PDA

View Full Version : The Child Wife of the "Prophet". Was Muhammad a Pedophile?



Loki
Sunday, December 12th, 2004, 08:37 PM
BiIaKLhSUOI

We possess numerous accounts which record Aisha’s age when her marriage was consummated. Many of these accounts are from Aisha herself. Indeed, the evidence for Muhammad’s marriage to the young Aisha is as strong as the evidence for just about any other fact in Islam.

We have copious traditions from Islam’s most trusted historical sources reporting Muhammad’s marriage proposal when Aisha was six or seven years old, as well as his consummation of that marriage when she was nine:

Sahih al-Bukhari 3896— Narrated Hisham’s father: Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Al-Madina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he wrote the marriage (wedding) contract with Aishah when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consummated that marriage when she was nine years old.

Sahih al-Bukhari 5158— Narrated Urwa: The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).

Sahih Muslim 3310— Aisha reported: Allah’s Apostle married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.

Sahih Muslim 3311— Aisha reported that Allah’s Apostle married her when she was seven years old, and she was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old.

Sunan Abu Dawud 2116— Aishah said: The Apostle of Allah married me when I was seven years old. (The narrator Sulaiman said: Or six years.) He had intercourse with me when I was nine years old.



In addition to traditions concerning Aisha’s age, various ahadith also provide details about how the relationship began and progressed:

Sahih al-Bukhari 3895 — Narrated Aishah that the Prophet said to her, “You have been shown to me twice in my dream. I saw you pictured on a piece of silk and someone said (to me), ‘This is your wife.’ When I uncovered the picture, I saw that it was yours. I said, ‘If this is from Allah it will be accomplished.’”

After having this dream about Aisha (who couldn’t have been more than six years old at the time), Muhammad proceeded to ask her father Abu Bakr for her hand in marriage. Abu Bakr understandably objected at first, but Muhammad was able to persuade him to consent.

Sahih al-Bukhari 5081 — Narrated Urwa: The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for Aishah’s hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said, “But I am your brother.” The Prophet said, “You are my brother in Allah’s religion and His Book, but she (Aishah) is lawful for me to marry.”

The marriage contract was subsequently written. However, Aisha became extremely ill, so she wasn’t taken to his house for consummation until three years later:

Sahih al-Bukhari 3894 — Narrated Aishah: My marriage (wedding) contract with the Prophet was written when I was a girl of six (years). We came to Al-Madina and we dismounted at the place of Bani Al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on, my hair grew (again) and my mother, Umm Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became normal, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, “Best wishes and Allah’s Blessing and good luck.” Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s Messenger came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age.

Once Aisha was a part of Muhammad’s household, she became his favorite wife, even after he had married several other women. Indeed, Muhammad’s other wives had to plead with him for equal treatment (to no avail):

Sahih al-Bukhari 2581 — Narrated Urwa that Aishah said: “The wives of Allah’s Messenger were in two groups.” Urwa added: One group consisted of Aishah, Hafsa, Safiyya and Sauda; and the other group consisted of Umm Salama and the other wives of Allah’s Messenger. The Muslims knew that Allah’s Messenger loved Aishah, so if any of them had a gift and wished to give to Allah’s Messenger, he would delay it till Allah’s Messenger had come to Aishah’s home and then he would send his gift to Allah’s Messenger in her home.

The group of Umm Salama discussed the matter together and decided that Umm Salama should request Allah’s Messenger to tell the people to send their gifts to him in whatever wife’s house he was. Umm Salama told Allah’s Messenger of what they had said, but he did not reply. Then they (those wives) asked Umm Salama about it. She said, “He did not say anything to me.” They asked her to talk to him again.

She talked to him again when she met him on her day, but he gave no reply. When they asked her, she replied that he had given no reply. They said to her, “Talk to him till he gives you a reply.” When it was her turn, she talked to him again. He then said to her, “Do not hurt me regarding Aishah, as the Divine Revelations do not come to me on any of the beds except that of Aishah.”

Thus, Aisha held a place of special favor among Muhammad’s wives, which caused a great deal of tension among the women. Since it may be taken as historically certain that Aisha was very young when her marriage to Muhammad was consummated, critics sometimes charge that Muhammad’s preference for Aisha reveals his preference for young girls. We find some amount of support for this view in Sahih al-Bukhari:

Sahih al-Bukhari 2967 — Narrated Jabir bin Abdullah: . . . When I took the permission of Allah’s Messenger, he asked me whether I had married a virgin or a matron and I replied that I had married a matron. He said, “Why hadn’t you married a virgin who would have played with you, and you would have played with her?” I replied, “O Allah’s Messenger! My father died (or was martyred) and I have some young sisters, so I felt it not proper that I should marry a young girl like them who would neither teach them manners nor serve them.”

Sahih al-Bukhari 6130 — Narrated Aishah: I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah’s Messenger used to enter (my dwelling place), they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for Aishah at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.)



To sum up, the evidence makes it abundantly clear


(1) that Muhammad had sexual intercourse with Aisha when she was very young,
(2) that this relationship was pursued by Muhammad after he had dreamed about her, and
(3) that she was his favorite wife. With so much historical data concerning the age of Aisha, it should be obvious that Muslims who deny her young age do so out of embarrassment.

BeornWulfWer
Thursday, September 4th, 2008, 03:23 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1W_ODlekETA

Ahnenerbe
Monday, August 13th, 2018, 06:46 AM
ElM597LzxB8

Untersberger
Tuesday, August 14th, 2018, 05:50 AM
So if this person called Muhammadani! (or whatever way it is spelled out) lived in the modern day western sphere he would be thrown in prison for life as a convicted pedophile and also as a convicted mass murderer, serial killer.

Think that just about sums it all up in the most simplest of ways.

Theunissen
Tuesday, August 14th, 2018, 02:51 PM
....mad’s marriage to the young Aisha is as strong as the evidence for just about any other fact in Islam.

We have copious traditions from Islam’s most trusted historical sources reporting Muhammad’s marriage proposal when Aisha was six or seven years old, as well as his consummation of that marriage when she was nine:


Sahih al-Bukhari 3896— Narrated Hisham’s father: Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Al-Madina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he wrote the marriage (wedding) contract with Aishah when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consummated that marriage when she was nine years old.

Sahih al-Bukhari 5158— Narrated Urwa: The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).

Sahih Muslim 3310— Aisha reported: Allah’s Apostle married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.

Sahih Muslim 3311— Aisha reported that Allah’s Apostle married her when she was seven years old, and she was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old.

Sunan Abu Dawud 2116— Aishah said: The Apostle of Allah married me when I was seven years old. (The narrator Sulaiman said: Or six years.) He had intercourse with me when I was nine years old.

....

Meets the present legal definition of pedophilia, illicit intercourse with a minor.

It also would meet a general psychiatric definition of pedophilia, given that she was a prepubescent girl at the age of nine.

Muslim don't seem to be at ease with this, as they are e.g. with polygamy. So they try to brush that off.
The other thing is of course the homosexual innuendo hinted in their description of paradise.

It's quite a weird religion, if you think about it. And it mainly survives based on force.

SaxonPagan
Tuesday, August 14th, 2018, 03:44 PM
Meets the present legal definition of pedophilia, illicit intercourse with a minor. It also would meet a general psychiatric definition of pedophilia, given that she was a prepubescent girl at the age of nine. Muslim don't seem to be at ease with this, as they are e.g. with polygamy. So they try to brush that off. The other thing is of course the homosexual innuendo hinted in their description of paradise. It's quite a weird religion, if you think about it. And it mainly survives based on force.

And you can also add incest to the list because a lot of Muslims marry their cousins.

There's a thread about this here (https://forums.skadi.net/threads/152878-Moslem-Inbreeding-Impacts-on-Intelligence-Sanity-Health-and-Society?highlight=muslims+cousins)

Astragoth
Tuesday, August 14th, 2018, 11:19 PM
Just look at the average muslim nowadays. They marry their own cousins and slept with their african slaves now they are lower than most niggers.
Islam is TNB as a religion.

jagdmesser
Thursday, October 25th, 2018, 07:45 PM
BERLIN (AP) — The European Court of Human Rights says an Austrian woman’s conviction for calling the prophet of Islam a paedophile didn’t breach her freedom of speech.

The Strasbourg-based ECHR ruled Thursday that Austrian courts had “carefully balanced her right to freedom of expression with the right of others to have their religious feelings protected.”

The woman in her late 40s, identified only as E.S., claimed during two public seminars in 2009 that the Prophet Muhammad’s marriage to a young girl was akin to “pedophilia.” A Vienna court convicted her in 2011 of disparaging religious doctrines, ordering her to pay a 480-euro ($547) fine, plus costs. The ruling was later upheld by an Austrian appeals court.

The ECHR said the Austrian court’s decision “served the legitimate aim of preserving religious peace.”

The ECHR said the Austrian court’s decision “served the legitimate aim of preserving religious peace.”


What this means, of course, is that because the government can vet speech to ensure that it does not infringe on "religious peace", then there is no freedom of speech.

Breitbart (https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2018/10/25/european-court-rules-against-austrian-woman-convicted-disparaging-islam/), 25 Oct 2018.





To accommodate islam;
Right is wrong for Westerners
and Wrong is right for muslims.


The World Turned Upside Down If buttercups buzz’d after the bee,
If boats were on land, churches on sea,
If ponies rode men and if grass ate the cows,
And cats should be chased into holes by the mouse,
If the mamas sold their babies
To the gypsies for half a crown;
If summer were spring and the other way round,
Then all the world would be upside down.

Huginn ok Muninn
Thursday, October 25th, 2018, 08:21 PM
Islam is a completely fake religion, fabricated by one man to serve his desire for power and to justify his base lusts. The end.

But it's not the end... we now have traitorous governments enforcing dhimmitude on their own people. Everyone responsible for this treason is legitimately deserving of death according to all ancient common laws of our people.

Þoreiðar
Thursday, October 25th, 2018, 09:10 PM
The ECHR said the Austrian court’s decision “served the legitimate aim of preserving religious peace.”This is entirely the fruits of the labor of the countless of rabid Muslims who've hacked people to death, detonated bombs, attacked and burned down embassies, mowed vans into pedestrians, and shot up public gatherings on Western soil. Judicial decisions like this one is to be considered a traitorous homage, a bow in acceptance and subjugation, to the massacres and terrorism committed against White populations at the hands of Muslim invaders. This is ultimately what "strength in diversity" comes down to.

Uwe Jens Lornsen
Thursday, October 25th, 2018, 10:28 PM
This shows , that the focus on politicians is false ,
sjnce the main traitors sit in courts , protected by "individual freedom of expression" .

It is absolutly correct , if governments try to limit the power of jugdes !

There is said , that there are 20'000 judges employed in Germany ,
and they can judge whatever they like by "explaining" their decisions .


People should learn to think like judges , and put some explanaitions into their sentences .

Simple sentences like " Islam is Child molesting " need some " according to the usual impression of the current law " attached .
This could prevent some Muslim prosecutors in their offices of their host countries taking action ( or not ) .

If the Austrian Prosecutor "Ali ben Ibrahim" complains somewhere , he likely will have success ,
since the court judges are old , and want some press scandal free retirement .

GroeneWolf
Friday, October 26th, 2018, 03:42 AM
Now lets take this Sunni tasfir of verse 65:4 (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/Quran/65/index.htm)


65:4 And for such of your women as despair of menstruation, if ye doubt, their period (of waiting) shall be three months, along with those who have it not. And for those with child, their period shall be till they bring forth their burden. And whosoever keepeth his duty to Allah, He maketh his course easy for him.

And see what it (https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=2&tTafsirNo=73&tSoraNo=65&tAyahNo=4&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2) has to say about it.


(And for such of your women as despair of menstruation) because of old age, (if ye doubt) about their waiting period, (their period (of waiting) shall be three months) upon which another man asked: “O Messenger of Allah! What about the waiting period of those who do not have menstruation because they are too young?” (along with those who have it not) because of young age, their waiting period is three months. Another man asked: “what is the waiting period for those women who are pregnant?” (And for those with child) i.e. those who are pregnant, (their period) their waiting period (shall be till they bring forth their burden) their child. (And whosoever keepeth his duty to Allah) and whoever fears Allah regarding what he commands him, (He maketh his course easy for him) He makes his matter easy; and it is also said this means: He will help him to worship Him well.

Funny thing that there are those who defend this verse by referring to rare medical conditions and that it does not use the word for child. Even though the tasfir makes it clear it referring to women who are so young that they have not yet beginning to menstruate. So that would mean prepubescent, so the quran indirectly in this verse implies that it is ok to marry such girls. Which of course also means that it has no problem with pedophilia.

No for the case of Aisha. Defenders of this marriage really try to twist and turn everything to turn her from a prepubescent in to a girl who had already menstruated. Or claiming that the laws of other people also approved of these things. Alto that does not seem to be the case. In least when one considers the laws of the pagan Europeans that typically describe the death penalty for those who engaged in sexual relations with prepubescent girls, let alone marry them. So this court ruling comes down to that one is not allowed to call a spade a spade in order to prevent religious violence. So in order words double think of the level of 1984 is required when one talks about Islam according the ECHR.

velvet
Friday, October 26th, 2018, 05:16 AM
Legally it is not possible to marry a child under 16, and over 16, but under 18 only with the parents' and an official authority's (Jugendamt in Germany) consent.

Sex with children under 14 is rape by default, because a child under 14 cannot give legal consent.

Such acts by parents warrant in Germany to take away the child and possible siblings from the parents because that environment endangers the childrens' wellbeing. It's called Kindeswohlgefährdung and can even come with a prison sentence for the parents.

Well, for Germans anyway. Not for the "goldnugget" Merkel-guests, who can rape children, indulge in likewise illegal polygamy, knife down people and walk free because the perpetrator explained that "he did not know that knifing down people is illegal in Germany" (real case, no joke) and what not, and no law applies to them.

"Human rights" have been invented as a weapon against nations, and so was "freedom of religion" invented as a weapon against nations, against the nation's laws and values, and ultimately, its people. Along with the EU, EHRC, UN and all the other anti-national globalist institutions. It's war and we have been deprived of all legal means to defend ourselves.

jagdmesser
Monday, November 5th, 2018, 02:36 PM
Two recent rulings by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) demonstrate not only that it's a political and hypocritical organization. They also show the severe structural defects of human rights law in general.


On October 25, the ECHR found in favor of Austria and against a claimant, Frau S., who had been prosecuted for saying in 2008 that the Prophet Mohammed "was a pedophile" because he had married a six-year-old girl. The applicant had claimed that the criminal sentence she received violated her right to free speech, enshrined in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court found (https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-187188%22]}) against her and in favour of Austria, which had convicted her of inciting religious hatred.


On July 17, the same ECHR, by contrast, had found (https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-184666%22]}) in favour of Russian applicants from the now famous 'Pussy Riot' band, and against the Russian state, which convicted them for having incited religious hatred by staging a performance of a 'punk prayer' in Moscow's Christ the Saviour cathedral in 2012. This case was considered under three different articles of the European Convention on Human Rights but it made two judgements under the same Article 10 which the judges later said could not protect Frau S. In the Pussy Riot case, the court found that the girls' right to freedom of expression under Article 10 had been violated.


In other words, according to the Strasbourg court, you are allowed to insult the Christian religion but not the Muslim religion. It is difficult to think of a more obvious case of double standards than this. Worse, and as Gregor Puppinck of the European Centre of Law and Justice in Strasbourg has pointed out (http://www.lefigaro.fr/vox/religion/2018/10/26/31004-20181026ARTFIG00232-delit-de-blaspheme-la-cedh-n-est-pas-charlie.php), it is clear that the court justified finding in favour of Austria, and against Frau S., purely out of fear of Muslims. In numerous paragraphs of the ruling, it defends Austria's conviction of the woman in the name of the goal of protecting "religious peace." This can mean nothing else other than that peace might be threatened by Muslims if Austrians insult the prophet of Islam. In other words, the court is failing in its primordial role, which is surely to uphold the right of speech against threats of violence against them.


READ MORE: Russia appeals €37,000 European fine over Pussy Riot case (https://www.rt.com/russia/441740-pussy-riot-echr-appeal/)


The double standards are all the more shocking because Frau S. was discussing facts. The Austrian courts ruled that the fact that Mohammed had married a small girl, and consummated that marriage when the girl was nine, did not justify her calling him a pedophile. By contrast, there are no facts at issue in the Pussy Riot case, whose action in the cathedral was purely designed to shock. In other words, the intentionality of the Pussy Riot girls cannot be in doubt, whereas it requires a speculative leap about her motives to say that Frau S. was deliberately trying to incite hatred.

The upholding of the conviction of Frau S. is also in contradiction with another ruling by the ECHR, in this case concerning Lithuania. In January of this year, the court ruled (https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22respondent%22:[%22LTU%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22GRANDCHAMBER%22,%22CHAMBER%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-180506%22]}) in favour of a clothing company which had used irreverent images of Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary to promote its sales. This too was defended in the name of freedom of speech under Article 10. So, the ECHR is prepared to protect blasphemous or offensive freedom of speech even if the goal is purely commercial and not political – but only if the offence is against Christians and not against Muslims.


These gross inconsistencies show the structural defects of human rights law. The European Convention on Human Rights is a series of generalized statements about what sort of rights people should enjoy. Because they are necessarily general statements, these "rights" only become law after a ruling by a judge in a particular case. Because the judge has only these general statements to go on, and not a specific legislative act, he or she can more or less decide the case according to his or her personal opinion. It is in the very nature of such "human rights" courts that they give grossly excessive power to judges.


In proper legal systems, the law consists of detailed national legislation and specific rulings (jurisprudence). The role of the judge is to apply the law as it is: he or she has no room for personal manoeuvre. By contrast, in human rights courts, as in the Supreme Court of the United States, it is effectively judges who make the law. This is a very bad state of affairs because it turns courts into political instruments and judges into politicians, as we see every time there is a new appointment to the US Supreme Court.

The situation in Strasbourg is worse than in the US because a large majority of the judges at the ECHR had never been judges before. They may have a law degree but they have usually never sat on a bench before going to Strasbourg. Very often, they have been government employees. This means that they come to the job without the very specific training and experience which all judges should have. Instead, they often approach their job with a political agenda: this was, for example, the case of a Belgian judge (http://strasbourgobservers.com/2012/08/28/francoise-tulkens-indefatigable-defender-of-migrants-human-rights) who became vice-president of the court and who took up her appointment with an avowed determination to implement progressive policies.


This is why the ECHR has been so easily hijacked by political progressives who have pushed through a raft of political issues which should be decided by national parliaments after public debate and in accordance with public opinion. A large number of practices which either did not exist, or which were illegal, when the Convention was drawn up in 1950 have now been enforced by the ECHR against national legislation – abortion; in vitro fertilization; pre-implantation screening (in a ruling which promulgates the right to eugenics by declaring the applicants' "right to bring a child into the world which is not affected by the illness that they carry"); the right to practice violent sado-masochism; the right for transsexuals to marry; the right to surrogate motherhood; the right to suicide (under Article 8 on respect for private and family life); and conscientious objection to military service. In this last ruling, the ECHR judges specifically gave themselves the right to change the law by saying that "it should have a dynamic and evolutive approach."


Three things are clear from this list. First, these sorts of rights are clearly not the core human rights which the authors of the European Convention in 1950 thought needed protecting against dictatorial states. They are instead modish lifestyle choices. Second, the fact that these social changes have been pushed through by the ECHR means that we live under a government of judges – unelected judges who make the law in place of elected legislatures. Third, if the ECHR continues along the same path it has adopted for decades, then Europe will effectively have a law forbidding blasphemy against Islam but not against Christianity. The Court will thereby have decisively betrayed its claim to be acting in the name of universal values. Under such circumstances, it should be closed down.

The word "islamophobia" has been coined by the Globalists to protect, promote and expand Islam in Western countries. In the same way the word "homophobia" was coined to protect, promote and expand homosexuality in Western societies. There is a globalist will to foment a mutually destructive "civilisational clash" between Christians and Muslims. Bernard Lewis has prepared the conceptual and ideological ground for it. We are now in the implementation phase.

R T (https://www.rt.com/op-ed/442960-rights-court-muslim-christian/), 05 Nov 2018.



Definition of a judge – a politician with a wig and gown.

If you worship your enemy, you are defeated.
If you adopt your enemy’s religion, you are enslaved.
If you breed with your enemy, you are destroyed. Polydoros of Sparta (reigned from c. 741 to c. 665 BC).

Wuotans Krieger
Saturday, December 1st, 2018, 11:52 AM
And you can also add incest to the list because a lot of Muslims marry their cousins.

There's a thread about this here (https://forums.skadi.net/threads/152878-Moslem-Inbreeding-Impacts-on-Intelligence-Sanity-Health-and-Society?highlight=muslims+cousins)

I would not call the union of cousins incest. It is quite possible for cousins, even first cousins to have no or very little DNA in common. The maximum it could possibly be is 25%.
When researching my paternal ancestry via my paternal grandmother I find the same surnames recurring many times. I am descended from certain individuals 3, 4 and 5 times. I do not call that 'incest'. Muslims are no more inbred than people whose ancestors have lived in rural English villages for centuries.

Astragoth
Saturday, December 1st, 2018, 12:00 PM
Actually incest related birth defects are a huge problem. Just look at them. About half of them are inbred.
https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/muslim-inbreeding-huge-problem-and-people-dont-want-talk-about-it

Theunissen
Saturday, December 1st, 2018, 12:44 PM
.....
"Human rights" have been invented as a weapon against nations, and so was "freedom of religion" invented as a weapon against nations, against the nation's laws and values, and ultimately, its people. Along with the EU, EHRC, UN and all the other anti-national globalist institutions. It's war and we have been deprived of all legal means to defend ourselves.

I said it decades ago that "Human Rights" are a propaganda ploy, a weapon against nations that want to be sovereign.

I pointed to the character of many of the rights listed in the declarations. They are demands of individuals towards the state and with that the tax-paying or working population of a country. Furthermore I pointed to the gimmick that nations were attacked, supposedly for the reason of "Human Rights"-Violations.

I was laughed at as a "conspiracy theorist", but what I see becomes more and more clear.