What makes something good?

[ccc]

everything is made in Christ is good.I would say that everything is made because of sincere searching of the good or god or healing is good.

 

[Justufy]

Justufy, I went through several pages with Skye on precisely this point and you are still asking at the end of your post the most childish of ethical questions. (snip)

I think I can agree with most of what you said here, forgive me if I you have already talked about it in this topic and I have not seen it, but I tend to ignore posts made towards (and by) a particular user on this forum, for personal reasons of course.
On another front it would appear to me that a natural selection of ''good people'' is already in effect in our societies partly because of course a society where no one respects any rules/rape and kill would be a society that ultimately would destroy itself.

I think the tendency to do good is already in ourselves from the beginning, (here I would share Rousseau’s idea of the man at his beginnings). We must also remember that the Qu’ran or bible are not perfect also, they were created by men and could have been influenced by the context at the time, things may have been added or modified to answer particular social problems or situations, as I view great admiration in these attempts to establish a code with desirable rules I don’t accept all of them blindly, my morality is in my heart.

As I believe in God, and this belief is entirely personal to me, I also believe that people have the law or the tendency to do good engraved deep within their hearts, as for your notion of Good and evil I would answer that evil does not exist, it is simply the absence of Good, there can be good without evil but no evil without Good.

For some things to be said objectively wrong, God has to exist, because things ( and I know so) are wrong no matter what, no matter what context, situation, and the rest... And I think that in some cases its no more than a Gut feeling that learns us that this or that is objectively wrong.

 

[Skavau]

I think I can agree with most of what you said here, forgive me if I you have already talked about it in this topic and I have not seen it, but I tend to ignore posts made towards (and by) a particular user on this forum, for personal reasons of course.

Understood. When I referred to your dilemma at the end being 'childish', I did not mean it as to be disrespectful, or insulting - it was precisely that I believed it to be an oversimplification, loaded question and something that demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of morality.

On another front it would appear to me that a natural selection of ''good people'' is already in effect in our societies partly because of course a society where no one respects any rules/rape and kill would be a society that ultimately would destroy itself.

Indeed.

Of course, that's only one part of morality. A persistent society able to maintain itself is not in and of itself, necessarily a moral one.

I think the tendency to do good is already in ourselves from the beginning, (here I would share Rousseau’s idea of the man at his beginnings). We must also remember that the Qu’ran or bible are not perfect also, they were created by men and could have been influenced by the context at the time, things may have been added or modified to answer particular social problems or situations, as I view great admiration in these attempts to establish a code with desirable rules I don’t accept all of them blindly, my morality is in my heart.

I would agree with a tendency for good, but it would be for different reasons - related to our human origins.

As I believe in God, and this belief is entirely personal to me, I also believe that people have the law or the tendency to do good engraved deep within their hearts, as for your notion of Good and evil I would answer that evil does not exist, it is simply the absence of Good, there can be good without evil but no evil without Good.

I would disagree with that. The absence of good is amorality. If I eat a bag of crisps, it is neither good nor bad - it is amoral. For evil to mean something, it has to involve a specific negative action.

For some things to be said objectively wrong, God has to exist, because things ( and I know so) are wrong no matter what, no matter what context, situation, and the rest...

But that's precisely the unexplained claim. How would God existing mean that certain things become inherently wrong in and of themselves? What does that even mean?

And I think that in some cases its no more than a Gut feeling that learns us that this or that is objectively wrong.

That doesn't sound really objective to me.

 

[Hugo]

Unfortunately that is only the case for Christianity Islam covered everything and didn't leave anything to chance or charlatans!

This is simply nonsense, how can Islam 'cover everything'? Just to be simplistic there is nothing in the Qu'ran, Sunna or Hadith about aeroplanes, or lasers, or pianos or football, or organ transplants or a million and one other things.

Similarly, in our daily life we all have to make decisions; for example, I see a job I want to apply for, how can I know its right to do that etc - we cannot look up the answer in a book can we?

Secondly I have compared Islam only to other has-been religions of Abrahamic faiths to make a point that you are obviously inept at using in the same fashion, and lastly and I think again most importantly Islam isn't a religion about a self-immolating man-god who impregnated a woman with his being, to be born (forgoing sustainability of the laws of the universe) choosing ineffectual apostles, praying to himself then dying and then appearing clandestinely to one man deemed his nemesis to throw the masses into further confusion. And certainly Islam doesn't center around just that one thing for sin abolition.. so what can I say, we are certainly not standing on equal grounds and even if, it really wouldn't matter.. what matters is what makes sense to one in terms of life affairs and spiritual guidance and I think ultimately what becomes of that faith in the hereafter is most pressing of all.. It is a sad thing to live ones life thinking 'for god' what is important and enabling a wrong doing after the next because in ones mind one has deemed such a prohibition insignificant or such a belief a focal point.

You simply let you bias rule your reason. You talk about apostles but their teaching is followed by billions their inspired writings are outstanding by any standard and any one almost can have it in their own language. The Bible overwhelmingly speaks of love and devotion to a holy and Godly life. Christians let God be God in their lives, not a distant God but one who is alive and vibrant and through prayer have a real and living continual communion with Him.

Trusting daily in a living God is a good thing and indeed its the centre of our lives and we do what we do not because the law says so but because we strive always to do it out of love for God, not wanting in anyway to offend or abuse His grace - that too is good and can have a powerful impact in our lives outworking in sacrifice and unselfishness.

 

[جوري]

This is simply nonsense, how can Islam 'cover everything'? Just to be simplistic there is nothing in the Qu'ran, Sunna or Hadith about aeroplanes, or lasers, or pianos or football, or organ transplants or a million and one other things.

exactly what is it about football and lasers where you should seek some moral guidance or divine guidance? Sometimes I wonder how your brain is wired

Similarly, in our daily life we all have to make decisions; for example, I see a job I want to apply for, how can I know its right to do that etc - we cannot look up the answer in a book can we?

surely in Islam if we are looking to see that a particular aspect is right or wrong for us we can perform salat al'istikhara!

You simply let you bias rule your reason. You talk about apostles but their teaching is followed by billions their inspired writings are outstanding by any standard and any one almost can have it in their own language. The Bible overwhelmingly speaks of love and devotion to a holy and Godly life. Christians let God be God in their lives, not a distant God but one who is alive and vibrant and through prayer have a real and living continual communion with Him.

I suppose that is reflected deeply in the secular societies you live in which are moving further and further away from what is considered very archaic and obsolete form of morality. I love your use of words though, I'll give you that much 'outstanding'

Trusting daily in a living God is a good thing and indeed its the centre of our lives and we do what we do not because the law says so but because we strive always to do it out of love for God, not wanting in anyway to offend or abuse His grace - that too is good and can have a powerful impact in our lives outworking in sacrifice and unselfishness.

You can pacify yourself that you are living a good sacrificial and unselfish life all you want!

all the best

 

[Justufy]

But that's precisely the unexplained claim. How would God existing mean that certain things become inherently wrong in and of themselves? What does that even mean?

When I come to think about It.

I have to agree that the existence or inexistence of God would not make them any more good or evil, In fact , in all honesty, God and whatever decrees he decides to author are in no way necessary to the existence of Good or evil ( abscence of good). However I think that these laws and ‘’moral codes’’ that have been written by men, (and I will in no way assert here that they were ‘’God decreed’’ or ‘’God given’’) Yes, they were written by simple human beings, but these had to have some sort of notion of good to begin with.

I think that this notion is transmitted by our human nature and the societies we live in; I think this is why the moral code of some religions is at odds with present day concerns and modern societies by this I mean concerns such as homosexuality, abortion and so forth.
I follow my own heart.

You can pacify yourself that you are living a good sacrificial and unselfish life all you want!

all the best

what is this babble?? how can you be in any position to judge the lives of anyone on an internet forum??? lives of people you don't even know, this shows how precarious your grasp of morality actually is.

I suppose that is reflected deeply in the secular societies you live in which are moving further and further away from what is considered very archaic and obsolete form of morality.

Congratz on getting this straight, indeed the ''morality'' of some belief systems can be considered in some modern societies as archaic and obsolete, take Sharia law for example, this would be in its environement in some obscur tribal medieval village, but not in today's societies.

 

[Hugo]

exactly what is it about football and lasers where you should seek some moral guidance or divine guidance? Sometimes I wonder how your brain is wired.

I want to know are these things good or bad. Islam has a lot to say for example about music so what has it got to say about football - is football morally good or bad? Do you see what I am asking? There are a million and one thing we might want to ask about that are not, could not be covered in any ancient scripture.

surely in Islam if we are looking to see that a particular aspect is right or wrong for us we can perform salat al'istikhara!

This is a very odd understanding of salat al'istikhara - I have never heard any one say it allows you to make perfect decisions?

I suppose that is reflected deeply in the secular societies you live in which are moving further and further away from what is considered very archaic and obsolete form of morality. I love your use of words though, I'll give you that much 'outstanding'

I think you might be right but history does seem to show this kind of thing happening all the time in every society there seems to be a kind of moral death wish so it nothing new is it?

 

[جوري]

I want to know are these things good or bad. Islam has a lot to say for example about music so what has it got to say about football - is football morally good or bad? Do you see what I am asking? There are a million and one thing we might want to ask about that are not, could not be covered in any ancient scripture.

A general principal can be applied. If something is harmful for you then leave it, if it is good for you then go for it.

This is a very odd understanding of salat al'istikhara - I have never heard any one say it allows you to make perfect decisions?

You should seek all matters with Allah's guidance:

Salat Al-Istikhara in Arabic

​

Chinese Muslims praying in Xinjiang China

Reprinted from IslamicAcademy.org:

"Istikhara" means to seek goodness from Allah (Exalted is He), meaning when one intends to do an important task they do istikhara before the task.
The one who does the istikhara is asking Allah Almighty, the Knower of Unseen (Exalted is He) to guide him or her to know whether the task is better for him or not.
Salat al-Istikhara is a powerful tool that Allah has given us to ask His guidance in all matters. We should not hesitate to pray Istikhara before making any choice in our lives, big or small.
It's important to do this prayer with sincerity, knowing in our hearts that only Allah can give us the guidance we seek, and resolved to follow the guidance He gives us, even if it clashes with our own desires.
We should also say the duaa with firm conviction, not begging or pleading, but asking Allah clearly for guidance.
And we should not be impatient after our duaa. We do not put Allah on a timetable. We say our prayers and trust that Allah has heard us and will answer us in the way that is best.
We have several articles about Salat-al-Istikhara on this website, IslamicAnswers.com. Take the time to read the articles and learn how to perform the Istikhara prayer properly. It will benefit you tremendously in your life choices.
According to Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 21, Number 263:
Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah: The Prophet (Sallal Laho Alaihi Wasallam) used to teach us the way of doing Istikhara, in all matters as he taught us the Suras of the Quran. He said, "If anyone of you thinks of doing any action he should offer a two Rakat prayer other than the compulsory ones and say (after the prayer):

Salat Al-Istikhara in Arabic

TRANSLATION: "O Allah! I seek goodness from Your Knowledge and with Your Power (and Might) I seek strength, and I ask from You Your Great Blessings, because You have the Power and I do not have the power. You Know everything and I do not know, and You have knowledge of the unseen. Oh Allah! If in Your Knowledge this action ------------------------------------------------ (which I intend to do) is better for my religion and faith, for my life and end [death], for here [in this world] and the hereafter then make it destined for me and make it easy for me and then add blessings [baraka'] in it, for me. O Allah! In Your Knowledge if this action is bad for me, bad for my religion and faith, for my life and end [death], for here [in this world] and the hereafter then turn it away from me and turn me away from it and whatever is better for me, ordain [destine] that for me and then make me satisfied with it."
WAY TO PERFORM ISTIKHARA:
First pray Two Cycles (raka') of ritual Prayer (nafil) such that in the first raka' after Surah Fatiha (Allhamd"¦) recite Surah al-Kafirun (Chapter 109) and in the second raka' after Fatiha (Allhamd"¦) recite Surah al-Ikhlas (Chapter 112). After finishing prayer recite this (supplication/dua'): Dua in Arabic Text above.
How many times?
It depends. Sometimes it takes only once to get the answer and sometimes it takes longer. It is better to do istakhara seven (7) times. If you have received an answer, you may stop doing istikhara. You do not have to continue to do isitkhara for 7 days. It is better that right after reciting the supplication, given above, sleep with ablution (people who cannot keep the ablution for longer times due to health problems do not have to worry about ablution before falling asleep) facing the direction of the Qibla (facing the Qibla is not required but it is a Sunnat of our beloved Prophet Peace Be Upon Him). It is better to recite salutations (durood/ salawat) on the Prophet Allah's Grace and Peace be upon him before and after the above Dua (supplication).

I think you might be right but history does seem to show this kind of thing happening all the time in every society there seems to be a kind of moral death wish so it nothing new is it?

It is sad in my opinion..

all the best

 

[Hugo]

Re: Liberty is good

Just like to add in some new ideas and they relate to the idea of liberty and is liberty a good thing, something we should strive to create and preserve. So some preliminary thoughts:

1. Those who control information control liberty and authority opposes liberty.

2. We are creatures of faith and reason and we only interfere with faith when it proportional to how it affects the liberty of others.

3. Freedom is the right to choose; the right to create for oneself the alternatives of choice. Without the possibility of choice a man is not a man but a member, an instrument, a thing (MacLeish). Indeed there seems very good research evidence that that people denied choices are less able to cope with life's vicissitudes. The pre frontal cortex in humans is larger than in any other species, granting us an unparalleled ability to choose rationally' and in a way superseding all other competing instincts - in short 'choosing' is part of our most basic human faculty and if its taken away it can have a profound affect on who we are and on society.

3. Liberty is a right and rights are a good thing and in England perhaps the first right was articulated in the 17th century in a new way. The question was how can people with strongly conflicting religious beliefs live peaceably together and what was striking was that people stopped saying religious belief is supremely important therefore everyone should have my faith. and instead they said everyone should have the right to the faith that they in conscience believe. So in one simple move religeon becomes a friend of liberty.

How do people feel about this, this basic right, to believe as your conscience dictates - to me this is a supreme good and something that has been shown to be good in its effects.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Re: Liberty is good

1. Those who control information control liberty and authority opposes liberty.

God is the ultimate authority figure, therefore by the above God oppose liberty.

2. We are creatures of faith and reason and we only interfere with faith when it proportional to how it affects the liberty of others.

Faith is trusting in somebody else's ideas and decisions, it is opting not to exercise one's liberty.

 

[Hugo]

Re: Liberty is good

God is the ultimate authority figure, therefore by the above God oppose liberty.

Faith is trusting in somebody else's ideas and decisions, it is opting not to exercise one's liberty.

Let us assume God exits then what you say would only make sense if God had made us in some other way, made us into some kind of Zombie but all we know about the way humans react is that they want to make choices, they want liberty, they are anything but Zombies, just read the Bible and see almost every character there arguing and railing against God and often walking away from him?

Faith is trusting in something but you are assuming it is always completely blind. Your logic is also flawed as you seem to think that agreeing through faith is not an excise in liberty, a choice, but disagreeing, abandoning faith is.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Re: Liberty is good

Let us assume God exits then what you say would only make sense if God had made us in some other way, made us into some kind of Zombie but all we know about the way humans react is that they want to make choices, they want liberty, they are anything but Zombies, just read the Bible and see almost every character there arguing and railing against God and often walking away from him?

You just said that authority is against liberty. God is authority. Therefore God is against liberty. Perhaps it is your own premise you should take issue with

Faith is trusting in something but you are assuming it is always completely blind.

It is. If there is reason and logic, if there is any pondering or considering on your part in reaching the answer, then you are not taking it on faith.

 

[Hugo]

Re: Liberty is good

You just said that authority is against liberty. God is authority. Therefore God is against liberty. Perhaps it is your own premise you should take issue with It is. If there is reason and logic, if there is any pondering or considering on your part in reaching the answer, then you are not taking it on faith.

I think you misunderstand what constitutes discussion. In my posts I offered some thoughts not dogma and one of those is that authority is against liberty and you can subscribe to that idea or not as you please. You are the one who is using dogma, you are the one basing his argument on the premise that God is authority and one might as well argue that since liberty exists God exercises no authority or does not exist or just chooses not to use his authority; there is more that one possibility.

You also it seems are an all or nothing person and cannot see the liberty does not mean to most people that you can do anything as some of my other opening remarks indicated. Or that authority means one has no choice at all. A simple example is chess, there are rules but within the rules you can move as you please and indeed its the rules that make it free. We are all bound by physical laws but one can view those laws as they very things that give us freedom.

I cannot quite see what your logic is as in life I take a huge number of things on trust, faith, one would hardly be able to live otherwise. For instance I cannot prove my wife loves me in any absolute sense but I can see evidences of it in all the large and small things she does for me - but of course I may be wrong, but that is the deal in live we have. It is much the same with religious faith, I can see things that convince me of it truth and value, they may not convince you but that does not mean they are invalidated does it.

When we come to reason its is not a simpler matter either and logic itself has limits as any paradox will tell you. But we do not as human being use unaided reason, for example, to make any judgement one needs emotions as well as reason, indeed one cannot make a judgement without emotions. For instance, when I buy a care I can make out a list of criteria but those very choices are essentially emotional judgements and even if a car meets my criteria I can still reject it. If we move from there to say choosing a wife then its easy to see the logic and reason are simply not enough.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Re: Liberty is good

you are the one basing his argument

I have made no argument. I have simply pointed out an implication of your thought to see if you've thought it out. I don't think many God believers will dispute that God is an authority figure (most will tell you we all are to obey him - hence the ten commandments, heaven and hell, etc).

 

[Hugo]

Re: Liberty is good

I believe I have thought it out and certainly God can be thought of as an authority figure but in every day life it does not look like that does it? I have to make my own decisions, I cannot stop it raining or prevent illness. So if God has authority I am not sure how he exercises it apart from the workings of nature perhaps. Hence I have to use my own moral judgements all the time even though I might accept say the 10 commandments I still have to decide to follow them and as far as I know God does not interfere with my choices?

 

[Skavau]

Re: Liberty is good

I believe I have thought it out and certainly God can be thought of as an authority figure but in every day life it does not look like that does it? I have to make my own decisions, I cannot stop it raining or prevent illness. So if God has authority I am not sure how he exercises it apart from the workings of nature perhaps. Hence I have to use my own moral judgements all the time even though I might accept say the 10 commandments I still have to decide to follow them and as far as I know God does not interfere with my choices?

He is not suggesting you are controlled by God, he is suggesting that you are subservient to the concept of God. That it directs your moral philosophy.

Here's the key: would you ever disobey God? Would you ever consider it possible for God to be wrong about anything?

 

[Hugo]

Re: Liberty is good

He is not suggesting you are controlled by God, he is suggesting that you are subservient to the concept of God. That it directs your moral philosophy. Here's the key: would you ever disobey God? Would you ever consider it possible for God to be wrong about anything?

Well perhaps its splitting hairs but my moral philosophy is largely based in what I see as God's message and I see that as a message of both justice and love. But of course that message does not speak about every possible thing and so I have to interpret the message and in a sense apply it to today. Much of what is written in the Bible is about circumstances and institutions that no longer apply and things that are no more than ritual. So I would hope not to disobey that message but of course I know that is ultimately impossible and at the same time I have to interpret and perhaps re-interpret what is there. So I might argue that God cannot be wrong but I would argue that He can in some strange way change his mind and there is ample Biblical evidence that prayers is one vehicle for that. One supposes that even if you do not believe in God one goes through a similar process and it seems to me even the most immoral person desires justice though perhaps only for himself.

 

[Skavau]

Re: Liberty is good

Well perhaps its splitting hairs but my moral philosophy is largely based in what I see as God's message and I see that as a message of both justice and love.

Okay

But of course that message does not speak about every possible thing and so I have to interpret the message and in a sense apply it to today. Much of what is written in the Bible is about circumstances and institutions that no longer apply and things that are no more than ritual. So I would hope not to disobey that message but of course I know that is ultimately impossible and at the same time I have to interpret and perhaps re-interpret what is there. So I might argue that God cannot be wrong but I would argue that He can in some strange way change his mind and there is ample Biblical evidence that prayers is one vehicle for that. One supposes that even if you do not believe in God one goes through a similar process and it seems to me even the most immoral person desires justice though perhaps only for himself.

Yes, self-interest is justice without the concerns of others.

I am not challenging your perspective scripturally - I talk about it philosophically. My biggest problem with the specific idea of theistic morality (morality from God) is that is thoroughly deceptive. It presents an image of piety, and an objective one at that but in actuality, in my observation represents a glorified system of obedience towards God with humanity being an agenda towards that. Such that all must be sacrificed and disregarded in the pursuit of gaining God's acknowledgment. That all personal liberties are defunct if God mandates it, and any disagreement with this analysis is moot once declared.

You can actually see this at times with how various organisations function in the world, and what people say. Some examples include the issued fatwas around the Muslim world, the actions of Mother Teresa in her life and her God-centric motivation, the Catholic church itself declaring condoms worse than Aids, the general state of the evangelical movement within the United States and the general state of theocratic states across the world. In none of these examples were those involved motivated for humanist reasons but were motivated entirely to please God, and do what they thought God demands - and (no pun intended) to hell with everyone else. It's dangerous, disturbing and has been a historical (and continues in many places) warrant for destruction.

You yourself do not appear to hold the traditional conception of God of omniscience, since you've stated that perhaps God can be in error. Are you a Process Theologian?

 

[Hugo]

Re: Liberty is good

I am not challenging your perspective scripturally - I talk about it philosophically. My biggest problem with the specific idea of theistic morality (morality from God) is that is thoroughly deceptive. It presents an image of piety, and an objective one at that but in actuality, in my observation represents a glorified system of obedience towards God with humanity being an agenda towards that. Such that all must be sacrificed and disregarded in the pursuit of gaining God's acknowledgment. That all personal liberties are defunct if God mandates it, and any disagreement with this analysis is moot once declared.

You can actually see this at times with how various organisations function in the world, and what people say. Some examples include the issued fatwas around the Muslim world, the actions of Mother Teresa in her life and her God-centric motivation, the Catholic church itself declaring condoms worse than Aids, the general state of the evangelical movement within the United States and the general state of theocratic states across the world. In none of these examples were those involved motivated for humanist reasons but were motivated entirely to please God, and do what they thought God demands - and (no pun intended) to hell with everyone else. It's dangerous, disturbing and has been a historical (and continues in many places) warrant for destruction.

You yourself do not appear to hold the traditional conception of God of omniscience, since you've stated that perhaps God can be in error. Are you a Process Theologian?

I am not sure I said God can be in error but only that he can change his mind. But I suppose philosophically I find dogma difficult and I am not very happy about people telling me what is right and wrong - well I don't mind them telling me as long as they don't demand that I accept it as truth because God or Allah says so or some scholar writing 14 centuries ago is infallible; that is just a route to intolerance and oppression.

Though I strongly subscribe to Biblical principles of morality I do still like (if that is the right word) to think it through. There are perhaps two ways of dealing with right and wrong. In simple terms we can use dogma (someone tells you it is wrong) or you can use argument (you explain why it is wrong) and this is the basis of ethics. A simple example here is that the Jewish and Muslim faiths forbid the eating of pork. This is dogma, believers are told this is the truth this is right. But that is quite a different thing to trying to form an argument as to why it is true and right.

The trouble with dogma is that it can stop you thinking so that one blindly accepts things without much in the way of critical thought or open discussion. When this happens, it is not a very big step to utter intolerance and repression of those that don’t agree or toe the line and we can see that in many places the world over. Mary Warnock has suggested that there are three underlying principles of ethics or I think you can say morals. She called them:

Altruism – this is perhaps easy to understand if we think of the word unselfish and wanting to do good.

Sympathy – this just means we feel some “pain” for another person.

Imagination – this sounds perhaps a bit odd but in fact it is probably the hinge on which ethics works. If you have no imagination or never employ it then you cannot see how another person or persons might feel or respond to what you are doing or believing and often you care only for yourself​

 

[Hugo]

I would now like to move the debate on to specifically faith related matters of good and bad. One area of specific interest to me is the place of women in Islam and whether that 'place' is morally justifiable, indeed good, best or better than elsewhere or specifically better than that typically found in Western or other religious cultures. For purposes of continuity here and to allow those who want to follow it up I will paraphrase from Wafa Sultan's book "A God who Hates" published in 2009 with ISBN 9780312 538354.

The Koran says: "There is a good example in Allah's apostle" (33:21). So it has relevance to this thread, do we simply accept that because a certain persoin performed and act it is automatically 'good' and the act itself need not be considered?

In this instance, the Prophet contracted his marriage with Aisha when she was six years old and he was fifty. The marriage was consummated when she was nine. If we consider now the book "Wives of Mohammed" written in 1959 by the very well respected scholar, Bint al-Shati' she describes that day for us in Aisha's words:

"The Prophet married me when I was six years old and the marriage was consummated when I was nine. The Prophet of God came to our home in company with men and women who were among his followers. My mother came [to me] while I was in a swing between the branches of a tree and made me come down. She smoothed my hair, wiped my face with a little water then came forward and led me to the door. She stopped me while I calmed myself a little. Then she took me in. The Prophet of God was sitting on a bed in our home, and she sat me in his lap. Everyone jumped up and went out, and the Prophet consummated his marriage with me at our home."​

Here can we discuss its moral importance and what it has done, and is still doing, to destroy the moral and mental fibre of Muslim men and women. A fifty-year-old man marries a six-year-old girl and consummates their marriage when she turns nine. The question is simple was this act a crime or an example, indeed an ideal example to be followed?

If we step aside from the event itself and look at the religious and legal legitimization it has been accorded it is the moral example that the individual Muslim extracts from this incident which invest it with its importance and gravity. So Islamic custom attaches no value to childhood. A child is his father's property, who has the right to dispose of him as he would of any other property. When a mother picks up her young daughter of no more than nine years and places her in the arms of a man her grandfather's age, her daughter's child-hood has surely been irreparably violated. When the mother's action acquired religious and legal legitimacy, it became a way of life for fourteen centuries. I cannot see any other way to view this but I wait to see what others might add.