Here we go again. The Times reports that there are “fears of Muslim anger” because an academic book critical of Muhammad’s marriage to A’isha, his third wife who was six or seven years old at the time of the marriage (according to traditional reports, although consummation did not occur until she was nine) is to be published soon.
This matter, questioning the sexual behaviour of a man held to be a prophet by 1.2 billion people, is unsurprisingly fraught: it is only a few weeks since the conviction of three men for attempting to diesel bomb the UK publisher of ‘Jewel of Medina’.
But it is not just historical novelists and academics who discuss Muhammad’s marriage to A’isha, some people who are not very keen on Islam also tend to focus on it. Here are a couple of examples taken from the comments threads at Harry’s Place.
From a discussion about thugs rampaging through Luton "to oppose extremism"
From a discussion about the row caused by some parents complaining about interfaith assemblies
The “argument” goes that Muslims believe Muhammad to be a perfect model for behaviour and therefore the fact of Muhammad’s marriage to A’isha somehow proves Islam to be a depraved religion. That no good can come of following it etc etc ad nauseam. This attempt to aggressively apply a modern British definition of paedophilia to seventh century Arabia strikes me as a sign of severe anthropological illiteracy; but the right to express such offensive, anthropologically illiterate statements must be defended staunchly.
In the jurisprudence of the main schools of Islamic law it was accepted that a child could have a marriage arranged for them by their marriage guardian but it should not be consummated until puberty was reached, when the child would have the “Option of Puberty” (khiyar al-bulugh). This meant that the child would be allowed to repudiate the marriage if it had been contracted by a marriage guardian who did not have the right of ijbar (ie who was not their father or, apart from the Hanbalis, their father’s father). As the Qur’an does not deal with these matters many of the rules governing them would have been drawn from pre-Islamic custom and Muhammad’s implicit endorsement of them through not rejecting them.
In considering the question of marriage age in Islam it is, therefore, entirely appropriate to discuss Muhammad’s marriage to A’isha. A book entitled ‘Does God Hate Women?’, which looks at various religious attitudes towards women, would do a disservice to its readers if it were to ignore a matter of such relevance: marriage to a pre-pubescant child with whom consummation occurs upon reaching puberty is not a model most people would be happy with in the modern world (although Bolivia sets the age of consent at puberty).
Which is probably why nearly all Muslim countries have reformed these rules beyond recognition. The age of consent in Algeria and Malaysia is 16, in Indonesia it is 19 for males and 16 for females. In Egypt it’s 18 for both and Tunisia 20. Reform has not, however, come to Saudi Arabia. Back in April the world followed the case of a mother trying to obtain a divorce for her eight-year-old daughter who had been married off by her father to a friend he owed a debt. In the end she succeeded and now there is even talk of Saudi Arabia preventing marriage before the age of 18.
Muhammad’s marriage to A’isha would logically only be of real concern to a non-Muslim living in 21st century Britain if Muslims were, following his model, regularly involved in child marriages. But, apart from possibly in Saudi Arabia and Iran, they aren’t. If your claim is that Islam is fundamentally depraved because Muslims seek to emulate Muhammad and he married a six-year-old, then it is entirely shot down by Muslims not emulating Muhammad on this matter.
But people like “Old Peculier” and “kafuruk” are not concerned by this. They just want to level two of the most heinous accusations thinkable at Muhammad because he is respected by Muslims. It’s stupid and designed to offend but, if people really want to prove their idiocy in this way, then they must be entitled to do so. Not because it’s A Good Thing that people accuse Muhammad of paedophilia, but because defending their right to make such statements is the best way to defend those who would publish books like ‘Jewel of Medina’ and ‘Does God Hate Women?’.
74 Comments
I thick the prblem is that the Koran is very unclear. To me it seems more closer to the bible – ie relaying on abstract concepts like faith and the afterlife – rather than Jewdaism tha relaies on obaying rules. That’s why to me it seems as if Islam is very loose and unclear, and confusing. Add to that the fact that the ME (birthpalce of Islam) there aren’t a lot of freedoms, and you can’t even disscuss theology regarding Islam with clericks who have studied the religion deeply,
Lbnaz: Jews must marry non-Jewish people or else they are racists like Nick Griffin and besides, if they do go ahead and marry other Jews, Jews won’t be majoritarian Christians like us and that bothers us deeply, because clearly we from majoritarian Christian backgrounds are more moral than Jews who marry other Jews.
Did you misunderstand the point I was making, or are you pretending to misunderstand in order not to have to reply to the points I raised?
BTW, I’m not a Christian, let alone a “majoritarian Christian”.
Of course it’s relevant to mention that Mohommed was a pedophile, in two contexts. First, if you want to deny that the laws sanctioning child rape in Saudi Arabia, and other Islamic countries are based on Mohammed’s example, then you’d best take that up with the Islamic clergy who get murderously angry when law eform to protect girl children is proposed. Their example and justification is in Mohammed. Their power is why the laws are there.
Second, of course child rape also occurs in non-Islamic cultures, and so Islam isn’t the only source of the problem. It’s just that Islam is the single biggest chunk of it. As well as attacking the example of Mohammed, people should also be more aggressive – and “hurtful” and “offensive” and all those luvvie words – about the other cultural defences for child rape as well. But there are reasons why the Islamic countries stand out, statistically.
It’s reasonable to assert the right to say that Mohammed appears to have been a pretty vile excuse for a human being. That’s partly because speaking the truth is intrinsically a good thing, and also because there are people who have been brought up in Islamic cultures or communities who find that hearing disrespect for Mohammed is not offensive: it’s an enormous relief and liberation.
Finally, it’s historically illiterate to assume that pedophilia was uncontroversial in 7th century Arabia. Most literature from pre-Islamic Arabia is lost, but three strands of cultural influence were Judaism, Christianity and to a lesser extent the legacy of the Roman Empire.
For Christians and Jews, the Old Testament makes it clear that young women are only of marriageable age when their breasts have grown and they have public hair. (Ezekial 16, 7-8.) And if you read the entry on Tiberius, in Suetonius’ “The Twelve Ceasars”, the historian’s disgust at Tiberius’ pedophile practices is quite obvious. Suetonius said that Tiberius forced young children into sexual practices because he knew that would evoke disgust for Tiberius, as was his rhetorical aim.
That is, disgust at pedophilia is not some new, recent or local value. Mohammed’s behaviour in raping Aisha was loathsome by the standards of his time, as was his career of murder, banditry and so on.
The founder of Scientology, L Ron Hubbard, was a con artist and – it’s an odd coincidence, in a way – also a pedophile. It’s as nonsensical to discuss the truth value and moral value of Scientology without mentioning those facts as it would be to discuss the truth and other values of Islam without mentioning that it was founded by someone who was by any reasonable standards a very evil man.
The right to mention either of those truths, about Scientology or about Islam, and to say similarly “offensive” truths about the founders of other belief systems shouldn’t be given up too lightly.
Forgot to mention. The age of puberty is not 9, even now. That’s despite the fact that the average age seems to have fallen during the 20th century. But even now, girls are likely to menstruate somewhere between twelve to maybe 14-15. Eleven would be unusually young.
So the chance that 7th century, 9-year old Aisha, who was still playing with toys, had reached puberty is … Well, no, she hadn’t.
OP is quite right. Being raped at that age would have hurt, and is likely to have caused internal damage, putting it as unemotionally as possible. Is OP’s outrage at that rapist being considered as an example to humanity automatically to be dismissed as “faux” outrage? I can’t see why.
DD
wait I’m confused. Didn’t Mohamad marry Aisha when she was 9 and only consumated it when she turned puberty?
Hey, numbnuts – it was NEVER OK to screw a 9y.o. – It does NOT WORK. The body part in question is NOT READY at age 9! Mohammad WAS a pedophile, and YOU ARE an IDIOT! (or maybe you are a pedo as well?)
Go to your local police and tell them you think it’s OK to screw a 9 y.o.
I will wait right here and you can tell me how it went with the cops.
cabalamat:
as i keep saying, there is a practical issue here. there is no shortage of white people in the world, as people keep pointing out. on the other hand, the jewish population has a bit of a demographic issue, partly because so many of us were murdered a generation or so ago and partly because of intermarriage which has had a disproportionate effect on the baby boomers. the only people trying to rectify this by huge amounts of procreation are the ultra-orthodox and, in terms of general population balance, i don’t think having 9-10 kids is a sustainable thing to do in the long term.
not at all. what you are choosing for some reason to ignore is the rather important word “why”. anyone is welcome to join my group as long as they play by the rules, we just don’t go and seek out converts. i love the fact that there are vast numbers of differing groups. they are at liberty to do as they please as long as they are not trying to convert *us*. moreover, being or becoming a jew confers obligations, not rights.
the essential difference (as if you didn’t know) is that nick griffin wishes to disparage, disadvantage and discriminate against people who are not in his group, whereas i, like yourself, am perfectly happy for people to just be people. i’m not suggesting deporting non-jews, nor am i suggesting that we be given special access to jobs, public funds and government support. i may not approve of mixed marriages on principle, but i do my level best not to discriminate against people who intermarry or who are the results of intermarriage; i would be somewhat short on friends and family if i did. i may think that it’s selfish, overly individualistic and shows a lack of consideration for the needs of the community, (baby boomers, d’ye see) but i have no power to make them do otherwise, nor do i seek that power, nor would i approve of such a power being exercised, it being a violation of our fundamental – and, lest we forget, religious – belief in free will. i seek only to make the best of the situation but that doesn’t mean i have to approve of it. nonetheless, i would by far prefer to look at ways to bring the results of intermarriage back in-house – again, unlike nick griffin.
given the level of insight that you’ve displayed in your analysis of my position and the fact that you don’t know me at all, yet are keen to jump to disparaging conclusions, i don’t know why i should care.
@isy:
if you read the link you posted, it should be obvious that no, he didn’t. i don’t know any 3-year olds that are capable of taking a herd of camels to be watered – check the text. the reason there’s a dispute here is because the sages disapprove even of betrothals (which are unconsummated) before the couple are adults. in any case someone who is betrothed as a minor without her consent (by, say her father) has the absolute, inalienable right to repudiate it upon reaching adulthood – BEFORE the actual marriage takes place or is consummated. the only argument we have is about how early she can do the repudiation, given that minors are also considered to be capable of deciding things for themselves to some degree. incidentally, someone who is betrothed as a minor and then repudiates it upon attaining adulthood even before the actual marriage takes place, is entitled to an alimony pay-off and essentially becomes an independent adult – unbeholden to her father even though she may have never left his house. from one point of view, this might count as a 2,000+ year-old form of emancipation from undue parental duress. either way, it is far more progressive than one might expect.
b’shalom
bananabrain
As a proud Muslim apostate let me say that Islam can and should be criticised. The leftists and the fascists who want to portray Mohammed as a saint and above criticism need to get their heads examined as he was one well documented assassin and bandit.
It is quite depressing when leftist westerners make a fetish out of Mohammed and Islam, and claim Islamic atrocities to be strictly the work of evil individuals only. The Islamic ideology is rotten to the core, but of course the illiberal leftists have abandoned enlightenment for fascism and authoritarianism.
A former Muslim and now a proud kafir.
People like “Old Peculier” and “kafuruk” are raised onto a pedestel and given a voice because, wait for it, shocking stories raise the level of adrenalin, a chemical which the human nervous system quickly gets addicted to. Lets not fool ourselves. It’s the same reason why newspapers sell, and why comments on this blog tend to spin out of control.
I don’t see “Old Peculier” and “kafuruk” denouncing Richard II of England, that scion of the monarchy, who married a 7 year old girl. The simple fact is that times change and sensibilities change. What was acceptable 1400 years ago or 700 years is not acceptable now. Personally, I can’t see why this understanding is such a rare commodity. Although I can see how it would fail to sell newspapers.
http://www.thedigitalfolklife.org/childmarriage.htm
respect says:
I admire penetrative minds that can get to the core of things. Please share your analysis. What is rotten about the Islamic idealogy?
Islamic ideologies as opposed to Islamic doctrines per se, can quite easily be called “rotten to the core”. Here is one, for example:
http://www.spittoon.org/archives/513
Dawood,
He said “Islamic ideology is rotten to the core”, not HT’s ideology is corrupt. Do you see the difference? (Or are you saying that HT’s ideology is the core of Islam?)
My question stands:
What is rotten about the Islamic idealogy?
No, I am making a textual difference between the word “ideology”, a word to describe the reductivist ideas of HT in this case, and Islam, the religion, to distinguish it from ordinary religious belief based on Islam.
This is why one can say “Islamic ideology” to represent HT’s ideas which, although grossly simplifying ideas which advocate the use of extremism and violence to achieve their aims, are based on and around Islamic religious doctrine.
And this is why the term “Islamist” is useful to distinguish and describe Islamic political ideologies from mainstream belief.
Okay, HT’s ideas are different from ordinary religious belief based on Islam. Thanks for that.
Now, coming back to respect’s commet: “The Islamic ideology is rotten to the core”. I really am curious. Respect, can you please share and demonstrate how Islamic ideology is rotten to the core.
Okay, HT’s ideas are different from ordinary religious belief based on Islam. Thanks for that.
Yes but in addition to that, it is also an *Islamic* ideology. Hence it is possible and correct to say Islamic ideology, HT for example, is rotten to the core.
Yes, in the same way that it is *possible* to say
“Some things are false. Therefore all things are
false”. Thanks again Dawood.
Respect?
Yes it is *possible*. It is also *possible* to say
“A horse is an animal. It has four legs. Therefore all animals have four legs”.
But only a fool would.
What of someone who says, “HT’s idealogy is
Islamic. It is rotten. Therefore all Islamic
idealogy is rotten”
I wouldn’t call them a fool, rather that they have
misunderstood.
But this is a diversion into contextual predicate
logic, like so many other blog discussions,
and rather boring.
I’m more interested, like respect, in the core
of Islam. How is it rotten?
I’m more interested, like respect, in the core
of Islam. How is it rotten?
respect wrote:
“Islamic ideology is rotten to the core”
not
“Islam is rotten to the core”
With respect to respect, s/he at least took the trouble to be precise.
Dawood, thank you for the correction. Indeed,
respect asserted, with far more precision than
myself, that “Islamic ideology is rotten to the core”.
I am hoping that this very precision belies
the working of a brilliant intellect.
And so I ask respect, with respect: “what is
the core of Islamic ideology, and how
is it corrupt?”
Hi Abu Yusuf,
I’m happy to take up the “Islamic ideology is rotten to the core” challenge. The route I take is applicable to all religions and superstitions. If I may though, I’d like to make an alteration to the inflammatory language of the proposition. I’d prefer simply to say that:
Islam is a superstition and is the product of a combination of tribalism, mental ill health, opportunism, theft, justification of violence (and sexual abuse), heresay, ignorance, confidence tricks, politics, cultural necessity, accident, errors of reporting and irrational confidence in sensory artefact. Thus, it is unfit to be a foundation for the establishment of a civil society. (The same goes for any other religion/superstition.)
The root of the problem is in the method of perception, and interpretation of, reality of those who contributed to the belief system, and those who practise it. If one considers religions/superstitions collectively one notices that though there are a myriad differences between religions, past and present, they all share one fundamental attribute: a fallacious method for the interpretation of reality.
Consider the scientific method:
That involves millions of the best minds available to humanity passing trillions of hours in careful observation, measurement and analysis of every facet of reality perceptible to man or machine over a period, conservatively, of 3 millennia. That work is then peer reviewed and published for all other scientists to inspect. It isn’t accepted until it is cross referenced and can proven replicable and, even then, each successive generation of students is encouraged both to learn it and, during the most fertile period of human intellectual capability (15 to 24 years), to try to make a name for themselves by picking a hole in it. Only once it has survived two or three generation of that level of rigorous investigation is it considered fact. Yet, even then, it never rises to the status of unquestionable. It is simple defined as successively more improbable that it is wrong as corroborative evidence builds up.
Now why is that? There’s a simple answer: confidence. That perpetual invitation to question the body of work we call science is based on confidence in it’s quality. Research has travelled though time, though minds, through cultures and through politics and no matter where, or when, it was done it has proved consistent. Babylonian mathematicians were respected by Greek mathematicians, who in turn are respected by Indian, and Russian and American and Chinese mathematicians.
A good method: one consistent result.
Consider the religious method:
The founders of various religions have invariably looked around them and used their eyes to perceive their environment and commented on that. Yet there isn’t a single religion that looked at the eye itself to consider what it was capable of perceiving and, thus, what it wasn’t. Flowers are often cited in religious texts, in the contexts of gardens and ‘god’ created beauty, yet no religion ever took the time to seriously consider the work it claimed as that of its ‘god’. Many insects perceive the ultraviolet spectrum of light, while humans cannot. Until science made sensors to perceive ultra-violet light no one knew of the markings that evolved on the petals of flowers that act like runway lights, guiding insects over the pollen laden sigma, thus using those insects to produce more viable seed. Religion had adopted a lazy, fairy tale explanation… pretty decorations… god gave you a pretty world.
Not only is this lack intellectual rigour repeated endlessly by the various religions it demonstrates a stunning lack of curiosity for the work of their supposed creator. It’s akin to someone claiming to be an expert on the music of Mozart while disinterested in learning to read music.
The religious method has often involved sensory deprivation: fasting, wandering in a desert, sitting in a hole, not talking, crawling into caves, taking drugs and starvation. Naturally one only has to look at the plethora of fantastic creation myths to understand the utter incompetence of that method. Try it out: hold your breath for a while until oxygen deprivation sets in… you’ll see stars. No not real ones… god isn’t spinning stars around your head… your brain is malfunctioning.
Religions get around the problem of convincing people of their lazy and fanciful interpretations of reality in a number of ways: they indoctrinate the young (consider the famous, and unnerving, Jesuit maxim: “Give me the child until he is seven and I will show you the man.”) ; they try to take control of education and censor it in part or full (madrasahs and the blowing up of girls schools in Pakistan are examples); they use violence, threats of violence and the inculcation of fear (Catholic death cult; Islamic prohibition of apostasy); they make false virtues out of not questioning (Doubting Thomas) but get themselves in a logical twist when having to advise caution with regard to ‘false prophets’ and ‘devils’… so the advise becomes: question everything but never me; they take on political power and policing, often indulging in public summary ‘justice’ to rule by terror (the Taliban: beheadings; Spanish Inquisition: Ducking stool/Waterboarding) ).
Now compare that authoritarian denial of the right to question, the extreme anxiety over education, the prohibition of other lines of thought and the enormous variability of religions, with the confidence and consistency of science.
Islam is unfit for purpose (as are all religions/superstitions) because it is the result of a method which is unfit for purpose. Islam is more violent currently than other religions because it currently has more political power. All religions become violent when they achieve political power. Buddhism, which is a marginal religion because of its high philosophical content, is an exception… though in Japan in its Shinto form showed itself more than capable. Any false explanation of reality is going to get itself in a mess. Errors become compounded. Mistakes have to be justified. Indignation has then to be suppressed. A status quo develops. Poverty, ignorance and opportunism become the natural allies of false realities. Intelligence, independence, creativity and bravery has to be repressed.
Oscar Wilde put the relationship between science and religion thus:
Science is the record of dead religions.
I put it as follows:
A empiricist is someone who in the presence of doubt does some research.
A religious believer is someone who in the presence of doubt eats an albino.
Gosh I look forward to a response to that very articulate post.
No reply, Abu Yusuf?
Sebmel, Abu Yusuf wrote that comment in July, don’t hold your breath waiting for a response.