Aisha's age at the time of her marriage

[Bubbajay]

If you are done and want to believe that Muhammad married a 6 year old then that is your provocative, you did not come here in order to seek answers you came to see if anyone will dispute your opinion. This way of approaching a debate lacks in critical thinking because you are clouded by your prejudice.

The Quran already states that:

Then do they not reflect upon the Qur’ān?1 If it had been from [any] other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction.(4:82)

Had it not been for that hadith this would not have become a debate, if you read the Quran, you will not have found this matter something to dispute over. Hadiths are good when we can be sure of its authenticity. This is a difficult task at hand, as some deals with a lot of grey areas and have some contradictions. What we can take from it is the good messages/lessons.



And I doubt there are Muslim men waiting in line to marry a 9 year old either but you only want to see it one way. If you are that concerned about p***philia why not deal with modern p***philia problems? This has been happening throughout history in different race and cultures and it is an on going problem now. Why be bothered about the history of it in a particular religion? p***philia



Again you seem to understand this verse as:

1. Females who have never had their periods before
2. Women who are constantly menstruating that this line doesn't apply to them

Wallaee Lam yahidhna is referring to prepubescent children

"Here, Iddah is prescribed to two categories of women. First it says: “Yaisna mina al-maheedhi”—that is, “those women who are desperate of menses”. This indicates women, who reached the stage of menstruation but do not menstruate. The other category are those, who have reached menopause. Desperate of menses points to women, who, though reached the age, fail to menstruate. Their Iddah period is three months. This is prescribed probably to take maximum precaution about her being pregnant. Next, there comes “Wallaee Lam yahidhna”—that is, “those who have not menstruated yet”; this group of women are prepubescent girls, who have not menstruated yet. Here, the Iddah prescribed for them is the same: three months."

 

[recure]

And those who no longer expect menstruation among your women - if you doubt, then their period is three months, and [also for] those who have not menstruated. And for those who are pregnant, their term is until they give birth.1 And whoever fears Allah - He will make for him of his matter ease. (65:4)

The Arabic term in this verse is women (nisaa', same as the chapter) so "those" in this context is referring back to the "women" and nothing to do with the feminine suffix.

O Prophet, when you [Muslims] divorce women, divorce them for [the commencement of] their waiting period and keep count of the waiting period, and fear Allah, your Lord. Do not turn them out of their [husbands'] houses, nor should they [themselves] leave [during that period] unless they are committing a clear immorality. And those are the limits [set by] Allah. And whoever transgresses the limits of Allah has certainly wronged himself. You know not; perhaps Allah will bring about after that a [different] matter.
And when they have [nearly] fulfilled their term, either retain them according to acceptable terms or part with them according to acceptable terms. And bring to witness two just men from among you and establish the testimony for [the acceptance of] Allah. That is instructed to whoever should believe in Allah and the Last Day. And whoever fears Allah - He will make for him a way out.
And will provide for him from where he does not expect. And whoever relies upon Allah - then He is sufficient for him. Indeed, Allah will accomplish His purpose. Allah has already set for everything a [decreed] extent. (65:1-3)

The first 3 verse of this chapter also states women using the term nisaa', and when we get to verse 4 all of a sudden we don't know whether its in the context or women or girl?

Granted, you’re emphasizing “women” even where the word is absent as though it means, as you stated, “there is a distinction between women and girl”. The meaning of the Arabic word as used in the Qur’an is given as both women and girls by Almaany. Regardless, your interpretation might be correct, but it doesn’t change the fact that it is not the only interpretation as many Muslims, including the esteemed commentaries of Ibn Kathir and Al-Jalalayn, say the passage refers to “the young, who have not reached the years of menstruation.”

 

[Bubbajay]

Granted, you’re emphasizing “women” even where the word is absent as though it means, as you stated, “there is a distinction between women and girl”. The meaning of the Arabic word as used in the Qur’an is given as both women and girls by Almaany. Regardless, your interpretation might be correct, but it doesn’t change the fact that it is not the only interpretation as many Muslims, including the esteemed commentaries of Ibn Kathir and Al-Jalalayn, say the passage refers to “the young, who have not reached the years of menstruation.”

Quranic verses with such obvious sanction of p***philia is not enough to convinced some Muslims that p***philia is permitted in Islam. They like to assign a different meaning and interpretation to the phrase “Lam Yahidhna” (“Not menstruated yet”) in verses 65:4. Some Muslims argue that this phrase only refers to women, who have reached the age of puberty, but fail to have courses. This is the main argument. But it holds little water, because the group of women, who have reached the age of puberty and do not menstruate, is covered in the verse in phrase: ”Yaisna min al-Maheedhi”—i.e. desperate for menstruation. Two categories of women can be desperate of menses:

1. Women, who have reached menopause, and
2. Women, who have reached the stage of puberty but do not menstruate.

Women, who have reached the stage of menstruation but fail to have menstrual courses, have been covered in the phrase “Yaisna Min al-Maheedhi”. The phrase under trial here is “Lam Yahidhna”, which comes next to it. It is a simple logic that a group of women, already covered in the earlier phrase, need not be repeated or covered again in next phrase.

 

[Bubbajay]

The secondly argument that comes from such Muslims is word “Nisa” in verse 65:4. They argue that “Nisa” means women; so the verse does not refer to prepubescent girls, but mature women. But this is an utterly lame excuse, which can be refuted using the same Quran. See some verses from Quran where we find the word “Nisa”:

1. And [remember the time] when we saved you from Pharaoh's people, who afflicted you with cruel suffering, slaughtering your sons and sparing [only] your women - which was an awesome trial from your Sustainer;
   (Waith najjaynakum min ali firawna yasoomoonakum sooa alAAathabi yuthabbihoona abnaakum wayastahyoona Nisaakum wafee thalikum balaon min rabbikum AAatheemun) [Quran. 2:49]
2. Said the chiefs of Pharaoh's people: "Wilt thou leave Moses and his people, to spread mischief in the land, and to abandon thee and thy gods?" He said: "Their male children will we slay; (only) their females will we save alive; and we have over them (power) irresistible."
   (Waqala almalao min qawmi firawna atatharu moosa waqawmahu liyufsidoo fee alardi wayatharaka waalihataka qala sanuqattilu abnaahum wanastahyee Nisaahum wainna fawqahum qahiroona) [Quran 7:127]
3. And remember we rescued you from Pharaoh's people, who afflicted you with the worst of penalties, who slew your male children and saved alive your females: in that was a momentous trial from your Lord.
   (Waith anjaynakum min ali firawna yasoomoonakum sooa alAAathabi yuqattiloona abnaakum wayastahyoona Nisaakum wafee thalikum balaon min rabbikum AAatheemun) [Quran 7: 141]
4. Remember! Moses said to his people: "Call to mind the favour of Allah to you when He delivered you from the people of Pharaoh: they set you hard tasks and punishments, slaughtered your sons, and let your females live: therein was a tremendous trial from your Lord.
   (Waith qala moosa liqawmihi othkuroo niAAmata Allahi AAalaykum ith anjakum min ali firawna yasoomoonakum sooa alAAathabi wayuthabbihoona abnaakum wayastahyoona Nisaakum wafee thalikum balaon min rabbikum AAatheemun) [Quran 14:6]
5. And when he brought them the Truth from Our presence, they said: Slay the sons of those who believe with him, and spare their females. But the plot of disbelievers is in naught but error.
   (Falamma jaahum bialhaqqi min AAindina qaloo oqtuloo abnaa allatheena amanoo maAAahu waistahyoo Nisaahum wama kaydu alkafireena illa fee dalalin) [Quran 40:25]

In these verses, the word “NISA” is used to signify “Female infants”; it's use is not restricted to refer to mature women. To get the picture right, it is necessary to quote from the Old Testament, because these verses are replicas of story depicted in Exodus:

And the king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives, of whom the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah; and he said: 'When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, ye shall look upon the birth-stool: if it be a son, then ye shall kill him; but if it be a daughter, then she shall live.' [Exodus, 1:15-16]
And Pharaoh charged all his people, saying: 'Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river, and every daughter ye shall save alive. [Exodus, 1:22]

The story of Israelites under Pharaoh and his command to kill all male infants but let female newborns alive..! If we check all those Quranic verses, NISA is obviously used to signify female infants. So, “NISA” simply means females of all ages, according to the Quran

 

[Bubbajay]

Its been proven that the Quran promotes pedophillia. I have more proof if all you apologists want it? Instead of leaving a perverse degenerate religion you all want to try and change the historical narrative hoping that the English speaking world will fall for the dumb apologetics. The case is closed when you take into account what I just posted with the Hadith and Aishas own testimony, not to mention Muslim history where these practices are STILL being done today.

 

[ExposingTheConstruct]

History of childhood - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Age of consent - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

My advise is to stop appealing to Liberal-Progressivism. If you're a Christian and you do this, you only shoot yourself in the foot.

The people in this thread are arguing for Liberal-Progressivism and all it's assumptions, and then putting the mask of Christianity over it. These are not Christian arguments.

You utilize these very recent secular morals as a universal objective for viewing history, but then you realize that you are not engaging history but just your own contemporary fiction.

 

[ExposingTheConstruct]

As far as age of consent is concerned, it is remarkable how much it fits a typical satanic strategy of taking two synonyms and then placing them at odds with each other.

Religion and Spirituality
Puberty and age of consent
Sex and gender

There are plenty of examples of how they do this.

 

[Bubbajay]

History of childhood - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Age of consent - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

My advise is to stop appealing to Liberal-Progressivism. If you're a Christian and you do this, you only shoot yourself in the foot.

The people in this thread are arguing for Liberal-Progressivism and all it's assumptions, and then putting the mask of Christianity over it. These are not Christian arguments.

You utilize these very recent secular morals as a universal objective for viewing history, but then you realize that you are not engaging history but just your own contemporary fiction.

So pointing out pedophillia in Islam is appealing to Liberals only? It seems you're trying to muddy the waters by turning a moral point into a pseudo political point. Nice try though.

These people aren't arguing anything political, they're only trying to rewrite history for the purpose of trying to spread Islam in English speaking countries.

There has never been a society in which having sex with children has been considered normal. Even in ancient Greece and Rome these were things done in secret, and never out in the open. Men have never paraded around town with their six year old bride in any society besides Islam. The age of consent laws were obviously made by people who promoted these degenerate acts as a means to cover themselves and like minded people from the authorities, meanwhile the population always considered it disgusting. If it was such a common and accepted practice, why isn't it written about in novels as something that was accepted in the past? Why is it that every time its mentioned in past literature its always in a negative light? My last question is why are YOU trying to make it seem as though its a part of common history?

 

[ExposingTheConstruct]

So pointing out pedophillia in Islam is appealing to Liberals only?

Even the very free use of the word "pedophillia" is quite a liberal dogwhistle here and I think you know quite well that it is even clinically an incorrect use of the word. Shock value aside.

My last question is why are YOU trying to make it seem as though its a part of common history?

The more obvious answer here is that you are trying to isolate yourself within your modern liberal-progressive context to the point were history doesn't exist for you. You are bubble-wrapped from history. I think it is very apparent that you are disturbed by history and therefore will try to whitewash it to suit your argument.

Your argument still fails in every possible situation. You can only make moral-ethical arguments like this for contemporary situations were such legal and cultural views are held the way they are. If you truly believe your progressive view of history, then a "pedo" (in your words, not mine) in the ancient past was not immoral as their morality was 'less developed' then our 'modern, enlightened' morality.
On the other end, if this man was a Prophet who also brought a law (much like Moses) then you are arguing your own morals against God.

It is a lose/lose argument for you.

And in light of that, under your progressive assumptions, we could magically discover in the future that we made some philosophical and psychological mistakes in our contemporary global liberal moral assumptions about age of consent. If we are under scientific method then our mistakes can be rectified. It's certain that the construct of 'children' has definitely been a self-damning dilemma.

 

[TempestOfTempo]

Also I would like to point out a few other observations.

80% of miscarriages occur during the first trimester, this is from 0-13 weeks, basically the first 3 months into pregnancy.
This waiting period allows not only confirmation of pregnancy but also to allow for such unfortunate occurrence as it would be inconsiderate to divorce a woman who is grieving over a lost baby.

p***philia comes with abuse, you have hadith that mentions her age but there is none that states her being emotional/physical abused during her marriage. As we know often is the case in these situations, the victims usually suffers from miscarriages or having unwanted children. We also know that Aisha was childless at the time of her death.

Imo its pretty telling that neither the Desert nor Bubba factions will address the actual timeline. The video is pretty straightforward and the timeline is presented in a simple fashion. The Quranic verse translation sparkles tried to employ is straight off anti-Islamic websites and its very clear, hes not interested in confronting actual child abuse because if so, he would be examining the evidence proving how wrong the "Muslims" engaged in it are... their case is non-existent. But that doesnt provide fuel for his confrontation-quest so hes here beating another dead high-horse he rode in on.

 

[TempestOfTempo]

History of childhood - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Age of consent - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

My advise is to stop appealing to Liberal-Progressivism. If you're a Christian and you do this, you only shoot yourself in the foot.

The people in this thread are arguing for Liberal-Progressivism and all it's assumptions, and then putting the mask of Christianity over it. These are not Christian arguments.

You utilize these very recent secular morals as a universal objective for viewing history, but then you realize that you are not engaging history but just your own contemporary fiction.

What is your perspective regarding the actual timeline provided in the video?

 

[Bubbajay]

Even the very free use of the word "pedophillia" is quite a liberal dogwhistle here and I think you know quite well that it is even clinically an incorrect use of the word. Shock value aside.



The more obvious answer here is that you are trying to isolate yourself within your modern liberal-progressive context to the point were history doesn't exist for you. You are bubble-wrapped from history. I think it is very apparent that you are disturbed by history and therefore will try to whitewash it to suit your argument.

Your argument still fails in every possible situation. You can only make moral-ethical arguments like this for contemporary situations were such legal and cultural views are held the way they are. If you truly believe your progressive view of history, then a "pedo" (in your words, not mine) in the ancient past was not immoral as their morality was 'less developed' then our 'modern, enlightened' morality.
On the other end, if this man was a Prophet who also brought a law (much like Moses) then you are arguing your own morals against God.

It is a lose/lose argument for you.

And in light of that, under your progressive assumptions, we could magically discover in the future that we made some philosophical and psychological mistakes in our contemporary global liberal moral assumptions about age of consent. If we are under scientific method then our mistakes can be rectified. It's certain that the construct of 'children' has definitely been a self-damning dilemma.

The fact you're trying to shift the discussion about morality into a pseudo political issue tells me all I need to know about you.

You won't and can't address the facts that there's no literature in history outside of NAMBLA that claims sex with children is a part of everyday life, and until you can provide the evidence of your claims, the burden of proof is on you. I certainly won't take your word for it.

What it all proves is that Islam is a degenerate religion, and possibly the only religion in existence that claims sex with children is OK. You bring up Moses in a hypothetical instance, but its only semantics. Try sticking to the subject instead of bringing up hypothetical strawmen.

 

[ExposingTheConstruct]

The fact you're trying to shift the discussion about morality into a pseudo political issue tells me all I need to know about you.

It is directly a Political and Legislative topic. What kind of person would deny that law (marriage and consent in this case) has to do with politics?

and until you can provide the evidence of your claims, the burden of proof is on you.

Such as readily available books on the history of the concept of childhood and the history of the age of consent? which you will not read

You bring up Moses in a hypothetical instance, but its only semantics.

That wasn't hypothetical, that was literal. If you believe in God and the Laws/morals that God reveals, then you have no authority to argue with God. Understand?
If you don't believe in God (Atheist of the same Liberal-Progressive persuasion), then your arguments still fall under the refutations provided in my previous response.

 

[Bubbajay]

It is directly a Political and Legislative topic. What kind of person would deny that law (marriage and consent in this case) has to do with politics?



Such as readily available books on the history of the concept of childhood and the history of the age of consent? which you will not read



That wasn't hypothetical, that was literal. If you believe in God and the Laws/morals that God reveals, then you have no authority to argue with God. Understand?
If you don't believe in God (Atheist of the same Liberal-Progressive persuasion), then your arguments still fall under the refutations provided in my previous response.

So you're claiming Islamic countries had political laws allowing sex with children, care to offer any proof? Or were political and religious laws one and the same? I'm sure the latter is the issue.

Please show me examples of these "readily available books".

Yes you can argue, when a " god" is claiming its alright to have sex with children, understand? The fact is people know that having sex with children is wrong, and have to be taught that it OK for it to be acceptable. And this is what Islam does, which is my whole point. You've pretty much admitted what I already knew. Now tell this to the others who deny it, and are trying to rewrite history.

Our only differences are you think its fine to have sex with children because your religion says its fine. Mine is any and all allusions to the subject of it being fine is perverted, degenerate, and wicked as it gets in life.

The fact is when faced with proof every Muslim concedes in the end that Islam teaches pedo, but they ALWAYS resort to your same exact argument. It never fails. This is the case% of the time. "Oh it was ok because that was the customs back then" which is 100% bogus. It had to be taught to the people for them to accept it. Again this is what Islam did.

 

[ExposingTheConstruct]

Please show me examples of these "readily available books".

• Brewer, Holly. By Birth or Consent: Children, Law, & the Anglo-American Revolution in Authority; Univ. of North Carolina Press (Chapel Hill, 2005) ISBN 978-0-8078-5832-5
• Robertson, Stephen (University of Sydney). "Age of Consent Laws." In: Children & Youth in History, Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media (CHNM) at George Mason University and the University of Missouri–Kansas City.—Includes links to primary sources.
• Waites, Matthew (2005). The Age of Consent: Young People, Sexuality and Citizenship, (New York [United States] and Houndmills, Basingstoke [United Kingdom]: Palgrave Macmillan) ISBN 1-4039-2173-3
• Schaffner, Laurie (2002). "An Age of Reason: Paradoxes in Legal Constructions of Adulthood". International Journal of Children's Rights. 10 (3): 201–232. doi:10.1163/157181802761586699.
• https://www.amazon.com/Birth-Consent-Anglo-American-Revolution-University/dp/0807858323

Here is within the span of merely 2 centuries: https://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/case-studies/230&?section=primarysources&source=24

22. Raising the Age of Sexual Consent: Renewing Legal Moralism?

In contrast to the 1992 sexual assault reforms analyzed by Elizabeth A Sheehy earlier in this section, the law reform discussed in this chapter was neither initiated nor shaped by feminist intervention. Instead, Julie Desrosiers argues that the 2008 reform that raised the age of consent is based...

books.openedition.org

Age of Consent

(2005). Age of Consent. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality: Vol. 16, No. 2-3, pp. 25-42.

www.tandfonline.com

[EBOOK] Report On The Age Of Consent In Relation To Sexual Offences PDF Download Read Online

- Report On The Age Of Consent In Relation To Sexual Offences...

dbajournal.com

What Raising the Age of Sexual Consent Taught Women About the Vote

Before many women could vote in the United States, they lobbied male legislators to change statutory r*pe laws and gained political skills in the process

www.smithsonianmag.com

Age of Consent - Definition, Examples, Cases

Age of consent defined and explained with examples. The legal age at which a person is legally competent to consent to engage in sexual activities.

legaldictionary.net

Age of Consent in the U.S. | History & Laws - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com

Understand the age of consent in the United States. Learn the legal definition of consent along with the age of consent history. See how it has...

study.com

The fact is when faced with proof every Muslim concedes in the end that Islam teaches pedo, but they ALWAYS resort to your same exact argument. It never fails. This is the case% of the time. "Oh it was ok because that was the customs back then" which is 100% bogus. It had to be taught to the people for them to accept it. Again this is what Islam did.

Your liberalism fails absolutely, that is what we learn at the end of this.
All you have is an appeal to your time and place and nothing beyond that. Your shock tactics have no effect. Your screaming "pedo pedo pedo" is more 'childish' than actual "Children" are.

 

[ExposingTheConstruct]

Also of note is that prepubescent sexual relations is not being argued for by anybody in this thread, which is just another instance of the kinds of strawmanning that Bubbajay engages in in his replies to users here. My argument is that biology is objective and that age of consent is, by nature, synonymous with puberty. My argument is nothing to do with religion, but Babbajay tries to insert that into his replies. Still I refuted his attempts at religious appeal by the epistemological fact that if God is God then God cannot be argued against, as the laws of God (in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, all unanimously) also appeal to the biological fact of puberty.

 

[Bubbajay]

I

Also of note is that prepubescent sexual relations is not being argued for by anybody in this thread, which is just another instance of the kinds of strawmanning that Bubbajay engages in in his replies to users here. My argument is that biology is objective and that age of consent is, by nature, synonymous with puberty. My argument is nothing to do with religion, but Babbajay tries to insert that into his replies. Still I refuted his attempts at religious appeal by the epistemological fact that if God is God then God cannot be argued against, as the laws of God (in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, all unanimously) also appeal to the biological fact of puberty.

I didn't know children went through puberty at 6, or even 9. Still waiting for an example of any books that promote it where you claim many exist.

The fact is you're a sick POS just like any other pedo. You'd fit right at home at NAMBLA, you're probably already a member.

 

[ExposingTheConstruct]

I

I didn't know children went through puberty at 6

That makes two of us.

or even 9.

9/10 is when girls start, 14/15 is when boys start. Stop saying "children" when even in the same liberal context that you're appealing to they are called 'adolescents' at this age, not 'children'.

The fact is you're a sick POS just like any other pedo. You'd fit right at home at NAMBLA, you're probably already a member.

As the liberal you are, the buzzwords and dogwhistles keep firing. It's all shock value for you, I highly doubt you even feel as strongly as you try to convey in your posts (and no wonder because you just ramble nonsense).

 

[Bubbajay]

That makes two of us.



9/10 is when girls start, 14/15 is when boys start. Stop saying "children" when even in the same liberal context that you're appealing to they are called 'adolescents' at this age, not 'children'.



As the liberal you are, the buzzwords and dogwhistles keep firing. It's all shock value for you, I highly doubt you even feel as strongly as you try to convey in your posts (and no wonder because you just ramble nonsense).

Try between 11 and 15, and thats current times when meat and produce are packed with antibiotics and growth chemicals. 1400 years ago it would be around 13.

The FEDs need to keep a watch on you.

 

[TempestOfTempo]

That makes two of us.



9/10 is when girls start, 14/15 is when boys start. Stop saying "children" when even in the same liberal context that you're appealing to they are called 'adolescents' at this age, not 'children'.



As the liberal you are, the buzzwords and dogwhistles keep firing. It's all shock value for you, I highly doubt you even feel as strongly as you try to convey in your posts (and no wonder because you just ramble nonsense).

Interacting with Bubba.... the Talmud-citing/Opperman-defending/theological warrior arguing in favor of faulty hadeeth applications which contribute to an epidemic of global child abuse... because he wants something to gripe about Muslims with.

He is also apparently an expert on the pubecent development of youth chronologically throughout the ages as he has discerned puberty occurs "between 11 and 15, and thats current times when meat and produce are packed with antibiotics and growth chemicals. 1400 years ago it would be around 13." Aint it interesting that 13 just hapopens to fall right in-between 11-15? Pure genius on display?