{UAH} George Okello@ Prophet's marriage to Aisha
|
6:34 AM |
No comments |
Perhaps the most popular claim against Islam is the accusation that the Prophet Muhammad (sallAllau alayhi wasallam) committed a moral atrocity for having married Aisha (ra) when she was 9 years of age.
Career Islamophobes like UAH's George Okello always harp on this relationship, claiming that it is impossible for someone to be considered 'perfect' if they engaged in such behavior. He and others often pose the question to mature Muslim men, "Would you have sex with a 9 year old girl?" hoping to elicit a reaction of condemnation contrary to apparent religious sanctions.
As a result of this incessant accusation, Muslims and non-Muslims alike have reeled in horror, either concluding that there is something fundamentally immoral about Islam or finding a number of excuses to dismiss valid and sound ahadith, such as the following:
"Narrated `Aisha: the Prophet (sallAllahu alayhi wasallam) married me when I was six years old and he consummated his marriage with me when I was nine years old, and then I remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death)." (Sahih Bukhari, Bk. 62, #64)
But the problem isn't with the morality of the situation nor with the validity of the ahadith. Rather, the problem rests in fallacious reasoning. In their immediate repugnance, many people are unaware of the fact that they are engaging in anachronistic thinking; prohibiting themselves from comprehending the historical conditions that would have made such behavior not only morally permissible, but necessary.
In other words, when someone suggests there is something wrong with the Prophet's (sallAllahu alayhi wasallam) marriage with Aisha (ra), they are unintentionally imposing their contemporary experiences of the world – and the 9 year olds that inhabit it – on to the experiences of those that lived 1400 years ago.
"So what?" you may say.
So A LOT.
Imagine if I asked you the following set of questions: "Would you allow a 12 year old boy to participate in combat with a sword and lead an army?" or "Would you settle for a career in shepherding by the age of 10?" or "Would you marry your daughter to a rival warlord to secure peace for your people?"
These questions appear silly from a contemporary context, because they are obviously coming from a period of time where such conditions were the only available options. Of course you wouldn't object to any of these if you lived back then, because if you were fortunate enough to survive birth and live long enough to even think about these things, that in and of itself was considered a luxury. Not only was the average life expectancy much lower back then, but so were the number of career options, the length of education, and the amount of resources. The only thing possibly higher than all of these was the number of ways in which someone could die – and that's not an achievement by any means. As the evolutionary bioarchaeologist Mary Lewis states:
"No matter what period we are examining, childhood is more than a biological age, but a series of social and cultural events and experiences that make up a child's life...The time at which these transitions take place varies from one culture to another, and has a bearing on the level of interaction children have with their environment, their exposure to disease and trauma, and their contribution to the economic status of their family and society. The Western view of childhood, where children do not commit violence and are asexual, has been challenged by studies of children that show them learning to use weapons or being depicted in sexual poses...What is clear is that we cannot simply transpose our view of childhood directly onto the past." (Mary Lewis, The Bioarchaeology of Children: Perspectives from Biological and Forensic Anthropology, [New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009], p. 4.)
So when most societies of the past decided that it would be a good idea to mark the age of maturity at the onset of puberty, what they were attempting to do was maximize their options for civic engagement and reproduction. With few members of society bound never to reach old age, there really wasn't any other choice. This is the best explanation as to why Aisha (ra) had finalized her marriage by the time she was 9. As she says herself, she had reached puberty prior to this:
"Narrated A'isha (ra): I had seen my parents following Islam since I attained the age of puberty. Not a day passed but the Prophet (sallAllahu alayhi wasallam) visited us, both in the mornings and evenings." (Sahih Bukhari, Bk. 8, #465)
"Say I accept your argument: Is this not moral relativism?" you may ask.
Not even close. Moral relativism is the idea that all moral ideas and choices are valid. What this argument is proposing is that there is only one form of morality which must be applied optimally according to changing conditions throughout time. So, for example, it is only morally acceptable to be physically intimate with someone when they are mature – but what counts as 'mature' may vary depending on the conditions and subsequent options available.
"But, doesn't this refute the idea that the Prophet Muhammad (sallAllahu alayhi wasallam) was a perfect example for all time?" you may further inquire.
Only if you see his life as a glorified IKEA manual. You see, the idea that the Prophet (sallAllahu alayhi wasallam) is a 'perfect example for all time' does not mean we have to take all of his behaviors and statements as the exact means by which to respond to moral problems. To suggests such would actually disqualify the Prophet (sallAllahu alayhi wasallam) as perfect because he only lived in one time period, before any moral questions involving the likes of modern technology and modern medicine ever arose. This logic is obviously absurd because it suggests a lack of perfection on account of not having owned a car or a vaccine for measles. Further, it suggests that Muslims today are "not following the Prophet's example (sallAllahu alayhi wasallam)" because we aren't riding around on camels and leading caravans in the desert.
On the contrary, Islamic jurists have conceived the 'perfect example for all time' as a person which acted perfectly in their given conditions and situations, from which then future references can be made and reasonably applied to later issues through analogous reasoning (qiyas). In other words, the contemporary age of consent laws across the world are perfectly in line with Islamic principles, because they reflect the changing conditions and options available that optimize the moral requirement for maturity prior to marriage.
"This all sounds like mental gymnastics!" you may retort.
Stubborn much? Okay, try this thought experiment. Get into your DeLorean and travel back 1400 years ago. After that, impose modern day laws on everyone (e.g. not being able to marry, go to war, or own transport and property till 18 years of age). Wait a couple of decades as you watch civilization collapse on account of the youth consuming resources and not contributing to society till middle age, subsequently creating a situation where there are an insufficient number of children to replace them after they've all been killed by an opposing army, natural disasters, starvation, plague, etc. Then, come back and tell us all how "barbaric" they were.
That is, only if humanity still exists by the time you get back.#PleaseReflect
--
-- Career Islamophobes like UAH's George Okello always harp on this relationship, claiming that it is impossible for someone to be considered 'perfect' if they engaged in such behavior. He and others often pose the question to mature Muslim men, "Would you have sex with a 9 year old girl?" hoping to elicit a reaction of condemnation contrary to apparent religious sanctions.
As a result of this incessant accusation, Muslims and non-Muslims alike have reeled in horror, either concluding that there is something fundamentally immoral about Islam or finding a number of excuses to dismiss valid and sound ahadith, such as the following:
"Narrated `Aisha: the Prophet (sallAllahu alayhi wasallam) married me when I was six years old and he consummated his marriage with me when I was nine years old, and then I remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death)." (Sahih Bukhari, Bk. 62, #64)
But the problem isn't with the morality of the situation nor with the validity of the ahadith. Rather, the problem rests in fallacious reasoning. In their immediate repugnance, many people are unaware of the fact that they are engaging in anachronistic thinking; prohibiting themselves from comprehending the historical conditions that would have made such behavior not only morally permissible, but necessary.
In other words, when someone suggests there is something wrong with the Prophet's (sallAllahu alayhi wasallam) marriage with Aisha (ra), they are unintentionally imposing their contemporary experiences of the world – and the 9 year olds that inhabit it – on to the experiences of those that lived 1400 years ago.
"So what?" you may say.
So A LOT.
Imagine if I asked you the following set of questions: "Would you allow a 12 year old boy to participate in combat with a sword and lead an army?" or "Would you settle for a career in shepherding by the age of 10?" or "Would you marry your daughter to a rival warlord to secure peace for your people?"
These questions appear silly from a contemporary context, because they are obviously coming from a period of time where such conditions were the only available options. Of course you wouldn't object to any of these if you lived back then, because if you were fortunate enough to survive birth and live long enough to even think about these things, that in and of itself was considered a luxury. Not only was the average life expectancy much lower back then, but so were the number of career options, the length of education, and the amount of resources. The only thing possibly higher than all of these was the number of ways in which someone could die – and that's not an achievement by any means. As the evolutionary bioarchaeologist Mary Lewis states:
"No matter what period we are examining, childhood is more than a biological age, but a series of social and cultural events and experiences that make up a child's life...The time at which these transitions take place varies from one culture to another, and has a bearing on the level of interaction children have with their environment, their exposure to disease and trauma, and their contribution to the economic status of their family and society. The Western view of childhood, where children do not commit violence and are asexual, has been challenged by studies of children that show them learning to use weapons or being depicted in sexual poses...What is clear is that we cannot simply transpose our view of childhood directly onto the past." (Mary Lewis, The Bioarchaeology of Children: Perspectives from Biological and Forensic Anthropology, [New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009], p. 4.)
So when most societies of the past decided that it would be a good idea to mark the age of maturity at the onset of puberty, what they were attempting to do was maximize their options for civic engagement and reproduction. With few members of society bound never to reach old age, there really wasn't any other choice. This is the best explanation as to why Aisha (ra) had finalized her marriage by the time she was 9. As she says herself, she had reached puberty prior to this:
"Narrated A'isha (ra): I had seen my parents following Islam since I attained the age of puberty. Not a day passed but the Prophet (sallAllahu alayhi wasallam) visited us, both in the mornings and evenings." (Sahih Bukhari, Bk. 8, #465)
"Say I accept your argument: Is this not moral relativism?" you may ask.
Not even close. Moral relativism is the idea that all moral ideas and choices are valid. What this argument is proposing is that there is only one form of morality which must be applied optimally according to changing conditions throughout time. So, for example, it is only morally acceptable to be physically intimate with someone when they are mature – but what counts as 'mature' may vary depending on the conditions and subsequent options available.
"But, doesn't this refute the idea that the Prophet Muhammad (sallAllahu alayhi wasallam) was a perfect example for all time?" you may further inquire.
Only if you see his life as a glorified IKEA manual. You see, the idea that the Prophet (sallAllahu alayhi wasallam) is a 'perfect example for all time' does not mean we have to take all of his behaviors and statements as the exact means by which to respond to moral problems. To suggests such would actually disqualify the Prophet (sallAllahu alayhi wasallam) as perfect because he only lived in one time period, before any moral questions involving the likes of modern technology and modern medicine ever arose. This logic is obviously absurd because it suggests a lack of perfection on account of not having owned a car or a vaccine for measles. Further, it suggests that Muslims today are "not following the Prophet's example (sallAllahu alayhi wasallam)" because we aren't riding around on camels and leading caravans in the desert.
On the contrary, Islamic jurists have conceived the 'perfect example for all time' as a person which acted perfectly in their given conditions and situations, from which then future references can be made and reasonably applied to later issues through analogous reasoning (qiyas). In other words, the contemporary age of consent laws across the world are perfectly in line with Islamic principles, because they reflect the changing conditions and options available that optimize the moral requirement for maturity prior to marriage.
"This all sounds like mental gymnastics!" you may retort.
Stubborn much? Okay, try this thought experiment. Get into your DeLorean and travel back 1400 years ago. After that, impose modern day laws on everyone (e.g. not being able to marry, go to war, or own transport and property till 18 years of age). Wait a couple of decades as you watch civilization collapse on account of the youth consuming resources and not contributing to society till middle age, subsequently creating a situation where there are an insufficient number of children to replace them after they've all been killed by an opposing army, natural disasters, starvation, plague, etc. Then, come back and tell us all how "barbaric" they were.
That is, only if humanity still exists by the time you get back.#PleaseReflect
--
Allaah gives the best to those who leave the choice to Him."And if Allah touches you with harm, none can remove it but He, and if He touches you with good, then He is Able to do all things." (6:17)
Disclaimer:Everyone posting to this Forum bears the sole responsibility for any legal consequences of his or her postings, and hence statements and facts must be presented responsibly. Your continued membership signifies that you agree to this disclaimer and pledge to abide by our Rules and Guidelines.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to: ugandans-at-heart+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment