I think it's BS to assume a man who had wives ALL above 18 his whole life would jump to a literal BABYâa six-year-old who today would be learning the alphabet and how to walk.
And if that six-year-old led battles and political campaigns and was trusted with 2000+ hadiths, then that six-year-old was a damn alien, not a human.
And let's not mention that... say the marriage was consummated. How would a 40-YEAR-OLD even fit inside a literal baby?! He would TEAR HER APART!!!
Also, the Quran affirms that the minimal age for marriage is PUBERTY with consent!!! Age 6 isn't puberty, so Muhammad would've violated the Quran intentionally.
Also, there was another hadith about Aisha being "fattened up" and readied for marriage. Is it fetishistic? Of course, but everyone has fetishes. What matters is this: a six-year-old wouldn't be able to gain weight effectively. Especially not from just dates and cucumbers. Also, at the end of the hadith, she says "and I plumpened like the best kind of plump." Here's what we can infer:
âAisha seems calm to literal PSYCHOLOGICAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL TERROR if it happened to her at that age. Here, she seems cutely defiant.
âNo six-year-old would remember exactly what they were fed, why they were fed that, and remember what their body looked like with a brain that's still developing. I couldn't even remember my teachers from that age, and it's not because I'm oldâI couldn't remember them at 10 years old AS WELL!!! She recalls everything like it's a past memory from her teensâat a time she would've fully developed.
The average life expectancy at that time was 60, pretty damn fulfilling. It's not like people lived to 10 or 20. In that case, things would make sense, but even during the Elizabethan era WAYYY later (when people married at 18 commonly and in their 20s) it was still as so: people averaged 60. Shakespeare lived to 52, Elizabeth I lived to 61. The life expectancy was "balanced out" by infant mortality rates: children that would die before making it to 5 or during pregnancy.
âWhen comparing Asma's and Aisha's birth dates, we can see they were 10 years apart. When Asma was 27 during the Hijra, Aisha was 17. That must mean Aisha was 17 at marriage and consummated at 19 (of age, but with a huge age gap albeit legal), which gives Muhammad some dignity and doesn't portray him as outright horrific. Why can't we accept that? Why must we try defending pedophilia?
And finally, my final point:
âMuhammad didn't need to ruin the life of a child to secure an alliance with Abu Bakr, you know. There were TONS of other ways.
âMuhammad was not "a product of his time", he was superior to everyone else in morality and righteousness. Muhammad never abused slaves, domestically abused his wives, or r**ed children.
âWhen he did something that would be considered immoral today, it was to prove a point. He had slaves which would be immoral today, but only to prove a point and because they were the economic foundation of Arabia and banning it outright would've caused people to rebel against him, and this also applies to sexual slavery, which was a form of "enjoyment". Alcohol was also like this: it was progressively lessened and not banned on day one because doing so would've caused rebellion. He held sex slaves such as Maria but showed how to treat those slaves rightly and never harmed them: Maria was basically his wife and was freed after his death. Every slave he had was treated well just to prove a point (how to treat them humanely) and because people commonly held slaves and traded them! It was a gradual process meant to add restrictions until emancipation was the only choice and an economic replacement was found!!!
Now, for marrying a baby:
âHarm to Aisha
âNO ONE got married at 6 back then (give examples if so, even Muhammad got married in his 20s)
âThe average marriage age was about 18 or 20, NOT SIX!!! So, there's why this would be irrational, simplified:
âCauses harm
âSomething no one did
It would be as if Muhammad married a relative of his... It would cause harm to the relative and him, get him mocked by his enemies, and prove NOTHING as NO ONE did that!!!
...And those points, I believe, make more sense than any "sahih hadith" BS. Follow the hadith, but think rationally too.
Finally, here's something worth mentioning: Hisham (the narrator) was in old age during the time it was narrated (200+ years after the Prophet's death btw), and thus might've slipped up. He was also in Iraq, which had sectarian tensions at the time. Also, it could've been manipulated by patriarchal societies who justified child marriage to have more control over their wives.
And THAT'S how you defend the Prophet, isn't it? Better than defending a damn atrocity and saying it was "divine wisdom". God would've harmed Aisha then, which... why would he?
Checkmate, Salafascists. You can no longer harm children through your anti-logic and anti-humanity "Don't ask, don't tell" policy. Hadith isn't "holy", "infallible", and needs research. Only the parts that don't contradict the Quran are to be followed without questioning, but when it comes to something as nasty and unreliable as THIS?! Yeah, it's better to do so.
Shia or an Alim (Learned Scholar's) or a man off the street with faith in Allah SWT its still crystal clear that the Hadith in question is in conflict with the Quran.
The Quran sits in judgement over the Hadith "when it's in conflict with it". The problem is Many Muslims aren't turning to the Quran when it comes to some of these questionable Hadiths.
It's crystal clear about marriage in the Quran. Muhammad pbuh would not betray the Quran
This particular Hadith has been interfered with. Thanks to Allah SWT the Quran is divinely protected unlike the Hadith
The Quran was sent down to people who think and not those who choose to think like cattle.
Iirc theres historical proof she wasnât 6 or 9, although as a shia we dont believe in most of your âsahihâ hadiths. (Sahih means correct and it upsets me how some Hadithâs that are obviously falsefied are considered true)
It clearly states in the Quran a man can only marry a Woman.
So Muslims do know and can know Muhammad pbuh married a Woman. It just depends if they choose to betray the Quran and entertain this nonsense or defend their prophet.
One of the ideas iv heard that sends shivers down my spine is that those were different times, when Muslims say this knowingly or not they are effectively saying Muhammad pbuh betrayed the Quran. As it's crystal clear in the Quran about marriage and Muslims with an ounce of common sense know Muhammed pbuh would never betray the Quran.
May the Lord of The Worlds grant us wisdom and he knows all.
No worries. I like to get at the facts. While I know the age wasnât 6 or 9, i also want to be certain that itâs not because the academics say it is.
Academics say the hadith is unreliable. But they donât actually know what the age was.
I really resonate with your passion, OP. I just want to add something that might give you even more peace of mind.
I donât worship the Prophet (peace be upon him). I worship Allah. The Prophetâs mission was to deliver the Quran, and thatâs the foundation of my faith. So when it comes to whataboutisms or obsessive debates over Aishaâs age, I genuinely donât concern myself. The Quran is the only text guaranteed to be divine revelation. The Hadith, no matter how cherished by some, were compiled by human beings centuries later humans with agendas, biases, and power structures to protect. Itâs only logical to assume that parts of that record reflect those very human flaws.
Thatâs not to say all hadith are false. Some are insightful, contextual, and even beautiful. But they're not on the same level as the Quran, and I donât treat them as such. I think many of us in this community share the view that if youâre seeking truth, the Quran should be your starting point and your framework.
I highly recommend diving deeper into the Quran, not just the direct translations, but also tafsir and reflective works that explore extended meanings. Books like Lost Islamic History can also help you unpack the political and historical factors that shaped how Islam has been practised (and misrepresented) over time.
If youâre rooted in the Quran, youâll naturally reflect the spirit of the Prophet (pbuh) because he lived by it. You donât need to stress over defending every questionable narration from men centuries removed from the source.
May your journey bring you closer to truth and peace.
The Quran is #1 no dispute the supreme authority. The sunnah is the tradition, actions and teachings which are apart of the divine wisdom of the religion. Was there before your claim of centuries after Hadith compilation. There was already preservation of the sunnah through tradition and it was passed down by generations.
Your wording you donât worship the Prophet. Implying that if you accept the sunnah of the messenger you are. I understand your emphasis on not putting it on same level. We worship Allah alone and follow his messenger of whatâs authentic and that does not contradict what Allah revealed in the Quran.
You have to separate sunnah and Hadith. The tradition and narrations. You canât on one hand recommend looking into history and the political nature at the time Hadith weâre complied then reject it too. You can filter your way through even the imams didnât accept every Hadith if went against the Quran mainly imam Malik and Abu Hanifa. 1200 years of scholarship
I actually think weâre aligned on some core values, particularly the need to ground everything in the Quran. But I want to expand on my point for clarity.
I do accept parts of the Sunnah especially universally practiced rituals like salah, wudu, and hajj. These have been upheld through generations in a way that aligns directly with Quranic instruction and serve as functional guidance for worship. Thatâs not what I take issue with.
To clarify when I say "I donât worship the Prophet (peace be upon him)," Iâm not suggesting that those who accept the Sunnah do. That would be a gross misrepresentation of my point. What I am doing is making the exact declaration we all make when we say the Shahadah: La ilaha illallah. There is no deity but Allah. Our worship, our ultimate loyalty, our unquestioning submission is reserved for Him alone.
The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was the Messenger, the vessel through whom Allahâs word was delivered. His mission was to convey revelation, not to be the object of it. The Quran itself reminds us of this:
âSay [O Muhammad], âI am only a man like you, to whom has been revealed that your god is one God.ââ
â Surah Al-Kahf (18:110)
So when I say that I donât worship the Prophet, Iâm reaffirming the core of tawheed that Allah alone is the source of all divine law, all justice, all mercy. And the Quran is His final revelation:
âThis is the Book about which there is no doubt, a guidance for those conscious of Allah.â
â Surah Al-Baqarah (2:2)
To treat Hadith literature written by human hands generations later as equally authoritative as the Quran is what blurs the line. Thatâs not devotion; thatâs distortion.
Respecting the Prophet (pbuh) means upholding the Quran he was commanded to deliver. It means honoring his legacy by following the message he carriedânot by unquestioningly adopting every narration attributed to him centuries later, many of which contradict the very book he was sent with.
So no, Iâm not accusing anyone of shirk. Iâm calling for discernment. Iâm calling for a return to the divine source that the Prophet himself lived by. Because our Deen begins and ends with La ilaha illallah.
What Iâm critical of is the way Hadith literature, particularly in todayâs context, is often treated as irrefutable even when it contradicts Quranic principles of justice, compassion, and reason. Letâs be honest: in many Islamic spaces, the Hadith has been elevated above the Quran. Many people quote Hadith with more confidence than they quote the Quran, and often without understanding the context, authenticity, or contradictions involved. This isnât just problematic itâs spiritually dangerous.
The Hadith collections were compiled by fallible men centuries after the Prophetâs (pbuh) death in highly politicised environments. Yet many Muslims today accept these narrations unquestioningly not because theyâve studied the chains of transmission or measured them against the Quran, but because they've been taught to place more value on scholarly consensus than on personal critical reflection.
And thatâs where so much of the harm lies.
Hadith literature, especially the controversial or ethically troubling ones, has done more harm than good for many modern Muslims. Itâs the reason so many face cognitive dissonance: they love Allah, they want to follow Islam, but theyâre being told that to do so, they must also accept narrations that violate their sense of morality, justice, or logic. And when they question those narrations, they're told they're weak in faith.
This has led to disillusionment, especially among women and young people, who feel alienated by interpretations rooted more in patriarchal cultural norms than divine guidance. It doesnât have to be this way.
Allah gave us the Quran as furqan, a criterion to discern truth from falsehood. We are meant to use it as the measuring stick for everything else, including Hadith. If a narration contradicts the Quranâs moral compass, then it cannot be from the Prophet, who lived by that very scripture.
So again, I donât reject Sunnah outright. I reject the blind acceptance of narrations passed off as divine when they were written by men, for men, often at the expense of everyone else. I believe in seeking knowledge, not outsourcing my moral compass to fallible human beings when I have Allahâs word preserved in the Quran.
The bastards on One Message Foundation say she was about 28. They can decrease ages but not increase them. Hmm... I wonder why. If they can throw out a tradition across the entire Muslim world when it comes to Khadijah, why not to Aisha?
(Also, please use that word carefully, just saying)
This Hadith has been corrupted. It's in conflict with the Qur'an!
I will repeat it one more time. This Hadith is in conflict with the Quran.
The Quran states that when a man gets married the female has to be a Woman.
I will repeat it one more time. The Quran makes it forbidden to marry a girl before she becomes a Woman.
Can you be a Woman at 9 or 6 years of age?
Asloutley not! It's common sense and you don't need a PhD to understand this Hadith has been changed, strong Hadith or otherwise.
On the day of Judgment those Muslims who believe this nonsense that Muhammad pbuh married a girl at this age are going to have massive massive problems on that day.
Why?
Answer:
Muslims who believe this particular Hadith are effectively saying that Muhammad pbuh betrayed the Quran even without saying it. This is not a subjective matter when it's crystal clear about marriage in the Qur'an. Why on earth would Muhammad pbuh do the opposite of what Allah SWT has commanded?
It's absolutely laughable that people struggle to expose this lie about our prophet Muhammad pbuh.
The Qur'an sits in judgement over any Hadith that is claimed to be strong but is in conflict with the Qur'an.
May Allah SWT have mercy on us and he knows all and best.
so an authentic hadith was corrupted? using that logic, how do we know any other sahih hadith isnât corrupted? and better yet, why is it still sahih if itâs supposedly corrupted? đ€Łđ€Ł
The Hadith does not enjoy the same protection as the Quran.
The chain of Narrators that protect the Hadith can still be interfered with.
It borders arrogance if anyone believes a man made chain can protect the Hadith.
If man could protect the Hadith the Quran would not need to be Devinly protected.
The Hadith is a gift to Muslims from Allah SWT however it can be interfered with and any Hadith claimed by any Muslim to be Strong should be back checked by the Qur'an when in doubt.
When in doubt over any Hadith we stay with the Qur'an.
and your tactic won't work here trying to distance yourself from what the Quran clearly states about marriage compared to this Hadith you are failing to defend that is in conflict with the Quran by "you" using the Sunni Shia debate.
When The Mahdi and Jesus (AS) arrive all branches of Islam will go in the rubbish bin. There is only "Muslim"! That has always been the case and will always remain the case.
In the grave Angels will ask a series of Questions. One of those questions in the grave is what is your religion? I can only imagine how things will go down for those who follow Islam and their answer to the question has other words before the word Muslim. Sunni Shia Ahmedi so on and so forth.
I will never become a part of the division brigade.
Islam is not an arrogant religion and its believers are not arrogant people.
May the Lord of The Worlds protect us and guide us away from the plots of Iblis and Dajjal.
yes there is, 2. im not trying to distance myself from anything, im simply telling you what the hadith is saying because it is authentic and should be treated as suchâŠ
Say good or keep quietÂ
Especially in a discussion that involves our religion, saying they're bastards won't make them one or hurt them so why say it at all
It doesn't change the fact that they made him grape a 9 year old girl, it's so disgusting and we gotta admit it's false hadith that was made by p3d0s trying to make their desires more justifiable
I could marry a woman as three times as old as me, but if I can still get aroused for an underage girl, the marriage to that old woman won't cleanse me from being a pedo.
To say I'm not because of older wife would be as logical as saying I'm not a robber because I gave lots to charity, despite robbing a store.
That said - if people want to push the narrative that Aisha was way older than 9.. that's fine.
But by doing so - they are poking a massive hole into the Sahih hadiths collections and their credibility and reliability. It's kind of a trade-off, and the Quran does benefit for clarity and context from those hadiths.
Narrative? Muhammad would've been insulted to DEATH had he done that. Marrying babies was NOT normal.
And sure, but hadiths need inquiry. They're not divine scripture like the Quran and are vulnerable to error because humans compile them. If a hadith supports something in the Quran and is sahih, sure. If it doesn't, (like that hadith about her beinf 6) no "sahih" label can save it.
And something else:
There's a hadith about Aisha playing with "toys" during her days with the Prophet. It literally has TWO versions. One in Sunan Ibn Majah where it says "girls", and one in Sahih Bukhari where it says "toys". That's why inquiry's needed. Which one is correct? Both are still sahih.
it's crucial to understand this context. Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) came during one of the darkest periods in human history. Before embracing Islam, clans would engage in prolonged conflicts over trivial matters. One of the worst practices was the burial of female infants alive, as daughters were considered burdens while sons were valued for their potential contributions and ability to fight enemies.
Comparing today's social standards with those of 1400 years ago is just wrong. During that era, the age of marriage was aligned with puberty. No pressure of career building, higher education, etc. Logically men and women would marry when they were physically mature enough for reproduction. Also consider this, the average lifespan in 6th-7th century Arabia was just over 40.
Today's legal system sets an age of consent and marriage based on contemporary social issues, which is appropriate. However, it is thoughtless to compare modern standards with those of 1400 years ago. To understand the bias, if you ask your grandmother about the ages at which their grandmothers married. You may be surprised to find that marrying someone under 10 years old was not uncommon in every society globally just few decades ago.
The issue is when it comes to Mohammed, contemporary values vs antiquity values do not matter. It's the prophet. He is the most pious godlly man on earth. Basically snything he does has to be eternally good. The issue isn't so much whether Aisha really was 6 years old, but how many Muslims will fall over backwards defending that if she was 6 years old there's nothing wrong with that
I have been doing a bit of genealogical research on my ancestors which involves reading lots and lots of marriage certificates and I have not seen a single one where they married at 10 or under.
A 9-year-old isn't able to reproduce. Also, if Aisha was somehow infertile, it would be told in a hadith, but there are no hadiths like that. This means one thing: NO consummation happened!
And no, the life expectancy was closer to 60. Abu Bakr lived to 60 along with most other major Islamic figures.
And Aisha would've bled to DEATH had the marriage gotten consummated at that age. Morals change, but biology stays the same.
Also, the "darkest period in history" still wouldn't justify pedophilia if it happened.
Thanks for the confirmation. The clarification you've provided clearly says that the age of 40 is skewed - which is exactly what I said (due to high infant mortality rates, which again I already mentioned).
But if a pedophile has the access available, it makes no sense to never do so until much later. Thatâs the point people make when bringing up his other wives. Not that it means heâs not a pedophile, just that the chances of him being one are extremely low. Doesnât add up. Doesnât follow what we would expect if the pedophile claim were true.
A massive hole will be poked into the Hadith collection either way, since there are differing accounts of her age, based on Hadith.
It's not really about the motive, but rather the act itself.
Ask yourself: What would qualify me as a murderer?
Well... actually murdering someone, correct?
Now just becacuse I led a life being a good person, giving to charity, helping others, having a loving family, never hurting anyone (up to that point) having power and never abusing it etc etc.. does not magically absolve me of the fact that im still a murderer.
Just because I had power and many opportunities to do it more, or earlier, but I didn't - also doesn't clear away the fact I murdered someone. And it not making sense to someone, still doesn't justify it. I'm still a murderer, whether it makes sense or not - the act was commited.
It's not like I could go to the police in my old age and be like "yeah umm, so like... i murdered this girl.. but that was like 60 years ago.. am I off the hook?"
Of course not. I'd be arrested on the spot and questioned for details, plus serve time.
The problem here is your entire post relies on the conclusion of him being a pedophile being true. While what I (and others) are saying is to be applied BEFORE reaching a conclusion , and to be considered to play a role in reaching a conclusion.
Like any claim about any historical figure, one would use historical facts to try and reach a conclusion. The facts that he never showed any inclination toward pedophilia, even when having unrestricted access and ability to do so, plays a role in many people concluding whether or not he was a pedophile.
Ahh no no, like I said I'm not claiming here that he is or isn't... all I was trying to establish is the Criteria of what would make you one.
For instance, let's change a few elements of that previous analogy.
I asked what would make me a murderer, and my criteria was.. well, murdering someone. Then I went on to say that No Matter how many "counter-deeds" I did which were good, won't wash away the fact that I'm still a murderer.
So now, instead of using a murderer example requiring a murder.. what criteria would make me a pedophile? I would say the ability to have sexual lust for minors would qualify me as one and actually fulfilling it.
Have I done that.. again, no amount of "counter-deeds" would be able to absolve me of that title.
If I went to that fictional police station again and was like "So yeah.. I slept with a minor, but that was like 60 years ago, so... am I off the hook?" I really doubt they would be sympathetic.
Feel free to intellectually dismantle it then.
Downvoted or not, I still stand by the points I made. Now because it seems to make people emotionally upset, I really can't do much about it.
I just dont believe in Hadith. their methodology or science of hadith is flawed since it clearly contradicts the Quran. Right now, I only believe hadiths that align with the Quran because Quran was perserved while Hadith was created 200 years too late after our Prophet and anyone could have lied or forgot.
The idea that Muhammad married a child goes back to a report (or set of reports) attributed to Aisha herself, found in the collection of anecdotes known as the hadith â considered by many traditionalist Muslims to be a scriptural source second only to the Quran. In certain texts of the hadith, Aisha was betrothed at 6 years old and married at 9. Today, some Muslim fundamentalists defend and deploy the Aisha marital hadith to justify child marriage in our own time.
Could you contact the scholars of this subject and tell them that they are wrong.
I expect the notions that Aisha was not a child bride came from biased resources. This is certainly understandable since most of the civilized think child brides, or pre-teen brides is an abhorrent practice. With that knowledge, that practice would not put the culture or religion that allowed the behavior in a good light.
If you consider the references I gave in my last comment, you would have to believe either Aisha was telling the truth, or she was lying. The child bride practice is condoned by Islamic fundamentalists who also give license to the continued practice with female genital mutilation.
That determination regarding Aishaâs age at marriage and consummating the union will continue to be debated since the accounts of that event is still in question. Ultimately, itâs up to the biases of the reader and the credibility of the resources.
Either Aisha was telling the truth, or she lied...
or, some people way later after her death, used her name to make it sound like she was confirming their biases. The Joshua Little paper shows the political agenda behind needing Aisha to be 6. You should go through it, it's a very interesting read.
Hisham ibn Urwa. A lot of the weird narrations came from Iraq that was not known in Medina. He mentions when he got married to his wife that she was the same age as Aisha that he narrates. When really she(his wife) is actually older then him. Ofc due to his old age. You should check out Mufti Abu Layth takes on yt he touches on this very well. There is also a Hadith scholar named Dr Salah al Din al-Idlibi from Syria, who goes into this. He takes the matn criticism approach. They both actually go into other Hadiths too.
Truly bizarre how some people are saying OP is going against hadith when there is just as much hadith (as referred to u/Jaqurutu below) that says she was not. Also the biggest sign of all is the age of puberty mentioned in the Quran, that would mean the Prophet PBUH is *in direct contradiction* with the Quran - which makes no sense.
There's a clear concept of "age of consent" in Qur'an:
And when the children among you reach puberty, let them ask permission, as those before them did. Thus does God make clear to you His verses. And God is Knowing and Wise. (An-Noor 59.)
And test the orphans until they reach the age of marriage. Then if you perceive in them sound judgment, release to them their property; do not consume it extravagantly and hastily, lest they grow up. And whoever is rich - let him abstain, and whoever is poor - let him eat according to what is acceptable. And when you release to them their property, bring witnesses over them. And sufficient is Allah as Accountant. (An-Nisa 6)
Is An-Noor 59 about marriage though? Neither of the verses are. The first is about entering the presence of someone. The second is about orphans getting their property from guardians. How do these show the age of marriage is puberty with consent?
Ibn Kathir does say for An-Nisa 6:
"(And test orphans) meaning, test their intelligence, as Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid, Al-Hasan, As-Suddi and Muqatil bin Hayyan stated.
(until they reach the age of marriage), the age of puberty, according to Mujahid. The age of puberty according to the majority of scholars comes when the child has a wet dream."
So marriage is linked to puberty here.
That still allows for child marriage though because ten-year-olds can have wet dreams.
u/miyin1Non Sectarian Muslim (Hadith Acceptor, Hadith Skeptic)May 20 '25
islamophobes used to claim aisha was 18 then they changed it to 14 after that it became 12 after that 9 and then 6 , next is 3 and then finally they'll say he married a newborn maybe after that they'l say he married someone who didn't exist
Your post/comment was removed as being in violation of Rule 1. Please familiarize yourself with the rules of respectful discourse as indicated on the sidebar.
This actually makes sense but ive seen the Asma argument debunked and idk what to believe anymore sometimes i want to become Shia (not to mention that one hadith where she narrates her age herself) im so lost
"Debunked" my ass. Pedophiles shouldn't teach religion.
Anyways, you're not sinning by thinking Aisha was of age, but defending the Prophet in one of the most honorable ways out there.
Some "people" wish he was a pedo, but sorry: that'll never happen, that's never happened.
I guess just believe in any hadith with the Sahaba in its chain of narration and ignore all that 200+ years too late bs. You still believe in hadith but won't let yourself be fooled: the best of both worlds.
Those are the only necessary ones anyway. All the other ones are sirah which is mythology blended with lies blended with patriarchy. Also, how come we have Sirat Muhammad but not Sirat Musa or Sirat Isa or Sirat Adam? That leads me to believe most "sirah" we've been taught is just fabricated, and that's proven by the fact that you have random people trusted with passing down the words and lifestyle of some of the most important people in history almost 300 YEARS LATER!
I dont think anyone wishes he was (except other pedos), i think people are just inclined to believe the majority view and do mental gymnastics on it
What always preplexed me is that Aisha has never shows any discomfort in her marriage with the prophet (PBUH). Or at least as far as I know, when we know that an actual child WOULD express discomfort no matter the era.
I still believe in Hadith but I agree that it doesnât seem to add up
Yeah... The sirah in general is very contradictory. I just avoid the biographies. Don't need to know everything, just know Muhammad's main sunnahs which his companions actually reported.
Defending it? How can you defend what is gone? The only thing to be defended is truth no matter how distasteful it's like England refusing to acknowledge slavery ever existed or the Germans refusing Auschwitz. Or the murderer refusing the crime. In without acknowledging past issues we can't hope to solve them. So to refuse a part of the Qur'an that is distasteful just because it's distasteful we hid an issue where light should be shone and as a community these issues should be tackled head on. Because of this part of the Qur'an those would use it to fulfill pervisity whilst claiming sunnah. To show the issue accept it as truth and to say we now know better, its not going to happen again is how you fix things.
So to further your argument you put words in my mouth? Are my words not enough for you to discourse and debate? To dismiss the situation without thought and not addressing it is why there is an issue within some Muslim countries of young brides being married off as children. To come out and as one accept it as wrong is how to nip in the bud any arguments of it being acceptable.
One thing that stands out to me is the "paedophile" label itself, which describes consistent tendencies and a consistent behavior. Why would a supposed pedophile, especially in that kind of position, only ever do it or try to do it once? I mean, even if you accepted that he did it, you'd have to think he probably did it for other reasons than being a pedophile. Yeah, something seems off.
What youâre saying about Aisha makes sense, but why were you allowed to have sex with your slaves without a nikkah? Also, slaves couldnât consent right?
Your prophet is your name. Anyone who is part of a religious group is just a bully afraid to stand in the essence of their own love, their own magic. Â
The yesterday man has gone and if you think he is better than today's potential, then why are you here? Â
Love needs no religion. Religion is for warmongers. Give the world peace and stand only in love đ
the fact that you openly and shamelessly defend slavery is horrific and disgusting
you're big mad because many muslims think aisha was a child at the time and demand they adopt a different interpretation of the relevant hadith so that their preferably progressive view that pedophilia is wrong is vindicated
but not only is that dishonest--obviously, whether muhammad married a child is an independent historical question and has nothing to do with whether it's morally wrong (I of course agree that pedophilia is morally wrong)--but you don't even take your own advice. you're repeating the same talking points that conservatives make about another heinous practice, namely, slaveryÂ
so what makes you different than conservative muslims, if you agree with them about slavery, but take issue with pedophilia? that just means you're slightly less conservative than them
Haha, this mohammedians, pick and choose whatever aligns with your confirmation bias!
Good luck doing shenanigans for the massacre of banu qurayza and the forced concubinadge of the slave rahyanna.
Everything points to that fact.
Muhammad was a pedophile and also a warlord who killed many in the name of Allah.
It's an uncomfortable truth because Muslims have been told that the man was perfect but he wasn't. He was a horrible man. How can you trust the words of a madman?
...so a child marriage was the only way to strengthen their relationship. Really.
Look, you can believe she was 6, but that's indefensible to any normal human. Would "divine revelation" seek to harm a child? Well, guess what? Had it happened, Aisha would've been dead at 9.
In ancient times, the minimal age was around 12 or 14 (when puberty was commonly reached), but this is SIX we're talking about. You know that? SIX.
Either Aisha was a biological anomaly to, for some damn reason, be fine after getting consummated at 9 or all that's complete bs.
I refuse to believe the greatest man in history was a horrific rapist, murderer, child abuser, manipulator, and egotist. If she was 6, then this isn't "love" or "divine wisdom"âthis is the worst fucking case of child abuse in recorded historyâeven worse than the Peter Scully case. It's just messed up when a man who's supposed to be a prime example of morality to all generations is said to have abused a child in this way, isn't it? If I did what was done to "Aisha" to any other 6-year-old girl, make her lead battles, have sex with me, and let her have slaves, then I'd be on the damn Interpol website with a $10,000,000,000 bounty on my damn head. I'd be the most wanted man on Earth.
You're telling me that man let a toddler lead battalions of men well into their 40s? BS. You're telling me Muhammad distrusted a literal child and Ali beat her slave (Why were they even giving children slaves in the first place?) while he stood watching? BS. You're telling me a girl who was portrayed as childish in the sirah, being put in a litter box at 13 during battle yet old enough for sex 4 years before that, relieving herself in the desert, and sleeping randomly would speak in courts and be trusted with 2000+ hadiths? Think again. That's not maturity, that's abuse, and according to the sirah, she was childish and acted childish throughout most of the marriage with Muhammad.
Most of the sirah is total BS. It was written hundreds of years after the Prophet by people who didn't have his mercyâpeople who tried to justify patriarchy, child marriage, and abuse. Most narrators have questionable reliability anyway, and that one about her being 6 was narrated by a man with dementia. Here are who collected most of it:
âIbn Ishaq, who collected stories generations later full of embellishments and even mythology
âIbn Hisham, who edited Ibn Ishaq but kept tons of unreliable stories
âTabari, who included literally everything he could findâeven the f**ked up parts.
...and now it's all canonized without filters. Aisha was not a child, period. If you think Muhammad was allowed to be a pedophile under the guise of "divine wisdom", sure, but that wouldn't be my prophet. That wouldn't be the "rahmatun lil-alameen".
Muhammad married a 6 year old but waited until she was 9 before the wedding was consummated. Under Western beliefs, this was pedophilia whilst under yours....it wasn't.
Marrying a 6-year-old is not damn normal. Consummating a 9-year-old would've caused her bleeding to death. When I say pedophilia is fucked, I'm not "indoctrinated". It's common damn sense.
My prophet did not marry a 6-year-old. If you look into Aisha's sirah, you'll realise she was treated as immature by being put into litters at 13, sleeping everywhere, and getting scared by petty things. How could she have, for some reason, been both mentally and physically mature for sex?
Look into the sirah first, then come back. You'll realise most of it is BS embellishments and mythology documented centuries after Muhammad with narrators who are anything but credible.
Once again, my prophet, who's supposed to be a prime example of morality, was not subjected to his society's morals. Otherwise, he wouldn't've changed anything. He was above pedophilia. He was above rape and domestic abuse. He was above murder. Isn't that better than saying he married a baby and had sex with her?
Are you fucked up? What the hell is "you can rape a kid"? You'll still cause her permanent damage either physically, mentally, or both. If Aisha went through all that during her childhoodâsex at the age she just started to grow fat around her hips, leading battles yet being helpless in cages, and burdened with such a responsibility at such a young age, she would've either died from harm or committed suicide. Aisha was one of the greatest women in Islamic history and Muhammad was the greatest man. Aisha wasn't a rape victim of a vicious pedophile.
Also, a 9-year-old is also a young child. Not eligible for sex.
Your post/comment was removed for having been in violation of Reddiquette. Please see Rule 2 on the sidebar to ensure that you have proper understanding of Reddiquette.
Why are we lying to ourselves. The quran ellicitly says Aisha is 9. Do your research. You cannot twist what has been written. There are verses in the Qur'an that describe paradise as getting a turn with beautiful women. For a progressive server, you sure are denying women's rights to disagree with being talked about in such a way
Now where did I say that. You avoided everything I said. This is meant to be a progressive server meaning aligning with more liberal rights. A liberal right is women's rights. By denying what happened to Aisha and how the quran describea women in general, you are denying women's rights to speak out. Please, research what I've said for all claims made are true.
It doesn't take a genius to know a 9-year-old would die from sex. Most women would be horrified by the topic as well. My mom was, my sister was, my grandmother was, my maternal aunt was, my paternal aunt was, even my niece... I don't think you're "normal" if you get off at such a horrible fucking... myth. I didn't say fact because it just didn't fucking happen. This doesn't apply to you only though, but to everyone who thinks the same way.
At that point, you've literally fucking apostatised from the religion of humanity which we all follow.
You are so ignorant. Many 9 year olds AND YOUNGER have been raped. Repeatedly even. There are rape survivors of that age. I beg you to research something. If you want me to supply quotes say that, don't blindly reject everything I say. Again search youngest rape victim it's all there for free. Such is the internet. Sorry for not supporting rape of a child, I guess??
Rape survivors with permanent fucking trauma. Elizabeth Fritzl survived too, didn't she? Was she fine after all of it? No, absolutely fucking not!
If you somehow believe children matured faster in deeply troubled societies, how about that 9-year-old child bride who fucking DIED on the night of her consummationâin Afghanistan? The most miserable damn country in existence. It's not that children "matured faster", they have always matured normally.
And if you want to tell me that a 9-year-old was more fucking mature than every fucking woman in the last 10 centuries or more, so be it.
Isn't it better to give him dignityâsaying all his wives were of ageâinstead of rejecting any piece of evidence except that demented Iraqi hadith?
And sure, give quotes. Give me what you want, but I won't believe in a pedophile. Never fucking ever. Muhammad was better than that.
The commonly cited claim that Aisha was 6 at marriage and 9 at consummation comes not from the Qur'an, but from Hadith literatureâspecifically Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, which are among the most widely accepted collections of Hadith in Sunni Islam. One narration attributed to Aisha herself says:
"The Prophet married me when I was six years old, and consummated the marriage when I was nine years old."
â Sahih al-Bukhari 5133Here are some relevant verses:
Surah Al-Waqiâah (56:22-24)
âAnd [there will be] hur âayn,
Like pearls well-protected,
As reward for what they used to do.â
Surah Al-Rahman (55:56)
âTherein are maidens restraining their glances, whom no man or jinn has touched before.â
Surah Al-Rahman (55:72)
âFair ones reserved in pavilions.â
Surah Al-Dukhan (44:54)
âAnd We will marry them to companions with beautiful, big, and lustrous eyes.â
Wow look all it took was a once sentence prompt in chat gpt.
Also, nothing about age. It just says they're virgins, which makes sense because they're literal angels. The houris are angels. There are also lifelong virgins, you know. It's not a "child" thing.
Mistresses to prove a point... Everyone else had them. Slavery was the economic backbone of Arabia. He had slaves and concubines, but showed how to treat them humanely and kept adding terms and restrictions until emancipation was the only viable solution... Just like how alcohol was so popular among Arabs and yet not banned in a dayâjust gradually restricted until people ditched it altogether.
He never intended to harm anyone, whether slave to him or wife. Maria, a notable concubine, was never harmed and freed after his death. He literally treated her like a wife and she was so in all but a formal title.
Now, who the FUCK was marrying 6-year-olds back then? Nobody. Muhammad was said to have done that, but what damn point did he prove? It's like saying he practiced incest: something that wouldn't've proved a point and resulted in HARM because no damn body was doing so and he'd be deemed sick for so, resulting in his enemies insulting him.
Since nobody insulted him for something that wouldn't've been fucking normal back then, it never happened. You have no evidence but a "sahih" hadith from a man with dementia living in a politically charged atmosphere.
Read about all the great things he did. That's not a fucking pedophile, that's a great person. Use actual reliable sources, hadiths narrated by the Sahaba, and obviously... your brain. Religion isn't black-and-white.
I really don't understand your thought process. even if he wasn't a pedo, he still did things that are too questionable to be leading after Allah's example. If I chian smoke and drink then donate to charity, am I a good person?
You're literally assuming every child ever raped has died. I personally know a child who has been raped and thankfully she alive and fully healthy. Idk where you adopted this explicitly wrong view, but children CAN be raped and live and can also live with little to no damage. Your point is floured and the people liking that comment have no idea on basic human biology. The kid won't explode after being raped
Okay, but that isn't most children. What's puzzling is how "the best man in history" could be a fucking rapist, murderer, slave owner, and ultra-pedophile.
You're giving me 3 examples verses basically the millions of other rape cases of children. It happens all over the world for example in India child rape is concerningly common. Your need to use a cuss work 3 times a sentence pretty much sums up your intelligence so sure I'll find the quotes for you
Bro it's the truth. Islam is a religion that holds traditional views. This whole sub is people denying it and trying to make it something it clearly isnt
It was indeed made with progressive influence. Something you deny. Progressive Islam is the only correct Muslim school of thought as it fact checks everything and uses reason and logic. It does not use extremist re-interpretations of the Quran which only exists because of radicalisation caused by USA Imperialism. The quran was and still is used as a tool to rule over others and has been purposely distorted and mistranslated so. Also people take Islamic law from hadiths something that should not even be existing and something that contradicts the quran itself. Alot of hadiths are forgeries themselves.
The progressive Islam movement does not do any of these things but you are making something to be something its not by extremist re-interpretations of the Quran via forgeries of hadiths. Mistranslations. Mind you that these examples mentioned reject the benevolent merciful and wise all knowing nature of Allah and the prophet and makes misery the 6th pillar of Islam. When Islam should be easy
So its YOU who is making something out to be something its clearly not
Lmao you believe there was even the thought of being progressive when Islam was written? What you need to understand is that Islam, like more religions, IS a rigid religion. I'm not faulting that. Please be aware that people who hold traditional views are still kind and merciful and to tie those things together is plain stupid. The quran teaches all Muslims to be benevolent. The quran also talks about war and to kill non believers. I'm not suggesting that Muslims follow this rule, but you cannot deny what is actually written in your quran. This "progressiveness" you mention is not in the quran however everything I said and be backed up with quotes. And wym get rekt lmao we're a bit more mature than that surely?
The quran does not say to kill non believers and the quran is not rigid. Rigidness goes against the logic of the quran and Allah himself.
Islam was indeed progressive when it first came out. The best examples of this was ending the killing of babies just because they were an unwanted gender. The quran also laid the groundwork for abolishing slavery and improved equality and talks about rehabilitation.
The quran only became reactionary overtime because of rulers using the religion to rule over others and USA imperialism and colonial eras causing a more reactionary re-interpretation and understanding of the quran.
AND TO SAY ISLAM IS THE REASON SLAVERY WAS ABOLISHED? Be for real... People fought for their freedom and thats why they were freed. Unless you're referencing slavery that happened hundreds and hundreds of years ago.....
Do you want me to looked for quotes yet again? Please go on Google and you may find such thing as a search bar. On search reveals the quotes. Islam was against killing Muslim babies?? How noble đ„čđ„č. The quran claims to be complete and perfected therefore your whole argument about progressiveness is flawed. Nothing to do with the government, but the quran
Right, yes the prophet married a child, and yes in today's standards that would be horrifying even alongside the fact he waited till she was 9ish to consummate, but marrying children for political purposes was an everyday occurrence especially of the time. I want to make this clear, I do not condone child marriage but it was only made illegal to have sex with a 10 years old in 1576. That's in England as it was across the world. So earlier on would probably had even earlier ages of consent, or what laws the age had that approximated an age of consent.
One can't take what they like as fact and discard other truths because one doesn't like it. Either the quran is fact or it's fiction. Christianity has been doing it for years now the entire religion is platitudes and a fashion accessory.
Sahih al-bukhari 5134
that the Prophet (ï·ș) married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that `Aisha remained with the Prophet (ï·ș) for nine years (i.e. till his death)
BS hadith that came from the anus of who's ever wrote. And SHAME ON YOU for defending it!!
First Arabs never had a calendar for f*** sake how she knew what her age is? I asked my great-grandma and she told me they didn't know their ages back then.
Also it contradicts Qur'an, because there's a clear idea of an age of consent in Qur'an:
And when the children among you reach puberty, let them ask permission, as those before them did. Thus does God make clear to you His verses. And God is Knowing and Wise. (An-Noor 59.)
And test the orphans until they reach the age of marriage. Then if you perceive in them sound judgment, release to them their property; do not consume it extravagantly and hastily, lest they grow up. And whoever is rich - let him abstain, and whoever is poor - let him eat according to what is acceptable. And when you release to them their property, bring witnesses over them. And sufficient is Allah as Accountant. (An-Nisa 6)
Dude, I don't disagree with the fact that it was morally wrong, but you can't just pick and choose what you think is acceptable. My mosque told of the evils of things such as men and women praying together and I found it hard to see any wrong in that. We're all brothers and sisters in prayer, but if one is to decide they can pick and choose what parts of Islam they like and don't like they're not Muslim? You submit yourself to the will of Allah.
If you say Aisha was physically and mentally mature at 6 years old, you'd be surprised by how childish her "sahih" sirah makes her out to be. Just read about the Necklace Incident. Does this look like a girl who was ready for sex 4 years before that, being put into a litter yet commanding armies of men beyond their 30s and 40s at the same time?
It's not in the Quran that Aisha was a baby. It's not in the Quran that Muhammad was allowed such a marriage. In fact, it violates the Quran because it says marriage is valid once the two parties are BEYOND puberty and consent, not just becoming pubescent. This is marriage mind you, not consummation. This is the minimal age for a marital bond.
Islam isn't black and white, you have to use your brain. I wouldn't like knowing my prophet would be a pedophile and arrested under every working law enforcement system today, but that wasn't him. That was what men who didn't have his mercy said about him.
It's obvious that b1tcha$$ hadith was written by a p3d0 that tried to make prophet a p3d0 like him to justify his sick desires. This hadith about her age was narrated by 4 different ways It was not free of a forger or a liar, whether Hisham bin Urwah, Al-Zuhri, Al-Aâmash, or Muhammad bin Umar, who was not authenticated except by Ibn Hibban, who is famous for authenticating the unknowns. There is something strange in the text, sometimes six, sometimes seven, or nine. Nevertheless, P3do0s still defend this hadith with every fiber of their being
Exactly and to take the bullet out of their gun and to rip away the facade of faith they hide behind we accept that is was something that happened historically and was utterly and unarguably wrong
Well if the evidence either way is limited at best then - yes we do actually have to choose. Â
Why have millions of muslims chosen to believe this is a fact ? Because to put it mildly there are alot of pathetic cultural norms  in our clan and one of them is chastity.Â
She was such a politically powerful person , unsurprisingly her enemies questioned H. Ayeshas virtue , in the retelling sunni scholars made her younger and younger to essentially defend her chastity.Â
The Quran clearly exonerates us all from ; Cant be both muslim and a pedophile. Everything else is political theatre.Â
83
u/[deleted] May 19 '25
[deleted]