632-800

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I'm a moron, lol that's cute.

Trust me, you wont find dumber people than these. They have had the issue addressed definitively at least 100 times. That is why there is a hidden agenda there. Here is a prior discussion of this:

http://www.pashtunforums.com/showthread.php?t=42498&page=5&highlight=bint+hakim

This was my prior response which not a one of them has been able to deal with yet at that thread reproduced here:

--------------------------------------------------------------

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=6nU...ost%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 (13 years old in play):

"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.

Additionally, 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.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I'm a moron, lol that's cute.

Each time they throw out another bout of diarrhea (what they qualify as "logic") refer them to the posts regarding the british monarchs and the actual facts behind the Prophet's marriage above and save yourself some time.

[Badlun]

Dr Saib

When it comes to justify something you can justify it by all means. Your argument that Muhammad did not pursue Aisha of his own self. Rather, the other Muslims of the community OFFERED Aisha up as a candidate wife--is totally absurd as the fact remains that he married a child whether it was arranged marriage or love marriage.

You cannot make him free from the crime or blame of a child marriage because it was arranged by others. He was not forced or he was him slef not a child but a grown up man in his fifties and would know the implications of marrying a 9 years old child. just admit that this was his personal act and not a sunna otherwise every Muslim will have to marry children for earning more virtues.

And this discussion is pertinent here because this event of child marriage belong to the historic period under discussion.

[Badlun]

My grandma was married at 11. And it's still prevalent in Afg today.

Anyways, any other questions about this era?

Your grandma married at 11, so will you also go for it or will like it for your children or grandchildren too?

And do you think why it happens in our society. Because people want to follow the prophetic example of marrying a child and consider it normal or even Sunna.

My question about this era is that why just after the death of the holy prophet Ali had to fight Ayesha and why Yazeed had to kill Hussain? Why the Islamic spirit of brotherhood disappeared in such a short period of time?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Dr Saib

When it comes to justify something you can justify it by all means.

Dont be foolish and act like an uneducated person in an educated discussion. This is why I always tell you that you fathom next to nothing and exhibit a clear inability for logical, historical, and evidence based reasoning.

It is you that is justifying reviewing and judging a person's actions and moral choices without examining context and temporal aspects of when that decision was made.

Your argument that Muhammad did not pursue Aisha of his own self. Rather, the other Muslims of the community OFFERED Aisha up as a candidate wife--is totally absurd as the fact remains that he married a child whether it was arranged marriage or love marriage.

The absurdity of your argument is the predominant absurdity if there is any. As noted, not a single criticism of Muhammad existed before the late 20th century missionary picked up on this as a bone of contention whether it be by the biggest orientalists like Muir and Watts and what not. As late as the 1950s a much older Elvis Presley was courting a much younger Priscilla Presley for instance and not a word was said about it.

As noted above, regarding the other marriages in history, the time and place mattered and British monarchs were also not castigated by the likes of Chaucer and the British people of that era.

You cannot make him free from the crime or blame of a child marriage because it was arranged by others.

As I said, please crack open a book from time to time and leave your militant secularist agenda aside. You are labeling his behavior as criminal whereas the people of the era, even before his mission and people for centuries thereafter viewed the biological initiation of menses as a potential basis for marriage amongst many other factors that are no longer in vogue today in some parts of the globe and not in others.

He was not forced or he was him slef not a child but a grown up man in his fifties and would know the implications of marrying a 9 years old child. just admit that this was his personal act and not a sunna otherwise every Muslim will have to marry children for earning more virtues.

There is no need to admit anything regarding sunnah or non sunnah since as we said, the marriage of Sauda and Aisha was offered to Muhammad, not vice versa. Also, the implications were few and far between and the ramifications and outcomes and benefits from Aisha being an instrumental partner in his life really demean and debase your idiotic and rather stupid approach to this discussion.

And this discussion is pertinent here because this event of child marriage belong to the historic period under discussion.

State your case openly, what exactly are you charging the Prophet Muhammad with regarding the marriage to Aisha?

x

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Your grandma married at 11, so will you also go for it or will like it for your children or grandchildren too?

And do you think why it happens in our society. Because people want to follow the prophetic example of marrying a child and consider it normal or even Sunna.

My question about this era is that why just after the death of the holy prophet Ali had to fight Ayesha and why Yazeed had to kill Hussain? Why the Islamic spirit of brotherhood disappeared in such a short period of time?

Why were your gods Taraki and Amin and Najib and now your new pantheon Karzai Mahmud and Karzai Hamid climbing over each other and sometimes killing each other?

Why after the establishment of the US did Aaron Burr shoot Alexander Hamilton?

Don't ask ridiculous questions. Your illogical question is to assume that since infighting occurs amongst and between human beings that it invalidates an ideology or a concept.

This is your sneaky militant secular semi socratic approach to making some nonexistent point.

The fact that humans still value the idea is typified in the King Arthur legend. In that very legend, Camelot is the shining city on the hill, but it is transient. Yet no one questions Arthur's devotion and dignity and fortitude in their literary analysis of that sort of idealistic rendering of human leadership. This approach to lionizing and idealizing leaders persisted even into John F Kennedy's presidency, called the Camelot Presidency for that very reason and based on that very idealization of the fact that humans in and of themselves are prone to error, even the best of them.

Additionally, good people may differ and may differ adamantly.

Additionally, people all over the globe before and after Muhammad married and engaged at early ages. In fact Ayesha was engaged to Bin Odai before the religion was even codified and Muhammad's sunnah adopted.

More often people in these nations will marry people off at early ages to absolve debts, disputes, unload their family expenses, acquire a strong role in the community etc.

Or for that matter, in Hindu India the prevalence remains alarming:

http://mief.in/child-marriage-in-india/

In the future please put an asterik at the bottom disclosing your conflicts of interest which is predominantly that you argue from the militant secularist vantage point ignoring all adjacent and adjunct evidences.

[Badlun]

If few others(who were not prophets and examples for others) married children in the past do not justify Ayesha marriage. Similarly no body objected in the past is not a valid reason we ignore this fact. Human rights awareness is a recent phenomenon. Even in the west gay rights is now a days an issue.

As religion is losing its hold on society, such issues will come out from time to time. Previously you could not talk of the personal life of a prophet but now you can find thousands of references on the marriage of Ayesha.

Menstrual cycle is not the only requisite for marriage. Marriage need other psychical and psychological growth. Imagine a wife 9 years old in the lap of a 50 years old man and you can understand the implications.

If you take the marriage of Muhamamd with Ayesha as a prophetic act and not a personal act then it is a Sunna and an act of virtue to marry children.

My main purpose is to separate the personal life of Muhamamd , his life as an Arab leader and as a prophet of the religion of Islam. I follow him in his religious injunctions as to offer prayers etc but not in marrying children or his wars and killings of the people at that time.

[Khostai]

Wanna try again dumb -sh-it? If you are going to pretend literacy then at least do a thorough job.



From The King's Mother, Lady Margaret Beaufort Countess of Richmond and Derby page 37 in Chapter, War of the Roses

^ Mother of King Henry the VII



^Marriage of Richard Duke of York to Ann Mawbrey in Archaelogia Cambrensis page 18

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZrMVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA18&lpg=PA18&dq=King's+second+son,+was+to+be+Duke+of+York+and+Norfolk,+Earl+Marshal,+Warrenne,+and+Nottingham,+and+to+marry+Anne,+daughter+and+heir+to+John+late+Duke+of+Norfolk,+the+said+Anne&source=bl&ots=LlVkXkZjoh&sig=tdqRXEwpQ3FKYXrMwMZEGjGMOuQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6wrPU5GnJIeQyAT_1YHgBQ&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=King's%20second%20son%2C%20was%20to%20be%20Duke%20of%20York%20and%20Norfolk%2C%20Earl%20Marshal%2C%20Warrenne%2C%20and%20Nottingham%2C%20and%20to%20marry%20Anne%2C%20daughter%20and%20heir%20to%20John%20late%20Duke%20of%20Norfolk%2C%20the%20said%20Anne&f=false

or to seal the deal:

http://www.thedigitalfolklife.org/childmarriage.htm

Do you like that fool?

Ow I see you are done cleaning toilets, nice job ghulam. I said you must stay quite otherwise your master will get angry again.

I can read this from your dum source:

"there was considerable happiness expressed over the assumed probability that this marriage would end the Hundred Years War then in one of its periodic states of truce between the two kingdoms. Peace was to be ensured by joining together this man and this little girl in marriage."
From your own ****ty source it was done to avoid a war and not becuase it was the norm.

You moron don't even know that the marriage woul not be consumed when they got older, you imbicil try next time harder.

"To ensure his line, a second marriage was advisable, but the choice of a six-year-old child who was expressly spared consummation of the marriage until she was twelve suggests that an heir was not Richard's primary object. He wanted reconciliation with France . . . . The commons, suffering from disrupted commerce and oppressive taxes, may have wanted peace, but they did not like the French marriage. They feared Richard would give away too much to the French; there were mutterings about Calais, and disappointment if not suspicion at the choice of a child queen and continued uncertainty about an heir."

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1rzr4k/richard_ii_of_england_married_isabella_of_france/cdsoaoy

Altough 12 years is still young, but that is not a pre-teen chiled.

Pff toiletcleaners have a really big mouth in here. But a really tiny brain.

About the Anne the Mowbray she and her future husband were both children.
The marriage was again a political thing, and would have been trully a marriage when they got older. And this is not about
some creepy 50 year old marrieng a 9 year old.

Here is a picture of them:

[BarakzaiAbdali]

[QUOTE=Badlun;748041]If few others(who were not prophets and examples for others) married children in the past do not justify Ayesha marriage.


As I said, read and read often and read for comprehension Badlun Saheb because you lack this skill. In the context and times of who he was and where he lives, and how society worked at that time, there was no need to justify the marriage. If Muhammad were born today and practiced in Washington DC, then he may have had to contend with criticism. Its a moot point. And the other examples validate society's conception of this.

As a case in point, if a doctor even in the 1800s viewed treating a disease differently than we do today, based on the evidence he had back then, we can not charge him retroactively with malpractice or shoddy practice and no one takes away from their abilities. That is why for instance Galen or other great physicians remain in the pantheon of greatest ever - its because even though now evidence shows a lot of what they did was skewed, it was what they presumed was best.

Similarly no body objected in the past is not a valid reason we ignore this fact. Human rights awareness is a recent phenomenon. Even in the west gay rights is now a days an issue.

Wrong again. This is why I asked you to please please go back to the place you got your degree and ask for a refund because despite 2 to 3 years here you demonstrate an intractable lack of either comprehension or a willful malignancy that demonstrates without evidence bases.

You are making what historians and logicians refer to as Historian's Fallacy. Dr. David Fischer discussed this in Historians' Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought.

He defines it in the context, for instance, of judging Hamilton and Adams on page 210"

The historian's fallacy appears full blown in Louis Hartz's The Liberal Tradition in America which denounces Hamilton and Adams and Federalists and Whigs, for failing to understand their society. "They deserve all the criticisms they have received he writes... their crime was not villiany but stupidity... If Hartz's charge says anything coherently, then I think it consists of an indictment of the founding fathers for failing to read the future.

In yet another instance, he describes how a scientific historian fell into the same trap:

At least twice the author falls into ONE OF THE WORST BLUNDERS that a historian of science can commit: hindsight contempt for the ignorance of past investigators

Therefore save me your human rights tripe. There are still raging debates regarding moral, historical, and ethical relativism and whole syllabi have been devoted to this matter. You spew out these nonsensical things as if they are now the 10 commandments.

http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/ethicalrelativism.html

As religion is losing its hold on society, such issues will come out from time to time. Previously you could not talk of the personal life of a prophet but now you can find thousands of references on the marriage of Ayesha.

So once again, what crime are you accusing the Prophet of?

Menstrual cycle is not the only requisite for marriage. Marriage need other psychical and psychological growth. Imagine a wife 9 years old in the lap of a 50 years old man and you can understand the implications.

You are either willingly ignorant or just acting the part. I clearly said that in the times and places these men lived in, and as a biological species this was often a key prerequisite. Just as Jefferson bore children through his slave woman and that was not considered improper in 1700s America, therefore for me to go and dig up his bones and burn them is nonsensical.

If you take the marriage of Muhamamd with Ayesha as a prophetic act and not a personal act then it is a Sunna and an act of virtue to marry children.

My main purpose is to separate the personal life of Muhamamd , his life as an Arab leader and as a prophet of the religion of Islam. I follow him in his religious injunctions as to offer prayers etc but not in marrying children or his wars and killings of the people at that time.

No, your main purpose is to insidiously discredit Islam and the Prophet, which is failing miserably. He never said or issued an injunction to go and marry a child. In fact, he also married widows, a woman 25 years his senior, his cousin, etc. Even amongst the hardest of the salafists, there is no one going around trying to find a 25 years older person to marry for their first of 4 wives to "emulate" or enact the sunnah. The Prophet himself defined his sunnah was simply, to marry and he did not qualify this further except in certain personal friendly advice instances.

No, Your main purpose continues to fail miserably because you fall into the cycle if endless stupidity and non-evidence based of conjectural tripe. For instance, if say the Prophet goes and married women named Khadija, Ayesha, Hafsa, etc only you in your backwards mind think that someone is out there trying to find women named Khadija, Hafsa, Sauda, etc and that they wont marry anyone except with those names. You are imposing some sort of nonexistent ideology on the masses that adhere to orthodoxy as if they all are running to claim such things

[Badlun]

If you agree that the marriage of Ayesha was a happening only for that time and does not fall in the definition of Sunna and Muslims should not emulate this example and many Muslims and Pashtun child marriages today are not inspired by Ayesha marriage then for me this chapter is closed.

I already told you that I take it as his personal act and not a Sunna. The problem is that Muhamamd was a prophet, not a king or doctor so his actions would remain limited to his life time. People follow him in his each and every word and action after 1400 years and justify their evil actions by saying that they do the way their prophet did.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Ow I see you are done cleaning toilets, nice job ghulam. I said you must stay quite otherwise your master will get angry again.

If you mean by obliterating your dumb arguments coming out of your dirty as-s mouth as cleaning a toilet, then dam-n straight harami, I am actively cleaning the toilet that is your mouth where hindus and gypsies drop their daily loads.

I can read this from your dum source:

"there was considerable happiness expressed over the assumed probability that this marriage would end the Hundred Years War then in one of its periodic states of truce between the two kingdoms. Peace was to be ensured by joining together this man and this little girl in marriage."
From your own ****ty source it was done to avoid a war and not becuase it was the norm.

You idiot, a single out of nine marriages also did not indicate this was Muhammad's "norm" and he also as proven did not seek out the marriage. And the only sh-itty source here is your male paisha brain. The whole point was the church still conducted the marriage irrespective of that and did not view it as sacrilege or a crime jack-as-s. It was still considered a marriage

You moron don't even know that the marriage woul not be consumed when they got older, you imbicil try next time harder.

"To ensure his line, a second marriage was advisable, but the choice of a six-year-old child who was expressly spared consummation of the marriage until she was twelve suggests that an heir was not Richard's primary object. He wanted reconciliation with France . . . . The commons, suffering from disrupted commerce and oppressive taxes, may have wanted peace, but they did not like the French marriage. They feared Richard would give away too much to the French; there were mutterings about Calais, and disappointment if not suspicion at the choice of a child queen and continued uncertainty about an heir."

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1rzr4k/richard_ii_of_england_married_isabella_of_france/cdsoaoy

Altough 12 years is still young, but that is not a pre-teen chiled.

You are soooooo retarded. I thought you were just half level handicapped, looks like you are a full level handicap. They practiced according to CANNONIZED midieval marriage law jack ass:

If a prepubescent, betrothed and handed over, asks permission to marry another who is in majority, she is not to be heard if the man swears that he has known her. Nor is she to be heard if she has not reached majority, but has been shown to be close to puberty. Betrothal with a prepubescent over the age of seven gives rise to he impediment of public propriety.

http://faculty.cua.edu/Pennington/canon%20Law/marriagelaw.htm

Do you understand this high level of english needle d-ick? It means the PURBERTY/Menses was was considered the landmark yet consensual sexual intercourse took place before then as well and the law code dictated how that was to be handled

Pff toiletcleaners have a really big mouth in here. But a really tiny brain.

Coming from the kid who was whining about failing all his courses and having to suck his teacher's kuna to get a passing grade lol, thats rich. Here is another one for you:

In medieval Europe, Gratian, the influential founder of Canon law in the twelfth century, accepted the traditional age of puberty for marriage (between 12 and 14) but he also said consent was "meaningful" if the children were older than seven. Some authorities said consent could take place earlier. Such a marriage would be permanent as long as neither party sought annulment before reaching puberty (12 for girls and 14 for boys) or if they had already consummated the marriage.

Basic English gay-wad, it means that the marriage consummation in their midieval law could occur even in between SEVEN and the theoretical age of puberty. LOL. God you are so dumb man, you cannot even read further than you did.

About the Anne the Mowbray she and her future husband were both children.
The marriage was again a political thing, and would have been trully a marriage when they got older.

Moron, your initial argument was that in no society did people marry before 12. Read your own original post. What are you getting early Alzheimers or has that Amsterdam crack affected your thinking?

And this is not about
some creepy 50 year old marrieng a 9 year old.[

Here is a picture of them:



Really, a simulated marriage ceremony between a 28 year old and a 7 year old and also between two 7 year olds for some reason is not creepy to you, but a marriage consummated at the age of puberty in a society that accepted that by a man who generally married widows, orphans, elderly, etc is creepy?

The only creepy person here is your ass since they probably married you to a gypsy boy aged 10 due to your kuni tendencies

Bottom line is you argued, like a moron, that nowhere in codified law or in examples was it accepted. Multiple examples and even the DIRECT midieval law were given. Now that I am done kicking your ass and cleaning your toilet mouth, can you provide some better argument?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

If you agree that the marriage of Ayesha was a happening only for that time and does not fall in the definition of Sunna and Muslims should not emulate this example and many Muslims and Pashtun child marriages today are not inspired by Ayesha marriage then for me this chapter is closed.

I already told you that I take it as his personal act and not a Sunna. The problem is that Muhamamd was a prophet, not a king or doctor so his actions would remain limited to his life time. People follow him in his each and every word and action after 1400 years and justify their evil actions by saying that they do the way their prophet did.

So what? People justify throwing away the key and locking people up based on misinterpretation of the constitution of the US and taking preemptive war against defenseless countries based on misinterpretation of past precedent and that has resulted in death and destruction (crimes on par with child marriage)

That's life, humans are imperfect. If less than 0.5% of the billions of Muslims decide that they are going to pretend that Muhammad said go find a 6 year old to follow my sunnah then they have to justify why they did not find a 25 year older woman first. And the other 99.5+ % do not need to deal with your insinuating something worse about the Prophet.

There a thousand arguments about why it is not directed sunnah, or an instance where the Prophet said "Go do this or do that."

Additionally, if native societies like those in India or in Yemen set up such a marriage in an area where this still occurs for a multitude of reasons, there is nothing barring these countries from taking the scientific evidence of the optimal child baring age for a woman (which falls in an older age range) and saying clearly that this is the basis for their ban as sunnah in no way contradicts this sort of advanced decision making for the benefit of the society.

If the local tries to argue that implementing that condition is against sunnah as the Prophet did it, it is easy to say that his attempt to obstruct instituting beneficial laws based on what is best for the life and health of a human also has no basis in the sunnah and that he is superceding the right of the community to do ijma or contradict the ayaah: "Or Until God finds for them a better way."

A smart jurist can find a thousand ways to ensure that a proper, sensitive argument is constructed to get the desired result.

Finally, you are still caught in a logic loop. It is not the issue of the doctor or the king being emulated or not, it is the fact that the doctor, the king, and The Prophet, irrespective of their roles made comments and decisions and conducted actions in their era that were, in the secular sense, human actions. They ate certain foods, and did certain customs that were considered acceptable in their era and that is how we judge them, based on their contemporaries view of such particulars. The divine law itself, the Quranic text has to, on the other hand, be susceptible to the critics of all times since that is its stated claim.

So I am asking you once again, be clear in your answer, what crime are you charging the Prophet with?

[Herat]

Here in the UK, there is much that is wrong with our post secondary but pre-university education system (i.e. the A Level system) but there is an absolute gem in it that I recently discovered -quite late since Ive already finished my A Levels- this is the supplementary (universities will not give any weight to it for admission so many people simply do it for its own sake) A Level known as critical thinking. This emerald of a course is dedicated, except at much greater length, to what we learn at any decent introductory philosophy course: the science and art of precise reasoning. If there is anything that all education systems must make compulsory for all its citizens, I think it is this.
Here is a concept that I think it is quite pertinent to both sides of the debate here: motivated reasoning. The Skepdic dictionary defines it thus:

Motivated reasoning is confirmation bias taken to the next level. Motivated reasoning leads people to confirm what they already believe, while ignoring contrary data. But it also drives people to develop elaborate rationalizations to justify holding beliefs that logic and evidence have shown to be wrong. Motivated reasoning responds defensively to contrary evidence, actively discrediting such evidence or its source without logical or evidentiary justification. Clearly, motivated reasoning is emotion driven. It seems to be assumed by social scientists that motivated reasoning is driven by a desire to avoid cognitive dissonance. Self-delusion, in other words, feels good, and that's what motivates people to vehemently defend obvious falsehoods.

Examples of motivated reasoning:
the Apollo moon landing was a hoax;
climate change is a hoax;
evolution is a hoax;
9/11 was an inside job by the Bush administration;
Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11;
the Holocaust didn't happen;
AIDS is not caused by HIV;
vaccines cause autism;
Barack Obama was not born in the United States.

http://www.skepdic.com/motivatedreasoning.html

BarakzaiAbdali is correct in that child marriages were the norm for most of human history; the evidence for this need not only come from prominent historical cases but actually can be readily inferred from the historical data on human life history traits, in particular the average life expectancy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy
For much of human history, the average life expectancy was typically below 30: it is not very difficult to see what this implies for the average age of human mating in the ancient world.

On the other hand, the issue here is that everyone is confounding is for ought (although to be fair, this is a more than common blunder in ethics).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

For example, prostitution is a very widespread practice, both geographically and historically, yet somehow I doubt our religious friends would therefore accept that as a legitimate premise for an ethnical case for prostitution. There is growing evidence (from the twin studies of behavioural genetics, to the neuroimaging studies of neurobiology, to the kin-selection arguments of evolutionary biology) that homosexuality (rather sexual orientation in general), another widespread practice, has at least some root in biology - yet again, I doubt that religious folk would accept this as a premise for an ethical case for homosexuality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology...al_orientation

Cherry-picking (i.e. a form of motivated reasoning) from the historical and scientific data to support your favourite brand of ideology seems to be the standard ratiocinative modus operandi of ideologues.

The real issue here, secularist and religious friends, is not whether child marriages were a natural occurrence or not but that, if the practice is given prescriptive sanction (ought) today, where even in the most backward of places such as Afghanistan, life expectancy is over 50, can the practice be morally justified (ought)? We need not limit ourselves to ethics, the problem of the female part of the species being little more than a sexual relief, offspring producing, home-caring commodity that plagues much of the third world (there seems to be a correlation with age of marriage, I wonder why?) is indeed a monumental economic problem, for it constrains an economy's most crucial capital of all -human capital. That is not to say that changing a social structure is an easy task but this is discourse.

Of course, this is a value-laden request, not everyone values reason and evidence as a framework for ethics and economics: there are folk who accept the dogmas of their ideology in its place and Im afraid reasoning with such folk is pointless (something to do with Robert Trivers theory of self-deception as an adaptive evolutionary strategy).

[Badlun]

Marrying a child or having sex with a child is a crime in today's world but as you made that event limited only to that time with no repercussions like the recent decision of a Pakistani Mulla that child marriage is allowed in Islam, then no point in discussing this issue further.

[khushal]

Nature vs nuture.

The goal of all organisms is to reproduce and pass on their genes. The norm was not to wait until old age to reproduce which is the norm in todays western societies. If one takes the human organism from the past and put him/her in todays west, they would be dumbfounded at why married people use birth control or have abortions because these acts are against the organisms goal of reproduction which was the essence of existence.

In the past the age of the person was not important but the ability of reproduction was. Healthy women with plenty of fat were desired since they had a better chance of surviving child birth and producing more offspring unlike in todays west women that look like skeletons are desired since reproduction or having as many offspring as possible is no longer the main goal which should be remembered that it was the essence of existence.

In the eyes of Nature, Ayesha was not a child because it is nature that had shaped her and dictated how her society saw her at the time. Birth control has changed society much particularly the west since it has freed women from pregnancy and that freedom has changed outlooks and the "norms." Therefore your outlooks and "norms" differ because you grew up in a different society.

Get some basic education people.