All Comments (115)

PS: Abu Bakr didn't burn any hadiths - you are confused about the early Islamic history in this regard.

Victoria
It is true that the hadeeths are classified into categories of authenticity. But the most authentic are the saheeh hadeeths which the "Aisha was nine" belong to. In fact, they are regarded as the 'most saheeh' being "mutawatir". This means that they were narrated by so many sources corroborating each other that there is little or no doubt to Sunni theologians as to their authenticity.

Did you know that the "Aisha was nine" hadeeths include at least 17 different chains of narrations, of which 15 are considered saheeh, and 7 of these were collected by Bukhari and Muslim?

This makes the "Aisha was nine" hadeeths among the most saheeh of hadeeths.

Regarding 65:4 you are wrong - there are three classes of 'females' referred to:

1. Post-menopausal women,
2. Pre-pubertal females,
3. Pregnant women.

Hilali & Khan: And those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the 'Iddah (prescribed period), if you have doubts (about their periods), is three months,

AND FOR THOSE WHO HAVE NO COURSES

their 'Iddah (prescribed period) is three months likewise, except in case of death] . And for those who are pregnant (whether they are divorced or their husbands are dead), their 'Iddah (prescribed period) is until they deliver (their burdens), and whosoever fears Allâh and keeps his duty to Him, He will make his matter easy for him.

Here is the tafsir of Ibn Kathir explaining this verse:

The `Iddah of Those in Menopause and Those Who do not have Menses

Allah the Exalted clarifies the waiting period of the woman in menopause. And that is the one whose menstruation has stopped due to her older age. Her `Iddah is three months instead of the three monthly cycles for those who menstruate, which is based upon the Ayah in (Surat) Al-Baqarah. [see 2:228]

THE SAME FOR THE YOUNG, WHO HAVE NOT REACHED THE YEARS OF MENSTRUATION. Their `Iddah is three months like those in menopause.

This is from Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs:
(And for such of your women as despair of menstruation) because of old age, (if ye doubt) about their waiting period, (their period (of waiting) shall be three months) upon which another man asked: “O Messenger of Allah! What about the waiting period of those who do not have menstruation because they are too young?” (along with those who have it not) because of young age, their waiting period is three months.

Tafsir al-Jalalayn:
And [as for] those of your women who (read allā'ī or allā'i in both instances) no longer expect to menstruate, if you have any doubts, about their waiting period, their prescribed [waiting] period shall be three months, and [also for] those who have not yet menstruated, because of their young age, their period shall [also] be three months.

This is from Saheeh Bukhari:

Sahih Bukari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 63:
Narrated Sahl bin Sad: While we were sitting in the company of the Prophet a woman came to him and presented herself (for marriage) to him. The Prophet looked at her, lowering his eyes and raising them, but did not give a reply. One of his companions said, "Marry her to me O Allah's Apostle!" The Prophet asked (him), "Have you got anything?" He said, "I have got nothing." The Prophet said, "Not even an iron ring?" He Sad, "Not even an iron ring, but I will tear my garment into two halves and give her one half and keep the other half." The Prophet; said, "No. Do you know some of the Quran (by heart)?" He said, "Yes." The Prophet said, "Go, I have agreed to marry her to you with what you know of the Qur'an (as her Mahr)." 'And for those who have no courses (i.e. they are still immature). (65.4)

AND THE IDDAT FOR THE GIRL BEFORE PUBERTY IS THREE MONTHS IN THE ABOVE VERSE.

Game, set and match,
Qasim

you cant be serious. hadeeth fall into different categories of authenticity.

what a ridiculous statement you make.
the qur'an says no such thing.
as a matter of fact, that ayat deals with menstrual courses and divorce. (pre pubescent girls dont menstruate)

even sahih hadeeth is still predicated on the fallible memories of men.

really your eagerness to defame islam clouds your rendered opinions.

you cant just invent things, as youve done with the qur'an.

the story of abu bakr burning the 10,000 hadeeth is a well known one.

in the last sermon of the Prophet(pbuh) he told the people to follow the qur'an and sunnah.

to follow hadeeth is a social thing and if they contradict what we know of the behavior, or contradict the qur'an, they can certainly be questioned.

Which hadeeth says Aisha was an 'unmarried woman' before she married Muhammad? Please show. I'm not aware of them and I doubt they exist.

How can you say the saheeh hadeeth have questionable validity? Do you know what the term 'saheeh' means?

I'm not sure you're correct that Abu Bakr burned over 10,000 hadeeths - I think you're wrong on this.

The fact that there were many 'suspect' hadeeths does not mean the saheeh hadeeths are suspect. In fact, they have supposedly gone through rigorous Islamic checks to eliminate that possibility - that is why they are regarded as 'saheeh'.

I think you have confused the saheeh hadeeths with the non-saheeh hadeeths.

None of these saheeh hadeeths I mentioned above are deemed to be unreliable. The fact that they were included by both Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim is regarded by most Sunnis Muslims as evidence they are the 'most saheeh'.

The fact is that nothing in the saheeh hadeeths about Muhammad marrying a pre-pubertal little child is against the Quran as 65:4 says a Muslim can divorce a child before puberty.

If a Muslim can divorce a child before puberty he must have married her when she was before puberty. Stands to reason, no?

qasim- did you know that abu bakr burned over 10,000 hadeeth? because he wanted to be very scrupulous to not let questionable ones get through.

if a hadeeth contains information that is clearly out of character with the Prophets(pbuh) behavior, or is out of sync with the quran-(and there are some) it only makes sense that we must question their authenticity.

we follow the quran and sunnah as instructed by the prophet(pbuh)

you have to look at the transmission chain.

i think you probably know this- your name is an arabic one- were you raised as a muslim?
if you were, what could you possibly gain by pretending that hadeeth are the final or authoritative word?

we dont "know" the thngs youre claiming.

if you think these are solid facts and not subject to dispute- youre welcome to your opinion, but it is still opinion.

we also "know" that she was referred to a an unmarried woman before she married the prophet(pbuh) not a little girl.

we actually do know however, that many of the hadeeth cited came through persia at the time, which was virulently against aisha.

when a source has questionable validity, and further indicates it questionable intentions when it defames someone like aisha, then we have to use our brains and judgment.

Victoria,
You should know that the Abysinnian/Ethiopians playing in Muhammad's mosque incident took place after Muhammad married her - i.e. after Aisha was nine years old and she went to live with him at his house/mosque.

We know this from other sahih hadeeths. In this particular hadith, she said she was a 'little girl' which the translator clarified as being before the age of puberty. Don't accuse the translator of sneakiness as another translation would be 'young girl' - which in Islam means she was before the age of puberty.

Did you know that there are sahih hadeeths in which Aisha herself said she was an 'immature' young girl at the time of the raid of the Banu Mustaliq and during the incident when she got lost and was accused of adultery by Ali? This episode took place when she was 13 or 14 years old. If she was an immature little girl when she was 13 or 14, she was immature when she was 9.

see:
Bukhari Volume 3, Book 48, Number 829
Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 462
Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 274
Sahih Muslim Book 037, Number 6673

Buraira said, 'No, by Allah Who has sent you with the Truth, I have never seen in her anything faulty except that she is a girl of immature age, who sometimes sleeps and leaves the dough for the goats to eat.'

not all scholars agree ross-

if youre looking for extremists (and khomeini is one) then thats what youll find.
but theyre not the majority.

it doesnt matter if i think theyre idiots with agendas-

there are many many worthy scholars who disagree with their narrow 'take'.

Victoria,

Two months ago Channel 4 in the uk aired a program about the stuff preached in the mosques here (uk). Many of the sermons given featured famous imams from all over the world and nearly all of them were trained in saudi. All of them agreed that muslim men must be allowed to marry 4 women provided they are atleast 9 years old. The base this on the fact that Mo consummated his marriage with Aisha when she was 9 years old. Infact they were proud of the fact that Allah gave Muhammed this priviledge.

I will try to find if there is a copy of this program on youtube.

Why do most islamic states allow men to marry girls as old as 9 ?
Do you consider yourself more knowlegable than people like Ayatollah Khomeini and other scholars of islam ?

the interesting thing to note is the unscientific way which peope present these hadeeths-

perhaps in their eagerness to find evidence to support their own prejudices the anonymous poster above as we dont know at what point in the life of aisha these things occurred.
was she recounting an incident where Muhammad(pbuh) visited her home? her father was a close friend of the prophet(pbuh)

the first hadeeth was teling little girls they could play with dolls, as some extreme interpreters took it to mean when it was revealed that there should be no images made,to keep the danger of worshiping them away- that dolls were fine gor girls.

the second one is what it is.
there is no mention at all of aisha being a girl- this comment was sneakily added at the end by the posterto make people think it was part of the hadith by the

the third has no bearing on age either, it is simply recounting what every muslim knows, to bather after the sexual act.

you cant just add things at the end to change its meaning- and expect to be credible.

Yes, I too would very much welcome reading the hadith in which Aisha said she had reached puberty at the age of nine. Of course, Karen Armstrong's unreferenced citation of Tabari doesn't count as Karen Armstrong is not a hadeeth narrator. If she wants to cite Tabari, the least she can do is to provide the page reference so someone like me can check.

To Anonymous

You said: "Even though we have established that puberty has been the historical, cultural and religious norm for indicating readiness for marriage, some may wonder at which age puberty normally takes place. This is somewhat meaningless in regards to our specific discussion of Muhammad(P) and cAishah, since the hadith literature makes it clear that she had reached puberty"

Well let's look at the hadith literature and see if you're telling the truth:

Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151:
Narrated 'Aisha: ‘I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me.’

Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Volume 13:
The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 163:
Narrated 'Aisha: ‘The Prophet was screening me with his Rida' (garment covering the upper part of the body) while I was looking at the Ethiopians who were playing in the courtyard of the mosque. (I continued watching) till I was satisfied. So you may deduce from this event how a little girl, who has not reached the age of puberty, who is eager to enjoy amusement should be treated in this respect.’

Sahih Muslim Book 003, Number 0630:
'Aisha reported: ‘I and the Messenger of Allah took a bath from one vessel which was placed between me and him and he would get ahead of me, so that I would say: "Spare (some water for) me, spare (some water for) me"; and she said that they had had sexual intercourse.’

Well the EVIDENCE would strongly suggest that you are not telling the truth.

Please quote the hadith which state that Aisha had reached pubity as you claim, because I've never seen any such hadith. I, and many others, think you're attempting to rewrite history the way you'd like it to be, rather than how it actually is.

Important Note about Aisha:

Muslims use a lunar calendar and this lunar calendar was in operation at the time of Muhammad. Lunar years are shorter than those of the Gregorian calendar (which is used in the West today), therefore Aisha was in fact still 8 years of age by today's calendar when she had her 9th birthday. It is therefore quite probable that little preteen Aisha was just 8 years old when she was sexually penetrated by Muhammad for the first time.

The truth just is what it is. It has no opinion of its own.

Yes, we do tend to discuss Muhammad's picadilloes quite a bit no matter what how the discussion starts. This is because the Muslims have left some salient questions unanswered.

To the question: "how do Muslim women feel that their prophet had sex with a nine year old child?" there has been no answer. This question has been asked several times in this blog but no answer by any Muslim women nor their sympathizers has been forthcoming.

That is why this sort of question gets asked again and again. Perhaps the question is too difficult for Muslim women to comprehend. Perhaps the answer is too embarrassing for them.

Instead we get the ridiculous 'Aisha was not nine but a teenager' replies which have been debunked so many times already.

But having said that, I have tried to steer the discussion back to the topic at hand. Notice my bringing up the Quran's view of Jesus being born under a palm tree on the way to Egypt instead of in Bethlehem according to the prophesy in Micah 5:2?

Is any Muslim interested in discussing this issue of the Muslim version of the Nativity? No. Total silence.

No wonder the discussion goes off tangent if Muslims are unable or unwilling to even discuss the topic at hand.

As always,
Qasim

TO ALL MUSLIMS,

Please consider the following, assuming that it doesn't refer to Islam:

Imagine that a man moves in next door to you. He begins setting up a new cult. He claims that the creator of the universe speaks to him. He says that anyone who doesn't believe him will spend eternity in hell when they die. He preaches that anyone who leaves his cult must be murdered by the remaining cult members, and this starts to happen. He preaches that anyone who speaks out against him must be assassinated by his cult members, and this starts to happen. His followers become too afraid to ever question their faith publicly and so it becomes a taboo to doubt the faith or to question his teachings.

He preaches that his followers will not go to hell when they die, no matter what crimes they commit, because a non-believer will be made to pay for their sins.

Unlike most men, he finds little 9 year old girls sexually attractive and is able to get an erection with a 9 year old child in order to consummate his 'marriage' to that child (most men are incapable of this, as noted above). He encourages his male followers to emulate him. He teaches his followers to rape female captives of war in order to shame and humiliate the unbelievers. He has women stoned to death for simply having sex outside of marriage. He manipulates his followers into attacking local towns and villages by teaching that they are oppressed and need to be 'freed' by his cult. He teaches that his cult is oppressed and must attack in order to defend. He teaches that his followers can share in the booty of war. He keeps slaves, trades in slaves and allows his followers to enslave unbelieving women and girls. He teaches that the body of a slave girl belongs to the slave owner. He teaches that slave owners may have sex with female slaves without their consent.

The question for all Muslims is this: Would you support such a man, join his cult and help it grow? Would you consider it right to kill people who left his cult? Would you consider it right to engage little 9 year old girls in sexual relationships? Would you not see through his cult psychology and manipulation skills? Would you believe that god spoke to him or would you recognise him as a psychological manipulator? Would you be taken in by such a conman?

What is your answer?

To Anonymous,

Concerning Muhammad's sexual relationship with a child, and your long article which seeks to justify and excuse it, let me ask you one simple question:

How many men do you know who are capable of getting an erection with a 9 year old child? Are you not aware that the vast majority of men simply cannot get an errection with a 9 year old child because they feel no sexual attraction whatsoever to children.

There is only one type of man who is capable of getting an erection with a nine year old child, and that is a paedophile.

Do children give you erections? Are you a paedophile, like Muhammad? Only that could possibly explain your lengthly justifications for paedophilia.

JANET,

You wrote: “why shouldn't Muhammad’s sexual behaviour be part of the discussion? You imply that commenters who bring up Muhammad’s sex life, are the ones with the problem. It is like implying that those people who reported on the sexual abuse in the Catholic Church are the ones with the problem. Considering that Muhammad is looked at as a role model by Muslims, his sexual behaviour is up for discussion, along with all his other behaviour, such as cutting off of hands and feet and beheadings.” (Post 11 April 2007 8:35 PM):

SAALEHA wrote, “The issue of the age at which the Prophet Muhammed took Aisha as his wife seems to recur in just about every discussion, whether it is related or not. It seems to be one of the constant weapons in the Islam Bashers' arsenal…Perhaps we need to stick to the issues at hand and accept that the purpose of this forum is not for it to degenerate into a Muslim Bashing fest, but rather to foster religious tolerance and understanding.” (Post 8 April 2007 5:55 PM)

PLEASE REF POSTS, APRIL 9, 2007 4:40 AM, APRIL 9, 2007 12:13 PM, APRIL 10, 2007 9:17 AM

You wrote, “BTW, this business of Aisha's age. Sistani, the leader of the Shia in Iraq, talks openly on his website about girls even UNDER 9 years old being of marriageable age. Where does he get this "nine years old". I am guessing from the stories about Muhammed. If the revered leader of the Muslim Shia in Iraq thinks Aisha's age was 9 years old when her marriage was consummated, why should any Westerner listen to all the weasling out of this fact by Pamela and Victoria? Even for them, 9 years old, is something they have trouble with, so in order to not have too much cognitive dissonance, they move the goal post, and try to prove that Aisha was much older. Even though some commenters have posted passage after passage from authentic Muslim hadiths that clearly state that she was 9 years old.”

And this is what I wrote to which you responded:

“The title of this thread is, 'A Different View of Jesus.' Could anyone please explain why the discussion ends up thread after thread with the graphic descriptions of Mohammed's sex life, no matter what the discussion is about? What exactly is the repeated "tittilation of the mind," in every thread meant to achieve? Isn't pointing out and discussing the moral issue for non-Muslims about the marriage of Mohammed to several women, including a child, once, quite enough? Muslims have made it clear that they are aware of Mohammed's marriages and have no problem with it. So what exactly is the purpose of asking the same Muslim/Muslims the same questions over and over again in every thread?”

This thread is about Ms Taylor’s view of Jesus Christ according to Islam and NOT about Islam or Mohammed.

I did not imply that it was wrong to bring up Mohammed’s sex life. It has been brought up more than once before on these threads (which you may verify) and Muslims have given their answer. Considering Islam is sixteen centuries old, it is hardly likely that Muslims would not have an explanation for it and all those explanations have been given on these threads. Insanity has been described as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome when there is absolutely no reason to expect a different outcome. So in my opinion asking the same Muslims (there no more than a couple of regulars on these threads) the same questions during every discussion, even if it may be unrelated to the topic, (and you will agree this is one of them, since the discussion is about the Muslim view of Jesus) requires reflection. To compare it to reporting sexual abuse – a sexual crime that needs to be punished - in the Catholic Church is disingenuous.

I did not dispute the age of Mohammed’s child bride as per the sources provided by knowledgeable people on this thread nor that it was not a fact that should pose a moral issue for non-Muslims. Personally though, in terms of following a religion, the issue would concern me only if I were a Muslim. The social implication stemming from Mohammed’s behaviour, i.e. the marriage of a child to a man old enough to be her grandfather, if practised in countries which follow the Muslim law, is a different matter that can be addressed only in different context.

I know you didn't write the article, Victoria. I didn't say you did. That is why I said it was your 'case'. Here is a summary of the 'discussion' so far.

Critic: Ayesha was nine years old. Here are saheeh hadeeth that proves this.

Victoria: No. Ayesha was a teenager. Here is an article that proves this.

Critic: Hang on. Your article is incorrect. Here is a refutation of your article, proving it is totally wrong.

Victoria: Ayesha was a teenager.

Critic: Hang on - didn't I just prove Ayesha was not a teenager but a nine year old kid?

Victoria: I don't care. Ayesha was a teenager.

Critic: Why do you say that? Haven't you read my refutation of your article?

Victoria: Nah. Nah. Nah. I'm not listening anymore. Ayesha was a teenager. Ayesha was a teenager. Ayesha was a teenager....

rajesh- take it up with the scholars who wrote the article.
as for me- ill be happy to discuss anything with good manners.
but it would me masochistic to argue with bashers.

if you actually read my post, you would have realized that i didnt write it-
as i provided at the outset the source-

o well-
see you all in the funny papers

It's just my observation of the posts here. I read your post, Victoria, then I read other posts which debunks it. You provide no counter-refutation so it appears that your case has been debunked. That is the usual way with discussions. Each side makes its case and then defends it with counter-arguments. When I read from other sources how your case is contradictory, plain wrong, or misleading, and you don't answer the evidence proving so, then what can I say?

When I read your case, it was already apparent that the arguments are weak, from my knowledge of Islam. I don't need anyone to tell me they are weak when I see that each of your arguments comes up with a different age for Ayesha. This, to me, cannot be true. I wish you would bother re-examining your arguments and see what age they come up with for Ayesha. I don't know about you - but when you put up contradictory arguments you have debunked yourself. Please think about this for a moment.

Rajesh,
Ashok Nagar,
New Delhi

these queries into the age of aisha have been dealt with at length, and usually show up at the end of posts when the usual crew of bashers show up-

to have the same argument repeatedly would be dull witted indeed- so the intention of the question has to be taken into account-

since the posters here are antipathetic to islam-
and when reasonable discussion has exhausted itself- it detenerates into personal attacks, which bear little on the discussion.

for instance, rajesh states that the article has been debunked.without providing evidence.

precluding a rational discussion.
when conclusions are drawn before points are made, there is no recourse but to withdraw from pointless discussion.

sadly, this is the state of fearmongering and the level that many of the muslim panelists posts come to.

there will be another question, and those with genuine queries.

good response on this fiery topic here. Shows that critical research can really untangle the mess:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Polemics/aishah.html

The marriage of the Prophet Muhammad(P) to cAishah bint Abû Bakr when she was at quite a young age has been the focus of quite a bit of criticism in the West. Unfortunately, in this Neo-Colonialist Age of Smart bombs, MTV and the Big Mac, some of those who profess to be Muslims have themselves become critics. Many Muslims, faced with the juggernaut of allegedly "universal" Western liberal values that have permeated almost everyone around them, sheepishly avoid discussion of such "embarrassing" Islamic issues. It is a keenly true observation that even though the European powers have pulled their colonial armies out of Muslim lands and granted them "independence", an even worse plague continues. This curse is "Colonialism of the Mind" and it is more dangerous since it is much more subtle. Insha'Allah, this article will be a contribution to making both Muslims and non-Muslims aware of not only the objective facts regarding the Prophet's(P) marriage to cAishah, but how to understand it in light of Islam and life in the "modern" world.

Regrettably, for those of us trying to spread the truth of Islam in the West, we often have to agree with the Orientalist W. Montgomery Watt when he wrote:

Of all the world's great men none has been so much maligned as Muhammad.1

But here, for a change, were are dealing with something that is an authentic part of Islamic history, not an apocryphal or fabricated event that Westerners have been duped into believing is authentic, such as the so-called "Satanic Verses" incident. That a man in his fifties would marry such a young girl - especially a man who is supposed to be a living example of piety - is not only difficult for many "modern" Westerners to come to terms with, but it has even gone so far as to stir up disgusting "sexual misconduct" charges amongst them. In the face of such criticism, Muslims have not always reacted well. In the past century, when so many Muslims were so "Westoxicated" and ready to monkey Europeans in almost anything, the usual reaction was to deny the sources that reported the alleged "embarrassing problem". To Muslim "modernists", who argued that only a legal ruling found in the Qur'ân was Islamically valid, brushing aside this aspect of the Prophet's(P) life was rather easy. They simply denied that it had occurred and attacked the sources which reported it. Fortunately for Muslims, the apologetics of these "Uncle Toms of Islam" has faded to the periphery to a large extent. However, there are still many Muslims out there who try to get around what they see as a problem by ignoring authentic Islamic sources while claiming to be followers of the Ahl as-Sunnah. (which basically means "orthodox Sunni" Muslims, for those unfamiliar Islamic terminology). Many other Muslims possibly wonder whether the story is authentic and how to understand it if it is.

The Islamic Evidence Of cAishah's Marriage

Due to the apparent ignorance of many Muslims, possibly due to reading "modernist" apologetic literature like that mentioned above, a look at what the authentic sources of Islam say about the age at which cAishah married the Prophet(P) is in order. This way, before we move on to an analysis of the facts, we will first establish what the authentic Islamic facts are. At this point, it should be mentioned that it is absolutely pointless from an Islamic standpoint to say that the age of cAishah is "not found in the Qur'ân", since the textual sources of Islam are made up of both the Qur'ân and the Sunnah - and the Qur'ân tells us that. For those wanting (or needing) to learn more about the status of the Sunnah in Islam, please read An Introduction to the Sunnah, by Suhaib Hasan. Now in regards to what the authentic Islamic sources actually say, it may come as a disappointment to some "modern" and "cultured" Muslims that there are four ahâdîth in Sahîh al-Bukhârî and three ahâdîth in Sahîh Muslim clearly state that cAishah was "nine years old" as the time that her marriage was consummated with the Prophet(P). These ahâdîth, with only slight variation, read as follows:

cAishah, may God be pleased with her, narrated that the Prophet(P) 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. (Sahîh al-Bukhârî, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64)

Of the four ahâdîth in Sahîh al-Bukhari, two were narrated from cAishah (7:64 and 7:65), one from Abû Hishâm (5:236) and one via 'Ursa (7:88). All three of the ahâdîth in Sahîh Muslim have cAishah as a narrator. Additionally, all of the ahâdîth in both books agree that the marriage betrothal contract took place when cAishah was "six years old", but was not consummated until she was "nine years old". Additionally, a hadîth with the same text (matn) is reported in Sunan Abû Dâwûd. Needless to say, this evidence is - Islamically speaking - overwhelmingly strong and Muslims who deny it do so only by sacrificing their intellectual honesty, pure faith or both.

This evidence having been established, there doesn't seem much room for debate about cAishah's age amongst believing Muslims. Until someone proves that in the Arabic language "nine years old" means something other than "nine years old", then we should all be firm in our belief that she was "nine years old" (as if there's a reason or need to believe otherwise!?!). In spite of these facts, there are still some Muslim authors that have somehow (?) managed to push cAishah's age out to as far as "fourteen or fifteen years old" at the time of her marriage to the Prophet(P). It should come as no surprise, however, that none of them ever offer any proof, evidence or references for their opinions. This can be said with the utmost confidence, since certainly none of them can produce sources more authentic than the hadîth collections of Imâms al-Bukhârî and Muslim! Based on the research that I've done, I feel that there is a common source for those who claim that cAishah's age was "fourteen or fifteen years old" at the time of the marriage. This source is The Biographies of Prominent Muslims which is published in book form, on CD-ROM and is posted in several places on the Internet. Just another example of why going to the sources is important . . .

The Prophet's(P) Marriages In Perspective

To put all of this in perspective - hopefully without undue apologetics - the first thing that one should be aware of is that cAishah was the third wife of the Prophet(P), not the first. Prior to this, the Prophet's(P) first and only wife for twenty-four years was Khadijah bint al-Khuwaylid, who was about nineteen years older than him. He married Khadijah when she was forty and he was twenty-one - which might be called the years of a male's "sexual prime" - and stayed married only to her until her death. Just after Khadijah's death, when he was round forty-six years old, the Prophet(P) married his second wife Sawdah bint Zam'ah. It was after this second marriage that the Prophet(P) became betrothed to cAishah, may God be pleased with her. She was the daughter of Abû Bakr, one of the Prophet's closest friends and devoted followers. Abû Bakr, may God be pleased with him, was one of the earliest converts to Islam and hoped to solidify the deep love that existed between himself and the Prophet(P) by uniting their families in marriage. The betrothal of Abu Bakr's daughter cAishah to Muhammad(P), took place in the eleventh year of Muhammad's(P) Prophethood, which was about a year after he had married Sawdah bint Zam'ah and before he made his hijra (migration) to al-Madinah (Yathrib). As mentioned above, the marriage with cAishah bint Abû Bakr was consummated in Shawwâl, which came seven months after the Prophet's hijra from Makkah to al-Medinah. At the time of his marriage to cAishah, the Prophet(P) was over fifty years old.

It should be noted about the Prophet's(P) marriage to cAishah was an exceedingly happy one for both parties, as the hadîth literature attests. cAishah, may God be please with her, was his favourite wife and the only virgin that he ever married. After emigrating to al-Madinah, Muhammad(P) married numerous other wives, eventually totaling fifteen in his lifetime. Even though we do not have time to go into the details of each one of them here, each of these marriages was done either for political reasons, to strengthen the ties of kinship or to help a woman in need. Quite a few of the wives were widows, older women or had been abandoned thus were in need of a home. Additionally, it should be mentioned that the same collection of Muslim hadîth literature that tells us that cAishah was only nine years old at the time of the marriage tells us that the marriage was Divinely ordained:

Narrated cAishah, may God be pleased with her: The Messenger of God(P) said (to me): "You have been shown to me twice in (my) dreams. A man was carrying you in a silken cloth and said to me, 'This is your wife.' I uncovered it; and behold, it was you. I said to myself, 'If this dream is from God, He will cause it to come true.'" (Sahîh al-Bukhârî, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 15)

Thus like everything that the Prophet(P) did, there was wisdom behind it and lessons to be learned from it. The wisdom behind such incidents provides us guidance on the basis of human morality, exposes the double standards of misguided hypocrites from other religions that criticize Islam and much more. But more on that subject below. . .

Criticism Addressed & Entertained

Myself and many other Muslims should no longer be surprised by the double standard that Christians display when they criticize the conduct of Prophet Muhammad(P) , since we've heard it for so long. To have an atheist, agnostic - or anyone else who does not believe in a Divinely revealed basis for morality - criticize something that is "politically incorrect" by today's moral standards comes as no surprise. Such people will always find something to criticize, since they simply have a bone to pick with "religion" in general. All of this "absolute morality" talk gets in the way of them having a good time, so they want to mock it, discredit it and do away with it. The criticism of Christians, however, is another matter. While it is true that Christians speak out against the "moral relativity" which is spreading amongst the increasingly secular society today, they too are unconscious victims of it. The values of most Christians today come from the humanist values of Western Europe (or, at a minimum, are heavily influenced by them). Their values do not come straight out of the Bible - in theory or in practice - regardless of what they may claim. That Christians today try to take credit for the so-called "Freedom", "Human Rights", "Democracy" and "Women's Rights" in Europe and America is nothing short of a joke. It may impress uneducated people in so-called Third World countries, but anyone who has studied history knows that these things came about in spite of the Church, not because of it. The way in which many Christians uncritically mix non-Christian values with (allegedly) Biblical values has always fascinated me. One interesting example of this is how nationalism and patriotism are supported amongst the majority of Evangelical Protestant (and even other) Christians in the United States. In America, good Christians are flag wavers. Few, if any, of these fiercely patriotic minds ever seem to realize that narrow-minded patriotism is both selfish and non-universal at its core. That patriotism and Christianity go hand-in-hand in the minds of many people is just an example of how we can be blindly sucked into "moral relativism" without even realizing it.

According to Judaism, Christianity and Islam, right and wrong are ordained by Almighty God. As such, morality does not change over time based on our whims, desires or cultural sensitivities. In cultures where there is no Divinely revealed ruling on an issue, what is right and what is wrong is determined by cultural norms. In such cases, a person would only be considered "immoral" if they violated the accepted norms of their society. As we will demonstrate, the Prophet Muhammad's(P) marriage to cAishah, viewed both in the light of Absolute Morality and the cultural norms of his time, was not an immoral act, but was an act containing valuable lessons for generations to come. Additionally, this marriage followed the norms for all Semitic peoples, including those of Biblical times. Based on this, and other information that we will provide below, it is grossly hypocritical for Christians to criticise the Prophet's(P) marriage to cAishah at such a young age. In case Christian readers are under the false impression that their values today are timeless and somehow reflect those of Biblical times, please consider the following points which are directly related to the question of at what age a person is properly ready to be married:

Keeping in mind the ideas of "political correctness" and "absolute morality", in Biblical times the age at which a girl could marry was puberty. However, during the Middle Ages it was usually twelve years old. Now in most "Christian" countries it is between fourteen and sixteen years old. I live in country where some states allow partners of the same sex to legally marry, but consider an eighteen year old boy who sleeps with a sixteen year old girl a "statutory rapist". So even though Christians might disagree with much of what is becoming all too prevalent in Western society today - whether it be drug abuse, gay marriages or abortion - they too have been swallowed up (possibly unknowingly) by the ugly monster of "moral relativism" Certainly, they might be giving in less quickly than people who have no Divine basis for their morality, but they're giving in nonetheless.

Historically, the age at which a girl was considered ready to be married has been puberty. This was the case in Biblical times, as we will discuss below, and is still used to determine the age of marriage in what the culturally arrogant West calls "primitive societies" throughout the world. As the ahâdîth about cAishah's age show, her betrothal took place at least three years before the consummation of the marriage. The reason for this was that they were waiting for her to come of age (i.e. to have her first menstrual period). Puberty as a biological sign shows that a women is capable of bearing children. Can anyone logically deny this? Part of the wisdom behind the Prophet's marriage to cAishah just after she reached puberty is to firmly establish this as a point of Islamic Law, even though it was already cultural norm in all Semitic societies (including the one Jesus(P) grew up in). The large majority of Islamic jurists say that the earliest time a marriage can be consummated is on the onset sexual maturity (bulugh), meaning puberty. Since this was the norm of all Semitic cultures and it still is the norm of many cultures today: it is certainly not something that Islam invented. However, widespread opposition to such a Divinely revealed and accepted historical norm is certainly something that is relatively new.

The criticism of Muhammad's marriage to cAishah is something relatively new in that it grew up out of the values of "Post Enlightenment" Europe. This was a Europe that had abandoned (or at least modified) its religious morality for a new set of humanist values where people used their own opinions to determine what was right and wrong. It is interesting to note that Christians from a very early time criticized (again hypocritically) the Prophet's(P) practice of polygamy, but not the marriage to cAishah. Certainly, those from a Middle Eastern Semitic background would not have found anything to criticize, since nothing abnormal or immoral took place. It is"modern" Westernized Christians who began to criticize Muhammad on this point, not earlier pre-Enlightenment ones.

It is upon reaching the age of puberty that a person, man or woman, becomes legally responsible under Islamic Law. At this point, they are allowed to make their own decisions and are held accountable for their actions. It should also be mentioned that in Islam, it is unlawful to force someone to marry someone that they do not want to marry. The evidence shows that cAishah's marriage to the Prophet Muhammad(P) was one which both parties and their families agreed upon. Based on the culture at that time, no one saw anything wrong with it. On the contrary, they were all happy about it.

None of the Muslim sources report that anyone from the society at that time criticized this marriage due to cAishah's young age. On the contrary, the marriage of cAishah to the Prophet(P) was encouraged by cAishah's father, Abu Bakr, and was welcomed by the community at large. It is reported that women who wanted to help the Prophet(P), such as Khawlah bint al-Hakîm, encouraged him to marry the young cAishah. Due to the Semitic culture in which they lived, they certainly saw nothing wrong with such a marriage.

Society's ideas of love, family and marriage are much different in the so-called "modern" and "civilized" West of today than they were in Biblical or Qur'ânic times. Unfortunately, many of us carry the baggage of "romantic love" and ideas about sex that have managed to poison our minds since the Europeans (and their ideas) came to dominate the globe. These ideas have not only penetrated into the minds of Muslims, but actually permeate many of them. The European colonial powers have pulled out of almost all Muslim lands, but the colonization of the minds continues! As we mentioned above, the sad part is that most people do not even realize that they are under such un-Godly influences. Just to reference the way things have changed, a statement in The New Encyclopaedia Britannica makes it clear that values regarding the proper age of marriage have been changing over the years:

. . . in the United States and parts of Europe the association of adult status with sexual maturity as expressed in the term puberty rites has been unwelcome".2

The significance that sex and sexuality are thought to play in human psychology has its roots in Freudian thought. Even though many of Freud's ideas are being heavily challenged today, many of his ideas still play a role in the thinking of many people. Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) taught that humans are basically "sexual beings" whose childhood sexual urges are the key to understanding them. He developed the methodology of psychoanalysis and his ideas on sex, repressed guilt and sexuality, the unconscious sex drive, the Oedipus complex and other ideas have come to almost haunt the Western view of sexuality (almost as much as the repressive views of the Roman Catholic Church). Needless to say, Freud's ideas have been criticized by believing Jews, Christians and Muslims since they basically deny human moral responsibility. In Freud's view of things, human beings are prisoners to the effects of unconscious forces and their sex drive. Such ideas are always welcomed by "liberals", "humanists" and others like them. The point of all this in regards to young marriage, however, might be less clear. What needs to be pointed out is the contradictory "modern" Western view of sexuality. They are taken aback by the thought of marriage at the age of puberty, even though it's an age old custom. However, they have junior high schools where sex education is taught and a society where sexually promiscuous "dating" is considered the norm. Sometimes sex is simply a natural pleasure to be enjoyed, but at other times it is a psychological demon of far reaching consequences. In short, everything from their private lives to their court systems, have fallen victim to the moral relativity of the psychiatrists and psychologists. The attitude that any experience in life can be seen as some sort of "trauma" is very widespread. Many people go through life constantly obsessed about what sort of "complex" they may be suffering from due to experiences they've had in their relatively normal life. The morality which is produced by such attitudes all but does away with human responsibility. People who are guilty of serious crimes, instead of being held responsible for their actions, are themselves considered "victims", since they are only doing what their psychological makeup causes them to do.

Puberty = Maturity = Marriage

These points having been presented, some additional details on a few of them is worthwhile. An interesting article on the age at which people married in Biblical times is Ancient Israelite Marriage Customs, by Jim West, ThD - a Baptist minister. This article states that:

The wife was to be taken from within the larger family circle (usually at the outset of puberty or around the age of 13) in order to maintain the purity of the family line;

This is just one reference to the fact that the onset of puberty was considered the age at which young people could marry. That people in Biblical times married at an early age is widely endorsed. While discussing the meaning of the word 'almah, which is the Hebrew word for "young woman" or "adolescent female", Gerald Segal says:

It should be noted, however, that in biblical times females married at an early age.3

In spite of its somewhat arrogant Western talk of "primitive cultures", An Overview of the World's Religions makes it clear that puberty is an age old symbol of adulthood:

Almost all primitive cultures pay attention to puberty and marriage rituals, although there is a general tendency to pay more attention to the puberty rites of males than of females. Because puberty and marriage symbolize the fact that children are acquiring adult roles, most primitive cultures consider the rituals surrounding these events very important. Puberty rituals are often accompanied with ceremonial circumcision or some other operation on the male genitals. Female circumcision is less common, although it occurs in several cultures. Female puberty rites are more often related to the commencement of the menstrual cycle in young girls.

Some female authors agree:

Puberty is defined as the age or period at which a person is first capable of sexual reproduction, in other eras of history, a rite or celebration of this landmark event was a part of the culture. (Rites of Passage: Puberty, by Sue Curewitz Arthen)

"Getting your period" marks a rite of passage for young girls entering womanhood. (From the Women's Resource Center)

Another contemporary reference relating marriage age to puberty is an article on Central Africa, which says:

. . . women marry soon after puberty4.

There are many other references which should prove to any intelligent person what anthropologists and historians already know: in centuries past, people were considered ready for marriage when they reached puberty.

It should be mentioned that from an Islamic point of view, many problems in society today can be traced back to the abandonment of early marriage. Due to the way that Almighty God has created man and woman, i.e., with strong sexual desires, people should marry young. In the past, this was even more true since life expectancy was very low (i.e. you were considered "old" if you made it to 40!) Not only does marriage provide a legal outlet for people with strong sexual desires, but it usually produces more children. One of the main purposes of marriage is to produce children -"be fruitful and multiply" as the Bible says (Genesis 8:17). This was especially important in the past, when people did not live as long as they do now and the infant morality rate was much higher.

The Age Of Puberty

Even though we have established that puberty has been the historical, cultural and religious norm for indicating readiness for marriage, some may wonder at which age puberty normally takes place. This is somewhat meaningless in regards to our specific discussion of Muhammad(P) and cAishah, since the hadith literature makes it clear that she had reached puberty. However, in regards to puberty and at what age most girls have their first menstrual cycle, cAbdul-Hamîd Siddiqî says:

Islam has laid down no age limit for puberty for it varies with countries and races due to the climate, hereditary, physical and social conditions. Those who live in cold regions attain puberty at a much later age as compared with those living in hot regions where both male and female attain it at a quite early age. "The average temperature of the country or province," say the well-known authors of the book Woman, "is considered the chief factor here, not only with regard to menstruation but as regards the whole of sexual development at puberty."5

Raciborski, Jaubert, Routh and many others have collected and collated statistics on the subject to which readers are referred. Marie Espino has summarised some of these data as follows: (a) The limit of age for the first appearance of menstruation is between nine and twenty-four in the temperate-zone; (b) The average age varies widely and it may be accepted as established that the nearer the Equator, the earlier the average age for menstruation.6

Additionally, an article entitled Puberty in Girls by an Australian government Public Health organization, says:

The first sign of puberty is usually a surge of growth: you become taller; your breasts develop; hair begins to grow in the pubic area and under the arms. This may start from 10 years to 14 years - even earlier for some and later for others.

An article Physical Changes in Girls During Puberty has this to say:

During puberty, a girl's body changes, inside and out, into the body of a woman. The changes don't come all at once, and they don't happen at the same time for everybody. Most girls start showing physical changes around age 11, but everyone has her own internal schedule for development. It's normal for changes to start as early as 8 or 9 years of age, or not until 13 or 14. Even if nothing looks or feels different yet, the changes may have already begun inside your body.

Many will readily agree with the information above, but still might harbour reservations about whether a marriage to an older man could be happy for such a young girl. Putting aside the modern Western notions of "happiness" for a moment, the marriage of cAishah and the Prophet(P) was a mutually happy and loving one as in expressed in numerous hadîth and seerah books. That happy marriages occur between people with a fairly large difference in ages is known among psychologists:

When the differences (in ages) is great, e.g. exceeds fifteen to twenty years, the results may be happier. The marriage of an elderly (senescent) not, of course, an old (senile) man to a quite young girl, is often very successful and harmonious. The bride is immediately introduced and accustomed to moderate sexual intercourse. 7

More Wisdom Behind It

In his comments on the ahadith in Sahîh Muslim which mention cAishah's young marriage to the Prophet(P), cAbdul-Hamîd Siddiqî shows three other reasons for this marriage:

cAishah's marriage to the Prophet Muhammad(P) at an early age allowed her to be an eyewitness to the personal details of his life and carry them on to the succeeding generations. By being both spiritually and physically near to the Prophet(P), the marriage prepared 'Aishah to be an example to all Muslims, especially women, for all times. She developed into a spiritual teacher and scholar, since she was remarkably intelligent and wise. Her qualities help support the Prophet's work and further the cause of Islam. cAishah, the Mother of the Believers, was not only a model for wives and mothers, but she was also a commentator on the Qur'ân, an authority on hadîth and knowledgeable in Islamic Law. She narrated at least 2,210 ahâdîth that give Muslims valuable insights into the Final Prophet's daily life and behaviour, thus preserving the Sunnah of Muhammad(P).

At that time, this marriage refuted the notion that a man could not marry the daughter of a man who he had declared to be his "brother" (even in the religious sense). Since the Prophet(P) and Abu Bakr had declared each other to be "brothers", this notion was done away with. This is demonstrated in the following hadîth:

Narrated 'Ursa: The Prophet(P) asked Abu Bakr for cAishah's hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said, "But I am your brother." The Prophet(P) said, "You are my brother in God's religion and His Book, but she (cAishah) is lawful for me to marry." (Sahîh al-Bukhârî, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 18)

The marriage did away with the pagan Arab superstition that it was a bad omen to be married in the month of Shawwal. They thought that the month carried this omen since the word Shawwal was derived from Shaala, which carried a bad omen. The authentic ahadith indicate that the Prophet(P) and cAishah were married in this lunar month.

Not Much Ado Back Then

Above, we established the fact that getting married at puberty was an accepted practice amongst not only today's "primitive cultures", but specifically amongst the Semitic (i.e. Hebrew, Arab, Syriac, etc.) peoples of the Middle East. In order to provide additional proof that Muhammad's(P) marriage to cAishah did not raise any eyebrows at that time, I submit here quotations from two Western female scholars who have studied Islam in detail:

It is not clear just when the marriage actually took place. According to some versions, it was in the month of Shawwal of the Year 1, that is, some seven or eight months after the arrival at Medina; but, according to others, it was not until after the Battle of Badr, that is, in Shawwal of the second year of the Hijrah. In no version is there any comment made on the disparity of the ages between Mohammed and Aishah or on the tender age of the bride who, at the most, could not have been over ten years old and who was still much enamoured with her play."8

In the above quotation, the sources which are given for the latter are "Nawawi" and "Tabari". Both Imâms al-Nawâwî and al-Tabarî were great Muslim scholars, but their works contain material that is less than authentic by Islamic standards, which is probably the reason over her questioning which date is authentic. This is all beside the point, since we've already shown that authentic Islamic sources state that cAishah, may God be pleased with her, was "nine years old". The main point to note is that "no version" was any comment made on their age difference or on cAishah's young age. Why? Such an early marriage was normal in all Semitic societies - such as the ones that Abraham(P), Moses(P), Jesus(P) and Muhammad(P) grew up in!

Another author, Karen Armstrong, has this to add:

Tabari says that she was so young that she stayed in her parents' home and the marriage was consummated there later when she had reached puberty.9

This further establishes that the marriage took place at puberty and that, as such, no eyebrows were raised. "Tabari", it should be mentioned, refers to Abû Jacfar Muhammad ibn Jarîr al-Tabarî (225-310 AH / 839-923 CE), who was a great Muslim scholar who is well known in the West for his Qur'ânic commentary and history of the world.

It is no surprise that both of the above authors agree on the fact that the marriage of cAishah and Muhammad(P) took place when the former had reached puberty and that this was normal at the time. This is no surprise, since anyone who studies the Muslim sources and Semitic culture would be forced to come to the same conclusion, since it is simply a historical fact. It should be pointed out that both of the above quoted female authors do not hesitate to misrepresent Islam (intentionally or unintentionally) in their other writings. Suffice it to say that if there was some other "damaging" information available, they would not hesitate to bring it to light. Nabia Abbott, who has done some useful research on Islam in some areas, was basically an "Orientalist" in the classic sense. Her book which was quoted above, Aishah-The Beloved of Mohammed, is actually nothing but a disgusting second-guessing of cAishah's life. If a book with a similar mix of speculation and inauthentic sources were written about someone of significance in the West, it certainly would not be sitting on scholarly bookshelves. It has long been established that Orientalists with a bone to pick with Islam liked to decide on the authenticity of a story based on their preconceived notions. If an inauthentic story seemed to belittle the Prophet of Islam, it became oft quoted. However, any authentic material that contradicted their theories was simply ignored. It's analogous to writing a historical biography of Jesus(P) and using quotations from apocryphal gospels to override the Canonical ones whenever whimsically deemed appropriate. This is how Orientalists and Christian missionaries have been treating Muhammad(P) for centuries. For those who want to know more about this, please read our article Orientalism, Misinformation and Islam.

So What's The Verdict?

Overcoming cultural bias or admitting your own double standards is not always easy. For some people, it takes years for them to admit that they've been hypocritical. Hopefully, the thoughts presented here will plant the seed of reflection in some people so that they may reflect on the truth. Admitting that there's a problem is often half the battle, so before the reader heads off to make a final personal judgment on where they stand on this issue, I want to provide some more food for thought. Montgomery Watt, a long time scholar of Islam, had some choice words on how the West should judge Muhammad(P). I have never agreed with many of Watt's conclusions about Islam, but I have always viewed him as one of the more open-minded and open-hearted Orientalist scholars. Possibly, this is because he was more of a promoter of understanding than a narrow-minded Christian missionary. Years of studying Islam brought Watt to this conclusion:

The other main allegations of moral defect in Muhammad are that he was treacherous and lustful . . . Sufficient has been said above about the interpretation of these events to show that the case against Muhammad is much weaker than is sometimes thought. The discussions of these allegations, however, raises a fundamental question. How are we to judge Muhammad? By the standards of his own time and country? Or by those of the most enlightened opinion in the West today? When the sources are closely scrutinized, it is clear that those of Muhammad's actions which are disapproved by the modern West were not the object of the moral criticism of his contemporaries. They criticized some of his acts, but their motives were superstitious prejudice or fear of the consequences. If they criticized the events at Nakhlah, it was because they feared some punishment from the offended pagan gods or the worldly vengeance of the Meccans. If they were amazed at the mass execution of the Jews of the clan of Qurayzah, it was at the number and danger of the blood-feuds incurred. The marriage with Zaynab seemed incestuous, but this conception of incest was bound up with old practices belonging to a lower, communalistic level of familial institutions where a child's paternity was not definitely known; and this lower level was in process being eliminated by Islam . . . From the standpoint of Muhammad's time, then, the allegations of treachery and sensuality cannot be maintained. His contemporaries did not find him morally defective in any way. On the contrary, some of the acts criticized by the modern Westerner show that Muhammad's standards were higher than those of his time. In his day and generation he was a social reformer, even a reformer in the sphere of morals. He created a new system of social security and a new family structure, both of which were a vast improvement on what went before. By taking what was best in the morality of the nomad and adapting it for settled communities, he established a religious and social framework for the life of many races of men. That is not the work of a traitor or 'an old lecher'.10

From Abraham(P) To "Pick-And-Choose / Feel Good Religion"

Everything that we have discussed above logically frees Muhammad(P) from the unjust criticism that he has received (at least amongst those who can be intellectually honest and fair-minded). One point, however, still needs to be made a bit more clear. Even though we've mentioned it in passing, the hypocrisy and double standards of Christians who criticize Muhammad(P) for his morality needs to be more thoroughly analysed and exposed.

Before moving on to an analysis of Biblical morality, I would like to offer some advice and encouraging words to my fellow Muslims. My main piece of advice is to not be discouraged by slanderous attacks on Islam or how it is distorted in the media. Certainly, we all hate to see such things occur, but in the "Information Age" which was brought about by a culture that (allegedly) places a supreme value on freedom of speech, there is not much that we can do to stop it. The flip side to this coin is the fact that the Truth of Islam is still out there and people are finding it. Yes, Islam is spreading in spite of these hypocritical methods that Christians and others are using to stop it. From the "moon god" lies of Robert Morey to the almost daily distortions in the media, Islam is still spreading in the West. Actually, the fact that those who make a career out of attacking Islam, such as Christian missionaries, have to resort to lies and distortions when they discuss Islam, is a good sign. Certainly, if they discussed Islam as it was meant to be understood, they would only be hurting their own cause. When Islam is presented by non-Muslims in the West, usually matters of peripheral importance are addressed and criticised. The core beliefs of Islam, if discussed at all, are presented in a distorted manner. If Islam was just some ridiculous "Third World" religion with no appeal, they would not have to treat it this way. As a matter of fact, a great deal of the anti-Islamic literature that fills Christian bookstores (and the Internet) is not designed to convert Muslims, but to turn Westerners off to Islam. The people who write these lies are just trying to poison the minds of people so that they won't be receptive to the message of Islam when they hear it.

Their methods, however, are failing. In Europe especially, the Christian religion is in a severe state of stagnation and people are looking for truth elsewhere. Christians have always been embarrassed by their almost complete inability to convert a notable Muslim to Christianity. Certainly, they have their converts that they hold up as examples, however all of them seem to have been only nominal Muslims (at best) when they converted. However, many notable Westerners have embraced Islam, recently as well as in the past. One of the most interesting things about this is many (if not all) of these people could be called "Searchers for the Truth". By this I mean that they were the type of people who were spiritual, open-mined and read books on many subjects. They were not brainwashed simpletons who simply wanted to join an easy religion and the dominating culture of the time. They were people who knew a lot not only about religion, but about history, philosophy and other disciplines. Suffice it to say that the truth of Islam is out there, in spite of all the negative press that it gets today. The following is just one testimony that Islam is spreading in the West:

Unprecedented numbers of British people, nearly all of them women, are converting to Islam at a time of deep divisions within the Anglican and Catholic churches. The rate of conversions has prompted predictions that Islam will rapidly become an important religious force in this country . . . Within the next 20 years the number of British converts will equal or overtake the immigrant Muslim community that brought the faith here", says Rose Kendrick, a religious education teacher at a Hull comprehensive and the author of a textbook guide to the Koran. She says: "Islam is as much a world faith as is Roman Catholicism. No one nationality claims it as its own". Islam is also spreading fast on the continent and in America. (The Times , London, Tuesday, November 9th, 1993, Home-News page)

Thanks be to God that many of us who are former "pew warmers" finally decided to go out and investigate what they try to spoon feed us from the pulpit and TV. Why does Islam succeed in attracting Christians and others? Because it's the Clear Way of Abraham. No other religion today can honestly claim this! Islam isn't just a "feel good" religion where they just tell you what you want to hear and read selected verses from the Bible. Most Christians today approach religion like they do Sunday brunch: they take what they like and leave what they don't like. They have this attitude in spite of the fact that Abraham is held up in their Bible as a towering example of faith. Abraham(P), who was going to sacrifice his own son because Almighty God commanded it, certainly knew the basis of morality. It is clear in both the Bible and the Qur'ân that Abraham knew that whatever God commands is the right thing to do. However, how many Christians today can say that they honestly believe that on all issues? How many of them have reflected on the moral ramifications of what is contained in their Bible? Seemingly, not even their learned apologists who attack Islam have reflected on it too deeply!

The question "What is our basis for morality?" is an easy one for those who follow the faith of Abraham(P) - and that's what Islam is. Islam is submission to the Will of Almighty God - "We hear and we obey"- the faith of our father Abraham. If it was good enough for Abraham(P), Moses(P), Jesus(P) and Muhammad(P), then it's good enough for me! It is this truth and this attitude that attracts people to Islam. The entire basis of Islam, which produces this attitude, is Unity - the Unity of Almighty God and the unity of mankind. To be sure, the message of Islam appeals to the very nature of man. No wonder it is spreading! A Christian theologian, relatively recently, observed:

It is probable that early in the twenty-first century Islam will have become numerically the largest of the world religions. 11

Quite possibly, if you count only Sunni Muslims (which are at least 85% of Muslims), we are already the largest religion in the world when compared not to "Christians" as a whole, but to either the Orthodox, Roman Catholics or Protestants each separately.

A Case Study In Biblical Morality

Now that we've taken a detailed look at an alleged moral difficulty in the life of Muhammad(P), for the sake of balance, let's take a look at a moral difficulty in the Bible. We've already made statements above concerning the nature of Biblical morality, but many readers may be unaware of some of its "difficulties". For better or for worse, in Sunday school they generally skip the verses which we are going to deal with below. However, these verses certainly are useful tools in putting intellectually honest Christians in the same "moral dilemna" that they think Muslims should be in due to Muhammad's(P) young marriage to cAishah, may God be pleased with her. It should be kept in mind that the purpose of this discussion is the basis for morality, not the inspiration of the Bible (or lack thereof). For the purposes of this discussion, we accept the Bible "as is". However, this should not be interpreted to mean that we are endorsing it as the "Word of God" in toto. On the other hand, it should not be interpreted to mean that we are attacking the "Word of God", since we are discussing it simply because Christians consider it to be the "Word of God" (whatever their particular definition might be). For those wanting more detailed information on the Muslim view of the Bible, please click here.

The portion of the Bible that we want to look at begins with the Book of Numbers, Chapter 31, verses 17 and 18. Here, Moses(P), following the Lord's command, orders the Israelites to kill all the Midianite male children. The order continues with the following:

". . . kill every woman who has known man by lying with him, but all the female children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

One can only guess how the Israelites determined who the virgins were. Most probably, they did it based on age and maturity, assuming that all of the female "children" who had not reached puberty were virgins. Keep in mind that this was done, according to the Bible, on God's command to "Avenge the Israelites on the Midianites". Later, God gives Moses(P) instructions on how to divide up the booty, "whether persons, oxen, donkeys, sheeps or goats". Based on this command, "thirty-two thousand persons in all, women who had not known a man by lying with him" were divided up. This was done so that the Israelite soldiers could have these young girls "for themselves". I do not suspect that anyone reading this is either so naive or ignorant of King James English to not know what this means!

Moving along to another great example of Biblical morality, . . . in Deuteronomy 21:10-14 the Biblical "God of Love" gives the following command:

"When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands and thoust has taken them captive, and seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and had a desire unto her, that though would have her to thy wife, then though shalt bring her home to thine house . . . and after that you may go into her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. But if though have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go".

This should serve as sufficient proof that the morality that is taught in the Bible often is not what Christians make it out to be. In spite of what they teach in Sunday school, the above mentioned verses demonstrate the following:

* Almighty God, at least according to the Bible, ordered innocent babies to be killed; and

* He allowed young women to be forced into sex against their will.

Before moving on, it should be noted that killing women and children in war is never permitted under Islamic Law (the actions of some ignorant Muslims around the world notwithstanding). Some Christians may take issue with the words "innocent babies" above, since they believe that even babies are tainted with "Original Sin". However, this is not the topic of the discussion at hand. Suffice it to say that Biblical support for the Doctrine of Original Sin is contradictory at best. There are some verses that seem to support it, but there are others that seem to clearly deny it. One strike against "Original Sin", besides the fact that it's simply unjust, is the fact that the Jews - who read the Old Testament - never believed in it the way Christians do. But anyway . . . when faced with the problematic parts of the Old Testament, Christians react in various ways. Many offer up the ill thought out "Well-That's-in-the-Old-Testament" defense. In spite of the fact that they usually don't brush the Old Testament aside so quickly when they are being shown alleged prophecies which match Jesus(P), a few other thoughts can be presented. Some of the things that make brushing aside the Old Testament a bit more difficult (at least for Christians who want to remain intellectually honest) are:

1) the same God that "inspired" the Old Testament "inspired" the New Testament;

2) this same God is "unchanging" according to the Bible;

3) Jesus(P) in the New Testament endorses the "Law and the prophets" (i.e. the Old Testament) in several places; and

4) without the Old Testament there is no basis for Christianity.

When put in this predicament, Christians have one of two choices:

1) Stop thinking about it and fall back on a liberal "pick-and-choose" religion that just makes them "feel good" but does not answer any of life's more difficult questions; or

2) Accept the Divinely Revealed morality of the Bible "as is".

There are Christians out there who claim to accept the Divinely Revealed morality of the Bible. They understand what's at stake and the issues at hand. If people are allowed to whimsically decide what is right and what is wrong, there would be chaos. Just as importantly, if people decide what is "God's Word" and what is not His word based on their preconceived notions and "modern" sensibilities, nothing would be left of the Bible. As such, there are Christians who, in principle, say that killing babies is "moral" as long as God clearly commands it. For someone who understands the nature of Divinely Revealed morality, we would have to agree in principle but with certain reservations. As mentioned above, Almighty God - according to Islam - never commands the killing of innocent children. That is one "difficulty" that I am glad that Muslims don't have to explain their way out of! Killing babies is okay as long as God commands it!?! So much for having Christians as baby-sitters!

The bottom line is that morality comes from Almighty God and from Him alone. However, if ones studies the Bible, it is plain to see that it is not a foundation for morality. The examples above are just a few that can be provided from both the Old and the New Testament. The people who promote "Biblical morality" pick and choose from the text as they please. Only in Islam can one with good conscience accept "the whole package" without ignorantly or hypocritically denying things that they don't like. This is how true internal peace and balance are achieved. If one belongs to a religion without accepting everything in its scripture (real or alleged) one is not only bearing false witness against oneself but against God Himself. With all the false ideas in the modern age, it's easy to be lead astray. The liberal Western morality that has now touched all corners of the globe is, culturally speaking, something like an eight-hundred pound gorilla. It's very hard to stand in its way or speak out against it. However, being encouraged by others to follow "vain desires" has been an eternal problem for mankind, as Almighty God makes clear in the Qur'ân:

Say: 'I will not follow your vain desires: if I did I would stray from the path and be not of the company of those who receive guidance.'
[Qur'ân - Surah al-An'aam - 6:56]

Guideposts To Be Thankful For

The Prophet Muhammad(P) was a great example for all of humanity and peoples of different cultures (from "modern" Europeans to the aborigines of Australia). Not only was he a great Prophet and Messenger, but he was also a statesman, military leader, ruler, teacher, neighbor and friend. Family life was one of the most important areas where he was a great example, since he was both a husband and a father. Due to God's wisdom, His last and final prophet experienced a wide array of marriages and family situations. Due to this, he is an example for people who are monogamous, for those who are polygamous, for those wishing to marry those older than themselves and for those wondering how early someone can rightfully marry. Muhammad(P) reestablished the Religion of Abraham(P) so that it would continue to the Last Day.

As Muslims, we should be thankful for these guideposts in our moral journey through life. Reflecting on them aids us in avoiding being led astray into "moral relativism". This is a very dangerous thing, since it can lead to the worst of all sins - associating others with Almighty God in worship, belief and/or Lordship. By knowing the Prophet's(P) life we can see how to stay within the boundaries laid by Almighty God and stay on the Natural Religion of Islam which was made to suit the natural disposition (fitrah) of mankind. I pray that we, as Muslims, make Almighty God's limits our limits, and that we are not influenced by other societies and cultures. If it was good enough for Abraham(P) and Moses(P), then it's good enough for me . . .

That's the way I see it, but God knows best . . .

Related Articles

Muhammad(P) & Lies

i think freud was commenting on peoples obsession with the sex life of our Prophet(pbuh) to the exclusion of directing comments about the topics.

I've read the arguments on both sides and I have to say that Victoria's article about Ayesha not being nine has been debunked. I cannot see how Ayesha could not have been nine since the sahih hadiths are very explicit about this. Also, Victoria's arguments lack substance. Scratch beneath the surface and there is nothing there.

To Freud - and why shouldn't Muhammed's sexual behavior be part of the discussion? You imply that commenters who bring up Muhammed's sex life, are the ones with the problem. It is like implying that those people who reported on the sexual abuse in the Catholic church are the ones with the problem. Considering that Muhammed is looked at as a role model by Muslims, his sexual behavior is up for discussion, along with all his other behavior, such as cutting off of hands and feet and beheadings.
BTW, this business of Aisha's age. Sistani, the leader of the Shia in Iraq, talks openly on his website about girls even UNDER 9 years old being of marriageable age. Where does he get this "nine years old". I am guessing from the stories about Muhammed. If the revered leader of the Muslim Shia in Iraq thinks Aisha's age was 9 years old when her marriage was consummated, why should any Westerner listen to all the weasling out of this fact by Pamela and Victoria? Even for them, 9 years old, is something they have trouble with, so in order to not have too much cognitive dissonance, they move the goal post, and try to prove that Aisha was much older. Even though some commenters have posted passage after passage from authentic Muslim hadiths that clearly state that she was 9 years old. In any case here is the link to Sistani's website where he clearly talks about 9 year old girls as being of marriageable age:

http://www.sistani.org/local.php?modules=
nav&nid=2&bid=59&pid=3093

A young prepubescent WOMAN of nine who was still playing with dolls? I don't think so.

Narrated Aisha: I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for Aisha at that time, AS SHE WAS A LITTLE GIRL, NOT YET REACHED THE AGE OF PUBERTY.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13) Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151

Aisha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and he was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old. Sahih Muslim Book 8, Number 3311

Muslims have made it clear that they are aware of Mohammed's marriages and have no problem with it."

yes, we are aware of Muhammad's(pbuh) marriage and since he didnt marry a child but a young woman- there is nothing to have a problem with.
i refer you to this post on this blog-
april 8 11:59 pm

so you see, even when muslims answer the questions- people dont read the answers and understand them, but continue with the same false accusations.

The title of this thread is, 'A Different View of Jesus.' Could anyone please explain why the discussion ends up thread after thread with the graphic descriptions of Mohammed's sex life, no matter what the discussion is about? What exactly is the repeated "tittilation of the mind," in every thread meant to achieve? Isn't pointing out and discussing the moral issue for non-Muslims about the marriage of Mohammed to several women, including a child, once, quite enough? Muslims have made it clear that they are aware of Mohammed's marriages and have no problem with it. So what exactly is the purpose of asking the same Muslim/Muslims the same questions over and over again in every thread?

Worth reflecting about.