Saadia,Monkeytrousers and Peacedove...looking forward greatly to your comments on Abu Hamza's conviction.o

[moondog]

as far as I know this (the age of the wife) is the subject of debate. Most authorities agree that while he may have married her at a very young age (as was not uncommon at the time for political etc reasons) the marriage was not consumated until she was much older. I am sure that PD would know more. But if he did 'marry' her at 9 as some sounces suggest, it was not consumated until she was over 14...at that time and place considered 'adult' IYSWIM

So a similar situation to the royal marriages in the middle ages in Europe IYSWIM

This is used as a stick to 'beat' muslims with and is rather unplesent

Righto. Thanks for the clarification.

added to that , there is still debate at how old she was at marriage anyway

actually, i have come accross this accusation of paedophilia before, in a horrible, nasty anti islamic website, purporting to be an islamic one. it really really disturbed me.

in islam, and in most traaditional societies, children were/are considered adult after puberty.
marriage may not be consummated till after puberty, or adulthood. yes aisha was very young when they were married, i have heard differing ages, 6 9 and 18 are all figures that sound familiar. not sure which it was. but he was a lot lot older. forties, or early fifties i think. as he did not marry again during the life of his first wife, who was a lot lot older than him.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 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 (i.e., till his death).

Kiddy-fiddler? Yup, I think I would say that comment still stands!

That was taken from IslamOnline by the way. A very Islamic website.

PD, nuns are far more superior to priests in every way, that's why priests wear dresses, in deference to their superiors. The whole of the Vatican is run by nuns, everyone knows that! Therefore the children of nuns are very different to the children of priests, the gene mutation is stronger in women, cursing us with dazzling looks and superior intellect, but for the men it is kinder, giving them the gift of ugliness (to ensure the gene does not spread further) and a certain, confused nature that is easily influenced by outside sources.

There is debate about what her age was. She was actually married before she was married to the Prophet (pbuh), but she was divorced by her first husband when her father converted to Islam.....

As an aside, my nan was married at about 12 (I think), she wasn't alive over 14,000 years ago.

Glad to hear that (not born 1200 years ago) FW, she'd be a bit arthritic by now if she was

Mb
I realised how daft it sounded the second I hit post.....

From Muslimanswers.net

"Now in regards to what the authentic Islamic sources actually say, it may come as a disappointment to some "modern" and "cultured" Muslims that there are four ahadith in Saheeh al-Bukhari and three ahadith in Saheeh Muslim which clearly state that 'Aishah was "nine years old" at the time that her marriage was consummated with the Prophet . These ahadith, with only slight variation, read as follows:

'Aishah, may God be pleased with her, narrated that the Prophet was betrothed (zawaj) to her when she was six years old and he consummated (nikah) his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years. (Saheeh al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64)
Of the four ahadith in Saheeh al-Bukhari, two were narrated from 'Aishah (7:64 and 7:65), one from Abu Hishaam (5:236) and one via 'Ursa (7:88). All three of the ahadith in Saheeh Muslim have 'Aishah as a narrator. Additionally, all of the ahadith in both books agree that the marriage betrothal contract took place when 'Aishah was "six years old", but was not consummated until she was "nine years old". Additionally, a hadeeth with basically the same text (matn) is reported in Sunan Abu Dawood. Needless to say, this evidence is?Islamically speaking?overwhelmingly strong and Muslims who deny it do so only by sacrificing their intellectual honesty, pure faith or both."

Greensleeves - interesting choice of words and language there. So glad that is not only low-level non-intellects like me who can be abusive and insulting !

I am particularly fond of the word "McCarthyite", so very apt to this discussion, don't you think ?

I just came across this thread.
Why are you using this thread to launch another attack on Prophet muhammad(peace be upon him)?
|What is your problem?

Interesting about the age issue. I wonder what the age of consent and marriage was in 7th - 8th Century AD England.

Any historians out there who could enlighten us ?

I think I prefer Jesus' approach, you know, "suffer little children to come unto me" but at least he didn't want to marry them!

singednotburned, nanneh was just saying that the term "kiddy fiddler" could not be applied to the prophet Mohammed and I questioned this with the statements from two independant websites.

Now why don't you just accept that us catholics are right and everyone else is wrong? Come on now, you know you want to!

That was sarcasm wasn't it?

Royal children were certainly betrothed in their cradles, in medieval times - not sure about as early as 700AD. But baby boys could accede to the throne so why not be "married".

Who knows how valid the "evidence" from the time is about Mohammed? I agree with mb, this is v unpleasant.

Nope, that was truth! Why else would Monty Python pen such brilliant songs about us?

Is is disturbing I agree. But those texts are from Muslim sources, not anyone else. I'd happily criticise my own religion just as fast btw. If there was anything to criticise that is!

PD!

"yes, Bio is beginning to be fascinating"..don't tell me I've converted you!?

I see you've been reading your Dawkins too!

I'm quite gloating at my infamous 'commie' status BTW. But I agree (and know) that some people have been put off (read intimidated) from posting due to the, lets say, 'robust' nature of debate and as Greensleeves says, that has adverse affects on the quality of debate anywhere, and also has consequences for free speech itself. I'm in a very serene mood however, so refuse to be narked about anything. hmmm

I find that people who generally have a firm belief in what they say and more importantly are able to back up their statements with evidence whether historical or otherwise find it very very difficult to get scared off by the opposition.

Otherwise it all just becomes a load of what one of my teachers used to call "verbal diarriah", doesn't it ?

Evening MT...fancy seeing you here

I know, funny isn't it...I just felt sort of..drawn here...

Free the Mumsnet three! hehe

Nanneh, I'll leave the fire and brimstone to you..

Preposterous muddle-headed drivel. Love it

What is nanneh talking about?

Is she bowing down to the catholics superior way of life? Must be! We've got transubstanstiation you know! And we know how to spell it so we must be good!

Rhubarb, saw this Tom Lehra song and thought of you. It was written to celibrate putting the mass into English

'First you get down on your knees,
Fiddle with your rosaries,
Bow your head with great respect,
And genuflect, genuflect, genuflect!

Do whatever steps you want, if
You have cleared them with the Pontiff.
Everybody say his own
Kyrie eleison,
Doin' the Vatican Rag.

Get in line in that processional,
Step into that small confessional,
There, the guy who's got religion'll
Tell you if your sin's original.
If it is, try playin' it safer,
Drink the wine and chew the wafer,
Two, four, six, eight,
Time to transubstantiate!

So get down upon your knees,
Fiddle with your rosaries,
Bow your head with great respect,
And genuflect, genuflect, genuflect!

Make a cross on your abdomen,
When in Rome do like a Roman,
Ave Maria,
Gee it's good to see ya,
Gettin' ecstatic an'
Sorta dramatic an'
Doin' the Vatican Rag! '