5. “Could you comment on Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha when she was nine years old?”
Azzi: “Oh my goodness. What makes you think Aisha was nine years old?”
Questioner: ”It says so, in the Hadith of Bukhari, 5, Book 58, number 234.” (A look of anguish passes quickly over Azzi’s face, as he realizes he’s now dealing with someone Who Knows Too Much.)
Azzi: Do all you folks know what the Hadith are? No? Okay, let me explain. They’re the stories about Muhammad, what he did and what he said. There are many different collections of Hadith, and some are considered more reliable than others. Buhkari is considered to be one of the two most reliable Hadith scholars.
Bukhari wrote what he did about Aisha being nine, but there’s several things to consider. First, marriage had to be between consenting adults. Marriage in Islam is a civil contract — the Arabic word is meesaaq (4:21), and it can only be between persons who are intellectually and physically mature enough to understand and fulfill the responsibilities of such a contract. That means they both had to be adults. And the girl certainly had to have reached puberty. Some Muslim scholars believe, on the basis of all the evidence, including the age of Aisha’s sister Asma, that Bukhari miscalculated Aisha’s age, and that she was, in fact, 19.
I’m no scholar of the Hadith, but I know that all of them, including even Bukhari, could make mistakes. I can only say that I would be flabbergasted and outraged if I thought Muhammad would have married a nine-year-old girl. I find the work of modern Muslim scholars, who believe she was much older, to be pretty convincing. I think it’s one of those questions to which we’ll never get a final answer. The Islamophobes will keep saying “nine years old, nine years old,” while the scholars of Islam will carefully weigh all the evidence, as to the onset of puberty, and as to when a girl was considered to be an “adult” capable of entering into a marriage contract. These modern scholars offer a more nuanced and plausible answer. And let’s not forget that in Medieval Europe, for dynastic reasons, Christian girls of the ruling class could be married at the age of eleven or twelve to boys not much older. That might have some bearing on Aisha’s real age. I was always taught that she was 19.
Yes, again in the back.
6. “I’d like to ask you about the Verse of the Sword. It reads as follows: ‘When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful.’ Of course, if they “repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy” means that they have become Muslims, saying the Five Daily Prayers and paying the Zakat. But what happens if they don’t?”
Azzi:
Well, I see you’ve chosen one of the seemingly most disturbing verses in the Qur’an. I admit, the words, on the face of it, are deeply troubling. That’s why Qur’an commentators are so important; they help us get beyond what seems to be the literal meaning. We need the context to understand those verses correctly. Read over that verse. You are supposed to “slay the idolaters wherever you find them.” Who are the “idolaters”? They’re the people who were fighting Muhammad at that time. Fight those idolaters, do what you can to defeat them. It’s a kind of war-cry, designed to whip up fervor among your own troops. But the Islamophobes want you to believe, without the slightest evidence, that “idolaters” is supposed to refer to non-Muslims today, right now, and also to refer to all those people who, over the past 1400 years, were non-Muslims, even if they were on the other side of the globe. Does this verse really mean Muslims should slay people who had never met a Muslim in their whole lives, much less tried to oppose them in any way? Doesn’t it make more sense to take this verse, as I do, and as all mainstream Muslims do, as referring only to enemies whom the Muslims were fighting 1400 years ago? Or do you think it makes more sense to believe what the nut-jobs of ISIS and Al-Qaeda and their mirror images, the Islamophobes, maintain? Why should we take their word for it and assume that the word “idolaters’ means all non-Muslims, everywhere, for all time, instead of referring only to the enemies they were fighting at that very moment? I regard that definition of “enemies” — everyone, everywhere, for all time, who wasn’t a Muslim — to be sheer madness. If that were true, why wouldn’t the 57 Muslim-majority countries be in a state of permanent war against all the non-Muslim countries? And why wouldn’t the millions of Muslims all over Europe and the United States be trying to “kill the idolaters” — the very non-Muslims with whom their kids go to school, with whom they work, with whom they play sports or collaborate with on community projects, who are their neighbors and, as I know from a lifetime of such unforgettable experiences in New Hampshire, their friends?
Just look around and you can see that the verses you referred to, and the others like them, must refer to specific enemies in 7th century Arabia. That’s why it’s so important, as I say, that we not take the Qur’an literally or apply it to broadly. The Muslims who think those verses apply to non-Muslims today are the ISIS types. Nothing can be done to disabuse them of their view — they’re fanatics — so they just have to be fought. Don’t even try to reason with them. And we mainstream Muslims are fighting their nonsense, both inside and outside the Muslim community. Believe me, we are doing everything we can to consign the ISIS and Al-Qaeda madmen to the dustbin of history. And we are taking our case, too, to non-Muslims, so that they don’t lose faith in us or what we stand for — a tolerant, inclusive Islam, the kind that flourished in Islamic Spain where Christians, Jews, and Muslims got along so well, in what used to be called the “convivencia.” I hope that answers your question.
Any more? Remember, I want you to ask me anything.
James Lincoln says
Thank you Mr. Fitzgerald.
To all Jihad Watch readers:
Look up some of his Robert Azzi’s past articles in the Portsmouth Herald, a very liberal New Hampshire newspaper. It would be a full-time job to carefully refute his articles with evidence-based fact. There are occasional letters to the editor – but it is an uphill battle because the paper is so biased.
The general public is being severely misled – and I’m very afraid that there are many gullible people in the southern New Hampshire region who may actually be falling for the constant endless stream of propaganda that Robert Azzi pushes – aided and abetted by the Portsmouth Herald.
Someone with the expertise necessary should take this on.
gravenimage says
Thank you, James.
Agostino Armo Pellegrini says
I haven’t opened a logic book in about 15 years, but I know fallacious talk when I hear it. Azzi’s style of argument seems to rely heavily on equivocation, obfuscation, and avoiding the issue.
For example, when Azzi was asked a question about one of the “slay the idolaters” verses he responds with a series of equivocating and obfuscating questions, like,
Does this verse really mean Muslims should slay people who had never met a Muslim in their whole lives, much less tried to oppose them in any way?~Azzi
–First, we need to clarify an important fact, muslims consider our mere “unbelief” to be in opposition to islam which has resulted in a panoply of jihad assaults against us. So Azzi is talking fallacious here with his inbuilt presumption that we non-muslims are not “opposed” to islam, which is of course false because islam declares every non-muslim to be in opposition with their unbelief. This is not due to any fault of our own, but to the inherent bigotry and intolerance of islam that muslims live for, hence the multitude of terror attacks against us. So, to get back to your obfuscating question, Azzi, the good and moral answer is “no,” they shouldn’t slay people they haven’t met and who don’t oppose them. But the fact is THEY DO, because they consider non-muslims to be “infidels” and “idolaters” that oppose the will of allah with their unbelief. Azzi simply answered the question with another complex question to obscure the fact that the majority of muslims consider our unbelief to be a threat they must confront at every level up to and including terrorism for some. So Azzi is doubly wrong with his “answer,” because it’s based on the false assumption that we non-muslims aren’t in “opposition” to islam with our unbelief when in fact to faithful muslims we are; and secondly, he conveniently ignores the millions in history who have died and suffered for the same doctrinal-based bigotry that compels muslims to this very day. I mean, this is a monumental and deliberate oversight on Azzi’s part, his only excuse for not knowing all this might be that he is severely retarded which he clearly isn’t.
Doesn’t it make more sense to take this verse, as I do, and as all mainstream Muslims do, as referring only to enemies whom the Muslims were fighting 1400 years ago? ~Azzi
–Just another rhetorical question to evade the ugly truth about islam. Also, show me the empirical evidence that ALL “mainstream muslims” agree with your interpretation of that verse. Your claim is absurd on its face. But that absurd hasty generalization aside, you notice how Azzi evades the issue with a pondering exegetical question? never mind the 1400 years of genocidal war, terrorism, and social prejudice islam’s violent verses have actually inspired, let’s just do some moral pleading with a tangential question that evades the bloody facts. Just another diversionary tactic by a taqiyya master. That’s funny, Azzi, I thought we were talking about one of islam’s violent verses and the terror muslims do, but suddenly it’s about you and how ALL “mainstream muslims” agree with your peaceful interpretation. How did you get so far off track in the discussion and end up in hyperbolic La La land? Is it because you’re a sneaky propagandist for islam?
And I like this one,
Just look around and you can see that the verses you referred to, and the others like them, must refer to specific enemies in 7th century Arabia.~Azzi
–That must be some kind of Freudian slip, Azzi, because when I look around I see mass rape of infidels, dangerous enclaves, honor killings, gays getting thrown off buildings, unjust stonings and imprisonment, rampant antisemitism, sexual mutilation of girls, suppression of free speech and individual liberty, with terrorism and murder against innocents for islam–that’s the short list. We can see all too clearly who is considered the “specific enemies” of islam, it’s the ones who have been murdered, tortured, and raped by the millions. You must be “looking around” in a dark cave, Azzi, cuz in the day of light islam is far FAR worse, to the point of catastrophic evil.
You have no respect for the truth, Azzi, no concern for the pain islam causes, and obviously no spiritual discernment. Let’s just pin the tail on that donkey and call it a “religion of peace,” that’s your level of concern. You don’t give a damn who dies or who suffers, you just want to play the role of peaceful mediator who runs from life-saving truths and the pain of others. There’s nothing commendable in what you do, there’s nothing that helps people one bit. You’re an apologist for ignorant and violent ideas of the religious kind, and you encourage the real-world violence they inspire with your feeble apologetics. That’s how I see things, but that shouldn’t be surprising, I’m sane while your ideas are “sheer madness,” to use your own words against you.
James Whitney says
I agree 100%. Azzi has it reversed. ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and their followers actually represent orthodox Islamic teaching as handed down through Muhammad and the Qur’an, while Azzi is a non-orthodox Islamic reformer. Reformers rely on putting limitations on verses in the Qur’an by invoking some historic context. However, Qur’an verses appear to be a series of statements with no context indicated, i.e. the verses are prescriptive and not descriptive.
gravenimage says
Hugh Fitzgerald: Robert Azzi, Still With His “Ask-A-Muslim Anything” Shtick (Part Three)
……………….
Yes, the “Aisha was 19” thing is one of the most absurd. Arabs did not use numerals at the time, so there could be no easy mistaking of “9” with “19”, as there might otherwise be.
And there are other signs that Aisha was just a child at the time–including other Hadith. Did *all* of these scribes make the exact same mistake regarding her age? Of course, this is absurd. They also refer to such matters as her playing with dolls and on a swing–something 9 year olds do.
rubiconcrest says
I would politely tell Robert Azzi to stick to photography because his views on Islam are not mainstream. All one needs to do is look at PEW research on Muslim attitudes around and the world and even in the USA to see that the vast majority of Muslims do not agree with Robert Azzi. He can interpret the Quran any way he chooses but what matters are those who don’t see the scripture the way he does, which is the majority. I would also ask Robert Azzi, since his views are not mainstream is he not doing us in the west a disservice by not giving a broader view?
K. says
He found himself a paid job. There are many jobs like this where you have to abandon your conscience to do someone else’s bidding. And then people make it their identity, hence appealing to their conscience is futile. What do you want to do.