you quote is mistranslated. I didn’t want this to become overly detailed but you sort of asked for it now
.
The most common root used for what is here translated as ‘to consummate’ is B N Y. If you look it up in Hans Wehr you will indeed find that its meaning is to consummate a marriage. BUT this is not how pre-classical (so pre 9th century) Islamic jurists interpreted it. Rather it seems to have meant ‘present’ or ‘hand over’ or something similar. I can show you textual evidence for this, but I’m not sure this website would appreciate me quoting lots of hadiths in Arabic.
The D KH L root you quote from Wehr (really we shouldn’t use Wehr here; it’s a dictionary for MODERN standard Arabic). Here something similar is going on. D KH L in this context comes from a common expression Muslims used in the 8th century for the conclusion of marriage: “Idha dakhala alayha wa arkha alayha al-astar” which translates roughly as “when he enters upon her and he draws the curtains (on her)”. It DOES NOT mean consummate. I know this because this is what jurists argue about in the 8th century.
Again I’m not stating that the texts say Muhammad didn’t marry (and didn’t cohabit) with a 9 year old. The texts do say this, and jurists use this to condone child marriages. All I’m arguing is that there is no textual evidence for the consummation of the marriage. Indeed for all we know it might never have been consummated at all.
Thought I’d give you one hadith to chew on because it nicely kills two birds in one stone (and of course hoping no-one falls over me quoting a bit of Arabic.
Note this is (part of) a hadith from the musannaf of Abd al-Razzaq (d. 826). Western historians consider this the best source for distilling material actually going back to early times:
10866 – أخبرنا عبد الرزاق قال أخبرنا بن جريج عن بن [ ص 286 ] شهاب في رجل نكح امرأة فبنى بها ثم طلقها بعد يومين فسئلت المرأة فقالت لم يمسسني وسئل الرجل فقال مثل ذلك فقال إذا دخل بها وأرخى عليها الأستار فقد وجب الصداق وعليها العدة
The case is the following: here are a man wants to divorce his wife and they did perform B N Y, but both say they did not have sexual intercourse (M S S). The answer of the jurists is: if he entered (D KH L) upon her and closed the curtains then (the marriage is in complete in the legal sense and) she can keep her dower and has to have her waiting period before remarrying.
Note that it is textually impossible for the roots B N Y and D KH L to mean sexual intercourse here, because both can apparently be done without having sexual intercourse.
This learned scholar of islam disagrees with you. He is an Egyptian-born MD (Pediatrics) and PhD-equivalent in islamic studies and a professor at an islamic university in the US:
http://www.drhatemalhaj.com/wp-content/uploads/Age-of-Ayisha-when-the-Prophet-married-her.pdf
Well just because he happens to be some shaykh with some random phd doesn’t make him right. Likely even Bukhari and Muslim interpreted the text as meaning consummate. That doesn’t change the fact that I say that they’re wrong.
Unfortunately a lot of Muslims share the interpretation that the marriage was consummated at nine. In fact they make the same assumptions about the text that are made here. I have attempted to discredit these assumptions. And I fail to see how this (rather boring) article convinces me otherwise since it doesn’t even touch upon the issue I mentioned.
Just to be clear: I’m saying the assumption (of consummation) is wrong and whether you’re arguing as an Atheist, a Christian, a Muslim, or fairy Godmother I couldn’t care less.
So we are to believe your interpretation/translation versus the overwhelming majority of islamic scholars throughout history? muslims themselves often decry the lay person’s opinion and clamor for qualified jurists from the ulemas. Why should their version be considered invalid (most of them are proclaimed experts on both exegetical and linguistic aspects of the texts) and yours, the lone voice proclaiming otherwise, be accepted as valid?
Are you an expert in the Arabic of the original texts, and if so, more of an expert than than the above-mentioned sheik, who is
“Dean, Sharia Academy of America
Member, Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America”
a native-Arabic speaker as well as yourself (I imagine) and one who is a renowned expert on the ancient language of the texts?
I guess what I’m really asking is, why should we believe YOU? You’re making an assertion that flies in the face of conventional islamic “wisdom”. Have you had this discussion with islamic scholars at all? If so, what were their responses to your claim?
Would you please give an explanation (as you did above) of the seemingly specific, explicit language [in translation] of
“He had intercourse with me when I was 9 years old.”
Abu-Dawud 2:2116
Is it B N Y, D KH L, or M S S? Would you restate the specific meaning of each of these three individually, please? Thanks.
Reply system is a bit weird here so I hope this works:
You are sort of missing the point here I think. The shaykh is concerned with AUTHORITY here whereas I (the historian) am concerned with AUTHENTICITY.
If I were to put this argument before a shaykh he would not argue about my interpretation of the words. He would simply state that the text is clear in Bukhari and Muslim and the definition of the text is clear according to the classical early dictionaries. Further he would argue that I quote from a work of Abd al-Razzaq that does not have the same AUTHORITY as the sahihayn (ie Bukhari and Muslim).
.
I would respond that as a historian I state that the earliest sources are the ones most likely to be AUTHENTIC (as per standard scientific rules of text criticism). Thus I consider Abd al-Razzaq to be a better source than Muslim or Bukhari or the classical dictionaries if I want to find out what people in the 8th century actually said. At which point the shaykh would become angry and state that I question the AUTHORITY of the two most important works of Islam apart from the Quran. At which point I would accuse him of being a religious fanatic who thinks that anything that was reported 300 years after the death of Muhammad is actually true
Thank you for your response. It seems that you are making the argument that mere traditional belief has taken precedence over true scholarship, a common phenomenon. Would you answer my last question? I’ll repeat it here for your ease:
Would you please give an explanation (as you did above) of the seemingly specific, explicit language [in translation] of
“He had intercourse with me when I was 9 years old.”
Abu-Dawud 2:2116
Is it B N Y, D KH L, or M S S? Would you restate the specific meaning of each of these three individually, please? Thanks.
Also, in response to your last post, I would suggest that the real problem here lies in the fact that 1.5 billion muslims are following those claiming AUTHORITY, and not those referencing AUTHENTICITY. Is there any effort being made to challenge authority in this regard? Obviously, 1.5 billion muslims DO believe that much of what was written about muhammad 300 years after his death IS true, and lamentably they are following those examples of behavior, much to the detriment of the human race as a whole. Is there any momentum to shift opinion/belief away from what the sheiks say and what you suggest? Has this same textual error been evident in other areas of interpretation, such as koranic quotes re “slay[ing] the infidel wherever you find him”?
Thank you for sharing your perspective. Frankly, it is quite unlike any I have encountered before in my daily 10-year studies about islam.
Ah sorry I quite forgot about your question of Abu Dawud. I think the quote is from the version passing through Hammad ibn Zayd (there are two other hadiths concerning Aisha’s age in Abu Dawud via other transmitters). If this is true is has the root D KH L (the other two use B N Y). So the part you quote would read: “and he entered upon me when I was nine years old.” But note that this is likely not what Abu Dawud thought it meant.
The roots as I would translate them in their 8th century context (as per their use in the musannaf of Abd al-Razzaq and Malik’s Muwatta’):
B N Y=”to cohabit” (in the literal sense: so “to live with”)
D KH L=”to enter (upon)”
M S S=”to have sexual intercourse” (it literally means “to touch”).
By the 9th century D KH L and likely also B N Y had acquired the meaning of consummate. The reason this happened is somewhat of a long story. Key in this is that from the jurist Shafi’i (d. 820) onwards Muslims start caring whether a marriage was consummated or not, because actual consummation started being the legal criterion for a valid marriage (as you could see from the hadith I quoted above, before it wasn’t).
And you nailed THE problem of Islam in you final reply. In my own humble words: there is no separation of history and religion. Muslims, whether fundamentalists or moderates do not question the standard story of the birth of Islam and hide behind the acquired authority of Bukhari and Muslim.
I really wouldn’t get your hopes up too much about the 1.5 billion changing their minds any time soon. A few important things are happening though. Almost all sources are available online now for those who read Arabic. As a result now some modern Muslims are carefully starting to question the authority of Bukhari and Muslim. Specifically the Aisha issue is important here. As I’m sure you are aware there are loads of apologetic websites that attempt to circumvent Bukhari and Muslim (relying for instance on Tabari). Now they’re not very good at it and Islamic scholars currently eat them for breakfast (sort of similar to the pdf you quoted), but they are trying, which I think is very hopeful in itself. If only they would read some western authored critical works on hadiths they would acquire some tools to really give the scholar a run for his money
This leads me to another important development: historians are getting really good at tackling hadiths nowadays. Some amazing work has been published in the last 10-20 years (if you care by the way I can point you in the right direction). But equally important: they are teaching this to a Muslim audience. Back in the day when I read Islamic law at university all my fellow students were Muslim… Now when they become professors of Arabic or Islamic law they will truly be a force to be reckoned with for the traditional scholar.
And thank you for your replies and friendly words. I do enjoy a good discussion that doesn’t turn into the flamewar namecalling you generally get when discussing this.
If you look at CJW’s 7th post you will see that masturbating(thighing)a child is approved in Islam.
You must know this and like all muslims try to deceive and promote a litany of evil ie Islam.
If you provide me with a single classical Islamic source on the issue I’d be happy to look into it. Up until now I have only seen random modern fatwas stating that Muhammad did this. Such statements have about as much historical value as me stating here and now that Muhammad took a fancy to pink fluffy bunny rabbits.
I’m curious. Are there any written historical records of muhammad’s life from during his own lifetime or the years immediately following his death? I was under the impression that such records do not exist. How do you study the veracity of his life story without contemporaneous documentation? Doesn’t ALL record of his life/deeds fall within the purview of ahadith written by muslims many years post mortem?
As an example, the New Testament Gospels were written after Jesus’ death, but there is also an independent contemporaneous historical account written by the Roman historian Josephus that establishes a more independent account of Jesus’ existence.
Check the book “Seeing Islam as Other Saw it” by Robert Hoyland (Professor of Islamic History at Oxford). You can even find some of the sources via the wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeing_Islam_as_Others_Saw_It
Thanks for the link. Are you aware of whether or not any of the material addresses known (or unknown) “facts” about muhammad’s life, aside from battles/warfare? Any independent corroboration or refutation of the more personal aspects of his life? Any cohort/consociate accounts written peri-mortem?
I’m still confused about the D KH L thing, though. “To enter upon” (even including “and drawing the curtain”) seems quite literal, doesn’t it? I understand the discrepancy that exists in the above-mentioned example of the married couple but surely more than this one example must exist in order to be considered refutative, therefore I ‘m assuming that you have found consistently numerous examples of this same usage. I’m uncertain of exactly what it would signify BESIDES sexual penetration. Can you help me out with this, from your perspective as a linguist and historian?
Nope sorry nothing like that exists. Best thing we can do is sift through the hadiths to seperate fact from fiction. Some Germans are doing a very good job on this (see e.g. Motzki’s “biography of Muhammad: the issue of the sources” You can find a review here: http://lesewerkarabisch.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/ravenreviewmotzki.pdf).
I actually share part of you scepticism regarding the D KH L root (mainly because they start using a different preposition, which can radically effect the meaning of a term in Arabic). However the D KH L only shows up in late collections. Early sources only show the B N Y root and another variant H D Y (=handing over a a present) which makes me doubt whether the D KH L root was used before the (middle of the) 9th century.
Interesting. Was there ever, from the earliest sources, an explicit word or phrase describing or denoting sexual intercourse per se?
Are there any similar translational anomalies with the koran itself, such as “slay the infidels wherever you find them”, for example?
That would be the M S S root. Both Abd al-Razzaq and Malik use it to describe intercourse. And it is never used in the Aisha hadiths.
As for other ‘variant’ readings, it does happen more often that 9th century sources misinterpret the meaning of older texts, especially in the case of words that weren’t originally Arabic to begin with. But they also often get it right of course
I’m no expert on the Quran but I can say a few basic things about the verse in question: there is no doubt the root Q T L means “to kill”. The word translated here as infidels is the Arabic “mushrikin”. Infidel is certainly not the most common translation here, the common term for infidel being “kafir”. Used more often for “mushrikin” are ‘polytheists’ or ‘idolaters’. As for who these mushrikin are: well we don’t really know. There’s a big discussion on this (Hawting is a must on this issue: http://books.google.nl/books?id=Mh134wJLwkIC&printsec=frontcover&hl=nl&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false).
But I suppose it doesn’t really matter who was meant exactly; the command in itself is of course disturbing enough. Normally I would now advise to read the text in context. Problem is though that we don’t really know what the context is here in the first place (see Hawting above again).
In summary: a typical case of early Islamic history. We lack sources, we lack context, we don’t really know.
Thanks, your responses have been enlightening.
Why was Mohammed so obsessed with womens menarche and other items?. He really was a deviant and a pedophile to consider a 9 years old girl OK to have sex with.
How could muslims believe that this was a man of God when he was obviously a dirty old man and sex maniac?
1) Many people today see this marriage as child-abuse or paedophilia{1}
who r they jonmc give refrence:” However most laymen (i.e. those outside the medical/clinical professions) use a more colloquial definition based on “showing any interest in sex with a child””
THIS IS NOT ANY VALID PEOPLE EVIDENCE,IT JUST GENARAL OPENION ABOUT THE PEOPLE,JONMC ””’ MANY PEOPLE NOW A HOAX ””
2)J SAYS “which would, ”’today”’, render Mohammed guilty of statutory rape” SO WHAT ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO LIVED 100-200-1000 YEARS AGO JON SAYS IT DIVINE PAST? THE US GOVT SAYS ‘CHILD MARRIEGE PROHIBITEE[2) NO EVIDENCE] 2) BEFORE THE MOHAMMED[SA] JONMC & US AUTHORITY R RESPONSIBLE FOR CRITICIZE THEIR RELIGION CHRISTIANITY ;1)Joseph, Mary’s husband, was “90 years old” when he married 12 to 14-year old Mary! Was he too a pedophile?http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08504a.htm)
2)”They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man……..Now kill all the boys [innocent kids]. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. (Numbers 31:7,17-18)”
3)n the USA last century, the age of consent was 10 years old. California was the first state to change the age of consent to 14, which it did in 1889. After California, other US states joined in and raised the age of consent too. (Source: http://www.ageofconsent.com/comments/numberone.htm)
A 40-year-old man having sex with a 14-year-old woman may be a “pedophile” in the USA today, but not in China today (where the age of consent is 14), nor in the USA last century. Biology is a much better standard by which to determine these things in my view, not the arbitrariness of human culture.
—————————————————————-
Your posts are unintelligible.
Look it up.
If you can’t do a better job, you have no business posting here. You are making yourself and your religion look stupid.
Stop giving examples from the Bible, Christianity and Judaism. Pointing out the faults in others DOES NOT make islam seem any better or excuse it in any way. It’s like a murderer saying “He murdered also!” What possible differencee does that make? islam is responsible for ITS OWN EVIL. If you can’t defend it properly without trying to indict other religions along with it, you should just stay out of the game. Your effort is an EPIC FAIL.
#1. Are you saying that fifty+ year old men having sex with nine-year old girl-children is okay Shabeer? As for “many people”, one only has to do an internet search on this issue to find many articles/comments/etc. On this, most in very negative terms. With respect, clinicians do you a different definition of “paedophilia” to the general populace, the evidence for this is in my sources.
Mind you I do agree that “ MANY PEOPLE [k]NOW A HOAX”, Shabeer. Indeed they do.
#2. “DIVINE PAST”? Sorry Shabeer, I don’t understand. The general point is that I live in the world of TODAY, you may, of course if you wish, live in the PAST (7th century perhaps?), but why should anyone without a scimitar to grind wish to do so? The rest of your SHOUTY RANT makes no sense.
#3. With regard to Joseph and Mary. May I remind you that even the source you choose says that Mary was 12-14 at marriage (this is a simple match to the normal age-range of menarche at that time btw). Do you not, or can you not, understand the VAST DIFFERENCE between a girl aged nine and a teenager? However, Shabeer, two other points: 1. this source is apocryphal (it has no Theological value in Xtianity). 2. From the point of view of both Catholic and Orthodox Xtianity Mary is “ever virgin”, thus – to spell it out for you – the marriage was NEVER CONSUMMATED unlike ol’Mo and Aisha. If it is not consummated then there is no paedophilia or sex-abuse. 3.What is perhaps both funny and ironic is that this apocryphal story makes the case of ol’Mo even worse. Joseph is neither a prophet in Xtianity nor an “ihsan al-Kemil”, yet here we have an “ordinary Joe” who, SIX CENTURIES before Mo knew better than to do something that could legitimise paedophilia in the future.
#4. Your ‘point’ on the variable age of age-of-consent is dealt with in the main article and sources. At least read the article BEFORE commenting.
However, I will agree with you that “Biology is a much better standard by which to determine these things [i.e. the age at which a girl is ready for pregnancy] not the arbitrariness of human culture.” which is why the age-of-consent is now HIGHER than NINE – at least in non-Muslim Countries which are not hamstrung by the actions of a lasciviate.