Debate a Muslim

[Starlight]

You keep saying this, but I'm still waiting for a source. Such statements call for evidence.

Search on google. Then you will see much evidence that almost all cultures did not allow a girl to constumate the marriage before she was 12-13 years old

 

[Starlight]

- Marriage in Islam is a matter of contract when it comes to consent (ijab wal-qubul) & the granted stipulation thereof by Sharia; it's a matter of custom in everything else. That is, beyond the contract & its granted stipulation, local customs are binding. Therefore, minimum age of marriage is subject to local customs, & may be set at different ages in different times-places. However, it can not be set beyond the minimum set by Sharia -else deemed invalid (Zina), which is set at 9 years according to the Hanbali school – & at 'maturity' according to other schools.


- One: if you mean by child marriage below maturity, then I agree. If you mean by child marriage under 18, then that's nonsense. If your contention is about early marriage, then the more reason it must extend to early intercourse. The great irony, in the West, they allow early out-of-wedlock intercourse -kids as young as 8 years report sexual relations, yet they hasten to ban marriage at the first sight, under "ew" pretexts.

- Two: age or age difference are not a factor is the happiness or unhappiness of a marriage. Marriage hinges on affection, compassion, respect, commitment, sacrifice, understanding, family... regardless of age, if these qualities are established then that's a happy marriage; & regardless of age, if these qualities are absent, then that's an unhappy relationship.


- The hadith is not fabricated. It's reported by a number of narrators from Aisha (ra) & collected by great many scholars like Bukhari, Muslim, Nasai, Tarmithi... the encyclopedia Jam al-Jawami list 300 chains for the hadith. The age of Aisha is known amongst the people of hadith to be 9, & amongst the people of sirah to be 10. These attempts to argue against the age of Aisha at consummation are disingenuous. Maybe you don't wish to hear this, but consider the following factors:

• Aisha was to be betrothed to Adiy before the Prophet (pbuh) age 6.
• Aisha herself said: "she who reaches the age of nine and menstruates is a woman".
• Safya was 14 when she married the Prophet (pbuh), yet she was twice married prior.
• The Prophet (pbuh)'s own daughters married between 8 & 11 [Fatimah at 15]
• Marriage at around 10 was the norm in Arabia (& in much of the pre-postmodern world).
• The minimum age of consent was 10 in most US states a century ago & was 7 in Delaware, & there was no minimum age of marriage. Around that time, the minimum age of marriage in Scotland was 7.
• There is actually no set minimum age of marriage in some US states today (like California), & it's as low as 12 in the states in which it's set. The Prophet (pbuh)'s marriage with Aisha would be perfectly legal in the US today, given granted parental consent.

Prophet Muhammad never married a 9-10 years old child. Those hadiths was fabricated by enemies of Islam because they wanted to attack the moral character of Prophet Muhammad.

God is against child marriage (especially so young) And prophet Muhammad is against it also.

 

[Meow Mix]

I think there are fewer.

They can be as good or better.

You know Shakeel, I thought your position was misogynistic when we first interacted. I'm happy to see that it's not. We may disagree on the facts of whether these differences are by nature or nurture and things like this though.

Cheers.

 

[Starlight]

- Marriage in Islam is a matter of contract when it comes to consent (ijab wal-qubul) & the granted stipulation thereof by Sharia; it's a matter of custom in everything else. That is, beyond the contract & its granted stipulation, local customs are binding. Therefore, minimum age of marriage is subject to local customs, & may be set at different ages in different times-places. However, it can not be set beyond the minimum set by Sharia -else deemed invalid (Zina), which is set at 9 years according to the Hanbali school – & at 'maturity' according to other schools.


- One: if you mean by child marriage below maturity, then I agree. If you mean by child marriage under 18, then that's nonsense. If your contention is about early marriage, then the more reason it must extend to early intercourse. The great irony, in the West, they allow early out-of-wedlock intercourse -kids as young as 8 years report sexual relations, yet they hasten to ban marriage at the first sight, under "ew" pretexts.

- Two: age or age difference are not a factor is the happiness or unhappiness of a marriage. Marriage hinges on affection, compassion, respect, commitment, sacrifice, understanding, family... regardless of age, if these qualities are established then that's a happy marriage; & regardless of age, if these qualities are absent, then that's an unhappy relationship.


- The hadith is not fabricated. It's reported by a number of narrators from Aisha (ra) & collected by great many scholars like Bukhari, Muslim, Nasai, Tarmithi... the encyclopedia Jam al-Jawami list 300 chains for the hadith. The age of Aisha is known amongst the people of hadith to be 9, & amongst the people of sirah to be 10. These attempts to argue against the age of Aisha at consummation are disingenuous. Maybe you don't wish to hear this, but consider the following factors:

• Aisha was to be betrothed to Adiy before the Prophet (pbuh) age 6.
• Aisha herself said: "she who reaches the age of nine and menstruates is a woman".
• Safya was 14 when she married the Prophet (pbuh), yet she was twice married prior.
• The Prophet (pbuh)'s own daughters married between 8 & 11 [Fatimah at 15]
• Marriage at around 10 was the norm in Arabia (& in much of the pre-postmodern world).
• The minimum age of consent was 10 in most US states a century ago & was 7 in Delaware, & there was no minimum age of marriage. Around that time, the minimum age of marriage in Scotland was 7.
• There is actually no set minimum age of marriage in some US states today (like California), & it's as low as 12 in the states in which it's set. The Prophet (pbuh)'s marriage with Aisha would be perfectly legal in the US today, given granted parental consent.

Prophet Muhammad never constumated the marriage with a 9-10 years old child. The hadiths about Aisha's age is false and fabricated.

It is wrong to have sex with a 9-10 year old girl. Do you know why? Because if the girl become pregnant then she have high risk of die in child Birth!! The risk of her dying in child Birth is very very high.
Because a 9-10 year old girl do not have a body that is big enough and strong enough to give Birth!

 

[Ghazaly]

Thanks for the information. One final thing; what about people that would not want to live with these sorts of rules; who would prefer a more egalitarian law in which men and women have the same duty to work out what responsibilities they're best at between themselves?

- This is wishy-washy doesn't mean anything. You're attempting to square the circle. Egalitarianism is inherently unjust & incoherent. You are not ruling identical robots. People are different, in faith, in language, in ethnicity, in class, in age, in gender, in talent...etc. Each of these qualifiers is positively relevant in society & Law is nothing but moral solutions to social issues. You can not erase these differences in the name of Egalitarianism without necessarily prompting systematic injustice. It's also delusional, for legal pretense of equality does not impact the unequal reality, unless you force identify –which is obviously impossible. The only way you can reverse these rules is by making female-males, aka square-circles...

- Women get pregnant, give birth & rear children, there is no world in which an egalitarian approach is going to change this into "work out what responsibilities they're best at". Men will never be any part of "best" in that, nor will women be any part of "best" in men's biological functions. Equalizing between two different entities is necessarily unjust to one of them. This also applies to qualifiers other than gender, like faith & class... Two different communities of faith have different morality, yet egalitarianism would have them subject to the same morality –generally that of the majority. All in all, this western attitude towards diversity in harmony by annihilation is not new, it's the legacy of pre-modern Christendom; whether under the Church or Secularism, they can't deal with diversity & difference.

You state that the minimum age of marriage is a matter of custom as long as it isn't below the age of nine. What if a country set it at, say, the age of 10 even though current studies and scientific knowledge (here, for example) show us that this can cause extreme psychological and physiological harm to children?

- No such thing. You're hard-begging the question. One, a study on harmful marriages among 40s adults does not inform raising the minimum age of marriage to 50. Two, 10 (& even 8) is already age of "marriage-without-contract" – aka out-of-wedlock sexual relationships in your West. The difference is a contract entails consent & guaranteed rights –especially for potential progeny, whereas open sex doesn't. Three, all this is, in essence, about degeneracy. Always! Open sex between kids is "freedom" & "exploring" & "rites of passage"... but marriage instead, god forbid! What an abomination. Finally, the 3rd maxim of Sharia states: 'harm must be removed' (from the hadith "there shall be no harm and no reciprocated harm"). Your contention is, thus, irrelevant, for if there is actual harm then its alleviation is granted in Sharia.

Would you be okay with such a marriage just because its being allowed was a matter of custom?

- I don't see you talking about the non-contractual-marriages to 8 yo being allowed in the West! You gotta stop begging the question, Western customs are not universal customs, they are local in time & place. In the past century alone, they on their own thought: 7, 10,.. [every number].., 18, 21 & 25 are the magical number of consent. If in 50 years they decide that a person who's under 35 is a child & bring studies that show 30 yo marriages are bad, what would you do?

Several years ago in Yemen, for instance, an eight-year-old child bride died of physiological damage following marriage to an adult man. What are your thoughts on that and similar cases?

- The story isn't even corroborated, fake news! You're arguing from example. That's a fallacious approach! I can go to any age group in the US & find hundreds fatal cases of abuse. So many cases of little girls even being impregnated by their own fathers; I Was My Dad's Sex Slave father forced her to be his sex slave...etc. Most disgusting thing ever. GEZUZ! You're reaching too far...

I think there is two different things Nubuwa (role of channeling scripture to humans) and Resalah (clear message) although people inverted these definitions, some of Resalah is in the Nubuwa and some of Nubuwa is Resali, but Resalah in Sunnah is clear proofs from Messenger in paraphrasing guidance from God in their hearts to humanity. Aside from Resalah both in Nubuwa and Sunnah, Nubuwa and Sunnah contain beyond the clear message and contain deep teachings.

Ulil-Amr (a) don't need to become each a Messenger if the people don't dispute and differ, as they been ordered not to, but rather obey God and Ahlulbayt (a). This is saying, God forbid you differ with respect to the commands of God and Messenger and Ulil-Amr from you, than refer it to God and the Messenger and this doesn't mean Quran and Sunnah, but rather, it really meant referring to Mohammad (s) at that time, and if people dispute after Mohammad (s), it would mean Ulil-Amr would become Messengers of their time.

God did something different with Mohammad (s). While in the past, the foundation of the blessed tree and it's twelve branches, would be followed with Anbiya, he put an end to that, and so God didn't continue revealing Surahs to become part of Quran at the end of Nabi (a) life. Rather through his wisdom, he put a seal to Nubuwa. And to me, it's obvious Islam would lose it's foundational prestige if we differed with what constituted Quran after Nabi (s). But this was a huge trial as well, as Mohammad (s) Sunnah and life was largely successful due to his Nubuwa (Quran) and God is not longer talking to humans. This is a huge trial.

But whatever reason he sealed talking to humans is intertwined with the need of us obeying Ulil-Amr (a), and God forbid we differ about them or their teachings and issues in religion, Quran is saying you will have a Messenger to judge among you and clarify the truth and bring you back to truth.

This was the case, till the Mahdi (a) disappeared. Who and what would have solved our disputes is now hidden and society can no longer go to him in public.

I think however, the Imams (a) before him and him as well, left us with words of light that are insights to the Quran. I don't believe a insight from Mohammad (s) about Quran and guidance should be subject to man made rules of reputation of humans nor should any words contradicting Quran and guidance ever be verified and acknowledge by man made rules of reputation.

I believe all ahadith are good to study, Sunni, Shiite, Twelver, Zaidi, etc, but keeping in mind, the Quran contains all guidance and all hadiths are to be referred to Quran.

The Quran is no ordinary book, the way it's doors open up other doors, is unique and is the only reason why God sealed Nubuwa. Had anything not been contained in Quran in any time in any generation, he would have not put an end to Nubuwa.

But Resalah of the 12 Imams (a) as disputes occurred, and basic clear truths had to be reminded as was the case of Bani-Israel, are calculative words. They keep in mind Quran in all they say and calculate words of guidance to unlock sorcery from Iblis that put's locks on clear recitations as well they unveil subtle teachings of the Shariah and wisdom behind it.

I don't believe the words of Prophet (s), Fatima (a) and the Guides (a) should be subject to reputation of humans in the chains of their words. Rather insights are insights no matter who conveyed them, be we accuse him of being a liar/untrustworthy nor are words of misguidance to be followed through be we attribute purity/righteous to the narrators who narrated it.

- What exactly is the point of this? I'm Ashaari Sunni, I don't subscribe to most of this.

 

[Jose Fly]

Debating is discouraged in Islam, unless to defend truths & rights.

That seems odd in light of this thread.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

- Marriage in Islam is a matter of contract when it comes to consent (ijab wal-qubul) & the granted stipulation thereof by Sharia; it's a matter of custom in everything else. That is, beyond the contract & its granted stipulation, local customs are binding. Therefore, minimum age of marriage is subject to local customs, & may be set at different ages in different times-places. However, it can not be set beyond the minimum set by Sharia -else deemed invalid (Zina), which is set at 9 years according to the Hanbali school – & at 'maturity' according to other schools.


- One: if you mean by child marriage below maturity, then I agree. If you mean by child marriage under 18, then that's nonsense. If your contention is about early marriage, then the more reason it must extend to early intercourse. The great irony, in the West, they allow early out-of-wedlock intercourse -kids as young as 8 years report sexual relations, yet they hasten to ban marriage at the first sight, under "ew" pretexts.

- Two: age or age difference are not a factor is the happiness or unhappiness of a marriage. Marriage hinges on affection, compassion, respect, commitment, sacrifice, understanding, family... regardless of age, if these qualities are established then that's a happy marriage; & regardless of age, if these qualities are absent, then that's an unhappy relationship.


- The hadith is not fabricated. It's reported by a number of narrators from Aisha (ra) & collected by great many scholars like Bukhari, Muslim, Nasai, Tarmithi... the encyclopedia Jam al-Jawami list 300 chains for the hadith. The age of Aisha is known amongst the people of hadith to be 9, & amongst the people of sirah to be 10. These attempts to argue against the age of Aisha at consummation are disingenuous. Maybe you don't wish to hear this, but consider the following factors:

• Aisha was to be betrothed to Adiy before the Prophet (pbuh) age 6.
• Aisha herself said: "she who reaches the age of nine and menstruates is a woman".
• Safya was 14 when she married the Prophet (pbuh), yet she was twice married prior.
• The Prophet (pbuh)'s own daughters married between 8 & 11 [Fatimah at 15]
• Marriage at around 10 was the norm in Arabia (& in much of the pre-postmodern world).
• The minimum age of consent was 10 in most US states a century ago & was 7 in Delaware, & there was no minimum age of marriage. Around that time, the minimum age of marriage in Scotland was 7.
• There is actually no set minimum age of marriage in some US states today (like California), & it's as low as 12 in the states in which it's set. The Prophet (pbuh)'s marriage with Aisha would be perfectly legal in the US today, given granted parental consent.

Well, you're not the only Muslim to defend child marriage here, disgustingly.

 

[Ghazaly]

Some cultures (also europe) allowed to constumate the marriage after the age of 12-13.

- It's still 12 in Massachusetts today.

People in cultures before modern times did know that children under the age of 12-13 did not have strong and big enough bodies to handle child birth.

- False. The youngest mother is 5. & some women don't menstruate until their 20s.

There is BIG difference between the body to a 9-10 years old compared to a 12-13 year old.

- False. Onset of puberty among different ethnicities can have even greater variations.

It has never been normal have sex with a 9-10 years old

- False. This was norm in much the pre-postmodern world. Higher marriage ages came with the introduction of school. Most people lived in the country, marriages even between 5 & 10 were common then. Life expectancy was around 30 yo, once you reach maturity you get married. In fact, even today ~1% of girls have sex at less 10 in the US.

 

[Link]

- What exactly is the point of this? I'm Ashaari Sunni, I don't subscribe to most of this.

I'm asking you why do you trust Imel Rijaal when per Quran reputation is never accurate or reliable and good people not suppose to claim their righteousness per Quran nor have people claim it on their behalf(only God attributes purity to who he pleases)?

You countered asked me what the Sunnah was according to me and so I explained.

 

[Ghazaly]

Well, you're not the only Muslim to defend child marriage here, disgustingly.

- More disgustingly is your advocacy for child out-wed-lock open sex.

 

[Ghazaly]

I'm asking you why do you trust Imel Rijaal when per Quran reputation is never accurate or reliable and good people not suppose to claim their righteousness per Quran nor have people claim it on their behalf(only God attributes purity to who he pleases)?
You countered asked me what the Sunnah was according to me and so I explained.

- I'm still missing your point. I assume you're talking about Ilm Rijal , what about it? Can you be more clear.

 

[Link]

- I'm still missing your point. I assume you're talking about Ilm Rijal , what about it? Can you be more clear.

I'm saying it's not reliable because reputation is based on falsehood and not truth. Truth is good people are not necessarily known to be good by people and evil people may have reputation of greatness per Quran.

If reputation is unreliable at best, and false at worse, what's the point of ilmel rijaal?

 

[Link]

So and so is trustworthy so and so is not, is based on conjecture. No one knows any of this.

 

[Starlight]

- It's still 12 in Massachusetts today.


- False. The youngest mother is 5. & some women don't menstruate until their 20s.


- False. Onset of puberty among different ethnicities can have even greater variations.


- False. This was norm in much the pre-postmodern world. Higher marriage ages came with the introduction of school. Most people lived in the country, marriages even between 5 & 10 were common then. Life expectancy was around 30 yo, once you reach maturity you get married. In fact, even today ~1% of girls have sex at less 10 in the US.

There is BIG difference between the body to a 9-10 years old compared to a 12-13 year old.

Even people in cultures before modern times did know that children under the age of 12-13 did not have strong and big enough bodies to handle child birth.

But it is bad and wrong that 12 years old's can costumate the marriage in Massachusetts. Today most societies understand that 12-13 years old girls is also to young to constumate the marriage.

12-13 years old girls also have high risk of die in child birth, but a 9-10 years old girls have much much higher risk of dying in child birth than a 12-13 years old

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

- More disgustingly is your advocacy for child out-wed-lock open sex.

Which doesn't exist, not from me. I don't support child sex abuse. Those who commit it should be executed. And kids behaving sexually at such young ages are usually doing it because they've been abused in the first place.

 

[Ghazaly]

Search on google. Then you will see much evidence that almost all cultures did not allow a girl to constumate the marriage before she was 12-13 years old

- Are you aware 10 was the age of consent in most US states & most European countries just a century ago? -which means the marital age was lower. In fact, it was 7 in Scotland. Very early marriage was so prevalent in India the Brits had to set the minimum age of marriage at 8 first, then 10 decades later. You don't read history, that's why you think this isn't normal. If you're familiar with history & marriages among noble & royal families, you wouldn't be as shocked. Your great-grandmother was probably married at an age close to 10, & this is true for everyone.

Prophet Muhammad never married a 9-10 years old child. Those hadiths was fabricated by enemies of Islam because they wanted to attack the moral character of Prophet Muhammad.

- Who are these enemies...?

God is against child marriage (especially so young) And prophet Muhammad is against it also.

- Says who? Upon puberty a woman is capable of bearing a child. The abomination is not in marriage, is in open sex among kids that's happening in the West.

Prophet Muhammad never constumated the marriage with a 9-10 years old child. The hadiths about Aisha's age is false and fabricated.

- By who?

It is wrong to have sex with a 9-10 year old girl. Do you know why? Because if the girl become pregnant then she have high risk of die in child Birth!! The risk of her dying in child Birth is very very high. Because a 9-10 year old girl do not have a body that is big enough and strong enough to give Birth!

- All this is literally false.

That seems odd in light of this thread.

- True. Guilty pleasure...

 

[epronovost]

- This is wishy-washy doesn't mean anything. You're attempting to square the circle. Egalitarianism is inherently unjust & incoherent. You are not ruling identical robots. People are different, in faith, in language, in ethnicity, in class, in age, in gender, in talent...etc. Each of these qualifiers is positively relevant in society & Law is nothing but moral solutions to social issues. You can not erase these differences in the name of Egalitarianism without necessarily prompting systematic injustice. It's also delusional, for legal pretense of equality does not impact the unequal reality, unless you force identify –which is obviously impossible. The only way you can reverse these rules is by making female-males, aka square-circles...

The same is true for one rule for all. Since all people are different why not let them decide what and how they should arrange their families, their work and their union. You can't say men will do X and women will do Y since all men and women are different and their combination of traits is just as unique. How could you decide what's best for all permutation. At best you can make a general rule based on an aggregated average, but that would be making a fallacy of composition by attributing to each part of a whole the characteristics of the whole. In other words, it would be just as stupid to say that since the average grade of Jeremy's class is 75% in English, Jeremy also has 75% in English even though Jeremy might have any grade really.

 

[Meow Mix]

- This is wishy-washy doesn't mean anything. You're attempting to square the circle. Egalitarianism is inherently unjust & incoherent. You are not ruling identical robots. People are different, in faith, in language, in ethnicity, in class, in age, in gender, in talent...etc. Each of these qualifiers is positively relevant in society & Law is nothing but moral solutions to social issues. You can not erase these differences in the name of Egalitarianism without necessarily prompting systematic injustice. It's also delusional, for legal pretense of equality does not impact the unequal reality, unless you force identify –which is obviously impossible. The only way you can reverse these rules is by making female-males, aka square-circles...

- Women get pregnant, give birth & rear children, there is no world in which an egalitarian approach is going to change this into "work out what responsibilities they're best at". Men will never be any part of "best" in that, nor will women be any part of "best" in men's biological functions. Equalizing between two different entities is necessarily unjust to one of them. This also applies to qualifiers other than gender, like faith & class... Two different communities of faith have different morality, yet egalitarianism would have them subject to the same morality –generally that of the majority. All in all, this western attitude towards diversity in harmony by annihilation is not new, it's the legacy of pre-modern Christendom; whether under the Church or Secularism, they can't deal with diversity & difference.

Some women get pregnant (I will not, for instance), and men are more than capable of helping rear children. What I'm saying is that instead of rigidly saying who does what, why not a system where couples are able to work out what works best for them? Some women are better at financial decisions, some men are better with children, and things like this.

This is all not to mention things like couples that don't fit this scheme at all. The reason I won't have children is because I'm interested in other women romantically, for instance. None of this system describes my life.

 

[Jose Fly]

- True. Guilty pleasure...

I can relate to that.

 

[Ghazaly]

Which doesn't exist, not from me. I don't support child sex abuse. Those who commit it should be executed. And kids behaving sexually at such young ages are usually doing it because they've been abused in the first place.

- You're all over the place... If you actually cared, you would be talking about child sexual behaviors out-of-wedlock, for that's worse than marriage among children. It's all about degeneracy with you people. Always.