alek0

She was engaged to him when she was 6. They married and marriage was consumated when she was 9. Some Moslem apologetics claim that the marriage was consumated later, but there is no basis for such claims (other than their wish to paint islam in nicer colours).

David Gould

What is the basis for claiming that the marriage was consumated when she was 9?

alek0

See link provided in the first post.

'Aishah, may God be pleased with her, narrated that the Prophet was betrothed (zawaj) to her when she was six years old and he consummated (nikah) his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years. (Saheeh al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64)

David Gould

I still am unsure of the validity of criticising mohommed over this point.

1.) Either Allah exists and this marriage was ordained and blessed by him or
2.) Allah does not exist and this was simply the cultural norm of the day.

In the first case, there is no basis for criticism, as the girl does not seem to have been harmed by sex at a young age from the reports we have. Thus, Allah's bleesing did truly fall on her.

In the second case, the atheist shares a different worldview than the moslem and thus it becomes impossible for such criticism to be valid to the moslem - remember, they believe that Allah exists.

As the idea of age of consent is clearly a cultural one, atheist criticism can only (mo) be based on two things: 1.) was harm done to the child
2.) was it against the cultural norms of the day

If either of the above is true then the act was wrong.

As it cannot be demonstrated that harm was caused (and we must go by the original source, which suggests that not only did no harm result but great happiness, honour, wisdom and love), this cannot be determined as being wrong on that count.

And it certainly fell within cultural norms, as the age of the child is not even commented on in the accounts of the wedding and so on.


The basis that we reject sex with children is that it is clear that they are in general not capable of making decisions of that nature and that they are often mentally or physically damaged by such. (or at least that is how I see it).

My personal opinion is that any age we set in law is simply an arbitrary generalisation (which is the best we can do with limited legal faciliteis and the commendable desire to be over rather than underprotective).

I know of a couple who had sex when one was underage. They have been married for 30 odd years. It would be difficult to argue that harm had been done in this specific case. (the age difference is 12 years).

alek0

Cultural norm is no excuse for disgusting behavior, IMO. And 50+ year old having sex with 9 year old is disgusting.

If cultural norm is valid excuse, do you think there is nothing wrong with FGM? Or what about demanding death for apostates in Islam? That's OK, too, I guess, Allah commands it and it is cultural norm.

David Gould

Ummm, if you read my post you would see that I put two criteria down for determing the wrongness of an act - the breaking of a cultural norm and the committing of harm.

Just because you personally think something is 'disgusting' does not make it wrong.

A lot of homophobic people use that as an argument against homosexual behaviour.

I personally am a little disgusted by the thought of homosexual sex happening to me but so what?

If it does not harm someone then it cannot be wrong.

Just to be clear, I am not defending pedophillia. I am simply trying to point out that criticising Islam and mohommed on this point is a non-starter.

If Allah exists, then it was a blessed marriage - that is the starting point for the moslem.

Captain Pedantic

Whether wrong or right, as has been stated before, marriages to children have been going on in most cultures since the dawn of marriage. For most of time, and still in most cultures, marriage is not primarily to do with love or even sex - it is to do with marrying someone from a good family, and to do with making a good marriage. This is especially true of "big name" families, nobles and such, who want any man to marry a wife who is pure, and to cement alliegences between tribes/cities/countries. Young girls may be given over if it's all the family have to marry the man, or if there is a particular insistence on the wife being "pure".

I'm not passing any moral judgement here, because I don't believe I have the information to do so. I'm just pointing out that this isn't so much a religion thing, as something that was very widespread in many cultures amongst nobles.

lpetrich

There are some Hadiths that state that Mohammed had married Aisha when she was 6 and consummated it when she was 9.

The Hadiths are supposed sayings of or about Mohammed; many of them appear to be bogus, such as those that take sides in the Sunni-Shiite split -- one can find some on each side of it.

So it may have been that Mohammed's pedophilia was a figment of the imagination of some later Muslim, perhaps one who wanted to justify a similar marriage.

Hastur

Hmm, let's see.
Mohammed was 50+ and 'consummated' a marriage with a 9-yr-old and no 'harm' was done to her.

From this I conclude that Mohammed was hung like a dachsund.

hinduwoman

Muslims never felt the need to defend this marriage before.
My point is, whatever was the accepted norm in past, is not accepted now. But in Iran the marriage age is actually nine, following Mohaummad.

Besides, if we take relativity of cultural norms all the way, no society would progress. Americans would still be killing REd Indians and keeping slaves.