How did the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) Treat Non-Muslims?

[Dreamer]

Yes. You see that was not hard.

the easiest way to see the fallacy of religious dogma is to talk to someone who adheres to it

[Dreamer]

*yawn*

Her playing with dolls =/= child. As this is heavily subjective to individuals and culture. In fact according to their social rearing dynamics.



Which would thus bear nothing on the issue of consent, rather what they would be is more your interpolation more than anything. Secondly we examine ALL Hadith about the issue

Aisha herself says:

Which would clearly be in reference to herself since she would have identified her own attainment of womanhood by that age. Thirdly you commit a correlation vs causation fallacy. HPV is more common in women in their late teens and early 20's. By your argument, Increased sussceptibility to HPV would imply lack of fitness for sexual intercourse even at these ages and thus would mean they have not matured.

https://www.mcgill.ca/hitchcohort/hpvfacts

The movement of the Transformation Zone in women is an ONGOING process that continues into menopause, women even in their early 20's thereby do not have a "fully mature" Transformation Zone as it is stil. Also Coitus with women of ANY age can result in internal bleeding, These are variants not exclusively determined by age as its vector but by genetics of individuals, body weight, size and lifestyle habits.Thus your argument is POOR scientific analysis and has nothing to do with Maturation into Adulthood. But I'm sure you'll find a way to DENY all this and make your ignorance of Islamic narrative, science and faulty reasoning "ok".

checkmate, Logic wins over cultural superstitions once again.

please! it reaches maturity at said ages... it changes from simple columner to squamous this change prevents any pathogens from causing metoplastic changes .. pathogens such as HPV which are aquired via sex, after this change being exposed to HPV will have no baring as she will be protected but before she is at high risk... as for playing with dolls... if your so in favour iof such marriages... please get your womenfolk married at such an age to 50 plus men also dont forget the whole trauma issue.... as for Asiha statement... since she herself did not know any better this is normal for her... this is known as GROOMING... her being "married" off at such an age where she didnt know what was going on (very clear in the hadith where it states she was playing and states she did not know what was going on and was greeted by women who wished her well) and so how she can give consent I will never know but for her this is normalized and so she is told she is a woman... you would make a perfect spokesperson for paedophiles

[Al Hanif]

the easiest way to see the fallacy of religious dogma is to talk to someone who adheres to it

Congratulations. For millions of years the greatest thinkers and philosophers of the universe debated on religion. People killed and died for their faith. Civilizations were built and greater civilizations destroyed them.

And you, today, 14/03/2014, at 05:25 AM, you posted this comment, this final stone that revolutionarized all human thoughts and challenged intellectual abilities of mankind.

You are one genious and Humanity will be forever grateful for your contribution against obscurantism of religious dogma.

A genius, a foreseeing genius who was the first person in the world who came up with the idea that religious dogmas are fallacious.

It's what you'll be remembered for.

Now please retard, don't make me waste my time again, stop quoting me.

[Dreamer]

Congratulations. For millions of years the greatest thinkers and philosophers of the universe debated on religion. People killed and died for their faith. Civilizations were built and greater civilizations destroyed them.

And you, today, 14/03/2014, at 05:25 AM, you posted this comment, this final stone that revolutionarized all human thoughts and challenged intellectual abilities of mankind.

You are one genious and Humanity will be forever grateful for your contribution against obscurantism of religious dogma.

A genius, a foreseeing genius who was the first person in the world who came up with the idea that religious dogmas are fallacious.

It's what you'll be remembered for.

Now please retard, don't make me waste my time again, stop quoting me.

actually boy genius loads of people have stated what i have said... that you cant accept the stupidity of your statement is your own issue

[Badlun]

*yawn*

Her playing with dolls =/= child. As this is heavily subjective to individuals and culture. In fact according to their social rearing dynamics.



Which would thus bear nothing on the issue of consent, rather what they would be is more your interpolation more than anything. Secondly we examine ALL Hadith about the issue

Aisha herself says:

Which would clearly be in reference to herself since she would have identified her own attainment of womanhood by that age. Thirdly you commit a correlation vs causation fallacy. HPV is more common in women in their late teens and early 20's. By your argument, Increased sussceptibility to HPV would imply lack of fitness for sexual intercourse even at these ages and thus would mean they have not matured.

https://www.mcgill.ca/hitchcohort/hpvfacts

The movement of the Transformation Zone in women is an ONGOING process that continues into menopause, women even in their early 20's thereby do not have a "fully mature" Transformation Zone as it is stil. Also Coitus with women of ANY age can result in internal bleeding, These are variants not exclusively determined by age as its vector but by genetics of individuals, body weight, size and lifestyle habits.Thus your argument is POOR scientific analysis and has nothing to do with Maturation into Adulthood. But I'm sure you'll find a way to DENY all this and make your ignorance of Islamic narrative, science and faulty reasoning "ok".

checkmate, Logic wins over cultural superstitions once again.

I am really surprised that that how religion like any emotion blinds people. How much they try to justify the marriage of a 9 years old girl to a man of 50 years with so many lopsided arguments. Why we simply do not recognize this fact that this was his personal act and may not be taken as a prophetic tradition otherwise every 9 years old girl should marry to follow the example.

Apart from the medical issues, this is inhuman to destroy the childhood and youth of a young girl and get her married to some one multiple times older than her. No logic can justify this kind of marriages. Just admit that this was his action as a person not as a prophet. May be at that time, it was culturally acceptable but to day the world does not accept such marriages, so the safe side is not to declare it a prophetic tradition.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

I am really surprised that that how religion like any emotion blinds people. How much they try to justify the marriage of a 9 years old girl to a man of 50 years with so many lopsided arguments. Why we simply do not recognize this fact that this was his personal act and may not be taken as a prophetic tradition otherwise every 9 years old girl should marry to follow the example.

Apart from the medical issues, this is inhuman to destroy the childhood and youth of a young girl and get her married to some one multiple times older than her. No logic can justify this kind of marriages. Just admit that this was his action as a person not as a prophet. May be at that time, it was culturally acceptable but to day the world does not accept such marriages, so the safe side is not to declare it a prophetic tradition.

What constitutes an emotional argument is an argument which lacks factual information to support it and is instead supported by emotional appeal or trying to Pleas with others emotions of sentiments. Under this criteria, Then you are in fact guilty of Making an Emotional Argument; because the statements you make are emotional in nature, even your proclamation of being SHOCkED is an emotional reaction.

Under biological standards, She was not a child. This is the objective factual evidence we have based on the information that's available. t's your denial of this which constitute and emotional reaction and argument.

Now What medical Science says is that GENERALLY women do not attain full maturation ON AVERAGE until a certain age range, But the Upper percentile of women who reach maturation even at ages 8. What's on debate here is whether 'Aisha(ra) was a child or not not whether Aisha's(ra) case applies to all women.. Furthermore all available evidence indicates that 'Aisha(ra) never suffered any health or physical impairments. We know this because 'Aisha(ra) never declared it, there's no reference to of her stating any illness which could be related to her sexual activity while married to Muhammad(saw) and the fact that her life expectancy far exceeded the average for women in that time period. All this would provide evidence that she was at optimal health thus argument from medical risk to conclude she was not biologically adult has no bearing insomuch as 'Aisha(ra) is concerned.

With that said, all the evidence we have indicates that ''Aisha(ra)" was mentally mature enough at the time of her marriage and was biologically an adult, nor was her life ruined as we see that she had a very prominent role in society and as very active in her life in general. Adulthood is not exclusively determined by "age" alone but by many factors. And this varies somewhat between individuals, regions and genetic groups and such.

Whether Marriages at age 9 IN GENERAL is permissible for the entire population is another issue entirely. It is not Homomorphic to whether 'Aisha(ra) was an adult vs. a child.

So You're refuted not because of emotion; but because you are factually wrong.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

please! it reaches maturity at said ages... it changes from simple columner to squamous this change prevents any pathogens from causing metoplastic changes .. pathogens such as HPV which are aquired via sex, after this change being exposed to HPV will have no baring as she will be protected but before she is at high risk... as for playing with dolls... if your so in favour iof such marriages... please get your womenfolk married at such an age to 50 plus men also dont forget the whole trauma issue.... as for Asiha statement... since she herself did not know any better this is normal for her... this is known as GROOMING... her being "married" off at such an age where she didnt know what was going on (very clear in the hadith where it states she was playing and states she did not know what was going on and was greeted by women who wished her well) and so how she can give consent I will never know but for her this is normalized and so she is told she is a woman... you would make a perfect spokesperson for paedophiles

Nope you're incorrect. And I can prove it.

figure 1.7: Location of the squamocolumnar junction (SCJ) and transformation zone; (a) before menarche; (b) after puberty and at early reproductive age; (c) in a woman in her 30s; (d) in a perimenopausal woman; (e) in a postmenopausal woman.

Look at figure C, the transdformation zone is not fully appearing until a woman is in her 30's. That's LONG After reproductive age begins, Which is displayed in Figure B. This means that the Overt Presence of the Transformation zone is not a measure of Sexual Maturation or Adulthood, Sexual Readiness or Reproductive Readiness, it is simply a measure of risk involved in sexual activity, another TOTALLY different vector.

As for the rest of your argument, we're debating whether or not AISHA(RA) was Under Scientific/Biological/Sociological Standards an Adult vs. a child when she married Muhammad(saw) not whether this should be come standard prescription for marriage law for every female in society. Now in regards to the hadith that you cited, close examination of the hadith. Demonstrates something quite different than what you suggested.

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house at the age of nine. She further said: We went to Medina and I had an attack of fever for a month, and my hair had come down to the earlobes. Umm Ruman (my mother) came to me and I was at that time on a swing along with my playmates. She called me loudly and I went to her and I did not know what she had wanted of me. She took hold of my hand and took me to the door, and I was saying: Ha, ha (as if I was gasping), until the agitation of my heart was over. She took me to a house, where had gathered the women of the Ansar. They all blessed me and wished me good luck and said: May you have share in good. She (my mother) entrusted me to them. They washed my head and embellished me and nothing frightened me. Allah's Messenger (, may peace be upon him) came there in the morning, and I was entrusted to him.

If she did not consent, she'd have been frightened or resistant. Nothing here indicates she did not realize that she was to marry Miuhammad(saw) Only that she didn't know why her mother called her but seemed to realize it afterwards since she was no longer agitated or frightenned. And since she Validates her decision to Marry Muhammad(saw) in other hadith, we can conclude consent. There is no evidence that the Grooming argument holds, unless you mean she's being groomed to prepare her for wedding, different type of grooming entirely. There would be no reason to "groom" her since There was no social animosity for such marriages to begin with. Furthermore the grooming argument doesn't hold because she's speaking retrospectively, not prepatorially. Thus your claim is not logically consistent.

Another claim debunked.

[Al Hanif]

This article proves with evidence that Aisha (ra) was not a child when she was married to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_151_200/ayesha_age_the_myth_of__a_prover.htm

And this one debunks all the lies about Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and Aisha (ra).

http://www.muhaddith.org/earlymarria...age-part2.html

[Dreamer]

This article proves with evidence that Aisha (ra) was not a child when she was married to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_151_200/ayesha_age_the_myth_of__a_prover.htm

And this one debunks all the lies about Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and Aisha (ra).

http://www.muhaddith.org/earlymarria...age-part2.html

sure since you clearly know more than Aisha who herself states that she was 6 when married and 9 when she had coitus... speak to your buddy as you two clearly have different beliefs...

[Dreamer]

Nope you're incorrect. And I can prove it.




Look at figure C, the transdformation zone is not fully appearing until a woman is in her 30's. That's LONG After reproductive age begins, Which is displayed in Figure B. This means that the Overt Presence of the Transformation zone is not a measure of Sexual Maturation or Adulthood, Sexual Readiness or Reproductive Readiness, it is simply a measure of risk involved in sexual activity, another TOTALLY different vector.

As for the rest of your argument, we're debating whether or not AISHA(RA) was Under Scientific/Biological/Sociological Standards an Adult vs. a child when she married Muhammad(saw) not whether this should be come standard prescription for marriage law for every female in society. Now in regards to the hadith that you cited, close examination of the hadith. Demonstrates something quite different than what you suggested.



If she did not consent, she'd have been frightened or resistant. Nothing here indicates she did not realize that she was to marry Miuhammad(saw) Only that she didn't know why her mother called her but seemed to realize it afterwards since she was no longer agitated or frightenned. And since she Validates her decision to Marry Muhammad(saw) in other hadith, we can conclude consent. There is no evidence that the Grooming argument holds, unless you mean she's being groomed to prepare her for wedding, different type of grooming entirely. There would be no reason to "groom" her since There was no social animosity for such marriages to begin with. Furthermore the grooming argument doesn't hold because she's speaking retrospectively, not prepatorially. Thus your claim is not logically consistent.

Another claim debunked.

loool... look up what grooming is... here we have a man saying he is Gods mouth piece.. his word is law... he tells his friend I want to marry you kid- he accepts as he believes this is what God wants.. marries her... everyone accepts this as normal as their leader says this is allowed- this is grooming not only of the victim but of the community... its clearly affected you too!

[RevolutionThroughReason]

loool... look up what grooming is... here we have a man saying he is Gods mouth piece.. his word is law... he tells his friend I want to marry you kid- he accepts as he believes this is what God wants.. marries her... everyone accepts this as normal as their leader says this is allowed- this is grooming not only of the victim but of the community... its clearly affected you too!

Here's the definition of Groom/Grooming

verb (used with object)
5. to tend carefully as to person and dress; make neat or tidy.
6. to clean, brush, and otherwise tend (a horse, dog, etc.).
7.to prepare for a position, election, etc.: The mayor is being groomed for the presidency.
8. (of an animal) to tend (itself or another) by removing dirt, parasites, or specks of other matter from the fur, skin, feathers, etc.: often performed as a social act.

Your message isn't a response to my points but I'll address it anyways.


Even here your grooming argument fails. You're measuring something being taken as ad-hoc normal. i.e. something being deemed normal AFTER the fact it happens, however pubescent marriage was a normal custom in Arabia already. So that claim fails. You're making a very flamboyant assumption second, the Metric we have here wasn't who said what is "normal", the measure was WOMANHOOD, Aisha retrospectively referred to the transition of being a woman. It was that pre-existing idea that determined normalcy for the society. There's no indication ANYWHERE that The Prophet made up or inspired this idea of "normal" in this context. So your grooming argument still fails even by definition. Third the enemies of the Prophet who we KNOW opposed and derided him, who would have used this against him because they had done similar things. However, they did not on this issue.

So your two days of sitting in silence and pacing your room trying to think of a rebuttal failed because the evidence that's available already debunks you.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

loool... look up what grooming is... here we have a man saying he is Gods mouth piece.. his word is law... he tells his friend I want to marry you kid- he accepts as he believes this is what God wants.. marries her... everyone accepts this as normal as their leader says this is allowed- this is grooming not only of the victim but of the community... its clearly affected you too!

I am going to use one single posting you put out here to show how dubious the others are.

You, I expect much more out of and frankly I am surprised at your cavalier attitude towards evidence based discussion. We are to apply an evidence based thought process taught to us in our field to most other things as best we can. This even means to passing judgement on Christ, Buddha, George Bush, Bahaullah, and Muhammad.

You basically have taken a shine to repeating mass media phrases and slander as if, since it emanates from the mouth of a white man, it is gospel truth.

Since it seems you assign unquestionable and unassailable divine law to the gutter trash accusations coming out these days we can start with a simple quote from another white man:

W Montgomery Watt wrote:

"Of all the world's great men, none has been so much maligned as Muhammad."

Watt probably wrote this because he was far more familiar with the practices of the Prophet's day and realities of the tradition than you are. He was also perhaps unwilling to fabricate or manufacture history and references the discussions below in his own history and analysis.

So now going back to this post you made above, you make up an insidious and untrustworthy narrative whole-cloth without any primary references and any subsequent discussion around the validity of those references.

It is basic knowledge taught to even the "Friday" once a week Muslim that Muhammad did not pursue Aisha of his own self. Rather, the other Muslims of the community OFFERED Aisha up as a candidate wife.

Here is the true historical narrative referring to the primary sources:
"Severel narrators including Imam Tabari in his book "History", Tirmidhi, Ibn Umar, and both Muslim and Bukhari repeat the following story:

KHAWLA BINT HAKIM inquired saying "Had the Prophet got married? (This is 3 years after the death of Khadijah when he was Mecca). The Prophet asked "Whom?" She answered "Do you like a virgin or a non virgin married before?" He asked, "Who is the virgin?" She answered "The most lovely people to you, Aisha Bint Abu Bakr!" He answered "Who is the non virgin?" She answered "Sauda Bint Zuma Bin Qais, she did believe you, and she did follow you." He then said "Go engage me to them." Ibn Hijir reported he said "Go negotiate with them."

Then a discussion occurs between Khawla and Abu Bakr where he asks to make sure that Islamic brotherhood would not preclude the marriage. Meaning he was able to send Khawla back with an important question; he did not simply lay down and accept a proposal. Ibn Hijir, the sub narrator as noted above wrote the word "negotiate" - hardly the words of a man that thinks he has executive privilege with the daughter of his friend.

The story goes on as such:

"He (Abu Bakr) went to Motim Bin Odai to be free from a promise of engagement of Aisha to his son that Motim has already made."

Refer to page 129 here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=6nUfcmY5wBoC&pg=PA158&lpg=PA158&dq=Khawlah+bint+Hakim+Aisha+the+daughter+of+Abu+Bakr,+the+person+you+like+the+most;&source=bl&ots=nGMnIXj-oR&sig=HAseJuuxDwEw4NEcsx7jn8YLxRY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rh4mU_PfDYryyAGvjYHwBw&ved=0CGcQ6AEwDTgK#v=onepage&q=Khawlah%20bint%20Hakim%20Aisha%20the%20daughter%20of%20Abu%20Bakr%2C%20the%20person%20you%20like%20the%20most%3B&f=false

Virtuous Women in Mythology and Holy Books is the secondary source we cite.

There are a few points that arise form the transmission by Tabari, Tirmidhi, Bukhari, and Muslim that devastate your rather idiotic innuendo about such a great man

1) He never initiated the discussion with Abu Bakr the way you insinuate, as if Abu Bakr was some sheep in a Meccan cult and that Muhammad took him aside and strong armed him into submission. Rather, Muhammad took a hiatus for a time after the passing of his first wife.

2) Khawla was an older woman by the standard of the day and her actions, not that of Muhammad, and that of the second referenced gentleman who Abu Bakr negotiated a prior engagement to, Motim Bin Odai, reinforce whatever age Aisha was, 2,3,4, 19, 20, 36, etc she was seen as engagable and marriable by those in the society in which Muhammad lived.

So your ahistorical narrative of a preying wolf in shepard's clothing is actually inverted by reality and the "sheep" offer the bride to the "shepard" who was himself not the one to initiate the discussion.

Regarding societal views of age-based marriage what we know from Shakespeare who wrote in a NON TRIBAL NON DESERT based environ a little less than a mellenium later (we mention this since it seems in vogue to mock the desert for some odd reason these days) of Old Capulet who says of his daughter the famed Juliet Capulet:

"She hath not seen the change of fourteen years..."

Yet we never hear about Shakespeare being bought up on Child Porno charges in Elizabethan England.

For that matter, discussions around the marriage of St. Joseph to The Virgin Mary make it apparent that St Joseph was far older than a apocryphal cited age of 12 years for Mary. The verbal gymnastics to deal with this when it is bought up is that it was an "unconsummated" marriage.

Finally, the argument that literalists will take the marriage and use it to marry off prepubescent females in certain parts of the world, or allow those with a penchant to pursue such an age group is also blown away in that the tradition makes it clear Muhammad may have married her, but he it was Khawla Bint Hakim inspired action, not divine guidance based action.

To attack religion and its founders (Christ, Moses, Muhammad) without resorting to equal and calibrated logic when analyzing modern constitutions and how they are equally abused to deprive people of life, liberty, and property (e.g. using court cases and constitutional esoteria to claim executive privilege) is a dishonest way to direct an academic discussion.

There is nothing within the canon of Islamic Law and Jurisprudence that inhibits nations from taking what we know now (e.g. proper child bearing ages, the fact that younger and older females experience more complications as do their babies) to adapting to what is better for say, a 9 year old female according to our best understanding now.

I would request that in the future when discussing important personages and issues of the day (e.g. your purely speculative discussions around homosexuality also influenced by what is in vogue as opposed to what science may apply to the matter) you step up your game and educate others as opposed to spewing nonsense.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

PS. Age less than 25, per epidemiological studies via the American CDC is the validated risk factor. Additionally, the leading risk factor for genital HPV transmission is sexual behavior based (number of sexual partners in aggregate). It is for exactly that reason that the CDC discusses the fact that 80% of the American female population that is sexually active will be infected by age 50.

Risk Factors

Risk factors for HPV infection are related to sexual behavior, including the number of sex partners, lifetime history of sex partners, and the partners’ sexual history. Most studies suggest that young age (less than 25 years) is a risk factor for infection. Results of epidemiologic studies are less consistent for other risk factors, including young age at sexual initiation, inconsistent condom use, number of pregnancies, genetic factors, smoking, lack of circumcision of male partner, and oral contraceptive use.

So using the Muhammad and Aisha example we have the following information:
Muhammad was a virgin based on tradition until Khadija who was married once before (meaning Muhammad's exposure risk was far below the current population exposure we see in todays "modern" world) and Aisha, being a virgin, had zero exposure.

So trying to assign the responsibility or insinuate a link for prepubescent or even adolescent HPV genital infection to Islamic Law and more or even historical personalities is assinine at best and intellectually criminal at worst when we compare the fact that 80% of sexually active women in secularized America will be infected by the age of 50.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/hpv.html