Once again, Lomax diverts the issue and attempts to spin it away.
The issue is not A'isha actual age, it is irrelevant what her actual age
was. She could have been 5 years older and what muhammed did would still be
an abhorrent sex perverted act.
The issue is not A'isha mentrual cycle, it is irrelevant that she has had a
menstrual cycle. A girl of 9 is clearly an immature child not prepared for
the rigors of being subjected to sex, being a wife and starting a family.
The issue is not whether muhammed's tribe considered this as wrong or not.
People can clearly see that it is wrong.
The issue is not that pre-islam tribes do it. The issue is that islam does
it. The great prophet should have corrected this practice. He should have
disavowed this retrograde practice, not assimilate it and embrace it with
gusto.
Just compare the behavior of the real true God Jesus Christ compared with a
sex perverted HOLEY prophet like muhammed. When Jesus came on the scene,
the practice of multiple wives to one man was still prevalent and Jews
practiced it contrary to the original intent of God. But it was a
retrograde and abhorrent practice and what did Jesus do? He put a stop to
it. Hence, Christians now do not have multiple wives, even when their
"predecessors" the Jews had. This is what the real God Jesus Christ or real
progressive prophets do. They correct abhorrent practices. No, but not
muhammed, he enjoyed it too much. Having dozens of wives and concubines and
a 9 year old little girl BARELY OUT OF DIAPERS.
My friends, God created Adam and one wife - Eve. Not Adam and Eve, Ethel,
Ally, Mary, Courtney, Elizabeth, Martha etc. and certainly not Adam and
Steve and most certainly not Adam and little A'isha.
Progressive religions correct retrograde acts; and islam is certainly not a
progressive religion. In fact, it is the retrograde religion itself.
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2012 8:35 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age--for
the education of Jojo
At 01:48 PM 12/24/2012, de Bivort Lawrence wrote:
A discussion of the issue of Ayesha and her age and condition at the time
of marriage, and some related descriptions. Thanks.
I had not discussed this issue for probably almost a decade. I've been
rummaging around and found three web sites that address the age of Ayesha
at marriage.
http://www.misconceptions-about-islam.com/muhammad-married-young-girl.htm
links to the other two sites for a discussion of the issue of Ayesha's
age. For itself, it's concerned with what the Qur'an says about marriage.
The points to take away:
There is mention of "marriageable age." It is not given in years, and the
context makes it clear why: different people mature at different times. It
appears, as we would sanely expect, that sexual maturity --
which might be the meaning of "marriageable age" in some contexts"--
might also not be the only criterion, i.e., "sound judgment" is also
mentioned.
"Marriageable age" is also the "age of consent." The traditional material
I cited yesterday made it clear that if a marriage is contracted before
"marriageable age," it is not final until the parties, having reached the
"age of consent," have confirmed it personally. "Consent" before that is
considered moot, except that traditions mentioned considered it offensive
to even contract a marriage, as for a very young girl, *absent her
request,* and, of course, this could only be done with parental
permission.
The web site above also points to two pages, each taking a very different
position.
The first page is
http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_151_200/ayesha_age_the_myth_of__a_prover.htm
It takes the position that, yes, marriage at nine would be offensive, but
it didn't happen. It addresses and purports to debunk the traditions that
establish the age of consummation of Ayesha's marriage as nine. It makes
many points that might seem to be solid. However, it's sociologically
naive, assuming that marriage at sexual maturity -- which can happen
before nine -- would be "offensive" to anyone. One thing is clear about
the widespread story that Ayesha was nine: this only arouses rage or
disgust among people from different cultures, often unaware of the history
of their own culture, certainly what the culture of their ancestors might
have been fourteen hundred years ago.
In the other direction is
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=4604&CATE=1
I may know the author of this page fairly well; the position is highly
conservative. The author uses polemic, and dismisses the concerns of the
questioner -- which match those of the first page above -- as ignorant. On
the other hand, it's also fairly clear that the depth of knowedge of the
writer of this page is greater. Unfortunately, the page quotes material
(from the first site above?) without distinguishing it by indention or a
different type face. So it's a bit confusing to read.
To truly resolve the issue with certainty as to the actual age of Ayesha
is probably beyond possibility, and one problem is that those arguing the
point generally already have some vested interest. With the first page,
the writer has accepted modern cultural norms and applies them
anachronistically, and he's then highly motivated to impeach the
traditions on which the earlier ages are based. The second page is
defending the traditional scholars who came up with nine years old.
All it would take is an early error, though, repeated about a few times,
to create multiple chains of transmission. This is a common problem in
hadith studies. All one can come up with, in general, are probabilities.
That's why "proof" is such a dangerous word. The first page is pretty
clearly reasoning from conclusions: since marriage at nine is obviously
offensive, it couldn't have happened that way. While we might not like
what history is telling us, prejudgment like that is not Islam, which
essentially requires us to accept Reality, whether we like it or not. We
can still dislike it! And we don't necessarily know what Reality is, but
when we reject evidence because it's inconvenient to our conceptions of
Reality, we've lost our foothold. Reality is the standard, not our ideas.
(You can see how I end up being involved in science! And my views on this
are mine, but they are also not isolated, this approach was actually
dominant for a time in Islam, early on, but ... let's say they
over-reached, and become just like everyone else, i.e., if some thought
differently than them, they were Bad, Wrong, and to be rejected or forced
to believe correctly. Power is given in turns to people, that we not
become arrogant.)
But *everyone* agrees on one point, there isn't any doubt about it at all.
Ayesha was sexually mature when her marriage was consummated. There is not
a shred of evidence otherwise. And *many cultures* permit consummation of
marriage -- or they just call it "marriage" --
after menarche.
There is a lot of confusion on the subject because betrothal is sometimes
called "marriage." Betrothal is more a "promise to marry," and it's clear
that the parties must consent for the promise to become a consummated
marriage. And it's very clear that a young woman before the "marriageable
age," cannot give consent. "Marriageable age" in modern culture has come
to mean a specific age, but in non-literate cultures, generally, it is
nailed to puberty, not age in years. The Qur'anic analysis provided on the
first page cited above actually extends that to include consideration of
other forms of maturity, i.e., sound judgment, without mentioning an age
in years.
