So how many wives are you allowed?

Hobbes

Discussion was off the forum about wives. Joking at a meal someone mentioned he can finally afford 4 wives. At this point someone else mentioned you can get 10 but he said your only allowed 4. Another I have spoken to says you can't get 4 wives except under certain conditions.

Anyone want to field this question?

Wibbs

AFAIK You are allowed 4 wives, but there are special circumstances and rules governing this. I think you have to have the financial means for a start(one would be bad enough on the wallet ).
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html#004.003
I also seem to remember that in many cases the extra wives were women taken into the household when their husbands died in battle. A way to protect widows and their kids kinda thing. I think the 10 wives thing was only because the Prophet had more than 4.

marco murphy

The prophet had ten as mentioned in the Qu'ran.

Hobbes

Ok he had ten but I believe he told everyone else could only have 4? Is there a reason for why he had 10?

Frank Grimes

Hobbes wrote:

Ok he had ten but I believe he told everyone else could only have 4? Is there a reason for why he had 10?

Wikipedia as usual has a good article on it, there's a couple of links near the end of the page under "Monogamy versus polygyny" to articles from a Muslim point of view. Basically most were political marriages or else to take care of widows. His first marriage was monogamous however.

padser

do ya not think just maybe the women might get a tad pissed off being wife number 2....or 3.....or 4?/?

come on ladies im surprised v been so quite on the issue

Frank Grimes

padser wrote:

do ya not think just maybe the women might get a tad pissed off being wife number 2....or 3.....or 4?/?

come on ladies im surprised v been so quite on the issue

If they are going to be pissed off about it they don't have to enter into a polygamous relationship. Why do you assume that they will be pissed off btw?
If a man takes another wife/wives without consulting the first wife then that's different, but that's something else altogether.

Blub2k4

padser wrote:

do ya not think just maybe the women might get a tad pissed off being wife number 2....or 3.....or 4?/?

come on ladies im surprised v been so quite on the issue

I think you possibly think that but only because you dont understand their culture.
There are very strict rules governing when the wives are visited and when they get their time with their husband.
If you go back to one of the original reasons being that the man takes a family under his wing who have lost a father and provider then I dont think that they could be pissed off that someone is getting them out of this hole.

magpie

most were political marriages or else to take care of widows

Yes, yes, of course. Nubile young widows.

Frank Grimes

magpie wrote:

Yes, yes, of course. Nubile young widows.

They weren't all young.

padser

Frank Grimes wrote:

. Why do you assume that they will be pissed off btw?
.

would just have thought that most self respecting women wouldnt accept being one of someones 'wives'. ....... but then iv never beeen much good at understanding women

Hobbes

padser wrote:

would just have thought that most self respecting women wouldnt accept being one of someones 'wives'. ....... but then iv never beeen much good at understanding women

From what I've read so far (from the links supplied) women are not forced to marry and any extra wife has to be agreed with all the other wives before the man is allowed marry them. There appears to be a limitation in that you have to prove you can maintain 4 wives too.

padser

Quick compleltely off topic post hobbes.......why does it say banned under your name??

As regards the rest of it...i guess i just think marrage should be.....for love ;........ AHHHH

Wibbs

True enough, but the possible consumation of a marriage to a 9 year old is a bit of a worry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha#Young_marriage_age_controversy

Frank Grimes

Wibbs wrote:

True enough, but the possible consumation of a marriage to a 9 year old is a bit of a worry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha#Young_marriage_age_controversy

From your own link it states that:
The usual response has been that Aisha was post-pubescent at nine and that such early marriages were an accepted practice in the Arabia of those days.
Why do you find that detail a worry?

Hobbes

wibbs wrote:

True enough, but the possible consumation of a marriage to a 9 year old is a bit of a worry.

Why? From what I have seen a lot of his marriages were to form alliances/truces or to look after those who had fallen in battle.

From what I have checked up she was married at age 6 under exceptional circumstances but didn't actually join his house until age 9 and would be based on her reaching puberty.

Certainly offensive under current western standards, but going back 5-6 generations the west wasn't that far off with the same standards. I do know the taliban took this as literal meaning to marry off girls at a young age but I don't think this is the general consenus of modern day muslims.

Hagar

There seems to be no justice or equality for women if a man can have 4 wives. It demeans women to the status of chattle.

I un-reservedly retract that if women are allowed 4 husbands.

Slightly off topic.

Nearly everything I see quoted as as reference on these forums is Wiki.
Has Wiki become the new yardstick for truth and knowledge.?
I mean, if anyone controls Wiki they would control what people believe to be true. Sorta like a religion? Is Wiki a new god?

Wibbs

Hobbes wrote:

Why? From what I have seen a lot of his marriages were to form alliances/truces or to look after those who had fallen in battle.

Well he had enough men around him short of the 4 wives rule. Why not encourage them to take in the women of those of his own who fell in battle. They didn't have much of a problem taking the wives of enemies who died in battle.

From what I have checked up she was married at age 6 under exceptional circumstances but didn't actually join his house until age 9 and would be based on her reaching puberty.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/058.sbt.html#005.058.234
Where are the exceptional circumstances? It seems he saw her in a dream and decided on the basis of that.

Certainly offensive under current western standards, but going back 5-6 generations the west wasn't that far off with the same standards. I do know the taliban took this as literal meaning to marry off girls at a young age but I don't think this is the general consenus of modern day muslims.

The idea that child marriages were allowed in our own culture not so long ago is not the greatest argument. Many things went on "not too long ago" that are rightly considered beyond the pale today and were considered morally dubious at the time. Slavery anyone? No one can suggest that it was ever morally correct to marry a middle aged man to a 6 yr old and for that same man to have sexual relations with the same girl at 9. Especially if that man claimed to be a messenger of God.

Frank Grimes wrote:

From your own link it states that:
The usual response has been that Aisha was post-pubescent at nine and that such early marriages were an accepted practice in the Arabia of those days.
Why do you find that detail a worry?

The worry is that while we may choose not to condemn a person who does something morally dubious because of their culture, we can certainly condemn the culture that holds this as the norm.

It is more of a concern when it is someone like Muhammad who is held up as a messenger of God. Someone who is supposed to have heard the greatest revelation of Allah. Someone who is held in the greatest esteem by billions and considered to be divinely guided. Surely if that is the case, should he have not set the moral example? A moral example that would be timeless? Surely a divinely guided person would do this, regardless of the culture they found themselves in?

Frank Grimes

Wibbs wrote:

No one can suggest that it was ever morally correct to marry a middle aged man to a 6 yr old and for that same man to have sexual relations with the same girl at 9. Especially if that man claimed to be a messenger of God

You are judging 7th century Arabia by 21st century Western European standards, are you doing this deliberately?

Surely if that is the case, should he have not set the moral example? A moral example that would be timeless? Surely a divinely guided person would do this, regardless of the culture they found themselves in?

Again, you're basing this on our idea (in the 21st Century) of what is morally correct or not.
Is the point of your argument, it's not how we do it therefore it's wrong?

Hobbes

Hagar wrote:

There seems to be no justice or equality for women if a man can have 4 wives. It demeans women to the status of chattle.

As pointed out as far as I know women cannot be forced into marriage.

Nearly everything I see quoted as as reference on these forums is Wiki.

Its a two edged sword. On the one hand anyone can change what is posted to wikipedia. On the other those who take an avid interest in that particular subject ensure that is factually correct as possible and maintains a NPOV. I certainly use wikipedia as a jump point to find more information, sometimes the discussion part gives more information.

As for anyone controls wiki, everyone controls wiki. Even incorrect entries never really vanish (you can view them).

The idea that child marriages were allowed in our own culture not so long ago is not the greatest argument. Many things went on "not too long ago" that are rightly considered beyond the pale today and were considered morally dubious at the time

So your basically agreeing with me then that this is a non-issue?

Wibbs

Frank Grimes wrote:

You are judging 7th century Arabia by 21st century Western European standards, are you doing this deliberately?

Partially yes. I would argue that some cultures do have the higher moral ground throughout history. Islam itself had when compared to many facets of Christianity in the past(rule of law etc).

Again, you're basing this on our idea (in the 21st Century) of what is morally correct or not.
Is the point of your argument, it's not how we do it therefore it's wrong?

Not quite. No one can argue that it's medically unhealthy for a 9 yr old to have sexual relations with a grown man. It's medically unhealthy for the same 9 yr old if a pregnancy results. Regardless of morallity changes over time this would be a constant. This would suggest that it's both ethically and morally dubious as well, regardless of the passage of time. If a divinely instructed moral guardian doesn't see this, how much else can we take as morally just from the same source?

In any case, if we take the view that we can't judge the morality of the 7th century when looking at this matter, why would we take the other morallity of the same 7th century as being valid. If we judge this piecemeal, then how can one justify Islam(or indeed any other faith) as a valid whole, which it claims to be. In fact to claim otherwise would be considered against Islam.

Hobbes wrote:

As pointed out as far as I know women cannot be forced into marriage.

Technically no, but when the very status of women is considered lesser than men in a culture/faith, abuses can and do occur. Hagar's point that this 4 spouses rule only applies to women is a good example. If they are truely equal in the sight of Allah, why is this the case?

Hobbes wrote:

So your basically agreeing with me then that this is a non-issue?

Not by a long way. As I pointed out, many things in the past were considered OK and morally dubious at the same time. When such things are enshrined in a faith it is considerably more difficult to change them by the rule of law, especially if the judicary are staunch members of the same faith.

Agree with you re: Wikipedia. Very well self governed.

Frank Grimes

Wibbs wrote:

In any case, if we take the view that we can't judge the morality of the 7th century when looking at this matter, why would we take the other morallity of the same 7th century as being valid. If we judge this piecemeal, then how can one justify Islam(or indeed any other faith) as a valid whole, which it claims to be.

Is there an Islamic (specifically Qur'anic) teaching/injunction that people should marry at X, Y or Z years of age? Or are you taking the same sort of stance again that the hardline/extremist/whatever you want to call them Muslims take? i.e. The Qur'an has to be followed exactly to the letter without any sort of interpretation and following the Sunnah means mimicking Muhammad and life in early Medina in every way, shape and form?

In my opinion, the age of a spouse and the general norms regarding the average ages at the time of marriage are very much tied into periods in time and the particular culture, so if you believe in the possibility of a divinely revealed law then I don't think you can expect an absolute ruling on something of this nature.
To me, and others it seems, it is relative to the time and culture, you are working off the assumption that this is something that can be absolutely/eternally defined. All you seem to be doing is judging the standards of one period in time by another period's standards and then criticising it for failing.

Hobbes

Wibbs wrote:

Partially yes. I would argue that some cultures do have the higher moral ground throughout history.

o_O No culture can claim moral highground if you base that culture throughout history. Also don't confuse culture with religon.

Islam itself had when compared to many facets of Christianity in the past(rule of law etc).

(various times in history)
- Crusades?
- Spanish inquisition?
- Witchhunts
- Bribes to enter heaven? (forget the actual term for it).
- Protection of child abusers in the faith? (modern day)
- Treatment of jews in world war II.
- Status of women ignored.

Your dancing on dangerous ground when you try to equate something as morally superior to another.

Your argument has no basis if you are going to pick something out that was considered normal a long time ago and equate it to modern day.

Now I have seen references of children being married off at a young age in regards to the Taliban but I haven't seen that it is the de facto norm among muslims and you have yet to show that.

No one can argue that it's medically unhealthy for a 9 yr old to have sexual relations with a grown man.

I am sure back in the 7th century this wasn't the case.

In any case, if we take the view that we can't judge the morality of the 7th century when looking at this matter, why would we take the other morallity of the same 7th century as being valid.

This can certainly be applied to other religons.

Not by a long way. As I pointed out, many things in the past were considered OK and morally dubious at the same time. When such things are enshrined in a faith it is considerably more difficult to change them by the rule of law, especially if the judicary are staunch members of the same faith.

So what are your views on the catholic church protecting Priests who abuse children? Considering you have said earlier that it is morally superior.


I Also want to add you can't take a snapshot and use that as a basis for argument. Again if you studied the Catholic Church for example you would find that it has been forever evolving. Papal infallibility for example never existed until the 1800's.

Wibbs

Or are you taking the same sort of stance again that the hardline/extremist/whatever you want to call them Muslims take? i.e. The Qur'an has to be followed exactly to the letter without any sort of interpretation and following the Sunnah means mimicking Muhammad and life in early Medina in every way, shape and form?

Well most religious people would try to emulate the founders of their faith. Buddhists want to be like the Buddha, Christians would try to be like Christ, Hare Krisnas want to be like Krishna etc., so following the life and conduct of Muhammad would surely be a Muslim's goal?

In my opinion, the age of a spouse and the general norms regarding the average ages at the time of marriage are very much tied into periods in time and the particular culture, so if you believe in the possibility of a divinely revealed law then I don't think you can expect an absolute ruling on something of this nature.

Why not? Surely the whole point of divine revelation is that it's for all time and unchanging as the Quran it self states? In fact to change one word of the Quran is considered heresy of the greatest form.

All you seem to be doing is judging the standards of one period in time by another period's standards and then criticising it for failing.

If we don't judge standards between different times and cultures, how can we ever hope to grow and find standards that are universal?

Hobbes wrote:

o_O No culture can claim moral highground if you base that culture throughout history. Also don't confuse culture with religon.

Of course culture and religion are intertwined. Religion has vast influence on any culture that the majority follow. Was not the culture of the middle ages in Europe not defined in large part by the religion of the time. There can be little confusion if a faith has precepts for nearly every facet of life, as most have to a greater or lesser extent.

(various times in history)
- Crusades?
- Spanish inquisition?
- Witchhunts
- Bribes to enter heaven? (forget the actual term for it).
- Protection of child abusers in the faith? (modern day)
- Treatment of jews in world war II.
- Status of women ignored.

Your dancing on dangerous ground when you try to equate something as morally superior to another.

I'm sorry, I think you misunderstood or I wasn't being clear enough. I was saying that Islam was the superior one when compared to Christianity in many cases in the past(indulgences were the bribes to get into heaven, or out of purgatory or some crap like that anyway :rolleyes: ) In any event one can apply the same critique to Islam and find it equally wanting. Certainly with regard to womens rights, Islamic wars, opinion of the Jews, slavery, violent fatwas etc. Though I mention these only as a response to your points as I don't want to go off topic.

Your argument has no basis if you are going to pick something out that was considered normal a long time ago and equate it to modern day.

Why not? If it was considered normal for the Prophet, who after all would be considered among, if not the most revered Muslim.

Now I have seen references of children being married off at a young age in regards to the Taliban but I haven't seen that it is the de facto norm among muslims and you have yet to show that.

I never said it was the norm among Muslims. I merely pointed out that as far as the originator of the Islamic faith, it seems it was considered the norm.

I am sure back in the 7th century this wasn't the case.

Sorry Hobbes, maybe it's me who's missing the point now. What are you trying to say here? That it wasn't known back then or that barely pubescent girls were somehow different in the 7th century? If the former, I would argue that someone who had a direct line to God would surely be aware of this(especially given the claims of scientific miracles revealed in the Quran) and act accordingly, if the latter, I'm frankly surprised to find that you may think that reproductive biology has evolved so fast. In fact, one could argue from a purely biological point of view that it would be healthier today as girls start puberty earlier than they did in the past(mainly down to better nutrition).

All of this however, doesn't take into account the psychological impact such a union would have on the 9yr old girl. Regardless of viewpoint, a 50 yr old man has no comparative maturity to a 9 yr old, no matter how mature. That would be beyond what anybody would rationally believe to be an "age gap".

This can certainly be applied to other religons.

I'm sure it can. I never said it couldn't TBH. In fact I wouldn't argue that at all Hobbes, but we discussing a particular point in Islam.

So what are your views on the catholic church protecting Priests who abuse children? Considering you have said earlier that it is morally superior.

Well, as I pointed out, I didn't. Maybe you'd like me to think that but I honestly don't. I think the Catholic churche's handling of that whole sorry situation was and is reprehensible. They deserve all they get both in court and from the laity walking away in droves.

I Also want to add you can't take a snapshot and use that as a basis for argument. Again if you studied the Catholic Church for example you would find that it has been forever evolving. Papal infallibility for example never existed until the 1800's.

True. It evolved under the twin pressure of scientific enlightenment and secularism. It had to evolve. The political side of Christianity has by and large given way in many areas towards the more spiritual aspects. Every so often it gives a shudder and trys to exercise it's "moral" muscles(eg. the latest Catholic anti gay statements), but it's secular power is waning. Islam may prove a more tenacious faith when it comes to secularisation, however as it's political/legal/administrative side is more engrained. All that is a little away from the point child brides and marriage in Islam though.

Frank Grimes

Wibbs wrote:

so following the life and conduct of Muhammad would surely be a Muslim's goal?

So why do most Muslims not live in the desert and ride around on camels? I don't understand what you're trying to get at here exactly, in relation to the age of Aisha that is.

Why not? Surely the whole point of divine revelation is that it's for all time and unchanging as the Quran it self states? In fact to change one word of the Quran is considered heresy of the greatest form.

I've already asked you, does the Qur'an mention ages when it comes to marriage?

Hobbes

Wibbs wrote:

I'm sorry, I think you misunderstood or I wasn't being clear enough. I was saying that Islam was the superior one when compared to Christianity in many cases in the past

Yep sorry misunderstood you. However I wouldn't say any religon can claim moral highground over time.

Wibbs

Frank Grimes wrote:

So why do most Muslims not live in the desert and ride around on camels? I don't understand what you're trying to get at here exactly, in relation to the age of Aisha that is.

Well TBH the camels/desert analogy is missing the whole point and frankly is avoiding the issue. What's at issue is the morality of the person who promoted this faith in the first place. A man who among other things married a 9 yr old when he was middle aged. Surely the person who Allah revealed the ultimate truth to, must have been a highly moral man whose words and deeds should be above reproach. Having 10 wives when he himself said Allah only allowed 4 for "the believers at large" smacks of favouritism and do as I say not do as I do.
. http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/033.qmt.html#033.050 From what is said here Muhammad is allowed more wives than any other. There are also many references beyond one's wives in the Quran to those "your right hands possess", slave girls or those captured in a battle. Sounds suspiciously like chattel to me. http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html#004.024

I've already asked you, does the Qur'an mention ages when it comes to marriage?

No, but it puts no limit on the youth of a bride and if you take the example of Hadeeth and the Prophet himself, then it's a very grey area indeed.

If you take the Quran alone, one would think that women are unequal in many things. If you take the hadeeth than the situation is even more on the side of men. Muhammad himself had more wives than what the Quran instructed(he got a special dispensation from Allah). He married a girl of 6 and consumated the marriage at 9, presumably based on the morality of the revelations from Allah he received. If not he would have been doing things against the faith he believed in and surely Allah would have sent him a revelation to clarify the matter? Clearly he didn't think he was or the marriage wouldn't have taken place. By that logic for Muslims it's technically OK to enter into such marriages. If the prophet did it how can it be any other way? Obviously 99.9% of Muslims don't think that way, but it confuses me and I'm not a Muslim.

Hobbes wrote:

Yep sorry misunderstood you. However I wouldn't say any religon can claim moral highground over time.

Reading back, I wasn't being overly clear TBH. Anyway I would better put my position by saying some religions/cultures can claim the moral high ground at certain times.

Zaph0d

Polygamy is surely a good thing. The wives must compete for the attention of their shared husband so we have an end to nagging and sexual apathy in one swoop. The successful man gets to spread his genes more widely and his many children will dilute the negative effects of inherited wealth.

In western society many men have secondary sexual partners who receive no rights or recognition for their roles.

Frank Grimes

Wibbs wrote:

Well TBH the camels/desert analogy is missing the whole point and frankly is avoiding the issue.

I'm not avoiding any issue, you're insistent that Muslims should blindly follow every aspect of Muhammad's life without any contextualisation so why is it not a valid question to ask?

What's at issue is the morality of the person who promoted this faith in the first place.

You've decided that what we see in this part of the world at this point in time as morally correct is a universal and absolute truth. This is just going to go around in circles because no matter what it said you are just going to dismiss it on these grounds.

He married a girl of 6 and consumated the marriage at 9, presumably based on the morality of the revelations from Allah he received.

You are deciding again why he did or didn't do certain things, there is nothing to suggest in Islam that it is divinely mandated for anyone to marry a 9 year old.

Obviously 99.9% of Muslims don't think that way, but it confuses me and I'm not a Muslim.

Out of interest, do you think those 99.9% just don't understand their religion properly?

Wibbs

Zaphod wrote:

Polygamy is surely a good thing. The wives must compete for the attention of their shared husband so we have an end to nagging and sexual apathy in one swoop. The successful man gets to spread his genes more widely and his many children will dilute the negative effects of inherited wealth.

Seems on the surface to be practical, but does it not smack a little of chauvinism? It assumes women exist in an unequal society.

Frank Grimes wrote:

I'm not avoiding any issue, you're insistent that Muslims should blindly follow every aspect of Muhammad's life without any contextualisation so why is it not a valid question to ask?

If you take that argument, then everything is up for grabs, because it's all down to context. In which case why have any rules in the first place? It's all right to kill, rape, steal if it's in context. Don't see how that works somehow. Seems a short jump from that to "do as you like", so long as it's in a religious context. In any case does not Islam mean submission. Submission to Allah and the teachings and behaviour of his messenger? Or is it just some of the teachings and behaviours?

Camels et al are historical artefacts not morals. If one is promoting a faith surely one deals in absolutes, especially in morals. Is the Quran, Hadeeth and Sharia not for all ages and all peoples as it claims to be. One can't have it both ways.

You've decided that what we see in this part of the world at this point in time as morally correct is a universal and absolute truth. This is just going to go around in circles because no matter what it said you are just going to dismiss it on these grounds.

No, I wouldn't claim that what we see in this part of the world is the universal truth, or anything like it. We're quite a ways from that. At least most in western secular societies would acknowledge that. We know we're not perfect. That's an important distinction when compared to the idea of the Islamic state. They would feel they were right. The most dangerous cultures are those that think they have a monopoly on being right(especially when they have faith to back it up).

As I pointed out, from the biological and psychological standpoint the marriage of a 9yr old to a 50 yr old is unsafe at best. That would be a truth that most cultures would see as a given. Why then did someone who claimed to recieve the highest truth not see that, or make a comment as to why it wasn't thus, if that was the case that it was damaging? Do you not think it's morally dubious? If not, why not?

You are deciding again why he did or didn't do certain things, there is nothing to suggest in Islam that it is divinely mandated for anyone to marry a 9 year old.

Yet the first and greatest Muslim did with apparently the blessings of Allah. As I've said, if it wasn't divinely mandated what were his reasons for doing it?

Out of interest, do you think those 99.9% just don't understand their religion properly?

No, but they may not be aware of some of these issues or chose to ignore many dubious aspects of it.

Hagar

Zaph0d wrote:

The wives must compete for the attention of their shared husband so we have an end to nagging and sexual apathy in one swoop.

That's a great religion you got there. If that's the official line sign me up.

On the downside 4 mothers-in-law would be hard to handle.
The prophet must have been truly saint-like to put up with 10.

Frank Grimes

Wibbs wrote:

As I pointed out, from the biological and psychological standpoint the marriage of a 9yr old to a 50 yr old is unsafe at best. That would be a truth that most cultures would see as a given.

What do mean by "most cultures"? We've had this discussion already, marriage at a young age has not been limited to one man in Arabia, yet again you're applying today's moral standards to a completely different time and culture.

The most dangerous cultures are those that think they have a monopoly on being right(especially when they have faith to back it up).

All you seem to be doing is dismissing his actions based on the fact that they don't comply to our ideas of what is morally right or wrong.

Yet the first and greatest Muslim did with apparently the blessings of Allah. As I've said, if it wasn't divinely mandated what were his reasons for doing it?

Surely you've read about the political reasons why he married her? Why do you assume that it was solely to set some moral example?

No, but they may not be aware of some of these issues or chose to ignore many dubious aspects of it.

Do you honestly think that so many people have either missed this fact or have been deluding themselves for the past 1400 years?

Wibbs

Frank Grimes wrote:

What do mean by "most cultures"? We've had this discussion already, marriage at a young age has not been limited to one man in Arabia, yet again you're applying today's moral standards to a completely different time and culture.

Yes, but that "one man in Arabia" claimed to be the last prophet of Allah and founded a religion and set of universal moral guidelines on that premise. Not exactly your average man. Surely we can question the morals of such a man? As for applying today's modern standards to a completely different time and culture. Fine, but why then should we respect the faith that sprung from such a moral framework of that time and culture when such ideas seem incompatible to our own? Again you can't have it both ways.

All you seem to be doing is dismissing his actions based on the fact that they don't comply to our ideas of what is morally right or wrong.

So do you think that having sexual relations with a 9yr old is correct?

Surely you've read about the political reasons why he married her? Why do you assume that it was solely to set some moral example?

All I can find is that she appeared to him in a dream and as a consequence he had to marry her. http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/087.sbt.html#009.087.140

What political reasons were there? From what I can find out, he just asked one of his followers if he could marry her. In fact judging by this passage it seems that there was some issue arising from the marriage(But she is lawful for me to marry).
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/062.sbt.html#007.062.018

He seemed to prefer them young and virginal if this is advice to another man is anything to go by. http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/062.sbt.html#007.062.016

Do you honestly think that so many people have either missed this fact or have been deluding themselves for the past 1400 years?

It's possible. People have deluded themselves about many things over many years in the past.

Zaph0d

Wibbs wrote:

Seems on the surface to be practical, but does it not smack a little of chauvinism? It assumes women exist in an unequal society.

The same logic would apply to polyandry. Kylie Minogue could have multiple husbands as she can afford to keep them and should be propagating her pop princess genes.

Wibbs

Zaph0d wrote:

The same logic would apply to polyandry. Kylie Minogue could have multiple husbands as she can afford to keep them and should be propagating her pop princess genes.

I'd offer to help but I don't like sharing.

Polyandry or polygamy would still show an unequal society as the power would lie with one gender over the other.

Anyhoo polyandry is AFAIK not allowed in Islam. The bias in this seems to be favouring men.

Frank Grimes

Wibbs wrote:

So do you think that having sexual relations with a 9yr old is correct?

What I think is irrelevant. What is relevant is the context in which it happened which you are completely ignoring or dismissing.

What political reasons were there?

To create family ties with Abu Bakr. (link)

He seemed to prefer them young and virginal if this is advice to another man is anything to go by

Might be true if you ignore the age and virginity of most of his other wives I guess.

Do you only base your opinions on Islam on the Qur'an/Hadith database on that usc.edu site? it's only a reference point - as that site's own disclaimer puts it:

Today, technology is helping bring Islam into the homes of millions of people, Muslim and otherwise. There is a blessing in all this of course, but there is a real danger that Muslims will fall under the impression that owning a book or having a database is equivalent to being a scholar of Islam. This is a great fallacy. Therefore, we would like to warn you that this database is merely a tool, and not a substitute for learning, much less scholarship in Islam.

There is no commentary on the site to explain or contextualise the verses/hadiths, there are no rulings from the various Madhabs, no scholarly input classical or contemporary etc. etc.
Like I said earlier. If you think being a Muslim means following everything blindly and exactly "to the letter" of what is in the Qur'an and Hadith etc. as if it were completely static, then I believe you're missing the reality of what following that religion means. The sort of view of how to be a "proper" Muslim that you appear to be putting forward is only shared by a small minority of it's adherents.

Blub2k4

Wibbs wrote:

So do you think that having sexual relations with a 9yr old is correct?

You're desperately trying to promote an idea of Mohammed that should abhor people in a modern context, but in fairness you seem to be very narrowminded. The reality of the situation is that the cultures are not in any way comparable to one another.
You are sitting at a pc in a high tech society with nothing to worry about and the ability to partake in this manner of cerebral discussion which gives a lot of time to hone morality, i.e. when the reality of having to live hand to mouth leaves the equation people can tend to masturbate a lot mentally (this is an observation and not a personal criticism, please see it as such). In a desert environment where the climate is harsh animals need to use the small fertile windows to reproduce, man is also an animal, once a girl was fertile she was game, so to speak, the necessity to reproduce quickly and strike while the iron is hot carried itself over as a cultural element and has been maintained.
The tabloid mentality gets you though and you are outraged at the idea of an older man taking a younger mate, there is nothing particularly dangerous about this but it is taboo in most cultures, accepting that the danger of childbirth is a little higher among children in the greater scale of things that does not make it morally wrong, I daresay it is Darwin in action.

In any case look at it a little differently and consider man as an animal with a need to reproduce, also on the point of women not having the rights to practice polyandry, in what society did a woman ever have the power or means to support a number of husbands and families? The reality of the world is that the man is generally the provider and while it may not be politically correct it is reality, I didn't make man the provider and woman the bearer of children, it's amazing how it can morally disturb you but not the people who practice it.

In any case think a little more outside the box and stop trying to judge it all in a modern context, it doesn't work.

Wibbs

Frank Grimes wrote:

Do you only base your opinions on Islam on the Qur'an/Hadith database on that usc.edu site.......

TBH I want to go back to source. The unchanging Quran as it were. While I grant you that many areas need greater study to be put into context, many others seem very clear. In any case, how does one follow a faith, any faith if it's not clear?

What I think is irrelevant. What is relevant is the context in which it happened which you are completely ignoring or dismissing.

No I take the context into account. What I don't understand is how a Prophet and his God didn't see the context and act accordingly. BTW what you think is very relevant.

Blub2k4 wrote:

You're desperately trying to promote an idea of Mohammed that should abhor people in a modern context, but in fairness you seem to be very narrowminded.

I'm grateful that you took the time to measure the circumference of my desperate mind by remote control. Anyway desperation suggests some effort and I'm too lazy to consider it except in extremis.

That aside, of course that "idea"(and reality if Hadeeth are to be believed) of Mohammed would abhor people in a modern context. Of that there can be no doubt.

The reality of the situation is that the cultures are not in any way comparable to one another.

Yet this is the same culture which is the wellspring from which the tenets of Islam sprung. How can you reconcile the two?

You are sitting at a pc in a high tech society with nothing to worry about and the ability to partake in this manner of cerebral discussion which gives a lot of time to hone morality

Well Buddha, Confucious, Socrates, Jesus, Aristotle, Krisna, Descartes, and a multitude of other philosphers were quite capable of honing morality in harsher environments than our own without recourse to a computer. I would have thought someone who had a direct line to God would have found it very much easier.

when the reality of having to live hand to mouth leaves the equation people can tend to masturbate a lot mentally (this is an observation and not a personal criticism, please see it as such).

Don't worry Blub2k4, I won't take it as criticism. It wouldn't be the first time I've been called a w*nker and I warrant it won't be the last. .

In a desert environment where the climate is harsh animals need to use the small fertile windows to reproduce, man is also an animal, once a girl was fertile she was game, so to speak, the necessity to reproduce quickly and strike while the iron is hot carried itself over as a cultural element and has been maintained.

Partially true(though debatable), yet when the Prophet married Aisha he was a powerful man with many followers. Hardly a man reduced to a hand to mouth existence. He had married quite well to his first wife(who he was very devoted to) and wouldn't have been the poorest by a long shot. Again there are examples of equally harsh climates where what we would consider underage marriages didn't go on. The culture that Mohammed strode was not as backward as many think. There were vast trade routes bringing wealth and knowledge from far and wide. The Arabs have one of the oldest cultures in the world. In fact many consider that whole area to be the birthplace of civilisation. Islam didn't simply come along and fill a vacuum.

The tabloid mentality gets you though and you are outraged at the idea of an older man taking a younger mate, there is nothing particularly dangerous about this but it is taboo in most cultures, accepting that the danger of childbirth is a little higher among children in the greater scale of things that does not make it morally wrong, I daresay it is Darwin in action.

"Tabloid mentality" notwithstanding, would we be having this debate quite so strongly if it was a 50 yr old priest(of any religion) having a sexual relationship with a 9 yr old girl? I suspect not and rightly so. If not, why not? Is it that we know more now and our morals have grown accordingly? If that's the case, how could a messenger of Allah(the last and greatest one) not know this and act as an example to his followers, regardless of the cultural norms? From what I can see most of the other prophets and holy men down the ages loved nothing but bucking the cultural status quo.

The idea that the danger of childbirth to a barely developed child does not make it morally wrong "in the greater scale of things" frankly disturbs me. If not where do we draw the line? Again I say, surely a Prophet of Allah would realise that danger and as an example to the faithful, be against it?

If we reduce our action to pure Darwinism(as some would understand it) then we may throw away our moral compass to boot. A moral compass that evolved for a reason.

In any case look at it a little differently and consider man as an animal with a need to reproduce,

By that logic we would give in to our baser instincts. Is not one of the purposes of religion is to help us rise above them?

also on the point of women not having the rights to practice polyandry, in what society did a woman ever have the power or means to support a number of husbands and families?

I'm sure there are quite a few female monarchs in the past that would have bought and sold us both many times over(apologies. couldn't resist).

The reality of the world is that the man is generally the provider and while it may not be politically correct it is reality, I didn't make man the provider and woman the bearer of children, it's amazing how it can morally disturb you but not the people who practice it.

True, but many things may morally disturb me(and indeed you), but not the people who do it. Hardly an argument for leaving things the way they've always been.

In any case think a little more outside the box and stop trying to judge it all in a modern context, it doesn't work.

If it doesn't work in a modern context, where does that leave Islam? Do we take the bits we want, when we want them. Ok, but what do we do with those who chose to follow the more dubious parts(to modern eyes) and follow the life of the prophet as much to the letter as possible? Are they wrong? Who decides that? Who may listen if someone does decide? Hardly the basis for a universal philosphy, is it?

Hobbes

Wibbs wrote:

...

You are going around in circles in your debate. If you haven't copped what they are trying to get across so far you never will.

I will say this, if you believe that it was somehow the norm then why didn't Allah have all his wives at a young age? As far as I have read he was far from having a lack of women wanting to be his wife. Also why wait until she was 9 before allowing her in to his house, despite marrying her at 6.

The desert part and what I have seen so far ties up with documentation I've seen via what people have linked off to.

If you continue to keep repeating yourself the threads getting locked.

Wibbs

Hobbes wrote:

You are going around in circles in your debate. If you haven't copped what they are trying to get across so far you never will.

I'm repeating certain points because the only real response has been, "it was a cultural/historical thing and you don't get the context". Many brutal things have been done in the past that could be passed of as "cultural". Human life in some cultures in the past was considered less worthy than it is now. Does this make it right, at the time or now? Simply put, if a faith is universal, for all times and peoples, surely the morals of that faith and the man who preached them should also be universal?

Also why wait until she was 9 before allowing her in to his house, despite marrying her at 6.

Equally why not wait until she was more mature again before allowing her into his house?

The desert part and what I have seen so far ties up with documentation I've seen via what people have linked off to.

The link Frank Grimes provided stated that in hot countries girls mature faster and have early menses. Time of menses occurs at different rates according to different circumstances. Nutrition, genetics etc. "Heat" is a very small influence, if any. In fact the Inuit reach menses quite early and they live in a significantly different climate(child marriage is not the cultural norm there). In rare cases menses can occur in girls as young as 6. Would this make them "fair game" as well, as Blub2k4 suggests? Humans are physically capable of reproduction long before the mental processes have caught up. Most cultures understand this and accordingly have laws and traditions that protect the immature.

If he wanted to cement political relations, could he have not found another way? Adoption, "make" Abu Bakr his brother?

Anyway, on this point we'll just have to agree to disagree. Good debate though.

Hobbes

Wibbs wrote:

Equally why not wait until she was more mature again before allowing her into his house?

As already pointed out to you that maturity was defined by puberty. The girl was at this stage, hence the reason she was moved then.

Just because she wasn't moved at age 18 (to keep it to our current moral statndards) is rule you are setting based on two seperate times in history.

Time of menses occurs at different rates according to different circumstances.

Which means absolutly nothing to your argument. It has already been documented that she reached puberty at age 9.

Wibbs

Hobbes wrote:

Just because she wasn't moved at age 18 (to keep it to our current moral statndards) is rule you are setting based on two seperate times in history.

No, I'm basing it on physical, mental and behavioural differences between a 9yr girl and a 50 yr old man. That's pretty clear at any time or place in history. If it wasn't, how can a claim of divine inspiration be made?

Which means absolutly nothing to your argument. It has already been documented that she reached puberty at age 9.

I would contend that it has got something to do with my argument. If she had reached puberty at 6, 7 or 8(which is possible) would she still be considered "fair game"? A child of 9 is clearly physically capable of driving a car on the road, pulling the trigger of a gun, tending to a newborn etc. Would we be comfortable to let her/him? No, because it's obvious that maturity of decison making would preclude them from many such actions. Apparently though, marriage is within the remit of a 9yr old. Fair enough, that's your take. I'll keep my own counsel on this.

Anyway, I don't agree with the opposing take on this and no point either side makes will likely convince me or anyone else otherwise. Nonetheless it was educational.

Let sleeping dogs lie and all that kinda thang.

PS Hobbes, It wasn't Allah that had his wives all at a young age. That's a statement that could confuse everything. Sorry, being cheeky there

Osman

Greetings,

The most comprehensive take I've seen on this (except for wikipedia's of course ) is that of Dr. Zakir Naik who is a leading Islamic scholar and an expert on Comparative religion. You may find his answer here: http://www.drzakirnaik.com/pages/qanda/1.php

Concerning the age of Aisha at marriage, her age was most likely to be around 18 contrary to what many people might believe.

The hadith* which states that she was nine is not accurate. A more authentic hadith lists the names of the earliest believers of Islam and Aisha was amongst the. Before mentally accepting some ideology or belief, someone will have to be something like 5, 6, 7 or 8? For arguments sake, lets say that the lowest age someone can be before mentally accepting some ideology or belief is 5 (at least). Muhammad spent 13 years in Mecca before migrating to Medina. They got married in Madina. 13+5=18. This shows that she must have been at least 18.

More information:

http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=question&qid=375

Peace

*Hadith: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith

Hagar

Osman wrote:

The hadith* which states that she was nine is not accurate. A more authentic hadith....

I thought all hadith were supposed to be "bang on" accurate.
Now there's degrees of accuracy?
Would that be like degrees of truth?
If it's not total truth, it must be partial lies.

Osman

Greetings Hagar,

Forgive me, I phrased my sentence incorrectly. All authentic ahadith are 100% accurate. However, there was some doubt as to the credibility of the hadith which states that Aisha was nine at the age of joining Muhammad as his wife. In light of new found evidence, we can say that this hadith is fabricated. There are many ahadith that are fabricated. Why? Your guess is as good as mine. An example of another fabricated hadith would be:

"The Holy Prophet (Peace be Upon Him) says when Hazrat adam (On him be Peace) erred by eating from the prohibited tree, he pleaded to Allah Almighty through the medium of the Holy Prophet (Peace be Upon Him) to pardon him. In reply Allah Almighty asked:” Oh Adam! Who is Muhammed (Peace be Upon Him) ? How do you know about him? “ The reply of Adam (On him be Peace) was. “Oh Allah! After you had created me and I raised my head for the first time and gazed upon the Holy Throne I saw the name of Muhammad joined with Your blessed name. From this I understood that Hazrat Muhammad (Peace be Upon Him) is the most auspicious and blessed creation to You, so much so, that You have joined his blessed name with Yours upon the Throne."

We know that this hadith is fabricated because it constitutes Shirk (associating partners with Allah) which is a major sin. We sometimes also know that a hadith is fabricated when the person who narrates it is unreliable. Here, the narrator is not mentioned.

Peace

marco murphy

Do you listen to Zakir Naik Osman?

Osman

Salaam Poblachtach,

Yes, of course I listen to Zakir Naik! He is, no doubt, a great scholar of our time. May Allah reward him!

Peace

marco murphy

He is very interesting and VERY understandable.
But i have a few elements of my freinds that say he is wahabi, why do they think this?

EamonnKeane

3 points:

1. For every man with four wives, aren't there 3 men with no wife? Does that seem fair to men?

2. A man having many wives makes more sense, biologically speaking, than a woman having many husbands. Men are by their nature more protective of wives than women are of husbands. Why? Because a woman always knows a child is hers, whereas a man can't be certain. In evolutionary terms, the worst thing a man can do is raise and provide for a child carrying another man's genes. So it's not sexism, it's human nature.

3. In any case, only 2% of Muslim marriages are polygynous.

Qadri

Polygamy in Islam is permission not an injunction.
Historically, all the prophets except Jesus, who was not married, had more than one wife.

For Muslim men to have more than one wife is a permission which is given to them in the Quran, not to satisfy lust, but for the welfare of the widows and the orphans of the wars.

In the pre-Islamic period, men used to have many wives. One person had 11 wives and when he became Muslim, he asked the Prophet Muhammad (P), "What should I do with so many wives?" and he said, "Divorce all except the four." The Quran says, "you can marry 2 or 3 and up to 4 women if you can be equally just with each of them" (4:3). Since it is very difficult to be equally just with all wives, in practice, most of the Muslim men do not have more than one wife. Prophet Muhammad (P) himself from age 24 to 50 was married to only one woman, Khadija.
In the western society, some men who have one wife have many extramarital affairs. Thus, a survey was published in "U.S.A. Today" (April 4, 1988 Section D) which asked 4,700 mistresses what they would like their status to be. They said that "they preferred being a second wife rather than the 'other woman' because they did not have the legal rights, nor did they have the financial equality of the legally married wives, and it appeared that they were being used by these men."

=============================

Regarding Dr. Zakir Naik ,tough he is a Wahhabi he is still a Muslim. Islam teaches Unity and not disunity! Dr. Nayk is a student of the late Shaykh Ahmad Deedat (r.a.) in comperetive religion. He is an MBBs doctor but he has specialized in comperative religion (Taqabi-e-Adyaan) and Ilm-e-Munazirah (debates). He is an debater but not an qualified Islamic Scholar. Still he is doing a great job which some qualified scholars have not done.

Wibbs

Qadri wrote:

In the pre-Islamic period, men used to have many wives. One person had 11 wives and when he became Muslim, he asked the Prophet Muhammad (P), "What should I do with so many wives?" and he said, "Divorce all except the four." The Quran says, "you can marry 2 or 3 and up to 4 women if you can be equally just with each of them" (4:3). Since it is very difficult to be equally just with all wives, in practice, most of the Muslim men do not have more than one wife. Prophet Muhammad (P) himself from age 24 to 50 was married to only one woman, Khadija.

True, but why did the prophet go on to have ten wives after Khadja died especially after he tells a new convert to divorce seven of his eleven? What happened to those seven women anyway? Where they re married? Did they have a choice or was that the new male converts choice to make?

Another point, many passages in the Quran mention those "who your right hand possesses" along with wives. Are these not slaves and war captives? In fact if you read the full text of the 4:3 passage you quoted it mentions same.http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html#004.003 . Also in this passage http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html#004.024 it states that you may only marry unmarried women unless they're slaves or war captives, in which case it seems an existing husband is not an issue. Hardly equitable is it, especially given your example of mistresses in the US. I'm sure a slave girl/war captive would feel just as "used".