What is your take on these claims?

[KIP]

On what grounds do you claim that?
What experiments can we repeat in order to find counterexamples for your claim?

Historical medical research IS valid and it is plain and obvious to everyone due to children having underdeveloped hips/breasts, pubic hair and height. You don't think a girl is fully grown when she gets her period? That is only the start of puberty. It is also possible for a child to be damaged if they have sex to early. It can render them unable to have children.
How many children did Aisha have?

 

[kritikvernunft]

Historical medical research

No, that is history.
History only ascertains that past events have truly taken place.
History does not make any prediction about the future.

it is plain and obvious to everyone due to ...

No, no, no. There is nothing plain nor obvious to anybody.
Otherwise, we would not need something like the scientific method, if things were just plain and obvious.
If things are so plain and so obvious, why don't you just conduct a few plain and obvious experiments, that other people would be able to repeat, in order to find counterexamples for your claim?

Seriously, now I want to see your plain and obvious scientific report!

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

What was legal age of marriage in many "the western countries" at the time of the Prophet - about 1400 years ago? Why we should compare conditions and cultures like they would to be same yet there is over 1000 year distance between them.

This is irrelevant, given that you're talking about a God who supposedly has perfect knowledge of all things, and a Prophet (pbuh) whose life and actions are considered an ideal for all Muslims for all time. Either this moral guidance is eternal or it isn't.

Given all this, what reason is there from the Islamic perspective to prevent adult males marrying and having sex with 9 year-old girls?

Peace

 

[kritikvernunft]

... prevent adult males having sex with 9 year-old girls? ...

If the parents gave the girl in marriage to me, and she would already have her periods, and her looks would attract my fancy, then what would be the problem? Why would you try to prevent that? You see, I am an adult male, and there would most likely be no better way to enrage me than to try to prevent me from having sex with a girl that would be lawfully mine.

As you can probably imagine, for every nuclear warhead around, there exists a chain of keys, passwords, and misleading messages that will lead to its detonation, exactly there where it is stored, or even elsewhere. It is not hard to prove that. It would just take a lot of effort and probably also serious amounts of social engineering to figure that out. I have actually already seen worse than that. Therefore, I am quite surprised that nobody has done this yet, because then, the ones who survive a thing like that, would have the opportunity to think it over, whether all of that was really worth it to them. I seriously doubt it! ;-)

Therefore, my recommendation is to leave the prophet and his wife alone; may both of them rest in peace.
This is just to tell you that you are digging in the wrong hole, because seriously, nothing good can ever come out of that.

 

[Neha Qadri]

In any Religion including there is no way to ask about evidence.
because if we will open the door to ask question so people will ask about Mohammed P.B.U.H Waqae Meraaj and we will not have answer and so many thinks like this so please don't ask about Evidence

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

If the parents gave the girl in marriage to me, and she would already have her periods, and her looks would attract my fancy, then what would be the problem? Why would you try to prevent that? You see, I am an adult male, and there would most likely be no better way to enrage me than to try to prevent me from having sex with a girl that would be lawfully mine.

I would wish to prevent it because a 9 year-old girl is not capable of giving consent to having sex with you, regardless of what her parents say. If the law was silent on this issue and allowed people like you to fulfil their carnal urges in this way, the potential for abuse would be massive.

It is an indication of how seriously you take your religion (if you have converted yet) that you are trying to use it to justify sex with children. I find your position utterly repulsive and I am amazed that this kind of perversion is allowed on the forum.

Peace

Edit: I also take it from what you say here that it might be OK to rape your wife, given that she is lawfully yours?

 

[Aaqib]

Greetings,



I would wish to prevent it because a 9 year-old girl is not capable of giving consent to having sex with you, regardless of what her parents say. If the law was silent on this issue and allowed people like you to fulfil their carnal urges in this way, the potential for abuse would be massive.

It is an indication of how seriously you take your religion (if you have converted yet) that you are trying to use it to justify sex with children. I find your position utterly repulsive and I am amazed that this kind of perversion is allowed on the forum.

Peace

Edit: I also take it from what you say here that it might be OK to rape your wife, given that she is lawfully yours?

Ok, from what I've learned from my dad, Aisha (May Allah be pleased with her) was DESTINED to marry the Prophet (SAW), so when he dies, Aisha (May Allah be pleased with her) can tell what the Prophet did/what he didn't do.

At least, that's what I learned from my dad.

There's nothing wrong with this, in my sight, as she passed puberty. Seriously.. the enemies of the prophet wouldn't make fun of this/do anything/comment on it, because it was normal back in those days for this to happen. And now, you see people centuries later complaining about it.

Makes no sense to me, tbh.

:Wasalam: and apologies if I have said anything wrong. May Allah forgive me for that.

 

[Aaqib]

removed

 

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

Prophet Muhammad :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him) received a dream three times indicating that he should marry Aisha (may God be pleased with her) and so he did just as Prophet Abrahm alayhis salaam (peace be upon him) received a dream three times to sacrifice his son. God never demands what is objectively and morally reprehensible. During the time of Prophet Muhammad :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him), his enemies called him a sorcerer, insane, illiterate, divider, but never did they accuse of him doing a wrong in marrying Aisha (may God be pleased with her) and that is because such marriages in the Arab culture during the 7th century then did happen between consenting persons due to alliance between families. In fact, Aisha (may God be pleased with her) had been betrothed to someone else prior to marrying Prophet Muhammad :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him).

Mary (peace be upon her), the mother of Jesus alayhis salaam (peace be upon him), gave birth at the age of 13.

My own grandmother married at the age of 15 to my grandfather who was in 20s. She gave birth to ten healthy children with only one dying early due to disease.

Even when I was an atheist, I did not find young marriages due to culture or historical times odd, and one of the primary reasons apart for my love of anthropology and history included my reading taste which included historical romance novels. I've read themes in romance novels that included childhood marriage, and there was no yuck factor. In fact, in one Regency novel that I still remember, Julie Garwood had the heroine, aged 4, marry the hero, aged 14, in the novel The Gift in the year 1802.

I am sure if we traced our ancestry far back enough, we'd both find our ancestors married at early ages.

Due to our modern thinking and culture, we believe such ages to be young.

My own mother married at the age of 19. At 19, I could not even contemplate marriage because I was too immature and truly believe I would have been divorced had I married then. However, for her, it worked, and it was the right age to marry for her. However, unlike me, she didn't go to graduate school and only completed college. So, for her, this made sense.

Prophet Muhammad :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him) is the barometer by which we measure our character and actions and mercy and concern for humanity, yes. However, not everything Prophet Muhammad :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him) is required of us, for some things are understood as simply having been a special grant for him such as seeing Aisha (may God be pleased with her) in a dream thrice and understanding it as God telling him that they would marry.

That being said, Islamic scholars have left the issue of marriage to each individual, family, and culture to decide on their own, which I think is fair because in some indigent Muslim-majority countries education exists very little to none and the next step for a girl is either marriage or being a dependent on her parents for life. And that's because women globally seem to have a "shelf life" after which a woman's chances of being married start becoming low to nonexistent. To tell these families and girls what they should do oriented in Western culture would be deprive these families and girls of a normal family life in their own culture, and I don't think that's right.

Moreover, it is not only in Islam but many other tribal cultures in which young marriages still do take place. For example, anthropologist Kenneth Good was studying the Yanomama tribe in 1978. In keeping with local customs, Kenneth Good was offered to marry a girl named Yarima as a wife and finally after seeing no way to prevent offense if he didn't, he accepted to marry her. Good's autobiographical accounts recount that in keeping with community wishes, he was betrothed to his future wife when she was age 9. They consummated the marriage when she was about 14, as is typical in Yanomami culture. While the Yanomami people do not record individuals' ages, Kenneth Good himself recalled these ages being closer to 13 and 16 respectively.

I think the main objection in our Western culture rises to child marriages due to the fact that we conflate it mistakenly with rape, abuse, and sexual trafficking. Healthy marriage in any culture and society do not equal to any of the aforesaid three offenses. Our main problem is that we come from a place of ethnocentrism and believe that what is right for us is also right for others when it really isn't.

Also, I should mention that in law school we had ADA come to our class and explain to us that he would not despite having the right to do so prosecute, for example, if a 15-year old boy had sex with a a 13-year old girl under statutory rape though it legally qualifies but he would prosecute a 23-year old man for having sex with a 16-year old girl.

However, my question if children below the age of consent which is 18 in the United States will have sex and are allowed to do so under the color of the law in many Western countries, then why isn't it acceptable for parents to marry their consenting daughters to consenting adults in non-Western cultures? Is it hubris that makes us think we have a right to judge what is right for others?

I'm not saying that there aren't abuses that happen in even those cultures in regards to child brides because some parents decide to override the lack of consent of the child bride and I've read those news articles as well, but honestly, I don't know that this is any worse than what I see working in the legal field in the U.S. and it depends entirely on the values and parenting style of parents. Some individuals should not be parents. Period (pun intended). However, these abuse cases are not the norm for any society as most parents do always act in the highest and best interests of their children.

Greetings,

This is irrelevant, given that you're talking about a God who supposedly has perfect knowledge of all things, and a Prophet (pbuh) whose life and actions are considered an ideal for all Muslims for all time. Either this moral guidance is eternal or it isn't.

Given all this, what reason is there from the Islamic perspective to prevent adult males marrying and having sex with 9 year-old girls?

Peace

 

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

@kritikvernunft

Hi. I hope you're doing well.

I am glad to have you on IB, and and certainly I would be very happy to congratulate you on your conversion if you indeed have taken that step in your journey to learning about Islam on IB. However, some of your views make me concerned, and I would like to therefore issue some clarifications on specific matters that I believe might be helpful in increased understanding. I apologize in advance as I haven't read the entire thread, but it is important for all of us to be able to differentiate between what we interpret as Islam to be and what is Islam as understood by scholars and also Muslim laypersons throughout history.

While marital rape has not been delineated as a specific offense under shariah (Islamic scholar), Islamic scholars has been generally understood marital rape to fall under the category of oppression, and oppression of any type is haram (forbidden) in Islam. Oppression entails violating the dignity or sanctity of any right given to human beings and is therefore a very serious offense under the eyes of God and unsurprisingly God has said generally of oppression in a larger hadith (prophetic tradition): “O my servants, I have forbidden oppression for myself and I have made it forbidden among you, so do not oppress one another.” Marriage is a legal contract, and that contract entitles human beings to lawfully have intercourse, but that does not entitle any human being to oppress the other (regardless of whether that is female or male in the marriage doing so).

Also, it is true what you've said that Prophet Muhammad :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him) is a true example for humanity to follow but that's because of his (peace and blessings be upon him) highest moral example. However, there were some things for Prophet Muhammad :saws: alone, such as marrying more than four wives and that was to break the extant societal and cultural taboo of marrying the widow, the divorcee, and other non-virgins of other categories.

In that same way, marriage to Aisha (may God be pleased with her) came as a result of divinely inspired dreams that Prophet Muhammad :saws: received and it was entirely the will of the One God that this marriage should take place and as a prophet and best man Prophet Muhammad :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him) accepted all divine will. Please understand that both Islamic scholars and lay Muslims do not understand the marriage of Aisha (may God be pleased with her) to be a blanket encouragement to marry underage females as marriage to any female is still understood as a matter of choice between individuals, families, and dictated typically cultural norms. Also, I would like to mention that Islamic scholars have consistently emphasized following the law of the land under which one lives - and therefore Muslims are not allowed to break legal or social taboos - by marrying underage females if legal proscriptions exist in that country, and I'm assuming most of us here live in Western country and therefore will abide by the laws of the land.

Many female scholars have existed throughout history, and I'm now linking you to the PDF book available called Al-Muhaddithat: The Women Scholars in Islam that hopefully shows you and any others doubtful about how high and honored a woman's place in Islam is and how valued her opinion is. A woman is not a man's ornament; she is a person, and her personhood is essential to her value as a Muslim woman. A Muslim female may excel in piety her Muslim male counterpart, and it is her piety that determines her superiority or inferiority as a human being and not her gender.

Thank you for your consideration, understanding, and patience.

 

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

Brother, I humbly ask you to consider what you're saying. Muslims are a people of mercy first and foremost, and we do not ever bear arms like vigilantes; those who do among us are oppressors, and they shame us and shame Islam.

And if we do ever bear arms, we do so under a legitimate authority for a legitimate cause and only when that is the only option available to us and we so for God with the idea of meting out both justice to oppressors and mercy and relief for the oppressed. Again, in the process, we do not seek to become oppressors or aggressors ourselves.

If someone wrongs us, we do not wrong them, because that then is not justice: When Ali (may God be pleased with him) was in battle with a man, Ali (may God be pleased with him) was about to strike with the sword that man as a killing blow when that man spit on him. So, Ali refrained from giving that killing blow and the man laying on the ground was perplexed at Ali (may God be pleased with him) withdrawing his sword and not killing him. So, he asked him why Ali (may God be pleased with him) why he did not kill him. Ali (may God be pleased with him) answered that when first he was about to strike him with that sword, it was to be for God, but when the man spit on him, he became angry and so he knew it would be wrong Islamically to kill the man as Muslims do not kill for their egos and they kill when justice so requires in the battlefield. That man was astonished and knew that this was the highest of standard to carry in the heat of battlefield and thereby this religion that establishes this standard could only come from God and so asked to say the shahada (testifimony of faith) so he too could become Muslim and be part of that religion that honors and dignifies human beings above ego.

The Quran (4:135) says, "O you who believe, be persistently standing firm in justice as witnesses for Allah, even if it be against yourselves or parents and relatives. Whether one is rich or poor, Allah is more worthy of both. Follow not your desires, lest you not be just. If you distort your testimony or refuse to give it, then Allah is aware of what you do."

comment deleted

 

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

Insisting on sex with your lawful wife does not violate her dignity because that is what she is here for. I am not yet familiar enough with Islamic Fiqh, but this is an example of what religion may reasonably say on the matter:

Martin Luther, Works:
- The word and works of God is quite clear, that women were made either to be wives or prostitutes.
- Even though they grow weary and wear themselves out with child-bearing, it does not matter; let them go on bearing children till they die, that is what they are there for.

Quran (2:187) says, "They (your wives) are your garment and you are a garment for them."

Prophet :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him) said, "Among the Muslims the most perfect, as regards his faith, is the one whose character is excellent, and the best among you are those who treat their wives well."

Prophet :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him) said, "He is the best amongst you who is the kindest towards his wives and I am the kindest amongst you towards my wives."

Prophet :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him) said, "Three things fall under unkindness and one of them is when the man engages in sexual act with his wife without sending a messenger: humor and kisses. No one should directly fall on his wife like one buffalo does to another."

For fiqh (Islamic legal) aspect of why marital rape is forbidden and how it is regarded in Islam, please see the following two fatwas: Question Regarding Marital Rape and Does marital rape exist in Islam?

A man verbally insisting on sex itself may not violate a wife's right, but the manner in which a man goes about this issue, might become a problem, especially if that verbal insistence is followed with physical insistence on exercising that marital right against the wife's will; this physical insistence which overrides her consent is a violation of her personhood and dignity and falls under the category of oppression which is forbidden in Islam.

I was not familiar nor particularly interested in the matter, until I ran into this kind of discussions in the context of Islam. So, I was forced to make up my mind and develop a point of view on the subject, because everybody else seems to be so interested in it. Just to make my point, I would be perfectly willing and happy to accept from a Muslim family one of their daughters in the same circumstances as the daughter of Abu Bakr, to accept her in marriage, and to consummate the marriage after she has her first periods. I do not care about what other people think about it. However, I will certainly calculate who exactly would try to interfere and preemptively ambush the situation, so that they can ask themselves the question if the resulting mayhem was worth it to them. I do not let the enemy choose the time and the place. I choose the time and the place.

I have to tell you that in most Western countries in which Muslims are living or wealthy Muslim-majority countries that enjoys a high standard of living, you will most likely not find any persons willing to offer underage daughters in marriage because college and graduate education has raised the age bar for when both men and women tie the marital knot around the globe. So, at this point, we must understand this discussion is largely hypothetical.

That being said, if hypothetically-speaking a family offered you their daughter in marriage and this offer was in keeping with that family's tradition and the wider cultural norms and legally permissible in that country and they'd obtained the consent of their daughter, then there is probably no problem and no one has a right to interfere in that marriage. However, the likelihood of that happening is rare, as I do believe such marriages usually exist only in indigent Muslim-majority countries like Yemen and Afghanistan OR either in backwaters rural, indigent, and village-like communities of better/wealthier Muslim-majority countries (that are otherwise known for their high standard of living and/or education) wherein the best protection in terms of security and finances for a female in such specific areas is regarded to lay inside marriage marriage due to lack of emphasis on generally (more) education for either male or female or both.

No, "the law of the land" is a Jewish doctrine:

“Dina d’malchuta dina,” the law of the land is the law [and must be obeyed], is a phrase repeated numerous times in the Talmud and always attributed to the sage Samuel.

This is one of the Jewish doctrines that explains why I would never become a Jew. I personally believe that the Talmud is a Satanic work of deception.

Furthermore, this doctrine is impossibly inconsistent. It amounts to giving a blank cheque to the rulers of the land. If the ruler's name is Adolf Hitler and he wants to kill all the Jews, the "law of the land"-doctrine says that all Germans must collaborate with Hitler and duly denounce all the Jews for deportation to the extermination camps. This is indeed what the Germans did, and they did so completely in accordance with Jewish Rabbinic Law. So, I wonder what the Jews are still complaining about even today? The Germans fully obeyed Jewish Law!

Seriously, this doctrine is absurd.

The Germans tried to use it in their defense. Their version of this doctrine was called Befehl ist Befehl. An order is an order. Hitler asked us to unceremoniously chop the Jews to pieces, and so we did. Unfortunately for them, even though their views are entirely consistent with this doctrine, the Allies rejected them. Look at what the doctrine became next:

AGREEMENT by the Government of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, the Provisional Government of the FRENCH REPUBLIC, the Government of the UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND and the Government of the UNI0N Of SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUPLICS for the Prosecution and Punishment of the MAJOR WAR CRIMINALS of the EUROPEAN Axis WHEREAS the United Nations have from time to time made declarations of their intention that War Criminals shall be brought to justice;

Article 8. The fact that the Defendant acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility, but may be considered in mitigation of punishment if the Tribunal determines that justice so requires.

Ha ah aha ha ha! There goes the "law of the land"-doctrine, unceremoniously out of the window. Look, your doctrine is a Mickey Mouse rule. It is suitable for people from Imbecilistan only. Giving a blank cheque to the rulers to decide what is lawful and what is not, is a pagan depravity. I am subject to the laws of Allah, simply because I voluntarily choose to. Furthermore, I personally believe that the "law of the land" is haram to me. I will always seek to make lots of money by unceremoniously breaking it. There is nothing more fun than to take the pagans to the cleaners. So, my doctrinal belief is the opposite of yours:

If you can reasonably break the law of the land, without breaking the laws of Allah, you should.

I understand what you're saying here, but you have to realize that the Revelation that came onto Prophet Muhammad :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him) was meant to verify what was the truth from previous Abrahamic religions and correct whatever distortions or fabrications that had made into the Christian and Jewish religions so that the submission to the One God could be prioritized and understood as paramount.

Of course, you're correct in surmising that following the law of the land does not mean a blanket cheque to the rulers of the land. Why? Because there's a caveat to the premise of following the law of the land. Prophet :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “It is necessary upon a Muslim to listen to and obey the ruler, as long as one is not ordered to carry out a sin. If he is commanded to commit a sin, then there is no adherence and obedience.”

So, for example, if we as Muslims had been ordered by the state to be part of the extermination of Jews by Adolf Hitler in Germany, we'd have been bound by Islam to refuse because we're not allowed to obey a ruler or nation-state in carrying out a sin: Killing is one of the major sins in Islam.

The Quran says, "O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and obey those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result."

This ayat (verse) in the Quran has been understood by Islamic scholars to underline the importance of obeying authority and rule generally so as to prevent any chaos in the land and prevent any bad or wrong result harmful to Muslims in either the short-term or the long-term.

For more detailed understanding of the subject matter, I refer you to the article Obeying the Law of the Land in the West.

 

[kritikvernunft]

...I do believe such marriages usually exist only in indigent Muslim-majority countries like Yemen and Afghanistan OR either in backwaters rural, indigent, and village-like communities of better/wealthier Muslim-majority countries ...

Yes, I like it in places like Yemen and Afghanistan. I get along with the local people much better. So, yes, I would be more interested in Yemeni or Afghan brides than the so-called wealthier what-have-you. I don't need their money anyway. I never make money from the local market, with the global market being much more interesting. Therefore, I now also live in a backwater. Cheap. Good internet connection. No-questions-asked visa. What more would you want? Well, actually, no, there are things to ask because they are very pagan here. So, I should probably move to Yemen or Afghanistan, when they are done fighting there! ;-)

So, for example, if we as Muslims had been ordered by the state to be part of the extermination of Jews by Adolf Hitler in Germany, we'd have been bound by Islam to refuse because we're not allowed to obey a ruler or nation-state in carrying out a sin: Killing is one of the major sins in Islam.

In Bosnia, the Muslims happily joined in on Hitler's Jew-killing fest. You see, I am not a Jew, and I do not desire to join that religion, but I am so contrarian that I cannot imagine myself doing what Hitler would tell me to do. It is so contrary to my nature.

This ayat (verse) in the Quran has been understood by Islamic scholars to underline the importance of obeying authority and rule generally so as to prevent any chaos in the land and prevent any bad or wrong result harmful to Muslims in either the short-term or the long-term.

If the Quran contained a blank cheque that asks the believers to obey to the rulers, there would be no point for the Quran to specify any law, because then the ruler can just use his blank cheque to create his own ones instead. Therefore, I strongly suspect that nothing in the Quran should be understood as handing out a blank cheque to any rulers.

The King of Morocco clarified his position on that matter: I cannot, as Commander of the Faithful, permit what God has forbidden and forbid what God has permitted. I really like it that he has said this, because it nicely clarifies that he nor his parliament have the right to invent new forbidden behaviours or to authorize anyway, existing forbidden behaviours. Therefore, I totally agree with the King. It prevents absolutely anybody from inventing new laws or modifying the existing ones. What else would we want? Consequently, the believer has every right to ignore, and if need be, retaliate against the enforcement of laws that forbid that what God has permitted or permit that what God has forbidden.

Hence, I subscribe to the Royal doctrine, which is pretty much the opposite of the Jewish doctrine to which you subscribe! ;-)

 

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

Yes, I like it in places like Yemen and Afghanistan. I get along with the local people much better. So, yes, I would be more interested in Yemeni or Afghan brides than the so-called wealthier what-have-you. I don't need their money anyway. I never make money from the local market, with the global market being much more interesting. Therefore, I now also live in a backwater. Cheap. Good internet connection. No-questions-asked visa. What more would you want? Well, actually, no, there are things to ask because they are very pagan here. So, I should probably move to Yemen or Afghanistan, when they are done fighting there! ;-)

I don't wish to comment on any of your preferences in regards to marriage, as that is not my concern and it can only be a concern for you and the individual in question you'd like to marry, the family, and the cultural and societal norms and laws of that country.

In Bosnia, the Muslims happily joined in on Hitler's Jew-killing fest. You see, I am not a Jew, and I do not desire to join that religion, but I am so contrarian that I cannot imagine myself doing what Hitler would tell me to do. It is so contrary to my nature.

Muslims who participated in Nazi Germany's killing of Jewish peoples were wrong; and no amount of justification can justify the unjustifiable. Muslims have played both the roles of heroes and villains throughout history just like any other adherents of other religions. And Muslims who played a villainous role in participating in Hitler's evil will pay the price of their sins and participation in evil in either this life or the hereafter or both for God does no iniquity to any persons and does not tolerate any injustice without justice being meted out in this world itself or on Judgement Day or both.

If the Quran contained a blank cheque that asks the believers to obey to the rulers, there would be no point for the Quran to specify any law, because then the ruler can just use his blank cheque to create his own ones instead. Therefore, I strongly suspect that nothing in the Quran should be understood as handing out a blank cheque to any rulers.

The King of Morocco clarified his position on that matter: I cannot, as Commander of the Faithful, permit what God has forbidden and forbid what God has permitted. I really like it that he has said this, because it nicely clarifies that he nor his parliament have the right to invent new forbidden behaviours or to authorize anyway, existing forbidden behaviours. Therefore, I totally agree with the King. It prevents absolutely anybody from inventing new laws or modifying the existing ones. What else would we want? Consequently, the believer has every right to ignore, and if need be, retaliate against the enforcement of laws that forbid that what God has permitted or permit that what God has forbidden.

Hence, I subscribe to the Royal doctrine, which is pretty much the opposite of the Jewish doctrine to which you subscribe! ;-)

Again, I have linked you to the article which describes how obeying the law of the land is also an Islamic tradition with the caveat that we're not allowed to obey the ruler or nation-state in disobedience to God in any sinful action. Generally, otherwise, however, Muslims are to obey laws of the country in which they're residing.

 

[kritikvernunft]

Generally, otherwise, however, Muslims are to obey laws of the country in which they're residing.

Well, you subscribe to the Jewish Talmudic doctrine, while I subscribe to the Royal doctrine:

It is a despicable pagan depravity to obey to any authority when it forbids that what Allah has permitted or when it permits that what Allah has forbidden.

Therefore, in accordance with the Royal doctrine, I seek to generally break most, if not all of the secular-only laws in the country where I reside, especially, when doing so, happens to make me money. You will have a hard time to convince me otherwise, because the Royal doctrine keeps stuffing money in my pockets, while I really do not see how I could make any money at all out of your Jewish Talmudic doctrine.

 

[aaj]

The links Najimuddin posted is all you need to know about this topic.

Just a few things to highlight in this.

The marriage of Aisha r.a. was a divine order with it's own wisdom behind it. She became one of the greatest scholars, narrating over 2000 ahadith and revealing personal and intimate details of their personal lives. We accept it as a divine decision and have no issues with it. It does not mean we go around looking for 9 year old to marry ourselves.

With time, values and norms change in society. Today girls that young normally would not get married because of many reasons, among them being not ready mentally, emotionally, physically.

But back then girls matured and reached puberty at younger age, especially in hotter climates. Marrying young girls was the norm of the world and not just a deed of one man. Girls young as 9-10 were being married to for ages around the world, including the western world.

To cry about them being children and all this whining is just others lack of comprehending things in their historical context.

The reason this topic is so popular among the non-Muslims is because they find it as a topic they can use to attack Islam when in fact all men married girls that age in those times, including the Christians, the atheist and pagans, and having more than one wife of that age at that. They can cry all about it, we give as much credit to their whining as does a cow about it's dung. If someone doesn't like it, too bad. No one is begging them to accept it or win them over with excuses.

There are also apologetic Muslims who like to raise that age up to 15 to validate it in some way. They also need to open their eyes and accept the facts for what they are. IF it bothers them that much or they lack the conviction to deal with it among the non-Muslims then that is a deficiency in them. They need to come to terms with historical facts and their own discomforts.

This topic nor thread needs to drag on any further or resurface very few months.

 

[kritikvernunft]

Today girls that young normally would not get married ...The reason this topic is so popular among the non-Muslims is because they find it as a topic they can use to attack Islam ...

The only way to solve the problem is to acknowledge that there is nothing wrong with marrying such young girl. So, if a Muslim family has a spare daughter somewhere, I will marry her, just to prove this point. Then, the enemies of Islam can try to attack me, instead of just endlessly whine about these things. I will be waiting for them. Let's settle this matter once and for all.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

We accept it as a divine decision and have no issues with it. It does not mean we go around looking for 9 year old to marry ourselves.

All fine. Most of what you say is true but irrelevant to the point that concerns me.

My question is what is there to prevent an Islamic adult male from marrying and having sex with a 9 year-old, should he wish to do so? You can either take the view of our anarchist friend here and say that you see no reason to prevent it, or give a different answer. But do not just ignore the question.

To cry about them being children and all this whining is just others lack of comprehending things in their historical context.

This is the biggest red herring of all, and is a very simple way of avoiding the issue completely. The point that so many of you seem to be forgetting is that we are talking about a Prophet (pbuh) whose every deed has been scrutinised by Muslims with a goal towards emulation of him. This is a person who has offered guidance for all time (as we are so often reminded). I'm asking Muslims why they should choose to disregard this part of his exemplary life.

Peace

 

[kritikvernunft]

... the view of our anarchist friend here ...

Anarchists believe that there should be no rules at all.
That is not what I advocate.
There will always be rules, if only the ones of nature (and therefore its Creator).
It is true that I thoroughly despise National States, but so do the tribes, and they are not anarchist either.

The National State is is an artifact of outdated 18th -and 19th century technology. It cannot weather contemporary globalization. The National State and its desire to collect taxes on a national scale can only collapse in the context of a globalized economy. Taxation elasticy is going through the roof now. Just move the activity across the border and be done with it. National States can also not control information as it flows over a borderless internet.

All I am saying is that I very much enjoy making money from ransacking these ridiculously dumb things, called National States. Shorting the National State is simply a one-way bet. The more these things sink, the more money I make, and not just me. My greatest hero in this field is George Soros, as he duly took pretty much all National States in Southeast Asia to the cleaners, pocketing 50+ billion dollars. Yeah, bring it on! ;-)

I'm asking Muslims why they should choose to disregard this part of his exemplary life.

Yep. I agree to emulate the Prophet, may he rest in peace, in everything he did, including marrying a young girl, just to prove my point.

 

[Zafran]

This is the biggest red herring of all, and is a very simple way of avoiding the issue completely. The point that so many of you seem to be forgetting is that we are talking about a Prophet (pbuh) whose every deed has been scrutinised by Muslims with a goal towards emulation of him. This is a person who has offered guidance for all time (as we are so often reminded). I'm asking Muslims why they should choose to disregard this part of his exemplary life.

The prophet slept on the floor - do Muslims have to do that?

he prophet was a merchant do we all emulate to become merchants? He rode a camel - dump cars and ride camels? He wore 7th century Arab and Yemeni clothes do we we emulate that?

The prophets message is for all times the message of tawhid just like the previous prophets.

There is something called fiqh in Islam you should learn it before telling Muslims what there religion is and what they should emulate. Specifically Urf of the people.