This is the long overdue trial of Islam and here are the protagonists
Defendant: Muhammad bin Abdallah
Plaintiff: Humanity (The non-Muslim portion)
Prosecutor: Ali Sina
Defense Attorney: Raheel Shahzad (Any one else is welcome to join)
Courtroom: Public Opinion
post is further to Part 3, in which I presented the case that the merits
of multiple marriages is a nonissue really, because you have gathered a
lot of evidence to support the defendant's multiple wives, and then
invoked the morality and framework of today's societies (especially
those of western hemisphere), and have found defendant guilty of
polygamy in 2003. I hereby reject that entire claim on ground that this
to me tantamounts bringing George Washington back today and lynching him
for having kept some black slaves, and for that reason alone, his entire
product (and of those who aided him), namely the United States of
America, needs to be not recognized as legitimate. If you are prepared
to lynch all the founding fathers and render the USA an a nonentity, I
then will have to reconsider. However, if you cannot make a logical case
against the founding fathers of USA based on some current moral code and
are not willing to denounce the USA, then I find the prosecutor's
conclusions about the defendant totally biased and riddled with holes in
logic. The jury then has to be instructed accordingly, that the defense
rests on the case of multiple marriages, on account of the prosecutor
exhibiting a bias and presenting a case which defies the logic of most
defense hereby submits that the case of practicing polygamy 1400 years
and it being judged on basis of current day norms is not made
convincingly, and the defendant be found not guilty.
next portion of this case then goes to the heart of one marriage that is
the source of contention and basis for the accusation of pedophilia. To
give the reader some background on this, the basis of the case is that
one of the wives of the defendant was an allegedly immature child of 9
years, and that the defendant thereby marrying her, practiced
pedophilia. The morality of a 53 year old man marrying a 9 year old has
also been invoked.
defense will present the context of this portion and then go into
counterquestioning to ask the prosector to yield a declaration of
principle, based on which the jury will have to decide this particular
this site, one of the articles that is presented by the prosecutor throw
the prosecutor's case into doubt itself, by the sources referenced
there. On account of the discrepancy in the sources, the defense then is
free to make objective disagreement, and since the sources themselves
are not in harmony, then the issue of the exact age is not proven beyond
all doubts by the prosecutor.
that article, please read it here:
the problem with the collection of sources (which are not divine and not
construed as such by muslims collectively, they are historical accounts
meant for the guidance of people today, who also have the collective
authority to conclude the relevance of certain portions in today's
world, and if some society wishes to take a hardline attitude, in
respect of that, then it also is a problem for the societies which
accepted it in the first place).
5, Book 58, Number 236:
or so plus 6 = 9?
Inconclusive, hence the muslims can decipher that she was of a fairly
9 at alleged consummation, defendant 53, defendant passed away at 63,
and 9+10=19, but source mentions 18. Inconclusive. Hence reasonableness
by current society is invoked and the source is not denounced, but the
hadees understood to mean that Ayesha was of a young age at marriage.
Further, seven years old then contradicts the previous sahih hadith,
thereby both sahih hadees contradicting each other, and the prosecutor
on account of referencing both of them has brought the accuracy of age
into question. To choose one over the other then is being forced onto
married ‘Aisha in Mecca when she was a child of seven lived
with her in Medina when she was nine or ten. She was the only
virgin that he married. Her father, Abu Bakr, married her to him and
the apostle gave her four hundred dirhams.(Ref. 3, page 792)]
defense has now even more reason to doubt the source as not being
absolutely conclusive. Inconclusive and Incorrect are two different
things. Hence defense does not deny the Hadees, but invokes that the
verbage allows some room for reasonable inference. Hence, since the
prosecutor has opened up the possibility of the exact age being
inconsistently listed in the referenced sources, it can be then
reasonably inferred that the exact age is arguable. The defense then has
the liberty to claim that the age being discussed, if ONLY the above
sources are read, falls within a range, and that range can then also
have an additional year or two added. If 9 or 10 can be read, then 10 or
11 or 12 can be read without being logically completely out of the range
being addressed and context. The defense will then state for the jury
that Ayesha can be portrayed as a young girl, whose age can fall within
a specific range. If the prosecutor has the liberty to choose the lower
end, the defense then has the liberty to choose the upper reasonable
range. By doing so, the defense will address Ayesha as being a “young
girl” of age 12, which 12 also has been researched by many well
intentioned independent scholars and the collective reasonable person
standard is employed, without rejecting the Hadees in totality. (By some
scholars, they come to even 14 also as the age, and the jury needs to
know this aspect about the scholars disagreeing without denouncing
the prosecutor wishes to absolutely claim 9 calendar or lunar years,
then the following will have to be provided in addition to the above
medical records and birth certificate from the hospital where she was
marriage certificate with her date exactly stated
physical makeup as one of a girl not having reached puberty
distinct source disclaiming that she had not experienced menses at time
of the “consummation” of marriage
historically irrevocable source attesting that she had no mental
aptitude or capacity to object to sex, and in addition, had no ability
to be a reasonable wife to any man of any age.
sources that the girl’s father, mother, the society, both the
opponents of the cause and the proponents alike, objected vehemently to
the event as totally unacceptable
if the prosecutor cannot provide any or all of the above, then any text
which tackles the issue of age 1000 or more years after the fact is
hereby discarded by defense too. Charges brought today under a
particular constitution and the defendant charged posthumously under a
variant code 1400 years later is also then looked upon by defense with
extreme skepticism. Unless all the sources combined decisively pin down
the exact dates, the defense submits that the prosecutor is employing
selective information to further his point of view, and is not making a
case with clarity and unambiguity.
“consummation” as having meant sexual intercourse, here is being
forced upon the jury also. The defense is not disputing that
consummation cannot mean intercourse, but prosecutor has provided no
evidence that consummation to a 12 year-old actually means intercourse.
In fact, the prosecutor is contradictory in the inferences made on this
site. On one hand the insistence by the prosecutor is that the young
girl was immature and playing with dolls is somehow reflective of her
being a child mentally and physically. On the other hand, she is also
being trusted to recall the meaning of “consummation”, no matter at
what age the Hadees is attributable to her. Consummation means
intercourse by a reasonable person standard, and the defense concedes
this, but prosecutor has not provided any source that this intercourse
is exactly what she is saying. As a married person myself, without going
into details, and those in jury who are married, can use your
imagination that “consummation” can mean a variety of things on that
one night, which you can always think of as consummation, but the
defense is not convinced that all married people actually do exactly the
same things. This is not somehow a play on your reasonableness, but a
statement of fact that the prosecutor cannot make a convincing case of
immaturity and maturity at the same time.
now follow by accepting what consummation is reasonably supposed to
mean, which means the act of performance between a husband and wife.
Hence the prosecutor has invoked pedophilia.
defense will now present aspects of pedophilia and make the case that it
is being employed incorrectly and that the defendant did not practice
is a societal unacceptable practice of an individual who seeks
illegitimate pleasure by having sex with “children”
definition by itself then needs a few elements to exist, and the absence
of those elements then will mean that the defendant cannot be charged or
found guilty of them. If the prosecutor has some definition of his own,
then it needs to be stated on the site in clarity for the defense to
counter it within that context. Since the prosecutor has not really
presented any definition of pedophilia from any historic source or
perspective whatsoever, the use of the word “pedophile” is entirely
based on personal ambiguous definitions, a predisposed bias against all
societies of past and present, without any clear indication given as to
what exactly the “child” aspect meant 1400 years ago.
will now explore the elements of pedophilia by invoking the definition
myself, since prosecutor has not stated anywhere on site what he means
first aspect is one of social
acceptability, and here social acceptability does not mean a
universal one too. Just as diets and climates and other factors dictate
people’s growth patterns to a certain degree, that society also then
has the right and ability to decipher what remains within reason or
surpasses it. Secondly, Acceptability
of a practice universally is not the prerequisite for its legitimacy
within a certain independent society. If women want to live naked in the
Amazon jungle, it’s not illegitimate in the Amazon. A third element,
not in isolation but in addition to first two, is that of the “nature”
of illegitimacy or unethical. Hence that society in which a
practice is considered ethical and legitimate and within the reasonable
norm of that particular society, and not in absolute stark contrast with
other societies of present past or future, then has to be taken into
account. And the fourth element then needs to be of the interest of sexual
pleasure, without any consideration of any other objective but to
quench a bodily desire as being the only motive of the person actively
involved in pedophilia or contemplating it. If all four of these
elements are not applicable in combination, pedophilia by definition
does not apply.
Social Acceptability (1/2 above): Regardless of the prosecutor’s
insistence that moral relativity is a useless philosophy, that does not
automatically render it null and void. Hence if a society accepts
certain acts to be within the realms of reasonableness, and devoid of
any shock value or violating a basic human right to exist, then that
society is free to allow the members practice it freely. This is the
basic tenet even of USA that grants many freedoms. Cannibalism hence
will be stopped if found by other parallel societies as of the same time
period based on the shock value it renders to parallel societies. Ethics
also then are of that society alone. Since the prophet’s marriage does
not have any convincing source or criticism by the thinkers, writers or
intellectuals of 1400 years ago, or even 1200 years ago, then it has to
be accepted that marriage to young girls was an acceptable act and did
not rupture the moral fabric of that time. Mr. Sina then will have to
provide convincing, irrefutable evidence from any source of about a 1400
years ago to convince the defense that a shock value, displeasure,
unacceptability, ridicule, and rejection was associated with the
defendant’s marriage to Ayesha. If the prosecutor wants to construct
an imaginary society and then place the defendant in it and create
imaginary shock value, then that is disingenuous. If the prosecutor is
invoking pedophilia based on his perceived definition of some
“universal” society, then the jury is being intentionally misguided.
or Illegitimate: The societal acceptable act of a marriage between a man
and woman was achieved by the defendant, and is not disputed by the
prosecutor. Sexual aspect is not part of this element. Hence if today a
marriage anywhere is performed by a man to a girl of 3 years old (it IS
done in some parts of India), but the sexual aspect is not realized by
the partners until the girl is of an age where sex can reasonably be
expected as a natural outcome of the bond, then that marriage at 3 years
of age by itself is not unethical or illegitimate. If this does not
appeal to someone’s advanced sensibilities, it is not the problem of
that society, but of that one person who is shocked at such alleged
“perverseness”, according to the one being shocked, and if the
prosecutor’s sensibilities are being challenged, and other’s have
got the perspective that the event deserves, then the prosecutor’s
shock value is largely a product of a certain brand of indoctrination
and a predisposed bias to a certain race, class, time in history, or an
individual such as the defendant. To ask that society which was not
shocked 1400 years ago, to today suddenly come back and display horror,
or to ask a current society which has largely accepted the fact that
times have changed and what was reasonable 1400 years ago has now found
a shift in attitude, is asking almost for the impossible. Differences in
ideology is all fine, but to ask people to take a certain portion of
history and denounce the entire present day fabric, is quite a bit of
stretch. Of course that does not mean that everyone is going to assess
the event and take the wisdom from it, but to denounce an entire
ideology by giving reference to a few events, is ambitious at best.
Pleasure: By itself, a man or woman deriving sexual pleasure has never
been objectionable by any society. Amongst most societies, marriage is a
legal permission for it, and some societies have adjusted to sex also
capable of being acceptable even without a legal marriage contract. But
pedophilia is then the unethical practice of it being sought from a
“child”. But the view of “child” is also an important part of
the mix. The “child”, hence is not a universal constant and has
never been in any society. Of course, as I stated earlier, within
reasonableness, parallel societies do conform to a range. A “child”
in USA for example is up to the age of 18 years of age for most legal
situations. This imposition of a hard number is done for many
complicated legal considerations, but biologically this number 18 really
has no compulsory basis whatsoever. It would be foolish to think that at
17 years 354 days a person is a child, and then the next day he is an
adult biologically. If some biological proof exists that some visible or
biological change takes place at the passage of that one day, then the
defense needs to see it. But defense and prosecutor will have to then
agree in absence of such source that 18 years of age as the distinction
between “child” and “adult” is because of the current day
requirement of absolutes required in multiple situations. Driving
license for example, can be given at a recognizable and provable point
in a person’s life in USA and other countries. But even in USA, a
different limitation exists for various situations involving age. The
defense does not want to explore each and every one of them and leaves
it to the jury to use their judgment. So, in establishment of someone as
a child 1400 years ago, the use of current day 18 or 16 or even 14 year
boundary does not have strong merit.
if a child has to be called a child, in absence of the current day
availability of age records, then some advent of a biological nature has
to be used to judge that society. For girls, this can be then the onset
of the menses cycle, and for boys can be ability to reproduce, and for
both groups can be the visibility of pubic hair. This is partly one
reason in my opinion that
holy scriptures and Hadees have quite a bit of reference to menses. The
defense does not want to explore this graphically anymore to respect the
sensibilities of the audience, but hopefully the gist of the point is
understood. All girls can understand when they first experienced a
biological event. This event (the womanhood cycle) is not the same
across the globe even today. Diets and climates, and genetics make it
variable for different parts of the world. Some girls can get the cycle
as early as 8, and some may experience as late as 12.. And then there
are probably some exceptional cases too. The medical community can
provide more of this information. The chest of girls also then not a
constant given for each girl. There are enough girls at 8 who probably
have more visible chest than some 16 year olds. Even in current day USA,
you can find some 10 year-old-girls who have all the characteristics of
a well-endowed woman. So instead of exploring this medical aspect, the
defense then leaves it up the imagination of the jury to understand that
girls can be capable of all sexual activity at variable young age. This
young age, if the current societies have delineated as having an exact
number of child/adult, cannot be superimposed for the last x 1000’s of
years. If 3000 years ago, a girl was considered a “woman” for
marriage purposes at the onset of a biologically visible event, but was
a “child” for reference to their interests in that society (dolls as
an example), why the insistence today that they also should have got
their driving licenses at 18? Even today, a 14 year-old-guy can have sex
with another 14 year old girl, but if the guy was 25, it is taken as
statutory rape. But that by itself does not mean that the girl did not
have sex or was incapable in every other way as far as biological
performance goes. Statutory rape is also imposed by western societies
for a whole number of reasons, but once again, to impose this on each
and every society past and present, is the prosecutor’s own shock
value at work.
if the current western societies wish to invoke the “child” concept
up to the age of 18, the defense submits that yes this is necessary
today to keep a lot of things within some measurement, and absence of
this will pose huge problems today. But to take this 18 year rule and
also impose it around the world today and 1400 years ago is subject to
the bias of the reader of this defense. Now one may argue that the one
of sources quoted earlier says “child”, but then the defense wants
to invoke that the other source says “girl of 9”. Hence, it can be
reasonably inferred regardless of girl or child used, at least the
implied inclusion of a biological change, namely the woman cycle, is
present. Which then also means that the girl is physically capable of a
sex act and also then capable of reproducing. If also you took
additional changes into account, as I have said before, some 12 year
olds today have all the characteristics of a grown woman. Since there
are not a lot of convincing pictures of Ayesha when she was 10 or 11 or
15, for the prosecutor to imagine that she was of some limited
capability when it came to being a “woman”, then also is subject to
the prosecutor’s own bias as it relates to girls, and maybe somehow
reflective of the prosecutor’s sexual code of acceptance. However,
this aspect I am not sure of, hence I take back my own words about the
sexual bias of the prosecutor.
in the interest of Ayesha, I am not sure if at 12 she actually was not
in all respects a “full” woman. She very well could have been. And
could have had genuine feelings of desire, together with the emotional
makeup to maintain a home. (Sidenote: I have a sister who recently
married at the age of 20. Between 13 and about the time she married, I
really didn’t see much of a difference in her, if you know what I am
referring to. My family waited for a proper match, but she was just as
much of a “woman” at 14 as she is now)
for the prosecutor to give reference to Ayesha as a girl, incapable of
sexual activity and immature to the point of not being capable of
deciphering right from wrong at her marriage “consummation” day, the
defense needs absolute proof. Just the use of “girl” or “child”
of 9 or 11 or 12, is not sufficient for the worldwide jury to accept the
prosecutor’s version of what a 12-year-old girl can and cannot do
sexually and emotionally. Women are very capable at young ages too, and
to give them some kind of a “stupid” syndrome, especially if a girl
is predisposed to “grow up” fast due to genetics or other factors,
underestimating them. If the prosecutor finds it personally offensive
that a 12-year-old girl can have sex, then that statement needs to be
made explicitly. Otherwise lumping all 12-year-olds of the world into
the same exact category, and passing a judgement, without regard to
those girl’s biological or mental makeup, ESPECIALLY of the desert
climate and land of 1400 years ago, is also hereby rejected by the
defense as a statement of personal bias and motive as it relates to
sexual activity in girls.
is understood that at first any news or story of 10 – 13 year old
girls creates a mental picture of a small thin girl who is
“babyish”, but looking around me, I can present the jury with enough
examples of girls who are capable. We as a western society obviously
want to think in the best way possible, but the world is not just in the
west. So reality of it all is also important.
for the defense to proceed further on the sexual aspect of 10 or 12 year
olds, the prosecutor will have to admit to the following:
Ali Sina, hereby declare under penalty of perjury, that I find no reason
to believe that a young girl of 10 11 or 12, and for purpose of clarity,
a “young girl”, is incapable of having sexual orientation or the
mental makeup to be a wife of any man, across the globe, of times both
past and present, inclusive of the time period of 2000 years ago.
Further, that I invoke that 18 years be accepted as the legal age of
marriage of Ancient Arabia, and any digression or violation of this, by
any man of any tribe of that time, renders that marriage null and void,
and any children produced as a result and their descendants, are in my
view, illegitimate. If I wish to alter my minimum age limit downwards to
accommodate the customs of Ancient Arabia, I hereby then agree that a
downward acceptable limit that the defense may impose, which may be
lower than what I will come up with, be also as applicable. The minimum
age limit, then having been disagreed, I will make a public statement
that the minimum age of marriage of Ancient Arabia is a nonconclusive
issue, and I will then not invoke any source or my personal opinion as
to what the age of Ayesha should have been at time of her alleged
consummation of marriage with the defendant. Also, I will further bring
documented proof that no girl of even present times, even with the
legalities of societies imposed, under the age of 14 has had sex with a
male, in the United States of America.”
Mr Sina makes this claim on the homepage of the website, then the
defense will have to make counterpoints to that also. But if the
statement is not made publicly, on grounds of difference of opinion,
then the minimum age of a girl capable of being a wife of any man,
prophet or not, is inconclusive, and since is subject to the bias and
opinion of the prosecutor and the age then subject to the sensibilities
of the reader based on some personal sexual orientation, any derisive
reference of it will be removed from the case.
since the four elements that the defense presented necessary for
pedophilia to exist, and for the prosecutor having presented no
convincing supporting document in establishing the 4 elements in
combination, and that the source used to establish the age by the
prosecutor are a source of disagreement and debate for the jury of which
muslims are also a sizeable portion, the prosecutor will have to remove
all references of pedophilia also from the website. If such mentioning
is allowed to continue, the jury should request decisive proof about the
existence of all 4 elements for pedophilia as the defendant is accused
of, and failure to do so, will render the issue as a matter of bias, and
not rooted in sound logic.
Ali Sina to Raheel Shahzad
Mr. Shahzad begins this
session by stating that the morality and framework of the societies of
other ages should not be compared to that of today. Otherwise, as he
states, one could
find the founding fathers of America guilty of impropriety as well.
This argument is already
discussed and there is no reason to linger over it anymore. However it
is important to mention that although some of the founding fathers of
America had slaves they are not guilty of the horrendous crimes
perpetrated by the defendant. They are not guilty of rape, of mass
murder, of genocide, of looting, of assassination, of deceit and
misrepresentation, of amassing wealth through reducing free people into
slavery and selling them or other numerous crimes of which the
defendant is accused with. Furthermore the founding fathers of America did not made
bogus claims of being the mouthpiece of God on Earth, "a good example" to
follow or having "sublime morals", as the defendant did. Those men were
honest people who were born in a time when the consciousness of the
humanity was not yet awakened. They did the best they could and what
they proposed gave birth to a better and fairer society where the rule of law is
respected and justice prevails.
The defendant on the other
hand followed the examples of the people he called ignorant and set an
example far worse than his contemporaries and justified the most heinous
means with some bogus ends. He
gave birth to a society that is violent, anti democratic, backward,
bigoted and that is doomed to remain in perpetual misery.
The founding fathers of
America opened the doors of freedom to the people and helped them march in the pursuit
of their happiness and prosperity and excel all other nations of the
world. While the followers of Muhammad
are imprisoned and shackled in the dark dungeons of ignorance,
fanaticism, irrationality and blind faith and are sliding farther and
farther away from prosperity and happiness for a false promise of an
The results speak volumes.
In just about two centuries America has become the undisputed superpower
of the world without subduing and enslaving any other country. Yet
fourteen centuries later the benighted followers of Muhammad are
immersed in poverty and are infested with miseries that surround them from
The so-called “Golden
Age of Islam” was achieved because Muslims plundered the financial and
the intellectual wealth of the countries that they conquered leaving
behind a trail of death and devastation. And as soon as that wealth was
devoured the Islamic world plunged into poverty, as it
proved to be incapable to advance, produce or keep pace with the
defense makes an attempt to dismiss the authority of the Hadith and
hadith is the collection of stories of the life and the sayings of Muhammad. They
are the aid to understanding the Quran. Mr. Shahzad affirms that
many of the hadiths are irrelevant in this day and age and if a society
follows those sayings and the examples of Muhammad as they are noted in
hadith, or as he puts it, “takes a hardline attitude in respect of
that”, that is the problem of that society.
would like to ask Mr. Shahzad to explain how would a society or an
individual know which hadiths to follow and which ones not to?
would you say to a Muslim who thinks women are deficient in intelligence
or black dogs
are to be killed as devils because he has read these in some hadiths?
Would you tell him that he got it all wrong and those
hadiths are no more applicable? Can you please tell me why he should believe in
you? What authority you have to decide which hadiths are to be followed
and which ones are outdated? What is your standard of right and wrong? Are
you going to judge the sirat and sunnah of the Prophet with the values
of the secular and the kafir world?
are facing a dilemma. Quran without the hadith is gibberish. It is the
hadith that sheds light on the real meaning of the Quran. Then we have
Mr. Shahzad telling us that following the hadith is a problem. He says
that the society collectively can decide which hadiths are to be
followed and which ones should be jettisoned. I would like him to explain to us the mechanism by which one
billion plus believers can come together and decide which hadiths are no
more valid and should be discarded. The truth is that in practice we
have no such mechanism in place and changing the hadith or the Quran is
not possible. One can decide to disregard parts of those books, but
there is no authority that can make that a universal requirement of
faith. We certainly cannot stop the Mullahs or the Muslim terrorists who
wish to choose
the violent teachings of those books as the source of their guidance. In fact Islam is divided in hundreds of sects each
calling others heretics, precisely because each person chooses some hadiths
and rejects others and interprets the Quran as he pleases.
back to the case of pedophilia of which the defendant is accused, the
defense harangues in length that in some places Aisha is said to be six and in some other place she is said to be
seven and then concludes that
since the texts on the age of Aisha differ, they are
"inconclusive" and are not to be trusted at
all. Therefore he suggests that Aisha could have been much older when
she was given in marriage to the defendant.
defense goes on to demand that the prosecutor produce: Aisha’s medical
records, birth certificate, marriage certificate, a certificate of his
physical makeup as one of a girl not having reached puberty, a
certificate that she had not experienced menses at time of the consummation of marriage and other similar absurd demands.
prosecutor gives some credit to Mr. Shahzad who obviously realizes
that marrying a child of 9 years of age is unethical and hence
tries to prove that Aisha was actually older than what the hadiths say. However, those attempts are feeble. There are many hadiths that
clearly state Aisha was 6 when she was betrothed to Muhammad and she was
9 when he married her and consummated his marriage with her.
Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88
Some Muslims claim that it was Abu Bakr who approached Muhammad asking him to marry his daughter. This is of course not true and here is the proof.
Arabs were a primitive lot with little rules to abide. Yet they had some code of ethics that they honored scrupulously. For example, although they fought all the year round, they abstained from hostilities during certain holy months of the year. They also considered Mecca to be a holy city and did not make war against it. An adopted son’s wife was deemed to be a daughter in law and they would not marry her. Also it was costmary that close friends make a pact of brotherhood and consider each other as true brothers. The Prophet disregarded all of these rules anytime they stood between him and his convenience and whims.
Abu Bakr and Muhammad had pledged to each other to be brothers. So according to their costumes Aisha was supposed to be like a niece to Muhammad. Yet that did not stop him to ask her hand for marriage even when she was only six years old.
Interestingly, this moral
relativist Prophet would use the same excuse to reject a woman who was
not young and pretty enough for him.
Bukhari V.7, B62, N. 37
Hamza and Abu Bakr both were the foster brothers of Muhammad. But Aisha must have been too pretty for the Prophet to abide by the codes of ethics and customs.
In the following Hadith Muhammad confided to Aisha that he had dreamed of her before soliciting her from her father.
Whether Muhammad had actually such dream or he just said it to please Aisha and make her believe this has been the will of God is not the point. What matters here is that it indicates that Aisha was a baby being “carried” by an angel when the Prophet dreamed of her.
Here are some more hadiths that explicitly reveal the age of Aisha at the time of her marriage.
in one hadith the age is said to be "seven or six".
Abu-Dawud Book 41, Number 4915, also
Number 4915 and
In the above hadith we read that Aisha was playing in a swing, This is a play of little girls not grown up people. The above hadith also clearly mentions that the defendant took up cohabitation with Aisha when she was nine. And the age here is described as six or seven.
Six or seven are
really the same. We often do not recall at what exact age things
happened to us. So saying six or seven means six or seven and not ten or
twelve or may be fourteen as the defense insinuates.
The following Hadith is particularly interesting because it shows that Aisha was so small that she was not aware what was going on when the Holy Prophet “surprised” her by going to her in that very morning that she was brought to his house.
Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 90
important hadith is the following which shows Aisha was just a kid
playing with her dolls. Pay attention to what the commentator wrote in
the parenthesis. (She was a little girl, not yet reached the age of
Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151
prosecutor therefore submits the above exhibit in lieu of the birth
certificate and other absurd demands made by the defense. Aisha was a
child who used to play with dolls and at swing and had not
yet reached the age of
puberty. No medical records or
certificates are needed when we have proofs such as the above.
Khadija the first
wife of Muhammad died in December, 619. By then Muhammad who was born in 570
AD was 49 (close to 50) years old by Gregorian calendar and 51years old
by lunar calendar. (Lunar year is 11 days shorter than solar year) Two
months after the death of Khadija Muhammad married Sawda and at the same
time he betrothed Aisha. Three years later, he consummated his marriage
with Aisha who was just 9 years old.
Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 33
Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 245
This too is yet another proof that Aisha was born to Abu Bakr and his wife after they both had converted to Islam. Hence she could not have been more that nine or ten when she married the defendant.
defendant goes on to question the meaning of consummation and states
that the prosecutor is forcing upon the jury his own meaning.
The prosecution makes no such attempt to force any meaning other than what the word implies. However such an excuse is only indicative to what length the defense is ready to go to mask the truth and deny the facts.
defense states that “consummation”
mean different things and perhaps what Aisha meant by consummation
meant something else.
means only one thing. Even if it meant different things as the
defense is suggesting, we have no way to say what kind of consummation
took place. Even if we assume that consummation in this case could mean
fondling, as the same Aisha reported Muhammad used to do with his wives,
fondling a little girl is pedophilia. It is despicable, shameful,
disgusting and abhorrent. The fact that Aisha was “surprised”
of Muhammad "coming" to her, is
clear indication that she was not psychologically prepared to handle the
situation and did not know what was going on. Whether the beguiled Abu
Bakr consented to her 9-year-old child be fondled or raped by a
54-year-old man or whether the ignorant society of that time did not
consider pedophilia to be a crime does not absolve Muhammad of this
crime. A man who claimed to possess “sublime morals” and a good
example to follow should not have set such a poor example. He
should have known better.
defense then goes on to give his own definition of pedophilia and set
four criteria for it. He then states
that based on those criteria the defendant is not a pedophile.
prosecutor will not attempt to give a definition of his own but rather
calls the testimony of the experts:
Therefore one does not need to have intercourse to be a pedophile. Even having sexual fantasies with a child of age 13 or younger is pedophilia.
Muhammad was 54 when he had sex with Aisha who was then just 9 years old. By all definitions this is pedophilia. The actual penetration is not necessary to happen in order to call what the defendant did pedophilia. Social acceptability or not is not a valid excuse. The societies of the past used to be ignorant and savages. In many societies human sacrifice was normal and in some societies even cannibalism was practiced. That is no reason to believe such acts were good at any time and a prophet of such people who practiced those heinous acts could also be a true prophet. Muhammad claimed to be a messenger of God. He claimed to have come to guide the mankind to the right path. He said he is setting an example for everyone to follow. Even if pedophilia was rampant in his time, he should not have done it.
With moral relativity clause, we could possibility acquit anyone who is born and raised in a society that does not frown on pedophilia. Although, even that is arguable. But we cannot forgive a man who claimed to be a guide to the rest of mankind when in reality he followed the vices of the most ignorant people of his time and set a bad example for the posterity and other people who did not have those vices. The evil perpetrated by an average man is limited to his own sphere of actions. The evil of a man who lies and deceives others claiming to be a messenger of God and then sets such a perverse example, affects billions of people and in fact to all mankind.
Today we are not here to condemn Muhammad but to set free those who believe he is an example to follow. I hope that Muslims who seek the truth can see that they have been duped by an impostor and that following such an evil monster is no way to heaven. Unless Allah is devil, no real God would send a man of such low moral character as the guide to mankind.
Although I do not have any document showing that marriage to a 9-year-old, 1400 years ago was prohibited, I do not know of any historic document showing that marriages to children that young were allowed either. I doubt a civilized people as the Persians practiced such thing.
Anyway, we are not here to change the past but the present. Today many young girls in Iran and other Islamic countries become victimized by this barbaric sunnah (tradition, example) of Muhammad. Today, in many countries marriage to children younger that 14 and 15 is prohibited and is severely punished as statutory rape. Yet in most Islamic countries this barbaric tradition lingers. The reason given is that it is the sunnah of the Prophet and hence it must be respected and preserved. The prevalent attitude is that "Allah knows best".
The Guardian Council of Iran, made of 12 clerics, vetoed a bill to raise the legal age for girls marrying from 9 to 12, or the bill to allow unmarried girls to travel abroad for their studies. Such bills would have undermined the law of Sharia. In Iran 9-year-old girls can be prosecuted and put to death because according to the sunnah they are considered to be adults. If they are good for marriage and sex then they should be good for prosecution too.
Therefore, it is irrelevant whether the people of 1400 years ago were shocked or not. What is disturbing is that the Muslims, even in this day and age are not shocked by what Muhammad did. What concerns us is that this barbaric law is practiced today in many Islamic countries and as long as Islam is deemed to be superior to secular (western) laws, the violence against children will not end.
We cannot uphold Muhammad as a messenger of God, "an honorable prophet", "an example to follow" and then tell people do not follow his examples. This hypocrisy must stop. You either believe that what Muhammad did is right and the world should follow him now and for ever, or stop calling him a good example for mankind to follow.
tell me at what time in the last 1400 years Muhammad was a good example
to follow? Can you point out one society who had a moral
standard lower than that of Muhammad? Which society benefited by following his
Can you point out one society who had a moral standard lower than that of Muhammad? Which society benefited by following his examples?
The defense gives a lengthy explanation to prove that in some cases some girls mature faster and it is possible that some girls could reach puberty at the age of nine.
As we saw in one of the above hadiths, Aisha at the time of her marriage “was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty”. So even if what the defense claims could be true in some exceptional cases, it does not apply to Aisha. Yet we are not concerned about Aisha but the implications of this and other examples set by Muhammad. Millions of girls, whether reached puberty or not, were raped and are continued to be raped because of what Muhammad did 1400 years ago. And that is a tragedy that must be stopped.
Whether some girls in some areas can reach puberty at 9 is no excuse to set a law that could potentially deflower and scar psychologically and even physiologically millions of little girls who have reached the age of 9.
Therefore, I plead to the Jury, both Muslims and non Muslims, to unanimously condemn the defendant Muhammad bin Abdullah, for setting this bad example and find him guilty of pedophilia. I urge my Muslim brothers and sisters in humanity to not let bigotry come between them and justice. If there is a God, be assured that he is on the side of justice. So be just and think whether you would like a 54 year old man fondle or have sex with your own 9 year old daughter. Even if you disagree with everything I say, you must agree that what Muhammad did to Aisha was indecent and unethical. What would be your judgment if, not Muhammad but someone else was on trial for the same crime? What would you say if a 54 year old Mullah took a 9-year-old girl to bed? Even if you love Muhammad, you must condemn this act. Otherwise how can you look in the mirror and not be ashamed of your own inhumanity?