Sublime morality of marriage with a young girl


#1

Hola Muslims,
I’d like to discuss the sublime morality of a man of 53 who married and had sex with a young girl who respected scholars believe was below the age of puberty.

Gracias,
Rodrigo


#2

Are we going to discuss about Muhammad marriage with Aisha? Curious to know about the marriage, was it temporarily for the sake of both side interests or was he really a child lover. Your comment please…


#3

[quote=Cyber Knight] Are we going to discuss about Muhammad marriage with Aisha? Curious to know about the marriage, was it temporarily for the sake of both side interests or was he really a child lover. Your comment please…
[/quote]

[quote=Cyber Knight] I’d like to discuss the sublime morality of a man of 53 who married and had sex with a young girl who respected scholars believe was below the age of puberty…
[/quote]

Mr. Bivar,

Before you discuss this issue, have you read **the whole Koran **first and also have you read all the reports/narrations/Ahadeeth related to the Prophet Muhammad’s marraige issue?

Let me be clear with you at the outset that:

**- It is the Koran only that is considered as the Word of God in Islam. And it is only Koran which is the Primary and first source to know Islam.

  • All books of Ahadeeth are of Secondary position/status and their contents are subject to harsh scrutiny, interpretation and critical study from the day one when they were first written down, in order not to attribute any falsehood to the personality of Prophet Muhammed or his sayings/deeds.

  • What Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) in fact did is one thing and what collection of Ahadith say is another. Not each and every Hadith is true depiction of what could have happened.

  • Once a Hadith reached to the level of certainty after passing through utmost critical study/investigation/scrutiny then and then only it is acceptable but even then it is **not considered **as a Word of God, but it is used to either clarify the certain verses/portion of the Koran or as an extension to it.

  • Even when it is known that certain narration in the collections of Ahadeeth is rejected after it did not pass the test of utmost critical study/investigation/scrutiny, it is still kept as it is, as a historical record. You should not get confused if you read some narrations that may sound strange to you.**
    Having said this:

- Where in the Koran it says that Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) did marry a 9 year old, or

- Where in the Koran, Allah says, to the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) or to any Muslim that he must marry a 9 year old, or

- Where in the Koran Allah says, it is O.K to marry a 9 year old?

But before you answer, I must remind you that Jesus Christ, in his reported words in one of the writers of the Gospels, did not come to abolish **the law **(The Torah) or the Prophets, but to fulfill. And Jews too are considered **People of the Book **in Islam and by the way Jesus Christ himself was a Jew and ofcourse his disciples too were Jews.

And remember how Jesus Christ is reported to have used so many **“woes” **towards those Jewish **Scribes and the Pharisees **who did not follow the Law (of the Torah). And as per Douay Rheims Bible’s footnote:

**The scribes were the doctors of the law of Moses:

the Pharisees were a precise set of men, making profession of a more exact observance of the law: and upon that account greatly esteemed among the people. **
["]http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=5&l=20&f=s#x]]("http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=5&l=20&f=s#x)

Christ did not ask them to become Catholics/Christains. Christ himself was not a Christian. He came to restore the Law and give glad tidings if they follow it properly.

Now, whether the Law is preserved in pure form up until now, it is debateable. But:Sometimes one has to read a passage twice to believe what has been written in the Sacred Books of Judaism: what has been decreed the way to a holy life by the “sages of blessed memory… whose words are the natural sounds of Judaism”:

Said Rabbi Joseph, "Come and take note: A girl three years and one day old is betrothed by intercourse.

And if a Levir has had intercourse with her, he has acquired her. And one can be liable on her account because of the law prohibiting intercourse with a married woman. And she imparts uncleanness to him who has intercourse with her when she is menstruating, to convey uncleanness to the lower as to the upper layer [of what lies beneath].
If she was married to a priest, she may eat food in the status of priestly rations. If one of those who are unfit for marriage with her had intercourse with her, he has rendered her unfit to marry into the priesthood.
**If any of those who are forbidden in the Torah to have intercourse with her had intercourse with her, he is put to death on her account, but she is free of responsibility **[M.Nid. 5:4]. Sanhedrin 7/55B [132]

[Courtesy [url=“http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/guido_deimel/judaism.html#132]”]http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/guido_deimel/judaism.html#132]
.


#4

First of all, pls stop tu quoque. Tired to see you always comparing Bible and OT for the Quran. We are talking about a 53 year old men, marrying a 9 year old girl, thats still playing with her doll when the marriage happened!

Just answer.** Is it OK to marry a 9 year old girl? **


#5

mr. Cyber knight,
Before I answer your question, according to Judaic Law, for which Jesus Christ came not to abolish/destroy but to maintain and restore:

**Does a girl three years and one day old is betrothed by intercourse?

And if a Levir has had intercourse with her, has he really acquired her?**

.


#6

[quote=Cyber Knight]First of all, pls stop tu quoque. Tired to see you always comparing Bible and OT for the Quran.
[/quote]

You mean, you or the guy who opened this thread, is not “trying” to compare (directly/indirectly) the issue at hand with his/her faith, which is in your/his mind is the only way for salvation?

Arn’t you the guilty of same thing for which you are accusing me?

And amzing thing is you guys don’t even know the exact fate of innocent babies if they die in their infancy before getting baptised.

.


#7

[quote=Justice2006]mr. Cyber knight,
Before I answer your question, according to Judaic Law, for which Jesus Christ came not to abolish/destroy but to maintain and restore:

Does a girl three years and one day old is betrothed by intercourse?

And if a Levir has had intercourse with her, has he really acquired her?

.
[/quote]

when Jesus said he did not come to abolish the law, he was referring to the old testament. I don’t think that verse is in the old testament or anywhere in the bible. What book is it from and when was it written?


#8

[quote=victory]when Jesus said he did not come to abolish the law, he was referring to the old testament. I don’t think that verse is in the old testament or anywhere in the bible. What book is it from and when was it written?
[/quote]

Well Jewish Law is not just the Old Testament. But before I go further, I would like to draw your attention on two Catholic Bible’s way of translating a verse of the Old Testament.

In the Moses’ Book of Numbers, chapter 31, we are told that:

When Moses and the priest Eleazar, with all the princes of the community, went outside the camp to meet them, Moses became angry with the officers of the army, the clan and company commanders, who were returning from combat. “So you have spared all the women!” he exclaimed. "Why, they are the very ones who on Balaam’s advice prompted the unfaithfulness of the Israelites toward the LORD in the Peor affair, which began the slaughter of the LORD’S community…then verse 17 says

Numbers 31:17-19
The New American Bible

17 ** Slay, therefore, every male child and every woman who has had intercourse with a man. **

18 But you may spare and keep for yourselves all girls who had no intercourse with a man.

19 **"Moreover, you shall stay outside the camp for seven days, and those of you who have slain anyone or touched anyone slain in battle shall purify yourselves on the third and on the seventh day. This applies both to you and to your captives. **

[usccb.org/nab/bible/numbers/numbers31.htm]](http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/numbers/numbers31.htm])

Now compare these 3 verses with Douay Rheims Bible:

17 Therefore kill all that are of the male sex, even of the children: and put to death the women, that have carnally known men.

18 ** But the girls, and all the women that are [size=5]virgins[/size] save for yourselves:**

19 And stay without the camp seven days. He that hath killed a man, or touched one that is killed, shall be purified the third day and the seventh day.
[drbo.org/chapter/04031.htm]](http://www.drbo.org/chapter/04031.htm])

From these verses, people do understand very clear that Judeo-Christian God of Love is telling all Jews/Christians to kill all that are of the male sex, even of the children: and put to death the women, that have carnally known men
but the girls, and all the women that are [size=5]virgins[/size] save for yourselves:

But the question is how would you know which girl is a virgin and which one is not before killing her? Did Judeo-Christian God of Love, tell a Prophet other than Prophet Moses or revealed through inspiration to any Catholic Pope in last 2000 years about it?


#9

[quote=Rodrigo Bivar]Hola Muslims,
I’d like to discuss the sublime morality of …
[/quote]

And before all that, since you are not a Christian, in your religion (whatever you have):

**- What is morality?

  • What is a sublime moraltiy?

  • What is the sublime morality?**

Once people know all this, then they can move further and see whether the view/definition of the sublime morality that you have in your mind is in fact/indeed the sublime morality.

Lets say you want to buy **the best vehicle.**Then I am sure you know:

  • What does a vehicle mean?
  • What is a good vehicle?
  • What is the best vehicle (that have in your mind, which you want to buy)

.


#10

Hola Mr Justice2006,
Please calm down. You’re all over the place with your tu quoque fallacies. I’m looking for a discussion on the sublime morality of a 53 year old man who had sex with a nine-year-old girl, whom some respected scholars claim, with some evidence, had not yet reached the age of puberty.

If you want to discuss the tu quoque, please start another thread and we will also discuss that. But in this thread, let us discuss this 53 year old man’s sublime morality, shall we?

FYI: I have read the Quran, and you have to admit the Aisha ‘marriage’ isn’t in the Quran. That doesn’t solve your problem because neither are most of Muhammad’s wives. Only Zaynab is mentioned and we know why, don’t we?

If we progress this discussion, I will prove to everyone that sex with girls before the age of puberty is allowed by the Quran and hadiths, despite what you claim.

Hope you’ll agree to discuss with me the pertinent issues. Don’t get side-tracked with tangential issues. I’m not a Jew and I don’t care what the OT says. Christians aren’t Jews and don’t follow many of the injunctions in the OT. You know why the OT is in the Bible, don’t you? And you know the foundation of Christianity is in the NT, not the OT. But that is beside the point. I don’t accept that just because the ancient Jews practised pedophilia it will make such behavior morally acceptable for other people. I hope you’ll agree with that.

Hasta la vista,
Rodrigo


#11

And please, Mr Justice2006, I do know about the hadiths. In fact, I do know the difference between sahih, hasan and daef hadiths, and also the rankings of sahih hadiths. I can assure you my evidence is pretty strong.

If you like, we can discuss the facts of the case to be absolutely sure that Muhammad did marry a 6 year old child and then have sex with her when she was 9.

Then we can see from her own testimony that she was a YOUNG GIRL at the time.

We can also see the opinion of scholars that she had not yet reached the age of puberty.

And we have only relied on the sahih hadiths at this point.

Then we can see the doctrinal acceptance of a man marrying a girl who had not yet achieved menses - from the Quran and the sahih hadiths.

Is his acceptable to you?

Chau,
Rodrigo


#12

[quote=Rodrigo Bivar] I’m not a Jew and I don’t care what the OT says. Christians aren’t Jews and don’t follow many of the injunctions in the OT. You know why the OT is in the Bible, don’t you? And you know the foundation of Christianity is in the NT, not the OT. But that is beside the point…
[/quote]

If you are not a Jew nor Christian then what are you? A Mormon or a Hindu?

And why OT is in the Christian Bible?

.


#13

[quote=Justice2006]If you are not a Jew nor Christian then what are you? A Mormon or a Hindu?
[/quote]

Just an ordinary human being.

[quote=Justice2006]And why OT is in the Christian Bible?
[/quote]

Because Jesus was a Jew. You know very well Christians can exist pretty happily being guided by the NT. But some of the unanswered questions like Genesis and Exodus and assorted historical context is provided by the OT - which is only a version of the Septuagint.

Please note that the Sanhedrin, being a Mishnah is not part of the Septuagint but the Talmud. Further, it is a legal ruling by the Sanhedrin and does not always refer to scripture. The fact that the Jews include it in the Talmud is a little confusing to non-Jews - it sticks out like a sore thumb among the other books of the Talmud. But that is neither here nor there.

Shall we discuss the sublime morals of a 53 year old man having sex with whom some respected scholars believe was below the age of puberty?

It seems as good a topic as any.

Hasta luego,
Rodrigo


#14

[quote=Rodrigo Bivar]I don’t accept that just because the ancient Jews practised pedophilia it will make such behavior morally acceptable for other people. I hope you’ll agree with that.
[/quote]

You mean 2000 years old period of Jesus too was a period of ancient Jews thus all the teachings of Jesus (that are recorded in Gospels and books of his staunch enemy, a self-appointed apostle Saint Saul) too are meaningless and not acceptable and irrelevant now in the 21st century?

I know the Period of Prophet Moses (pbuh) is older than Prophet Jesus (pbuh) but Jews have been following/observing the law even in the missionary period of Prophet Jesus (pbuh) and Prophet Jesus (pbuh) used to ask/demand his people (Children of Israel) for whom he was sent by his Father (God), to follow the Law-The Torah of Prophet Moses and other Prophets- (as reported in the Gospels).

So the question is:

-Where and how you would draw a line in the Judeo-Christian History and say for sure that up to this year it is an ancient period of Jews thus upto here their Torah/Talmudic laws/practices are morally acceptable.

-And from this year onwards their Torah/Talmudic laws/practices are *not acceptable because the definitions of morality, a sublime morality and the sublime morality * is changed from this year?

-And based on what principles/standards/yard-stick, you will make people believe/accept your laws/definition of morality?

And before all that you **did not ** even define the fundamentals of your premise that is necessary/essential to begin with. So, since you are not a Christian nor a Jew, in your religion (whatever you have):

**- What is morality?

  • What is a sublime moraltiy?

  • What is the sublime morality?**

Once people know all these, then they can move further and see whether the view/definition of the sublime morality that you have in your mind is in fact/indeed the sublime morality. And during the debate all will be on the same page whenever you mention/use these terms (i.e morality, a sublime morality and the sublime morality) Otherwise:

you may have a specific standard of measuring a morality and others may have something else and the end result would be like the five different descriptions of those five blind people who were asked to describe what an elephant look-like when they were given a chance to touch only a certain part of an elephant. And from their end results you would never be able to construct/visualise a true rendering of an elephant.


#15

Dear Justice2006,
Why do you insist on distracting our attention from the topic of threads? You distracted our attention from Islam in the Islam thread, and now you’re trying to do the same here.

I will answer the last post of yours and hope we can move on to discuss the sublime morality issue. If you want to discuss your tu quoque why don’t we do that in another thread? This one is mine and if you please, respect the topic I created here.

[quote=Justice2006]You mean 2000 years old period of Jesus too was a period of ancient Jews thus all the teachings of Jesus (that are recorded in Gospels and books of his staunch enemy, a self-appointed apostle Saint Saul) too are meaningless and not acceptable and irrelevant now in the 21st century?
[/quote]

No. I mean the teachings of the OT are specific for the Jews and do not apply to Christians. Historical accounts of Jewish practice such as Numbers and Leviticus do not apply to Christians, or didn’t you know that?

Some commonality exists, admittedly – like the 10 commandments, but Leviticus? No. Numbers? No. You won’t find Christians claim doctrinal justification for genocide and enslaving women and children or killing babies.

Thus it can be safely said that the teaching of Jesus Christ is wholly encompassed in the NT.

[quote=Justice2006]I know the Period of Prophet Moses (pbuh) is older than Prophet Jesus (pbuh) but Jews have been following/observing the law even in the missionary period of Prophet Jesus (pbuh) and Prophet Jesus (pbuh) used to ask/demand his people (Children of Israel) for whom he was sent by his Father (God), to follow the Law-The Torah of Prophet Moses and other Prophets- (as reported in the Gospels).
[/quote]

Fair enough. What is law and what is God’s injunction for a specific time? I hope you’ll see the difference. Muslims are always claiming their critics quote ‘out of context’. Perhaps you might like to consider the context for those statements you made above.

[quote=Justice2006]So the question is:

-Where and how you would draw a line in the Judeo-Christian History and say for sure that up to this year it is an ancient period of Jews thus upto here their Torah/Talmudic laws/practices are morally acceptable.
[/quote]

I’m sure the Christians will say that the line is drawn for them by the Message of Jesus Christ.

As for the Jews – they already accept that their teachings are progressive. You won’t find even the ultra-orthodox Jews following Leviticus, for example.

[quote=Justice2006]-And from this year onwards their Torah/Talmudic laws/practices are not acceptable because the definitions of morality, a sublime morality and the sublime morality is changed from this year?
-And based on what principles/standards/yard-stick, you will make people believe/accept your laws/definition of morality?
[/quote]

Oh… moral relativism again. Sigh. I note the Muslims don’t apply moral relativism when it doesn’t suit them, so why bother talking about this topic?

Some morality is absolute. Or do you think only Muslims have the right to decide what is absolute and what is relative?

If you think the morality of a 53 year old man having sex with a 9 year old child is relative, then please convince us that it is so. That is what I’m trying to discuss with you.

Why the need to define ordinary words? You never asked for definitions of ordinary words before? Why is that? Methinks it’s this moral relativism argument again, this time on the sly.

cont


#16

[quote=Justice2006]Once people know all these, then they can move further and see whether the view/definition of the sublime morality that you have in your mind is in fact/indeed the sublime morality. And during the debate all will be on the same page whenever you mention/use these terms (i.e morality, a sublime morality and the sublime morality) Otherwise:

you may have a specific standard of measuring a morality and others may have something else and the end result would be like the five different descriptions of those five blind people who were asked to describe what an elephant look-like when they were given a chance to touch only a certain part of an elephant. And from their end results you would never be able to construct/visualise a true rendering of an elephant.
[/quote]

I was actually making a comment about the claim in ayat 68:4 when I used the phrase ‘sublime morality’, and the oft-repeated Muslim claim that Muhammad possessed ‘sublime morality’.

I gather you’re going to say the Islamic sense of morality is different from that of other people’s, thus we have to define even an unremarkable word like morality in order to achieve common ground to begin discussion.

Why don’t we use this definition of morality from Stanford?
The term “morality” can be used either

  1. descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society or,
    a. some other group, such as a religion, or
    b. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
  2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
    I’ll make it easy for you: I’ll let you pick the particular definition.

You see… it doesn’t matter whether you choose a definition of morality specific to Muslims, or one that is applicable to all rational persons. We draw our own conclusions as to your morality based on ours. You might well and truly argue that a 53 year old man having sex with a 9 year old child is PERFECTLY MORAL AND ACCEPTABLE to Muslim societies. In other words, according to Muslim Morality it is perfectly acceptable for a middle-aged to old man to have sex with a child. I would heartily accept that and congratulate you on your perspicaciousness. In fact, I hope you’ll be able to achieve this.

So, to be fair to you. I will allow you to chose any definition of morality you please. You could even pick 68:4 as a starting point and tell us what the ‘sublime morality’ there means.

وانك لعلى خلق عظيم
Wa-innaka laAAala khuluqin AAatheemin
Literal And that you are on (E) great nature/character.
Yusuf Ali And thou (standest) on an exalted standard of character.
Pickthal And lo! thou art of a tremendous nature.
Arberry surely thou art upon a mighty morality.
Shakir And most surely you conform (yourself) to sublime morality.
Sarwar You have attained a high moral standard.
Khalifa You are blessed with a great moral character.
Hilali/Khan And verily, you (O Muhammad SAW) are on an exalted standard of character.
Malik You are of the highest noble character.[4]
QXP For, verily, you are of the noblest moral character!
Maulana Ali And surely thou hast sublime morals.
Free Minds And you are of a high moral character.

Now that the preamble is completed, can we begin?
Hasta luego,
Cid.


#17

[quote=Justice2006]If you are not a Jew nor Christian then what are you? A Mormon or a Hindu?

And why OT is in the Christian Bible?

.
[/quote]

What’s that got to do with anything?

Typical Muslim response when cornered! I’ve seen the same thing with Muslim scholars who come to FFI to debate ex-Muslim Ali Sina! They’re supposed to be there defending their beloved prophet Mohammed from the charges that Ali has made against him, among them pedophilia, and all they do is attack him verbally and then start criticizing Christianity, calling it the religion of stupidity and saying that the beliefs of Christians and Jews are sick and so on and so on! They keep bringing up Christianity though they know I’m sure that Ali is not a Christian! They just keep dodging and hedging.

WHY DON’T YOU JUST ANSWER HIS QUESTION?


#18

Please stay on topic.

And remember your charity.

Rachel


#19

may this benefit whoever seeks benefit.

The prophet, peace be upon him, was engaged to Aisha when she was 7 and the marriage was consumated when she was 9 or 10 years old. At that age, she had reached puberty, as is evident by many ahadith. This was something that was completely accepted in the society in which they lived. Not one of even the worst of the prophet’s enemies ever said anything about it. It was normal, accepted, and practiced by many with no problems.

Not only did this marriage strengthen the tie between the prophet and Abu Bakr (Aisha’s father and the first caliph) but it also served a very important purpose: the narration of countless ahadith. Most of the other wives of the prophet were older and prevoiulsy married with children and busy lives. Aisha memorized and narrated thousands of ahadith about the personal life of the prophet. It is from her that we learn who the prophet was as a husband, and from this he becomes the role model of what a husband should be like.

During his life, Aisha was a dedicated wife, who loved her husband immensely. If you are interested, i can post some narrations that prove this (that she narrated herself). The prophet also loved her, and when he was asked in public who he loved most among humans, he replied “Aisha”.

Aisha loved the prophet, and never married anyone after him. She remained dedicated to the Muslim cause, teaching men and women alike the religion of Islam.

So it wasnt a big deal in the society in which they lived. It wasnt a big deal to Aisha. She was a very witty and smart person, and in my head right now i could only imagine the response she would give a person who questioned the morality of her marriage and the prophet’s character. May God be pleased with Aisha, the mother of the believers.


#20

[quote=Faith101]The prophet, peace be upon him, was engaged to Aisha when she was 7 and the marriage was consumated when she was 9 or 10 years old. At that age, she had reached puberty, as is evident by many ahadith.
[/quote]

Hola Faith101,
Please provide a single hadith that says she had reached puberty.

Looking forward to your response.

Hasta luego,
Mata Moro

PS: If you want to quote the Tabari’s non-existent hadith from AbdurRahmanSquires and Karen Armstrong, please provide the page reference so I can check in Tabari’s history.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.