Aisha’s Marriage to Muhammad – The Taboo Subject of Her Age

When Christians or Western Secularists deal with Western Muslims who give dawah, one common thing to do is to point out the fact that Muhammad had sex with Aisha when she was nine.  Some will call him a pedophile for doing that.  I want to assess this whole scenario.  I want to deal with this because recently a Christian and a Muslim who frequently comment on this blog had an argument surrounding this issue.  I want to give my take on it.

Some Muslims in the West have questioned the sources that say that Aisha was 9 and say that she was actually around 20 or even 40.  I don’t buy into this because these people don’t question the age of any other person in Islamic tradition.  It seems to be a way out of an awkward situation.

Based on evidence that I won’t get into here, this practice of marrying a 9 year old was not controversial in 7th century Arabia.  Muhammad wasn’t breaking any cultural norms by doing this.  This was a culture that simply didn’t know better at the time.  He can hardly be blamed for this.

On the other hand, Muslims like to point out how Muhammad elevated 7th century Arabia.  They were polytheists and he made them monotheists.  They were burying their daughters alive and he put an end to it.  Women didn’t have inheritance rights and he gave them inheritance rights.  Muhammad gets full credit for this but one could reasonably ask why he didn’t raise the age of marriage for women?

I think another problem is that Muhammad is presented as the greatest example for mankind and Muslims are commanded to follow his Sunnah.  I wouldn’t judge a 7th century Arabian shepherd too harshly for having sex with a nine year old.  On the other hand, if you say that this man is the greatest example for mankind to follow at all times, that’s a problem.  Now, to be fair, most Muslims in the West and in Muslim countries don’t have their girls marrying at this age and would be opposed to the laws of their country having a marriage age of nine.  Only a few Muslim countries have low marriage ages.

I find that calling Muhammad a pedophile when talking to a Muslim is unwise.  The Muslims will get extremely offended and go into a defensive mode and its hard to make progress with them.  I understand that the Muslim really cares about Muhammad.  Even some Muslims that convert to Christianity have a hard time criticizing Muhammad after they convert.  That’s how highly regarded he is among Muslims.  However, I will clearly state that Muhammad was wrong to marry Aisha at that age.  He should not have married her or at least waited several more years before marrying her.  Since I don’t believe he’s a prophet I don’t hold him to a high standard.  He was a man of his time and can hardly be blamed for this.

Should we discuss this issue in our dialogue with Muslims?  What I would do is discuss a related topic.  I would contrast the Biblical view of marriage against the Islamic view of marriage.  Jesus Christ acknowledged the teaching of the Old Testament then called His people to an even higher standard.  In Ephesians 5, St. Paul goes into detail about the beautiful complementary views of a Christian marriage.  The Quranic view of marriage by contrast is very low.  Divorces seem to be extremely casual in the Quran yet Jesus completely slammed the door on divorce and remarriage.  If Jesus Christ is a prophet and the Messiah, they should listen to His view on marriage.

I have never talked about the subject of Muhammad and Aisha’s age on this blog.  I’ve never used it when discussing or debating religion with a Muslim.  I don’t plan on it either.  It’s not something that I really think about.  Muhammad’s greatest sin was going against the teachings of Jesus Christ, a man whom he considered to be the Messiah.  That’s what I think about when I think of Muhammad, not some guy who married a nine year old.

Should other Christians debate the marriage to Aisha with Muslims?  I don’t know.  I’ll let them decide for themselves but we should remember to go with what works and from what I know about Muslims, I don’t think that this will be very effective in most cases.

 

Feel free to share your thoughts below.  If any Muslims want to comment on this issue, feel free.

Please note: I reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive or off-topic.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

10 thoughts on “Aisha’s Marriage to Muhammad – The Taboo Subject of Her Age

  1. Allan,

    as salaamu alaykum,

    It is said that they were married when she were six or seven.

    The topic is taboo even among Muslims although it is addressed among themselves to an extent, and probably not because that even by most liberal interpretations of it that Muhammad would still commit something that would be a crime in most Western jurisdictions.

    I actually heard a halaqa at the MSA one time about this. The imam did say that common sensibilities then did not regard the act as disgusting. People had to marry young then, and such acts were not uncommon. He specifically said that the Quraysh wrote polemics against the prophet but it never mentioned his relationship with Aisha negatively.

    If one is listening carefully to the halaqa, what was never mentioned was the specific age of Aisha during consummation (to my best recollection), and I do think the imam had an opinion but still did not regard it necessary to say it. I understand that consummation usually happens after menarche, and nine years old too is too young for that, even today. Menarche ages have declined during last century, but before that, it usually happens after 15. So if Aisha is one standard deviation below the average, it might have happened when she was around 12 or 13. I really don’t see any purpose to argue that it happened when she was 18 or 19. Muhammad does not need to be defended against the charge of 21st century statutory rape.

    Still, even that poses a dilemma and an “awkward situation” for Muslims, and mentioning that would probably cause fitna.

    I am personally not bothered by the latter age or the issue.

    However, I will clearly state that Muhammad was wrong to marry Aisha at that age. He should not have married her or at least waited several more years before marrying her. Since I don’t believe he’s a prophet I don’t hold him to a high standard. He was a man of his time and can hardly be blamed for this.

    Why would you say that it is wrong? I am not asking as a Muslim apologist (but maybe a polemicist) but as a moral philosopher.

    There was this comment in Reddit that I loved:

    The Law’s purpose was to prepare the Hebrew people for the Messiah and to prevent them from falling to the level of the Egyptians, Canaanites, or the nations that would later conquer them. That is why it tolerated some evils (ie. no fault divoroce) and punished others so harshly.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/8um9lt/question_on_the_old_testament/

    Conservative Catholics love to rail against “moral relativism” (in other posts, the commenter has done so and has affirmed Catholic orthodoxy), but here the permissive attitude towards divorce and while being harsh on trivial violations is justified to certain circumstances. Essentially, the comment abandons absolute morality that could be understood independent of divine revelation. In other words, it demonstrates that “natural law” is on a tenuous foundation.

    What I actually love about Islamic apologetics regarding these issues is that essentially dispenses of “natural law”. I was actually impressed when I first heard Jonathan Brown talking about slavery because he uses the same tactics. I really don’t mind if one calls the culture that the prophet, SAWS, was in “barbaric”*, but still, within that social context, I do not think criticism towards his character is warranted.

    * David Hume, in Of Miracles, ironically and unintentionally affirms the Islamic narrative when he called the people who propagated the accounts about the prophet’s miracles as “barbarous Arabians”. Yes, they were barbarous and tribal because they were living in the age of jahiliya! Hume’s remarks may be offensive to a Muslim who does not really think about it.

    My own metaethics is a mixture of moral sentimentalism and divine command, although it is heavily weighted towards the former. Allan, I am not solely directing this against you: if the imam argues for “natural law”, I would not hesitate to use what he said to defend polygamy and Muhammad’s marriage against that position, since he justifies those actions based on material circumstance and the prevailing customs then.

    • Hi Latias,

      I hope all is well. Happy Canada day.

      “He specifically said that the Quraysh wrote polemics against the prophet but it never mentioned his relationship with Aisha negatively.”

      Yes. I conceded that this was a normal practice at the time.

      “So if Aisha is one standard deviation below the average, it might have happened when she was around 12 or 13.”

      I used the word consummated and married interchangeably but they married when she was six and consummated at age nine.

      Here’s the Hadith.

      https://www.sahih-bukhari.com/Pages/Bukhari_7_62.php

      Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64 :

      Narrated by ‘Aisha

      That the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).

      “Conservative Catholics love to rail against “moral relativism” (in other posts, the commenter has done so and has affirmed Catholic orthodoxy), but here the permissive attitude towards divorce and while being harsh on trivial violations is justified to certain circumstances. ”

      Please elaborate.

      Thanks again for commenting.

      God Bless,

      Allan

      • as salaamu alaykum,

        I read this about how Matthew Slick’s daughter deconverted:

        

I ran away from home when I was 17 (due to reasons not pertinent to this post) and went to college the following year. I must have been a nightmare in my philosophy and religion classes, raising my hands at every opportunity and spouting off well-practiced arguments. Despite this, my philosophy professor loved me, and we would often meet after class, talking about my views on God. Even though he tried to direct me away from them, I was insistent about my beliefs: If God didn’t exist, where did morality come from? What about the beginning of the universe? Abiogenesis?[ italics in the original, bold mine] There were too many questions left by the absence of God, and I could not believe in something (godlessness, in this case) that left me with so little closure. My certainty was my strength — I knew the answers when others did not.

        This changed one day during a conversation with my friend Alex. I had a habit of bouncing theological questions off him, and one particular day, I asked him this: If God was absolutely moral, because morality was absolute, and if the nature of “right” and “wrong” surpassed space, time, and existence, and if it was as much a fundamental property of reality as math, then why were some things a sin in the Old Testament but not a sin in the New Testament?

        Alex had no answer — and I realized I didn’t either. Everyone had always explained this problem away using the principle that Jesus’ sacrifice meant we wouldn’t have to follow those ancient laws. 
But that wasn’t an answer. In fact, by the very nature of the problem, there was no possible answer that would align with Christianity.



        http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/07/15/the-atheist-daughter-of-a-notable-christian-apologist-shares-her-story/

        Moral sentimentalist metaethics, which proposes that the basis of our moral judgment are one’s passions and sentiment, largely evades this problem. The statement that drinking alcohol is not immoral means that most people, including myself, would not experience feelings of disapproval and disgust if they see others (non-Muslims) doing it. Alcohol consumption, in most cases, is benign since it does not lead to harm to oneself and others but it rather a mild indulgence and source of pleasure, and it does not trigger uneasy feelings. Within the context of Islam and Muslims, one’s feelings towards alcohol are different. I would feel disapproval if I see a sister drinking alcohol at a bar, or if I reflect on the possibility that I would consume sake. I would deem that sister, who freely engaged in such an act, doing it in public, as not possessing sufficient taqwa (God consciousness) and make a judgment that she has a deficiency in character. I experience feelings of revulsion when I reflect upon the thought of myself consuming alcohol, since that action would also reflect a lack of taqwa on myself.

        Since there is no natural sentimental basis to prohibit the consumption of alcohol, it could only be justified because it is thought that Allah said so. One does not consume alcohol (in a private setting) primarily because he values the virtue of Islamic piety within himself, and the thought of consuming alcohol produces disquietude within oneself since that action would compromise one’s own perception of one’s character. Of course, there is also a fear of Allah, SWT, along with the acknowledgment that he is your Lord, and must be obeyed. But this fear of Allah (God), an acknowledgment that he is Lord and God, that is constitutive of iman (faith), influences one’s perception of virtue and one’s subsequent sentiments that emanates from that idea of virtue.

        It is interesting that Rachael Slick lost her faith because she adhered to faulty metaethics.

        “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. Matthew 7:24

  2. >On the other hand, if you say that this man is the greatest example for mankind to follow at all times, that’s a problem. Now, to be fair, most Muslims in the West and in Muslim countries don’t have their girls marrying at this age and would be opposed to the laws of their country having a marriage age of nine. Only a few Muslim countries have low marriage ages.

    Speaking of which, in my local news TODAY: https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2018/07/03/malaysian-bar-urges-govt-to-review-all-laws-on-child-marriages/

    In 2010, around 16000 girls below the age of 15 were married.

    Moderate & modern Islamic nation y’all!

    PS. It’s been said before that among Muhammad’s wives: Khadijah his employer was the example of women’s rights pre-Islam; Aisha his child bride was the example of women’s subjugation post-Islam.

  3. Allan, another angle that I often find popping up again and again: The BASIS of morality.

    Simply put, if Islam is TRUE, then the example of Muhammad deflowering a 9-year-old is MORAL. I find it somewhat spineless when self-proclaimed practising Muslims try and explain away this-or-that passage in order to align their version of Islam with modern secular humanism. I ask, what next – allowing Islamic gay marriage, or tolerating polytheist idols in mosques?

    It’s almost the same challenge Christians face.

    I say almost because there is one major difference – I believe Christianity to be the truth, and therefore contain a true reflection of God’s image that we are all created in. I believe Vocab Malone called it the ‘moral compass’ in our hearts. Hence, when we follow Christian moral values, we feel at peace because we are aligned with God’s will.

    But when Muslims follow Islamic values as espoused and practiced by Muhammad, there is discomfort caused by a clash with the same YHWH-aligned moral compass still struggling within their hearts.

    • If you read my above comments, I have pointed out that Christianity experiences a similar problem. See the quoted material above the Catholic who tries to show that the OT poses no problem, but ironically uses relativistic arguments that the OT laws were justified due to the circumstances the Israelites faced. Moreover, see the quoted excerpt from Rachael Slick.

      Sharia is difficult to formulate. There is no one system or set of principles. The question for any jurist is to identify whether the marriage reflects something that Allah, SWT, has permitted for all cultures, or whether, depending on the material circumstances and prevailing social customs, it could be deemed illegal. What is evident is that such an act is not universally prohibited.

      One can say that there are various interpretations of sharia that correspondingly have a different weight of authority attached to them and whose appeal to individuals depends on how well it resonates with their conscience. One only has the texts (and different judgments on the credibility of some hadith); one cannot know what precisely Allah, SWT, approves of and disapproves on some issues. After all, Jesus, pbuh, says: ” You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within Yourself.”

      To put it glibly: there are the texts, and there are various interpretations of the texts. I am comfortable with such a statement.

      I simply do not think religion is necessary for moral formation. One can develop virtues independent of religious inculcation. You could say that God has infused a moral sense that makes this possible: the provenance of this moral sense, whether it is natural or supernatural, does not really matter to the metaethical theory.

      • “After all, Jesus, pbuh, says: ” You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within Yourself.””

        I am not award of this statement. Please can you point out where it is written in the Gospel that He said this?

        • al Mai’da 5:116.

          It is contrasted with the verses in Matthew 11 where Jesus says that no one knows the Father but the Son and those who the son reveals to him.

          • So Jesus didn’t say those words then. All we have is what Mohammed asserted that Jesus said.

            I specifically asked you where in the Gospel is it recorded that Jesus said those words, because I am not familiar with any other sources that record His words from eye witness testimony within living memory oIf it was in the (much later) Koran then we can be sure that Jesus cannot reliably be known to have said it. In fact we can be certain that He did not say it because the Koran is woeful when it comes to relating historical events and actions. So your quote is what Mohammed reportedly told people that Jesus said. When taken in the round it is clear that Mohammed’s utterances in the Koran were concerned with whatever suited his policy and desires at a particular time so I am amazed that people allow themselves to be duped by him.

            The Koran affirms the Divine inspiration and authority of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures (Surah 5:47 among others). The Gospel came 600 years after the Koran was written down, and still the Koran manages to contradict earlier Scripture even while affirming its authority. Surely this is strong evidence that the Koran cannot be what it claims to be: it cannot be the very word of the One True God.

            Not only does the Koran contradict the very scriptures that is affirms, it also manages to contradict itself, although it gives itself leeway in saying that if it were not from Allah it would contain “much” contradiction – so I suppose a bit of contradiction is OK, right?

            Sharia is difficult to formulate (as you put it) precisely because Islamic thinking is so messy. It has to be messy in order for knowledgeable Muslims to try and make sense of the contradictions within the Koran and hadith.

            I hesitated to write this because I do not wish to be rude, and I am only a guest on this website. I do not wish to give offence but only to make my point. It is just that I get a bit frustrated when I see that so many apparently intelligent and rational people allow themselves to be deceived by a charlatan.