Aisha's age at the time of her marriage

[TempestOfTempo]

I'm not seeing any differences in the translations that change the meaning of the verses I quoted. They all alluded to the same thing. The verse I quoted was translated from the original Arabic.

Do you mean the Quran verses you posted or the hadeeths?

 

[Bubbajay]

Quran

 

[TempestOfTempo]

Quran

Ok I will specifically look into the Quarn verses you have posted here. It might take some time because I want to post something valid, complete and worthy of the dialog. But I will look into them.

 

[DavidSon]

Instead of addressing the issue head on in any of the numerous threads the topic its already being discussed in, or multiple threads devoted to the topic specifically, it has been requested to post this topic (once again) in its own discussion thread. So here you go... and we dont need bubba sparkles showing up and derailing the topic with his outlandish, embarrassing trolling for confrontation, nor do we need the Desert Shibshib crowd showing up with a bunch of distractions, deflections, insults and "butwhataboutTHEM" nonsense.

The video here does not even present all of the evidence... but it lays out a basic argument regarding the dispute between the 6-9 and 17-19 crowds. So for whoever wants to stay on topic and address the evidence presented... this is the place.

Regardless of specifics the actual subject you're bringing up is "Quranism". The video was only an introduction to the website which I'm checking out (the link is to the articles): https://www.quran-islam.org/articles_(P1124).html

Written on top is the main contention for Quranists which I think is an interesting topic for discussion:

"True Islam is derived from the Quran and not from the traditions or cultures of Muslim people."

I don't feel you can simply isolate the Quran from the culture and history which it was revealed to. I've explained before I'm not a professed Muslim, being more of an ally to those who fully submit to the God of Abraham, yet such a stark decision to ignore ANY and EVERY traditional teaching seems absurd to me. What distinguishes Muhammed from all other Abrahamic prophets is we have a historical record. In the example of Jesus there isn't a single shred of verifiable evidence that he even lived (which actually speaks to the power of traditional accounts). Why would someone go out of there way to alienate themselves from what is historically accepted?

The extreme "Quran only" view raises other questions about identity, religious practice, and the relevance of spiritual based communities. I've talked to a Quranist online who was raised Islamic but isn't currently practicing. He had this anti-social attitude that was really dark and unhealthy; very little praise of the Creator yet hatred even for many Muslims. There are these types that belong to groups online... without facing a real life community. Can you be a Muslim without taking the Shahada publicly? A Muslim who distances themselves from the Ummah is a contradiction. I guess in the virtual world people can imagine they're anything they want...

Some interesting facts on the Quranist movement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quranism

There are Islamic sects scattered everywhere, some only the size of small towns. I try not to judge in the sense of condemning others but putting subjects in context. Ultimately what leads someone to fulfillment, gratitude, divine knowledge is theirs. Again I still think the questions on hadith is small potatoes. Islamic/Arab culture is immense there is so much (better) to meditate upon.

 

[TempestOfTempo]

Regardless of specifics the actual subject you're bringing up is "Quranism". The video was only an introduction to the website which I'm checking out (the link is to the articles): https://www.quran-islam.org/articles_(P1124).html

Written on top is the main contention for Quranists which I think is an interesting topic for discussion:

"True Islam is derived from the Quran and not from the traditions or cultures of Muslim people."

I don't feel you can simply isolate the Quran from the culture and history which it was revealed to. I've explained before I'm not a professed Muslim, being more of an ally to those who fully submit to the God of Abraham, yet such a stark decision to ignore ANY and EVERY traditional teaching seems absurd to me. What distinguishes Muhammed from all other Abrahamic prophets is we have a historical record. In the example of Jesus there isn't a single shred of verifiable evidence that he even lived (which actually speaks to the power of traditional accounts). Why would someone go out of there way to alienate themselves from what is historically accepted?

The extreme "Quran only" view raises other questions about identity, religious practice, and the relevance of spiritual based communities. I've talked to a Quranist online who was raised Islamic but isn't currently practicing. He had this anti-social attitude that was really dark and unhealthy; very little praise of the Creator yet hatred even for many Muslims. There are these types that belong to groups online... without facing a real life community. Can you be a Muslim without taking the Shahada publicly? A Muslim who distances themselves from the Ummah is a contradiction. I guess in the virtual world people can imagine they're anything they want...

Some interesting facts on the Quranist movement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quranism

There are Islamic sects scattered everywhere, some only the size of small towns. I try not to judge in the sense of condemning others but putting subjects in context. Ultimately what leads someone to fulfillment, gratitude, divine knowledge is theirs. Again I still think the questions on hadith is small potatoes. Islamic/Arab culture is immense there is so much (better) to meditate upon.

I am aware of the Quranist movement and to be honest, I haven't investigated it to the degree necessary to speak on their theological credibility or relevance.

As it relates to this discussion however, if something is verifiable... if something is provable... I have to take it seriously. So as I mentioned earlier here when the 17-19 crowd utilizes "hadeeth based evidence, then cross-reference that with accepted, scientific chronological methodology (timelines, comparative analysis, reaching consensus with both Muslim and non-Muslim investigative parties)" compared with "whereas the 6-9 crowd just keeps repeating their (already proven to be unreliable even by Islamic standards) hadeeth/fatwa based "evidence"... I have to take this seriously. I have to look at who is engaging in the investigative effort to prove their point and contrast that with those who basically rely on "because I said so because hadeeth that I accept says so."

Its part of why its going to take me a while to reply to bubba's questions... because if I want to have an honest dialog that could lead to something definitive and hopefully positive, I have to put in the effort necessary to place my contentions on solid ground.

 

[elsbet]

Instead of addressing the issue head on in any of the numerous threads the topic its already being discussed in, or multiple threads devoted to the topic specifically, it has been requested to post this topic (once again) in its own discussion thread. So here you go... and we dont need bubba sparkles showing up and derailing the topic with his outlandish, embarrassing trolling for confrontation, nor do we need the Desert Shibshib crowd showing up with a bunch of distractions, deflections, insults and "butwhataboutTHEM" nonsense.

The video here does not even present all of the evidence... but it lays out a basic argument regarding the dispute between the 6-9 and 17-19 crowds. So for whoever wants to stay on topic and address the evidence presented... this is the place.

I read the (detailed) article linked in the video, last night... I assume you have vetted, already, so I'll run with it. (I'm not familiar with hadith, etc.)

If the facts check out concerning the referenced timeline, then this is an intriguing proposal. Excusing the story with "...everyone was doing it back then." is distasteful-- and the act of vulgar compromise--> antithetical to one called the "messenger of god."

It would also correct for the contradiction it creates (of previous command to ask the woman if she wants to be married, per the article). I can see why you're interested in pursuing further research on the matter.

As the article reveals, though-- this proposed error calls the entire hadith into question, and (imo) the integrity of every Muslim who insists it is correct, without bothering to investigate. From the little I've read on the "Bukhari" it seems more a compilation than linear text... so why validate such a thing, like a parent handing over their youngest child-- a school girl-- to a middle aged man, if it can be excised or stricken from the record, and corrected?

Baffling.

NOTE--
This child-bride thing still takes place to my knowledge in places like Yemen (iirc)... who's to say they dont rationalize the practice, thinking it is acceptable because the messenger did it?
-

 

[Bubbajay]

I visited the site as well. No need to post any of it unless you want. The whole thing is premised on trying to discredit the official date of birth of Aisha. If you check into this there are various dates given. If the accepted date is false, then why was it changed to make her 6? Also like I stated previously, what 17 or 18 years old is playing with toys or swinging on swings? Then you have the account of Aisha herself saying she was 6, then you have the Quran promoting marriage with prepubescent girls. It all adds up to a rock solid case in most peoples opinions.

 

[TempestOfTempo]

I read the (detailed) article linked in the video, last night... I assume you have vetted, already, so I'll run with it. (I'm not familiar with hadith, etc.)

If the facts check out concerning the referenced timeline, then this is an intriguing proposal. Excusing the story with "...everyone was doing it back then." is distasteful-- and the act of vulgar compromise--> antithetical to one called the "messenger of god."

It would also correct for the contradiction it creates (of previous command to ask the woman if she wants to be married, per the article). I can see why you're interested in pursuing further research on the matter.

As the article reveals, though-- this proposed error calls the entire hadith into question, and (imo) the integrity of every Muslim who insists it is correct, without bothering to investigate. From the little I've read on the "Bukhari" it seems more a compilation than linear text... so why validate such a thing, like a parent handing over their youngest child-- a school girl-- to a middle aged man, if it can be excised or stricken from the record, and corrected?

Baffling.

NOTE--
This child-bride thing still takes place to my knowledge in places like Yemen (iirc)... who's to say they dont rationalize the practice, thinking it is acceptable because the messenger did it?
-

For being short, the article is fairly comprehensive and also of importance, I think its the source of the simple, visual timeline provided in the video.

Yes, and in the article link I posted there is more dissection of the matter and as I previously stated, we can see the rebuttal piece I also linked relies on outright contradiction of Quranic scripture. I think the entire Bukhari narration DOES warrant being questioned. And as I also stated here previously that it is any/every persons right to do so. In Islam, people are encouraged to seek knowledge... and any real Muslim (scholar or not) should either work to provide answers or remain silent regarding the matter in question. In my opinion, hadeeth probably started with decent intentions as its a useful science, so long as it remains within the proper context. But as we see today, hadeeth and fatwas can and are used to justify any action undertaken by a Muslim... and thats a dangerous precedent to set. Want to do something haraam (forbidden)? Just find or hire a "scholar" or "Imam" who will deliver an interpretation or verdict which allows for the act to be done with a "clean" conscious.

But I dont believe there can be any clean conscious in regards to ped activity. Even the most deranged sociopath knows that hurting children is wrong, even if they still do it... they know its wrong. When a child is crying in fear or in pain, people must make very deliberate choices to continue that activity which harms the child. Choices which are willfully made in defiance and override of their morality. Unfortunately, this activity takes place everywhere Muslims are, not just Yemen... in their own nations and abroad as well.

DavidSon raised an interesting point of discussion:
"I don't feel you can simply isolate the Quran from the culture and history which it was revealed to."
That is true, but the connection isnt what many Muslims would like to believe it is. Quran is clear, the behavior engaged in before these revelations were revealed is now forbidden. And it condemns that behavior in the sternest terms. It states twice in Quran that the desert Arabs were the worst people on Earth, with the most abhorrent practices... and Islam provides the remedy for that behavior. The revelations of Islam did not confirm Arabic culture, it condemned it. For example, the verses specifically denounce the practice of burying the baby infant girl alive in the desert upon her birth... as was the horrifying custom of many in a pre-Islamic Middle East.

"Islamic/Arab culture is immense there is so much (better) to meditate upon."
Thats the thing though... Islamic culture didnt provide an update/upgrade to Arabic culture... it provided the proper, correct alternative to it.

 

[TempestOfTempo]

I visited the site as well. No need to post any of it unless you want. The whole thing is premised on trying to discredit the official date of birth of Aisha. If you check into this there are various dates given. If the accepted date is false, then why was it changed to make her 6? Also like I stated previously, what 17 or 18 years old is playing with toys or swinging on swings? Then you have the account of Aisha herself saying she was 6, then you have the Quran promoting marriage with prepubescent girls. It all adds up to a rock solid case in most peoples opinions.

"If the accepted date is false, then why was it changed to make her 6?"
As I stated above... people often are not satisfied with simply committing atrocities... they often look for justification and vindication of their actions... no matter how abhorrent they may be. And many Muslims are no different in this regard.

"Also like I stated previously, what 17 or 18 years old is playing with toys or swinging on swings? Then you have the account of Aisha herself saying she was 6"
These accounts are all filtered through the hadeeth lens though eh? There does not seem to be any reliable source to prove Aisha said those things.

As for your interpretations of Quran, I am still looking into that. I would rather take some time to give the best reply I can than just type something out simply to keep the convo current in the message boards lineup. I thank you for your patience.

 

[iWundr]

I’m curious… why is everyone so obsessed with this topic? At the same time, in the ‘modern’ parts of the world, women had no rights, let alone young girls. Even children were considered unnecessary. You only have to look at the history of child slaves across the world- who knows what inhumane, sexual abuse they must have suffered. Whether Aisha was 6 or not, we aren’t talking about a 6 year old today because our minds today would not be able to comprehend the will of God. Muhammad was not just any man, he was chosen. He is notable for goodness, compassion, kindness. Yes, some Muslims have lost the way and fallen victim to materialism and sided with the enemy and they ONLY speak the Quran when it is favourable to them. However, the Quran is the final word and the hadiths are the living embodiment of the teachings of the Quran.
No, Jihad was a last resort. Never a first. Who wants to knowingly die!? Hence why martyrdom was the reward for such bravery. Muhammad was against war, he was too gentle for such a disgraceful action that many ‘men’ would be proud to go down in history for being such and such as a warrior, aggressor, tyrant etc. He ONLY resorted to war after very careful consideration and even then, he trembled at the idea of going through with it. It was God who reminded him to be firm and reminded him that He, The Almighty, would strengthen Muhammad. No, semen was not a impurity. Muslims have classifications for what is pure and impure and there is classification on how to treat impurity. You don’t need to take that as some kind of weird and gross thing because here, in 2021, woman are swallowing semen like it’s the elixir of life, let’s not begin on what is gross or not. Also, is there anything else I can help in clarifying for anyone who likes to take the classical literature out of context? It’s bad enough that Muslims are selling their faith for forefathers-culture but that was never a justifiable reason for evil and corruption. Islam is a perfect representation on how to live life to the fullest, that’s all. It’s a worship of God. But the creation, the people, they are flawed. Some people have their ways of development and that’s ok. Compassion towards other and reason are so necessary right now. Vigilant Citizen opens our eyes to knowing a bigger threat, a bigger enemy wants to spoon-feed us it’s ideals and agendas, removing our right to choose. So whilst we have this time to choose and this freedom, let’s come together in humanity and try to debate intelligently and TRY to understand one and another. There is also another saying of Muhammad, he said ‘a time will come when holding onto faith (Islam) will be like holding onto hot coals’. There is a time coming where what you hold on to dearly might not be yours to hold onto anymore. Time is precious.

 

[Bubbajay]

I’m curious… why is everyone so obsessed with this topic? At the same time, in the ‘modern’ parts of the world, women had no rights, let alone young girls. Even children were considered unnecessary. You only have to look at the history of child slaves across the world- who knows what inhumane, sexual abuse they must have suffered. Whether Aisha was 6 or not, we aren’t talking about a 6 year old today because our minds today would not be able to comprehend the will of God. Muhammad was not just any man, he was chosen. He is notable for goodness, compassion, kindness. Yes, some Muslims have lost the way and fallen victim to materialism and sided with the enemy and they ONLY speak the Quran when it is favourable to them. However, the Quran is the final word and the hadiths are the living embodiment of the teachings of the Quran.
No, Jihad was a last resort. Never a first. Who wants to knowingly die!? Hence why martyrdom was the reward for such bravery. Muhammad was against war, he was too gentle for such a disgraceful action that many ‘men’ would be proud to go down in history for being such and such as a warrior, aggressor, tyrant etc. He ONLY resorted to war after very careful consideration and even then, he trembled at the idea of going through with it. It was God who reminded him to be firm and reminded him that He, The Almighty, would strengthen Muhammad. No, semen was not a impurity. Muslims have classifications for what is pure and impure and there is classification on how to treat impurity. You don’t need to take that as some kind of weird and gross thing because here, in 2021, woman are swallowing semen like it’s the elixir of life, let’s not begin on what is gross or not. Also, is there anything else I can help in clarifying for anyone who likes to take the classical literature out of context? It’s bad enough that Muslims are selling their faith for forefathers-culture but that was never a justifiable reason for evil and corruption. Islam is a perfect representation on how to live life to the fullest, that’s all. It’s a worship of God. But the creation, the people, they are flawed. Some people have their ways of development and that’s ok. Compassion towards other and reason are so necessary right now. Vigilant Citizen opens our eyes to knowing a bigger threat, a bigger enemy wants to spoon-feed us it’s ideals and agendas, removing our right to choose. So whilst we have this time to choose and this freedom, let’s come together in humanity and try to debate intelligently and TRY to understand one and another. There is also another saying of Muhammad, he said ‘a time will come when holding onto faith (Islam) will be like holding onto hot coals’. There is a time coming where what you hold on to dearly might not be yours to hold onto anymore. Time is precious.

So Muhammad committing p***philia is OK because "it was the will of God"? It was Muhammad himself who chose Alisha to marry along with another at the same time, are you claiming all his personal choices were " the will of god"?

I'm fully aware of the laws of impurity regarding semen in Islam, and the debauchery of woman today, so you're going to use the practices of today's debauched society to justify Islam? Also you don't see many people offering it up in prayer these days unless they're part of the OTO, AA, or performing a Gnostic mass. Its a known fact that semen has been a main ingredient in Gnostic ideology longer than Islam has been around. To the Gnostics of old the dove or their version of "the holy spirit" was represented on earth by semen.

 

[TempestOfTempo]

I’m curious… why is everyone so obsessed with this topic? At the same time, in the ‘modern’ parts of the world, women had no rights, let alone young girls. Even children were considered unnecessary. You only have to look at the history of child slaves across the world- who knows what inhumane, sexual abuse they must have suffered. Whether Aisha was 6 or not, we aren’t talking about a 6 year old today because our minds today would not be able to comprehend the will of God. Muhammad was not just any man, he was chosen. He is notable for goodness, compassion, kindness. Yes, some Muslims have lost the way and fallen victim to materialism and sided with the enemy and they ONLY speak the Quran when it is favourable to them. However, the Quran is the final word and the hadiths are the living embodiment of the teachings of the Quran.
No, Jihad was a last resort. Never a first. Who wants to knowingly die!? Hence why martyrdom was the reward for such bravery. Muhammad was against war, he was too gentle for such a disgraceful action that many ‘men’ would be proud to go down in history for being such and such as a warrior, aggressor, tyrant etc. He ONLY resorted to war after very careful consideration and even then, he trembled at the idea of going through with it. It was God who reminded him to be firm and reminded him that He, The Almighty, would strengthen Muhammad. No, semen was not a impurity. Muslims have classifications for what is pure and impure and there is classification on how to treat impurity. You don’t need to take that as some kind of weird and gross thing because here, in 2021, woman are swallowing semen like it’s the elixir of life, let’s not begin on what is gross or not. Also, is there anything else I can help in clarifying for anyone who likes to take the classical literature out of context? It’s bad enough that Muslims are selling their faith for forefathers-culture but that was never a justifiable reason for evil and corruption. Islam is a perfect representation on how to live life to the fullest, that’s all. It’s a worship of God. But the creation, the people, they are flawed. Some people have their ways of development and that’s ok. Compassion towards other and reason are so necessary right now. Vigilant Citizen opens our eyes to knowing a bigger threat, a bigger enemy wants to spoon-feed us it’s ideals and agendas, removing our right to choose. So whilst we have this time to choose and this freedom, let’s come together in humanity and try to debate intelligently and TRY to understand one and another. There is also another saying of Muhammad, he said ‘a time will come when holding onto faith (Islam) will be like holding onto hot coals’. There is a time coming where what you hold on to dearly might not be yours to hold onto anymore. Time is precious.

"I’m curious… why is everyone so obsessed with this topic?"
I dont see posters here obsessing over it... but ped activities are rampant within Muslim communities with many using false theological interpretations as justification, shouldnt that be addressed? Yes, ped crimes are rampant in most communities, but its up to each to clean up their own first eh?

"Whether Aisha was 6 or not, we aren’t talking about a 6 year old today"
The evidence presented clearly indicates Aisha was NOT six years old at the time of her marriage. So with what appear to be faulty hadeeths serving as the theological basis for crimes against children RIGHT NOW, isnt it incumbent on Muslims to confront this issue head on? How else do you suggest this type of behavior by Muslims would be curtailed.

"However, the Quran is the final word"
Which means hadeeth are supplemental, at best. At worse? That is what we are exploring here...

"There is also another saying of Muhammad, he said ‘a time will come when holding onto faith (Islam) will be like holding onto hot coals’."
I have been thinking of that saying a lot lately. Imo, Muslims who enage in ped activity (especially ones who employ Islam itself as a justification) are among those who have dropped the stone. Hopefully they dont have shirk, because they have already traded the edicts of Islam for their miserable pleasure-price.

 

[Bubbajay]

Even though I disagree with you on the issue, I do respect anyone who questions traditions.

 

[Journeyman]

Compassion towards other and reason are so necessary right now. Vigilant Citizen opens our eyes to knowing a bigger threat, a bigger enemy wants to spoon-feed us it’s ideals and agendas, removing our right to choose. So whilst we have this time to choose and this freedom, let’s come together in humanity and try to debate intelligently and TRY to understand one and another. There is also another saying of Muhammad, he said ‘a time will come when holding onto faith (Islam) will be like holding onto hot coals’. There is a time coming where what you hold on to dearly might not be yours to hold onto anymore. Time is precious.

I was about to post similar, albeit from a different perspective, well said.

 

[iWundr]

So Muhammad committing p***philia is OK because "it was the will of God"? It was Muhammad himself who chose Alisha to marry along with another at the same time, are you claiming all his personal choices were " the will of god"?

I'm fully aware of the laws of impurity regarding semen in Islam, and the debauchery of woman today, so you're going to use the practices of today's debauched society to justify Islam? Also you don't see many people offering it up in prayer these days unless they're part of the OTO, AA, or performing a Gnostic mass. Its a known fact that semen has been a main ingredient in Gnostic ideology longer than Islam has been around. To the Gnostics of old the dove or their version of "the holy spirit" was represented on earth by semen.

I have those moments where I sometimes wish I just stayed quiet, but imagine having truth to share and not sharing it for the benefit of others. Do you think the past would look at us in this future and think the normalisation of twerking and transgenderism is noble? They would die of shock at this reality we live in. In regards to Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her, there are two understandings. One is that what we understand to be innocent and underage and ‘perverse’ was not perverse then. Historically speaking, a girl would reach puberty at 10 and be classed as a woman. The maturity of people back then exceeds what we have now. If a man was to r*pe a child, that is abhorrent and heinous. That is perverse. Aisha, was given in marriage, which she accepted but before she accepted, she was already bequeathed to someone else. So imagine, if she did not marry the Prophet, she would have married a non-Muslim who was more than happy to have his ways with her. I’m not talking about lawful ways either. At the time, Islam was new in feature and many of the Arabs were not keen to leave their tribal ways. But Islam had principles which involved the safeguarding of women and children, the poor, slaves etc. These safeguards did not exist before Islam. We are talking about deprived, tribal ways of the Arabs back then, even if it was the golden age. Islam came to a nation when that nation was in need of guidance and that is the purpose of Islam- quidance. People want to make out that the Prophet was such and such- some call him a warmonger because he had to choose the last resort of war. Some call him a peado. If that was the case, wouldn’t he have abused loads of girls? Wouldn’t there have been reports of those? Why would he need to legitimise it in marriage if it was so perverse? In this day and age people are doing horrible things to others. Let’s not pretend that heinous acts against children didn’t happen back then. There is a difference, my job is only to help you understand that difference and if you don’t accept that, it’s fine. Muhammed did act out the will of God because nothing is greater than the will of God BUT he also made his own choices because we all have free will and autonomy to live freely. Throughout his entire life, he made choices for the greater good. He was compassionate and understanding. People just don’t want to accept that. Too busy taking parcels from the Quran and spitting it out like chewed gum. Also, no one listens anymore. I said semen wasn’t impure that’s why it wasn’t necessary to do the act of ritual cleansing if one got it on their clothes or body as such and her name was Aisha.

 

[DesertRose]

These slanderous accusations are not valid This issue is a non starter.
Knowing that at the Day of Judgement you will each stand alone and will be questioned by the Creator in regards to your actions should make you assess things in a proper manner.
I personally believe that if all the media and hate groups stand together and lie about Islam they can not do an ounce of damage to this blessed path, and that this message will still reach those that the Creator intended to reach.
I ask the Creator to bestow wisdom and understanding and certainty about Him and His path to those who have even a modicum of sincerity on this thread. Ameen.
This will be my only post here.
Not rocket science to understand that people got married after they attained puberty in the olden eras.
Previous post:
"There was no concept of 'teenage years" before the modern era. Throughout the centuries people regarded puberty as the time which identifies when a person has reached a 'marriageable age'.
This understanding can be seen from this verse in the Quran as well.

Test ˹the competence of˺ the orphans until they reach a marriageable age. Then if you feel they are capable of sound judgment, return their wealth to them. And do not consume it wastefully and hastily before they grow up ˹to demand it˺. If the guardian is well-off, they should not take compensation; but if the guardian is poor, let them take a reasonable provision. When you give orphans back their property, call in witnesses. And sufficient is Allah as a ˹vigilant˺ Reckoner. 4:6

Age of Consent in European & American History
By Discover The Truth • September 9, 2013

source: Discover The Truth
What was the ‘Age of Consent’ in European and American history, prior to the 20th century? In this article, I shall bring forth evidences which demonstrate that the ‘Age of consent’ was indeed, very young, even by today’s standards. I will provide academic sources which show that girls were allowed to be married at the age of 10 years old and sometimes times, as young as 7 years old, legally. It was norm just over 100 years ago to see girls being married off at very young ages. In most cultures, the marriage would have been consummated at the onset of puberty.

1. Professor of history Margaret Wade Labarge

“It needs to be remembered that many Medieval widows were not old, Important heiresses were often married between the ages of 5 and 10 and might find themselves widowed while still in their teens.” [1]

2. Professor Richard Wortley and Professor Stephen Smallbone, both of whom state that prior to the 1900s girls married very young,

“In Medieval and early modern European societies, the age of marriage remained low, with documented cases of brides as young as seven years, although marriages were typically not consummated until the girl reached puberty (Bullough 2004). Shakespeare’s Juliet was just 13, and there is no hint in the play that this was considered to be exceptional. The situation was similar on the other side of the Atlantic; Bullough reports the case in 1689 of a nine-year-old bride in Virginia. At the start of the nineteenth century in England, it was legal to have sex with a 10 year-old girl.” [2]

3. In the book, ‘Sex and Society’,

“Until the late 20th century U.S. age of consent laws specifically names males as perpetrators and females as victims. Following English law, in which the age was set at 12 in 1275 and lowered to 10 in 1576, ages of consent in the American colonies were generally set at 10 or 12. The laws protected female virginity, which at the time was considered a valuable commodity until marriage. The theft of a girl’s chastity was seen as a property crime against her father and future husband. If two people were married and had sex, no matter what their age, no crime was committed because a woman was her husband’s property. In practice, too, the consent laws only protected white females, as many non-white females were enslaved or otherwise discriminated against by the legal system.” [3]

4. Richard A. Posner is chief judge of the U.S court of appeals, Seventh Circuit Chicago. Katherine B. Silbaugh is associate Professor at Boston University School of Law, they say that before the 1900s age of consent was ten years old,

“The law governing the age of consent has changed dramatically in the United States during this century. Most states codified a statutory age of consent during the nineteenth century, and the usual age was ten years.” [4]

5. The Scottish Law prior to 1900s by Sir John Comyns and Stewart Kyd,

“By the law of Scotland, a woman cannot contrabere sponsalia before her age of seven years. 1 Rol. 343. I. 20.
But by common law, persons may marry at any age. Co. Lit. 33. A.
And upon such marriage the wife shall be endowed, if the attain the age of nine years, of what whatsoever age her husband be; but not before the age of nine years. Co. L. 33. A.” [5]

6. Professor of Sociology Anthony Joseph Paul Cortese says that a 50 year old man being with a girl under 10 (being intimate) Under United States law was legal until the mid 1960s,

“In 1962, the American Law Institute recommended that the legal age of consent to sex- that is, the age below which sex is defined as statutory r*pe- be dropped in every state to age 10 (Katchadourian and Lund 1972: 439). In fact, until the mid 1960s, the legal age of consent in Delaware was 7 (Kling, 1965: 216). So a 50 year old man could legally have sexual intercourse with a 7 year old boy or girl.” [6]

7. Maureen Dabbagh is a writer and author. Born in Michigan, she serves as a Virginia Supreme Court Family Mediator, she echoes the same statements as previous authors,

“…the nineteenth century, the minimum age of consent for sexual intercourse in most American states was 10 years. In Delaware it was only 7 years.” [7]

8. Mike A. Males is an American sociologist who writes from a pro youth rights perspective. Males is a professor at the University of California, he writes,

“These early laws specified that a girl consenting to sex had to be at least 10 to 12 years old in most states, with a few specifying ages as old as 14 or 16. In Delaware, the age of consent was seven, based on ancient English laws setting the age squire.” [8]

9. Arthur Siccan Author of the Book: ‘What’s Wrong in America: A Look at Troublesome Issues in Our Country’, goes in a lot of detail on the issue of marriage at earlier times,

“Traditionally, across the globe, the age of consent for sexual union was a matter for the family to decide, or a tribal custom. In most cases, this coincided with signs of puberty, menstruation for a woman and pubic hair for a man.
Sir Edward Coke in 17th century England ‘made it clear that the marriage of girls under 12 was normal, and the age at which a girl who was a wife was eligible for a dower from her husband’s estate was 9. The American colonies followed the English tradition, and the law was more of a guide. For example Mary Hathaway of Virginia, was only 9 when she was married to William Williams.
Portugal, Spain, Denmark and the Swiss canons, initially set the age of consent at 10-12 years and then raised it to between 13 and 16 years in the second half of the 19th century. Historically, the English common law set the age of consent to range from 10- 12. In the United States, by the 1880s, most states set the age of consent at 10-12, and in one state Delaware, the age of consent was only 7. Social and resulting legal attitudes toward the appropriate age of consent have drifted upwards in modern times. For example while ages from 10 to 13 were typically acceptable in Western countries during the mid-19the century, the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century were marked by changing.
I believe that a lot of our current mores come from reluctance to let our children mature mentally as quickly as our bodies do. Keep in mind that not all societies share Western mores. And to my surprise, until the latter part of the 19th Century, Children in the Western nations were engaged and married at a much earlier age. The trend to give children more time to mature is relatively new.
In his book, The Emphatic civilization, (Penguin, NY, 200) Jeremy Rifkin points out that the concept of adolescence only emerged during the last decade of the nineteenth century and the first three decades of the twentieth century. Society started to think of childhood as extending beyond puberty, into the later teenage years. Before that, children were considered to graduate into adulthood with the onset of puberty.” [9]

10. The ’American Bar Association’ Journal [August 1996]:

“1275 English common law criminalizes statutory r*pe- sex between a man and a woman below the age of consent, which was first set at 12 years.
1576 Common Law age of consent lowered to 10 years.
1700s-1800s Statutory r*pe at common law adopted in the united states. States set the age of consent at 10 or 12 years.” [10]

11. Sinikka Elliott

“The statutes governing the minimum age under which sex cannot be legally consensual, and laws concerning marriage and workers rights, were modified to reflect these changing discourses around childhood. Age of sexual consent, for example, rose from 7 during colonial times to 10, 12, and eventually as high as 14 during the eighteenth centuries. By the late 1800s, the average age of consent in the United States was 14. Across the nation, however the age of consent was raised slowly, unevenly, and with great reluctance.” [11]

12. Susan M. Ross

“According to British common law during the colonial period, the age of consent was seven. Today we are astounded that girls of this age were assumed to know enough about sex (or about sin) to make such a decision competently.” [12]

13. Carolyn Cocca:

“At what age is a person capable of making and informed decision about whether or not to engage in sex? Would it be7,10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, or 21? Over the last 300 years, all the ages listed above were thought to be that magic age at which one could make such a decision, and all the ages listed above have, at various times, been inscribed into law as the age of consent to sex.” [13]

14. Merril D. Smith says that the age which a girl could marry was 10 to 13 in most societies,

“To that end, from ancient times to the present, many societies have acted to try to safeguard children from r*pe and other forms of sexual degradation, though they might define sexual degradation differently from era to era and from place to place. One way societies have tried to protect young girls is through laws that designate a statutory age of consent. Such laws prohibit men from having sexual relations with females under a specified age on legal theory that they are too young and immature to make informed decision and, therefore, are incapable of giving a legal consent. Historically, the age of consent was set at 10 or 13 years, depending on the era and the culture, and tended to coincide with female puberty, which was also the age at which a female could marry without parental permission.” [14]

15. Melissa Hope Ditmore

“United States, the age of consent was much lower. For example, in New York, the age of consent was ten years until 1885. After 1885, age of consent laws changed around the country, reaching 16 in New York in 1889 and 18 in 1895. Prior to these changes the age of consent in most places in the United States was 10 or 12 years.” [15]

16. Caryn Neumann

“Historically the age of consent was set somewhere between 10 and 13 years, depending on the Era and the culture, and tending to coincide with female puberty. In modern United States, the age of consent ranges from 14 – 18 years with 16 years as the standard.” [16]

17. Martha Rosenthal:

“During colonial times in the United States, the age of consent was 10 (except in Delaware, where the age of consent was 7).” [17]

18. Paula S. Fass

“Age of consent laws rose from as low as ten to between thirteen (France 1863) AND SIXTEEN (England and Wales 1885).” [18]

19. Edward J. Wood says that Thomas Lord Berkley was contracted to a girl who was at the time 7 years old and were to consummate the marriage 4 years later, but due to illness the marriage was consummated the following year,

“Thomas, Lord Berkeley, was contracted to Margaret, daughter of Gerald Warren, Lord Lisle, in the forty-first year of Edward III.; and by reason of her tender age- she was then only about seven years old- it was arranged that she should remain with her father for four years; but sickness happening in the family, they were married in the November following.” [19]

The following Table below shows most of the European countries and American States, ‘Age of Consent.’
I would like to thank ‘chnm.gnm.edu’ for all the information they have provided on age of consent in 1880. I retrieved the information from this website: http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/primary-sources/24


Source

Date compiled from the following sources: Hirschfeld, Magnus. The Homosexuality of Men and Women. Translated by Michael Lombardi-Nash. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 2000; Killias, Martin. “The Emergence of a New Taboo: The Desexualization of Youth in Western Societies Since 1800.” European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research 8 (2000): 466; Odem, Mary. Delinquent Daughters: Policing and Protecting Adolescent Female Sexuality in the United States, 1885-1920. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1995; “Worldwide Ages of Consent,” AVERTing HIV and Aids, http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm (accessed November 29, 2007).

 

[Bubbajay]

I have those moments where I sometimes wish I just stayed quiet, but imagine having truth to share and not sharing it for the benefit of others. Do you think the past would look at us in this future and think the normalisation of twerking and transgenderism is noble? They would die of shock at this reality we live in. In regards to Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her, there are two understandings. One is that what we understand to be innocent and underage and ‘perverse’ was not perverse then. Historically speaking, a girl would reach puberty at 10 and be classed as a woman. The maturity of people back then exceeds what we have now. If a man was to r*pe a child, that is abhorrent and heinous. That is perverse. Aisha, was given in marriage, which she accepted but before she accepted, she was already bequeathed to someone else. So imagine, if she did not marry the Prophet, she would have married a non-Muslim who was more than happy to have his ways with her. I’m not talking about lawful ways either. At the time, Islam was new in feature and many of the Arabs were not keen to leave their tribal ways. But Islam had principles which involved the safeguarding of women and children, the poor, slaves etc. These safeguards did not exist before Islam. We are talking about deprived, tribal ways of the Arabs back then, even if it was the golden age. Islam came to a nation when that nation was in need of guidance and that is the purpose of Islam- quidance. People want to make out that the Prophet was such and such- some call him a warmonger because he had to choose the last resort of war. Some call him a peado. If that was the case, wouldn’t he have abused loads of girls? Wouldn’t there have been reports of those? Why would he need to legitimise it in marriage if it was so perverse? In this day and age people are doing horrible things to others. Let’s not pretend that heinous acts against children didn’t happen back then. There is a difference, my job is only to help you understand that difference and if you don’t accept that, it’s fine. Muhammed did act out the will of God because nothing is greater than the will of God BUT he also made his own choices because we all have free will and autonomy to live freely. Throughout his entire life, he made choices for the greater good. He was compassionate and understanding. People just don’t want to accept that. Too busy taking parcels from the Quran and spitting it out like chewed gum. Also, no one listens anymore. I said semen wasn’t impure that’s why it wasn’t necessary to do the act of ritual cleansing if one got it on their clothes or body as such and her name was Aisha.

There was never a time in history where p***philia was normal or looked at as a virtue. You're just a perverted apologist. If a man marries a girl who hasn't gone through puberty and can't have children, the only point of the marriage would be degenerate unnatural reasons. Jesus said it would be better to have a millstone tied to his neck and cast into the sea. That's the punishment Muhammad is going through now and forever.

 

[Bubbajay]

These slanderous accusations are not valid This issue is a non starter.
Knowing that at the Day of Judgement you will each stand alone and will be questioned by the Creator in regards to your actions should make you assess things in a proper manner.
I personally believe that if all the media and hate groups stand together and lie about Islam they can not do an ounce of damage to this blessed path, and that this message will still reach those that the Creator intended to reach.
I ask the Creator to bestow wisdom and understanding and certainty about Him and His path to those who have even a modicum of sincerity on this thread. Ameen.
This will be my only post here.
Not rocket science to understand that people got married after they attained puberty in the olden eras.
Previous post:
"There was no concept of 'teenage years" before the modern era. Throughout the centuries people regarded puberty as the time which identifies when a person has reached a 'marriageable age'.
This understanding can be seen from this verse in the Quran as well.

Test ˹the competence of˺ the orphans until they reach a marriageable age. Then if you feel they are capable of sound judgment, return their wealth to them. And do not consume it wastefully and hastily before they grow up ˹to demand it˺. If the guardian is well-off, they should not take compensation; but if the guardian is poor, let them take a reasonable provision. When you give orphans back their property, call in witnesses. And sufficient is Allah as a ˹vigilant˺ Reckoner. 4:6

Age of Consent in European & American History
By Discover The Truth • September 9, 2013

source: Discover The Truth
What was the ‘Age of Consent’ in European and American history, prior to the 20th century? In this article, I shall bring forth evidences which demonstrate that the ‘Age of consent’ was indeed, very young, even by today’s standards. I will provide academic sources which show that girls were allowed to be married at the age of 10 years old and sometimes times, as young as 7 years old, legally. It was norm just over 100 years ago to see girls being married off at very young ages. In most cultures, the marriage would have been consummated at the onset of puberty.

1. Professor of history Margaret Wade Labarge

2. Professor Richard Wortley and Professor Stephen Smallbone, both of whom state that prior to the 1900s girls married very young,

3. In the book, ‘Sex and Society’,

4. Richard A. Posner is chief judge of the U.S court of appeals, Seventh Circuit Chicago. Katherine B. Silbaugh is associate Professor at Boston University School of Law, they say that before the 1900s age of consent was ten years old,

5. The Scottish Law prior to 1900s by Sir John Comyns and Stewart Kyd,

6. Professor of Sociology Anthony Joseph Paul Cortese says that a 50 year old man being with a girl under 10 (being intimate) Under United States law was legal until the mid 1960s,

7. Maureen Dabbagh is a writer and author. Born in Michigan, she serves as a Virginia Supreme Court Family Mediator, she echoes the same statements as previous authors,

8. Mike A. Males is an American sociologist who writes from a pro youth rights perspective. Males is a professor at the University of California, he writes,

9. Arthur Siccan Author of the Book: ‘What’s Wrong in America: A Look at Troublesome Issues in Our Country’, goes in a lot of detail on the issue of marriage at earlier times,

10. The ’American Bar Association’ Journal [August 1996]:

11. Sinikka Elliott

12. Susan M. Ross

13. Carolyn Cocca:

14. Merril D. Smith says that the age which a girl could marry was 10 to 13 in most societies,

15. Melissa Hope Ditmore

16. Caryn Neumann

17. Martha Rosenthal:

18. Paula S. Fass

19. Edward J. Wood says that Thomas Lord Berkley was contracted to a girl who was at the time 7 years old and were to consummate the marriage 4 years later, but due to illness the marriage was consummated the following year,

The following Table below shows most of the European countries and American States, ‘Age of Consent.’
I would like to thank ‘chnm.gnm.edu’ for all the information they have provided on age of consent in 1880. I retrieved the information from this website: http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/primary-sources/24


Source

Date compiled from the following sources: Hirschfeld, Magnus. The Homosexuality of Men and Women. Translated by Michael Lombardi-Nash. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 2000; Killias, Martin. “The Emergence of a New Taboo: The Desexualization of Youth in Western Societies Since 1800.” European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research 8 (2000): 466; Odem, Mary. Delinquent Daughters: Policing and Protecting Adolescent Female Sexuality in the United States, 1885-1920. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1995; “Worldwide Ages of Consent,” AVERTing HIV and Aids, http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm (accessed November 29, 2007).

You too are a perverted degenerate for thinking a 9 years old prepubescent little girl is fit for such things mentally and physically. Queers in this country (US) want the age of consent lowered to 12 in this country, so your line of thinking lines right up with theirs.

It doesn't matter what laws were put into place where and when, it was never looked at as anything a normal person would do. Even in pagan Greece and Rome it was a vice of the elite, and was looked down on by the population. You are a sick and disgusting individual. May God judge you accordingly.

Notice your sources "the homosexuality of men and woman". Your sources fit your mentality

 

[TempestOfTempo]

I have those moments where I sometimes wish I just stayed quiet, but imagine having truth to share and not sharing it for the benefit of others. Do you think the past would look at us in this future and think the normalisation of twerking and transgenderism is noble? They would die of shock at this reality we live in. In regards to Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her, there are two understandings. One is that what we understand to be innocent and underage and ‘perverse’ was not perverse then. Historically speaking, a girl would reach puberty at 10 and be classed as a woman. The maturity of people back then exceeds what we have now. If a man was to r*pe a child, that is abhorrent and heinous. That is perverse. Aisha, was given in marriage, which she accepted but before she accepted, she was already bequeathed to someone else. So imagine, if she did not marry the Prophet, she would have married a non-Muslim who was more than happy to have his ways with her. I’m not talking about lawful ways either. At the time, Islam was new in feature and many of the Arabs were not keen to leave their tribal ways. But Islam had principles which involved the safeguarding of women and children, the poor, slaves etc. These safeguards did not exist before Islam. We are talking about deprived, tribal ways of the Arabs back then, even if it was the golden age. Islam came to a nation when that nation was in need of guidance and that is the purpose of Islam- quidance. People want to make out that the Prophet was such and such- some call him a warmonger because he had to choose the last resort of war. Some call him a peado. If that was the case, wouldn’t he have abused loads of girls? Wouldn’t there have been reports of those? Why would he need to legitimise it in marriage if it was so perverse? In this day and age people are doing horrible things to others. Let’s not pretend that heinous acts against children didn’t happen back then. There is a difference, my job is only to help you understand that difference and if you don’t accept that, it’s fine. Muhammed did act out the will of God because nothing is greater than the will of God BUT he also made his own choices because we all have free will and autonomy to live freely. Throughout his entire life, he made choices for the greater good. He was compassionate and understanding. People just don’t want to accept that. Too busy taking parcels from the Quran and spitting it out like chewed gum. Also, no one listens anymore. I said semen wasn’t impure that’s why it wasn’t necessary to do the act of ritual cleansing if one got it on their clothes or body as such and her name was Aisha.

Why cant you just address the timeline presented? Why cant yall just address the material which contains the timeline? Why do yall type paragraphs around the actual heart of the matter?

 

[TempestOfTempo]

These slanderous accusations are not valid This issue is a non starter.
Knowing that at the Day of Judgement you will each stand alone and will be questioned by the Creator in regards to your actions should make you assess things in a proper manner.
I personally believe that if all the media and hate groups stand together and lie about Islam they can not do an ounce of damage to this blessed path, and that this message will still reach those that the Creator intended to reach.
I ask the Creator to bestow wisdom and understanding and certainty about Him and His path to those who have even a modicum of sincerity on this thread. Ameen.
This will be my only post here.
Not rocket science to understand that people got married after they attained puberty in the olden eras.
Previous post:
"There was no concept of 'teenage years" before the modern era. Throughout the centuries people regarded puberty as the time which identifies when a person has reached a 'marriageable age'.
This understanding can be seen from this verse in the Quran as well.

Test ˹the competence of˺ the orphans until they reach a marriageable age. Then if you feel they are capable of sound judgment, return their wealth to them. And do not consume it wastefully and hastily before they grow up ˹to demand it˺. If the guardian is well-off, they should not take compensation; but if the guardian is poor, let them take a reasonable provision. When you give orphans back their property, call in witnesses. And sufficient is Allah as a ˹vigilant˺ Reckoner. 4:6

Age of Consent in European & American History
By Discover The Truth • September 9, 2013

source: Discover The Truth
What was the ‘Age of Consent’ in European and American history, prior to the 20th century? In this article, I shall bring forth evidences which demonstrate that the ‘Age of consent’ was indeed, very young, even by today’s standards. I will provide academic sources which show that girls were allowed to be married at the age of 10 years old and sometimes times, as young as 7 years old, legally. It was norm just over 100 years ago to see girls being married off at very young ages. In most cultures, the marriage would have been consummated at the onset of puberty.

1. Professor of history Margaret Wade Labarge

2. Professor Richard Wortley and Professor Stephen Smallbone, both of whom state that prior to the 1900s girls married very young,

3. In the book, ‘Sex and Society’,

4. Richard A. Posner is chief judge of the U.S court of appeals, Seventh Circuit Chicago. Katherine B. Silbaugh is associate Professor at Boston University School of Law, they say that before the 1900s age of consent was ten years old,

5. The Scottish Law prior to 1900s by Sir John Comyns and Stewart Kyd,

6. Professor of Sociology Anthony Joseph Paul Cortese says that a 50 year old man being with a girl under 10 (being intimate) Under United States law was legal until the mid 1960s,

7. Maureen Dabbagh is a writer and author. Born in Michigan, she serves as a Virginia Supreme Court Family Mediator, she echoes the same statements as previous authors,

8. Mike A. Males is an American sociologist who writes from a pro youth rights perspective. Males is a professor at the University of California, he writes,

9. Arthur Siccan Author of the Book: ‘What’s Wrong in America: A Look at Troublesome Issues in Our Country’, goes in a lot of detail on the issue of marriage at earlier times,

10. The ’American Bar Association’ Journal [August 1996]:

11. Sinikka Elliott

12. Susan M. Ross

13. Carolyn Cocca:

14. Merril D. Smith says that the age which a girl could marry was 10 to 13 in most societies,

15. Melissa Hope Ditmore

16. Caryn Neumann

17. Martha Rosenthal:

18. Paula S. Fass

19. Edward J. Wood says that Thomas Lord Berkley was contracted to a girl who was at the time 7 years old and were to consummate the marriage 4 years later, but due to illness the marriage was consummated the following year,

The following Table below shows most of the European countries and American States, ‘Age of Consent.’
I would like to thank ‘chnm.gnm.edu’ for all the information they have provided on age of consent in 1880. I retrieved the information from this website: http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/primary-sources/24


Source

Date compiled from the following sources: Hirschfeld, Magnus. The Homosexuality of Men and Women. Translated by Michael Lombardi-Nash. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 2000; Killias, Martin. “The Emergence of a New Taboo: The Desexualization of Youth in Western Societies Since 1800.” European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research 8 (2000): 466; Odem, Mary. Delinquent Daughters: Policing and Protecting Adolescent Female Sexuality in the United States, 1885-1920. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1995; “Worldwide Ages of Consent,” AVERTing HIV and Aids, http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm (accessed November 29, 2007).

Desert Shibshib, you already posted this in other threads... your desperation to deflect is obvious.

If the "accusations" are "slanderous" why cant you actually address them? No accusation has been made against Muhammed in this thread by me, just info presented and questions asked. So if you are the knowledgeable "Muslimah" you claim to be, then you would KNOW that asking these questions is totally valid in Islamic principal and its up to those who feel they have the answers to be able to provide them, then engage in dialog regarding their response in a respectful, honest fashion. So what "slanderous accusation" am I making? That the prophet Muhammed DIDNT engage in child r*pe? Because thats EXACTLY what Im stating. You and your whole putrid crowd further expose yourselves with every post on the matter. Face it, to everyone else you look like people who slander Muhammed as a child rapist and run cover for the "Muslims" engaged in it today. You refuse to address the actual substance of the topic because you dont have any leg to stand on, just howl about how "Westerners" used to be. You cant defend these hadeeth manipulations to co-sign the mass child-r*pe committed by Muslims, so you post finger pointing about what Westerners USED to do. You are such a disgusting wretch, EVERY child under the age of knowledge is considered a "Muslim" and is guaranteed the same rights and protection as every other child people like you choose to separate via your labeling some as "Muslism" and others "non". Thats Islamic law.

So for every "Muslim" child violated via illegal r*pe-marriage and etc. and every "non-Muslim" child who suffers the horrors of "grooming gangs" and etc. due to these sociopathic interpretations of hadeeth and every other loophole of haraam yall employ...YOU and the willful defenders of the practices are bound to share in the punishment of the violators on the day of judgement. All over the world there are children trapped in the horror show of abuse and worse via these faulty justifications... but on that mighty day of judgment, there will be divine retribution. Those who have contributed to the childrens suffering will earn their compensation, just as the violators will. That is promised, and God will deliver.