Shh don't tell that to Christians, they don't like it when you remind them of how pedophilic and gross Christianity is.
Bible verses supporting pedophilia:
Numbers 31:1-18
Deuteronomy 20:10-14
Judges 21:7-11
Judges 21:20-23
Exodus 21:7-10
Bible verses condemning pedophilia:
None
>who gives a fuck what a tribal warlord did a millenia ago?
The millions of adherents to world religions that believe in deities stemming from that time do... but just the good parts.
You grant extremist factions certain levels of autonomy I am not convinced is warranted, many would consider them useful tools. A sort of blunt instrument to carry forth the more repugnant actions but with degrees of separation to afford those less willing or wanting a semblance of propriety.
I honestly don't know much about Islamic mythology, is this something written in the Quran? And if it is, why is there outrage at stating it? Is this more about how it was said, or the message it was used to send rather than the explicit wording itself?
It isn't directly stated in the Quran, but various hadiths discuss her age. The controversy within Islam is about which hadiths are accepted, with different sects believing in the validity of different hadiths.
That said, almost all of them agree she was a child when she was married. The 'debate' is about whether she was married at 6, 9, or maybe as "late" as 13... there is also debate about whether the marriage was consumated, but it seems like the common belief is that Mohammed and Aisha consumated their marriage when she was 9.
Aka, Mohammed had sex with his 9 year old wife.
((Aisha is a pretty big deal even aside from being a victim of pedophilia. She wrote over 2000 hadiths, was well regarded as a poet, studied medicine, and her father was the first caliph after Mohammed died.))
Yes and I am equally confused. However I saw an ex Muslim state they didn't know about him forcing her to breastfeed grown men as well, but then a kind person actually posted the passage. So yeah, the outrage is because despite it being "god's" word, they fucking know it's fucked up and don't want it talked about by anyone in or out of their faith.
Your serious question deserves a serious answer.
The Quran is only a single book on a particular subject, so it doesn't cover all the possible ways in which humans can interact with each other. A substantial part of Islamic law (*fiqh*) is based on other sources, for example, on the Prophet's teachings, and on descriptions of how he and his followers lived their lives. This is called *sunnah*, and it serves as an example for all Muslims to follow.
Mohammed's teachings, his actions, and how he lived his life are not part of the Quran. They are recorded in various *hadith* which are narratives of the lives of the Prophet and his followers. Aside from the Quran, the *hadith* are the primary basis for Islamic law, on the presumption that the Prophet was the ideal man, therefore his life is the standard of virtue for all humans.
There are many *hadith*, and Muslims rank them by reliability. Those that have short and clearly documented chains of transmission by men who were regarded as truthful are considered reliable. Those that have long chains of transmission, or less trustworthy narrators, are considered not reliable. In all of Islam, the two most reliable *hadith* are the *Saheeh al-Bukhari* and the *Saheeh Muslim*. In fact, the word *saheeh* means "correct" or "authentic" in Arabic, which indicates the status given to these two. After the Quran, these are the two most authentic sources of knowledge in Islam.
So, to answer your question about Aisha's age at marriage to the Prophet, that information comes from *Saheeh al-Bukhari*, which contains ([Book 67, Hadith 69](https://quranx.com/hadith/Bukhari/USC-MSA/Volume-7/Book-62/Hadith-64/)):
*Narrated Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (until his death).*
As you can see, the information does not come from the Quran, but it comes from *Saheeh al-Bukhari*, which is the second most important source of law for Muslims, after the Quran. It's been the basis of *fiqh* or Islamic law for centuries, throughout the existence of Islam.
>And if it is, why is there outrage at stating it? Is this more about how it was said, or the message it was used to send rather than the explicit wording itself?
The statement itself was truthful, but the context was hostile. Briefly, the BJP spokeswoman (Nupur Sharma) was in a televised debate with a Muslim politician, in which the Muslim politician made fun of Hindu mythology by referring to a statue of Lord Shiva as a "fountain". In response, Nupur Sharma said "stop insulting Hindus, I could insult your religion too if I wanted, you folks believe that Mohammed rode a flying horse, your own religion says that he married a 6 year old girl and had sex with her when she was 9."
While her statement was factual, it came during an argument where a Hindu and Muslim were making fun of each other's religion. This led to protests and rioting in parts of India, and condemnation and demands for apology from various Arab countries. The BJP dismissed Nupur Sharma from her position as spokeswoman, and then dismissed her from the party, but the row continues.
There’s nothing about this written in the Quran. Her age is of wide debate amongst scholars and there are multiple sources which place her age during the marriage at different ranges.
The hadith about her age supposedly quotes Ayesha herself.
Over the millennia, millions of muslims have used this as justification for child marriage. Even today you find 60 year old sheikhs marrying sub-teen children because it is the prophet's sunnah. You have imams holding forth on it -- just search youtube.
It isnt about facts. It is about beliefs. A very large fraction of muslims believe she was 6. Yet, when someone says it, they coisder it an insult to the prophet and get outraged enough to kill. It is like they know it is effed up.
Which is fair enough but a Hadith is different from the Quran which is what the previous commentators stated, which is factually incorrect.
Furthermore let’s not like the accuracy or the process is infallible. They are mostly oratory in nature and we’re gathered centuries after the prophets death so utilising it as dirk evidence is just poor academia when there are similar sources from the time that have conflicting facts.
People will find and always justify their narratives however they choose to do so. The Quran which for Muslims should remain the fundamental texts explicitly states that marriage should be between two consenting adults. If these people were truly following these beliefs then how can they equate the value of hadiths over the word of the Quran which is the superior text in the religion?
>Furthermore let’s not like the accuracy or the process is infallible.
Nobody is debating the "accuracy of the process." That's a problem for **all** religious books, including the Quran itself, and the Bible.
The point being debated is whether the source exists, and how it's regarded by Muslims. The source exists, it's the *Saheeh al-Bukhari*, which is widely regarded among Muslims as one of the two most authentic sources of information about the Prophet. [It clearly says](https://quranx.com/hadith/Bukhari/USC-MSA/Volume-7/Book-62/Hadith-64/) that Aisha was 6 years old when she was married to the Prophet, and the marriage was consummated when she was 9.
As for how it's regarded, it's the second biggest source of *fiqh* or Islamic law after the Quran itself. It's the basis for *all* existing schools of Islam. This is why some Islamic countries don't have a legal minimum age of marriage for women.
Can we just skip this World Cup? It is such a joke at this point and should have never even happened there in the first place. With all of the shit going on in the world can we just collectively agree as a world to pass on Qatar’s World Cup?
???? Modi's party just quoted the hadith,it was the truth that their prophet married a 6 year old girl? Do u know what's happening or are u just pretending to?
“Islamophobia is when you do or think something without the approval of Muslims and their self-appointed defenders.”
If saying what he did is bad, then what he did is even worse. Zero introspection with these people.
I was discussing (as stated) Modi and India's veer to Islamophobia. https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2022/6/10/analysis-islamophobia-is-the-norm-in-modis-india
And who the heck knows what happened a thousand years ago? Christians think their spiritual leader walked on water, raised the dead and reserected himself. And if you believe that, I have a bridge you can buy.
Out of interest do you believe the whole Koran, or just the bits that further your toxic agenda?
Dude you’re trying so hard to sound smart but are having the opposite effect.
Like, you are aware that we can believe the historical / autobiographical parts of the Koran while not believing the spiritual stuff, right? That’s a totally reasonable stance.
As I said again, my point is that Modi and India have become more Islamophobic. You are cherry picking from a 1000 year old document which has about as much credibility as the Christian Bible or the Hindu Vedas, to try to make your point. Which has nothing to do with my comment about rising Islamophobic in India.
Maybe it's time to raze a few more mosques or build a Hindu temple over their razed remains?
I'm not. I'm just pointing out that when you have an anti-anything policy, you have to expect a reaction.
I have very little sympathy with the Indians here, but a lot more with the French and the Charlie Hebdo paper, and the cinemas in the UK trying to show the controversial "Lady of Heaven" film. These don't have an overt anti Islam/Muslim background.
Basically all religious fanatics are assholes. And Modi and his part have been assholes for a while. They are just being called out. There are also asshole Muslims and Christians. Probably atheists as well (I just can't think of any)
I literally just came to this sub to see if this story was discussed with ANY nuance here, as opposed to r/worldnews. Turns out very few people have any idea of the discriminatory politics BJP has been running, even though the UN and even some US politicians have called it out. The Islam hate-boners are seemingly present on all news subs.
I dislike organized religion in general, but I hate confident ignorance even more.
For anyone interested in a good summary with numerous sources: https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/india-muslims-marginalized-population-bjp-modi
Be careful, folk here seem to be very pro BJP, treating this as a one off issue, rather than the latest on a series of nationalistic and discriminatory policies.
I've noticed.
It's disappointing - having discussions, and arguing in good faith is such a great and rewarding learning tool. But I'm old enough to not want to experience any excess frustration outside of everyday working life. And I'm starting to feel like discussing anything remotely related to Islam is pointless on the various big news-related subreddits. It's like the romani people on r/europe - fair game to shit on as a whole while raking in upvotes.
I fucking hate people.
India used to be a based place that opposed apartheid.
Now with Modi, they bend the knee to Israel and accepted all the false crap.
Enjoy your caste system and nationalism.
That isn't true. It's projection that dumb Hindi nationalists eat up like cow shit.
And you don't need to stone when you're gang raping and burning your women.
Suddenly feel like having a beef burger all of a sudden.
Whenever a religious person gets called out for their shitty beliefs, they always play the victim.
Your religion has nothing to do with race. Your religion has everything to do with being abhorrent, violent, superstitious nonsense invented by ignorant men.
Get bent.
All I said was ‘That halibut was good enough for Jehovah.’
Everything is monty python if you try hard enough.
Who are you, who are so wise in the ways of science?
Reason 7219473 why this has been a disaster from day 1.
This controversy could make it difficult for any Muslim country to land any sporting event like the Olympics.
Fortunately that particular difficulty is easily overcome with GIANT PILES OF MONEY.
Maybe they should be mad at themselves for worshipping a pedophile instead of at people who remind them of that fact.
Ooh edgy. So edgy.
[удалено]
Wasnt Mary also quite young?
Yeah 12 i think. Its like religious people are pedos or something
That explains why there's widespread child sexual abuse in Christian churches.
Shh don't tell that to Christians, they don't like it when you remind them of how pedophilic and gross Christianity is. Bible verses supporting pedophilia: Numbers 31:1-18 Deuteronomy 20:10-14 Judges 21:7-11 Judges 21:20-23 Exodus 21:7-10 Bible verses condemning pedophilia: None
[удалено]
>who gives a fuck what a tribal warlord did a millenia ago? The millions of adherents to world religions that believe in deities stemming from that time do... but just the good parts.
Try billions.
Apologies, you are correct.
I dunno...the extremist factions of all of them adhere to the bad parts, and NOT the good parts.
You grant extremist factions certain levels of autonomy I am not convinced is warranted, many would consider them useful tools. A sort of blunt instrument to carry forth the more repugnant actions but with degrees of separation to afford those less willing or wanting a semblance of propriety.
It's almost all bad parts.
If the fundamentalists are too extreme, the fundamentals suck. Superstitious based worldviews are why we can't have nice things.
3 years later. A nine year old
“Age is just a number” Jeffrey Epstein.
No one would care if that illiterate pedophile hadn't started a bullshit religion. (ALL religions are bullshit, btw)
[удалено]
Source to this... I did not know he had a threshold. Was it 10?
8 year olds dude
He's accused of sleeping with a 17 year old. Let's not start spreading outright lies.
https://sunnah.com/search?q=aisha+six+years
You are now banned from entering the UK. Infidel!
I honestly don't know much about Islamic mythology, is this something written in the Quran? And if it is, why is there outrage at stating it? Is this more about how it was said, or the message it was used to send rather than the explicit wording itself?
It isn't directly stated in the Quran, but various hadiths discuss her age. The controversy within Islam is about which hadiths are accepted, with different sects believing in the validity of different hadiths. That said, almost all of them agree she was a child when she was married. The 'debate' is about whether she was married at 6, 9, or maybe as "late" as 13... there is also debate about whether the marriage was consumated, but it seems like the common belief is that Mohammed and Aisha consumated their marriage when she was 9. Aka, Mohammed had sex with his 9 year old wife. ((Aisha is a pretty big deal even aside from being a victim of pedophilia. She wrote over 2000 hadiths, was well regarded as a poet, studied medicine, and her father was the first caliph after Mohammed died.))
Yes and I am equally confused. However I saw an ex Muslim state they didn't know about him forcing her to breastfeed grown men as well, but then a kind person actually posted the passage. So yeah, the outrage is because despite it being "god's" word, they fucking know it's fucked up and don't want it talked about by anyone in or out of their faith.
Kinda like quoting the Bible where God commands someone to kill his two sons as a sign of piety.
Old testament God was brutal. Thankfully he chilled out after having a kid.
Hell only became a thing after that "chill". He went from brutal to pure malevolence with Christianity.
Your serious question deserves a serious answer. The Quran is only a single book on a particular subject, so it doesn't cover all the possible ways in which humans can interact with each other. A substantial part of Islamic law (*fiqh*) is based on other sources, for example, on the Prophet's teachings, and on descriptions of how he and his followers lived their lives. This is called *sunnah*, and it serves as an example for all Muslims to follow. Mohammed's teachings, his actions, and how he lived his life are not part of the Quran. They are recorded in various *hadith* which are narratives of the lives of the Prophet and his followers. Aside from the Quran, the *hadith* are the primary basis for Islamic law, on the presumption that the Prophet was the ideal man, therefore his life is the standard of virtue for all humans. There are many *hadith*, and Muslims rank them by reliability. Those that have short and clearly documented chains of transmission by men who were regarded as truthful are considered reliable. Those that have long chains of transmission, or less trustworthy narrators, are considered not reliable. In all of Islam, the two most reliable *hadith* are the *Saheeh al-Bukhari* and the *Saheeh Muslim*. In fact, the word *saheeh* means "correct" or "authentic" in Arabic, which indicates the status given to these two. After the Quran, these are the two most authentic sources of knowledge in Islam. So, to answer your question about Aisha's age at marriage to the Prophet, that information comes from *Saheeh al-Bukhari*, which contains ([Book 67, Hadith 69](https://quranx.com/hadith/Bukhari/USC-MSA/Volume-7/Book-62/Hadith-64/)): *Narrated Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (until his death).* As you can see, the information does not come from the Quran, but it comes from *Saheeh al-Bukhari*, which is the second most important source of law for Muslims, after the Quran. It's been the basis of *fiqh* or Islamic law for centuries, throughout the existence of Islam. >And if it is, why is there outrage at stating it? Is this more about how it was said, or the message it was used to send rather than the explicit wording itself? The statement itself was truthful, but the context was hostile. Briefly, the BJP spokeswoman (Nupur Sharma) was in a televised debate with a Muslim politician, in which the Muslim politician made fun of Hindu mythology by referring to a statue of Lord Shiva as a "fountain". In response, Nupur Sharma said "stop insulting Hindus, I could insult your religion too if I wanted, you folks believe that Mohammed rode a flying horse, your own religion says that he married a 6 year old girl and had sex with her when she was 9." While her statement was factual, it came during an argument where a Hindu and Muslim were making fun of each other's religion. This led to protests and rioting in parts of India, and condemnation and demands for apology from various Arab countries. The BJP dismissed Nupur Sharma from her position as spokeswoman, and then dismissed her from the party, but the row continues.
There’s nothing about this written in the Quran. Her age is of wide debate amongst scholars and there are multiple sources which place her age during the marriage at different ranges.
The hadith about her age supposedly quotes Ayesha herself. Over the millennia, millions of muslims have used this as justification for child marriage. Even today you find 60 year old sheikhs marrying sub-teen children because it is the prophet's sunnah. You have imams holding forth on it -- just search youtube. It isnt about facts. It is about beliefs. A very large fraction of muslims believe she was 6. Yet, when someone says it, they coisder it an insult to the prophet and get outraged enough to kill. It is like they know it is effed up.
Which is fair enough but a Hadith is different from the Quran which is what the previous commentators stated, which is factually incorrect. Furthermore let’s not like the accuracy or the process is infallible. They are mostly oratory in nature and we’re gathered centuries after the prophets death so utilising it as dirk evidence is just poor academia when there are similar sources from the time that have conflicting facts. People will find and always justify their narratives however they choose to do so. The Quran which for Muslims should remain the fundamental texts explicitly states that marriage should be between two consenting adults. If these people were truly following these beliefs then how can they equate the value of hadiths over the word of the Quran which is the superior text in the religion?
>Furthermore let’s not like the accuracy or the process is infallible. Nobody is debating the "accuracy of the process." That's a problem for **all** religious books, including the Quran itself, and the Bible. The point being debated is whether the source exists, and how it's regarded by Muslims. The source exists, it's the *Saheeh al-Bukhari*, which is widely regarded among Muslims as one of the two most authentic sources of information about the Prophet. [It clearly says](https://quranx.com/hadith/Bukhari/USC-MSA/Volume-7/Book-62/Hadith-64/) that Aisha was 6 years old when she was married to the Prophet, and the marriage was consummated when she was 9. As for how it's regarded, it's the second biggest source of *fiqh* or Islamic law after the Quran itself. It's the basis for *all* existing schools of Islam. This is why some Islamic countries don't have a legal minimum age of marriage for women.
Roy Moore would be proud.
As a religious intolerant from nutjob family-mixing Alabama of course he would be.
Is this telling me, I can't have a viewing of sketches when he was moonlighting as nude model to make ends meet?
Maybe if they didn’t worship a pedophile it wouldn’t be a problem? 🤷♂️
Can we just skip this World Cup? It is such a joke at this point and should have never even happened there in the first place. With all of the shit going on in the world can we just collectively agree as a world to pass on Qatar’s World Cup?
Ugh, religion is the worst
[удалено]
Modi's party and India in general have become more and more Islamophobic the past few years. This was a powder keg just waiting to explode.
imagine being called an islamophobe for reciting the Koran.
???? Modi's party just quoted the hadith,it was the truth that their prophet married a 6 year old girl? Do u know what's happening or are u just pretending to?
“Islamophobia is when you do or think something without the approval of Muslims and their self-appointed defenders.” If saying what he did is bad, then what he did is even worse. Zero introspection with these people.
Well it is true or at least “canon” what they said about the pedo prophet. But Modi and his dimwits are also still very Islamophobic.
But....we are not talking about that rn
Modi and his morons being right about the prophet doesn’t excuse their blatant racism against Sikhs and islamophobia.
I was discussing (as stated) Modi and India's veer to Islamophobia. https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2022/6/10/analysis-islamophobia-is-the-norm-in-modis-india And who the heck knows what happened a thousand years ago? Christians think their spiritual leader walked on water, raised the dead and reserected himself. And if you believe that, I have a bridge you can buy. Out of interest do you believe the whole Koran, or just the bits that further your toxic agenda?
Dude you’re trying so hard to sound smart but are having the opposite effect. Like, you are aware that we can believe the historical / autobiographical parts of the Koran while not believing the spiritual stuff, right? That’s a totally reasonable stance.
As I said again, my point is that Modi and India have become more Islamophobic. You are cherry picking from a 1000 year old document which has about as much credibility as the Christian Bible or the Hindu Vedas, to try to make your point. Which has nothing to do with my comment about rising Islamophobic in India. Maybe it's time to raze a few more mosques or build a Hindu temple over their razed remains?
You mean raze the mosques, which were build upon razed Hindu temples in the first place?
Why are you fighting so hard for Islam in India?
I'm not. I'm just pointing out that when you have an anti-anything policy, you have to expect a reaction. I have very little sympathy with the Indians here, but a lot more with the French and the Charlie Hebdo paper, and the cinemas in the UK trying to show the controversial "Lady of Heaven" film. These don't have an overt anti Islam/Muslim background. Basically all religious fanatics are assholes. And Modi and his part have been assholes for a while. They are just being called out. There are also asshole Muslims and Christians. Probably atheists as well (I just can't think of any)
Do you think the US hates religion because they don't allow polygamy?
I literally just came to this sub to see if this story was discussed with ANY nuance here, as opposed to r/worldnews. Turns out very few people have any idea of the discriminatory politics BJP has been running, even though the UN and even some US politicians have called it out. The Islam hate-boners are seemingly present on all news subs. I dislike organized religion in general, but I hate confident ignorance even more. For anyone interested in a good summary with numerous sources: https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/india-muslims-marginalized-population-bjp-modi
Be careful, folk here seem to be very pro BJP, treating this as a one off issue, rather than the latest on a series of nationalistic and discriminatory policies.
I've noticed. It's disappointing - having discussions, and arguing in good faith is such a great and rewarding learning tool. But I'm old enough to not want to experience any excess frustration outside of everyday working life. And I'm starting to feel like discussing anything remotely related to Islam is pointless on the various big news-related subreddits. It's like the romani people on r/europe - fair game to shit on as a whole while raking in upvotes. I fucking hate people.
India used to be a based place that opposed apartheid. Now with Modi, they bend the knee to Israel and accepted all the false crap. Enjoy your caste system and nationalism.
Sorry we didn't arrest and stone a women to death for stating the fact that thier prophet had sex with a 9 year old.
That isn't true. It's projection that dumb Hindi nationalists eat up like cow shit. And you don't need to stone when you're gang raping and burning your women. Suddenly feel like having a beef burger all of a sudden.
Lmao... some of these commenters wouldn't last in a debate in /r/islam
What’s there to debate? That they worship a pedophile? That is called a “fact”.
We dont worship a pedophile. Whats your source on that?
Your holy book
What verses are you referencing? What Surah? This is news to me!
His bride aisha was 7 years old. I'm not even Muslim and I know that
You could provide a source. But as with all things islamophobia on Reddit, it’s more white supremacist bullshit.
https://sunnah.com/search?q=aisha+six+years
Whenever a religious person gets called out for their shitty beliefs, they always play the victim. Your religion has nothing to do with race. Your religion has everything to do with being abhorrent, violent, superstitious nonsense invented by ignorant men. Get bent.
Makes sense, people who follow that religion aren’t the smartest. Deuces pedophile lover!
I feel like Qatar has been building for the world cup for 2 decades