Content:
1. Was Aisha’s Marriage Common In History?
2. Khawlah Suggested The Prophet To Marry Aisha
3. Aisha And Dolls
4. Jariyya – Young Lady
5. Aisha Reached Puberty Before Marriage Was Consummated
Introduction,
Among the claims made in regards to Prophet Muhammed’s marriage to Aisha is that such a marriage was uncommon. Some online detractors even go the extend to avoid and deliberately make out to their readers that such a marriage was unheard off in history.
Indeed there are a number of authentic reports in Sahih al Bukhari and other sources which say that her marriage was consummated at the age of 9 (or 10 in some other sources). This was the time she had reached the age of puberty. Although this age is something that has been accepted among the conservative Muslims in the past and today, there are some 20th century proponents who have…
View original post 6,725 more words
Categories: Islam
Blogging Theology 
Muhammad was a child molester. You can try to spin it anyway you like, but that’s the clearest fact about all of this.
LikeLike
So you are basically denying the evidence in front of you. Are you a christian by any chance?
LikeLiked by 2 people
the clearest fact about all of your comments ZS is your a clueless fool… really it’s true 😉
LikeLiked by 3 people
HK,
I read the evidence, very unconvincing. Based on nothing but assumptions, speculations, conjecture and special pleading.
A 54 year old man having sex(raping) a 9 year old girl is morally repugnant. Regardless of the time or culture it takes place in.
You Muslims need to stop bending over backwards trying to justify Muhammad’s despicable behaviour. It’s embarrassing and only highlights your intellectual dishonesty and disingenuity.
The guy is supposed to be perfect and Allah’s so called pattern of conduct. I think a Holy God would have higher standards than to approve a marriage between a prepubescent girl and a middle aged man.
LikeLike
How old was Mary when she married Joseph?
LikeLiked by 2 people
The bible doesn’t say, Bilal.
LikeLike
But historians have estimated her age to be about 12, in that culture and context.
Question: as Joseph is traditionally thought to be an older man do you feel like a hypocrite?
LikeLiked by 4 people
LOL
Mary and Joseph’s age has never been verified, Bilal.
The best source you Muslims can come up with is the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia. What you fail to mention is that page starts with the following warning:
“the apocryphal literature is full of details, the non-admittance of these works into the Canon of the Sacred Books casts a strong suspicion upon their contents”.
Face it this is just another desperate attempt from you guys to a) divert the attention away from Moh’s pedophilia. And b) tu quoque your way out of this major question mark over the validity of your beloved prophet. 😂
LikeLike
Actually I had in mind top NT scholars in the US who have looked into this question like Professor Dale Alison at Princeton.
LikeLiked by 3 people
paul
Christians are not commanded to follow the example of joseph in all things. Is mohammed a pervert for lusting after a child? And does having a period mean that a girl is fully physically mature?
LikeLike
In your religion God chose at 12 year old girl (possibly younger) to marry a probably much older man.
I smell double standards.
LikeLiked by 2 people
No Bilal.
Nowhere in our religion is Mary and Joseph’s age verified or even indicated.
Sahih hadiths on the other hand are a fundamental part of Islam.
LikeLike
Responsible expert historical analysis has suggested Mary was 12 years old – or even younger.
This must make you feel VERY uncomfortable.
You worship a god who condones
pedophilia apparently.
The stench of double standards…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken Zelyts you want to play stupid games?
Jesus impregnated his own mother. Your God wants his own son as a blood sacrifice and demands you to eat his flesh and drink his blood? Come on.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Burhanuddin,
Be quiet, angry kid. The adults are talking.
LikeLike
Dinah was married off to Shechem while no older than 7-years-old. Prophet Jacob is seen in the Bible happily giving his daughter Dinah away in marriage at such an age.
https://discover-the-truth.com/2017/01/25/revisiting-dinah-and-shechems-marriage/
Rebecca was between the ages of 3-10, when she was married off to 40-year-old Isaac.
https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/11/17/what-was-rebeccas-age-when-given-away-in-marriage-naar/
Yes, the usual critics are clearly playing a double standard.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Hear hear grandpa Zelyts.
Children tell the truth.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“A 54 year old man having sex(raping) a 9 year old girl is morally repugnant. Regardless of the time or culture it takes place in”
This was very normal in time of Jesus, yet Jesus didn’t say a word regarding this matter.
Your bible doesn’t give any specific age for girls to label it as the proper time for marriage.
Aisha (ra) was among the most knowledgeable women in Islam if she is not the first.
Read her biography. How loving she was for her husband pbuh. How Jealous she was for her husband pbuh. You’re nothing but mere ignorant people who like to talk while it’s normal in your culture for women to get fu**ed by any man till she gets married.
LikeLike
Just to reiterate Burhannudin’s point about the shameful act of celestial incest,
“Jesus impregnated his own mother”
Therefore, Christian criticism of the marriage of Aisha is way BEYOND double standards.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I wonder why some Christians always try to play “moral supremacy”. Could be out of some inferiority complex?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Paul Williams
“In your religion God chose at 12 year old girl (possibly younger) to marry a probably much older man.
I smell double standards.”
In your religion – according to Discover the twisted truth – Aisha’s family groomed the poor child for mohammed to rape her. And you are commanded to follow his example.
I smell satanic sex exploitation.
LikeLike
lol you just made that rubbish up.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Burhannudin,
Christianity offers the world nothing new other than a belief in faith based redemption through a belief in atonement by the cross. Since NT criticism has seriously undermined that belief, and in light of the fact that every other world religion teaches good morals and values, Christians feel the need play moral supremacy, both to assuage their own ego and also to convince themselves and others of the false assertion that Christianity still has something of value to offer.
As I am sure you already knew!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Paul Williams
“lol you just made that rubbish up.”
LOL. No I didn’t.
Discover the twisted truth states clearly that Aisha’s family all but pushed her into an abusive relationship. Take it up with him.
LikeLike
ZS: Please go back just few generations ( may be as close as 3-5 generation) in your own family tree and see what was the age of their marriage. Please be honest to tell us. By your definition, entire human race is descendant of child “molester” and “molested” children”
LikeLike
Excellent job.
LikeLike
Mohammed is your example – do you guys therefore agree that muslims can have sex with 9 year olds? If you do, you’re a bunch of perverts.
As for whether a 9 year old can reach puberty – it is a sad and perverted claim that a 9 year old with a period qualifies as a full grown woman. A 9 year old body is still a 9 year old body and mohammed damaged Aisha’s internal reproductive organs by having sex with her when she was physically immature.
This is a certainty unless you guys want to claims that mohammed suffered from micro-penıs syndrome – that is the only way that Aisha could have been physically unharmed.
LikeLike
This is a very narrow view, and it reflects how ignorant you are.
We follow the example of the prophe pbuh by living our life in any society as that socitey presents it norms as long as they don’t violate the Islamic teachings. The prophet pbuh didn’t command muslims to live as Arab lived in the 7th century. It’s like you’re telling us that we have to keep using camels for travel.
Second, why didn’t you take the time to read the article? It’s not really helpful to comment in each subject with your ignornce.
Third, do you follow the example Jesus? Then I should except from you to sell everything you have and give it to the poor since this is a command from Jesus.
I challange you!
LikeLiked by 3 people
Abdullah
“The prophet pbuh didn’t command muslims to live as Arab lived in the 7th century. “
Shirk.
The prophet’s opinion is irrelevant – your god in his “holy” book commands that muslims exemplify mohammed in all things. You are putting the words of a human being above the words of your allah.
Second, yes, I did read the article – it was poorly argued and badly written and only convincing for cult members.
Jesus did not have sex with children and never commanded christians to do so – mohammed lusted after little girls. Who .is the better example?
LikeLike
KEV: Please go back just few generations ( may be as close as 3-5 generation) in your own family tree and see what was the age of their marriage. Please be honest to tell us. By your definition, all your ancestors must have suffered the that syndrome!
LikeLike
“Jesus did not have sex with children and never commanded christians to do so”
Jesus never commanded them not to either.
LikeLiked by 2 people
If I’m not wrong, Bible also sets the marriageable age as puberty.
It’s interesting to note that whatever actions of Muhammad(saw) the Christians accuse of, those very actions are lawful as per the Bible.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You are quite right.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ibn Issam
Classic muslim logic.
We’re commanded to love others as we love ourselves and the Lord – thus we don’t cause harm or physical damage to little girls by lusting after them and forcing them to have sex.
It is almost certain that Aisha was physically damaged by mohammed – that is, unless he suffered from micro-penis syndrome.
LikeLike
Kev you seemed obsessed with “micro-penises”. This says a great deal about you – and your inadequacies.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Kev,
Your mind is always in the gutter. You utter nothing but pure speculation based on no evidence whatsoever.
Muslims are also commanded to love Allah and to respect everything in his creation as well. There is no evidence of “force” in the marriage of Aisha. If there was she would have complained or made accusations of such later in her life, which she never did.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Ibn Issam
Are you familiar with the Rotherham grooming case? What you can learn from that is that when children are subject to abuse and violence (yes your great example also hit his child bride) come to view that as normal. When you take that away, oftentimes, these abused kids will choose to go back to the abuse because that is all they know.
In your illogical muslim mind that means that these victims are “willing” and consenting. To the rest of the civilized world, these victims are not capable of distinguishing between abuse and normal behaviour because they have been so abused.
Similarly, Aisha would most likely have been so traumatized by the abuse she received that she would have not know any better. Even worse, since her famliy groomed her for the abuse, she would have had all the people who should have been taking care of her telling her that it is normal and good to be abused by “prophet”.
The poor girl not only suffered damage to her reproductive organs (unless mohammed’s weiner was a weiner), but was so brainwashed that she had no means to understand the abuse she was victimized by.
As for “force” – no 9 year old can make life decisions – you are deluding yourself if you think they can. That’s why we don’t encourage child soldiers (by “we” I mean non-muslims) and why we don’t elect 9 year olds for PM.
You actually sound like a decent guy – it is only brainwashing that is making you defend such abhorrent behaviour by your prophet.
LikeLike
Paul Williams
“Kev you seemed obsessed with “micro-penises”. This says a great deal about you – and your inadequacies.”
Why are contemplating my penis?
mohammed’s member is significant – if he was normally endowed then he damaged Aisha and caused her to be barren. This is cruel for that period of history. If he did not damage Aisha, then the only explanation was that he had an extremely small penis.
Don’t hate logic.
LikeLike
Kev,
Repeating your speculation ad nauseum does not make it true.
1-Dinah was groomed by her family to marry Sechem.
2- Abishag was groomed by her family to marry David.
3- Rebecca was groomed by her family to marry Isaac.
The Abhorrent behavior that you rail about, are actually approved of in your own Bible which you also defend.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Mary was groomed by Gabriel to have a child without her husband.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“… and your inadequacies.
My guess: microcephaly
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yep that too. Dropped as a baby most like.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Paul Williams
“Mary was groomed by Gabriel to have a child without her husband.”
LOL!
The quran says the same thing – that shows that muslims revere their human prophet more than the words of their god.
LikeLike
So you have no problem with Mary being groomed by someone other than her husband to have an extra marital baby??
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, according to Christians Mary was groomed by Gabriel to be impregnated by her own incestuous son. Talk about “ewwww” factor.
Astaghfirallah!
LikeLiked by 3 people
Nasty. Christians will defend the most weird and pagan ideas.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ibn Issam
“The Abhorrent behavior that you rail about, are actually approved of in your own Bible which you also defend.”
Tu quoque. No christian or jew is commanded to view such behaviour as exemplary. You are commanded to view mohammed’s lusting after a little girl as exemplary behaviour.
LikeLike
Kev you are wrong. Paul in 2 Tim 3:16 has a very different view.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Paul
That’s stupid even for you.
LikeLike
Insults are not arguments
LikeLiked by 1 person
Qur’an says Jesus was created in the womb of Mary by God. While Bible says that she was impregnated by the Trinitarian God through an incestuous relationship with her own son.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Discover the twisted truth has stated clearly that Aisha’s family pushed the little victim onto the prophet – they mad ehşm available to his perverted lust. Don’t hate the truth.
LikeLike
Ibn Issam
“Qur’an says Jesus was created in the womb of Mary by God. While Bible says that she was impregnated by the Trinitarian God through an incestuous relationship with her own son.”
LOL!!!
Very creative. Admit it. Mohammed was a pervert with a small penis who lusted after little girls. No amount of self-delusion will change that.
LikeLike
More fixation with small penises. Revealing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think Kev is the only one who is “twisting” the truth here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Paul,
more focus on my penis.
very revealing.
LikeLike
Lol you keep bringing it up – so to speak
LikeLike
Why are people surprised that this mongrel pagan cult known as Christianity with its idolatry also merged with ancient cultures that exist to this day that worship the penis?
LikeLike
The writer of the article provides HISTORICAL evidence that Joseph the Carpenter married Mary mother of Jesus when he was 90 and the was 12. He quoted Eusebius of Caesarea (260 CE), who was an early historian and Bishop, confirming the historicity of this. Many other early church fathers believed it. Therefore, it doesn’t matter whether it was narrated in the Apocrypha, early church historians confirmed it to be historical.
And the point is that, according to today’s standard, the marriage between Joseph at 90 and Mary at 12 was pedophilia – thus Joseph was a pedo!
This also means that if Christians are ever consistent, they must condemn Joseph the Carpenter as a pedo and “child molester” for marrying a chld at 12 which is an underage according to today’s standard!
So, what this article brings home is ‘demand of consistency’ from Christian apologists. But where is such a consistent Christian apologist?! Nowhere!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mujahid
“And the point is that, according to today’s standard, the marriage between Joseph at 90 and Mary at 12 was pedophilia – thus Joseph was a pedo!”
You moron. Mary remained a virgin for an unknown number of years and then conceived Jesus. Obviously, she was not raped by joseph the way mohammed raped his 9 year old.
And there is no credible evidence that Mary was 12. Moot point.
LikeLike
Three points.
1. Did it happen?
2. If it did happen is it wrong?
3. What is the right way?
1. Did it happen?
Christian: Joseph and Mary’s ages are not verified in the bible.
Muslim: Aisha and Muhammad’s ages are not verified in the Quran.
Christian: It is mentioned in the Sahih Hadith and that is part of Islam.
Muslim: Your church fathers are a part of your religion.
Christian: No, that is for the CATHOLICS only! How ignorant you are! That’s not for ALL Christians!
Muslim: The hadith you mention is accepted by ALL Muslims?
Christian: I don’t know…duhhh.
Muslim: Check mate. Not all Muslims have to accept every hadith. We didn’t stick hadith into the Quran and claim it’s all from God like you Christians have. Therefore it gives us the flexibility to accept or reject hadith. Do MANY MANY Muslims believe the hadith are to be followed to the letter? Quite possibly. But at least a quarter of the Muslims categorically deny those hadith and their entire compendium as trustworthy sources.
Christian: Ok, fine, let’s get to the “ewww” factor. I mean it’s just ewww. 54 year old marrying a 9 year old girl.
Muslim: We just established that those hadith are NOT reliable at least by a quarter of the Muslims. If it didn’t happen then the “eww” factor is only in your mind. If it did happen, we can discuss the details once we get done with this point.
Christian: In that case, then the 3/4 of the Muslims are eww.
Muslim: Would you then follow the 1/4 of the Muslims? Just like some Christians cite the ages of Mary and Joseph as well as Abraham, who was 95 and Hagar who was in her teens. The age gap was much wider than Muhammad and Aisha.
So, in conclusion, “Did it happen?” According to a majority, yes, according to the minority, no. This minority spans the Shia sect as well as many prominent Sunni scholars like Imran Hosein. The Shia categorically deny the entire compendium as being reliable and scholars like Imran Hosein deny the selected hadith they disagrees with. So a more accurate accusation would be that Sunni Muslims believe this to be true, not all Muslims or “Islam”.
2. If it did happen, is it wrong?
Christian: It is WRONG.
Muslim: Are girls in the west having sex at 9 years of age?
Christian: Yes.
Muslim: Is it one or two cases or thousands?
Christian: Thousands.
Muslim: Is it wrong?
Christian: Well, her body is not yet fully developed so yea it’s wrong.
Muslim: Then why don’t you make it illegal?
Christian: Freedom of choice.
Muslim: You just said categorically it’s wrong.
Christian: Well, she’s having sex with boys her own age or just a few years older, not that much older.
Muslim: So it’s not wrong then?
Christian: Yea it IS wrong!
Muslim: Wait, you’re contradicting yourself. One minute you’re saying it’s wrong, then justifying not passing laws against it and rationalizing that she is having sex with boys instead of men. How does her internal organs know the difference?
Christian: If we made it illegal then how can they date? We’ll have to throw most of the high school kids in school. It’s not practical to not allow unmarried girls to have sex.
Muslim: So what’s your objection? Marriage or sex?
Christian: Well, if she’s 9 then she shouldn’t be having sex with anyone.
Muslim: Great. Then why not pass a law against it?
Christian: Duhhh…
Muslim: Ok, so what is the RIGHT way then? Now there are two issues. Right age and right marital status. You can’t decouple the two and then have an independent debate.
3. What is the right way?
Christian: She should be 18 years old. Anything less than that is pedophilia.
Muslim: Are you saying Mary was 18 years old when she gave birth to Jesus?
Christian: No, the bible doesn’t say.
Muslim: Do you believe she was? Could she have been 12; an age when girls typically reached puberty?
Christian: Yea, I guess she could have been.
Muslim: Then was Joseph a pedophile for marrying her at that age?
Christian: No, it doesn’t say he had sex with her.
Muslim: Where did you come up with this number 18?
Christian: Scientists have said that’s the age when she matures both mentally and physically.
Muslim: Are you serious? All girls suddenly mature at the exact same time??
Christian: No, but by then all, if not 99.99% of girls must have matured.
Muslim: Again, then why not pass a law that says that it is a crime for girls below that age to have sex?
Christian: You know, we have to let them make their own choices.
Muslim: You just said they’re not mature yet. How can they make their own choice?
Christian: Same way Aisha made the choice.
Muslim: Wait, we’re talking about YOUR paradigm. Why are you mixing the two issues?
Christian: No, let’s talk about Muhammad and Aisha.
Muslim: You were doing so good so far. How did you switch to crazy mode suddenly?
Christian: You are crazy.
And that’s where the conversation ends.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Correction:
*they disagree
**Most of the high school kids in jail.
LikeLike
umaralfarooq
“1. Did it happen?
Christian: Joseph and Mary’s ages are not verified in the bible.
Muslim: Aisha and Muhammad’s ages are not verified in the Quran.”
Dishonest right from the start.
Muslims don’t follow the quran – you follow the examples of mohammed as recorded in texts that have no historical credibility and which were written down at least 2 centuries after mohammed died.
In other words, muslims follow the writings of a man who lived well after mohammed died who claimed without substantiation that his words were said by mohammed.
You are not followers of mohammed or the quran, you are Bukhari-ites.
For example, you are not commanded to pray 5 times daily, and you are not commanded to perform the salat the way you perform it by self-importantly showing off by bowing, crouching, and generally making a show of your piety. Also, you are not commanded to go to Mecca to perform the Hajj, nor to circle a pagan tent 7 times.
So, let’s be honest, you guys don’t follow the quran, it is a mere reference work for Bukhari’s dubious history, that you ignore in favour of revering a mere human being.
LikeLike
Kev,
“Mary remained a virgin for an unknown number of years and then conceived Jesus. Obviously, she was not raped by joseph the way mohammed raped his 9 year old.”
Rubbish!
You didn’t respond to what I pointed out from the article but just stated your rubbish.
Early Church historians like Eusebius of Caesarea (260 CE) confirmed the historicity of Joseph at 90 marrying Mary at 12.
If any female before 18 is a child, according to today’s secular standard which you people believe in more than your Bible, then Mary was a child when the 90 old Joseph married her. This makes Joseph a pedo and a child molester according to the secular standard which you people abide by.
Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) married a woman that reached puberty at 9 which is scientifically feasible. Thus, your vile against this is from biased emotion only not on any divine writ.
LikeLiked by 4 people
“”Early Church historians like Eusebius of Caesarea (260 CE) confirmed the historicity of Joseph at 90 marrying Mary at 12.””
Citation needed.
LikeLike
Aliyou
Nonsense.
There is no evidence that Mary was 12.
LikeLike
Note that Mujahid and Aliyu are one being!
LikeLiked by 1 person
1 person or 2 persons?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m convinced the age of Aisha(ra) is a political manipulation. The younger she was the less guilty she could be made out for her involvement in the Battle of Jamal.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Then why should we believe any of the muslim texts if they can so easily be manipulated?
LikeLike
Same reason you believe in the Gospels.
LikeLike
There’s no evidence the gospels were manipulated, but you have admitted that your texts are suspect.
LikeLike
“There’s no evidence the gospels were manipulated”
What a time water
LikeLike
Burhanaddin
The idea that the bible was manipulated is ridiculous. It never happened.
Islamic texts are corrupted – kmak had the decency to admit it.
LikeLike
Kev: There’s no evidence the gospels were manipulated…
Okay, if that makes you feel better. I’ll just stick with mainstream scholarship on the NT.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yawn.
Liberal scholars are biased. Either way, don’t change the subject, we agree that the islamic texts are historically suspect and heavily manipulated.
LikeLike
Kev: Liberal scholars are biased.
Thanks random guy on the internet. You’ve figured out everything.
LikeLiked by 2 people
There are some internet dawagandists who quote the following English rendering of al-Bukhari in order to prove that Aisha was past the age of puberty when she married and had sex with Muhammad, who was approximately 54 years old at that time:
Narrated: Aisha
I had seen my parents following Islam since I attained the age of puberty. Not a day passed but the Prophet visited us, both in the mornings and evenings. My father Abu Bakr thought of building a mosque in the courtyard of his house and he did so. He used to pray and recite the Qur’an in it. The pagan women and their children used to stand by him and look at him with surprise. Abu Bakr was a softhearted person and could not help weeping while reciting the Quran. The chiefs of the Quraish pagans became afraid of that (i.e. that their children and women might be affected by the recitation of Quran).” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 8, Number 465)
Muslims assume that since Aisha claims to have been pubescent when her parents became Muslims, which was many years before she married Muhammad, they take this as proof that she wasn’t a physically immature child not ready for sexual consummation when Muhammad took her to bed to be his wife.
The problem with this claim is that these polemicists are basing their entire argument on an English translation of the foregoing hadith, which they take to be correct. However, the proper understanding of the hadith becomes clearer when we compare it with the following narration:
“Narrated Aisha: (wife of the Prophet) Since I reached the age WHEN I COULD REMEMBER THINGS, I have seen my parents worshipping according to the right faith of Islam. Not a single day passed but Allah’s Apostle visited us both in the morning and in the evening…” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 37, Number 494)
Now compare how Muslima Aisha Bewley renders the first hadith in her translation of al-Bukhari:
LII: A mosque should not be built in a thoroughfare if that would be detrimental to people
Al-Hasan, Ayyub and Malik all said this.
464. It is related that ‘A’isha, the wife of the Prophet, said, “I have no recollection of my parents doing anything but following the deen of Islam. No day would pass without the Messenger of Allah visiting us at either end of it, both morning and evening. Then it occurred to Abu Bakr to build a mosque in the forecourt of his house. He used to pray and recite Qur’an in it. The pagan women and children would stand there amazed, staring at him. Abu Bakr was a man who wept easily and could not control his tears when reading the Qur’an and this was a matter of great concern to those nobles of Quraysh who worshipped idols.” (Bewley, The Sahih Collection of al-Bukhari, Chapter 11: Mosques)
And here is her translation of the second narration:
IV: The protection and promise granted to Abu Bakr during the time of the Prophet
2175. It is related that ‘A’isha, the wife of the Prophet, said, “I only remember my parents following the deen.”
It is related that ‘A’isha, the wife of the Prophet, said, “I ONLY REMEMBER my parents following the deen. Not a day passed by without the Messenger of Allah coming to us at the two ends of the day, morning and evening…” (Ibid., Chapter 42: Book of Sureties (Kafala); capital and underline emphasis ours)
The foregoing makes it abundantly clear that the hadith isn’t speaking to the issue of Aisha’s puberty whatsoever. Rather, the point of the narration is on Aisha’s recalling the fact of her parents being Muslims from the time she was able to mind her surroundings. However, one doesn’t have to reach puberty in order to be able to be cognizant of the things taking place around them.
Besides, al-Bukhari provides evidence that Aisha hadn’t attained puberty when Muhammad had sex with her:
XXXIX. A man giving his YOUNG CHILDREN in marriage
By the words of Allah, “that also applies to those WHO HAVE NOT YET MENSTRUATED” (65:4) and He made the ‘idda of a girl before puberty three months.
4840. It is related from ‘A’isha that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and consummated it when she was nine, and she was his wife for nine years. (Bewley, The Sahih Collection of Al-Bukhari, Chapter 70. Book of Marriage; capital and underline emphasis ours)
Al-Bukhari mentions Aisha’s marriage to Muhammad at the age of 9 to illustrate the meaning of Q. 65:4, a text which permits grown men to marry and have sex with young prepubescent girls. Now this only makes sense if Muhammad married Aisha before the latter had reached maidenhood.
In fact, Muhammad’s marriage to a minor set the precedence for other men to follow suit, and became enshrined in the Quran:
And if you are in doubt as to the prescribed period for such of your women as have despaired of monthly courses, then know that the prescribed period for them is three months, and also for such AS DO NOT HAVE not have their monthly courses YET. And as for those who are with child, their period shall be until they are delivered of their burden. And whoso fears ALLAH, HE will provide facilities for him in his affair. S. 65:4 Sher Ali
The surrounding context deals with the issue of the waiting period for divorce, and remarriage. The Quran is basically informing Muslims to wait for a certain period of time before making the divorce final or deciding to forego it. The Quran exhorts men to wait a period of three months in the case of women who either are no longer menstruating or haven’t even started their menstrual cycles! Thus, Islam permits men to marry prepubescent girls and even divorce them if they so choose!
This is further confirmed by the fact that according to Quran 33:49, there is no waiting period for a woman whose marriage hasn’t been consummated by sexual intercourse. Here, once again, is al-Bukhari:
Narrated Sahl bin Sad: While we were sitting in the company of the Prophet a woman came to him and presented herself (for marriage) to him. The Prophet looked at her, lowering his eyes and raising them, but did not give a reply. One of his companions said, “Marry her to me O Allah’s Apostle!” The Prophet asked (him), “Have you got anything?” He said, “I have got nothing.” The Prophet said, “Not even an iron ring?” He said, “Not even an iron ring, but I will tear my garment into two halves and give her one half and keep the other half.” The Prophet; said, “No. Do you know some of the Quran (by heart)?” He said, “Yes.” The Prophet said, “Go, I have agreed to marry her to you with what you know of the Qur’an (as her Mahr).” ‘And for those who have no courses (i.e. they are still immature). (65.4) AND THE ‘IDDAT FOR THE GIRL BEFORE PUBERTY IS THREE MONTHS (in the above Verse). (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62,Number 63)
Now let us see how some of Islam’s greatest scholars and expositors interpreted Q. 65:4. We start with Ibn Kathir:
“… There is a third type of divorce, which is neither a Sunnah nor an innovation where one divorces A YOUNG WIFE WHO HAS NOT BEGUN TO HAVE MENSES, the wife who is beyond the age of having menses, and divorcing one’s wife before the marriage was consummated…” (Q. 65:1; bold, capital and italicized emphasis ours)
And:
The `Iddah of Those in Menopause and Those Who do not have Menses
Allah the Exalted clarifies the waiting period of the woman in menopause. And that is the one whose menstruation has stopped due to her older age. Her `Iddah is three months instead of the three monthly cycles for those who menstruate, which is based upon the Ayah in (Surat) Al-Baqarah. [see 2:228] The same for THE YOUNG, WHO HAVE NOT REACHED THE YEARS OF MENSTRUATION… (Q. 65:4; capital and italicized emphasis ours)
And here are a few more:
(And for such of your women as despair of menstruation) because of old age, (if ye doubt) about their waiting period, (their period (of waiting) shall be three months) upon which another man asked: “O Messenger of Allah! What about the waiting period of those who do not have menstruation BECAUSE THEY ARE TOO YOUNG?” (along with those who have it not) because of young age, their waiting period is three months. (Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs; bold, capital and italicized emphasis ours)
“… Abu Ishaq al-Muqri’ informed us> Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allah ibn Hamdun> Makki ibn ‘Abdan> Abu’l-Azhar> Asbat ibn Muhammad> Mutarrif> Abu ‘Uthman ‘Amr ibn Salim who said: “When the waiting period for divorced and widowed women was mentioned in Surah al-Baqarah, Ubayy ibn Ka‘b said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, some women of Medina are saying: there are other women who have not been mentioned!’ He asked him: ‘And who are they?’ He said: ‘THOSE WHO ARE TOO YOUNG [SUCH THAT THEY HAVE NOT STARTED MENSTRUATING YET], those who are too old [whose menstruation has stopped] and those who are pregnant’. And so this verse (And for such of your women as despair of menstruation…) was revealed’.” (Asbab Al-Nuzul by Al-Wahidi; bold, capital and italicized emphasis ours)
{and those who have not menstruated yet} Meaning the young girl. (Tafsir Al-Qurtubi)
Here the Arabic word for “young” (as-sagheerah) denotes a girl who did not reach the age of puberty yet. Finally:
“… Women who do not menstruate, BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT YET ATTAINED PUBERTY, or because they have attained menopausal age…” (Maariful-Qur’an, by Maulana Mufti Muhammad Shafi’, translated by Prof. Muhammad Hasan Askari & Prof. Muhammad Shamim, revised by Justice Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani, Volume 8, p. 494; bold, capital and italicized emphasis ours)
“… Likewise, ‘‘iddah for a woman who does not menstruate ON ACCOUNT OF MINORITY OF AGE, or because she has attained menopausal age, is computed on monthly basis. Their ‘‘iddah is three months. (Ibid., pp. 495-496; bold, capital and italicized emphasis ours)
This now raises two major problems for the Muslims to wrestle with. Muhammad is said to be a role model for all peoples at all times. Therefore, why wouldn’t he abolish this practice of marrying and having sex with female minors? Why enshrine and engage in such a vile practice that leaves girls traumatized sexually, emotionally and physiologically? After all, didn’t Muhammad abolish adoption, which benefits both orphans and couples who cannot have children of their own? Why not enshrine such a humane practice which brings great emotional healing and love to so many human lives, as opposed to sanctioning the sexual abuse of minors?
Moreover, the Quran condemned anyone who would even think of marrying Muhammad’s women after his death:
“… And it is not (right) for you that you should annoy Allah’s Messenger, nor that you should ever marry his wives after him (his death). Verily! With Allah that shall be an enormity.” S. 33:53 Hilali-Khan
This means that all of Muhammad’s wives were left to remain widows for the rest of their lives, especially Aisha who was widowed at the young age of 18. Thus, Aisha was robbed of the joy of having children or having a husband to love and care for her for all the days that she lived.
Far from being a mercy to mankind, Muhammad was nothing more than a curse upon humanity. May our gracious and merciful Lord Jesus save precious Muslims from the misery that Islam has brought to the world, and bring them to his perfect love and compassion.
LikeLike
Stop rehashing your deceptive old article. As for you claim on the Hadith “i remember things”…
I am sure any light-minded person would prefer to take the renowned scholar Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan’s over you, a fraud:
Narrated AISHA: (the wife of the Prophet) I had seen my parents following Islam since I attained the age of PUBERTY (A’QAL). Not a day passed but the Prophet visited us, both in the mornings and evenings.” (Sahih al-Bukhari volume 1, Book 8, Hadith 465 https://sunnah.com/bukhari/8/124)
Professor Hans Wehr (1909 – 1981) published the book “A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic”. He comments on the word “A’qal” and states that the word means “MATURITY”:
“… a’qal more reasonable; brighter, smarter, more intelligent | … a’qal al’umr the most reasonable time of life, the years of reason and MATURITY.” (Hans Wehr A Dictionary of Modern written Arabic [Edited by John Milton – Spoken Language Services, Inc. 1976], page 737)
Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan’s rendering of “puberty” in the report is line with Professor Hans Wehr’s understanding of the Arabic language. Shamoun you have been refuted by two respected scholars.
As for your claims on 65:4, this has been refuted here:
https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/03/12/quran-654-the-child-marriage-claim/
Shamoun, could tell readers why you are happy with Jesus (god) giving permission Moses and his men have sex little prepubescent girls in the BIBLE and why have you not condemned it?
https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/08/07/a-detailed-historical-examination-of-numbers-3118/
WHat about King David who was 70-years-old, the girl Abishag was no older than 12-years-old when she was married off to him:
https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/08/07/a-detailed-historical-examination-of-numbers-3118/
Before you point fingers at Muhammed, start condemning the Prophets your worship from your own Bible who married prepubescent girls.
LikeLiked by 2 people
tl;dr
LikeLike
The Bible allows marital rape.
You go on as if Christianity saved woman. Did you forget that your Bible allows marital rape:
“4 The WIFE DOES NOT HAVE AUTHORITY over her own body (private part), but HER HUSBAND DOES. …” – I Corinthians 7:4
Pastor and Bible teacher David Guzik:
“b. On the same idea, also the wife to her husband: The wife is not to withhold marital affection from her husband. Paul strongly puts forth the idea that there is a mutual sexual responsibility in marriage. The husband has obligations toward his wife, and the wife has obligations toward her husband.
i. Render to his wife: The emphasis is on giving, on “I owe you” instead of “you owe me.” In God’s heart, sex is put on a much higher level than merely the husband’s privilege and the wife’s duty.
c. The wife does not have authority over her own body: In fact, these obligations ARE SO CONCRETE, IT COULD BE SAID THAT THE WIFE’S BODY DOES NOT EVEN BELONG TO HERSELF, BUT TO HER HUSBAND. The same principle is true of the husband’s body in regard to his wife. …”
(David Guzik Commentary on the Bible – online source)
Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges:
“Verse 4
4. οὐκ ἐξουσιάζει. A.V. hath not power. Better, HATH NO RIGHT. ἐξουσία sometimes stands for power, as in Revelation 9:3. But the more usual sense of the word is AUTHORITY. τοῦ ἰδίου σώματος. OVER HER OWN BODY. Because in everything connected with the duties of married life each should consult the comfort, well-being, and happiness of the other before their own, and should be especially careful that they do not, by any selfishness on the part of either, ‘cause their brother to offend’” (Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges – online source)
Henry Mahan’s Commentary on Selected Books of the New Testament:
“1 Corinthians 7:3. ‘Let the husband render unto the wife all the offices of love – tenderness, kindness, provisions, protection and respect.’ But the chief reference here is to the marriage BED AND HER SEXUAL NEEDS. Likewise, the wife is to be aware of the needs of her husband and to meet those needs willingly; otherwise, she is called by the ancient writers ‘A REBELLIOUS WIFE.’ According to the Song of Solomon, this relationship, when properly understood (free from traditional guilt and false piety, and knowing it is ordained of God with his blessings), ceases to be a duty and becomes joy and pleasure.
1 Corinthians 7:4. A WIFE DOES NOT HAVE EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY OVER AND OWNERSHIP OF HER BODY TO REFRAIN THE USE OF IT FROM HER HUSBAND, to give it to someone else, to neglect it, nor to abuse it. THE HUSBAND HAS A POWER OVER AND RIGHT TO HER BODY. The same is true of the husband’s body, to which the wife has certain rights. Better to recognize this as a joy rather than a duty or an unpleasant task. Happy are the wife and husband who find delight in pleasing each other with an attractive, clean and loving person and personality.” (Henry Mahan’s Commentary on Selected Books of the New Testament – online source)
more here:
https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/07/27/does-the-new-testament-endorse-marital-rape/
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is one of the reasons in Christian America, where Shamoun lives, 13 States Still Make Exceptions For Marital Rape:
http://www.vocativ.com/215942/these-13-states-still-make-exceptions-for-marital-rape/
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:xTHAtYGyoZ8J:www.vocativ.com/215942/these-13-states-still-make-exceptions-for-marital-rape/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
LikeLiked by 1 person
Where marriage is allowed in Islam when someone has reached the appropriate age, the Bible allows marriage with prepubescent girls.
The Bible has far more worse verses where it endorses rape victim to marry a rapist. The Biblical Law Forces Rape Victim To Marry Rapist:
GOD’S WORD Translation (GW)
“28 This is what you must do when a man RAPES A VIRGIN who isn’t engaged. When the crime is discovered, 29 the man who had sexual intercourse with her must give the girl’s father 1¼ pounds of silver, and she will become his wife. Since HE RAPED HER, he can never divorce her as long as he lives.” – Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Good News Translation (GNT)
“28 “Suppose a man is caught RAPING A YOUNG WOMAN who is not engaged. 29 He is to pay her father the bride price of fifty pieces of silver, and she is to become his wife, because he FORCED HER TO HAVE INTERCOURSE WITH HIM. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.” – Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
“28 If a man encounters a young woman, a virgin who is not engaged, takes hold of her and RAPES HER, and they are discovered, 29 the man who raped her must give the young woman’s father 50 silver shekels, and she must become his wife because he violated her. He cannot divorce her as long as he lives.” – Deuteronomy 22:28-29
The commentators of the Bible say that a rape victim has to marry the rapist,
Chuck Smith Bible Commentary:
“NOW, IF YOU RAPED A GIRL, and she is a virgin, and she is not betrothed to someone else, then YOU”RE TO TAKE HER AS YOUR WIFE to pay her father fifty shekels of silver (Deuteronomy 22:23-29).” (Chuck Smith Bible Commentary – Deuteronomy 22:29 – online source https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/csc/deuteronomy-22.html )
Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible – Unabridged:
“But if SHE WAS FORCED, THE MAN ONLY WHO COMMITTED THE RAPE was to suffer for the violence, which was regarded as a capital crime. In the case of a maiden not betrothed being seduced, the man was OBLIGED TO MARRY HER, and he forfeited the right possessed by other husbands of giving her a divorce. …”(Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible – Unabridged – Deuteronomy 22:29 – online source https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/jfu/deuteronomy-22.html )
iblical scholar and historian Philip King who was a professor of Biblical Studies in the Department of Theology at Boston College and Dorot Professor of the Archeology of Israel in the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at Hardvard University Lawrence Stager writes:
“RAPE IS REFERRED TO ONLY IN DEUTERONOMY, but with no sharp distinction between rape and seduction. THE RAPIST “SHALL GIVE FIFTY SHEKELS OF SILVER TO THAT YOUNG WOMAN’S FATHER, AND SHE SHALL BECOME HIS WIFE. Because he violated her, he shall not be permitted to divorce her as long as he lives.”(Deut. 22:29) The Payment in this case represents the mohar.” (King, P. J, & Stager, L. E. (2001). Life in Biblical Israel. In Douglas A. Knight (ed.), Library of Ancient Israel. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press. page 60)
The late conservative Biblical scholar Peter Craigie who held several top posts such as head of the religious studies department at the University of Calgary in his commentary on Deuteronomy 22:28-29 writes as follows:
“28-29 (iv) The RAPE OF A SINGLE WOMAN. THE MAN USES FORCE ON THE WOMAN, who is a virgin and is not betrothed to a man; the two are discovered while the crime is being committed. In this case, the man must pay damages to the father, in the amount of fifty pieces (shekels) of silver, and HE MUST MARRY THE WOMAN.” (Craigie, P. C. (1976). The New International Commentary on the Old Testament: The Book of Deuteronomy. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. Eerdmans Publishing Co. page 295)
More evidence here:
https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/12/20/does-biblical-law-force-rape-victim-to-marry-rapist/
LikeLiked by 3 people
CHILD MARRIAGE IN THE BIBLE
Shamoun why havent you spoken out again Prophet Jacob for giving away his daughter in marriage when she was 7? He gave his daughter, Dinah was given away in marriage when she was below the age of 8-years-old to Shechem this is a historical fact. This is in your Bible:
Scholars such as Tuch and Bohlen that said that she was six or seven at the time of the incident with Shechem when given away in marriage:
“she was only six or seven years of age when the incident about to be described occurred (TUCH, BOHLEN).” (The Pulpit Commentaries – Genesis 34 – online source)
https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/08/02/bible-how-old-was-dinah-when-she-was-married-to-shechem/
LikeLiked by 3 people
We now move onto the scriptural evidence. Here are some of the relevant sahih hadith:
Narrated ‘Ursa: Aisha said, “While the Ethiopians were playing with their small spears, Allah’s Apostle screened me behind him and I watched (that display) and kept on watching till I left on my own.” So you may estimate of what age a little girl may listen to amusement.
Sahih Bukhari 7:62:118
[Author’s note: in this hadith, Ayesha was 15 years old – according to Muhsin Khan]
Narrated ‘Aisha: The Prophet was screening me with his Rida’ (garment covering the upper part of the body) while I was looking at the Ethiopians who were playing in the courtyard of the mosque. (I continued watching) till I was satisfied. So you may deduce from this event how a little girl (who has not reached the age of puberty) who is eager to enjoy amusement should be treated in this respect.
Sahih Bukhari 7:62:163
[Author’s note: in this hadith, Aisha had not reached puberty – according to Muhsin Khan]
In the first hadith Sahih Bukhari 7:62:118, Dr Muhsin Khan in the official text published in Islamic University – Al-Medina Al-Munauwara, Saudi Arabia says, “Aisha was 15 years then.” Some Muslims might claim that it was only Muhsin Khan’s opinion that Aisha was 15 years old at that time. However, this is irrelevant since Muhammad would have bedded Aisha by then. This is because this incident of Aisha watching the Abyssinian/Ethiopian slaves throwing spears in the mosque took place in Medina because according to Abu Dawud, Eid festivals were instituted only in Medina.
Narrated Anas ibn Malik: When the Apostle of Allah came to Medina, the people had two days on which they engaged in games. He asked: What are these two days (what is the significance)? They said: We used to engage ourselves on them in the pre-Islamic period. The Apostle of Allah said: Allah has substituted for them something better than them, the day of sacrifice and the day of the breaking of the fast. (‘Idu’l-Adha and ‘Idu’l-Fitr.)
Sunan Abu Dawud 3:1130
We know from other ahadith that Muhammad married Aisha in Shawwal, 1 Hijri. However, the first Eid al-Adha would have taken place at the earliest two months later in Dhul Hijja. Hence these two “Aisha watching the Ethiopians” ahadith tell us that she was below the age of puberty more than two months after Muhammad had sex with her. Muhsin Khan stated that this was about six years later.
In the second hadith Sahih Bukhari 7:62:163, Muhsin Khan added the phrase “who has not reached the age of puberty” in parentheses. Some Muslims might claim that this phrase is in parentheses, and therefore it was only his opinion, not in the original Arabic. However, this is false since the parenthetical phrase explains the Arabic phrase, “jariyathin hadeethaathil sanna”. This phrase is also found in the following hadith when Aisha was 14 years old.
Narrated Aisha: (the wife of the Prophet):… On that Allah’s Apostle called Buraira and said, ‘O Buraira. Did you ever see anything which roused your suspicions about her?’ Buraira said, ‘No, by Allah Who has sent you with the Truth, I have never seen in her anything faulty except that she is a girl of immature age, who sometimes sleeps and leaves the dough for the goats to eat.’… I was a young girl and did not have much knowledge of the Quran
Sahih Bukhari 3:48:829, See also: Sahih Bukhari 6:60:274
[Author’s note: in this hadith, Aisha was about 14 years old]
In Arabic, the phrase “jariyathil hadeethaathil sanna” literally means “pre-pubertal girl of new/recent/young age”. The word “jariya” has several meanings, but only one can fit Aisha. It means a pre-pubertal girl, a singer, slave girl/woman, concubine, or maid. The last four definitions show that it is a pejorative term, just like the word ‘boy’ was used by white people to describe black male slaves, even if adults.
جارية
slave girl, female slave, bondmaid, bondwoman, odalisque girl, odalisque[6]
‘Jariya’ is sometimes translated as ‘young playful girl’, but it is never used to describe a mature woman, particularly one who is married, unless that person is below the age of puberty. ‘Jariya’ is also sometimes translated as ‘young girl’ or ‘young woman’. However, this does not mean that the subject has passed the age of puberty because the Arabic meaning is not the same as the English understanding of the phrase ‘young woman’. In other words, the Arabic term ‘jariya’ carries the same meaning as the English understanding of the phrase ‘young woman’ to mean ‘girl’ or ‘lass’ (Roget’s Thesaurus).
This is proven by Mufti Sayed Abdul Jaleel Saheb, Sheikh – ul- Hadith – Madressah Talimuddeen who said, “In the Arabic language, the word “Jaria” is generally used for a young, immature girl (who has not reached the age of puberty as yet).”[7]
The understanding that Aisha was below the age of puberty is emphasized by the phrase “hadeethaathil sanna”, which means ‘new’, ‘beginning’, or ‘initial age’. This phrase carries the notion of immaturity because it is the initial age, bearing in mind that the phrase does not mean ‘new’ as in a “change” (which is a possible understanding of the English word ‘new’), but refers to the initial phase or beginning. Hence, “jariyathil hadeethaathil sanna” means a young girl in the first period of her youth, which can only mean the age before puberty.
Ayesha Bewley of the Maliki School has also translated al-Bukhari, but merely translated this phrase to ‘young girl’. This is not the true meaning of the phrase as it does not specifically convey the notion that Aisha bint Abu Bakr was below the age of puberty. Hence, some Muslims might delude themselves into thinking that ‘young girl’ in this translation does not say anything about puberty. It does – in Arabic.
Other ahadith also show Aisha was a jariya, or a pre-pubertal girl:
Narrated Yusuf bin Mahk:
While I was with Aisha, the mother of the Believers, a person from Iraq came and asked, “What type of shroud is the best?” ‘Aisha said, “May Allah be merciful to you! What does it matter?” He said, “O mother of the Believers! Show me (the copy of) your Qur’an,” She said, “Why?” He said, “In order to compile and arrange the Qur’an according to it, for people recite it with its Suras not in proper order.” ‘Aisha said, “What does it matter which part of it you read first? (Be informed) that the first thing that was revealed thereof was a Sura from Al-Mufassal, and in it was mentioned Paradise and the Fire. When the people embraced Islam, the Verses regarding legal and illegal things were revealed. If the first thing to be revealed was: ‘Do not drink alcoholic drinks.’ people would have said, ‘We will never leave alcoholic drinks,’ and if there had been revealed, ‘Do not commit illegal sexual intercourse, ‘they would have said, ‘We will never give up illegal sexual intercourse.’ While I was a young girl of playing age, the following Verse was revealed in Mecca to Muhammad: ‘Nay! But the Hour is their appointed time (for their full recompense), and the Hour will be more grievous and more bitter.’ (54.46) Sura Al-Baqara (The Cow) and Surat An-Nisa (The Women) were revealed while I was with him.” Then ‘Aisha took out the copy of the Qur’an for the man and dictated to him the Verses of the Suras (in their proper order)
Sahih Bukhari 6:61:515
The Arabic phrase here is “jariyathan al-aban”.
Narrated Yusuf bin Mahik:
I was in the house of ‘Aisha, the mother of the Believers. She said, “This revelation: “Nay, but the Hour is their appointed time (for their full recompense); and the Hour will be more previous and most bitter.” (54.46) was revealed to Muhammad at Mecca while I was a playful little girl.”
Sahih Bukhari 6:60:399
The Arabic phrase here is “jariyathan al-aban”.
Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah:
When I got married, Allah’s Apostle said to me, “What type of lady have you married?” I replied, “I have married a matron’ He said, “Why, don’t you have a liking for the virgins and for fondling them?” Jabir also said: Allah’s Apostle said, “Why didn’t you marry a young girl so that you might play with her and she with you?’
Sahih Bukhari 7:62:17
The Arabic phrase here is “jariyathan thulaibuha”. It shows that ‘jariya’ is the opposite of ‘matron’ or a mature woman.
Narrated Al-Qasim: ‘Aisha said, “We set out with the sole intention of performing Hajj and when we reached Sarif, (a place six miles from Mecca) I got my menses. Allah’s Apostle came to me while I was weeping. He said ‘What is the matter with you? Have you got your menses?’ I replied, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘This is a thing which Allah has ordained for the daughters of Adam. So do what all the pilgrims do with the exception of the Taw-af (Circumambulation) round the Ka’ba.” ‘Aisha added, “Allah’s Apostle sacrificed cows on behalf of his wives.”
Sahih Bukhari 1:6:293
Narrated Al-Qasim bin Muhammad: ‘ Aisha said, “We set out with Allah’s Apostles in the months of Hajj, and (in) the nights of Hajj, and at the time and places of Hajj and in a state of Hajj. We dismounted at Sarif (a village six miles from Mecca). The Prophet then addressed his companions and said, “Anyone who has not got the Hadi and likes to do Umra instead of Hajj may do so (i.e. Hajj-al-Tamattu) and anyone who has got the Hadi should not finish the Ihram after performing ‘ Umra). (i.e. Hajj-al-Qiran). Aisha added, “The companions of the Prophet obeyed the above (order) and some of them (i.e. who did not have Hadi) finished their Ihram after Umra.” Allah’s Apostle and some of his companions were resourceful and had the Hadi with them, they could not perform Umra (alone) (but had to perform both Hajj and Umra with one Ihram). Aisha added, “Allah’s Apostle came to me and saw me weeping and said, “What makes you weep, O Hantah?” I replied, “I have heard your conversation with your companions and I cannot perform the Umra.” He asked, “What is wrong with you?’ I replied, ‘I do not offer the prayers (i.e. I have my menses).’ He said, ‘It will not harm you for you are one of the daughters of Adam, and Allah has written for you (this state) as He has written it for them. Keep on with your intentions for Hajj and Allah may reward you that.” Aisha further added, “Then we proceeded for Hajj till we reached Mina and I became clean from my menses.
Sahih Bukhari 2:26:631
The two hadiths above, tell us the age when Aisha got her first menses. Her marriage was consummated in the year 622, and this journey for hajj took place in 629. Therefore, Aisha was about sixteen years old at the time of her first menstruation.
7. Quote taken from QURANIC AYAH WHEREIN ALLAAH T A’ ALA HAS DECLARED THE PROHIBITATION OF MUSIC. tazkiyah.info
LikeLike
The Bible sanctions prepubescent marriages. Moses and his men under the command of Jesus (god) permitted them to have sex and marry prepubescent girls:
https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/08/07/a-detailed-historical-examination-of-numbers-3118/
As for the virgins, you can take them, as you DESIRE.” – Numbers 31:18
Here are three accurate translations which show that the verse only speaks about ‘female children’:
Jubilee Bible 2000 – “But all the FEMALE CHILDREN that have not known a man by lying with him KEEP ALIVE FOR YOURSELVES.” – Numbers 31:18
Webster’s Bible – “Translation But all the FEMALE CHILDREN that have not known a man by lying with him, KEEP ALIVE FOR YOURSELVES.” – Numbers 31:18
Shaye J. D. Cohen who is the Littauer Professor of Hebrew Literature and Philosophy in the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations of Harvard University, explains that “ for yourselves” is clear that that Moses’s soldiers could use the females “sexually”:
“Moses enjoins upon the returning warriors to kill their Midianite female captives who have lain with a man, but ‘spare for yourselves every young woman who has not had carnal relations with a man’; WE MAY BE SURE THAT ‘FOR YOURSELVES’ MEANS THAT THE WARRIORS MAY ‘USE’ THEIR VIRGIN CAPTIVES SEXUALLY.52 The law in numbers differs from the law in Deuteronomy- perhaps the most significant distinction is that the law in Deuteronomy does not care whether the captive is a virgin or not- but it too permits Israelite warrior to marry (or ‘marry) a foreign woman.” (The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties [University of california Press, Berkeley / Los Angeles / London, The Regents of the University of California, 1999] by Shaye J. D. Cohen [chapter 8] page 255 – 256)
In footnote 52, Professor Shaye J.D. Cohen continues, this time explaining the Hebrew word “lakhem” (lachem) that it is “sexual” and this is how it was the understood by ancient scholars:
“I do not know why the new Jewish version omits ‘for yourselves’; the Hebrew LAKHEM IS UNAMBIGUOUS. That the intent of ‘FOR YOURSELVES’ IS SEXUAL OR MATRIMONIAL IS OBVIOUS; the passage is correctly understood by Rabbi Simeon Yohai in the Sifrei ad loc (177 212H).” (The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties [University of california Press, Berkeley / Los Angeles / London, The Regents of the University of California, 1999] by Shaye J. D. Cohen [chapter 8] page 255 – 256 – [Footnote 52])
Ancient commentary:
“R. ELIEZER B. JACOB SAID: A PROSELYTE [etc.}. It was taught: R. Simeon b. Yohai said: A female proselyte less than three years and a day is ELIBLE to the priesthood, as it is said: But all the women children … keep alive for yourselves; now, was not Phineas among them? But the Rabbis [interpret] ‘KEEP THEM ALIVE FOR YOUR SELVES’ AS bondwomen AND BONDWOMEN. (Talmud – Mas. Kiddushin 78a:45 – page 261 – 262, online source)
In the Footnote section for the above it says that these female “children” were “permitted in marriage”, meaning they could be married off:
“(34) Num. XXXI, 18; it refers to the war captives.
(35) And though he was a priest, these CHILDREN were PERMITTED IN MARRIAGE.” (Talmud – Mas. Kiddushin 78a:45, page 261 – 262 – online source)
A Commentary Upon The Fourth Book Of Moses, Called: Numbers – Symon Lord Bishop Of Ely [Simon Patrick]:
“Ver. 18. But all the women-Children that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive.] Being young, there was some hope they might be brought off from idolatry, and become proselytes to the true Religion. FOR YOURSELVES.] To be sold as SLAVES to any other nation; or to be kept as servants; or TAKEN TO BE THEIR WIVES, after such preparation as the Law required, XXI Deut. 16, 17, &c.” (A Commentary Upon The Fourth Book Of Moses, Called: Numbers, [London: Printed for Ri. Chitwell at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul’s Church Yard. MDC XCIX] by Symon Lord Bishop Of Ely [Simon Patrick], Page 592 – 593)
There you have it folks, Jesus (god) allowed Moses and his men to have sex with prepubescent girls, children in the BIBLE. More evidence:
https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/08/07/a-detailed-historical-examination-of-numbers-3118/
LikeLike
As for your distortion on Jariyya, here is what scholars say:
Jariyya is understood by scholars and Arabic English dictionaries as being referring to someone who is an adult. They tell us that Jariyya is used for a grown up adult females:
Dr. Mary Ann Fay:
“The word jawar and its variants (e.g., sing. JARIYA) are only used in connection with WOMEN and should be understood as the female equivalent of mamluk or tabi, that is, as a slave who is manumitted and becomes a client of his/her patron. Like mamluk, the word tabi is used to describe the relationship between men, not between men and women or women and women. Women are ma’tuqa or Jariyya.” (Women, The Family, And Dvorce Laws In Islamic History [Edited by Amira El Azhary Sonbol – Syracuse University Press. – First Edition, 1996], by Mary Ann Fay, page 163)
Professor Joel L. Kraemer:
“Jariya (T. cariya) slave WOMAN; concubine.”
(Women In The Ottoman Empire Middle Eastern Women In The Early Modern Era [Koninlijke Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands, 1997], by Madeline C. Zilfe, page 300 (Glosary))
“Arab WOMEN were also entertainers, singers, musicians and poetesses (JARIYA qayna: ‘female slaver singer’) in royal courts.” (The Cambridge Genizah Collections: Their Contents and Significance [Cambridge University Press, 2002], by Joel L. Kraemer, page 184)
Edward William Lane’s Lexicon:
“جَارِيَةٌ A ship; (S, Msb, K ; ) because of its running upon the sea: (Msb : )an epithet in which the quality of a subst. predominates: pl. … (TA.) – The sun; (K;) because of its running from region to region: (TA : ) or the sun’s disk in the sky. (T. TA.) And … The Stars. (TA. [But see art. …]) – The mind: pl. as above. (TA.) – A GIRL, or YOUNG WOMAN; S, Mgh, Msb, K ; ) a female of which the male is termed …; so called because her activity and running; opposed to …: (Mgh : ) and a female slave; (Mgh voce …;) [in the sense] applied even to one who is an OLD WOMAN, unable to work, or to employ herself actively; alluding to what she was: (Msb : ) pl. as above. (Msb, K.) – The eye of any animal. (TA.) – A benefit, favour, boon, or blessing, bestowed by God (K, TA) upon his servants. (TA.).” (Edward Lane’s Lexicon, page 419, online source)
Dictionary Of The Holy Qur’an – Malik Ghulam Farid:
“… [aor. … inf. Noun … and …] …: The water flowed, ran quickly. …: The horse ran. … : A continuous or permanent charity; … also means, a ship (plural lll) because of its running upon the sea; the sun; … Stars (81:17). ); a girl or YOUNG WOMAN; the wind; a female slave; an OLD WOMAN; the eye of an animal; a benefit, favour, blessing or boon bestowed by God upon His servants.” (Dictionary Of The Holy Qur’an of With References and Explanation of the Text by Malik Ghulam Farid M. A., page 134)
More evidence here:
https://discover-the-truth.com/2017/02/28/5-facts-about-aisha-and-muhammeds-marriage/
The Hadith you distorted, there will be a rebuttal very soon. So far you have been refuted by non-Muslim scholars.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Flying Pir,
Thanks for responding to these rehashed old claims.
The Critics HATE the fact that “Discover the Truth” is bringing together hard evidence that refutes these lies and false claims. Combined with the work that many other Muslim apologists, websites and organizations are doing, these false claims are being shown for the lies that they are. In the end it reflects poorly on the Christians who resort to spreading such lies and falsehood against the supposed spirit of their own faith, while Muslims remain honest and truthful in their claims.
Keep up the good work!!!
LikeLiked by 3 people
There goes discover the twisted satanic lies of Muhammad again, reposting the same filth in imitation of the filth of his holy book which his god repeats over and over again. Let’s see how hard his facts are (as hard as his profit’s male part was when he was raping a minor? If so then his “facts” won’t be hard at all). Two can play the copy and repaste game:
BEGIN
Right off the bat, though, there are several obvious historical errors in these brief statements, and several assumptions that have no warrant whatsoever in either the text itself, or in the historical background of the ANE. The passage will be difficult enough to our sensibilities as it is, but let’s first ‘weed out the chaff’ among these allegations. [These ‘easy’ errors, however, in themselves might not be enough to exonerate God, so we will to dig deep into the passage/situation to surface the actual ethical issues and dynamics.]
[ … ]
First of all, there was no ‘test for virginity’ needed/used. In spite of the elaborate/miraculous one created by the later rabbi’s (ingenious, but altogether unnecessary) using the Urim and Thummim (!), the ‘test for virginity’ in the ANE was a simple visual one:
Was the female pre-pubescent?
Was the female wearing any attire, jewelry, or adornments required for/associated with virginity for that culture?
Was the female wearing any attire, jewelry, or adornments required for/associated with non-virginity for that culture (e.g., veil indicating married status)?
Because virginity was generally associated with legal proof for blood-inheritance issues in ancient cultures (e.g., land, property, kinship, relationships), virginity itself was often marked by some type of clothing (e.g., the robe of Tamar in 2 Sam 13) or by cosmetic means (cf. the Hindu ‘pre-marriage dot’); as was more typically non-virginal married status (e.g., veils, headwear, jewelry, or certain hairstyles). Of course, non-virginal unmarried status (e.g., temple prostitutes and secular prostitutes) were also indicated by special markings or adornments (e.g. jewelry, dress—cf. Proverbs 7.10; Hos 2.4-5).
For example, the erotic art of the ANE shows a consistent difference in hairstyles between women and sacred prostitutes:
“In fact, the physical characteristics of the women on the [erotic] plaques are totally different from those of other female representations in Mesopotamian and Syrian art. As with the clay figurines, they are frequently naked and their hair is loose—none of these traits is to be found in statues or seals that represent women…These groups [associations of cultic prostitutes] were defined by a generic name [the ‘separated ones’], while their specific names of individual associations hinted at their garments, which were particularly luxurious, or odd, their coiffure, or to their general appearance, which distinguished them from other women.” [OT:CANE:2526]
Some of these patterns varied by culture/age:
“Once married, women were not veiled in Babylonia. Legal texts imply that married women were veiled in Assyria.” [OT:DLAM:135]
“The bride was covered with a veil that the groom removed. Married women were not veiled in Babylonia but seem to have had a special headgear; legal texts, however, suggest that married women were veiled in Assyria.” [OT:CANE:489]
In other words, the process of identifying the females who were (a) not married and (b) not prostitutes, either sacred or secular, would have been relatively straightforward—at the precision level required by the event.
Secondly, the accusation that these girls were for “sex slave” purposes contradicts what we know about the culture and about the event. [But at least one of the writers above—to their credit—added the word ‘presumably’, realizing that the text doesn’t actually say anything about it…]
1. Most girls were married soon/immediately after they began menstruating in the ANE (circa 12 years of age), and since infant and child mortality was so high, the average age of the girls spared would have been around 5 years of age or slightly lower (life expectancy wasn’t a straight line, with childhood risks so high). Of all the horrible things ascribed to Israel in the OT, pedophilia is the one conspicuous omission. That these little kids would have been even considered as ‘sex slaves’ seems quite incongruent with their ages.
And, at this tender age, they would not have been very useful as ‘slaves’ at all! Children raised in Israelite households were ‘put to work’ around this age, sometimes doing light chores to help the mother for up to four hours per day by the age of 7 or 8 [OT:FAI:27], but 5 is still a bit young. Instead, the Israelite families would have had to feed, clothe, train, care, protect, and shelter them for several years before they could make much contribution to the family’s existence and survival. [Also note that ‘slavery’ in the ANE/OT generally means something quite different from “New World” slavery, which we normally associate with the word ‘slavery’, and most of what is called that in popular literature should not be so termed. See qnoslave.html for the discussion and documentation.]
2. Unlike the Greeks and Romans, the ANE was not very ‘into’ using slaves/captives for sexual purposes, even though scholars earlier taught this:
“During the pinnacle of Sumerian culture, female slaves outnumbered male. Their owners used them primarily for spinning and weaving. Saggs maintains that their owners also used them for sex, but there is little actual evidence to support such a claim” [OT:EML:69]
3. And the Hebrews were different in this regard ANYWAY:
“This fidelity and exclusivity [demands on the wife] did not apply to the husband. Except among the Hebrews, where a husband’s infidelity was disparaged in the centuries after 800 BC, a double standard prevailed, and husbands were routinely expected to have sex not only with their wives, but with slavewomen and prostitutes.” [WS:AHTO:39; note: I would disagree with the remark about ‘after 800 bc’ because that dating presupposes a very late date for the composition of the narratives under discussion…If the narrative events occurred closer to the purposed times, then this ‘disparagement’ applied earlier in Israel as well as later.]
4. Even if we allow the age range to be older, to include girls capable of bearing children, the probability is that it was not sex-motivated, but population/economics-motivated, as Carol Meyers points out [“The Roots of Restriction: Women in Early Israel”, Biblical Archaeologist, vol 41):
“Beyond this, however, the intensified need for female participation in working out the Mosaic revolution in the early Israelite period can be seen in the Bible. Looking again at Numbers 31, an exception to the total purge of the Midianite population is to be noted. In addition to the metal objects which were exempt from utter destruction, so too were the “young girls who have not known man by lying with him” (Num 31:18). These captives, however, were not immediately brought into the Israelite camp. Instead, they and their captors were kept outside the camp for seven days in a kind of quarantine period. (Note that the usual incubation period for the kinds of infectious diseases which could conceivably have existed in this situation is two or three to six days [Eickhoff 1977].) Afterward, they thoroughly washed themselves and all their clothing before they entered the camp. This incident is hardly an expression of lascivious male behavior; rather, it reflects the desperate need for women of childbearing age, a need so extreme that the utter destruction of the Midianite foes—and the prevention of death by plague—as required by the law of the herem could be waived in the interest of sparing the young women. The Israelites weighed the life-death balance, and the need for females of childbearing age took precedence.”
[But note that the traditional rabbinic interpretation of the passage is that all females which were capable of bearing children were killed—not just those who actually were non-virginal. This would drive the average age quite low, although the Hebrew text offers only limited support at best for their interpretation.]
[I should also point out that the “for yourselves” phrase (31.18) is NOT actually referring to “for your pleasure”, but is a reference to the opposite condition of “for YHWH” which applied to all people or property which was theoretically supposed to be destroyed in such combat situations. The herem (or ‘ban’) specifically indicated that all enemy people or property which was ‘delivered over to YHWH’ was to be killed/destroyed. By referring to ‘for yourselves’, then, in this passage, means simply ‘do not kill them’. This can also be seen in that this ‘booty’ was not ‘for themselves’ actually, but was distributed to others within the community.]
[ … ]
5. The 32,000 girls who were absorbed/assimilated into Israel would have been actually a small number. According to the distribution of them, the 12,000 ‘soldiers’ received 16,000 (half of them), making an average 1.5 per household. The other half (16,000) was distributed throughout all of Israel, meaning that very few families would get one. This would still have been some hardship for the Israelite families, who at this time are still nomadic peoples without any material base from which to live. More than one commentator has noted that this seems to be a surprise act of mercy, and it is interesting to note that Whiston, in a footnote on his 18th-century translation of Josephus’ account of this passage [Antiq, VII] argues that this sparing of the little girls is a surprise of mercy, given the practical demands of this type of combat in the OT/ANE (which we will discuss later):
“The slaughter of all the Midianite women that had prostituted themselves to the lewd Israelites, and the preservation of those that had not been guilty therein; the last of which were no fewer than thirty-two thousand… and both by the particular command of God, are highly remarkable, and shew that, even in nations otherwise for their wickedness doomed to destruction, the innocent were sometimes providentially taken care of, and delivered from that destruction”
Later, when Israel was more established and settled in the land, and had adequate economic means, they would be able to absorb all the women and children (from hostile-but-conquered foreign cities), but at this early stage this was quite an impossibility. They had no need for “slaves,” nor means to support them at this time. (Source: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/midian.html)
One point we would like to add to Miller’s comments is regarding the statement of Numbers 31:40 that ‘32 of these virgins were given as tribute to the Lord.’ The context explains what this exactly means:
“The LORD said to Moses, ‘Take the count of the booty that was taken, both of man and of beast, you and Elea’zar the priest and the heads of the fathers’ houses of the congregation; and divide the booty into two parts, between the warriors who went out to battle and all the congregation. And levy for the LORD a tribute from the men of war who went out to battle, one out of five hundred, of the persons and of the oxen and of the asses and of the flocks; take it from their half, and give it to Elea’zar the priest as an offering to the LORD. And from the people of Israel’s half you shall take one drawn out of every fifty, of the persons, of the oxen, of the asses, and of the flocks, of all the cattle, and give them to the Levites who have charge of the tabernacle of the LORD.’ And Moses and Elea’zar the priest did as the LORD commanded Moses. Now the booty remaining of the spoil that the men of war took was: six hundred and seventy-five thousand sheep, seventy-two thousand cattle, sixty-one thousand asses, and thirty-two thousand persons in all, women who had not known man by lying with him. And the half, the portion of those who had gone out to war, was in number three hundred and thirty-seven thousand five hundred sheep, and the LORD’s tribute of sheep was six hundred and seventy-five. The cattle were thirty-six thousand, of which the LORD’s tribute was seventy-two. The asses were thirty thousand five hundred, of which the LORD’s tribute was sixty-one. The persons were sixteen thousand, of which the LORD’s tribute was thirty-two persons. And Moses gave the tribute, which was the offering for the LORD, to Elea’zar the priest, as the LORD commanded Moses. From the people of Israel’s half, which Moses separated from that of the men who had gone to war- now the congregation’s half was three hundred and thirty-seven thousand five hundred sheep, thirty-six thousand cattle, and thirty thousand five hundred asses, and sixteen thousand persons- from the people of Israel’s half Moses took one of every fifty, both of persons and of beasts, and gave them to the Levites who had charge of the tabernacle of the LORD; as the LORD commanded Moses. Then the officers who were over the thousands of the army, the captains of thousands and the captains of hundreds, came near to Moses, and said to Moses, ‘Your servants have counted the men of war who are under our command, and there is not a man missing from us. And we have brought the LORD’s offering, what each man found, articles of gold, armlets and bracelets, signet rings, earrings, and beads, to make atonement for ourselves before the LORD.’ And Moses and Elea’zar the priest received from them the gold, all wrought articles. And all the gold of the offering that they offered to the LORD, from the commanders of thousands and the commanders of hundreds, was sixteen thousand seven hundred and fifty shekels. (The men of war had taken booty, every man for himself.) And Moses and Elea’zar the priest received the gold from the commanders of thousands and of hundreds, and brought it into the tent of meeting, as a memorial for the people of Israel before the LORD.” Numbers 31:25-54 RSV
Thus, the context shows that the virgins who were set apart for the Lord were to be given to God’s ministers, the priests.
As one can see from the preceding data, the laws prescribed in the Holy Bible are actually for the benefit and protection of the woman’s honor and integrity. This is unlike Islam, which permits Muslims to rape and sell slave women at will:
http://answering-islam.org/Silas/femalecaptives.htm
http://www.muhammadanism.org/Hadith/Topics/Adultery.htm
http://answer-islam.org/Rape.html
END
LikeLike
Now what was that about rape?
BEGIN
For instance, the following verse permits Muslim men (which includes Muhammad himself) to sleep with married women whom they have taken captive:
Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath God ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property, – desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and God is All-knowing, All-wise. S. 4:24 Y. Ali
Tragically, this did not remain a mere abstraction but was readily put into practice by Muhammad’s sexually craved jihadists:
Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa’id al Khadri: O Abu Sa’id, did you hear Allah’s Messenger mentioning al-‘azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah’s Messenger on the expedition to the Bi’l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing ‘azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah’s Messenger, and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born. (Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3371)
And:
Abu Said al-Khudri said: The apostle of Allah sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Quranic verse, ‘And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess’. That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Volume 2, Number 2150)
This same narration is found in all of the major hadith collections:
Chapter 36. What Has Been Related (About A Man) Who Captures A Slave Woman That Has A Husband, Is It Lawful For Him To Have Relations With Her?
1132. Abu Sa‘eed Al-Khudri narrated: We got some captives on the day of Awtas, and they had husbands among their people. They mentioned that to the Messenger of Allah, so the following was revealed: And women who are already married, except those whom your right hands possess. (Hasan) (English Translation of Jami‘ At-Tirmidhi, Compiled by Imam Hafiz Abu ‘Eisa Mohammad Ibn ‘Eisa At-Tirmidhi, From Hadith No. 544 to 1204, translated by Abu Khaliyl (USA), ahadith edited and referenced by Hafiz Tahir Zubair ‘Ali Za’i [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, First Edition: November 2007], Volume 2, p. 502; underline emphasis ours)
And:
1137. Jabir bin ‘Abdullah narrated: “We practiced ‘Azl while the Qur’an was being revealed.” (Sahih)
(Abu ‘Eisa said:) The Hadith of Jabir is a Hasan Sahih Hadith. It has been reported from him through other routes.
There are those among the people of knowledge, among the Companions of the Prophet and others, who permitted ‘Azl. Malik bin Anas said: “The permission of the free woman is to be requested for ‘Azl, while the slave woman’s permission need not be requested.” (Ibid., Chapter 39. What Has Been related About ‘Azl, p. 507)
Finally:
(3) 3016. Abu Sa‘eed Al-Khudri said: “On the Day of Awtas, we captured some women who had husbands among the idolaters. SO SOME OF THE MEN DISLIKED THAT, so Allah, Most High, revealed: ‘And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess….’” (Sahih)
[Abu ‘Eisa said:] This Hadith is Hasan.
(4) 3017. Abu Sa‘eed Al-Khudri said: “we captured some women on the Day of Awtas and they had husbands among their people. That was mentioned to the Messenger of Allah so Allah revealed: ‘…And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess….” (Sahih)
[Abu ‘Eisa said:] This Hadith is Hasan.
This is how it was reported by Ath-Thawri, from ‘Uthman Al-Batti, from Abu Al-Khalil, from Abu Sa‘eed Al-Khudri from the Prophet and it is similar. “From Abu ‘Alqamah” is not in this Hadith and I do not know of anyone who mentioned Abu ‘Alqamah in this Hadith except in what Hammam mentioned from Qatadah. Abu Al-Khalil’s name is Salih bin Abi Mariam. (Jami‘ At-Tirmidhi, Volume 5, From Hadith No. 2606 to 3290, Chapter 4. Regarding Surat An-Nisa’, pp. 331-332; capital and underline emphasis ours)
Thus, Muhammad and his deity condoned and encouraged men to virtually rape their female captives whether they were married or not.
Now unless this taqiyyist wants us to believe that such women whose families had just been murdered and (in some cases) whose husbands were still alive would actually consent to having sex with their captors, it should be apparent that the Islamic deity is actually permitting, and even encouraging, rape and adultery in his so-called holy book!
How truly sad and tragic for these women that Muhammad and his god did not share the shame and concern of the jihadists regarding the highly unethical nature of raping captives whose husbands were still alive. Instead, Allah and his messenger rushed to justify such a perverted and heinous crime!
Contrast this filth with what Deuteronomy teaches concerning the issue of female captives:
“When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her AS YOUR WIFE. Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.” Deuteronomy 21:10-14
Here we see that, instead of permitting men to rape captive women, the Holy Bible forces the Israelites to marry them if they wanted to have sex with them, and then letting them go free in case of a divorce. This means that the Holy Bible is actually dignifying these women by not allowing them to be treated the way Allah and his “messenger” had them treated, namely like animals. Now this is a command which predates the Quran by approximately 2200 years!
To say that such an injunction was truly shocking and revolutionary for that time period would be a wild understatement, just as the following commentaries illustrate:
“The law focuses on the rights of the woman by stating that the man who marries a female prisoner of war and subsequently becomes dissatisfied with her, for whatever reasons, is not permitted to reduce her to slavery. Such a woman had legal rights in ancient Israel, and moral obligations ensue from the fact that the man initiated a sexual relationship with her. Perhaps the most significant conclusion to draw from this text is the respect for the personhood of a captured woman. A primary concern in the laws of Deut 21–25 is for protecting the poor and vulnerable in society from exploitation on the part of the powerful.” (Duane L. Christensen, Word Biblical Commentary: Deuteronomy 21:10–34:12 [Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, TN 2002], Volume 6b, p. 475; bold emphasis ours)
“Throughout the ancient Mediterranean world, captive women of vanquished peoples were assumed to be the due sexual prerogative of the victors. This law exceptionally seeks to provide for the human rights of the woman who falls into this predicament… the verb ‘inah is also sometimes used for rape, and its employment here astringently suggests that the sexual exploitation of a captive woman, even in a legally sanctioned arrangement of concubinage, is equivalent to rape.” (Robert Alter, The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary [W. W. Norton & Company, 2008], p. 982; bold emphasis ours)
“The instructions given for the treatment of female captives in Deuteronomy 21:10-14 take it for granted that a conquering army have the right to dispose of the conquered population in any way that it wishes. It is hard for those coming from a different cultural context to see this as anything other than appalling, but this approach would have been unquestioned within the ancient Near East, and we have to see these instructions within that setting. What is remarkable is that although the woman may have had no choice in the matter–the soldier who fancied her has every right to make her this wife–nevertheless her identity as a human being is at least to some extent recognized. She is not to be thrown into the new situation but must be allowed time to mourn for her parents and her past life… Within these oppressive situations the laws are geared to provide at least a level of protection for the women involved… Women who were bought as wives or captured in war and taken as wives could not be sold as slaves or even neglected (Ex 21.11; Deut 21.14).” (The IVP Women’s Bible Commentary, eds. Catherine Clark Kroeger & Mary J. Evans [InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL 2002], pp. 100, 102)
“The space given for weeping is not primarily a period of mourning (though it is perhaps to be assumed that the woman’s father has died in the herem; 20:13, 15). Rather, it is given in compassionate consideration of the large adjustment she must make, and the accompanying trauma. It is an acknowledgment, too, that her former life is ended and a new life is to begin (cf. Ps. 45:10). The hints of compassion breaking through the brutality of the age reflect an awareness of divine compassion, however limited by the thought climate of the times.” (Ian Cairns, Word and Presence: A Commentary on the book of Deuteronomy (International Theological Commentary), [William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI 1992], p. 189; bold emphasis ours)
For more on the humanitarian nature of this OT passage we recommend the following article: A note on the humanitarian character of Deut 21.10-14.
Unfortunately, there’s more to the story. The so-called sound ahadith report that Muhammad taught that Allah has predestined the amount of adultery a person must necessarily commit:
Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas:
I did not see anything so resembling minor sins as what Abu Huraira said from the Prophet, who said, “Allah has written for the son of Adam his INEVITABLE share of adultery whether he is aware of it or not: The adultery of the eye is the looking (at something which is sinful to look at), and the adultery of the tongue is to utter (what it is unlawful to utter), and the innerself wishes and longs for (adultery) and the private parts turn that into reality or refrain from submitting to the temptation.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 77, Number 609)
Verily Allah has fixed the very portion of adultery which a man will indulge in, and which he OF NECESSITY MUST COMMIT (or there would be no escape from it). (Sahih Muslim, Book 033, Number 6421; see also Number 6422)
In other words, these Muslims were only carrying out the very sexual filth which their god had predestined for them!
END
LikeLike
You could only wish your vile demonically inspired pedophiliac profit taught the things Moses did.
BEGIN
BEGIN
To now further add insult to injury, let me further break down Deuteronomy 21:10-14 to show how this passage condemns Muhammad as an adulterer and rapist:
“When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and attracted to her, YOU MAY TAKE HER AS YOUR WIFE. Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband AND SHE SHALL BE YOUR WIFE. If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her (innitah).” Deuteronomy 21:10-14
The word innitah comes from anah. Now let us see how other versions render this word in v. 14:
“But if you aren’t pleased with her, you must send her away as she wishes. You are not allowed to sell her for money or treat her as a slave because you have HUMILIATED her.” Common English Bible
“It shall be, if you are not pleased with her, then you shall let her go [c]wherever she wishes; but you shall certainly not sell her for money, you shall not [d]mistreat her, because you have HUMBLED her.” New American Standard Bible
But if you are not satisfied with her, you shall let her go free and not sell her for money. You must not treat her as a slave, since you have DISHONORED her. New Revised Standard Version
And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not deal with her as a slave, because thou hast HUMBLED her. Jewish Publication Society 1917
And it will be, if you do not desire her, then you shall send her away wherever she wishes, but you shall not sell her for money. You shall not keep her as a servant, because you have AFFLICTED her. Complete Jewish Bible with Rashi Commentary
The reason why these versions rendered the word anah as dishonored, humbled, afflicted etc. is because the word is not being used here in the sense of forcing the captive woman to have sex, but of dishonoring or humiliating her by divorcing her and sending her on her way. That this word can and does mean refer to dishonoring someone, and not forcing them to have sex, is easily seen from the way this word is used in the following verses:
“This shall be a perpetual statute for you so that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall HUMBLE yourselves, and do no work of any kind, whether it is the native citizen or the stranger who sojourns among you. For on that day the priest shall make atonement for you to cleanse you, so that you may be clean from all your sins before the Lord. It shall be a sabbath, a solemn rest for you, and you shall HUMBLE yourselves. It is a perpetual statute. The priest, who is anointed and consecrated to minister as a priest in the place of his father, shall make atonement, and shall put on the linen garments, the holy garments. And he shall make atonement for the Holy Sanctuary, for the tent of meeting, and for the altar, and he shall make atonement for the priests, and for all the people of the congregation.” Leviticus 16:29-33
“The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Also on the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be the Day of Atonement. It shall be a holy convocation to you, and you shall HUMBLE yourselves, and offer a food offering made by fire to the Lord. You shall do no work on that same day, for it is the Day of Atonement to make atonement for you before the Lord your God. For whoever is not HUMBLED on that same day, he shall be cut off from among his people. And whoever does any work in that same day, that person I will destroy from among his people. You shall do no manner of work. It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings. It shall be to you a sabbath of complete rest, and you shall afflict your souls. On the ninth day of the month starting at the evening, from evening to evening, you shall celebrate your sabbath.” Leviticus 23:16-32
“You will have a holy assembly on the tenth day of this seventh month, and you will AFFLICT yourselves. You will not do any work on it.” Numbers 29:7
“You must carefully keep all the commandments that I am commanding you today, so that you may live, and multiply, and go in and possess the land which the Lord swore to your fathers. You must remember that the Lord your God led you all the way these forty years in the wilderness, to HUMBLE you, and to prove you, to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep His commandments or not. He HUMBLED you and let you suffer hunger, and fed you with manna, which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that He might make you know that man does not live by bread alone; but man lives by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord. Your clothing did not wear out on you, nor did your feet swell these forty years. You must also consider in your heart that, as a man disciplines his son, so the Lord your God disciplines you… who fed you in the wilderness with manna, which your fathers did not know, that He might HUMBLE you and that He might prove you, to do good for you in the end. ” Deuteronomy 8:1-5, 16
Thus, this text doesn’t permit Israelite men to rape captive women like Muhammad’s god allowed his profit and jihadi thugs. Rather, it is telling them they can only have sex with women whom they have taken captive BY FIRST MARRYING THEM! Even the very translation used by this demented liar AFFIRMS THAT THE ISRAELITES HAD TO MARRY THE CAPTIVE WOMEN, AND WERE TO SET THEM FREE AND NOT SELL THEM AS SLAVES IF THEY ENDED UP DIVORCING THEM, UNLIKE YOUR WICKED PROFIT WHO NOT ONLY RAPED THEM WITHOUT MARRYING THEM BUT THEN SOLD THEM OFF AFTER HE GOT DONE VIOLATING THEM!
10 “When the Lord your God gives you victory in battle and you take prisoners, 11 you may see among them a beautiful woman that you like AND WANT TO MARRY HER. 12 take her your home, where she will shave her head, cut her fingernails, 13 and change her clothes. She is to stay in your home and mourn for her parents for a month; after that, YOU MAY MARRY HER. 14 Later, if you no longer want her, you are to let her go free. since you forced her to have intercourse with you, YOU CANNOT TREAT HER AS A SLAVE AND SELL HER.
OUCH!
MORE IMPORTANTLY, YOU CANNOT QUOTE A SINGLE VERSE FROM THE BIBLE WHICH SAYS THAT ISRAELITES OR BELIEVES CAN RAPE MARRIED WOMEN THAT HAVE BEEN TAKEN CAPTIVE, UNLIKE YOUR WICKED PROFIT!
DOUBLE OUCH!!!!
You could only wish that your profit had shown the same decency and civility towards captive women that this passage from Deuteronomy does, a passage which predates your filthy Quran by approximately 2200 years!
Like I said, keep producing your trash and filth and keep watching hundreds of thousands leave your wicked and filthy deen and turn to the glory of Christ, Muhammad’s God and Judge!
With that said give me a time and date when you can come to my paltak room so we can compare Deuteronomy 21:10-14 with the filth of Quran 4:24 and your profit’s implementation of it so all can see how well you do defending your garbage.
END
END
LikeLike
And speaking of your profit raping women, let’s now take a look at how he treated women as whores by prostituting them in the name of his god calling it muta. Enjoy!
2. Legal Prostitution called Muta’
One shameful aspect of Islam is the practice of temporary marriages called mut’a. This practice granted Muhammad’s followers the privilege of gratifying their carnal desires with women for a temporary time period at a very cheap price:
Abdullah (b. Mas’ud) reported: We were on an expedition with Allah’s Messenger and we had no women with us. We said: Should we not have ourselves castrated? He (the Holy Prophet) forbade us to do so He then granted us permission that we should contract temporary marriage for a stipulated period giving her a garment, and ‘Abdullah then recited this verse: ‘Those who believe do not make unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you, and do not transgress. Allah does not like trangressers” (al-Qur’an, v. 87). (Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3243: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/008.smt.html#008.3243)
Rabi’ b. Sabra reported that his father went on an expedition with Allah’s Messenger during the Victory of Mecca, and we stayed there for fifteen days (i. e. for thirteen full days and a day and a night), and Allah’s Messenger permitted us to contract temporary marriage with women. So I and another person of my tribe went out, and I was more handsome than he, whereas he was almost ugly. Each one of us had a cloak, My cloak was worn out, whereas the cloak of my cousin was quite new. As we reached the lower or the upper side of Mecca, we came across a young woman like a young smart long-necked she-camel. We said: Is it possible that one of us may contract temporary marriage with you? She said: What will you give me as a dower? Each one of us spread his cloak. She began to cast a glance on both the persons. My companion also looked at her when she was casting a glance at her side and he said: This cloak of his is worn out, whereas my cloak is quite new. She, however, said twice or thrice: There is no harm in (accepting) this cloak (the old one). So I contracted temporary marriage with her, and I did not come out (of this) until Allah’s Messenger declared it forbidden. (Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3253: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/008.smt.html#008.3253)
God’s pure Word says:
“Do not degrade your daughter by making her a prostitute, or the land will turn to prostitution and be filled with wickedness.” Leviticus 19:29
“You must not bring the earnings of a female prostitute or of a male prostitute into the house of the LORD your God to pay any vow, because the LORD your God detests them both.” Deuteronomy 23:18
And here is a part of my response to anther vile demonically influenced Muhammadan:
The Meaning of Muta
Osama failed to prove his case from the Quran that Muta has been abrogated. Out of sheer desperation he tried to appeal to the Sunni narrations in order to convince his listeners that Muhammad canceled out Muta. Before we proceed to refute his arguments we need to first provide an explanation of what Muta actually is:
WHAT IS TEMPORARY MARRIAGE?
It is a temporary marriage upon agreement of the two parties. This temporary marriage was a custom amongst eastern countries, as it was also practised by some men at the dawn of Islam on their missions / trips.
Abdullah Ibn ‘Abbas (r.a.a.) said: “Temporary marriage was at the beginning of Islam. A man comes by a town where he has no acquaintances, so he marries for a fixed time depending on his stay in the town, the woman looks after his provisions and prepares his food, until the verse was revealed: “Except to your wives or what your right hands possess.” Ibn ‘Abbas explained that any relationship beyond this is forbidden. [narrated by Tirmidhee]
As temporary marriage was a custom amongst Arabs in the days of ignorance, it would not have been wise to forbid it except gradually, as is the manner of Islam in removing pre-Islamic customs which were contrary to the interests of people.
It is well established that temporary marriage does not agree with the interests of people because it causes loss to the offspring, uses women for fulfilment of the lusts of men, and belittles the value of a woman whom Allah has honoured. So temporary marriage was forbidden. (Source)
Is Muta Really Prostitution?
Osama objects to my classifying Muta as prostitution in the guise of marriage. Instead of refuting him personally, I will allow his own Muslim brothers and sisters do that for me. After specifying what real marriage is according to the Quran, this next Salafi website comes to the following conclusion regarding Muta:
On these grounds, Mut’ah marriage IS CONSIDERED TO BE ZINAA (ADULTERY OR FORNICATION), even if both parties consent to it, and even if it lasts for a long time, and even if the man pays the woman a mahr. There is nothing that has been reported in sharee’ah that shows that it may be permitted, APART FROM THE BRIEF PERIOD when it was allowed during the year of the conquest of Makkah. That was because at that time there were so many people who has newly embraced Islam and there was the fear that they might become apostates, BECAUSE THEY HAD BEEN USED TO COMMITTING ZINAA the Jaahiliyyah. So this kind of marriage WAS PERMTITED for them for three days, then it was made haraam until the Day of Resurrection, as was narrated by Muslim, 1406. (Source; capital emphasis ours)
And:
Mut’ah or temporary marriage refers to when a man marries a woman for a specific length of time in return for a particular amount of money.
The basic principle concerning marriage is THAT IT SHOULD BE ONGOING AND PERMANENT. Temporary marriage – i.e., mut’ah marriage – was permitted at the beginning of Islam, then it was abrogated and became haraam until the Day of Judgement…
Allaah has made marriage one of His signs which calls us to think and ponder. He has created love and compassion between the spouses, and has made the wife a source of tranquility for the husband. He encouraged us to have children and decreed that a woman should wait out the ‘iddah period and may inherit. None of that exists in this haraam form of marriage. (Source)
See also their following responses:
http://islamqa.com/index.php?ref=2377&ln=eng
http://islamqa.com/index.php?ref=6595&ln=eng
The following story is found on these websites (*, *) and recounts the experience of a young Sunni girl who was duped into having sex under the guise of Muta. Here are some of her comments which are relevant to the issue being raised here regarding Muta being nothing more than legalized prostitution:
It all changed when I met him. It was fascinating to know that a college student would care so much about me. He was the most wonderful person. He treated me like a queen, and soon we became the best of friends. I felt I could tell him anything. As our friendship progressed, we talked about different topics including religion. He had different beliefs than me; he was Shia while I was Sunni. We always argued upon the differences. He had a way with making things sound better than what they were. Soon I became very confused.
One day he mentioned the idea of Mut’a. He told me that it was a type of temporary marriage, which was halal even in Sunni books. At first I didn’t believe him, but he used sources such as Bukhari and Muslim. I took his word for it, and before I realized, I was into a lot of trouble. I was in Mut’a for four years. As time went by, I learnt that I had lost my honor and dignity to someone who had done this to several other girls. Allah helped me open my eyes and realize what I had gotten myself into. By now, I was on the verge of switching beliefs to be a Shia. At this point, I decided to really search for the truth. Since I cannot present the whole research, I have tried to give a very brief idea about Mut’a…
Mut’a is a form of temporary marriage where a man can marry a woman for an agreed amount of time and money (mahr). In Mut’a, the husband is not financially responsible for the wife. There are no set limits in this kind of marriage by the Shias. According Shia beliefs, no witnesses nor a permission of the guardian is needed (the Sunni father does not believe in Mut’a), and there is no limit on the number of Mut’a one can do.
Also, the time period can be AS LITTLE AS ONE HOUR to as long as sixty years. In addition, a man who is permanently married can do as many Mut’a as he feels like, even with married women. THIS IS VERY SIMILAR TO PROSTITUTION …
Ninety-nine percent of the companions followed this opinion, but there was one percent who believed Mut’a can be performed in extreme case of necessity in the land of war. This one percent is divided into two groups. One says, it is allowed with the Caliph’s permission, and the other says there is no need for the permission. Those who do not believe in Caliph’s permission say that it was Umar who made it haram. Their proof is based upon an opinion by a companion namely Ibn Abbas. People misused this opinion of Ibn Abbas until he clarified himself and said, Wallahi I did not mean what they did! I meant similarly to what Allah meant when he allowed the meat of dead animals and pork to be eaten in extreme necessity. This is referring to the time when people abused the rule of necessity at time of Umar, following the understanding of the one percent. Finally, Umar declared and taught it to be haram when a lady came to Umar complaining about how her husband in Mut’a, who was married, would not take responsibility of the child. He realized how the society was becoming corrupt with similar conditions to adultery. Thus, he had to teach people and make Mut’a haram even in the case of the one percent opinion…
IF MUT’A IS NOT AN EXCUSE FOR SATISFYING LUST, THEN WHAT IS IT! IT SEEMS TO BE THE EASIEST SOLUTION FOR ADULTERY. If Mut’a really was to be done in case of need THEN WHY IS IT PERMISSIBLE FOR A MARRIED PERSON TO DO MUT’A? Also, if one cannot marry due to financial insecurity then how can one be responsible for supporting the child and not be able to support the wife? And how is he going to know if the child is actually his, not someone else’s? …
In Mut’a, THERE IS NO DIVORCE; once you pay the set amount of money and the assigned time ends there is no rights, no duty, no inheritance laws, or divorce process. The only law is that the woman waits for a period of 45 days before she enters into another Mut’a, while the man can have immediate one, even while he is married or in another Mut’a. This goes against what Allah assigned for marriage in the Qura’n. In Surah 2 Ayah 228 Allah says, Divorced women shall wait concerning themselves for three monthly periods and it is not lawful for them to hide what Allah hath created in their wombs. If they have faith in Allah and the last day.” In Mut’a she can be pregnant with the child of her first Mut’a husband and be married to her second Mut’a husband or the permanent. In the book of Mustadrak-Alwasa il (Shia authentic hadith book) vol. 7 book 3 pg. 506 rewayah 8762, it states that the prophet said that who ever cannot find the ability to get married let him fast, my ummah s protection is fasting. Also in Beharul-Alanwaar (Shia hadith book in vol.14 pg. 327 rewayah 50:21) it states that Imam Ali said and seek protection from women desire by fasting. What is the need for fasting if Mut’a is OK? It is obvious that this contradict this idea. I hope and pray that we will take this matter seriously. (Capital, bold and underline emphasis ours)
This Muslim woman mentioned that Muta could last as short as an hour, a position supported by the following Shiite source:
Q1: Can Someone Contract Mut’a Marriage for 1 hour?
I would say theoretically yes! Much in the same way that it is possible for some one to marry a woman permanently and then divorce her in one hour or even less. Logically, since the possibility of this action does not invalidate the regular marriage, therefore, it should not be applied in the case of Mut’a either! (Source)
Notice the candid admission of these Muslims. These sources have no hesitation classifying Muta as fornication, adultery and prostitution! They also warn Muslims from engaging in this sick, filthy, and perverted act. Yet at the same time these sources are aware that Muhammad permitted Muta for a time, which is an indirect admission that Muhammad permitted fornication, adultery, and prostitution.
The reader should easily see that their reasoning and justification for Muhammad’s permitting this perverted practice is utterly weak, with Osama’s logic being even worse. In order to expose the utter shallowness of their defense let us apply their reasoning to other sick, filthy practices:
Islam allowed the raping of young girls and boys at the beginning, because at that time there were so many people who had newly embraced Islam and there was the fear that they might become apostates, because they had been used to committing sexual acts with children during the Jaahiliyyah (Pre-Islamic period of Ignorance). So this kind of sex was permitted for them for three days, then it was made haraam until the Day of Resurrection. As child molestation was a custom amongst Arabs in the days of ignorance, it would not have been wise to forbid it except gradually, as is the manner of Islam in removing pre-Islamic customs which were contrary to the interests of people.
The only shortcoming with the above analogy is that the Quran does allow for the raping and divorcing of young, prepubescent girls. It even has the audacity to call this marriage:
O Prophet, when you divorce women, divorce them when they have reached their period. Count the period, and fear God your Lord. Do not expel them from their houses, nor let them go forth, except when they commit a flagrant indecency. Those are God’s bounds; whosoever trespasses the bounds of God has done wrong to himself. Thou knowest not, perchance after that God will bring something new to pass… As for your women who have despaired of further menstruating, if you are in doubt, their period shall be three months; and those who have not menstruated as yet. And those who are with child, their term is when they bring forth their burden. Whoso fears God, God will appoint for him, of His command, easiness. S. 65:1, 4 Arberry
The waiting period for the divorcing of women who haven’t even menstruated is three months, showing that these aren’t even women but are young girls who haven’t even attained puberty! Now a woman can only be divorced if she was first married, so it is clear that this injunction assumes that young girls can be married and divorced and remarry before they reach puberty. Even more, the purpose of this waiting period is to ensure that the wife who is about to be divorced is not pregnant, or if she is to make sure that the true father is known, i.e. that the child is from the current husband, and not a next husband that she may marry afterwards. Thus, this verse presupposes that the Muslim men who are married to prepubescent girls have sexual intercourse with them.
The renowned Muslim commentator Abu-Ala’ Maududi, in his six volume commentary on the Quran, confirmed this when he wrote:
“Therefore, making mention of the waiting-period for girls who have not yet menstruated, clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away the girl at this age but it is 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.” (Maududi, volume 5, p. 620, note 13)
Let us therefore use another example:
Islam allowed incest at the beginning, because at that time there were so many people who had newly embraced Islam and there was the fear that they might become apostates, because they had been used to sleeping with their family members during the Jaahiliyyah (Pre-Islamic period of Ignorance). So this kind of practice was permitted for them for three days, then it was made haraam until the Day of Resurrection. As incest was a custom amongst Arabs in the days of ignorance, it would not have been wise to forbid it except gradually, as is the manner of Islam in removing pre-Islamic customs which were contrary to the interests of people.
Would anyone buy this logic? Can there really be any justification for such perverted and heinous acts to be permitted, even if it is for a short while? Doesn’t this prove that Muslims will say just about anything to exonerate Muhammad from all the gross perversions he permitted in the name of God?
More for you in the following post.
LikeLike
Here is more on your women raping and prostituting profit. Enjoy!
Sunni Narrations That Claim Muta is not Abrogated
The following verse is believed to have permitted Muta:
O ye who believe! Forbid not the good things which Allah hath made lawful for you, and transgress not, Lo! Allah loveth not transgressors. S. 5:87 Pickthall
The hadith states:
Narrated Abdullah:
We used to participate in the holy battles led by Allah’s Apostle and we had nothing (no wives) with us. So we said, “Shall we get ourselves castrated?” He forbade us that and then allowed us to marry women with a temporary contract AND RECITED TO US: — ‘O you who believe! Make not unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you, but commit no transgression.’ (5.87) (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 13o)
Another passage which Muslims claim allowed for Muta is Sura 4:24:
And forbidden to you are married women, except such as your right hands possess. This has ALLAH enjoined on you. And allowed to you are those beyond that, that you may seek them by means of your property, marrying them properly and not committing fornication. And for the benefit you receive from them, give them their dowries, as fixed, and there is no blame on you what you do by mutual agreement after the fixing of the dowry. Surely ALLAH is All-Knowing, Wise. Sher Ali
Noted Sunni commentator Ibn Kathir commented on the above text and claimed that:
“… (4:21): the general meaning of which was given as evidence for Mut’a Marriage (Marriage for an intended short time) which was, undoubtedly, PREVALENT at the onset of Islam, but was abrogated thereafter. Ash-Shafi’i and a group of scholars were of the opinion that Mut’a Marriage had once been permitted but was later invalidated on two occasions. Some were more assertive than that, while others have made it lawful only if necessary. The majority of scholars, however, have opposed this view. The correct statement is mentioned in Sahih Al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, on the authority of Ali Ibn Abu Talib: ‘The Prophet forbade Mut’a Marriage and the meat of local skylarks (a type of bird) on the Day of Khaibar.’
“It is narrated in Sahih Muslim, on the authority of Ar-Rabi’ Ibn Sabrah Ibn Ma’bad Al-Juhani, who had quoted from his father, who had participated in the Conquest of Makkah with the Prophet who said: ‘O, People! I have permitted you to do Mut’a Marriage and Allah has forbidden it until the Day of Judgment. Therefore, whosoever is married to a woman through this type of marriage, should release them and should not take anything back from Mahr you have given them.’ According to Muslim, it was said during Hujjatal Wadaa’ (Farewell Pilgrimage). This Hadith has other meanings in the Book of Al-Ahkaam.” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, abridged by Sheikh Muhammad Nasib Ar-Rafa’i [Al-Firdous Ltd., London; First edition 2000], part 5, pp. 29-30 underline and capital emphasis ours)
The following Shiite site quotes a slew of Sunni references admitting that this passage initially included an additional clause not found today which justified Muta:
Sunni Doubts as to the Correct Recitation of this Verse
Beyond these facts, we see that not only do the majority of Sunni ‘ulama accept that this verse was revealed about Mut’ah, but a large majority also believe that there has been tahreef (change, distortion) in this verse in order to create confusion as to its real meaning. A number of Sunni hadeeth claim that this verse was read in a different way than it is today, in a way that makes it clear that it refers to Mut’ah. Imam of Ahl as-Sunnah Abu Hayyan Andalusi in his commentary of Sharh Afhaq ‘al Bahar al Maheet’ Volume 3 page 218 states:
“Ubay ibn Ka’b, Ibn Abbas and Ibn Jabeer would read the verse with the words ‘for a prescribed period’.
A number of Sunni Tafsir claim that the words “for a prescribed period” were read by the Sahaba when they recited this verse:
Tafseer Durre Manthur Volume2 P. 40 –
Tafseer Tabari Volume 5 p.
Tafseer Kabeer Volume 3 p. 94
Fathul Qadeer Volume 1 p. 14
Tafseer Ibn Katheer Volume 1 p. 84
Tafseer Ruh al Maani Volume 5 p.
Tafseer Kashaf p. 20
Tafseer Mazhari Volume2 p. 4
Tafseer Ahkam al Quran Volume2 p. 47
Tafseer Mu’alim al Tanzeel p. 63
Mustadrak Al Hakim volume 2 p. 47
Al Musahif by Abi Bakr Sijistani p. 3
Tafseer Mawahib al Rahman page 4 part 5
Tafseer Haqqani volume5 p.
Tafseer Jama Al Bayan Volume1 p. 66
Neel al Authar Volume2 p. 53 Kitab Nikah
Tafseer Qurtabi Volume5 p. 30
Dhurqani Sharh Muwatta Volume1 p. 54
Kitab al Musahaf page 342
Al Bahar al Maheet Volume 3 page 218
In later chapters when pages of sources are not mentioned then we are referring to references from above pages.
Specifically, the companion Abdullah ibn Masu’d is cited as reading the verse on Mut’ah with the additional words ‘for a prescribed period’ confirming its legitimacy, as well as testifying to tahreef in Uthman’s compiled Quran. This is cited in the following sources:
Tafseer Maar Volume5 p. 5
Tafseer Jama al Bayan Volume6 p. 9
All of these sources agree that Ibn Masud would read the verse of “Istimatum” followed by the words ‘for a prescribed period’. Can we conclude that these Sahaba were liars or were they suggesting that words were missing in the Quran collected by Uthman? The companion Ubay Ibn Ka’b is also said to have stated that the verse of Mut’ah included the words “for a prescribed period” and that the Companions remained silent when he recited the verse in this way. We read in Tafseer Kabeer Volume 3 p. 94:
Its proven that this verse came down about Mut’ah, first reason for this is Ibn Kaab would read the verse on Mut’ah with the “Ajol Masomee”, Ibn Abbas would also read it in the same way and the Ummah did not order them to stop reading verses in this way.
The implication of the hadeeth is this: that the Ummah accepted the addition of the words “for a prescribed period”. According to Sunni aqa’id, ijma’ (consensus of the Ummah) is a source of Islamic law. We see that the Ummah consented to these additional words in the recitation of these important companions. In a later discussion, we will see how ijma’ is used by the enemies of the Ahl al-Bayt (as) to justify ‘Umar’s prohibition of Mut’ah, arguing that the Companions were silent about ‘Umar’s innovation and that, therefore, they were pleased with it. However, we see the Sunni hadeeth literature claiming ijma’ for something which contradicts the version of the Qur’an constituted by ‘Uthman, which clearly supports the position that Mut’ah was halaal and that verse 4:24 was revealed in order to legitimise the practice of temporary marriage.
Further evidences in this regard:
Imam of Ahl as-Sunnah Sulayman bin Ashash Sijistani the son of the author of Sunan Abu Daud in his renowned Sunni work ‘al Musahaf’ page 286 records as follows: “Ubay bin Ka’b and Saeed bin Jabeer would read this verse with the words ‘for a prescribed period'”
Ibn Abbas would read the verse of Mut’ah with the words “for a prescribed period’ and openly declared this to be halaal.
Tafseer Al Baghawi, Al Musami Mu’alim al Tanzeel, p. 414 (http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/mutah/tafseer_albaghawi_p414.jpg)
‘Abu Nadhra asked Ibn Abbas about Mut’ah and he replied “haven’t you read the verse in Surah Nisa:- “those women… for prescribed period”‘ Abu Nadhra said “I did not read the verse in this way”. Ibn Abbas replied that “Allah has revealed the verse in this manner”. Ibn Abbas swore that this verse was about Mut’ah.
Tafseer Durre Manthur Volume2 P. 40
This recital was also recorded in Tafseer Tabari, on the authority of Ibn Ka’b:
Tafseer al-Tabari, p. 14 & 15 (http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/mutah/tafseer_altabari_p14_15.jpg)
Allamah Sijistani in al Musahaf page 342 records that: Abu Nadhra said: Ibn Abbas (RA) recited the verse 4:24 with the addition of “to an appointed time”. I said to him: “I did not read it this way.” Ibn Abbas replied: “I swear by Allah, this is how Allah revealed it,” and Ibn Abbas repeated this statement three times.”
This tradition has been similarly recorded in Tafseer Durre Manthur
Ibn Abbas claimed that the other Sahaba also read the verse on Mut’ah with the words ‘for a prescribed period’
Tafseer Dur al-Manthur Volume 2, P. 140 & 141 (http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/mutah/tafseer_dur_almanthur_v2_p140_141.jpg)
We also read in Durre Manthur that Ibn Abbas said: “Mut’ah was practised from the outset of Islam and the Companions would read the verse of Mut’ah with the words ‘for a prescribed period’.
Tafseer Dur al-Manthur Volume 2, P. 140 & 141 (http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/mutah/tafseer_dur_almanthur_v2_p140_141.jpg)
We have seen that many narration’s claim that Ibn Abbas recited the verse in a fashion that clearly refers to Mut’ah. The famous hadeeth narrator and scholar Al-Hakim in Mustadrak al Hakim volume 1 page 305 graded the words of Ibn Abbas claim that the verse of Mut’ah included the words ‘for a prescribed period’ to be a Sahih narration. After recording the words of Ibn Abbas, reading the words ‘for a prescribed period’ in the verse he grades the narration Sahih according to the criterion of Muslims. No Sunni can deny the status of Hakim within their sect; the famous scholar Shah Waliyullah graded Hakim as the mujadid (reviver of the faith, perhaps the highest praise that can be given to a Sunni ‘alim by his community) in the fourth century. In Izalathul Khifa p. 77 part 7, al Muhaddith Shah Waliyullah stated:
A Mujadid appears at the end of every century: The Mujtahid of the 1st century was Imam of Ahlul Sunnah, Umar bin Abdul Aziz. The Mujadid of the 2nd century was Imam of Ahlul Sunnah Muhammad Idrees Shaari the Mujadid of the 3rd century was Imam of Ahlul Sunnah Abu Hasan Ashari the Mujadid of the 4rth century was Abu Abdullah Hakim Nishapuri. (Mut’ah, A Comprehensive Guide, “Qur’anic Evidences for the Legitimacy of Mut’ah”; Source)
Osama cited certain hadiths to show that Muhammad abrogated this perverted practice. What Osama failed to tell his readers is that there are Sunni narrations that say that this practice was being observed all the way till the time of Umar ibn Al-Khattab who stopped it, but then later reinstated it. Basically, this means that Muhammad didn’t abrogate Muta at all, but some Muslims lied and claimed that he did. For instance, ar-Razi wrote of Muta:
“‘Mut’ah marriage involves a man hiring a woman for a specific amount of money, for a certain period of time, to have sex with her. The scholars agree that this Mut’ah marriage was authorized in the beginning of Islam. It is reported that when the Prophet came to Mecca to perform ‘umrah, the women of Mecca dressed up and adorned themselves. The companions complained to the Prophet that they had not had sex for a long time, so he said to them: ‘Enjoy these women.’” (At-tafsir al-kabir, Q. 4:24)
And:
“No Muslim disputes that Mut’ah marriage was allowed in early Islam, the difference is whether it has been abrogated or not.” (Ibid.)
The hadith collections affirm that there was debate regarding whether this practice had been abrogated:
Narrated Abu Jamra:
I heard Ibn Abbas (giving a verdict) when he was asked about the Mut’a with the women, and he permitted it (Nikah-al-Mut’a). On that a freed slave of his said to him, “That is only when it is very badly needed and women are scarce.” On that, Ibn ‘Abbas said, “Yes.” (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 51)
Ibn Uraij reported: ‘Ati’ reported that Jabir b. Abdullah came to perform ‘Umra, and we came to his abode, and the people asked him about different things, and then they made a mention of temporary marriage, whereupon he said: Yes, we had been benefiting ourselves by this temporary marriage during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) and during the time of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. (Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3248)
‘Urwa b. Zubair reported that ‘Abdullah b. Zubair (Allah be pleased with him) stood up (and delivered an address) in Mecca saying: Allah has made blind the hearts of some people as He has deprived them of eyesight that they give religious verdict in favour of temporary marriage, while he was alluding to a person (Ibn ‘Abbas). Ibn Abbas called him and said: You are an uncouth person, devoid of sense. By my life, Mut’a was practised during the lifetime of the leader of the pious (he meant Allah’s Messenger, may peace be upon him), and Ibn Zubair said to him: Just do it yourselves, and by Allah, if you do that I will stone you with your stones. Ibn Shihab said. Khalid b. Muhajir b. Saifullah informed me: While I was sitting in the company of a person, a person came to him and he asked for a religious verdict about Mut’a and he permitted him to do it. Ibn Abu ‘Amrah al-Ansari (Allah be pleased with him) said to him: Be gentle. It was permitted in the early days of Islam, (for one) who was driven to it under the stress of necessity just as (the eating of) carrion and the blood and flesh of swine and then Allah intensified (the commands of) His religion and prohibited it (altogether). Ibn Shihab reported: Rabi’ b. Sabra told me that his father (Sabra) said: I contracted temporary marriage with a woman of Banu ‘Amir for two cloaks during the lifetime of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him); then he forbade us to do Mut’a. Ibn Shihab said: I heard Rabi’ b. Sabra narrating it to Umar b. ‘Abd al-‘Aziz and I was sitting there. (Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3261)
Abu Nadra reported: While I was in the company of Jabir b. Abdullah, a person came to him and said that Ibn ‘Abbas and Ibn Zubair differed on the two types of Mut’a (Tamattu’ of Hajj 1846 and Tamattu’ with women), whereupon Jabir said: We used to do these two during the lifetime of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him). Umar then forbade us to do them, and so we did not revert to them. (Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3250)
One narration even says that, during the caliphate of Umar, a woman got pregnant as a result of Muta:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab from Urwa ibn az-Zubayr that Khawla ibn Hakim came to Umar ibn al-Khattab and said, “Rabia ibn Umayya made a temporary marriage with a woman and she is pregnant by him.” Umar ibn al-Khattab went out in dismay dragging his cloak, saying, “This temporary marriage, had I come across it, I would have ordered stoning and done away with it!” (Malik’s Muwatta, Book 28, Number 28.18.42)
Another renowned Sunni exegete and historian al-Tabari claimed that Umar rescinded his prohibition:
According to Muhammad b. Ishaq – Yahya b. Ma’in – Ya’qub b. Ibrahim – ‘Isa b. Yazid b. Da’b – ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Abi Zayd – ‘Imran b. Sawdah: I said the morning prayer with ‘Umar, and he recited the Subhan chapter and one other. Then he left. I went off with him, and he asked if there was anything he could do. I told him there was, so he asked me to join him. I did so and, when he entered [his house], he gave me permission [to enter]. There he was on a bed with nothing on it. I told him I wanted to give him some advice. His reply was, “The person giving good advice is welcome anytime.” I said, “Your community finds fault with you on four counts.” (‘Umar) put the top of his whip in his beard and the lower part on his thigh. Then he said, “Tell me more.” I continued, “It has been mentioned that you declared the lesser pilgrimage forbidden during the months of the [full] pilgrimage. The Messenger of God did not do this, nor did Abu Bakr, though it is permitted.” He answered, “It is permitted. If they were to perform the lesser pilgrimage during the months of the pilgrimage, they would regard it as being in lieu of the full pilgrimage, and (Mecca) would be a deserted place that year, and the pilgrimage would be celebrated by no one, although it is part of God’s greatness. You are right.” I continued, “It is also said that you have forbidden temporary marriage, although it was a license (rukhsah) given by God. We enjoy temporary marriage for a handful [of dates], and we can separate after three nights.” He replied, “The Messenger of God permitted it at a time of necessity. Then people regained their life of comfort. I do not know of any Muslim who has practiced this or gone back to it. Now anyone who wishes can marry for a handful [of dates] and separate after three nights. You are right.” I continued, “You emancipate a slave girl if she gives birth, without her master’s [consent to] the emancipation.” He replied, “I added one thing that is forbidden to another, intending only to do some good. I ask God’s forgiveness.” I continued, “There have been complaints of your raising your voice against your subjects and your addressing them harshly.” He raised his whip, then ran his hand down it right to the end. Then he said, “I am Muhammad’s traveling companion”- he [in fact] sat behind him at the raid on Qarqarat al-Kudr… (The History of al-Tabari: The Conquest of Iran, translated by G. Rex Smith [State University of New York Press, Albany, 1994], Volume XIV, pp. 139-140; bold emphasis ours)
To add to this mass confusion, this next hadith says that the Quran never abrogated Muta:
Narrated ‘Imran bin Husain:
The Verse of Hajj-at-Tamatu was revealed in Allah’s Book, so we performed it with Allah’s Apostle, and nothing was revealed in Qur’an to make it illegal, nor did the Prophet prohibit it till he died. But the man (who regarded it illegal) just expressed what his own mind suggested. (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 43)
The Saudi translator of Sahih al-Bukhari, Muhammad Muhsin Khan, has changed the word Mut’a to Hajj-at-Tamatu, even though the Arabic text of the Hadith that is placed next to the English says Mut’a. Yet even here the point is still clear since the expression Hajj-at-Tamatu refers to the practice of Muta during the time of Hajj, i.e. Muta of Hajj.
The practice of Muta may account for why the following text is worded in the way that it is:
And let those who do not find the means to marry keep chaste until Allah makes them free from want out of His grace. And (as for) those who ask for a writing from among those whom your right hands possess, give them the writing if you know any good in them, and give them of the wealth of Allah which He has given you; and do not compel your slave girls to prostitution, WHEN THEY DESIRE TO KEEP CHASTE, in order to seek the frail good of this world’s life; and whoever compels them, then surely after their compulsion Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. S. 24:33 Shakir
From the way this passage is worded one can easily conclude that prostitution is only a sin when the slave girl desires chastity. Otherwise, if she does not desire to be chaste then it is okay for her to prostitute herself for gain. This interpretation makes sense in light of the practice of temporary marriages. After all, there must be women who are willing to be used and degraded in this manner for Muta to even be possible.
As anyone can see, this practice is nothing more than a form of legalized prostitution since its sole aim is to gratify the carnal perversions of men.
OUCH!
Time to return back to your stone smooching since your “rebuttals” ain’t doing a thing to refute the fact of your profit being a pedphiliac women raping and prostituting deceiver. This is why millions are leaving your religion, praise the Lord Jesus Christ!
LikeLike
Paulus,
Are you capable of any original thoughts? Nothing but copy and paste tripe, full of lies, and spin, twisting and torturing the truth until it says what you and your Islamophobic friends want it to say.
The fact that you are so desperate to malign and misportray our religion, only highlights the fact that Islam poses a serious theological threat to a dying Christianity from inside the house of Abraham. When people take the time to look past your spin, they see the truth about the beautiful religion of Islam. When they realize that they have been lied to by dishonest deceitful Christians like you, they leave Christianity and enter into the fold of Islam.
Many reverts to Islam have stated that the lies that people like you sell, caused them to look more closely and deeply at the matter, and they discovered that your claims are false and that the opposite of what you purport is actually true, and that ultimately led them into the pure truth of Islam.
So keep up the good work, by inadvertently leading people to Islam!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kev,
“As for whether a 9 year old can reach puberty – it is a sad and perverted claim that a 9 year old with a period qualifies as a full grown woman.”
Response:
You demonstrate that you are uninformed of the fact that science has established that some females reached normal puberty at 9 and history recorded many young women of 9 years old giving births to normal babies.
Kev claims:
” A 9 year old body is still a 9 year old body and mohammed damaged Aisha’s internal reproductive organs by having sex with her when she was physically immature.”
Response:
Travesty of science! Unscientific claim! A female that reached early normal puberty at 9 is physically mature. History records many having babies at 9!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Aliyu
You are an apologist for pedophilia.
Even if a 9 year old can have a baby, it does not mean that she has reached full physical maturity. You are an animal if you think that it is morally acceptable to rape a child at the first sign of blood.
LikeLike
Zelyts Suoiruf wrote:
“Early Church historians like Eusebius of Caesarea (260 CE) confirmed the historicity of Joseph at 90 marrying Mary at 12.”
Citation needed.
Response:
This shows that you never read the article under discussion. The citations are there.
So, now is there any consistent Christian to declare Joseph the Carpenter as a pedo and child molester for marrying a child of 12 years of age – according to the secular standard you so believe in?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Show me where Eusebius confirmed the historical age of Mary and Joseph.
LikeLike
Kev,
You wrote:
“Aliyu
You are an apologist for pedophilia.
Even if a 9 year old can have a baby, it does not mean that she has reached full physical maturity. You are an animal if you think that it is morally acceptable to rape a child at the first sign of blood.”
Response:
You are an apologist for secular semantics.
Why should marriage of two adults be termed pedophilia? Which source says that marriage between a man and a female that reached puberty at 9 is pedophilia? The Bible – your supposed moral compass if you are not a secularized Christian? Or pure secular standard?
As I said, you people are guilty of emotional argument only concerning this issue – not based on real science let alone any divine writ. Which scripture says it is immoral for a man to marry a female that reached puberty at 9 ? Your Bible – where? Which scientific source says that it is wrong to marry a female that reached normal puberty at 9 ? Your highly biased scull?
LikeLiked by 2 people
@kev Either you’re ignorant or dishonest when you’re accusing me of dishonesty.
You know that the Shia do not accept Bukhari and Muslim hadith as canon right? Please tell me you were just ignorant and not a troll.
Which version of the bible do you follow? It is important to establish this clearly.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m wondering when Sam stops being a stupid?
LikeLike
That in itself is a stupid question
LikeLike
I had posted this on this board sometimes ago. Since the topic again has come up, I am riposting that post.
———————-
One of things that we Muslims don’t point out is that actually “west” doesn’t have any issues with minors [different nations have different definition of “minor and “adult”] having sex. West only has problem when a “minor” has sex with an “adult”.
For example if a 9 year old girl has sex with a 10 year boy [or vice versa], it is completely legal in most jurisdictions. It is only when a minor say , “14” year old, has sex with an adult, say “19” year old , then only the act becomes illegal in most jurisdictions.
For example in Canada [not picking on canada but just giving an example] . Just see this section from the link provided below.
//“Are there any exceptions to this?
The Criminal Code provides “close in age” or “peer group” exceptions.
For example, a 14 or 15 year old can consent to sexual activity with a partner as long as the partner is less than five years older and there is no relationship of trust, authority or dependency or any other exploitation of the young person. This means that if the partner is 5 years or older than the 14 or 15 year old, any sexual activity will be considered a criminal offence. There is a narrow exception for couples who were married before 2015, and one of the spouses was under the age of 16 at the time of the marriage.
There is also a “close in age” exception for 12 and 13 year olds: a 12 or 13 year old can consent to sexual activity with another young person who is less than two years older and with whom there is no relationship of trust, authority or dependency or other exploitation of the young person.”//
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/clp/faq.html
So the main thing to understand here is that it is not the “sexual activities” of the minors that the west has problem with, rather the main reason given is “exploitation”. So the question that we need to ask is if we , as society, “ensure” e.g provide legal means to make sure there is no “exploitation”, does it not mean that the act should be declared “legal” based on the very same reasoning?
Why is it not ok for a 12 year old to marry and have sex within marriage [which is currently ILLEGAL in most Western countries though LEGAL in all religions] rather than have sex outside of marriage which is LEGAL in law but SIN in all religions?
After all on what basis would the marriage of 14 year old to a 19 year old be declared illegal, if both sides are happy, able to give consent, their parents, judge, law enforcement and society at large has ensured that there is no exploitation? Why not make that legal? To mitigate risk of exploitation, some extra legal protections could be provided wherever minors are involve. e.g obtaining of the marriage license allowed only after a review and permission by a judge.
All the problem that is feared with minor-adult sexual relationship can happen within minor-minor sexual activities too. Risks like STD, injury due to penetration, pregnancy, etc are present in both cases. If some argues that the size of genitals for “minors” is small, so risk of injury for minor-minor relationship is not there, needs to consult some medical journal.
Please remember that one of the arguments to legalize same sex union in the West was that such is also found in animal kingdom! Why not apply this “animal kingdom logic” on minor-adult relationship as well. I grew up in farming community and I remember vividly when a cow or goat or buffalo reached “puberty” and was in heat, it needed a male partner to fulfill her needs. That male that was brought in to mate was “usually” much older and bigger than females.
This is true with all species of animal kingdom. Sexual activities take place starting with onset of puberty. So if this logic was used to legalize gay marriage, there is no reason this same can’t be used to at least “rationalize” minor-adult marriage?
Now I am not advocating child marriage. I am only questioning the basis that is used to legalize or criminalize certain behavior.
LikeLike
Rational pervert
“So the question that we need to ask is if we , as society, “ensure” e.g provide legal means to make sure there is no “exploitation”, does it not mean that the act should be declared “legal” based on the very same reasoning?”
Why are you so determined to make it legal or you to have sex with little children? Are a micropenis like your prophet?
LikeLike
Kev: penis, penis, penis
LikeLike
Paul
That’s all you’ve got to say about perverts trying to figure out ways to make sex with little children legal?
LikeLike
Just wish you’d stop your obsession with small penises. Freud would have a thing or two to say about that..
LikeLiked by 1 person
This dude is really confused, using arguments for and against muta and complaining about BOTH! Hilarious.
LikeLike
Yes, not sure what Zawaj Muta has to do with Aisha’s Marriage as Prophet (sws) remained married to her until his death. So in no way was it even comparable to Muta.
LikeLike
@Kev Little girls having sex is already legal in ALL western, predominantly Christian countries. What are you moaning about?
LikeLike
Most of the Hadith narrations mentioning her age was nine are reported through Hisham ibn Urwa while living in Iraq, where Hisham ibn Urwa is reported to have relocated after living in Madinah for seventy-one years. It is reported in one of the most well known books on the life and reliability of the narrators of the traditions ascribed to the Muhammad reports that Yaqub ibn Shaibah said, “narratives reported by Hisham are reliable except those that are reported through the people of Iraq”. It further states that Malik ibn Anas objected on those narratives of Hisham, which were reported through people of Iraq. Another book on the narrators of the traditions of the Muhammad reports that when he was old, Hisham’s memory suffered quite badly.
See Discover Islam for 9 reasons, according to alternative methods of calculating her age, Aisha could have been 12 – 18 years old at the time of her marriage: http://www.discoveringislam.org/aisha_age.htm
LikeLike
According to almost all the historians, Asma the elder sister of Aisha, was ten years older than Aisha. It is reported in Taqreeb al-Tehzeeb as well as in Ibn Kathir’s Al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah that Asma died in the 73rd year after migration of Muhammad when she was 100 years old. Now, obviously if Asma was 100 years old in the 73rd year after Migration to Medina, she should have been 27 or 28 years old at the time of migration. If Asma was 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah, Aisha should have been 17 or 18 years old at that time. Thus, if Aisha got married in year 1 AH or 2 AH (after Migration to Medina), she must have been between 18 to 20 years old at the time of her marriage. http://www.discoveringislam.org/aisha_age.htm
LikeLike
The truth about Muhammad and Aisha ~ Myriam Francois-Cerrah
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/sep/17/muhammad-aisha-truth
Nice article related to the subject at hand.
LikeLike
@Ibn Issam Don’t be a hypocrite and follow this path whenever it suits you and say “Rasulullah said…” referring to Bukhari or Muslim when it suits you. There is enough evidence from Aisha herself that she was 9.
@Kev Which version of the bible do you follow? Still waiting for your answer.
LikeLike
umaralfarooqpedo
Classic.
Ibn Issam exhibits a degree of human decency and you accuse him of hypocrisy.
Sadly, I agree with you. It is hypocritical, but at least Issam seems to agree that sexually exploiting little girls is disgusting – even for a prophet with a micro-penis (peace be upon it).
LikeLike
umaralfarooqpedo
Classic.
Ibn Issam exhibits a degree of human decency and you accuse him of hypocrisy.
Sadly, I agree with you. It is hypocritical, but at least Issam seems to agree that sexually exploiting little girls is disgusting – even for a prophet with a micro-penis (peace be upon it).
I say;
I do not understand someone like you whose God(Jesus Christ) came out of a tiny vagina of a young girl talking about penises.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Salaam ya Umaralfarooq, (You chose a beautiful name)
I understand your honest sentiment, and thank you brother.
The link I posted for Discovering Islam also mentions some reasons outlining why even if Aisha was in fact 9 years old, this marriage is still justified. I only wanted to point out that there are some other compelling pieces of evidence which may indicate that she could have been older a the time of her marriage.
The age of Aisha at the time of her marriage is not a central tenet of our faith, and since there seems to be some difference of opinion on the matter, we are free to believe either way. The main point is that Aisha was happy in her marriage with the Prophet (sws) and never had any complaints, nor was her marriage considered inappropriate by the Sahabaeen, whatever her age.
We should not let any controversy surrounding the marriage to detract from the central message and core beliefs of Islam, nor should we let such minor controversy divide us as Muslims.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Kev So you don’t believe in the bible? It is corrupted? If not, tell me which version?
The point I have clearly made is that the Quran does not have anything of which you relate. The hadith is NOT, I repeat, NOT accepted by the Shia. Read the verses 4:22-25 and tell me if you find what these hadith state. Please do, I’m waiting.
LikeLike
@Ibn Issam Wa Alaykum As Salam. Very few of us have any control over our names when we either take or receive them. At the time I took it, I wasn’t familiar with the different issues in Islam. If I knew then what I know now, I would not have taken this name. I can always change it if I feel it is too constricting but I haven’t reached that point yet.
The issue here is more than just the age of marriage of Aisha with Rasulullah (SAW). The issue in question is the usool behind accepting or rejecting a given hadith. I see many Muslims take a very strong position based on hadith and when it doesn’t suit them, suddenly it’s not a central part of the tenet. In fact, the aqeedah is the central part of the tenet. Believing that the compilation of hadith classified as sahih by imam Bukhari as being “the most authentic book after the Book of Allah”, followed by Sahih Muslim is a central tenet of Sunni Islam. I doubt you pull out the fine tooth comb on all of the hadith likewise.
Consistency is key. Over the recent years, I’ve come across a staggering number of hadith in the Sunni sect which stand in stark contrast to the Quran. The verse brought up in this thread about having sex with slave women, rawah Said Al Khudri, addresses a major point. In the Quran, every verse regarding this matter is CONSTANTLY repeating MARRY MARRY MARRY. Even “those whom you enjoy” give them their dowry, indicating, again, marriage. In short, the Quran says MARRY the slave women, not just have sex with them. In contrast, the hadtih says they got some “excellent Arab women” and wanted to have sex with them and at the same time sell them; so they decided to do both but pull out before ejaculation and they’re attributing that to Rasulullah (SAW) having permitted both their actions as well as pulling out (al azl). Can you sit with your daughter and tell her about this? Can you not see the stark difference??
Quran says that the punishment for zina is 100 stripes and for the unmarried, restrict them to their rooms or houses. Hadith says kill them with stones! You have Aisha and Umar BOTH saying that in fact that used to be a VERSE in the QURAN!
Ayah of Quran says (translated) “certainly Allah and His angels send their blessings on the prophet (SAW), oh you who believe, send your blessings on him”. Hadith “I curse them, I curse them, I curse them!” He’s asked “Who ya Rasulullah (SAW)”. He (SAW) says “Those who don’t take full benefit of the month of Ramadan, those who don’t take care of their parents when they need them and those who don’t say ‘SalAllahu Alayhi Wasallam’ after hearing my name”. It’s chalk and cheese brother. Look at the language of the Quran and look at the language of these hadith. If Rasulullah (SAW) is the walking Quran then these can’t be his words. I’m sorry to say, the Sunni sect, in my opinion is in a serious mess.
That doesn’t mean that the Shia are perfect either. They’ve got their messy issues too but I’ll discuss those issues with them. By your admiration of my name, it’s a clear indication that you are Sunni so I’m bringing up these points to you. My wife and I talked about this many times and any time a non-Muslim wants to make Islam look bad, they pull out the very many messed up hadith in Bukhari and Muslim. Let’s be honest and call it for what it is. Let’s stop this sectarian nonsense. Stop backing up lies and weak points and ONLY side with the truth. Allah ta ‘Ala has given each of us the faculty of logic. Please stop being lemmings and following blindly what the “ulema” say. They are not infallible and neither are the sahabis. Hadith after hadith is showing a different picture. We don’t have to believe whatever people tell us. We need to question them. We want the non-Muslims to question their beliefs; why are we exempt?
LikeLike
Salaam Umaralfarooq,
I do not question the Sahih Hadeeth, as I said previously, even if Aisha was in fact 9 years old, this marriage is still justified. I only meant to point out that there are some other compelling pieces of evidence within the hadeeth which may indicate that she could have been older at the time of her marriage.
In regard to al-Azl, this is something that the critics of Islam often bring up as a way of bashing Islamic belief. I think that the Qur’an highly encourages to marry the slave girl as a way of emancipating her, but I don’t think there is a mandate to do so.
In regard to stoning for zina, that was a common punishment in ancient times as evidence by Leviticus 20:10 which stipulates death for adulterers. If such was a verse in the Qur’an and then it was removed, this is a mercy from Allah. Also there is a difference in that, the Qur’anic Hadd was for unmarried persons while the hadeeth you mentioned was to be applied to married persons. “Narrated by Jabir bin Abdullah Al-Ansari A man from the tribe of Bani Aslam came to Allah’s Apostle and Informed him that he had committed illegal sexual intercourse and bore witness four times against himself. Allah’s Apostle ordered him to be stoned to death as he was a married Person.” Sahih Bukhari Vol. 8 No. 805
The language of the Hadeeth, does not necessarily have to match the language of the Qur’an. Since we know that the Qur’an is the “Ippsissma verba” of God, while the Hadeeth are often not directly from God, but are rather narratives by men speaking Arabic in their own tongue. I don’t think that Rasullallah (sws) being described as the “walking Qur’an” implies that he speaks in the same form and style of the Qur’an at all times. Otherwise the actual revelation would have not been as impactful on people if it just sounded the same as he spoke at any other time (eloquent but different than the glorious speech of Allah).
You speak of consistency, and seem to defend the hadeeth on Aisha’s age being 9, but then have no problem questioning other hadeeth. You also say we “should stop this sectarian nonsense” and I agree. But then you make a remark which is infused with sectarianism, questioning the name of Umar Al-farooq (ra), a name which is just as honorable as Ali Ibn Abi Talib (ra).
Are there problematic Hadeeth? Yes, we all know that. But I think a lot of the problem is really not with the Hadeeth but with our own modern perceptions due to our distance from the sources in time and place. It is easy to answer the critics of Islam, by caving in, and throwing out the Hadeeths that they attack. However it is a greater exercise of the intellect, faith, and heart to study the hadeeth, and attempt understand them in the way they were meant to be understood by the early Muslims. Yes, it is good to question and use intellect, but be careful that you are not led into confusion, brother.
I advise you not to go to critical websites if you are searching for answers as you will only end up in confusion and doubt. Instead, please go to reputable Islamic websites for answers. In my experience, there is a reasonable answer to all questions in Islam, and one only has to search to find it, or consult with a knowledgeable Imam, Sheikh or scholar of Islam. No one asked you to follow any and all Ulema without question, but if the Imam/Sheikh/Scholar is more wise and knowledgeable in the Deen then we are, we should at least listen to what he has to say.
Brother, I wish you the best in Islam inshallah, and as I said previously we should not let any minor differences divide us as Muslims.
Salaamtak.
LikeLike
Wa Alaykum As Salam,
I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just don’t know better. You’ve made several assumptions starting from the advice that I should seek out “reputable” scholarship. You might have started with an interrogative instead.
Your axiom of “They use it to bash us” falls well short of a refutation. The verses regarding slaves is predicated with marriage and dowry. You will have to build a case against that from hadith, just like every other point against the Quran.
Your very suggestion of seeking out “reputable scholars” itself is loaded with sectarian bias. Challenging a strongly held sectarian bias does not constitute sectarianism in itself. You should have the intellect to understand the difference sufficiently enough to not make such a statement. It is entirely consistent. I am approaching you from your bias. I don’t have to commit to your sect for my beliefs. In fact, questioning you about your beliefs, using your sources should not bear any dependence or relevance to my beliefs. The questioner could be a Muslim, a kafir, a misguided person or maybe even a scholar himself.
You believe that verses were REMOVED from the Quran? Are you serious? Which are all the verses REMOVED from the Quran. Please do enlighten us. Let us also know who removed them and when. Furthermore, if these verses were in fact removed, then why would the prophet (SAW) carry fourth the punishment which Allah abrogated? It is not a greater exercise of intellect but of license. Brother, the amount of license you are having to take in order to justify the deviant beliefs of your sect is not a “test of faith” or taking the difficult path. It is outright fraud. The Quran is not difficult to defend. Each verse is carefully measured and balanced. The hadith you’re defending are not. They are clumsy works of human beings to justify one practice, person or action or another. Take some time to carefully examine the evidence and I think you will find that the case.
Nabi (SAW) being the walking Quran means that he (SAW) would never say things in such a clumsy way himself.
If, in fact, as Ibn Abi Shayba (Imam Bukhari’s teacher) in his work the Musannaf, Umar threatened Fatima (SA) to set her house on fire, forget the level of Ali, Umar isn’t even a Muslim. A man threatens the daughter of Rasulullah (SAW) and you defend him? Another man steals her land and makes her angry while in the same Bukhari Nabi (SAW) says “Fatima is from me and anyone who angers her angers me” and you defend such a man? He says that the prophets don’t leave inheritance when the Quran says that Suleman was the inheritor of Dawud (AS). The same sect says Nabi (SAW) never left a will when the Quran says 2:180 that it is OBLIGATORY for us to leave a will. Personalities like Ali and Fatima wouldn’t know?? A father is passing away intending to NOT leave anything for his daughter and he wouldn’t tell her?? Can you even imagine that? Rasulullah (SAW) would NOT tell Ali or Fatima that that land which was in HER possession, is to be no longer hers but he will secretly go tell Abu Bakr?? That man’s daughter lifts up sword against Imam Ali and you defend her? Allah ta ‘Ala revealed an ENTIRE CHAPTER in the Quran against her and her friend (Surah At Tahrim). While the daughter of Rasulullah (SAW) could not inherit from the prophet (SAW), Aisha, the daughter of Abu Bakr inherited her house from Rasulullah (SAW). Masha Allah, how convenient. In fact, Abu Bakr is buried in that same house! And so is Umar. A house which they both contended could never have been inherited.
Brother, in a court of law, a witness is primarily questioned with his/her own evidence. So when I present these Sunni texts as evidence to you, it is to challenge your biases. That does not mean I believe in those hadith. But you can’t play both sides here. If you are making the claim of “reputability” then we have the perfect right, regardless of whatever our beliefs are, to question the reputability of your sources.
Throwing out these hadith is not caving in. We should throw them out because they are forged nearly 300 YEARS after Rasulullah (SAW) and smell distinctly of sectarian bias. Karbala is left entirely out of Bukhari. You can’t just believe in something man made and then stick to your guns on that. You have to look at the source from an objective perspective. Challenge it from the outside. I don’t believe in Islam because I am a Muslim. I am a Muslim because I believe in Islam. I came to believe in it before I was a Muslim, which means the truth is there regardless of my beliefs.
Allah ta ‘Ala says in Surah Baqarah for us to believe in what was revealed to Nabi (SAW) and what was revealed BEFORE him (SAW). That includes every scripture prior to Islam. The reason we Muslims give for not accepting those scriptures is because MAN had a hand in changing them. “Woe it is to those who write the scripture with their own hands and say it is from God”. We Muslims reject the other scriptures which contain agenda based writings, yet accept hadith which is clearly built on the agenda of defending the indefensible. Rape, murder, stoning, theft, injustice and usurping of power. ALL from hadith only and ALL against the Quran. Do you think it is some strange coincidence that they all line up like that?
Quran says marry the slaves, hadith says you can lust after them and do as you please. Quran says “Do not inherit women against their consent” and hadith says they decided to have their way with the slaves. Quran says “it is obligatory for you to leave a will” and hadith says “the prophet never left a will”. Quran says Suleman (AS) was the inheritor of David and hadith says “Prophets don’t leave inheritance”. Quran says in Surah An Nisa 24 “fa m’istemtatu” “the ones you have muta with, give them their dowry” and you will bring hadith which will say muta is haram.
These problems have nothing to do with modern interpretations.
How in God’s green earth would a questioning Muslim accept these fake hadith and their writers against the Quran? You can only do that if you have a sectarian bias.
So to conclude, my first message to you, and the consequent messages, have all been challenges to your bias. Either stick to the Quran or then be consistent with the forged hadith. The first is easy to defend and the latter will have you spinning out of control.
LikeLike