Hill Climb Racing 2 Industrial Deals Beauty Little FIres Everywhere Shop new men's suiting nav_sap_hiltonhonors_launch Learn more about Amazon Music Unlimited PCB for Musical Instruments Starting at $39.99 Grocery Handmade Tote Bags Book a house cleaner for 2 or more hours on Amazon Transparent Transparent Transparent  Introducing Echo Show Introducing All-New Fire HD 10 with Alexa hands-free $149.99 Kindle Oasis, unlike any Kindle you've ever held Trade in. Get paid. Go shopping. Tailgating ToyHW17_gno
Customer Discussions > Religion forum

Marry a 6 year old girl - consummate it at 9 .... ok'd by some.

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1576-1600 of 1000 posts in this discussion
Posted on May 1, 2012, 11:08:23 AM PDT
Domenico says:
Good to know and REMEMBER

Glossary of Arabic Terms

SUNNAH - The example or way of life of the Prophet, embracing what he said, did or agreed to.

KHALIFAH - The vicegerency of man on earth or succession to the Prophet, transliterated into English as the Caliphate.

HISBAH- PUBLIC VIGILANCE , an institution of the Islamic State enjoined to observe and facilitate the fulfillment of right norms of public behaviour. The "Hisbah" consists in public vigilance as well as an opportunity to private individuals to seek redress through it.

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012, 11:09:45 AM PDT
Art Franklin says:
"IT is in the Constitution that we have Freedom of Religion.. but that only goes soooo far.. when it comes to plural marriage.. especially .. or if you want to kill your children in sacrifice.. that too wouldNOT be allowed.. "

Why? Plural marriage and child sacrifice (almost) was performed by some of YHVH's most beloved humans. As a Christian, how would you feel if a country was established that based their laws off of Biblical laws just as Sharia is based off of the Qu'ran?

Would you move to this hypothetical Christian nation?

Posted on May 1, 2012, 11:13:51 AM PDT
Domenico says:
'''''''SUNNAH - The example or way of life of the Prophet, embracing what he said, did or agreed to.''''''''

And so, dear friends, THIS is the reason why so many 9-year-old little girls are given in ''marriage'' to disgusting men, old enough to be their fathers, OR, as in the "holy" marriage of the "prophet" when he was 54...... old enough to be their GrandFathers.... and then some !

Today we see the mental acrobatics of some who, in futility, struggle to remove this stain from their face.
Some stains cannot be removed....

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012, 11:17:20 AM PDT
Domenico says:
In my view it's better to address the Islamic doctines/Islam/Sharia...
rather than what Muslims do as individuals.

In a contorted way, they are actually victims only....

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012, 11:19:14 AM PDT
Domenico says:
The Serbian problem needs another tread as it cannot be reduced to a few statements.
It was and it IS a very complex issue.

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012, 11:29:53 AM PDT
Domenico says:
She was his FAVORITE.... And he already had his eyes on another little one.

We must never know but it sure doesn't look good. He danced on a thin rope; he had to be careful what to say, what to do, when to do it.... There was tremendous questioning of his behavior from the very beginning...

He LOVED very young "women" as per his own words. Pedophilia or not.

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012, 11:32:38 AM PDT
Domenico says:
Agree !!

Note: what Catholics did cannot be compared with what Mohammed did... can it?


In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012, 11:37:22 AM PDT
Domenico says:
Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman.

Many gays agree and respect that. Many understand that what is actually desired is a recognized similar institution that will give them the same rights under the law.

Conclusion - a different term. Union is a good one. That's all.

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012, 11:42:58 AM PDT
Domenico says:
Take a look.... you could see actual pictures of the book.

Yes, there is NO punishment for parents/grandparents killing their children.


In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012, 11:45:13 AM PDT
Domenico says:
Good Lesson

Always, always, ALWAYS, question everything and everybody ....


Manipulation with words, especially, it's cheap and easy !

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012, 11:51:23 AM PDT
Domenico says:
Anyone can TRY. It's only human.

The point is the Law MUST be for every single citizen of any given country.
No conditions.

If some manage to influence the rest will do whatever legally to reverse it.... It's a give and take that takes into consideration the needs of the very citizens NOT the needs of citizens from 2000 years ago.

Obsolete parts must be removed. Otherwise stagnation occurs.

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012, 11:53:43 AM PDT
And yet is has some credence here as it is proof that Muslims are not the only people capable of such behavior.

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012, 12:01:05 PM PDT
Domenico says:
All Humans being treated equally under the law = An Ideal

The Declaration is a model of humanity for humanity... it's what we all should look up to so we can save ourselves from our own evilness.

My dear Chameleon, what you like and what you dislike... it's of no consequence but to yourself and to those affected by your deeds. It may be beneficial...
Islam is a different animal altogether.

Sorry about the links. I used one link randomly and the one Bryan used....


In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012, 12:01:29 PM PDT
Art Franklin says:
"Note: what Catholics did cannot be compared with what Mohammed did... can it?"

Sure, I can compare. Mohammed (PDUH) had a union with a young girl and probably consummated it by the time she 'flowered'. (This technically makes him a pederast and not necessarily a pedophile by the way, like the infamous priests.) This was within the bounds of his culture at the time.

The Catholics have institutionalized abuse by keeping impropriety within the family, and shuffling molesters about so that they would not be discovered by authorities. Institutionalized abuse is actually worse in my book. Besides molesting children, there are many graves beneath churches where young nuns were raped by priests and their newborn babes discarded. This secret history has been documented by many a church member throughout the last few centuries.

Now, I want to make something perfectly clear. Muslims often excuse the marriage of their prophet (PDUH) to a child by claiming that "it was a different time", just as Judeo-Christians excuse the stoning to death of disobedient children and the murder of homosexuals.

When apologists make this claim, it is a blatant admission on their part that the ethical guidelines that underpin their religion have NO PLACE in the modern age. Therefore their entire belief system is obsolete as a guide to modern behavior. (Feel free to use that one; it's on me!)

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012, 12:08:29 PM PDT
Domenico says:
Anyone in the right mind claiming otherwise? :(

Personally, I'm very disappointed with our species.
Humans are the worst on Earth. We are just not good.

Some long, long time ago Religion was created in an effort to make humans better.....

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012, 12:13:41 PM PDT
Domenico says:
Right again.

We must specify what are we actually compare:

Human deeds?
Prophets' deeds?
Religious doctrines per se?
Application of Religious doctrines?
Law VS Law ?

P.S. No, you silly, you are NOT allowed to compare what regular criminals do with what Mohammed, the Model, did.... You are committing BLASPHEMY !

Lol....... I like you !

Posted on May 1, 2012, 12:21:41 PM PDT
Food for thought:

Which is more likely?

A.)Muslims are trying to take over the world.

B.) Political entities are funding and pushing Anti-Muslim propaganda for political purposes.

Occam's Razor suggests that when choosing between opposing hypotheses the one that makes the fewest assumptions, ultimately offering the simplest explanation.

History has shown us that political entities will utilize propoganda, often against a specific group of people, for the purpose of political gain.

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012, 12:51:27 PM PDT
Art Franklin says:
"P.S. No, you silly, you are NOT allowed to compare what regular criminals do with what Mohammed, the Model, did.... You are committing BLASPHEMY !

Lol....... I like you ! "

Right back atcha, Domenico. I see where you're coming from, by the way. I compare prophet's deeds all the time and it is easy to see that Mohammed (PDUH) was a worse person than Joseph Smith who was a worse person than Jesus Christ.

Now, I disagree that comparing the Catholics to Mohammed (PDUH) is wrong. Don't forget that the current Pope was formerly the head of the office in charge of institutionalized pedophilia, and in Catholic doctrine he is also a Model, i.e. 'God's representative on Earth'.

It is sometimes fair to compare apples to oranges, and make statements like "They are both fruit, but I like apples better." Or in this case, "They are both pederasts..." ;-)

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012, 1:10:29 PM PDT
Granny ;-D says:
As A Christian.. I agree... While homosexuality is abhorent and to be shunned.

Marriage.. between ONE man and ONE woman is so and has so been sacred for THOUSANDS of years.

But what is to stop 2 women and 3 men be .. or man & man and child?

I mean .. a line has to be drawn somewhere.. and once you start .. where to stop is the thing.

VERY slippery slope, that. IS there NO moral guide? YES .. ONE man and ONE woman.. THAT is the line, ELSE.. you just can't stop slipping down ... down.... down...

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012, 1:15:09 PM PDT
Granny ;-D says:
OH.. there .. I love it.. OBSOLETE parts (old laws) not the Constitution.. Must be gotten rid of .. !!! YES !

AND the legislation must be NOT micro-management.. but the laws are for everyone.. THAT includes NO SHARI'a because THAT would be the establishment of a religion. Shari'a is diametrically opposed to our Constitution.
To allow shari'a is to establish Islam.

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012, 1:16:40 PM PDT
Granny ;-D says:
Still ....
only one guy gone nuts example ... compared to the myriads of examples bob has posted from around the muslim world.

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012, 1:44:55 PM PDT
Chameleon_X says:
Art says "This was within the bounds of his culture at the time." Unfortunately for your argument, there is absolutely zero evidence to support this claim, as a scholar of Islam has asserted for years without anyone being able to bring up one example of marriage at such a young age in the early Muslim community or even remotely before that time. Child marriage is quite ironically more of a sympton of the "modern age" within certain Muslim communities, largely perpetuated by other cultures and a single spurious chain of narration in one hadith. Ayesha was not six or nine, but most likely between 18-20 years old, at marriage, and she was the daughter of the next leader after Muhammad and a strong leader of Muslims long after Muhammad's death, not some sexually abused and oppressed child. Unfortunately, even most Muslims are ignorant on this point and resort to defending the incorrect age of marriage based upon a provably flawed hadith. The logic and facts are unmistakable. I am copying in summary form some of the arguments below (from http://www.understanding-islam.com/q-and-a/sources-of-islam/what-was-ayesha-s-ra-age-at-the-time-of-her-marriage-to-the-prophet-pbuh-5107), but a more lengthy discussion is at http://www.understanding-islam.com/discussions/sources-of-islam/a-further-exchange-on-ayesha-s-age:


What was Ayesha's (ra) age at the time of her marriage?

It is normally believed that she was nine years old at the time of her marriage with Mohammad (sws) was consummated. I do think it was according to the traditions of the Arab culture, as otherwise people would have objected to this marriage. But unfortunately, the modern day man is not satisfied with an answer as simple as that.


To begin with[1], I think it is the responsibility of all those who believe that marrying a girl as young as nine years old was an accepted norm of the Arab culture, to provide at least a few examples to substantiate their point of view. I have not yet been able to find a single reliable instance in the books of Arab history where a girl as young as nine years old was given away in marriage. Unless such examples are given, we do not have any reasonable grounds to believe that it really was an accepted norm.

In my opinion, the age of Ayesha (ra) has been grossly misreported in the narratives of the incident. Not only that, I think that the narratives reporting this event are not only highly unreliable but also that on the basis of other historical data, the event reported, is quite an unlikely happening. Let us look at the issue from an objective stand point. My reservations in accepting the narratives, on the basis of which, Ayesha's (ra) age at the time of her marriage with the Prophet (pbuh) is held to be nine years are:

Most of these narratives are reported only by Hisham ibn `urwah reporting on the authority of his father. An event as well known as the one being reported, should logically have been reported by more people than just one, two or three.

It is quite strange that no one from Medinah, where Hisham ibn `urwah lived the first seventy-one years of his life has narrated the event, even though in Medinah his pupils included people as well known as Malik ibn Anas. All the narratives of this event have been reported by narrators from Iraq, where Hisham is reported to have shifted after living in Medinah for seventy-one years.

Tehzeeb al-Tehzeeb, one of the most well known books on the life and reliability of the narrators of the traditions ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) reports that according to Yaqub ibn Shaibah: "narratives reported by Hisham are reliable except those that are reported through the people of Iraq". It further states that Malik ibn Anas objected on those narratives of Hisham, which were reported through people of Iraq (Vol. 11, pg. 48 - 51).

Meezaan al-Ai`tidaal, another book on the narrators of the traditions of the Prophet (pbuh) reports that when he was old, Hisham's memory suffered quite badly (Vol. 4, pg. 301 - 302).

According to the generally accepted tradition, Ayesha (ra) was born about eight years before Hijrah. However, according to another narrative in Bukhari (Kitaab al-Tafseer) Ayesha (ra) is reported to have said that at the time Surah Al-Qamar, the 54th chapter of the Qur'an , was revealed, "I was a young girl". The 54th Surah of the Qur'an was revealed nine years before Hijrah. According to this tradition, Ayesha (ra) had not only been born before the revelation of the referred Surah, but was actually a young girl (jariyah), not even only an infant (sibyah) at that time. Obviously, if this narrative is held to be true, it is in clear contradiction with the narratives reported by Hisham ibn `urwah. I see absolutely no reason that after the comments of the experts on the narratives of Hisham ibn `urwah, why should we not accept this narrative to be more accurate.

According to a number of narratives, Ayesha (ra) accompanied the Muslims in the battle of Badr and Uhud. Furthermore, it is also reported in books of hadith and history that no one under the age of 15 years was allowed to take part in the battle of Uhud. All the boys below 15 years of age were sent back. Ayesha's (ra) participation in the battle of Badr and Uhud clearly indicates that she was not nine or ten years old at that time. After all, women used to accompany men to the battlefields to help them, not to be a burden upon them.

According to almost all the historians Asma (ra), the elder sister of Ayesha (ra) was ten years older than Ayesha (ra). It is reported in Taqreeb al-Tehzeeb as well as Al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah that Asma (ra) died in the 73rd year after hijrah[2] when she was 100 years old. Now, obviously if Asma (ra) was 100 years old in the 73rd year after hijrah, she should have been 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah. If Asma (ra) was 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah, Ayesha (ra) should have been 17 or 18 years old at that time. Thus, Ayesha (ra) - if she got married in 1 AH (after hijrah) or 2 AH - was between 18 to 20 years old at the time of her marriage.

Tabari in his treatise on Islamic history, while mentioning Abu Bakr (ra) reports that Abu Bakr had four children and all four were born during the Jahiliyyah - the pre Islamic period. Obviously, if Ayesha (ra) was born in the period of jahiliyyah, she could not have been less than 14 years in 1 AH - the time she most likely got married.

According to Ibn Hisham, the historian, Ayesha (ra) accepted Islam quite some time before Umar ibn Khattab (ra). This shows that Ayesha (ra) accepted Islam during the first year of Islam. While, if the narrative of Ayesha's (ra) marriage at seven years of age is held to be true, Ayesha (ra) should not even have been born during the first year of Islam.

Tabari has also reported that at the time Abu Bakr (ra) planned on migrating to Habshah (8 years before Hijrah), he went to Mut`am - with whose son Ayesha (ra) was engaged at that time - and asked him to take Ayesha (ra) in his house as his son's wife. Mut`am refused, because Abu Bakr had embraced Islam. Subsequently, his son divorced Ayesha (ra). Now, if Ayesha (ra) was only seven years old at the time of her marriage, she could not have been born at the time Abu Bakr decided on migrating to Habshah. On the basis of this report it seems only reasonable to assume that Ayesha (ra) had not only been born 8 years before hijrah, but was also a young lady, quite prepared for marriage.

According to a narrative reported by Ahmad ibn Hanbal, after the death of Khadijah (ra), when Khaulah (ra) came to the Prophet (pbuh) advising him to marry again, the Prophet (pbuh) asked her regarding the choices she had in her mind. Khaulah said: "You can marry a virgin (bikr) or a woman who has already been married (thayyib)". When the Prophet (pbuh) asked about who the virgin was, Khaulah proposed Ayesha's (ra) name. All those who know the Arabic language, are aware that the word "bikr" in the Arabic language is not used for an immature nine-year old girl. The correct word for a young playful girl, as stated earlier is "Jariyah". "Bikr" on the other hand, is used for an unmarried lady, and obviously a nine year old is not a "lady".

According to Ibn Hajar, Fatimah (ra) was five years older than Ayesha (ra). Fatimah (ra) is reported to have been born when the Prophet (pbuh) was 35 years old. Thus, even if this information is taken to be correct, Ayesha (ra) could by no means be less than 14 years old at the time of hijrah, and 15 or 16 years old at the time of her marriage.

These are some of the major points that go against accepting the commonly known narrative regarding Ayesha's (ra) age at the time of her marriage.

In my opinion, neither was it an Arab tradition to give away girls in marriage at an age as young as nine or ten years, nor did the Prophet (pbuh) marry Ayesha (ra) at such a young age. The people of Arabia did not object to this marriage, because it never happened in the manner it has been narrated.

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012, 1:49:46 PM PDT
Chameleon_X says:
Domenico says "My dear Chameleon, what you like and what you dislike... it's of no consequence but to yourself and to those affected by your deeds. It may be beneficial...
Islam is a different animal altogether." I agree 100%. The same exact argument applies to what other "Muslims" like and dislike, such as their version of the UDHR. Their preferences are totally irrelevant to a discussion about Islam. I am glad that you finally got that straight in your head.

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012, 2:16:41 PM PDT
The slippery slope, as you stated it, is just a distraction from the real issue. YOUR god tells YOU that homosexual love is a sin...thus YOU want to forbid that sort of love from being lawfully sanctioned under marriage.....but what gives YOU or YOUR god the right to make laws concerning others...specially those that don't believe in YOU or YOUR gods beliefs. The only abhorrent thing I can see are hateful comments like yours (and all similar believers).

The line should be drawn somewhere...and that somewhere should be at the front door of YOUR house...you don't believe in gays getting married...then don't agree with it...but don't assume your beliefs should be all that is needed to stop it from happening...and it will happen eventually. People are becoming more enlightened and less inclined to base their beliefs on a hateful diety's hateful commands.

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012, 2:21:14 PM PDT
Bryan Borich says:

Not like any government honors those things.....
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in

Recent discussions in the Religion forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Amazon Discussions Feedback Forum
1788 10 days ago
keep one change one started 14 January 2017 4611 7 hours ago
Hardwired to believe 53 7 hours ago
What is enlightenment? 2453 7 hours ago
Scientology? Is it a cult? 55 8 hours ago
this is nuts, on every possible level 1 8 hours ago
Who made up Jesus and why? 3481 9 hours ago
"God is so good" 45 11 hours ago
Significance of the Sign in the Sky on September 23, 2017 108 11 hours ago
Are we Sims? 304 23 hours ago
Weltanschauung 179 1 day ago
Purden of Boof 214 1 day ago

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  56
Total posts:  2347
Initial post:  Apr 19, 2012
Latest post:  Jun 12, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers