Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
JEFF
Jeff: “We atheists usually understand that morality is subjective to new knowledge.
Today we have more knowledge then 1000 years ago, thus we have a better moral judgment. That is a fact.”
I think you are confusing morality a bit here. A deed done in ignorance with good intentions can never be termed as immoral.
If a medical practice from 50 years ago comes to be known as harmful to the patient now, we cannot say the doctors who practiced it back then were immoral. You can say they were wrong, but never IMMORAL. Because they did it with the good intention of saving the patient.
Jeff: “MORALITY IS THE ONGOING UNDERSTANDING OF REALITY, IT IS THE COMBINATION OF "DEEDS" WITH "REASONS" BASED ON CURRENT KNOWLEDGE.”
IF that’s the case, your morality will be fluid. It keeps changing. Secondly, how then can you fault a society that practiced a wrong deed thinking that it was good according to their limited understanding and reasoning?
Jeff: “If in the future some new knowledge arrives, we might change a moral judgment.”
According to this logic every society would be immoral in hindsight, because we progressively advance in science and technology. You can be sure that something that you hold as appropriate and good would be considered wrong by some future generation. In that case, you can rest assured that you are being immoral in something that you are doing now. You are by default an IMMORAL person.
Jeff: “Morality is subjective, reasons are subjective, deeds are debatable but I am ready to consent that they could be objective.”
I fully agree with your point that morality is subjective. It is so, because morality is not about good and bad… it is about right and wrong. Let me explain. Executing a murderer might be a bad thing for the murderer, and it might be a good thing for the society. But the question of whether it’s right or wrong is a huge question. That’s why there are so many debates going on, and people are divided over it.
And you seem to confuse between scientific advancements and morality. Morality does not fall in the realm of physics or chemistry, where quantities are precisely measurable and you have clear cut equations that give extremely precise answers. But morality falls in the realm of humanities and sociology, which are not hard sciences. There are no clear cut mathematical rules governing these sciences, which makes it fluid and imprecise. That’s why making moral judgements purely on understanding and reasoning is extremely unreliable.
"I think you are confusing morality a bit here. A deed done in ignorance with good intentions can never be termed as immoral"
You are the one mixing up things.
The deed is a bad one yes.
The person is not immoral if and only if he did it in ignorance, though the deed will still remain a bad deed.
What makes the person immoral is the refusal to check if the deed was being done for the right reasons.
Obeying orders or a book is considered a wrong reason.
This is where you are mixing deeds with reasons. The reason is voluntary ignorance.(wrong reason).
I thought I was quite clear on this point, please re-read my posts again since it appears you understood nothing.
The are considered immoral because they refused to be moral and instead obeyed orders not because they were ignorant per se.
"IF that’s the case, your morality will be fluid. It keeps changing."
Yes good morning. It CAN change, not it must change. It can remain the same too. It depends on current knowledge.
"how then can you fault a society that practiced a wrong deed thinking that it was good according to their limited understanding and reasoning?"
I fault the society that refused to understand the reason of doing something.
"thinking that it was good" does not equal "right reasons"
You do not need to be a genius to understand that raping a child is wrong, just put yourself in that child position, would you like to be raped?
That society was so brainwashed and dominated by their leaders through religious indoctrination that refused to be a decent human being for it.(wrong reasons)
"According to this logic every society would be immoral in hindsight"
Again you are mixing deeds with reason as one thing.
You need to provide why the reasons were the wrong ones to claim such a thing. Which you haven't yet.
A society might do a bad deed for the right reasons and vice versa.
You are generalizing too much on things you did not support.
"You can be sure that something that you hold as appropriate and good would be considered wrong by some future generation."
There are exceptions like deeds which are objective, eg not raping a child for the wrong reasons.
So your claim is demonstrably false.
"You are by default an IMMORAL person."
Lol you need to stop generalizing and remove from your head that deeds and reasons are one thing.
Once you do, you might see the light.
If i do a good/bad deed for the right reason I am a moral person.
The thing you should be attacking is, how do i determine if what I think is the right reason is actually a right reason?
The answer to that is based on current knowledge, however that does not mean that what was right today will be wrong tomorrow as you claimed.
Again making a claim without supporting it.
A Mother taking care of her children was right before and it is still right today, it did not change even after millions of years.
Please stop making unsupported and contradictory claims which are demonstrably false with just some very basic common sens.
"I fully agree with your point that morality is subjective. It is so, because morality is not about good and bad… it is about right and wrong. Let me explain. Executing a murderer might be a bad thing for the murderer, and it might be a good thing for the society. But the question of whether it’s right or wrong is a huge question. That’s why there are so many debates going on, and people are divided over it."
"Executing a murderer might be a bad thing for the murderer, and it might be a good thing for the society."
"Executing a murderer"= bad deed
"for the murderer"(selfish reason)= wrong reason
"good thing for the society."= right reason
See the mix up you are making?
You keep combining the 2 things as one and you are mixing up how morality works.
"But the question of whether it’s right or wrong is a huge question."
Once you understand the difference it is quite simple.
If it is done for the right reason, it is morally good.
If it is done for the wrong reason it is morally bad.
The deed itself is irrelevant to judge morality.
The question comes about how one can solve moral dilemmas like 2 equally valid right reasons?
eg: Decide between saving 5 people or saving 5 different people.
Morality is more complex then just good/bad but in most cases knowledge helps to choose which one is better for a good moral judgment.
That is why, the more knowledge you have the more chances you have of making a good moral judgment.
Islam is the enemy of knowledge(no criticism), it is dogmatic, thus it is the enemy of moral judgment, it embraces immorality and fights morality.
"And you seem to confuse between scientific advancements and morality."
Morality is based on knowledge. Science is one type of knowledge.
This makes your argument completely flawed and outright stupid.
"That’s why making moral judgement purely on understanding and reasoning is extremely unreliable."
You keep making unsupported claims, there are exceptions but that does not make it unreliable.
What is unreliable in understanding that you would not like to be raped, so do not support rapists?
It is basic common sens that is very reliable and precise.
EG:
Rape = bad deed
rapist(pleasure)= wrong reason
=Morally wrong/Immoral
@valiya s sajjad
Regardless of your religion or preferences...
Trying to defend having sex with anyone without their consent, is deplorable.
Trying to defend having sex with a little girl who is not even physically sexually mature, is alarming.
I understand how central Muhammed is to you and your faith in Islam. But you should really take a step back and look at what your doing. If your faith is causing you to defend such things, perhaps you should take a closer look at your personal faith in your religion.
Hi Pragmatic... nice to cross swords with you again:)
What I have been trying to explain in my posts to Rawan is just that our standards of sexual maturity and appropriate age of consent are just relevant to our context. Even in the today's world the age of consent varies so dramatically between countries (I am talking of secular democracies). It ranges from 12 to 18. If there is any biological indicator of sexual maturity it's only menstruation in girls. And that's when Aisha's marriage was consummated.
This is what makes critiquing early marriages from different eras so baseless. I don't know if you read my post to Rawan. I have explained it in greater detail. Do you think you can apply one blanket age of consent or marriage across all times and societies and accuse anyone who deviates from your current modern standard as immoral?
"Do you think you can apply one blanket age of consent or marriage across all times and societies and accuse anyone who deviates from your current modern standard as immoral?"
No.
But the absolute minimum for having sex, should be physical sexual maturity.
If you ask me, take the average age for menstruation, 12 years old, add 4 years for mental maturity. Minimum age 16.
But you are seriously saying Aisha was menstruating at age 9?? Is there an actual passage in the Qur'an that specifies this? And is it also specified that it was with her consent?
Valiya,
I don't know how familiar you are with the islamic literatture but let me tell you something: even back then, a forty year old man marrying a nine year old girl wasn't a widely acceptable thing.
Back then, they waited for their children to at least reach puberty before marrying them.
In Hadith book (Sahih Al-Bukhari for expmle) and other biographies of Muhammad written by the most respected muslim scholars, it is stated clearly that when Muhammed asked for Aicha's hand in marriage, her father "Abu Bakr Al-Sedik" was shocked at first, and said literally" but, she is still too young!"
Muhammed tried so hard to convince him, but Al-Seddik only said yes after the "prophet" promissed he won't touch her until she reached puberty, many scholars say he did not keep that promise.
If marrying children was so common back then, why didn't Muhammed get married until he was 25, and to a 40 year old woman?
Why didn't give his daughters hands in marriage until they were 16 or older?
Why haven't we heard of any of the Caliphs marrying 9 year old girls?
I agree with you in that what is acceptable or not acceptable is maily a matter of perspective and cultural context. But as a person living in the 21st century and having my own set of convictions and morals that I'm fine with, why should I follow the teachings of this man?
If we suppose it was OK back then, it's certainly inacceptable today. But guess what? In Saudi Arabia, Yemen and other religious countries, they still marry young girls, ages between 8 and 13 because it is not forbidden, it's even a good thing because they're following the prophet's model. This is happening TODAY. Those girls are suffering, many of them died from hemorragies the night of their weddings or while giving birth to their first child.
I think if you're going to defend any of the things Muhammed did, this is not something you want to start with.
I'll go into further detail about this later. I'm looking forward to hearing your other arguments about the rest of the topics.
Hi Rawna
Thanks for the reply. Here are my responses.
I think you have got your facts wrong about the marriage proposal and the subsequent events. It is clear from hadith sources that Aisha was already engaged when the prophet asked her hand in marriage. Abu Baker’s reluctance therefore could have never been because of her young age, otherwise she wouldn’t have been engaged. His concern was that the prophet was his brother, because that’s how he deemed him to be out of fealty. But the prophet corrected him stating that they are brothers only in faith and not by blood.
You said: “If marrying children was so common back then, why didn't Muhammed get married until he was 25, and to a 40 year old woman?”
As men are the bread winners in the family, they married quite late. However, it was very common for girls to be married early. Khadija was a window with 4 children when prophet married her. And so you can’t say that she married late at the age of 40. That was her second marriage.
You said: “Why didn't give his daughters hands in marriage until they were 16 or older?
Why haven't we heard of any of the Caliphs marrying 9 year old girls?”
You got to understand that 9 was not some sort of a fixed age when all girls got married. They usually married young, in most cases as soon as they came of age. It could start as early as 9. Some girls may have to wait for some time to find a suitor. Or the parents might delay their marriage for other reasons. However, you cannot deny the fact that early marriage was the norm back in those days… not just in Arabia, but all over the world.
About the caliphs… if you have any data of caliph’s marriages, please provide them with proofs here, and then lets discuss.
You said: “But as a person living in the 21st century and having my own set of convictions and morals that I'm fine with, why should I follow the teachings of this man?”
Firstly, your notion of ‘having you own set of convictions’ is the problem here. Why should your own convictions ever be a universal standard? Secondly, Muhammad never made it mandatory for girls to get married young. He never fixed any age limit for marriage, and that’s his wisdom knowing that these standards will change with time. And if someone thinks that it is a standard because mohammed did so, then why don’t they follow the standard of his first marriage… why can’t they marry 40 year old widows? This is not the way to understand the faith. It’s like saying, I will travel only on a camel backs because muhammed did so. Please understand the faith from the right perspective.
You said: “In Saudi Arabia, Yemen and other religious countries, they still marry young girls, ages between 8 and 13 because it is not forbidden, it's even a good thing because they're following the prophet's model.”
My answer on top partially answers this point too. Muslims are doing a lot of things wrong because of wrong understanding. There are people who kill and bomb thinking its some sort of a religious obligation. That’s the wrong understanding. These people have to be educated. You can’t blame the religion for their wrong understanding of it.
You said: “I think if you're going to defend any of the things Muhammed did, this is not something you want to start with.”
In fact this is the easiest to defend… because if you have any inkling of marriage customs around the world… you will never be able to deny the fact that girls married very young even as late as 1800s. It was the norm in the world. In fact, Britain is the only place in the medieval times which was reputed to marry girls at an older age. Do you what the age was: 14! And that was considered old.
I will send my replies for other points too. But not now.
It's Rawan, not Rawna. Come on Valiya :'(
I'll try to get to the most important points in your response, one by one:
(A) "It is clear from hadith sources that Aisha was already engaged when the prophet asked her hand in marriage."
No, she wasn't engaged. She was promised to one of her cousins.
There was a tradition back then, whenever a girl is born into a wealthy family, that she is promised to one of her cousins or to the son of an ally, the very night of her birth.
When Muhammed asked to marry Aicha, she was only 6 and haven't even seen the cousin she was promised to in her life. I don't think you can call that an engagement.
So the wedding wasn't consummated until she was 9, it still counts as pedophilia.
In fact there is so much evidence in Hadith books that she was merely a child and wasn't mature enough to be marriage material. Here are some examples:
1- Muslim :: Book 8 : Hadith 3309
'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house at the age of nine. She further said: We went to Medina and I had an attack of fever for a month, and my hair had come down to the earlobes. Umm Ruman (my mother) came to me and I was at that time on a swing along with my playmates. She called me loudly and I went to her and I did not know what she had wanted of me. She took hold of my hand and took me to the door, and I was saying: Ha, ha (as if I was gasping), until the agitation of my heart was over. She took me to a house, where had gathered the women of the Ansar. They all blessed me and wished me good luck and said: May you have share in good. She (my mother) entrusted me to them. They washed my head and embellished me and nothing frightened me. Allah's Messenger (, may peace be upon him) came there in the morning, and I was entrusted to him.
2- Muslim :: Book 8 : Hadith 3311
'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and he was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old.
3- Muslim :: Book 31 : Hadith 5981
'A'isha reported that she used to play with dolls in the presence of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and when her playmates came to her they left (the house) because they felt shy of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), whereas Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) sent them to her.
4- Bukhari :: Book 8 :: Volume 73 :: Hadith 151
Narrated 'Aisha:
I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13)
5- Dawud :: Book 41 : Hadith 4914
Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin:
When the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) arrived after the expedition to Tabuk or Khaybar (the narrator is doubtful), the draught raised an end of a curtain which was hung in front of her store-room, revealing some dolls which belonged to her.
He asked: What is this? She replied: My dolls. Among them he saw a horse with wings made of rags, and asked: What is this I see among them? She replied: A horse. He asked: What is this that it has on it? She replied: Two wings. He asked: A horse with two wings? She replied: Have you not heard that Solomon had horses with wings? She said: Thereupon the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) laughed so heartily that I could see his molar teeth.
(B) "You got to understand that 9 was not some sort of a fixed age when all girls got married."
I know that. I meant marrying girls as young as nine years old. But I see your point.
Maybe the caliphs weren't known for having child brides because they just prefered them more mature. That doesn't mean it was the norm.
So people used to get married very young in the middle ages and until the 1800s, this is not our issue. Slavery, human sacrifices and torture were also completely normal in that period of time.
We're talking about a man who is going to set an example for humanity to follow throughout the ages, who is carrying a universal message of love, tolerance and higher morality that transcends time and is still valid today.
Except he's clarly not that person muslims think he is, if every horrible thing he does must be defended and explained in the context of what was acceptable back then.
(C) "Firstly, your notion of ‘having you own set of convictions’ is the problem here. Why should your own convictions ever be a universal standard?"
I never said that my convictions should be a universal standard.
In fact your first comment on this thread was a response to me saying that most of the ex-muslims I know left Islam because they were shocked by Muhammed's ways, and that I don't approve of them either.
I didn't say everyone should adopt my principles and convictions, I just pointed out that people who do are more likely to be shocked when reading Hadith books and discovering the kind of person Muhammad was.
Of course, other people might not find it shocking at all, because they have different convictions.
(D) "Muhammad never made it mandatory for girls to get married young. He never fixed any age limit for marriage, and that’s his wisdom knowing that these standards will change with time."
Well, things didn't work out that way. For all we know, Islam totally allows and approves of pedophilia.
In the Quran, Surat 65:4, it is stated that after divorcing a girl who didn't get her period yet, the prescribed period for her to wait before getting married again (Iddah) is three months.
Here is an explanation of the verse by one of the most respected muslim sholars ( Al Maududi), which is in fact consistent with the official Tafsir books ( Tafsir Al-Jalalayn, Tafsir Ibn- Abbas, Tafsir Ibn- Kuthair):
"Here, one should bear in mind the fact that according to the explanations given in the Qur'an the question of the waiting period arises in respect of the women with whom marriage may have been consummated, for there is no waiting-period in case divorce is pronounced before the consummation of marriage. (Al-Ahzab: 49). Therefore, making mention of the waiting-period for the girls who have not yet menstruated, clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away the girl in marriage at this age but it is also permissible for the husband to consummate marriage with her. Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Qur'an has held as permissible.
The girl who is divorced in the state when she has not yet menstruated and then she starts having the menses during the waiting-period, will reckon her waiting-period from the same menstruation and her waiting-period will be reckoned just like the woman who menstruates regularly."
Here is the link if you want to check: http://searchtruth.com/tafsir
As we know; Quran is relevant to all times and places. Denying that is equal to leaving the faith.
(E) "Muslims are doing a lot of things wrong because of wrong understanding. There are people who kill and bomb thinking its some sort of a religious obligation. That’s the wrong understanding. These people have to be educated. You can’t blame the religion for their wrong understanding of it."
In fact, these muslims understand their religion very well.
Muhammed, their prophet said time and again that they should follow his model in everything he does. He married a pre-pubescent child, so they are allowed to do it too.
The Quran, "the unchanged words of God" says it is OK to marry young girls. They can't challenge something said in the Quran, it is forbidden.
The same goes for murdering the"infidels". We can't say these people don't know their religion and are not following it properly, because they are.
"I will send my replies for other points too. But not now."
Take your time. You can pm me if you want links to Hadith books or other useful sources.
Rawna
Firstly apologies for misspelling your name. I like your name. Does it mean “Look at me” or something in Arabic? Can I borrow it for my next child?
My responses
As you have not responded to my correction of your statement that abu bakar had a problem in getting aisha married so young, can I assume that you have submitted that point to me?
Rawna: “No, she wasn't engaged. She was promised to one of her cousins.”
That’s precisely what I meant by engaged. And that’s what happened in the case with the prophet too when Aisha was 6. And they waited another 3 years for her to become mature, attain puberty.
Rawna: “So the wedding wasn't consummated until she was 9, it still counts as pedophilia.”
You are simply back projecting your moral standards from an entirely different era, place and setting. Your standards are nothing but the product of your time, culture and location and your epistemological underpinnings. This is relative, and will change in the next 100 or so years.
Rawna: “In fact there is so much evidence in Hadith books that she was merely a child and wasn't mature enough to be marriage material. Here are some examples:”
I am familiar with all those hadith you quoted. I am not trying to say that Aisha was behaving like a 20 year old when she was 9. She was acting her age. But what I am trying to establish is that she had attained puberty. None of the hadith you showed sheds any light to the contrary. She was sexually mature to enter a union, and back in those times (like until very recently in history) these kinds of unions were NOT considered ill advised. This was acceptable to the society, families involved and the partners too. Your disgust is the result of the baggage of modern sensibilities that evolved only recently and could change as easily.
On a side note: In India where I come from, all religious groups still practice arranged marriages. It is a very successful institution, where the groom and bride only meet once before marriage under the supervision of parents. The next time they meet is in their bedroom after marriage. And the union takes place. When I explained this to a friend from France, he found it utterly disgusting and said that it’s actually the rape of the bride. But we know that both the bride and the groom are happy in such unions, and they raise families successfully. It’s an example of how cultural and geographical barriers fog our judgments. Add to it a gap of more than 1000 years… and your judgment goes for spin.
Rawna: “Maybe the caliphs weren't known for having child brides because they just prefered them more mature. That doesn't mean it was the norm.”
I thought you would be giving proofs of the ages of caliphs’ brides. But what you have given is just your assumptions.
Rawna: “So people used to get married very young in the middle ages and until the 1800s, this is not our issue. Slavery, human sacrifices and torture were also completely normal in that period of time.”
I agree with you. One thing that we can know for certain from these examples is that what societies collectively believed and acted on in one context of time and place is entirely wrong in another context. How then can you rest assured that what you hold as high morals will be deemed so 100 or a 1000 years later? The age of consent that you favor, 18, will be considered immature 1000 years later, when educational systems would have evolved to include 30 years of studies and lifespans would have extended to about 150 plus. You will be judged as immoral by those people.
I know that his throws in a more fundamental question of “how do you decide morality?” That is a wholly different argument, so I am not going to provide you with my answer for that yet. Suffice to say that your moral ground is just a temporary foothold which can slip away with time… and lo, suddenly a new generation will come along and judge you an ‘immoral creature’.
Rawna: “We're talking about a man who is going to set an example for humanity to follow throughout the ages, who is carrying a universal message of love, tolerance and higher morality that transcends time and is still valid today.”
When a man is bringing a message for all ages, it has to be applicable to all ages too. Therefore, to impose restrictions or set limits on marriageable ages would be counterproductive in different settings. The real wisdom is not to set a limit of this nature… the only limit for the consummation of marriage in Islam is a biological indicator which is puberty. Today, I can say that I will not get my daughter married before she completes her university education, and yet be a true Muslim. I will not be breaking any laws in islam by doing so.
Rawna: “I never said that my convictions should be a universal standard.”
Then on what grounds are you judging others?
Rawna: “Of course, other people might not find it shocking at all, because they have different convictions.”
Exactly. And why should your convictions trump theirs? It’s a relativity soup when you come at it from your angle.
Rawna: “In the Quran, Surat 65:4, it is stated that after divorcing a girl who didn't get her period yet, the prescribed period for her to wait before getting married again (Iddah) is three months.”
There are certain things we need to clear up before we start. Laws have a nature of their own. It has to take into consideration all possibilities, however remote they may be, in order to avoid confusions. This verse you cited is talking about the Idda period of divorcees, and this period is tied to the woman’s monthly cycles.
But the law has to clarify the case of women who do not have cycles for some reason or the other. Among these reasons could be medical conditions or “small age”! Ah… that’s the controversy now. Doesn’t that mean Islam allows the marriage of pre-pubescent girls?
Well, as I said, the law has to deal with all situations. There could be situations where a girl attains puberty (secondary sexual characters like breasts and pubes) yet not have cycles. This condition is called ‘Amenorrhea’. For some girls this happens due to the presence of hymen, in which case their periods will begin with sex life. These conditions, though not common, yet possible… the law has to take them into account.
That begs a question: how can we say that it refers to pubescent girls without cycles. Why can’t it mean pre-pubescent girls?
This answer to that is derived from another verse in the quran. Sura 4, Verse 6.
“And test the orphans [in their abilities] until they reach marriageable age. Then if you perceive in them sound judgement, release their property to them. And do not consume it excessively and quickly, [anticipating] that they will grow up. And whoever, [when acting as guardian], is self-sufficient should refrain [from taking a fee]; and whoever is poor - let him take according to what is acceptable. Then when you release their property to them, bring witnesses upon them. And sufficient is Allah as Accountant.”
The ‘marriageable age’ given in this verse is unanimously agreed by all exegetes as meaning ‘puberty’.
Rawna: “In fact, these muslims understand their religion very well.”
I just demonstrated to you how to understand the verse in question. If you want to understand it in the way you insist then that would be a contradiction with 4:6 of quran. Therefore, yes, there are at least some muslims who understand their faith in the wrong way. And it’s interesting you quoted Maududi… he is a scholar who had crossed all limits when it came to interpreting the quran (in general) simply to give credence to his political brand of Islam that he was trying to establish as a reactionary to colonial rule.
Rawna: “Muhammed, their prophet said time and again that they should follow his model in everything he does. He married a pre-pubescent child, so they are allowed to do it too.”
I find it interesting how you took all the trouble of providing me with exegetical proof for the verse above, and when it comes to the hadith of Aisha’s age you simply want to stick to your prejudices. There are exegeses on hadith also. And it’s the unanimous opinion of exegetes that Aisha waited until 9 years to attain puberty. And it’s not a very strange occurrence in the world. It is possible for some girls to come of age early. Do you know that the youngest mother in the world according to Guinness book is a 5 year old girl from peru (or some latin American country)? So, please provide your proof to show that aisha was pre-pubescent. Or I think you should stop making these baseless accusations.
Rawna: “The same goes for murdering the"infidels". We can't say these people don't know their religion and are not following it properly, because they are.”
That’s another topic. If I get into answering that, this post will become tooooo long. So, will keep that answer for the next post when I will be addressing your other contentions regarding islam namely rape and so on.
First of all, it's Rawan (it's the name above my profile picture, on the left). You misspelled my name again 13 times in your last comment. I'll assume it was an honest mistake.
Rawan originally means the satisfaction you feel when you drink after being thristy for too long. But it's mostly used in arab poetry to refer to the feeling of comfort and joy after finally reuniting with someone you've been missing for a long time. It is not that uncommon of a name though.
What I've made from your comment is that you want evidence that:
1-Abu Bakr had a problem with marrying Aisha because of her age.
2- The caliphs didn't marry young girls, just grown up women.
3- Aisha was pre-pubescent when the marriage was consummated.
1-
You mentioned before that Abu Bakr said to Muhammed : "You are my brother!" to object to his marriage proposal.
That was not the accurate phrasing.
He said " أيتزوج الرجل أبنة أخيه"
Which translates to " Does a man marry his niece?"
What Abu Bakr meant by that was that Aisha was too young for him, that even after she would reach puberty it would still not make sense to marry a girl that young to a men in his late forties.
Aisha was promised to Mot'am Ibn Adi who was only two years older than her.
Somewhere between the translation and the interpretation, the meaning of what Abu-Bakr said might've got lost. But if your read the original, it's obvious that his reluctance had nothing to do with the "brotherhood" ties with Muhammed.
Like you said, they're not tied by blood.
So they're brothers in faith?
It still doesn't make any sense for that to prevent them from becoming father in law and son in law.
In fact, it is unheard of for people of the same faith before or after Islam, to refuse to marry into each other's families because they are "brothers in faith". It is quite the opposite actually. There is no mention anywhere in on pre-Islamic or Islamic books of something like faith-incest. It's not a thing and it never was.
Abu bakr was referring to Aisha's age.
When Muhammad said: "You're my brother in faith", he was reminding him of the bond they had, it was like saying: we're allies, we're brothers, you owe me to accept my marriage proposal.
Source: Ibn Sa'd Tabaqat , Volume 8: Women of Madina , Bab Aisha Um-almuminin
2-
As for the Caliphs and the closest companions of Muhammad ( the 10 companions who were promised paradise), there are several sources talking about their wives and sex slaves (Jawari). Some of them mention the year of birth of these women, you'll notice they were all mature at the time they got married to the Caliphs and companions.
In fact, most of wives were older women ( 35 to 60 years old) from wealthy families and were the same age, sometimes older than the companions they were marrying.
Sources:
Al-Tabari - Al-Riyadh Al-Nudhra pages 890-889
Ibn al-Athir al-Jazari- Usd-Al-Ghaba- Fi-Ma'rifat-Al-Sahaba Vol 7 , Book of Women, starting p 409
Khalil Abdul-Karim- The conditions of the companions' society Vol 2 p 351- 394
3-
Aisha was pre-pubescent when she was married. I already adressed that in my previous comment. I'll mention the same Hadith again:
Bukhari :: Book 8 :: Volume 73 :: Hadith 151
Narrated 'Aisha:
I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13)
This sentence : (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) related by Bukhari is part of the Hadith, I did not come up with it. It's in the book.
You say you're familiar with the Hadith evidence I presented, but if you read them more thoroughly you can easily understand two important facts:
- Aisha was nine when she was entrusted to the prophet and the marriage was consummated, she did not understand what was happening to her.
"Umm Ruman (my mother) came to me and I was at that time on a swing along with my playmates. She called me loudly and I went to her and I did not know what she had wanted of me. She took hold of my hand and took me to the door, and I was saying: Ha, ha (as if I was gasping), until the agitation of my heart was over."
- Afterwards, when she was living with Muhammad as his wife, she was allowed to play with dolls even though "The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden" because "she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty".
"And it’s the unanimous opinion of exegetes that Aisha waited until 9 years to attain puberty."
I didn't find this opinion in any of the reknown biographies of Muhammad. They are all unanimous that the consummation of the marriage was at age 9, but none of them mentions the puberty part.
Yet all Hadith books mention the Aisha playing with dolls stories with the same explanation related by Bukhari, further confirming she did not yet attain puberty.
The opinion you are referring to is that of modern day Muslim schlolars trying to find an excuse for such a horrible deed ( by today's moral standards if you want).
But this opinion is not unanimous, and that's why many of today's muslim scholars say it's permitted to have sex with a 9 year even before she reached puberty, not to mention the fondling and "thighing" of toddlers. And they have their own arguments. It's even the official point of standing on the issue in some muslim countries.
Here you have Dr. Ahmad Al-Mubi, a saudi marriage officiant saying it like it is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5t9U9r9Kfs
So it's not a "some muslims got it wrong" situation if a great number of religious scholars and a considerable part of muslim population believe in the contrary. And the most prominent islamic country ( Saudi Arabia) has no laws forbidding giving away pre-pubescent girls in marriage.
You having a different interpretation of Islam does not render Al-Maudidi and other scholars' interpretation obsolete. You have the Surat 4:6, they have the Surat 65: 4 and the prophet's biography.
"Do you know that the youngest mother in the world according to Guinness book is a 5 year old girl from peru"
I knew about this. This happens. Some girls do come of age early, but only physiologically. And pedophilia is a widespread phenomenon in every part of the world, yet you'll find that only muslim people still openly and unapologetically defend it to this day.
"I think you should stop making these baseless accusations"
I'm not making baseless accusations.
All I did was I read the books Islam's based on ( The Quran and related Tafsir books, Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sirat Ibn Hisham...) to try and better understand the religion.
Everything I said here is from those books. You can argue that my understanding of those sources is different from your understanding, but it is not "baseless".
You must understand that what I say, when it's not paraphrasing the books, is just my opinion, my interpretation of things, my point of view. I don't claim it's the absolute truth, and I don't think anyone can claim to possess the absolute truth. It's totally normal for you to disapprove of my views and to challenge them with arguments of your own.
You don't have to be defensive, it's not an attack on you or on your belief system. It's just a debate. You present your ideas, I present mine.
I'm not trying to offend anyone, we're just having a discussion. I'm allowed to express my opinion, whether or not my arguments were convincing enough for you.
Peace
Excellent exchange Rawan....
Nicely argued .... polite ,concise and complete with sources .... very nicely done.....
RAWAN
Sorry I spelt your name wrong again. It was not intentional.
Here are my responses:
You said: “What Abu Bakr meant by that was that Aisha was too young for him, that even after she would reach puberty it would still not make sense to marry a girl that young to a men in his late forties.”
I think the exchange between abu bakr and the prophet makes what abu bakr meant very clear. When abu bakr raised the issue of ‘can a man marry his niece” what was the prophet’s response? He said, we are brothers in faith. That seals the deal. Clearly, the issue was over ‘relationship’ and not ‘age difference’. At least that’s how the prophet understood it, otherwise the prophet wouldn’t have spoken about brotherhood in faith.
You said: “In fact, it is unheard of for people of the same faith before or after Islam, to refuse to marry into each other's families because they are "brothers in faith".
Now that the intended meaning of abu bakr’s statement is clear from the prophet’s response, the points you have raised are merely speculative. In pre-Islamic arabia people had all kinds of misunderstandings about relationships. A wife could become like your mother upon pronouncing some words, and an adopted son is just as your biological son… these were corrected by Islam later on. May be abu bakr might have felt an extra proximity to the prophet because of their deep friendship, which could have led him to think they were like brothers… God knows best. But the moot point here is that abu bakr’s concern was about the relationship and not about age.
You said: “As for the Caliphs and the closest companions of Muhammad ( the 10 companions who were promised paradise), there are several sources talking about their wives and sex slaves (Jawari).
I will study them and get back. Meanwhile, here is an argument to show that the prophet’s marriage was nothing unusual in that society. If it was, then that should have stirred a controversy like his marriage to Zainab and the famous slander of Aisha and so on. But there is absolutely no criticism leveled against the prophet on the issue of aisha’s age, not only in Arabian society but anywhere in the world (despite centuries of efforts from Christian missionaries). The first time anybody criticized it was a 19th century English man.
You said: “(The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) related by Bukhari is part of the Hadith, I did not come up with it. It's in the book.
Small correction. It was not related by Bukhari, but by Ibn Hajar Asqalani in his book Fath Al Bari which is an exegesis on Bukhari. That does not undermine its importance though. It’s still a very valid point.
Now there is something we need to understand about books of exegesis. The exegete (in this case Ibn Hajar) will try to acquire all possible opinions about the subject matter before they present their opinion.
Here, ibn hajar is quoting the opinion of Al Khattabi where it says Aysha was allowed to played with dolls because she was prepubescent.
However, he then goes on to state: “Muslim scholars deduced from the context of this hadith, the permission to play with dolls regardless of age as a means to learn about matters of the home and raising children. [“Fath-ul-Bari, Explanation of Sahih Bukhari” page 143, vol 13, Imam Ibn Hajar]
Note he states “regardless of age” which undermines the opinion of Al Khattabi. Moreover, he says it’s the opinion of Muslim scholars, which indicates that there must have been many holding to this opinion. And lastly, scholars of Ibn Hajar’s times were classical scholars and were not trying to pander to any western sentiments of ‘marriage or age of consent’ as the modern scholars like you allege.
You said: “Aisha was nine when she was entrusted to the prophet and the marriage was consummated, she did not understand what was happening to her.”
Even if I accept your argument at face value, it still doesn’t show that Aysha was prepubescent. It just shows that she was ignorant of these things, which is understandable given that we don’t have media back in those days for youngsters to wise up on these issues. Even today, in some remote parts of India, brides learn these things for the first time from their husbands.
You said: “I didn't find this opinion in any of the reknown biographies of Muhammad. They are all unanimous that the consummation of the marriage was at age 9, but none of them mentions the puberty part.”
That partly goes against your arguments too, because if nothing is mentioned about puberty, then it can’t be construed that she was prepubescent either. Here is what Aysha says:
When the girl reaches nine years of age, she is a woman. (Sunan al-Tirmidhi, Kitab: al-Nikah, Bab: Maa Jaa'a fee Ikraah Al Yateemah 'alaa al tazweej, Hadith no. 1027
Shaikh Abdur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri in his commentary on Sunan al-Tirmidhi said:
Aisha knew (that she hit puberty) when she became nine years old. (Shaikh Abdur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri, Tuhfat AI-Ahwadhi, Kitab: al-Nikah, Bab: Maa Jaa'a fee Ikraah Al Yateemah 'alaa al tazweej, Hadith no. 1027,
You said: “Yet all Hadith books mention the Aisha playing with dolls stories with the same explanation related by Bukhari, further confirming she did not yet attain puberty.”
I think it’s already been dealt with. Playing with toys cannot be accepted as proof for prepubescence.
You said: “Here you have Dr. Ahmad Al-Mubi, a saudi marriage officiant saying it like it is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5t9U9r9Kfs
No Rawan. In this video Al Mubi is not saying that you can have sex with a prepubescent girl. He is only talking about the permissibility of conducting the Nikah of little girls – much like Aysha’s marriage to the prophet at 6. And watch how he concludes by saying that ‘…and then when they reach the right age, they can involve in sex.’
You said: “So it's not a "some muslims got it wrong" situation if a great number of religious scholars and a considerable part of muslim population believe in the contrary.”
If you are judging the scholarly rulings like how you did in the case of Al Mubi, then I think you have got it wrong. They are not talking about sex… it’s only marriage. I am not aware so far of any scholar encouraging sex with prepubescent girls… but I have to check. If there are any who say so, let me know, and probably I will look up the scholarly debates on it. After you raised these points, I tried my level best to find any ruling (both video and text) of some fatwa that says that you are allowed to have sex with prepubescent brides. I couldn’t find any.
You said: “You having a different interpretation of Islam does not render Al-Maudidi and other scholars' interpretation obsolete. You have the Surat 4:6, they have the Surat 65: 4 and the prophet's biography.”
It’s not just Islam… any ideology, including an atheist one like Marxism is bound to have multiple interpretations. That’s the specialty of the human mind. Therefore, we have to go by the proofs one provides for the interpretation. If you say Maududi’s interpretation is correct in that instance, then Maududi has to explain the contradiction it creates with 4:6.
You said: “Some girls do come of age early, but only physiologically. And pedophilia is a widespread phenomenon in every part of the world, yet you'll find that only muslim people still openly and unapologetically defend it to this day.”
I gave that example only to show that very young girls can attain puberty. The question of whether having sex with them is immoral or not is a different question. For that we will have to get into the epistemology of morality and the basis from which we draw our moral principles. I would be interested to discuss this with you. May be later in this thread.
You said: “Everything I said here is from those books. You can argue that my understanding of those sources is different from your understanding, but it is not "baseless".
I concede.
You said: “I don't think anyone can claim to possess the absolute truth. It's totally normal for you to disapprove of my views and to challenge them with arguments of your own.”
When you say you don’t possess absolute truth are you conceding that there is a possibility that you could be wrong? This I think is a very important part of our discussion, where we might have to finally define morality.
You said: “You don't have to be defensive, it's not an attack on you or on your belief system.”
I am sorry if I sounded offensive. It’s just that some debaters get really nasty in this site and I sort of have been influenced by that kind of rhetoric. Sorry. I will try to accord this discussion the same level of dignity and decency you have given it so far.
"When you say you don’t possess absolute truth are you conceding that there is a possibility that you could be wrong?"
Any REASONABLE person must concede the possibility that they could be wrong, unless they are claiming omniscience, so that question is is like asking if it is possible that you can't lift something. It is not the nonbeliever that claims to have absolute truth, from a source they cannot know absolutely exists, or absolutely knows all; that would be the theist, wouldn't it?
Totally agree with Rawan and the Pragmatist.
Islam is a totalitarian ideology. The beloved prophet had to snoop around even into the bathroom. That man was a total narcissist and wanted everybody to follow him. Hence, every muslim is more or less his copy.
I guess atheists are a bit more safe in turkey than here Bangladesh. i have to starve the whole fucking day during Ramadan (even now when i'm writing down the comment) though they know i'm atheist. and yeah, they constantly pressuring my mom to denounce me.
"they know i'm atheist"
In Bangladesh? That sounds quite dangerous! You should make sure you are safe, if possible.
it could be possible for me to stay safe from those homo religious, only if my father didn't die of brain tumor last year. Me and mine family have to depend on them till i get some job. But getting job is pretty tough here as i don't have any political connection or cant afford to bribe.as a 18 year old ex-muslim in a deeply corrupted muslim country, life is pretty hard on me.
My suggestion to you is to follow the flow, right now you are not in a position where you can fight for your rights.
there is a time to fight and there is a time to not be stupid.
You are in the position where you should play it smart, so when you fight you would have a fighting chance.
Look at it as preparing yourself better for war against stupidity.
Until you are strong enough to be able to leave the country you should lay low and learn to adapt better to the situation.
The lion is the king of the jungle, but he too can be killed by a single snake if he does not prepare himself well for the night.
I know how hard it must be. I'm an atheist living in a muslim country too (plus I'm a woman which really complicates things).
You're young and angry, I get it. But you have to be patient.
Atheist bloggers have been murdered in your country, you don't want to put yourself at risk.
My advice to you is to get a good college education first. Getting a job and having financial autonomy are important, but at this stage education should be your number one priority. Once you have a degree, you can start thinking about leaving for a less dangerous country. In the mean time, you have to lay low.
I know you must feel alienated, lonely and helpless. Don't let that keep you from having a normal social life. Try to make new friends and to have positive interactions with your family and the rest of the community, it helps more than you think, especially once rumors about your lack of faith start to surface :
- If you have good friends, they will stand by you no matter what.
- If you're well known in the community as a generous, helpfull, obliging young man, then most people won't believe the rumors about you ( because religious people think morality comes only from religion).
It worked for me, and I hope it helps you.
Some atheists I know have made the decision to further separate themselves from their (religious) community because they were angry and disgusted. That only resulted in them getting depressed (even suicidal) and becoming social pariahs. That is a path you DON'T want to follow.
Turkey is a bit more comfortable to live as its legislation is based on a secular life. In Istanbul, Ankara or Izmir, which are the most populous cities in Turkey, you can have your lunch during day time, drink some water or smoke cigarette. However, you can still come across some people who stare at you furiously in the streets, schools or public institutions. But if you go to smaller cities, towns and villages, you can encounter a tougher environment. Some young people and students who are affiliated with two fascist parties in Turkey attacked people who have their lunches at university dining halls or yards. However, these attacks were generally responded harshly by leftist students. Atheist, leftist and non-fasting students have never attacked people who fastens. But these idiot people thinks that it is an offense against their religions.
I can understand you very well. It is not even easy for me. I cannot say that I am an atheist although I've been an atheist for two decades. Because muslims are great at possessing stereotypes against the infidels. Few Muslims think that the religion is between them and Allah. Perhaps it is a reflection of a secular environment here. But not all of them think like this. I can get rid of this kind of harassment since I have some health problems. But when I was a teenager, my parents were forcing me to fast.
I still believe that a proletarian world-wide revolution can lead to a free life. As this revolution would be totally based on the daily real needs and wants of the oppressed people, they could save themselves from all made-up beliefs of this world.
The obsessions can get as weird as hell and will change in variations sometimes just from village to village in certain regions. I remember when I was in turkey, my ex-step father's mother once hold us not to sing at the table because the angels were holding it up... My mother cracked down with a joke saying "It's a good thing the table has legs then!".
Yes Mith. You are right. These obsessions vary from time to time and from a place to another one. Our parents and grandparents have wierd obsessions. Do not whistle at night, at the bathroom. Do not speak in the bathroom and toilet. Do not chew a gum or eat anything in the toilet. In fact I don't prefer eating sth there. Sometimes I may have a chewing gum or candy. Do not cut your nails at night. And so on.
All are attributed to Islam in Turkey. However I see that these all were made up in order to discipline children by fearing them with religion's freaky creatures, which are jinnis. One funny thing is that these creatures live at toilets and bathrooms, and feed themselves with people's leftovers.
Reading these threads are always allow me a good chuckle. From what I understand, we are talking about a man marrying a six year-old, and consummating the marriage when she was nine. There are some problems with the arguments surrounding this.
1. It doesn't actually matter what was "culturally permissible", as we are talking about a supposed god that is the foundation of morality. If something is immoral in such a framework, it was always immoral, and always will be. So, if we see "gods divine messenger" practicing something that appears immoral, it destroys the credibility of the claim that they had a direct line to the moral authority of the universe; doesn't it? There are, essentially, TWO options. Either we are wrong about pedophilia being wrong, or we are right and Mohammad was not the prophet that he claimed to be.
2. The idea that a father has a right to basically sell his daughter into marriage is a morally problematic one, at least in most of the world, as women are no longer viewed as property of their fathers or husbands. Women are now considered autonomous, here in the west, and are considered to have the right to choose despite the will of the men in their lives.
3. It really doesn't matter. Even if everything the more fundamentalist Muslims said were true, which I don't believe they are, it still doesn't defend the rather strange and outright superstitious cultural traditions Alkibiades was talking about in the topic. They would still be rather odd to anyone not born into them regardless, as many of them stem as much from society as they do religion. One could easily state that Sharia law is as much Hammurabi as they are Mohammed, and could show without difficulty the similarity, as the culture had as much impact on the Qur'an as the other way around.
Pages