Innocence of Muslims repeated the claim Muhammad was a paedophile, but the story is more complex and interesting than that
Myriam Francois-Cerrah guardian.co.uk, Monday 17 September 2012
Writing about Muhammad (pbuh), the prophet of Islam, the Orientalist scholar W Montgomery Watt wrote: "Of all the world's great men, none has been so much maligned as Muhammad." His quote seems all the more poignant in light of the Islamophobic film Innocence of Muslims, which has sparked riots from Yemen to Libya and which, among other slanders, depicts Muhammad (pbuh) as a paedophile.
This claim is a recurring one among critics of Islam, so its foundation deserves close scrutiny.
Critics allege that Aisha was just six years old when she was betrothed to Muhammad (pbuh), himself in his 50s, and only nine when the marriage was consummated. They base this on a saying attributed to Aisha herself (Sahih Bukhari volume 5, book 58, number 234), and the debate on this issue is further complicated by the fact that some Muslims believe this to be a historically accurate account. Although most Muslims would not consider marrying off their nine-year-old daughters, those who accept this saying argue that since the Qur'an states that marriage is void unless entered into by consenting adults, Aisha must have entered puberty early.
They point out that, in seventh-century Arabia, adulthood was defined as the onset of puberty. (This much is true, and was also the case in Europe: five centuries after Muhammad's (pbuh) marriage to Aisha, 33-year-old King John of England married 12-year-old Isabella of Angoulême.) Interestingly, of the many criticisms of Muhammad (pbuh) made at the time by his opponents, none focused on Aisha's age at marriage.
According to this perspective, Aisha may have been young, but she was not younger than was the norm at the time...What's more, Aisha had already been engaged to someone else before she married Muhammad (pbuh), suggesting she had already been mature enough by the standards of her society to consider marriage for a while...
What we do know is what the Qur'an says about marriage: that it is valid only between consenting adults, and that a woman has the right to choose her own spouse. As the living embodiment of Islam, Muhammad's (pbuh) actions reflect the Qur'an's teachings on marriage, even if the actions of some Muslim regimes and individuals do not...
The Islamophobic depiction of Muhammad's (pbuh) marriage to Aisha as motivated by misplaced desire fits within a broader Orientalist depiction of Muhammad (pbuh) as a philanderer. This idea dates back to the crusades. According to the academic Kecia Ali: "Accusations of lust and sensuality were a regular feature of medieval attacks on the prophet's character and, by extension, on the authenticity of Islam."
Since the early Christians heralded Christ as a model of celibate virtue, Muhammad (pbuh) – who had married several times – was deemed to be driven by sinful lust. This portrayal ignored the fact that before his marriage to Aisha, Muhammad (pbuh) had been married to Khadija, a powerful businesswoman 15 years his senior, for 25 years. When she died, he was devastated and friends encouraged him to remarry. A female acquaintance suggested Aisha, a bright and vivacious character.
Aisha's union would also have cemented Muhammad's (pbuh) longstanding friendship with her father, Abu Bakr. As was the tradition in Arabia (and still is in some parts of the world today), marriage typically served a social and political function – a way of uniting tribes, resolving feuds, caring for widows and orphans, and generally strengthening bonds in a highly unstable and changing political environment. Of the women Muhammad (pbuh) married, the majority were widows. To consider the marriages of the prophet outside of these calculations is profoundly ahistorical.
What the records are clear on is that Muhammad (pbuh) and Aisha had a loving and egalitarian relationship, which set the standard for reciprocity, tenderness and respect enjoined by the Qur'an. Insights into their relationship, such as the fact they liked to drink out of the same cup or race one another, are indicative of a deep connection which belies any misrepresentation of their relationship.
To paint Aisha as a victim is completely at odds with her persona... she went on to become one of the most prolific and distinguished scholars of her time.
A stateswoman, scholar, mufti, and judge, Aisha combined spirituality, activism and knowledge and remains a role model for many Muslim women today. The gulf between her true legacy and her depiction in Islamophobic materials is not merely historically inaccurate, it is an insult to the memory of a pioneering woman.
Those who manipulate her story to justify the abuse of young girls, and those who manipulate it in order to depict Islam as a religion that legitimises such abuse have more in common than they think. Both demonstrate a disregard for what we know about the times in which Muhammad (pbuh) lived, and for the affirmation of female autonomy which her story illustrates.
Re: The truth about Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and Aisha
Assalamu-alaikum,
Its interesting to note how society constantly tries to paint Islam with a tainted brush.
Yet, they forget (or chose to ignore) their own history:
- When they find the muslim hijab as oppressive......do they not reflect on their own perceived images of Maryam (ra) in similiar attire. And what of the oppression of their veiled nuns?
- When they speak of women having 'no rights' in Islam......do they not look at the bill-boards of their near-naked women, with rights close to cattle?
- While they mock the muslim woman who stays at home, rearing her children and protected by her husband.......do they find 'liberation' in their women, dressed in suits, trying so foolishly hard to be men?
- When they scoff at the beard.....do they do the same, at the statues of Jesus (as) - carved out of their creative minds?
- When they criticize Islam about relations with slave-women......do they forget the centuries of slavery that came before, and that it was Islam that gave rights to slaves and liberated them from bondage?
- When they frown at the marriage between Aisha (ra) and our beloved prophet (sallalahu alaihi wasalam)........do they forget the norms of that period?
Do they forget how beautiful this marriage was - one that few can replicate even in this day!
Can they recount stories of Aisha (ra) kicking and screaming her way into the marital home of our prophet (sallalahu alaihi wasalam)?
Or do they forget how she looked forward to future marital bliss with a companion of such noble character?
What selective memories......from such a censored history!
Re: The truth about Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and Aisha
format_quote Originally Posted by ~Zaria~
- When they find the muslim hijab as oppressive......do they not reflect on their own perceived images of Maryam (ra) in similiar attire. And what of the oppression of their veiled nuns?
The difference is the feministic focus on protecting women. Nuns choose to join an order and know full well there are many orders without any such clothing. When it comes to Muslim women it is seen as something the men impose on them because they cannot handle their own desires or something. That some Muslim woman want this themselves is just something most people in the west cannot understand as it goes so completely against their own values.
I think the perception is slowly changing because of more and more Muslim women that give detailed interviews or write books and so on.
The argument against nuns misses the point. Most people regard them as just as archaic and in many cases nuns do not wear those clothes anymore outside or ceremonial events or in their order. But still it is clearly seen as a choice made by the person, while hijab's are seen as something the prototypical self-conscious woman wouldn't choose but their father and husband do
format_quote Originally Posted by ~Zaria~
While they mock the muslim woman who stays at home, rearing her children and protected by her husband.......do they find 'liberation' in their women, dressed in suits, trying so foolishly hard to be men?
This is simply an opposing view on what's to be desired. In some cases it is probably simply overcompensation.
format_quote Originally Posted by ~Zaria~
When they speak of women having 'no rights' in Islam......do they not look at the bill-boards of their near-naked women, with rights close to cattle?
Yet we have all this idiotic drama drenched model casting shows with many volunteers. They want to be adored and stand in the middle. Near naked-ness is something many people have absolutely no problem with and some fight for their right to be naked in their free body culture beaches.
The models have their bodies and want to show of. Just like men in sports, but for women it is fashion, style and other stuff many men don't get. Ever noticed that most pictures are in woman magazines. I wouldn't complain about the bill boards concerning rights but different things like trafficking, sex tourism ...
Still one wrong doesn't make another okay. The profession one chooses usually freely, into families and cultures one is born into.
format_quote Originally Posted by ~Zaria~
When they scoff at the beard
Never heard that one before. What's wrong with a beard?
format_quote Originally Posted by ~Zaria~
When they frown at the marriage between Aisha (ra) and our beloved prophet (sallalahu alaihi wasalam)........do they forget the norms of that period?
I don't think anybody forgets the norms of the period. The argument goes as such that he was no better despite being supposedly the final prophet. Even if he did no worse than anybody else at the time with that job description one is held to a higher standard. Jesus has it easier as his followers can simply say he wouldn't have, although nobody could prove it either way.
Today child abuse of any sort as well as arranged marriage with both underage girls or anyone that cannot say no; is seen a very bad in all the modern democracies. No crime is shunned as much as child abuse. It is a thing of the past along with many other things.
Everybody knows that knights also came home from war and married some really young women and the medieval movies don't quite depict the truth. Today the sin in it is to our societies as clear as day and as clear as murder. God's messengers are supposed to have displayed an example that still holds today.
Don't think that Jesus and the bible get from Atheist no similar treatment. Maybe Jesus was a nice guy but he did not clearly speak out against slavery which we all consider bad today. Many more such things.
That it was the norm some long time ago isn't good enough for modern day humanists. Everybody else is doing it doesn't work as an excuse in many cases, passivity is complicity.
Re: The truth about Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and Aisha
format_quote Originally Posted by dusk
The difference is the feministic focus on protecting women. Nuns choose to join an order and know full well there are many orders without any such clothing. When it comes to Muslim women it is seen as something the men impose on them because they cannot handle their own desires or something. That some Muslim woman want this themselves is just something most people in the west cannot understand as it goes so completely against their own values.
I think the perception is slowly changing because of more and more Muslim women that give detailed interviews or write books and so on.
The argument against nuns misses the point. Most people regard them as just as archaic and in many cases nuns do not wear those clothes anymore outside or ceremonial events or in their order. But still it is clearly seen as a choice made by the person, while hijab's are seen as something the prototypical self-conscious woman wouldn't choose but their father and husband do
Which is why I mention that:
Its interesting to note how society constantly tries to paint Islam with a tainted brush.
It is an intentional misrepresentation that husbands/ fathers oppress women by imposing the hijab upon them.
The majority of muslim women wear the hijaab/ niqaab out of choice.
format_quote Originally Posted by dusk
Yet we have all this idiotic drama drenched model casting shows with many volunteers.
They want to be adored and stand in the middle. Near naked-ness is something many people have absolutely no problem with and some fight for their right to be naked in their free body culture beaches.
The models have their bodies and want to show of. Just like men in sports, but for women it is fashion, style and other stuff many men don't get. Ever noticed that most pictures are in woman magazines. I wouldn't complain about the bill boards concerning rights but different things like trafficking, sex tourism ...
Still one wrong doesn't make another okay. The profession one chooses usually freely, into families and cultures one is born into.
The one who is able to appreciate the value of women - that transcends her physical appearance, and realises that the most precious things in life are kept protected and honoured, not flaunted like worthless objects - will be able to understand why we SHOULD have a problem with near-nakedness.
It is not about a women wanting to 'show of'.
We have to ask ourselves why we have even reached this stage?
That women today feel that they have to 'compete' with one another for attention - which has resulted in the plastered faces, and the need to reveal more and more of their precious bodies.
format_quote Originally Posted by dusk
Never heard that one before. What's wrong with a beard?
And theres many, many more cases of discrimination, arising from the wearing of a beard.
format_quote Originally Posted by dusk
I don't think anybody forgets the norms of the period. The argument goes as such that he was no better despite being supposedly the final prophet. Even if he did no worse than anybody else at the time with that job description one is held to a higher standard. Jesus has it easier as his followers can simply say he wouldn't have, although nobody could prove it either way.
Today child abuse of any sort as well as arranged marriage with both underage girls or anyone that cannot say no; is seen a very bad in all the modern democracies. No crime is shunned as much as child abuse. It is a thing of the past along with many other things.
Everybody knows that knights also came home from war and married some really young women and the medieval movies don't quite depict the truth. Today the sin in it is to our societies as clear as day and as clear as murder. God's messengers are supposed to have displayed an example that still holds today.
Don't think that Jesus and the bible get from Atheist no similar treatment. Maybe Jesus was a nice guy but he did not clearly speak out against slavery which we all consider bad today. Many more such things.
That it was the norm some long time ago isn't good enough for modern day humanists. Everybody else is doing it doesn't work as an excuse in many cases, passivity is complicity.
Read the article again, as well as listen to the posted video by Sheikh Hamza Yusuf.
Re: The truth about Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and Aisha
format_quote Originally Posted by dusk
The difference is the feministic focus on protecting women.
Women in the west had to fight for rights already given to women in Islam millenniums ago:
100 YEARS ago.. question is who took away their rights to speak? and exactly in what way are you comparing?
Nuns choose to join an order and know full well there are many orders without any such clothing. When it comes to Muslim women it is seen as something the men impose on them because they cannot handle their own desires or something. That some Muslim woman want this themselves is just something most people in the west cannot understand as it goes so completely against their own values.
That's a western problem then is it? they're condescending to both men and women!
format_quote Originally Posted by dusk
I don't think anybody forgets the norms of the period. The argument goes as such that he was no better despite being supposedly the final prophet. Even if he did no worse than anybody else at the time with that job description one is held to a higher standard. Jesus has it easier as his followers can simply say he wouldn't have, although nobody could prove it either way.
Today child abuse of any sort as well as arranged marriage with both underage girls or anyone that cannot say no; is seen a very bad in all the modern democracies. No crime is shunned as much as child abuse. It is a thing of the past along with many other things.
Everybody knows that knights also came home from war and married some really young women and the medieval movies don't quite depict the truth. Today the sin in it is to our societies as clear as day and as clear as murder. God's messengers are supposed to have displad an example that still holds today.
Don't think that Jesus and the bible get from Atheist no similar treatment. Maybe Jesus was a nice guy but he did not clearly speak out against slavery which we all consider bad today. Many more such things.
That it was the norm some long time ago isn't good enough for modern day humanists. Everybody else is doing it doesn't work as an excuse in many cases, passivity is complicity.
The problem is your definition of child vs. adult.
A person who is considered a child in England isn't considered a child in Spain and so on. It is an arbitrarily assigned number. Whereas in Islam adulthood was decided by the onset of puberty, in other Abraham faiths it wasn't (see below) and in the west not a hundred years ago the age of consent in some states was as young as 7 (again see below) You have to keep in mind that women didn't always survive childbirth nor children childhood - we can't view the world then with what we've of modern day medicine and conveniences . When again in the modern civilized west folks considered physicians like ignaz semmelweis to be a loon for suggesting that washing your hands before delivering a child had something to do with morbidity and mortality, it took him to the loony bin and his pathologist friend to the grave before folks decided ah that makes sense, let's wash our hands. So please put things in perspective for the credence of your own argumentation.
Also marrying at a young age isn't an injunction it is a privilege. Aisha (ra) was in fact engaged to someone else before the prophet and that engagement was broken because she and Abu Bakr had embraced Islam!
here is the age of consent in the united states in 1885 with a website stating it was 7 in state of Delaware plus according to Jewish Law a girl maybe married at:
What is the minimum age of marriage according to Jewish law? by Rabbi Naftali Silberberg Our Sages state1 that "it is forbidden for one to marry off his daughter until she is an adult and says 'this is the one I want to marry.'" It is forbidden for one to marry off his daughter until she is an adult and says 'this is the one I want to marry'! In ancient (and not so ancient) times however, marriage was often-times celebrated at a rather young age. Although we do not follow this dictum, technically speaking, a girl may be betrothed the moment she is born, and married at the age of three.2 A boy may betroth and marry at the age of thirteen.3
this one is from bringhamton.edu of most states set the age of consent at the age of ten or twelve, and in one state, Delaware, the age of consent was only seven. Women reformers and advocates of social purity initiated a campaign in 1885 to petition legislators to raise the legal age of consent to at least sixteen,
Re: The truth about Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and Aisha
format_quote Originally Posted by منوة الخيال
Nuns choose to join an order and know full well there are many orders without any such clothing. When it comes to Muslim women it is seen as something the men impose on them because they cannot handle their own desires or something. That some Muslim woman want this themselves is just something most people in the west cannot understand as it goes so completely against their own values.
That's a western problem then is it? they're condescending to both men and women!
Well, yes and no. I think the problem is with the idea of choice. Some in the UK find it hard to understand that someone would choose to wear the hijab. This is a problem for us, although as Dusk says, it is being explained better as Muslims in public life become more common. Hence it is becoming more common for people to think of hijab as a sign of cultural difference rather than oppression. Increased communication is helping here and hopefully will continue to do so.
But there are women who are forced to wear the hijab - we have had a few cases here where a Muslim father has killed his daughter for wanting to dress and act in a "non-Islamic, western manner". I have had many Muslim students who have said that they are unhappy with having to cover themselves in their own countries. As they say, the idea of the hijab is fine for them, but they would like the opportunity to choose for themselves. It's the choice issue that we in the UK struggle with.
Re: The truth about Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and Aisha
format_quote Originally Posted by observer
Well, yes and no. I think the problem is with the idea of choice. Some in the UK find it hard to understand that someone would choose to wear the hijab. This is a problem for us, although as Dusk says, it is being explained better as Muslims in public life become more common. Hence it is becoming more common for people to think of hijab as a sign of cultural difference rather than oppression. Increased communication is helping here and hopefully will continue to do so.
There's no compulsion in religion. One of the biggest Muslim scholars in Egypt and Quran reciters has a daughter who is an actress/singer - so please spare me the men force to do this or to do that. I will not take kindly to people insulting or insinuating insult toward my brothers, uncles, father, nephews etc.
Secondly many of us also can't understand the sexualization of women in the west and reducing them to mere objects. it is a known historical fact that it is slave women that had no clothing to shield them not women of nobility so sadly you've the situation reverse. If you care for a woman mind/ideology etc. then it wouldn't matter what she wears and guarding ones chastity you'll have to agree forces you to look at a woman for something else other than her body.
It is also interesting to note that research which comes out of the west shows that men are more attracted to women in winter when they're fully clothed as opposed to naked & buff on the beach:
lastly why would anyone want to pay for the cow when they get the milk for free. There was a time during my surgery rotation where I'd be seeing three or four naked people daily that after a while they didn't even seem human to me and I lost all interest in men sexually, it is an unfortunate reality that many in healthcare deal with and I imagine when an entire society is desensitized - it is a sad reality indeed!
You should leave some things to the imagination and look for other qualities in a person.
best,
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Re: The truth about Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and Aisha
format_quote Originally Posted by منوة الخيال
There's no compulsion in religion. One of the biggest Muslim scholars in Egypt and Quran reciters has a daughter who is an actress/singer - so please spare me the men force to do this or to do that. I will not take kindly to people insulting or insinuating insult toward my brothers, uncles, father, nephews etc.
There is no insult here. Read the full post - I'm saying that people in the UK see hijab and think that women are forced to wear it. Extra communication is helping to dispel this. Please, don't be so quick to take offence, try and understand what is being said as it was intended. I have cast no aspersions here.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
gladTidings, Haya emaan, جوري, Abu Zainab, Insaanah, Hulk, Jedi_Mindset, ~Zaria~, ba51th liked this post
Our Sages state1 that "it is forbidden for one to marry off his daughter until she is an adult and says 'this is the one I want to marry.'" It is forbidden for one to marry off his daughter until she is an adult and says 'this is the one I want to marry'!
Add a comment
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks