Jihad Watch: Really, really wishing Aisha weren't nine

May 7, 2007

Really, really wishing Aisha weren't nine

In my book The Truth About Muhammad, I take Karen Armstrong to task for misrepesenting what the Muslim historian Tabari says about the age of Muhammad's wife Aisha when she married the Prophet of Islam:

Yet of these facts there can be little doubt. According to ahadith reported by Bukhari, the Prophet of Islam “married Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed [i.e., consummated] that marriage when she was nine years old.” He was at this time in his early fifties. Many Islamic apologists claim – in the teeth of this evidence – that Aisha was actually older. Karen Armstrong asserts that “Tabari says that she was so young that she stayed in her parents’ home and the marriage was consummated there later when she had reached puberty.” Unfortunately, her readers are unlikely to have volumes of Tabari on hand to check her assertion; contrary to Armstrong’s account, the Muslim historian quotes Aisha thusly: “The Messenger of God married me when I was seven; my marriage was consummated when I was nine.” (p. 170)

On a posting about her Financial Times review of my book and my response, this gave rise to an exchange between me and a commenter who calls himself variously "An American," "Watcher," and "Chris." (I called him "Rick" because I am fairly sure who he is, as another fellow who called himself "Rick" made some of the same points in the same language about Armstrong and Aisha in another place some time ago, but that's another story, and in any case his identity isn't important.) I have decided to post this as a separate article because I believe it is instructive in many ways. A few of those ways:

1. "Chris" is typical of many who object to points that I have made in his contempt and arrogance. These are familiar features of the discourse of both the Left and apologists for jihad and Islamic supremacism, as is a refusal to discuss the issues on a rational basis or consider the evidence at hand. "Chris" is typical also in his claim to have information to refute what I'm saying, but never quite getting around to producing it. ("Chris" was apparently working from Wikipedia, although he claimed not to be -- and for all I know he really does own the exact same Arabic edition of Tabari that Wikipedia refers to, although he never took up my repeated invitations to post the salient quotes, and after indulging in a bit of fun with this, finally I posted the main one for him.)

Anti-jihadists should always be prepared to be dismissed as "ignorant" as well as "bigoted," and should always persist in the face of this, pressing the Islamic supremacist apologist to produce the evidence he claims to have, while marshalling the facts and presenting them so that they speak for themselves.

2. "Chris," as well as Armstrong herself and many others, claim that the best Islamic sources say that Aisha was much older than nine when Muhammad consummated his marriage with her. In reality, however, the Islamic sources that Muslims consider most reliable overwhelmingly support her having been nine. Here is an excellent summary of that evidence, compiled by Sam Shamoun. It is hard, therefore, not to conclude that they reject this evidence because they do not wish to believe it -- it involves implications they don't wish to contemplate. This is of course true of multitudes today when it comes to the facts about jihad and Islamic supremacism: they don't believe it because it is too frightening or unpleasant to be true.

3. Those implications in this case involve the fact that Muhammad, as the supreme example of human behavior in Islam, is imitated even in his child marriage -- and that becomes a moral and public health issue in today's world that is almost universally ignored. That's why this is much more than just a squabble about old texts. It is ultimately a question about the defense of the human rights of the girls who are victimized in this way. In the name of human dignity, reform-minded Muslims need to stop denying that Aisha was nine, acknowledge that many Muslims believe she was nine and imitate Muhammad in this, and construct a case for why Muhammad is not to be an example for conduct in this particular (and others).

Otherwise, women will continue to suffer. And Armstrong and "Chris," in attempting to demonstrate that this marriage never happened instead of facing its implications, are abetting that suffering.

I. "Chris" to Spencer:

Mr. Spencer,
Although you are correct in stating the Tabari verse, what you fail to realize is that there are a minimum of 50 verses of Tabari which discuss the marriage to Aisha, each with a differing account on the consumation date. Some are vague, others give widely varying dates. You chose the one which fits your interpretation the best. Karen uses the verses which are used the most often in mainstream Islamic discourse and recognized as correct, something which you don't know anything about nor even attempt to participate in. Yes, people will respond saying that "just because the verse exists, then it must be true" justification. Usual when people are put into a corner about Islamic sources. It might work here, but unfortunately for you all not much outside the level of this discourse.

Just doing some thinking...

II. Spencer to "Chris":

Watcher:
Like everyone else who ever says I misuse or misquote the Islamic sources, you fail to come up with a single specific citation.

I challenge you to do so. I have Tabari right here now as I type this. Volume VII, "The Foundation of the Community." The section headed "The Marriage with 'A'ishah" begins on page 6 and continues to page 8. On the bottom of page 6 Tabari says, "In this year also the Messenger of God consummated his marriage with 'A'ishah." Then he goes on to discuss the date, noting that accounts differ as to whether it was 7 or 8 months after his arrival in Medina. Then Tabari says: "He had married her in Mecca three years before the Hijrah, after the death of Khadijah. At that time she was six or, according to other accounts, seven years old." So she must have been nine, or at most ten, when he consummated the marriage.

Tabari then quotes a hadith, giving the isnad in detail, and quoting Aisha as saying: "...my marriage was consummated when I was nine..." Then the rest of the section explains that the consummation took place during the month of Shawwal, but no other age is given for Aisha at the time of the consummation other than nine.

Same thing in Tabari Volume IX, "The Last Years of the Prophet." Aisha is quoted on page 131: "The Messenger of God consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old." Then two other ahadith are given, on the same page, each with its isnad chain, and both say she was nine.

So you say other ages are given for Aisha at the time of the consummation of the marriage, and that those other ages are given in Tabari. All right. I know of passages that seem to support her being older indirectly, but none that come out and say explicitly that she was older. So quote him, please, with the volume number and page number. I have all 39 volumes right here in my office, and I'll check where you direct me.

Looking forward to it.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

III. Spencer to "Chris":

What's more, Watcher, if Aisha's being nine is not understood as true in "mainstream Islamic discourse," how do you explain the following?
The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) reports that over half of the girls in Afghanistan and Bangladesh are married before they reach the age of eighteen. In early 2002, researchers in refugee camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan found half the girls married by age thirteen. In an Afghan refugee camp, more than two out of three second-grade girls were either married or engaged, and virtually all the girls who were beyond second grade were already married. One ten-year-old was engaged to a man of sixty. In early 2005 a Saudi man in his sixties drew international attention for marrying fifty-eight times; his most recent bride was a 14-year-old he married in the spring of 2004.

Child marriage enjoys the sanction of law and custom. Time magazine reported in 2001: "In Iran the legal age for marriage is nine for girls, fourteen for boys. The law has occasionally been exploited by pedophiles, who marry poor young girls from the provinces, use and then abandon them. In 2000 the Iranian Parliament voted to raise the minimum age for girls to fourteen, but this year, a legislative oversight body dominated by traditional clerics vetoed the move. An attempt by conservatives to abolish Yemen’s legal minimum age of fifteen for girls failed, but local experts say it is rarely enforced anyway. (The onset of puberty is considered an appropriate time for a marriage to be consummated.)"

The Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran married a ten-year-old girl when he was twenty-eight. Khomeini called marriage to a prepubescent girl “a divine blessing,” and advised the faithful: “Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house.”

In early 2007, severe drought in Afghanistan led some Afghans to sell their daughters into marriages – including girls as young as eight years old – to buy food. One Afghan mother explained: “I need to sell my daughters because of the drought. We don’t have enough food and the bride price will enable us to buy food. Three months ago my 15-year-old daughter married.” Other girls have been sold to make good on opium debts. An Afghan girl named Saliha recounts: “I was 13 when my father married me off to a 20-year-old man, whose father had given a loan to my parents and they were unable to return the amount or the quantity of opium.”

Why is all this happening, unless it bears the sanction of Muhammad's example -- or more precisely, why is all this happening, if Aisha wasn't really nine when she had sex with Muhammad, and every Muslim knows that, and so child marriage has no more justification in Islam than it does in anything else?

Looking forward to your explanation.

Just doing some thinking.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

IV: "Chris" to Spencer:

Well, welcome back to column day. I will start at the beginning:
Aisha was married in 622, mush kida? OK:

1. Tabari Volume 4, page 50--states that all of Abu Bakr's children (Aisha being one of them) were born during the pre-Islamic stage (jahiliya) which ended in 610 with the revelation of Iqara. Therefore, Aisha had to have been born earlier, making her at least 12, if not slightly older at the time of marriage.

2. Tabari Volume 1, Page 493--after abu Bakr converted, he was sent by Mohammed to Ethiopia in 615 to escape Meccan persecution and didn't want to take Aisha with them so tried to push up the original marriage. She would have been a minimum of 7 (taking into account the first verse she would have to be a minimum of 12) and if the consumation didn't happen until 3 or so years later that would make her about 15-16.

I'll now cut to your good buddy, ibn Kathir:

Aisha's older sister, Asma, was around 10 or so years older than Aisha, who died in 693 at the reported age of 100, although a lot of people argue that isn't right, we'll go with it as a good round number. In 622, that would make her like 29 and her sister like 19 at the time of marriage.

(Oh, I did a web search and apparently this is up on Wikipedia as well, so feel free.)

I am almost positive that you are going to tell me that the quotes you cite are from Aisha herself so therefore they must be true. However, there weren't exactly birth certificates going around back then, so age is a difficult indicator--especially with the mixture of sun and moon cycles used to calculate years during the pre-Islamic times.

Now for your other matter:
There is no evidence that "Islam" was the driving factor in these child marriages, usually driven by economics (hello, dowries, especially if the United States is ripping up your country like in Afghanistan and you only have two choices to survive on the new cash-driven system: get a dowry for your daughter, or grow some opium). If you can find the fact that the 1/26,000,000 Saudis used the one Tabari verse you've got as justification I will definitely agree he's got some problems. What about the people here who are pedophiles, are they using biblical justification (they are sometimes Christian)--but that argument doesn't work because we're here, and they're over there, so that must be different. You always seem to be so scared of Iran--I personally don't like Khomeni--but he said a lot of things, but that doesn't mean that it is all "Islamic" and instantly gets enshrined into 1 billion people's minds as right. Also, them conservative councilis of Iran usually act out of economics as well (see Tobacco fiasco a little bit earlier, using religion to do something political and economic). Bardo, just because the legal age is there doesn't mean that people actually follow it (perhaps they see the low age as un-Islamic?). Currently, that age hovers around 23 or so years old in Iran according to the statistics bureaus in the country.

--I see a problem here, you are going to argue that "simply because Khomeni (or any other thinker regardless of who they were or what people thought about the saying or whether debate occured or not or the status of that quote today is) said it, it can and will be used indirectly by all Muslims throughout the world, from that point in history on. I think that is the wierdest logic around, but go for it.

Your logic kind of turns into that whole nonsense you and Mrs. Fallici post humus (hope that's right) had with that Reason writer: "if a non-Muslim pees on a wall, it's because they've got to go to the bathroom. If a Muslim pees on the same wall, it's because they are on a jihad against the West."

Just doing some thinking...
(Unlike some commentors on this board, I work. Therefore, I am not able to respond at breakneck pace like you guys.)

V. Spencer to "Chris":

Watcher -- mind if I call you "Rick"? Anyway, it's funny how your earlier statement, "a minimum of 50 verses of Tabari which discuss the marriage to Aisha, each with a differing account on the consumation date" now becomes a few passages from which you surmise that she must have been older than nine, for none of them actually states her age directly.
But let that pass. The other question is your edition of Tabari. In mine, volume 4 page 50 is discussing the Babylonian kingdom of Ahasuerus, and never mentions Abu Bakr, and vol. 1 doesn't even have a page 493. Did you actually look these up, or just get them off Wikipedia? Anyway, the edition I have is from SUNY Press. Where's yours from?

Anyway, even if these references are accurate, and of course I'm sure they are, as I have seen them before (although I still would like to see them from you, unless you're just relying solely on Wikipedia), they rest on a number of unwarranted assumptions. One is that if all of Abu Bakr's children were born in Jahiliyya, they would have had to have been born before 610. This doesn't make sense, particularly in light of the fact that Islam proper, as marked by the Islamic calendar itself, doesn't begin until the Hijra. It is much more likely that the time of Jahiliyya extended to the Hijra. Your second false assumption is that Aisha would have had to have been seven to have been left behind when Abu Bakr went to Abyssinia. On what do you base this assumption?

Please give me the exact citation from Ibn Kathir. I have his tafsir on hand also, and will check it.

You say: "I am almost positive that you are going to tell me that the quotes you cite are from Aisha herself so therefore they must be true." No, you're quite wrong. I am going to say that since the affirmation that she was nine appears in Bukhari, as well as Tabari, and in other hadith collections as well (including all but one of the Sahih Sittah), it is accorded the presumption of reliability by the great majority of Muslims. You flatly assert that "there is no evidence that 'Islam' was the driving factor in these child marriages," but the evidence is just that: since Muhammad did it, it is good to do, since he is uswa hasana (Qur'an 33:21). Being "scared" of Iran, or "liking" Khomeini or not, is irrelevant -- what matters is that he lowered the marriageable age of girls to nine in imitation of the Prophet, and that's why it is a widely accepted practice in the Islamic world.

Once you dismiss all the evidence I've presented, you then claim that I blame Muslims with no evidence, and invoke Fallaci and Cathy Young as if that makes your point. A neat trick, but hardly convincing. I have given you Bukhari (citations available on request), Tabari, and examples from all over the Islamic world. You have given me spurious references to Tabari, and denied that the evidence from the Islamic world has anything to do with this question -- why? Just because you don't want it to be.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

VI. "Chris" to Spencer:

I am sorry that we do not share the same editions. Mine are the same as used in Wikipedia article, although I found that the references were the same later on during the day. It was published in Beirut, and the edition was printed in Arabic, not English. I am sorry to say that it comes down to it you are really good at doing nothing but showing your ability to squeeze as many personal attacks into a single post--which doesn't merit your knowledge of Islamic discourse. Also, your inability to read what I wrote is uncanny (like I said elsewhere, I have found the reading comprehension class and would like to know if I should pay for two seats or just one), so I will say it again:
"...that there was something "Islamic" to do with the marriages..." means:

Find me the statement made by the Saudi citizen that he quoted your Tabari verse to justify his marriages. Find me the statement made by an Afghani farmer stating that he uses his in-depth study of Tabari and his high-level Islamic education (doubt that he has any, can't do much learning when people are shooting) and not simple survival economics to sell off his daughter. Find me the statement that all Iranian men demand to marry women at nine (I quoted an Iranian government source saying that most Iranian women don't get married until their 20s, but you don't care unless it fits your argument.) Find me these things and then we can talk about Islam being a problem. You are trying to connect what somebody said quite some time ago to something that is happening today, and you have no connection, other than the fact that something related to it was written 1000 years ago--which doesn't mean that everybody is using it today, or even discusses it beyond the realms of the Ulema.

As for your Tabari, I managed to drop by a mosque and ask on this particular matter (although you don't think that mosques are worth anything in terms of Islamic knowledge). Tabari's entire justification, the entire presence of that statement in his work, is predicated upon the presence of the Bukhari verses, which have been and are being debated extensively. I know you don't believe this argument, especially when it comes to the verses you quote, but the "isnads" of these Bukhari verses have been and are being questioned, such was the subject of a book published out of al-Azhar (last year I think) about Tabari and Bukhari's fuzzy math and how since the subjects of calculated math weren't established until later, the vast majority of these dates in the sources should not be seen as correct. I will get you the title of it if you want.

Also, in response to your claim that you make to anybody who argues with you, I won't quote again the sources that you already know about that refute your argument. Just because it doesn't appear in the section of the book you read (Tabari's original and the Arabic don't have such distinctions between sections) doesn't mean you are instantaneously right. It was about this point that I was banned last time, so I am interested to see what the next course of action is...whether things will continue, or I will "cut and run" as it was referred to by not being allowed to post a rebuttal before the discussion drifted away.

Just doing some thinking...and Rick is fine, but my name is Chris.
(By the way, in all honesty, I hope you found my apology about the banning in another posting today and will consider it. I don't mean to launch attacks on anybody that are not true.)

VII. Spencer to "Chris":

Watcher:
What a happy coincidence that both you and the Wikipedia article on Aisha's age use the Dara'l-fikr edition of Tabari, published in Beirut in 1979! Now, I know Wikipedia is swell and all, but they do let a few errors creep in here and there -- and entries on particularly controversial subjects are beset by apologists and ideologues, some with scant regard for facts -- so why don't you post the exact relevant quotes? Since, lo and behold, you just happen to have that exact edition right at hand, and so far you haven't made a point that isn't made on Wikipedia. Post the quotes here. Arabic is fine. Go on -- post them right here, or send them to me at director@jihadwatch.org if you prefer.

The fact is that child marriage is rampant in the Islamic world in imitation of the Prophet. Your suggestion that only scholars know this arcana is specious. No one has to read Bukhari or Tabari or the others who testify to this to find this out -- all they have to do is learn about the Prophet's life in any Islamic school in an Islamic country.

Take, for example, what the Islamic scholar Muhammad Ali Al-Hanooti said about Aisha and Muhammad: ”A'isha got married when she was 9, when the Prophet (SAAWS) died, she was 19....What is wrong in her marriage of six or nine or whatsoever?" This was published in Islam Online:

http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2002-06/15/article55.shtml

...and no one at Islam Online saw fit to note that of course everyone knows that she wasn't nine, and this al-Hanooti character is confused and misinformed (probably led astray by my black Zionist arts). Now why didn't they do that? Why did they let it pass? And where did al-Hanooti get the idea that she was nine in the first place? From me?

The fact that Aisha's age is debated is beyond dispute. But you are taking the fact that people dispute about it as an indication that Aisha was not nine when her marriage was consummated, and that no Muslim believes that she was -- that only wicked fellows like me dig this stuff up. Would that it were so, but it isn't.

What's more, you say, "Find me the statement that all Iranian men demand to marry women at nine (I quoted an Iranian government source saying that most Iranian women don't get married until their 20s, but you don't care unless it fits your argument.)" Speaking of reading comprehension, I noted that Khomeini lowered the marriageable age of girls to nine. Did I say he required marriages to nine-year-old girls, or demanded that men marry nine-year-olds? Of course not. You are just setting up a straw man to knock down, because that is easier to deal with than what I actually wrote.

Finally, you come around to it -- it's all my fault: "You are trying to connect what somebody said quite some time ago to something that is happening today, and you have no connection, other than the fact that something related to it was written 1000 years ago--which doesn't mean that everybody is using it today, or even discusses it beyond the realms of the Ulema." In so saying you sidestep entirely Muhammad's centrality as uswa hasana -- which makes what this man said and did 1400 years ago, as reported in the hadith collection Muslims consider most reliable (Bukhari), very important indeed.

You also resort in this to the familiar tactic of attributing to me what I report. No problem, old man -- I get this all the time. Zarqawi said that he cut off Nick Berg's head in imitation of Muhammad's beheadings after the Battle of Badr, but when I say that he said that, people routinely pretend that I am the one who made up the idea that Muhammad beheaded anyone. Same thing here: Muslims tolerate child marriage because of Muhammad, but when I note that, suddenly I'm the one who made up that Muhammad married a child. Well, sorry to burst your bubble, "Chris," but all too many Muslims see Muhammad as an excellent example to imitate, in this particular and in many others.

Meanwhile, while whining about personal attacks, you never quite got around to explaining why, if the period before the Hijra was not jahiliya, the Islamic calendar begins with the Hijra, or why Aisha had to be seven if Abu Bakr left her behind. In other words, you didn't deal with the substantive arguments I made, but instead pretended that I didn't make any. It's so much easier that way, isn't it?

Rick, Chris, sure -- I know who you are.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

VIII. "Chris" to Spencer:

Obviously you have found the quotes, and I won't repeat them to you as they are available on the site. You also have said nothing that isn't on Wikipedia, so why does that make you right, and me wrong?
Uh oh, 1979! Dangerous! People have old books! Scary! Let's write exclamation points and "boogy boogy" scare quotes return! Spencer can read a citation! Goodness! Was there more than one set surviving?!? Are there books available in places like Cairo or Beirut that are old!?! They don't make new printings of old editions!?! Run away!

As for jahiliya (this is getting really reflective of your knowledge on Islamic history):

Jahiliya is the period before Islam. Hijra is the migration of MUSLIMS fleeing oppression in Mecca to Medina, beginning the Islamic calendar. Because there were Muslims during the Hijra, then obviously the discussed ending of Jahiliya had occured before the Hijra. Otherwise, how could Muslims have migrated when there was no knowledge of Islam (that lack of knowledge is called Jahiliya).

Also, I don't know if you know this (however it is talked about like every day) but the command "Iqara," and the subsequent three time repetition story is constantly referred to as the beginning of Islam and the end of the Jahiliya. Just because the calendar starts doesn't mean that the religion starts at exactly the same time. I am surprised at you, Robert, this is something you should know a lot more about.

By the way, whoopee that Khomeini lowered the marriable age. He looks pretty angry, too, but that doesn't mean he wanted to kill everybody. You still didn't answer the claim, and (let's follow your logic) I won't answer your claims in detail unless you answer mine. If that is the case, and "all too many Muslims" follow this example, why has the marrying age for women and men continued to increase since the revolution? Let's move to somewhere else, like Eygpt. Why, in a country where ~85% are Muslims is the minimum marriage age 16, and most marriages actually happen much later despite the law, like into the 20s?

Uswa hasana---in what context? Hasana for bukra? Hasana for imbara7? Hasana for salawat? Tova ba-kol? Let's assume for the moment that you're 100% right--Mohammed married a six year old, fag3aha wa nus. What about the argument that certain rules don't apply to everybody else and only worked for Mohammed (like the special covering for his wives, that some Muslims have inappropriately taken on themselves). This is a separate issue, but let's delve a bit, I'm feeling adventurous. ar-Raheeq al-Makhtoum, a book that you quote sometimes, says that Mohammed had rights as a prophet that people do not, such as in number of wives, types of marriage, etc. This was not the first book to discuss it, and there are many others that make the same argument. If you are right, the next logical step might be dangerous, but we can keep that for a later date.

Just doing some thinking...
(Still didn't answer that "find me..." paragraph, huh? Zarqawi, great. You found a murderer who was fleeing authorities in Jordan (because his Islamic tutors turned him in for being violent, but you won't respond to that) assassinated a reporter and said something to make him sound different than an idiot. Find me the multitude of Muslims who agreed with his justification. Do you remember the protests against Zarqawi in Pakistan (no, you don't) that said he wasn't Muslim, etc? What about the ones in Cairo, and the religious statements from Azhar stating that his actions constituted nothing more than depraved murder? Some English poetry major had "Ax Ishmael" written on his arm right before he killed a bunch of people. So now he's a follower of a particular English poem, or maybe an admirer of Moby Dick [my English teacher told me he is uswa hasana (a good example) of how far revenge can go], or is he still just a murderer?)
(I did deal with your substansive arguments, but you don't respond to them and say later that I didn't say anything about them. Also, glad to hear that everybody's cheering you on...I feel so bad [why would I expect anything else on this site])

Some Muslims are wrong and have evil intentions. You agree with their interpretations and promote an equal response to them. Transitive property applies.

IX. Spencer to "Chris":

American/Watcher/Rick/Chris:
"Obviously you have found the quotes, and I won't repeat them to you as they are available on the site."

The quotes aren't on the site. Just references. That's why I asked you to produce them, since you say you have the book right there with you. Just so there's no doubt about what it says, ok, old man?

"You also have said nothing that isn't on Wikipedia, so why does that make you right, and me wrong?"

I just checked the Wikipedia article, and actually, I've said plenty that isn't on Wikipedia -- none of the data about child marriage in the Islamic world is in Wikipedia. Also, the quotes I gave you from Tabari are not the ones that are in Wikipedia. This doesn't make me right and you wrong in itself, but it shows which one of us has actually researched the matter, and which one is acting out of blind prejudice.

"Uh oh, 1979! Dangerous! People have old books! Scary! Let's write exclamation points and "boogy boogy" scare quotes return! Spencer can read a citation! Goodness! Was there more than one set surviving?!? Are there books available in places like Cairo or Beirut that are old!?! They don't make new printings of old editions!?! Run away!"

You, like Karen Armstrong, seem to think no one will check on you. In the paragraph in question, there are no quotation marks at all, much less "'boogy boogy' scare quotes." Nor did I remark on the edition's having been published in 1979, other than to note it in the process of specifying which edition Wikipedia -- and, lo and behold, you -- use. And indeed, you might have the 1979 Beirut Tabari -- I'm sure you do. So why not post the exact quotes from it that you (and Wikipedia) have referenced, so that we can see what it actually says?

"As for jahiliya (this is getting really reflective of your knowledge on Islamic history):

Jahiliya is the period before Islam. Hijra is the migration of MUSLIMS fleeing oppression in Mecca to Medina, beginning the Islamic calendar. Because there were Muslims during the Hijra, then obviously the discussed ending of Jahiliya had occured before the Hijra. Otherwise, how could Muslims have migrated when there was no knowledge of Islam (that lack of knowledge is called Jahiliya).

Also, I don't know if you know this (however it is talked about like every day) but the command "Iqara," and the subsequent three time repetition story is constantly referred to as the beginning of Islam and the end of the Jahiliya. Just because the calendar starts doesn't mean that the religion starts at exactly the same time. I am surprised at you, Robert, this is something you should know a lot more about.

Yes, I don't know anything about this, and never heard it before. (Actually, you can find discussion of the Hijra in my book The Truth About Muhammad, beginning on page 89, and of Jahiliyya in some detail in Onward Muslim Soldiers and elsewhere.) In any case, you are apparently unaware that the transition from jahiliyya to Islam is not an either/or, night and day matter. In this brief Muslim biography of Muhammad, he abolishes the practices of Jahiliyya in Mecca ten years after the Hijra (see #10, The Farewell Pilgrimage):

http://www.ezsoftech.com/islamic/infallible1e.asp

So Jahiliyya must have still existed 10 years after the Hijra. But of course, that refers to unbelievers. The connection of the end of Jahiliyya for Muslims to the Hijra stems from the character of Islam as a political and social system as well as an individual religious faith. That system was not implemented until the Hijra -- hence the calendar connection, indicating that Islam actually begins with the Hijra, not with the Iqraa (not "iqara"): the society of Islam was not established until that time. Thus some argue that Jahiliyyah ended for Muslims at the Hijra (just as modern jihad theorists, such as Qutb, argue that most Muslims today live in Jahili societies), and hence the reference to Abu Bakr's children all being born in Jahiliyyah does not necessarily mean they were all born before 610.

But it is certainly true that the end of Jahiliyyah is almost always identified by Muslims with the Iqraa, the beginning of Muhammad's revelations. The point is that the term is not fully clear, and thus cannot be made the foundation of an effective argument.

By the way, whoopee that Khomeini lowered the marriable age. He looks pretty angry, too, but that doesn't mean he wanted to kill everybody.

You're dodging the point again. I never said he wanted to kill everybody. I said he lowered the marriageable age of girls to nine in imitation of the Prophet. In response, you have now several times misrepresented what I said -- evidently you are unable to deal with the implications of what I really said.

"You still didn't answer the claim, and (let's follow your logic) I won't answer your claims in detail unless you answer mine. If that is the case, and "all too many Muslims" follow this example, why has the marrying age for women and men continued to increase since the revolution? Let's move to somewhere else, like Eygpt. Why, in a country where ~85% are Muslims is the minimum marriage age 16, and most marriages actually happen much later despite the law, like into the 20s?"

Because Egypt is not an Islamic state. The Ikhwan is working to institute Sharia there. If they succeed, watch the legal age for marriage start going down.

Uswa hasana---in what context? Hasana for bukra? Hasana for imbara7? Hasana for salawat? Tova ba-kol? Let's assume for the moment that you're 100% right--Mohammed married a six year old, fag3aha wa nus. What about the argument that certain rules don't apply to everybody else and only worked for Mohammed (like the special covering for his wives, that some Muslims have inappropriately taken on themselves). This is a separate issue, but let's delve a bit, I'm feeling adventurous. ar-Raheeq al-Makhtoum, a book that you quote sometimes, says that Mohammed had rights as a prophet that people do not, such as in number of wives, types of marriage, etc. This was not the first book to discuss it, and there are many others that make the same argument. If you are right, the next logical step might be dangerous, but we can keep that for a later date.

Uswa hasana in any and all contexts, as you know, except where specifically ruled out (as in the number of marriages). But anyway, fine. No problem. Please produce a citation indicating that Muhammad's example in marrying Aisha is one of prophetic privilege, not to be imitated.

Just doing some thinking...

You flatter yourself.

(Still didn't answer that "find me..." paragraph, huh?

Which one? The one in which you challenge me to find you some Muslim saying he married a child because he read it in Tabari? A silly challenge, because Tabari is not the only source, but anyway, I actually did answer that.

Zarqawi, great. You found a murderer who was fleeing authorities in Jordan (because his Islamic tutors turned him in for being violent, but you won't respond to that)

Are you kidding? I have discussed this at length in many contexts. See, for example, this article, in which I discuss a piece Zarqawi wrote to justify his actions because he was being challenged by Muslims.

http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18242

Unfortunately, as I note in the piece, his theological points have not been clearly or unequivocally repudiated or refuted by moderate Muslims.

...assassinated a reporter and said something to make him sound different than an idiot. Find me the multitude of Muslims who agreed with his justification.

Read Jihad Watch every day, and you'll see them in action around the world. See also here, where 49.9% of Muslims surveyed approve of OBL:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467849587&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

There's no doubt that many Muslims detest all this. Unfortunately, they are not very active against it.

Do you remember the protests against Zarqawi in Pakistan (no, you don't) that said he wasn't Muslim, etc?

Oh, a mind reader, eh? Actually, I remember them better than you do, as I remember that they were in Jordan, not Pakistan, and that they happened after he killed Muslims. No similar protests were made when he killed non-Muslims. Here's something to refresh your memory:

http://washingtontimes.com/world/20051118-110234-2315r.htm

What about the ones in Cairo, and the religious statements from Azhar stating that his actions constituted nothing more than depraved murder?

Yep. Al-Azhar denounced the Berg murder -- although some of the authorities quoted here seem to be more upset about mutilation of the corpse than about the killing itself:

http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2004-05/12/article08.shtml

In any case, this is a thrill, but the thrill is tempered by Al-Azhar's forked tongue -- e.g., Tantawi's approval of suicide attacks in Israel:

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP36302

Some English poetry major had "Ax Ishmael" written on his arm right before he killed a bunch of people. So now he's a follower of a particular English poem, or maybe an admirer of Moby Dick [my English teacher told me he is uswa hasana (a good example) of how far revenge can go], or is he still just a murderer?)

Your English teacher is nuts. Get a new one. In the meantime, Muslims really believe Muhammad is uswa hasana, and your attempt at a reductio ad absurdum won't change that.

(I did deal with your substansive arguments, but you don't respond to them and say later that I didn't say anything about them. Also, glad to hear that everybody's cheering you on...I feel so bad [why would I expect anything else on this site])

Anyone can comment. You're here too. If you don't like what they say, come up with some substantive refutation. Everyone is waiting for you to do that. I'm looking forward to your posting quotes about Aisha from your Beirut edition of Tabari!

Some Muslims are wrong and have evil intentions. You agree with their interpretations and promote an equal response to them. Transitive property applies.

I don't agree with their intepretations. In fact, I have repeated innumerable times that there is no "true" Islam, as Islam has no central authority. But the jihadists present their Islam as the "true" Islam, and moderates have as yet mounted no effective theological response. You certainly haven't.

I must say, I envy your owning that edition. I have an Arabic Tafsir al-Jalalayn printed in Damascus and bought in Beirut, and an Arabic Qur'an in a handsome case, also printed in Damascus, and some other Arabic editions (mostly hadith) from Saudi Arabia, but I don't have the Dara'l-fikr edition of Tabari. You are fortunate! Anyway, I'm looking forward to seeing those Tabari quotes.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

X. Spencer to "Chris":

American/Watcher/Rick S./Chris:
Go ahead and post the Arabic, please, from your Beirut edition of Tabari, so that we can see exactly what it says, but I will now stop teasing you about your tall tales about your library. Let's talk about the matter at hand. The quote you need is actually in the SUNY edition of Tabari in vol. XI, "The Challenge to the Empires," p. 141.

It says that Abu Bakr's 2nd wife "bore him 'Abd al-Rahman and 'A'ishah. All of these four of his children were born in Al-Jahiliyyah from his two wives whom we have named."

This is the major support for Armstrong's case and yours. Yet in The Truth About Muhammad I reported that Aisha was nine, and didn't mention this. Was this because I was selecting the accounts that made the case I wanted to make, as you claim? No. It is because I wanted to provide an accurate portrayal of how mainstream Muslims see Muhammad. Armstrong, and you, dismiss all the evidence that she was nine, primarily because you don't want it to be so. Yet testimony that she was nine appears in Bukhari, which Muslims consider the leading hadith collection, as well as in Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abu Dawud, An-Nasai, and Ibn Majah -- that is, five of the six hadith collections that Muslims consider most reliable (Sahih Sittah).

Islamic theologians will tell you that Tabari does not take precedence over any of those, and in any case, Tabari also records she was nine, in several places -- which multiplicity of testimony indicates a multiplicity of sources, which for Islamic theologians adds a presumption of reliability. The assertion that she was nine also appears in the sira of Ibn Ishaq, as well as in that of Ibn Kathir (I never did get that Ibn Kathir reference from you, by the way.)

Stack up all that, and place against it that Tabari says in one place that Aisha was born in the time of Jahiliyyah. Let's assume that by the time of Jahiliyyah Tabari meant the period before 610, and add in the other scattered passages that suggest -- although none of them ever say directly -- that she was older than nine. Even then you don't have a case, since the testimony of the Sahih Sittah is so overwhelmingly in favor of her having been nine.

Then there is the evidence from the Islamic world, which you dismiss as a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, but which I maintain clearly stems from Muhammad's status as uswa hasana. There is also evidence that mainstream Muslims today believe she was nine -- contrary to your claim. I gave you one above, and now here is more. In al-Mubarakpuri's biography of Muhammad, "The Sealed Nectar," which won first prize in a Muslim World League competition for a biography of Muhammad in 1979 (ooh, 1979), it says this of Aisha: "She was six years old when he married her. However, he did not consummate the marriage with her till Shawwal seven months after Al-Hijra, and that was in Madinah. She was nine then" (p. 483).

Why does al-Mubarakpuri think this? Was he an "Islamophobe"? Why didn't he credit these scraps from Tabari as trumping the testimony of Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, An-Nasai and Ibn Majah? Because that is not how Islamic theology works. The Sahih Sittah have much more weight than Tabari. And that is why in The Truth About Muhammad I reported that Islamic tradition says Aisha was nine. That is also why in that book, as well as in the Financial Times, I charge Armstrong with misrepresenting Tabari by saying that he says the marriage wasn't consummated until she reached puberty, which he never says at all.

Was Aisha nine when the marriage was consummated? I don't know and I don't care. All I care about is what Muslims believe about it, and how that belief affects their actions today. There is abundant evidence that Islamic tradition says she was nine, much more clearly, more often, and in more authoritative sources than those that suggest (but never state) that she was older. There is abundant evidence that all too many Muslims worldwide are acting on that belief and marrying children.

On the basis of all that, I call upon Muslims not to deny that Muhammad's example supports this behavior, but to admit that, and reject him as a literal example to be followed in this particular (as well as others, but that's another story). You then come along and charge me with ignorance for saying that the Islamic sources say she was nine, and assert that Muslims don't really believe this. Well, I have now given you evidence from the Islamic sources and from the behavior of Muslims today that many do. Denial is not what we need -- honest reform is what we need. You are not aiding in this effort; rather, you are obstructing it.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by Robert at May 7, 2007 7:59 AM
Print this entry | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us

Comments
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)

"Otherwise, women will continue to suffer. And Armstrong and "Chris," in attempting to demonstrate that this marriage never happened instead of facing its implications, are abetting that suffering."

This is a vitally important point. The entire apologist industry for Islam is guilty of this. Once its done enough, we can conclude denial is intentional, and the consequences of the denial are intended and even satisfaction taken from them. At a certain point, and its been passed, obfuscation of the truth, ethnic and religious cleansing denial, denial of the role of the Quran and Islamic history in cleansings, becomes simply being an accessory to crimes against humanity.

Posted by: Old Atlantic

at May 7, 2007 9:31 AM

Thank goodness she was at least 13 when Safwan al-Sulami committed zina with her.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen

at May 7, 2007 9:53 AM

pigfarmer-

You are going for a gross-out laugh but unfortunately what you say is true. While the Perfect Man and his wannabes must wait for his little Mountain Flower to turn nine - he is allowed to get pleasure from mutual 'fondling'.

Posted by: poetcomic1

at May 7, 2007 10:08 AM

I love the spirited debate:

R.S 1
An American, et al 0

....I am saving this debate and will study it often....I am sure the content will appear again...

...Muslims hate the truth, especially when the infidels know it...

Posted by: exsgtbrown

at May 7, 2007 10:09 AM

The Left also has a long-standing habit of ignoring embarrassing truths, and crucifying any who dare to bring them up

It's a mental illness for some, where you contradict the illusions of the patient at your peril

For others, it's the anger of the "Three Card Monty" street hustler when somebody points out the scam to the rubes he's trying to con

Posted by: PapaBear

at May 7, 2007 10:16 AM

pigfarmer-

This is way off topic but your nic brought back a vision of hope that I experienced over the weekend. I attended a grade school carnival with my son on Friday. Games, inflatable toys, food and the like to celebrate the coming of spring and the end of the school year. Being this is Minnesotastan, it would have been impossible not to notice the numbers of various tribes of Somalians strolling the halls. Soon I was met face-to-face with a large pig, the mascot of 'Famous Dave's" barbecue. I immediately thought, someone's going to call a fatwa on that pig and a major jihad's going to come down on this grade school staff. How could the be so insensitive? Later on I saw that pig again. This time it was in the gymnasium where the DJ was blasting "We will rock you" (by Queen). To my amazement that damn pig was dancing with on of the Muslim tribes. Bet old Mohammed was rolling over in his grave.

Posted by: Abrog8

at May 7, 2007 10:26 AM

Indeed, why does the Muslim apologist spend his time on boards like this, trying so valiantly and good-naturedly to convince kuffar that what we hear and read all the time from Muslims all over the world, is mistaken? Surely his energy would be far better spent trying to convince his co-religionists that they are mistaken. He has a real opportunity here to become that fabled creature...a Muslim reformer.

Fame and riches await! Concerning this vexatious (to him) question of Aisha's age; perhaps he can start by engaging in a little gentle one-on-one with the heirs of Khomeini?

Posted by: Dane

at May 7, 2007 10:49 AM

Robert, I'm amazed that you wasted so much time and effort on Watcher/Chris/Rick. He is obviously past praying for and confusing him with the facts will only serve to drive him and his ilk into hysterics.

While I appreciate solid information in whatever form it is presented, I can't help thinking of Heinlein's quote in 'Time Enough For Love': "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig."

Posted by: USBeast

at May 7, 2007 11:11 AM

I can't think of a more perverse or disgusting thing than naming your Daughter Aisha.
It's no suprise that it's among the most popular Islamic names, right up there with MO.

Posted by: MoBlows

at May 7, 2007 11:19 AM

Why won't "Chris" and Karen Armstrong believe Aisha?

She say 9.

Trust the person involved over the later commentators, apologists and obfuscators.

I believe Aisha.

Poor kid.

Posted by: profitsbeard

at May 7, 2007 11:23 AM

This pseudo expert’s true nature was summed up in two sentences of his/her post….
1
“Find me these things and then we can talk about Islam being a problem”
As you repeatedly instructed Robert…..
“Just doing some thinking”
Well Chris,
Look around you, stupid, Islam IS a problem, a huge problem.
Mirroring your fellow minded apologists, you also refuse to acknowledge the obvious truth.
2
“By the way, whoopee that Khomeini lowered the marriable age”
The fact that you would trivialise such a perverse act shows you for what you really are, if you were in front of me I would spit in your face.
The only reason I think Robert wastes time on you, is to show others how depraved, people like you really are.

Posted by: Freedom

at May 7, 2007 11:31 AM

OT, but a sign of the growing mainstream skepticism of Islam.

From the National Review:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTFiZTk3ZWE4OWI5OGUwOGMxYWEwNzA0MTcyODg4ZTY=

Posted by: JSobieski

at May 7, 2007 11:48 AM

The poster who may variously sign-on as An American/Watcher/Chris/Rick arrogates to themself superior knowledge, understanding and cognition. For those of us not so quick in the uptake, this poster helpfully signs off with "Just doing some thinking" to emphasize the point. I would like to take this opportunity to thank them for signing off in such a way, because I wasn't sure they were doing much thinking at all.

For instance, there is a little thing called Occam's Razor. This principle states that the simple, direct answer tends to be the best answer in the absence of any strongly contradictory evidence. This principle is a cornerstone of the Western philosophical tradition and stands in opposition to the convoluted thinking upon which conspiracy theory tends to stand. This is not to say that all explanantions are simple but rather explanantions should only be as comlicated as necessary to explain the evidence.

Our hero on the other hand appeals to increasingly esoteric verses in the ahadith to make the point that Aisha may have been much older than the age she herself gives at the time of the consummation of her marriage with the Moslem prophet. Okie-dokie. Then maybe our expert would like to explain why our now teenaged Aisha was still playing with dolls at the time of her marriage, and why her playmates all ran away when the Moslem prophet appeared; all of which is also recounted in the ahadith. I'd love to hear the resolution to this little paradox, although I anticipate only another haboob of factoids with no clear direction.

However, in the meantime I'm afraid that the poster, An American or whoever, is just a self-congratulating blowhard and I wonder why was so much time spent on this person? To borrow from one of my favorite films "This honors the unworthy."

Posted by: Chatillon

at May 7, 2007 12:48 PM

Bullshit is bullshit but the study of bullshit is scholarship.

39 Volumes of Bukhari? Just for Bukhari!

Ah, Islam, a bottomless pit of stupidy and depravity to be studied and researched ad infinitum by its followers. God forbid they might do something useful and productive with their time.

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2

at May 7, 2007 12:55 PM

My goodness, what a spirited debate that was! And surely all of those peace loving, logical thinking muslims will have a thirst after knowledge and a peace that passes all understanding :)

But really, all that research in Bukari. Wow.
I have read 65% of the Quran (first in German, the next time in English) and must say, it is a journey. If I am forced to read just one more convoluted and historically incorrect version of Moses vs. Pharaoh, I may just throw up. Or: and the unbelievers will get their just due, blah blah blah....

Sometimes truth really is stranger than fiction.

Posted by: bonncaruso

at May 7, 2007 1:39 PM

Rick = pwn3d

Posted by: Gnosis

at May 7, 2007 2:12 PM

"The Left also has a long-standing habit of ignoring embarrassing truths, and crucifying any who dare to bring them up"

Now lets have a discussion of the bestiality that the Prophet of God sanctioned. Or is that too sensitive a subject?

Mohammad's depravity went far beyond sex with a 9 year old child.

Posted by: rational

at May 7, 2007 2:17 PM

Spencer wrote: "It is hard, therefore, not to conclude that they reject [many Muslims] this evidence because they do not wish to believe it -- it involves implications they don't wish to contemplate."

Spencer fails to mention another motivation for why many Muslims ostensibly reject this kind of unflattering evidence: through their Islamic instincts woven into their sociocultural psyche, they are reflexively obliged to defend Islam against all perceived attacks, including intellectual attacks, coming from Infidels; and the question of whether these attacks are well-grounded or not, or whether the charges reflect poorly on Islam itself, never enters into their minds: it is all about a visceral and imperviously stubborn defense of what is apodictically and prejudicially perceived to be ipso facto perfect.

Muslims like "Chris" and "sublimer" will stand with their feet dug in to defend a perfect Islam until the cows come home; and though their expressions and locutions have the appearance of an actual human and reasonable discussion, it is no such thing: it is the inexorable operation of a soulless (but not emotionless) machine programmed for self-defense -- nothing more, nothing less.

Posted by: remote_control

at May 7, 2007 2:32 PM

will it change anything if aisha was 6 or 60. mo was, is and will remain a blood thirsty pervert barbarian who atleast married 11 times and had countless afternoon encounters. i can't beleive there are billion people who are willing to die for mo. what a religion, what a god. feel like throwing up.

Posted by: swimmer

at May 7, 2007 3:16 PM

An American/Watcher/Rick/Chris:

You could stop the deception and post as "A Phony Prick". That way you can simplify things.

Posted by: Frank

at May 7, 2007 3:16 PM

AS for MO and Aisha..
You
Silly ,silly infadels...will you ever learn?

The answer is right here;

Book 004, Number 1034:
Abu Huraira reported: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: A woman, an ass and a dog disrupt the prayer, but something like the back of a saddle guards against that.

Woman are the same as dogs to MO...

So what?..you say, we know that..that's a givin'..
But what does that have to do with Mo doing the "wild thing" with Aisha?

Well..look at it this way..
If woman are the same as dogs,
then it make sense that women years are the same as dog years.
So in human years she was 9 but in dog years she was really 49...and him being male.. he goes just by human years..54.

So she was really 49 and he was 54!

http://www.onlineconversion.com/dogyears.htm

Posted by: Joe Schmoe USA

at May 7, 2007 3:36 PM

Alarmed Pig Farmer,
Frank,
Joe Schmoe

Robert has repeatedly asked everybody on this board to stop using the JW site in the sleazy way you're now using it. The reason: it's beneath (way beneath) the general moral tenor of this site, and CAIR just comes on here and quotes YOU guys and attributes the gutter talk you throw out to him.

Please stop it. I am tired of seeing Robert answer for what YOU do.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair

at May 7, 2007 3:44 PM

I think it is very important to note that American/Watcher/Chris/Rick demonstrates the classic argument of the Muslim apologetic. He first puts forth the moral equivalency argument. Secondly, he furthers his argument with the usual ÿou need to read it in Arabic argument. These are standard tactics for the Muslim lurkers on this and other websites. I also like the tactic of using Christian and patriotic nomes de plume to make it look as though they are non-Muslim.

Posted by: detocquevilledisciple

at May 7, 2007 3:46 PM

Muslims cannot disguise the truth from those who know the truth...and Muslims hate the truth...especially when the Infidels know it....

Posted by: exsgtbrown

at May 7, 2007 3:56 PM

Now, about Aisha ...

Robert's point about the writings about Aisha is, I believe, that it is pointless to try to say she wasn't 9 years old when every sleaze from Riyadh to Brixton is using the hadith to say that she was, and to excuse egregious behavior with it.

However, I don't believe this account, and it is one of the reasons that the hadith ALL need to be chucked out, and all these "histories" of Tabari and whomever else as well.

Aisha's age appears NOWHERE in the Qur'an, and if it were an important point it certainly likely would have. The first set of hadith were collected by Bukhari 100-150 years after Muhammad's death, and out of some 600,000 or more he chose just 3,000 thought to have been reasonably respectable in provenance.

However, among these, the ones having to do with Aisha were said to have been "transmitted" from Baghdad, where they were traced to a man in his 70s whose memory was questionable. Also, the "Baghdad" connection is always suspect, since Sunnis there were under "house arrest" and threat most of the time.

Two other things come up: One is that there was GREAT NEED for the Sunnis to establish Aisha as Muhammad's only virgin wife. Khadija, his first, was a widow. Two subsequents wives were also war widows. If Aisha were pre-pubescent at the time of her "consummation", that would prove she was a virgin and therefore the claim of her father, Abu-Bakr as caliph would (somehow!) have legitimacy over the claims of the Persian Ali, despite the fact he was Muhammad's favorite. Some Shi'a even claim that Ali was God himself.

There is dating evidence that is fairly convincing that Aisha was likely 12 to 19 when she married, based on trips of Abu-Bakr's with established dating that indicates she could not have been less than 12 when they returned.

HOWEVER, the major point is this: Until Islamic scholars deal with the hadith and the histories written upon them, women, as Robert says, will continue to suffer. And the BS disseminated by Karen Armstrong that whitewashes the "basis" -- hadith which are HONORED by imams of all schools of Sunni and Shi'a Islam -- of this egregious violation of basic humans rights of women will continue.

It is not for Muslism to condemn Robert for bringing it up to be dealt with. It's for them to throw out the hadith they already know are wrong.

And the second thing to be clear about here is that if Muhammad had actually done this, he would have had his throat slit, because pre-Islamic custom in Arabia absolutely forbade such a practice, and NOBODY -- not even Muhammad -- would have been able to escape ever scimitar after him had he done such a thing.

Child marriage is still a reality in the Muslims communities where evil men use this exoneration to do as they please, and in India, China and Pakistan, though it has been illegal in India since 1929 and is also officially illegal in Pakistan. It is most prevalent in rural areas in India.

And it is growing among Muslim populations as radicalization progresses inside Islamic communities. See films by MEMRI, particularly those from Dispatches.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair

at May 7, 2007 4:00 PM

Morgaan Sinclair-

I think you are a wee bit over reacting, Morgaan. However, I will stop chewing gum in class since the teacher has warned me.

Posted by: Frank

at May 7, 2007 4:01 PM

Frank, you wanna look at what Alarmed Pig Farmer et al. have just written???

This site is not for porn. And what Alarmed Pig Farmer et al. wrote is porn. Yours was mild by comparison, but don't play: You guys get quoted -- with Robert's name attached.

And BTW, why don't you stop taunting me for doing what somebody, anybody on this site, should have done the minute that Alarmed Pig Farmer's sleazy post went up -- including you. Instead of ridiculing me for standing up for Robert's integrity and that of the site, why don't you help me?

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair

at May 7, 2007 4:10 PM

Morgaan Sinclair-

I'm not ridiculing you. In fact, I think there are things about you that are admirable and likable. You are also quite smart. But you are a bit of a school marm. It reminds me of the John Belushi's panic (I think it was in the movie "The Blues Brothers") when he thinks he sees his 6th grade teacher Sister Mary at the top of a stairway. If you are not a teacher, I'll take it all back...

Anyway, I would not ridicule you. You are not to be trifled with...but neither am I to be trifled with...

Posted by: Frank

at May 7, 2007 4:28 PM

Morgaan

I hope to avoid any attacks on you in this thread - provided it's mutual.

For the historical record, Ali was not Persian. He was a Qureish Arab, and married to Mohammed & Khadijah's daughter Fatima. Shia hold him as the rightful successor as they think his family is his rightful line of succession. (The basis is puzzling, since both Abu Baqr and Umar bin Khattab were Mohammed's fathers in law, and thereby related to him as well through marriage, as was Ali). Also, was Hafsa - who married Mohammed when she was 22 - married prior to him? If you don't know, can anyone else answer this - Robert? Hugh? Khaybar Oasis? Profitsbeard?

In fact, Ali was a part of the conquering Arab army that defeated the Sassanids at Qādisiyyah (outside Ctesiphon - near today's Baghdad). So he was definitely not a part of Persian heritage. Reason Shia Farsis claim him as theirs is the marriage of his son Imam Hussein with Shahr Bano, who was thought to be the minor daughter of Yazdgird III - the last Sassanid ruler. However, the historical accuracy of whether the hapless girl who got married to Imam Hussein was actually the daughter of the Sassanid ruler is questionable, since he and his family fled Ctesiphon after the defeat at Qādisiyyah, and his son Firoze fled to Tibet after his death. Given the status of women in Zoroastrian Persia, it's highly unlikely that Yazdgird would have fled with his son, while leaving his daughter behind.

At any rate, the Shia belief that Ali was a legitimate successor to the Sassanids stems from that marriage. Historically, it's as questionable as the evidence you cite of Aisha's age (and that goes into another thorny subject - that of the historical Mohammed, and what he really did, as opposed to the Sunnah accounts. Given that several generations of Muslims devoted their lives to every aspect of his life, I don't share your skepticism that they were wrong.) As to the accounts of Abu Bakr's trips, I wonder what evidence you have that establishes her age at 19?

One last point - if somebody cites Islamic texts, such as Joe Schmoe does above, why is it 'gutter talk' on their part? If people dig up excrement that can be found in Bukhari, and reproduce that here, why would it be defamatory? Like Robert himself says, all the hatred in his writing comes from what he cites, rather than from him. Similarly, if any of us cites material from the Quran or the Hadiths and then comments on it, and CAIR picks it up later, why is it a legitimate complaint on their part, even if they were to attack the original posters, instead of Robert Spencer?

Posted by: Infidel Pride

at May 7, 2007 4:31 PM

Why the intense interest in discrediting what a female herself reports? Granted, the Islamic "method" of reasoning regarding the hadith is utterly comical to anyone even minimally trained in logic, but still, why the burning desire to discredit Aisha's words, and to do so using the same tortured nonsense Muslim clerics apply?

I'll argue Aisha was our first documented Stockholm-syndrome victim; from an molested child, she gradually mutated from protest ("Her skin is greener than her clothes," "I have seen no-one suffer like the believing women," "Your Allah moves swiftly to accomodate your desires," etc.) to the same sort of vicious, violent behavior Mohammed exhibited as a "prophet." Talk about identifying with your abuser.

But set that aside. Mohammed's example of behavior toward women is utterly monstrous even without the allegations of child-rape and pedophilia. This man raped women immediately after murdering their husbands and fathers before their eyes. He kept women prisoner for the purposes of rape, and encouraged his followers to do so. He imagined a Paradise full of female robots and little boys, all endlessly available for sexual use.

He attempted to throw away one of his wives because she was old and ugly and no longer of sexual use to him. He apparently forced some of his wives to watch him having sex with their co-wives. He called women stupid and irreligious because they were forced to live under rules he himself invented (perhaps this form of circular thinking explains Islamic reasoning to this day.) And in the most disgusting case, he ordered a woman to strip (presumably for his sexual pleasure) before ordering her stoned to death for adultery.

Aisha's case is certainly a powerful argument against the inhumanity of Islam, but I find the other examples of his revolting behavior equally persuasive. They certainly indicate a pattern, a pattern which is reflected in the daily lives of Muslim women all over the world.

Muslims should not simply be pressured on the case of Aisha. They should have the facts of Mohammed's behavior toward all women presented to them, and they should be asked, quite politely, if they believe they are entitled to follow Mohammed's example -- and if not, why not?

Posted by: Marwan'sDaughter

at May 7, 2007 4:31 PM

Chucking out the extra-Koranic texts, as Morgaan Sinclair recommends, will not solve the problem of Islam, whose various disgusting and dangerous features are sufficiently present in the Koran itself, such as the divine sanctioning of de facto sex-slavery through spoils of war (4:24) and the divine sanctioning of men beating their wives (4:34).

Furthermore, I doubt that hundreds of millions of Muslims will take the advice of Morgaan Sinclair. Therefore, Islam as it stands is solidly and irretrievably rooted in the extra-Koranic texts in addition to the Koran.

Posted by: remote_control

at May 7, 2007 4:33 PM

Robert, whether Aisha was 9 or not, today's 9 year old muslim girls who are married are being FORCED to, and forced marriages are forbidden in Islam, I'm sure you know that. Back then is different then now, back then there was no schools, jobs or good opportunities for women, so it was better off to marry early and have a person take care of you. Look into Aisha's marriage to prophet Muhhammed and you will see that he more of a mentor to her then her husband, and that's what their marriage was mainly about, it was not about sexual desires. Today's muslim men who want to marry a 9 year old want to marry them only to fullfill their sexual desires, and if people question them they'll use the example of aisha's marriage as an excuse. But like I said above, no 9 year old today would be married off to an old man without it being forced, do you think that 9 year old girl would ever grow up normal?

In the end, these people (with the childbrides) are perverting Islam for their own use.

Posted by: Hizballah_Supporter

at May 7, 2007 4:46 PM

Morgan Sinclair,

Its not Pigfarmer who is 'pornographic' as you claim, it is what Muslims do and feel justified doing.

Watch this, its Arabic, a woman who is being taunted by some TV presenter and towards the end she really lets it fly:

http://terror-watch.net/media/womans_rights_islam.wmv

Posted by: sheik yer'mami

at May 7, 2007 4:46 PM

Correction: he more of a mentor to her then a husband"

Posted by: Hizballah_Supporter

at May 7, 2007 4:54 PM

Correction: he was more of a mentor to her then a husband"

Posted by: Hizballah_Supporter

at May 7, 2007 4:55 PM

The argument about Aisha's age when her marriage was consummated is real interesting. There is a great deal of evidence suggesting she was nine, but there is also suggesting she was 14-15. Muslim scholar Maulana Muhammad Ali wrote about this during the 20's or 30's in his book "Muhammad The Prophet".

Link: www.muslim.org/islam/aisha-age.htm

Age of Aisha at time of marriage with Holy Prophet Muhammad:

It is believed on the authority of some Hadith reports that the marriage ceremony (known as nikah, amounting to betrothal) of Aisha with the Holy Prophet Muhammad took place when she was six years of age, and that she joined the Holy Prophet as his wife three years later at the age of nine. We quote below from two such reports in Bukhari.

“It is reported from Aisha that she said: The Prophet entered into marriage with me when I was a girl of six … and at the time [of joining his household] I was a girl of nine years of age.”

“Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed [alone] for two years or so. He married Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consummated that marriage when she was nine years old.” [3]

As to the authenticity of these reports, it may be noted that the compilers of the books of Hadith did not apply the same stringent tests when accepting reports relating to historical matters as they did before accepting reports relating to the practical teachings and laws of Islam. The reason is that the former type of report was regarded as merely of academic interest while the latter type of report had a direct bearing on the practical duties of a Muslim and on what was allowed to them and what was prohibited. Thus the occurrence of reports such as the above about the marriage of Aisha in books of Hadith, even in Bukhari, is not necessarily a proof of their credibility.

Determination of the true age of Aisha:

It appears that Maulana Muhammad Ali was the first Islamic scholar directly to challenge the notion that Aisha was aged six and nine, respectively, at the time of her nikah and consummation of marriage. This he did in, at least, the following writings: his English booklet Prophet of Islam, his larger English book Muhammad, the Prophet, and in the footnotes in his voluminous Urdu translation and commentary of Sahih Bukhari entitled Fadl-ul-Bari, these three writings being published in the 1920s and 1930s. In the booklet Prophet of Islam, which was later incorporated in 1948 as the first chapter of his book Living Thoughts of the Prophet Muhammad, he writes in a lengthy footnote as follows:

“A great misconception prevails as to the age at which Aisha was taken in marriage by the Prophet. Ibn Sa‘d has stated in the Tabaqat that when Abu Bakr [father of Aisha] was approached on behalf of the Holy Prophet, he replied that the girl had already been betrothed to Jubair, and that he would have to settle the matter first with him. This shows that Aisha must have been approaching majority at the time. Again, the Isaba, speaking of the Prophet’s daughter Fatima, says that she was born five years before the Call and was about five years older than Aisha. This shows that Aisha must have been about ten years at the time of her betrothal to the Prophet, and not six years as she is generally supposed to be. This is further borne out by the fact that Aisha herself is reported to have stated that when the chapter [of the Holy Quran] entitled The Moon, the fifty-fourth chapter, was revealed, she was a girl playing about and remembered certain verses then revealed. Now the fifty-fourth chapter was undoubtedly revealed before the sixth year of the Call. All these considerations point to but one conclusion, viz., that Aisha could not have been less than ten years of age at the time of her nikah, which was virtually only a betrothal. And there is one report in the Tabaqat that Aisha was nine years of age at the time of nikah. Again it is a fact admitted on all hands that the nikah of Aisha took place in the tenth year of the Call in the month of Shawwal, while there is also preponderance of evidence as to the consummation of her marriage taking place in the second year of Hijra in the same month, which shows that full five years had elapsed between the nikah and the consummation. Hence there is not the least doubt that Aisha was at least nine or ten years of age at the time of betrothal, and fourteen or fifteen years at the time of marriage.” [4] (Bolding is mine.)

To facilitate understanding dates of these events, please note that it was in the tenth year of the Call, i.e. the tenth year after the Holy Prophet Muhammad received his calling from God to his mission of prophethood, that his wife Khadija passed away, and the approach was made to Abu Bakr for the hand of his daughter Aisha. The hijra or emigration of the Holy Prophet to Madina took place three years later, and Aisha came to the household of the Holy Prophet in the second year after hijra. So if Aisha was born in the year of the Call, she would be ten years old at the time of the nikah and fifteen years old at the time of the consummation of the marriage.

Later research:

Research subsequent to the time of Maulana Muhammad Ali has shown that she was older than this. An excellent short work presenting such evidence is the Urdu pamphlet Rukhsati kai waqt Sayyida Aisha Siddiqa ki umar (‘The age of Lady Aisha at the time of the start of her married life’) by Abu Tahir Irfani.[4a] Points 1 to 3 below have been brought to light in this pamphlet.

1. The famous classical historian of Islam, Ibn Jarir Tabari, wrote in his ‘History’:

“In the time before Islam, Abu Bakr married two women. The first was Fatila daughter of Abdul Uzza, from whom Abdullah and Asma were born. Then he married Umm Ruman, from whom Abdur Rahman and Aisha were born. These four were born before Islam.” [5]

Being born before Islam means being born before the Call.

2. The compiler of the famous Hadith collection Mishkat al-Masabih, Imam Wali-ud-Din Muhammad ibn Abdullah Al-Khatib, who died 700 years ago, has also written brief biographical notes on the narrators of Hadith reports. He writes under Asma, the older daughter of Abu Bakr:

“She was the sister of Aisha Siddiqa, wife of the Holy Prophet, and was ten years older than her. … In 73 A.H. … Asma died at the age of one hundred years.” [6]

(Go here to see an image of the full entry in Urdu.)

This would make Asma 28 years of age in 1 A.H., the year of the Hijra, thus making Aisha 18 years old in 1 A.H. So Aisha would be 19 years old at the time of the consummation of her marriage, and 14 or 15 years old at the time of her nikah. It would place her year of birth at four or five years before the Call.

3. The same statement is made by the famous classical commentator of the Holy Quran, Ibn Kathir, in his book Al-bidayya wal-nihaya:

“Asma died in 73 A.H. at the age of one hundred years. She was ten years older than her sister Aisha.” [7]

Apart from these three evidences, which are presented in the Urdu pamphlet referred to above, we also note that the birth of Aisha being a little before the Call is consistent with the opening words of a statement by her which is recorded four times in Bukhari. Those words are as follows:

“Ever since I can remember (or understand things) my parents were following the religion of Islam.” [8]

This is tantamount to saying that she was born sometime before her parents accepted Islam but she can only remember them practising Islam. No doubt she and her parents knew well whether she was born before or after they accepted Islam, as their acceptance of Islam was such a landmark event in their life which took place just after the Holy Prophet received his mission from God. If she had been born after they accepted Islam it would make no sense for her to say that she always remembered them as following Islam. Only if she was born before they accepted Islam, would it make sense for her to say that she can only remember them being Muslims, as she was too young to remember things before their conversion. This is consistent with her being born before the Call, and being perhaps four or five years old at the time of the Call, which was also almost the time when her parents accepted Islam.

Two further evidences cited by Maulana Muhammad Ali:

In the footnotes of his Urdu translation and commentary of Sahih Bukhari, entitled Fadl-ul-Bari, Maulana Muhammad Ali had pointed out reports of two events which show that Aisha could not have been born later than the year of the Call. These are as follows.

1. The above mentioned statement by Aisha in Bukhari, about her earliest memory of her parents being that they were followers of Islam, begins with the following words in its version in Bukhari’s Kitab-ul-Kafalat. We quote this from the English translation of Bukhari by M. Muhsin Khan:

“Since I reached the age when I could remember things, I have seen my parents worshipping according to the right faith of Islam. Not a single day passed but Allah’s Apostle visited us both in the morning and in the evening. When the Muslims were persecuted, Abu Bakr set out for Ethiopia as an emigrant.” [9]

Commenting on this report, Maulana Muhammad Ali writes:

“This report sheds some light on the question of the age of Aisha. … The mention of the persecution of Muslims along with the emigration to Ethiopia clearly shows that this refers to the fifth or the sixth year of the Call. … At that time Aisha was of an age to discern things, and so her birth could not have been later than the first year of the Call.” [10]

Again, this would make her more than fourteen at the time of the consummation of her marriage.

2. There is a report in Sahih Bukhari as follows:

“On the day (of the battle) of Uhud when (some) people retreated and left the Prophet, I saw Aisha daughter of Abu Bakr and Umm Sulaim, with their robes tucked up so that the bangles around their ankles were visible hurrying with their water skins (in another narration it is said, ‘carrying the water skins on their backs’). Then they would pour the water in the mouths of the people, and return to fill the water skins again and came back again to pour water in the mouths of the people.” [11]

Maulana Muhammad Ali writes in a footnote under this report:

“It should also be noted that Aisha joined the Holy Prophet’s household only one year before the battle of Uhud. According to the common view she would be only ten years of age at this time, which is certainly not a suitable age for the work she did on this occasion. This also shows that she was not so young at this time.” [12]

If, as shown in the previous section above, Aisha was nineteen at the time of the consummation of her marriage, then she would be twenty years old at the time of the battle of Uhud. It may be added that on the earlier occasion of the battle of Badr when some Muslim youths tried, out of eagerness, to go along with the Muslim army to the field of battle, the Holy Prophet Muhammad sent them back on account of their young age (allowing only one such youngster, Umair ibn Abi Waqqas, to accompany his older brother the famous Companion Sa‘d ibn Abi Waqqas). It seems, therefore, highly unlikely that if Aisha was ten years old the Holy Prophet would have allowed her to accompany the army to the field of battle.

We conclude from all the evidence cited above that Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) was nineteen years old when she joined the Holy Prophet as his wife in the year 2 A.H., the nikah or betrothal having taken place five years previously.

Footnotes: [3]. Bukhari, Book of Qualities of the Ansar, chapter: ‘The Holy Prophet’s marriage with Aisha, and his coming to Madina and the consummation of marriage with her’. Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234 and 236.

[4]. Living Thoughts of the Prophet Muhammad, 1992 U.S.A. edition, p. 30, note 40.

[4a]. This Urdu pamphlet was published by the Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha‘at Islam, Bombay, India. A partial English translation is available at this Lahore Ahmadiyya website.

[5]. Tarikh Tabari, vol. 4, p. 50.

[6]. Mishkat al-Masabih, Edition with Urdu translation published in Lahore, 1986, vol. 3, p. 300–301.

[7]. Vol. 8, p. 346.

[8]. Those four places in Sahih Bukhari are the following: Kitab-us-Salat, ch. ‘A mosque which is in the way but does not inconvenience people’; Kitab-ul-Kafalat, ch. ‘Abu Bakr under the protection of a non-Muslim in the time of the Holy Prophet and his pact with him’; Kitab Manaqib-ul-Ansar, ch. ‘Emigration of the Holy Prophet and his Companions to Madina’; and Kitab-ul-Adab, ch. ‘Should a person visit everyday, or morning and evening’.

[9]. Muhsin Khan’s English translation of Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 37, Number 494.

[10]. Fadl-ul-Bari, vol. 1, p. 501, footnote 1.

[11]. Sahih Bukhari, Kitab-ul-Jihad wal-Siyar, Chapter: ‘Women in war and their fighting alongside men’. Volume 4, Book 52, Number 131.

[12]. Fadl-ul-Bari, vol. 1, p. 651.

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

Anybody care to add to it or refute it?

Posted by: WAT_123

at May 7, 2007 5:19 PM

Later on I saw that pig again. This time it was in the gymnasium where the DJ was blasting "We will rock you" (by Queen). To my amazement that damn pig was dancing with on of the Muslim tribes. Bet old Mohammed was rolling over in his grave.

Oh don't be so sure, now. I've received several secret trasmissions from disgruntled Islamic scholars at al-Azar University containing ancient documents proving that Mohammed would frequently have Aisha fry up BLT sandwiches on the Coleman stove in the tent, before sunrise. Hungry from a hot thighing session, the two of them would hurriedly gobble down the sandwiches and bury the pork grease in the sand before the Companions --- olfactorally challenged as unwashed folk --- were able to get a whiff and became suspicious of their great leader.

* 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 *

Betcha Mohammed would really chow down on the spare ribs at Famous Dave's.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer

at May 7, 2007 5:44 PM

WAT-123:

Maulana Muhammad Ali published Muhammad the Prophet in 1924. And it's a good thing he did! For 1300 years Muslims had believed Aisha was nine when she married Muhammad -- good thing Maulana Muhammad Ali came along to clear up the matter!

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch

at May 7, 2007 5:46 PM

Sheikh Yer_mamy or whatever ...

What Alarmed Pig Farmer wrote is PORN. That I say it's PORN does NOT condone, exonerate or grant moral equivalency to the abuse of women by Muslims.

But it also does not mean that I do not defend Robert against people who cause him trouble and I also do not shut up about this kind of sleaze on websites. I am offended and angered by it.

And I am surprised and shocked that instead you jump somebody who wants to keep this discussion in some kind of dignity -- RATHER THAN DOING WHAT YOU JUST DID, WHICH WAS SUPPORT SLEAZE TALK ON SOMEBODY ELSE'S WEBSITE.

Jeez.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair

at May 7, 2007 5:46 PM

Hizbullah_Supporter ...

You can try this whitewash until the sun burns out, and the only thing that's going to work is when the GOOD Muslims shut down the sleazoids in London who preach taking 9-year-old girls in the mosque ... and when the eight madhabhs ILLEGALIZE every single hadith inimical to women, declare the death penalty for honor killing and FGM, stop pretending that forcing women into cover and breeding them like cattle is OK, stop suicide bombing everybody, stop imposing religion on people who don't want it, and stop shooting journalists at the Iran-Iraq border who are exposing Hizbollah's terrorist smuggling and gunrunning.

Any questions?

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair

at May 7, 2007 5:49 PM

Look, basically, these reports of what "Aisha said" surfaced sometime between the time Mohammad died and about 800 AD. I don't believe a word of it. I don't believe half the Qur'an is original to the time of Muhammad. Pre-Islamic mythology shows up ALL OVER the Qur'an, and is certainly not original to the book.

The only thing that is going to work here is that Muslim leaders stop pretending this stuff is "channeled" straight from the source. Some of it can be credited to Muhammad, some to pre-Islamic mythology, and a VERY GREAT DEAL to the warlords who took over Islam within 50 years of its his death and then invented whatever they wanted to satisfy their own personal predelictions and political desires.

Therefore, I don't care what Muhammad Ali had to say about it. I care that the Muslim leaders of the madhabhs DECRY it and learn the art and craft of excommunication, which although badly used many times in the past, has its points.

'Til then, I would like the Muslims who lurk these boards to get off it.

You spend your time throwing rocks at Westerners who have EVERY RIGHT to explore the ideology that radical terrorists QUOTE as they are beheading, raping, torturing, bombing, and terrorizing in the name of your religion.

Go fight them. Find a spine, and go fight them instead of getting ever-so in your ego that you can take a pot-shot on somebody on an internet site under a false name.

Grow a spine and go over and fight these guys where they live, and stop expecting us to fight for you.

The hell with you.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair

at May 7, 2007 5:59 PM

I used to sleep with an older woman, she taught me a lot. Does that make her a mentor in Hezbollah’s thinking? Or was it all about the pleasure?

Posted by: Mert

at May 7, 2007 6:02 PM

Research subsequent to the time of Maulana Muhammad Ali has shown that she was older than this. An excellent short work presenting such evidence is the Urdu pamphlet Rukhsati kai waqt Sayyida Aisha Siddiqa ki umar (‘The age of Lady Aisha at the time of the start of her married life’) by Abu Tahir Irfani.[4a] [4a]. This Urdu pamphlet was published by the Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha‘at Islam, Bombay, India. A partial English translation is available at this Lahore Ahmadiyya website.

WAT_123

The above citation seems to be an Ahmadiya invention, going by the citation above. We all know how mainstream they are in Islam: the OIC categorically classifies them as heretics, and in Pakistan, they are forced to document themselves in their passports as non-Muslims.

True - they may consider themselves Muslims every bit as much as Sunnis and Shia, and Naseem here shows good evidence of that. As Infidels, we don't doubt it - we recognize Ahmadiya just as inimical to us as other Muslims: if there ever were to be an Ahmadiya country, it would be as much of a hellhole as any other Sunni/Shia country.

But that aside, the above citation alone is enough to get rejected by all mainstream Muslims. As Robert points out, it was published in 1924, and there is no way that Sunnis or Shias will accept that over the narrations of Aisha herself in Bukhari and Muslim(?).

Posted by: Infidel Pride

at May 7, 2007 6:03 PM

I support Morgaan's point about keeping our comments clean and reasonable. I believe that is what Robert wants and what will best support what we should be trying to do: inform the world of the truth about islam.

Chris/Rick/Whatever needs to understand the main point: it doesn't actually matter what age we think Aisha was. What matters is what age islamists think she was.

Posted by: Lili

at May 7, 2007 6:05 PM

Thanks, Lili ...

And I agree. And I think that's Robert's point, too. They quote these passages when they force a 10-year-old girl into cover and threaten to beat her if she doesn't comply. They quote these passages when they advocate sex with children. The quote these passages when they kill.

Yet how very "holy" the average Muslim feels coming onto this site -- congratulating themselves for defending Islam!!! How proud they feel! How very better-than-thou they feel! How very holier-than-thou they feel!

No, defending Islam is DEMANDING (at the risk of your life, as it is the risk of our lives!) that people stop this butchery and women-slavery in the name of God.

Some imams are now privately saying that they believe the religion will be entirely destroyed from within and illegalized all over the world in 50 years. And that likely the radicals will stage a nuclear attack on the United States that will be answered in nuclear fashion, destroying the religion forever. Some feel that Islam will go down in history as the worst religion in the history of the world, and that this generation of Muslims will be counted as the worst generation that ever lived and destroyed the religion.

OR ... AS THE QUR'AN SAYS ... THE DESTRUCTION OF ISLAM WILL COME OUT OF THE NEJD.

You listening, Hezbullah????? You listening?

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair

at May 7, 2007 6:20 PM

WAT_123

Thanks for your exposition. But it's left me even further confused.

My confusion is simply put: What is one to do with verses from Bukhari, such as 5:58:234, 7:62:64, 7:66:65 and 8:73:151, all of which, in Aisha's voice, describe her encounters as a child with the Moslem prophet? Some of them describe her betrothal at the age of six with the consummation at the age of nine, being taken from the swing on which she was playing. Others describe how the Moslem prophet would come to watch her play dolls with her girlfriends. The accounts go on and on and all sound pretty creepy to me, if you don't mind me saying so.

So which account is the accurate one, Bukhari's or Maulana Muhammad Ali's? If Ali's account is the accurate one, then Bukhari has been shown to be at least untrustworthy and perhaps even a liar. And if this is so, why has it taken so long to make such a discovery? Offhand, it leads one to wonder what other untruths might lie within the ahadith.

But if Ali's account turns out to be the fabrication, then his efforts betray a very telling uneasiness with the truth. For good reason.

Posted by: Chatillon

at May 7, 2007 6:23 PM

Sheikh Yer'Mami ...

Thanks for the link ... To everybody else. The link posted by SYM above is Great. Here it is again:

http://terror-watch.net/media/womans_rights_islam.wmv

For those who don't know who this is ... She's GHADA JAMSHEER (they got her name wrong on the subtitles). She is a Bahraini woman who has fought very successful battles against shari'a courts for women who divorce and want custody for their children. She is CONSTANTLY sued by everybody! And she won't give up. She's as smart as Nonie Darwish and with considerably more fire to her, which I'd say she needs.

She is MAGNIFICENT, and she is indicative of a whole new breed of Islamic feminist who needs our very real support.

Thanks, Sheikh. I appreciate it.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair

at May 7, 2007 6:31 PM

‘What matters is what age islamists think she was.’

What’s that age then? 16, 39, 72? The problem with Islam is that it can mean anything you want depending on your interpretation and political view.

Is it a religion of peace or war? Does it allow a secular government? The Turkish military seems to think it does.

Does a Muslim mother in Yorkshire want her child to self detonate? Who’s more Islamic, him or her?

So does it matter what age Aisha was? I’d say not a lot personally. Muhammad wasn’t the first person in history to set standards that today we would baulk at. The BBC would overload in a panicked frenzy if it was reporting the world our ancestors inhabited, never mind Muhammad’s caravan raiding antics and small child preferences.

Can you imagine the BBC correspondent in Deva twisting his toga in disgust as another slave got fed to the lions? He’d be the lions light lunch for complaining.

I’m not standing up for that man; I detest the idea of what he did. But I also detest the idea of Catholic priests hiding up chimneys and Buddhists setting themselves on fire.

At the end of the day I believe that Sun Tzu wrote a book of war that stands up today, but Mohammad wrote a book of total war.

Posted by: Mert

at May 7, 2007 6:49 PM

I have read the discussions back and forth and read the citations. An ordeal, I'll tell ya.
Citing "research" done in 1920 must include the biography of the person doing the research. Imagine two hypothetical biographies of Bill Clinton that will be written twenty years after his death. One biographer leaves out every thing associated with Monica Lewinski. Another biographer devotes two or more chapters to the sordid events. Why would the Lewinski episode be ignored? Why would another writer pen two or more chapters? The same is true with latter day writers about Mohammed.

If Aisha said she was nine, then, dammit, she was nine, or else could not count to ten.

Islam is what modern Muslim clerics say it is. If the Ayatollah Khomeni(sic?)lowered the marrying age to nine, then one must believe that he had a sound basis for doing so.

Hey Chris, WAT_123, follow this link, http://islamqa.com/index.php?ref=1493&ln=eng&txt=marrying%20age , then you two can contact the dispenser of this opinion and tell him how wrong he is. Lay it on thick, now. When you compose your letter to Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid, you can use the same arguments you used in the debate with Mr Spenser. Good luck.

Posted by: Pelayo

at May 7, 2007 7:05 PM

Doctors split on hymen repairs

“We get more and more women coming in and saying that their brothers or fathers will kill them if they find out they’ve slept with a man. But it’s important to say no, because if we don’t we’re giving in to the fundamentalists,” Professor Lansac said.

http://sheikyermami.com/2007/05/07/france-as-fundamentalist-islam-spreads-so-does-demand-for-hymen-repair/

Posted by: sheik yer'mami

at May 7, 2007 7:39 PM

I've now twice read the whole debate between Spencer and Rick/Chris/Watcher/An American and found I understood it a whole lot better the second time around.

One thing that became clearer on second reading was how badly Spencer spanked Watcher in that debate. The first time I read the thing it was sometimes difficult to follow some of the arcane references, not to mention the occasionally tortured syntax of Watcher.

Posted by: traeh

at May 7, 2007 8:32 PM

Thank you Sheik yer'mami for the conclusive link.

"In summary, then, it is permitted to contract marriage with a young girl and to hand her over to her husband to stay with him before she reaches adolescence. As for consummating the marriage, this does not happen until she is physically able for it. Thus the matter becomes quite clear. Do you see anything wrong with a man living with his young wife in one house, bringing her up and teaching her, but delaying consummation until she is ready for it? We ask Allaah to show us truth and falsehood and to make each clear. And Allaah knows best."

Modern scholarship and the Dr. Abigal Imam agree. 9 years old, but she was ready...

kind of like, you know, "she was asking for it" to justify rape.

And Spencer knows best!

Why would watcher, WAT_123, et al. imply that such a learned man, with far more credentials, was not correctly quoting and interpreting the document? He agrees with Spencer and proves that modern society is negatively impacted by this justification of child rape. Just thinking...

Posted by: Sashland

at May 7, 2007 8:48 PM

Robert Spencer wrote:

...testimony that she was nine appears in Bukhari, which Muslims consider the leading hadith collection, as well as in Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abu Dawud, An-Nasai, and Ibn Majah -- that is, five of the six hadith collections that Muslims consider most reliable (Sahih Sittah).

Spencer makes the additional point that Muslims are far from considering Tabari (whom Watcher uses as his chief evidence) as important as the Sahih Sittah, but in any event, Tabari himself explicitly refers to Aisha as 9! Watcher, on the other hand, has to use an uncertain definition of when the period of pre-Islamic ignorance ("Jahiliyya") ended, so that he can make some uncertain deductions that Aisha was older than 9, even though nowhere does Tabari explicitly state that she was older. Did pre-Islamic ignorance end with the Iqraa or first revelation? Did it end with the Hijra to Medina? Did it end ten years after arriving in Medina? And then a clincher came when Robert also pointed out that Qutb said that even today some Muslims live in "Jahili" nations, still in the period of pre-Islamic ignorance. So that Watcher's argument was shown to be founded on a quicksand-like assumption.

But the bottom line for Robert was not to establish how old Aisha "really" was. He doesn't know and doesn't care how old she was. He merely wanted to establish what most Muslims believe and why they believe it.

Posted by: traeh

at May 7, 2007 8:56 PM

It would be great for Robert Spencer at some point to publish some of his debates in book form. Contests draw large audiences: the Olympics, a race, a boxing match. Because of the drama of not foreseeing the end with certainty, and because the competition forces competitors to be so on their toes, the audience gets sucked in.

After seeing this debate, don't you just know Spencer would be able to do the same to Armstrong, and don't you know she knows that and so will shy away from any direct debate with him?

Posted by: traeh

at May 7, 2007 9:07 PM

Hells-bells-lala-supporter says that forced marriages are forbidden in Islam - in that case Mohammedans must have a lot of practice in carefully distinguishing between an arranged marriage and a forced marriage, which is clever of them, because the British authorities have given up. The Metropolitan police, fed up of fobbing of a couple of hundred hysterical Muslim girls a year appealing to them for help pressured the government to make forced marriage illegal. Consular posts in Bangladesh and Pakistan were also complaining about having to sort out cases of fugitive young brides to be or, let's face it, victims of marital rape.Under pressure from the Muslim lobby the government decided that it was too difficult to tell the difference between a forced and an arranged marriage and failed to ban them. If forced marriages are against Islam
1/ Provide the strict definition of forced marriage in Islam, no doubt accompanied by detailed discussion around the subject by Muslim scholars
2/Tell Muslims what it is and tell them to stop it.
3/Tell the British government what it is so they can prevent it.

Actually, forget 3 - the UK government should ignore Muslim opinion and prevent it anyway.

Posted by: wallyUK

at May 7, 2007 9:11 PM

Marwan'sDaughter wrote:

[Muhammad]raped women immediately after murdering their husbands and fathers before their eyes.

MD:
I have heard this before but don't really know the sources well enough to be able to use it in criticizing Islam, so would be grateful if you could refer me to the source/s Muslims consider most reliable for this particula