Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
313.

Why did the Prophet marry a 9 year old?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, 313. said:

Why did the Prophet marry a 9 year old? And why did he make his adopted son divorce his wife so he can marry 

https://www.dawn.com/news/696084

Read above for Hazrat Ayesha

For Hazrat Zaid (عليه السلام), Prophet (PBUHHP) stopped both not to seek divorce but Hazrat Zainab (عليه السلام) was aggrieved due to people's taunting. It was because of people and not because of Prophet (PBUHHP).

Edited by Flying_Eagle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, shadow_of_light said:

According to some historians , she was born 5 years before be'thah so she could not be 9 when she got married.

Sh. Kulayni:

ولدت فاطمة عليها وعلى بعلها السلام بعد مبعث رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله بخمس سنين

Ibn Shahr-Ashuub:

ولدت فاطمة بمكة بعد النبوة بخمس سنين، وبعد الاسراء بثلاث سنين، في العشرين من جمادى الآخرة

Al-Tabrisi:

أنها ولدت سنة خمس من المبعث بمكة في العشرين من جمادى الآخرة

Sh. al-Tusi:

وفي اليوم العشرين منه سنة اثنتين من المبعث كان مولد فاطمة عليها السلام في بعض الروايات، وفي رواية أخرى: سنة خمس 383 من المبعث، والعامة تروي: 384 أن مولدها قبل المبعث بخمس سنين

Sh. al-Mufiid:

وفي اليوم العشرين منه سنة (2) اثنتين من المبعث كان مولد السيدة (4) الزهراء فاطمة بنت رسول الله عليهما السلام (5)، وهو يوم شريف يتجدد فيه سرور المؤمنين، ويستحب فيه التطوع بالخيرات، والصدقة على المساكين.

The above indicates the famous Shii position is that she was born five years after the bi'tha, and as Sh. al-Tusi writes, it was the Sunni opinion that she was born five year before the bi'tha. While Sunni historians can be useful, in this case the good Shia historical sources seem to indicate that it was actually five years after the bi'tha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

What's wrong with that? Are you comparing a 9 year old of today with a 9 year old of 14 centuries ago?

 

9 hours ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

Some people have really difficulties to understand that a girl who is 10 years old in Arabia 14 centuries ago have nothing in common with a 10 years old girl of nowadays living in West. 

For everyone that is saying whats wrong with marrying a 9 year old child its not likes how it is today"....you are disgusting period. You should not be around children, should be ashamed of yourself and your pedophilic mind. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, shadow_of_light said:

"it is permissible even if the wife is a baby"!!!!

Think of the nature of relations between the granddad & the kid. It happens here as well outside the realm of Islam where families arrange for the two to be one fusion, rendering it legal unless the authorities come to render 'jungle laws' illegal. It being legal or not does not disturb, rather a child with an adult, sexually being intimate is what disturbs. 

When you look at development & a child is not completely developed then that child bares a child & what comes out is a chain of incomplete line of poor development. We're not against religion & what was decreed as lawful. Religion requires the use of intellect. Halal is halal & intellect dictates that taking advantage of what is deemed halal to satisfy the base desires is dangerous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, 313. said:

 

For everyone that is saying whats wrong with marrying a 9 year old child its not likes how it is today"....you are disgusting period. You should not be around children, should be ashamed of yourself and your pedophilic mind. 

You perhaps like the word "pedophillic" and want to use it often. I would like you to see first, what was the age of consent in the world till early 19th Century. Here are few facts:

"In 1880, the age of consent was set at 10 or 12 in most states, with the exception of Delaware where it was 7." 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States

"The age of consent for heterosexual acts in England was set at 12 in 1275 during the reign of Edward I."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe#History_30

"The French Napoleonic code provided the legal context in 1791 when it established an age of consent of 11 years."
http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/teaching-modules/230

Whole world was pedophile before 10th century?  Now I would like to ask you a simple question, what should be the age of consent biologically? You can give answer to this question by simply looking at anatomy. 

Edited by Logic1234
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, 313. said:

For everyone that is saying whats wrong with marrying a 9 year old child its not likes how it is today"....you are disgusting period. You should not be around children, should be ashamed of yourself and your pedophilic mind. 

So I guess if I understand you well you think that 18 years old for marriage has always be the universal acceptable age? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, 313. said:

For everyone that is saying whats wrong with marrying a 9 year old child its not likes how it is today"....you are disgusting period. You should not be around children, should be ashamed of yourself and your pedophilic mind. 

No, you are the disgusting arrogant big head who thinks humans continued to practice something like this for thousands of years all over the world without realizing it is unethical. Get off your high horse and out of your ignorance so you can acknowledge that the world and society can change.

Edited by Ibn al-Hussain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, 313. said:

For everyone that is saying whats wrong with marrying a 9 year old child its not likes how it is today"....you are disgusting period. You should not be around children, should be ashamed of yourself and your pedophilic mind. 

Salams

I can understand why you'd write something like this, you've likely been raised your whole life within the modern west or with major cultural influence of the modern west. Child marriages are conceived of a savage and barbaric ancient practice still prevalent only in the worst parts of the world, those ending them are heroic and necessary to the establishment of a healthy society. Pedophilia is an evil worse than murder, murderers aren't weird criminals and can be reformed. Thus, religious scholars advocating this must have some sort of weird pedophilic impulse and the people saying there might not be anything inherently wrong with this union are sick, why? Well, because that's how they've been framed within the society you grew up in or the society which had a major influence in the shaping of your world view.

You have, however, good evidence that those religious figures you deeply respect, certainly Imam Ali (عليه السلام) and likely also the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) had wives, there are ahadith which say you may not consummate by intercourse a marriage until a girl is a "woman", defined in Islamic law as 9-years old, not the sliding scale of 18-25 as is conceived of in the west, and a permissibility of marriage with someone prior to that with certain -- admittedly hard to fathom -- sexual behaviour permitted as a hukm e awwali and forbidden through a more subjective hukm e thanawi, such as famously thighing/takhfiidh. There is, therefore, a disconnect. How could people you likely view as infallible commit such a heinous moral evil as has been framed in the world you grew up in. Either they were immoral, their morality is not eternal, or this world view you hold is not as absolute as you'd like to think -- it's funny that in modern society while morality is generally viewed as subjective there exist in people's ideas absolute moral facts which they'd have a hard time justifying. Such a disconnect might lead one to become inconsistent with their conception of history or hadith based on nothing but their visceral reaction to something, likely unreasonable, it might also be the first step or even the straw which broke the camel's back that causes apostasy, a pity in which case. It might also be altogether ignored. Or you might actually reconsider on what is your world-view based and whether you can justify that. What is unreasonable is to write the above based on the visceral reaction condemning the person who presented to you a fiqhi opinion so readily without even considering that they might have children, sisters, etc. of their own at that age whom they wouldn't like to see married at that age, and that just because a ruling of a non-wajib matter exists one doesn't need to act on it. Undoubtedly a better response could've been written since the question was likely framed considering a traditional Shia fiqhi perspective and an answer was thence given. Hopefully you react better to this than you did above, though I shouldn't hold my breath I have no idea what sort of a person you might be.

Nevertheless, if in your original question you were curious whether he did marry a nine-year-old, then based off the ahadith one might reasonably say yes, he married her when she was a bit younger and consummated his marriage with her around the time she reached puberty, nine or ten in various reports. Imam Ali likely also did similarly. What does that cause you to think about them and what they did now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

Sh. Kulayni:

ولدت فاطمة عليها وعلى بعلها السلام بعد مبعث رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله بخمس سنين

Ibn Shahr-Ashuub:

ولدت فاطمة بمكة بعد النبوة بخمس سنين، وبعد الاسراء بثلاث سنين، في العشرين من جمادى الآخرة

Al-Tabrisi:

أنها ولدت سنة خمس من المبعث بمكة في العشرين من جمادى الآخرة

Sh. al-Tusi:

وفي اليوم العشرين منه سنة اثنتين من المبعث كان مولد فاطمة عليها السلام في بعض الروايات، وفي رواية أخرى: سنة خمس 383 من المبعث، والعامة تروي: 384 أن مولدها قبل المبعث بخمس سنين

Sh. al-Mufiid:

وفي اليوم العشرين منه سنة (2) اثنتين من المبعث كان مولد السيدة (4) الزهراء فاطمة بنت رسول الله عليهما السلام (5)، وهو يوم شريف يتجدد فيه سرور المؤمنين، ويستحب فيه التطوع بالخيرات، والصدقة على المساكين.

The above indicates the famous Shii position is that she was born five years after the bi'tha, and as Sh. al-Tusi writes, it was the Sunni opinion that she was born five year before the bi'tha. While Sunni historians can be useful, in this case the good Shia historical sources seem to indicate that it was actually five years after the bi'tha.

This is what Mas'oudi says in the book التنبیه و الاشراف:

ثم تنوزع في سنها، فقال فريق منهم توفيت ولها ثلاث وثلاثون سنة، وقال آخرون بل ثلاثون، وقال آخرون بل تسع وعشرون سنة، وهذا قول أكثر البيت وشيعتهم

According to him, some believed that she died at the age of 33, some said 30 and another group believed it was 29. Then he adds that the majority of Shias believed that the latter (29) was true.

If a girl at the age of 9 was as (physically but not mentally) mature as a 20 year old girl in the 21st century, then a 60 year old woman was too old to be able to bear a child. So how could Khadija (s) give birth to a child at the age of 60?!

Therefore, it seems more realistic that she was born before be'thah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/4/2019 at 10:17 PM, Guest Kazmi said:

1. No, HE (P.B.U.H) did not marry a 9 year old. Lady Ayesha was much older according to numerous authentic sources when she was married to Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).W.

2. It is too low for even a common layman to do something like that let alone The Best One among all the Creations. How can we even think HE P.B.U.H would do something like that!

May Allah bless us all hidayah.

This response is FAR WORSE than the original question 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, shadow_of_light said:

then a 60 year old woman was too old to be able to bear a child. So how could Khadija (s) give birth to a child at the age of 60?!

Therefore, it seems more realistic that she was born before be'thah.

Salam assuming 60 years old about lady Khadija is wrong and based on Ayesha jealously that was calling lady Khadija (رضي الله عنه) as old woman & lady Fatima (sa) birth was after Miraj that Prophet Muhammad (pbu) be'thah was before Miraj .

Khadija lady of Quraish

https://youtu.be/_HBfm71Y_4I

Edited by Ashvazdanghe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/5/2019 at 11:36 AM, Ibn al-Hussain said:

From Usul al-Kafi

وعن علي بن إبراهيم، عن محمد بن عيسى، عن يونس، عن أبي أيوب الخراز، عن إسماعيل بن جعفر ـ في حديث ـ أن رسول الله ( صلى الله عليه وآله ) دخل بعائشة وهي بنت عشر سنين، وليس يدخل بالجارية حتى تكون امرأة

And from Ali b. Ibrāhīm from Muḥammad b. ʿĪsā from Yūnus from Abū Ayyūb al-Kharrāz from Ismāʿīl b. Jaʿfar in a hadith that the Messenger of God (p) entered upon (I.e. had intercourse with) ʿĀ’isha while she was ten years old, and that one does not enter upon a girl until she is a woman.

Save your Orientalist-appeasing evidence for Ayesha being older for yourself.

Wasalam

That's a bit harsh brother, I think there genuinely are two views (or more) on her age and not only among the Shia.

Having said that, it shouldn't matter at the end of the day because even if one tried to explain that Aisha wasn't so young you still have the example of Sayyidah Fatima Zahra (عليه السلام) marrying Imam Ali (عليه السلام) at a similar age. 

Wallahu a'lam 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, shadow_of_light said:

According to him, some believed that she died at the age of 33, some said 30 and another group believed it was 29. Then he adds that the majority of Shias believed that the latter (29) was true.

If a girl at the age of 9 was as (physically but not mentally) mature as a 20 year old girl in the 21st century, then a 60 year old woman was too old to be able to bear a child. So how could Khadija (s) give birth to a child at the age of 60?!

Therefore, it seems more realistic that she was born before be'thah.

The question remains exactly what he meant by Shias, since Sunnis who were pro-Alids would be considered Shia. There are people that just held sympathetic views towards Shia history and were therefore classed as Shias, that doesn't mean they fall within the theological sectarian group "the Shia". As it stands the opinion of the Shias seems to rather be that she was born five years after not before -- based off what is written within the works of major early scholars of hadith and history from views as wide as Mufid and Kulayni. Tusi says there are a number of reports to this effect as well, so what we can see is that the sectarian group within which we belong thought Sayyida Fatima was born five years after the bi'tha, not before.

It's also not that the relative understanding of what qualifies an adult and old-person slid down altogether, you still had people living into their sixties and understanding of what an old person was wasn't skewed negatively. It's just that what was understood as an adult was someone who's gone through puberty, not the sliding scale of 18-25 as we conceptualize it today. Boys were combatants at the age of 13-15 (as I believe it was you who mentioned this earlier, Aisha didn't go to the battle field as a combatant so wouldn't have been restricted by her age). Betrothals could happen even earlier, I believe it's Ibn Sa'ad who writes that before she married the Prophet she was already betrothed to someone else.

Sayyida Fatima wasn't the first daughter Sayyida Khadija had, we know already she had several other children who died before the Prophet, it is possible to have a child at that age and what we seem to have are Shia historians and traditionists agreeing that she was born five years after the bi'tha, and apparently this is based off of riwayat of ahl al-bayt which they deemed to be sound. Mas'udi's statement which is referring to an ambiguous group of Shias, therefore, can't overturn what we actually have from the major historians and traditionists of the Shia, and surely Kulayni, Mufiid, and Tusi make that cut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the time of our Holy Prophet SA, the marriage age was 9 years old. Marriage at a young age was normal in the past. Many countries did not even have a law about the age of marriage. In 1880 in the state of Delaware (near New Jersey, Maryland and Pennsylvania), girls could get married at 7 years old. Over time, the marriage age in the US has risen to 10, 13, then 16. 

http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/teaching-modules/230?section=primarysources&source=24 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Mahdavist said:

I think there genuinely are two views (or more) on her age and not only among the Shia.

Can you point out some names of scholars (not names from the last 100-odd years) who held a view that Ayesha was much older?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

Can you point out some names of scholars (not names from the last 100-odd years) who held a view that Ayesha was much older?

To be honest I never really looked into it much. I was aware of narrations in books of the Shia and the Ahl us Sunnah, such as the one you quoted, that support the view the A'isha was indeed nine or ten years old. At the same time, the historical references (eg Tabari) that are used to derive a higher age are also prominent sources (as opposed to vague little-known collections) which is why I assumed that both positions were genuine as opposed to socially/politically motivated. 

The short answer is, no I cannot name any such scholar.

Wallahu a'lam 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/7/2019 at 12:50 AM, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

The question remains exactly what he meant by Shias, since Sunnis who were pro-Alids would be considered Shia. There are people that just held sympathetic views towards Shia history and were therefore classed as Shias, that doesn't mean they fall within the theological sectarian group "the Shia". As it stands the opinion of the Shias seems to rather be that she was born five years after not before -- based off what is written within the works of major early scholars of hadith and history from views as wide as Mufid and Kulayni. Tusi says there are a number of reports to this effect as well, so what we can see is that the sectarian group within which we belong thought Sayyida Fatima was born five years after the bi'tha, not before.

It's also not that the relative understanding of what qualifies an adult and old-person slid down altogether, you still had people living into their sixties and understanding of what an old person was wasn't skewed negatively. It's just that what was understood as an adult was someone who's gone through puberty, not the sliding scale of 18-25 as we conceptualize it today. Boys were combatants at the age of 13-15 (as I believe it was you who mentioned this earlier, Aisha didn't go to the battle field as a combatant so wouldn't have been restricted by her age). Betrothals could happen even earlier, I believe it's Ibn Sa'ad who writes that before she married the Prophet she was already betrothed to someone else.

Sayyida Fatima wasn't the first daughter Sayyida Khadija had, we know already she had several other children who died before the Prophet, it is possible to have a child at that age and what we seem to have are Shia historians and traditionists agreeing that she was born five years after the bi'tha, and apparently this is based off of riwayat of ahl al-bayt which they deemed to be sound. Mas'udi's statement which is referring to an ambiguous group of Shias, therefore, can't overturn what we actually have from the major historians and traditionists of the Shia, and surely Kulayni, Mufiid, and Tusi make that cut.

He said اکثر البیت و شیعتهم". It means the descenedants of the Prophet(s) and their followers.

According to the quotes you posted, Mufeed believed it was 2 years after Bi'thah and Tusi said 2 years according to some narrations (plural) and 5 years according to another narration (singular). Using plural form v. singular form implies that most of the evidence said it was 2 years.

Most of the traditions that say Aisha was 9...were narrated by herself or her relatives while there is doubt about her honesty. We cannot ignore all evidence which says she was older (even if they were narrated in Sunni books).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, shadow_of_light said:

He said اکثر البیت و شیعتهم". It means the descenedants of the Prophet(s) and their followers.

Yes but the exact understanding of what sort of Shi'a he was referring to remains ambiguous especially since the scholars of our Ta'ifa said differently and that fact remains obvious in our books.

19 hours ago, shadow_of_light said:

According to the quotes you posted, Mufeed believed it was 2 years after Bi'thah and Tusi said 2 years according to some narrations (plural) and 5 years according to another narration (singular). Using plural form v. singular form implies that most of the evidence said it was 2 years.

Yes, I believe I had said that such a disagreement existed a few posts back either on this page or the first. Nevertheless, neither of these equate to the Sunni view of her being born ten or seven years younger than what our historians and traditionists say. 

19 hours ago, shadow_of_light said:

Most of the traditions that say Aisha was 9...were narrated by herself or her relatives while there is doubt about her honesty. We cannot ignore all evidence which says she was older (even if they were narrated in Sunni books).

The question remains what is the quality of evidence for and against her age being nine about the time her marriage was consummated. In the case of against we rely on interpollating individual evidence, which is often estimations as Sunni historians point out and therefore defeats the purpose. While on the other hand from her and within our own books we have it said she was nine (or ten as it is in al-Kafi). Yes, the khabr in al-Kafi isn't a hadith, it's from the ghayr Ma'sum son of Imam al-Sadiq but nevertheless it shows that this age was understood within Shii circles. While she herself remains accused of lying she might be corroborated in this case, what the Prophet had done wouldn't have contradicted our fiqh or Arab mores that this was worth something fabricating, and the question for why she would have fabricated it remains open. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/5/2019 at 11:33 AM, shadow_of_light said:

It is really terrible that some scholars say "it is permissible even if the wife is a baby"!!!!

A baby??!!!! 

Salam alaikum!

Please read what I'm saying with a chill voice lol I don't want anyone to think I'm angry. 

If I'm correct, its saying you can get your infant to marry one person until the reach an appropriate age. Its like wanting to have your daughter to marry a specific person, you sign a contract I believe and wait for then to get older. But the child growing, that could always change. This is common amongst royal families or the wealthy, but suddenly us common folks, its all wrong. I find the perspectives very interesting. I do understand why its strange, I myself am still learning about this but with what I've given you, maybe you can further do the research, I will as well when I get the chance. O: also I could be giving the wrong information as I learned this years ago. I had forgotten about this. Regardless, I believe its also important to understand why such ruling was made to be ok. Hopefully someone who may see this and know the information could share. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Shia sources, it says she was roughly 15 - 18 when she was married. I hear from people that some people corrupted the hadith to make it seem like Aisha was some young and pretty girl, when in reality she was in her thirties. This is just my say on this, only Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) knows best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Hussain Haider Bilgrami said:

According to Shia sources, it says she was roughly 15 - 18 when she was married. I hear from people that some people corrupted the hadith to make it seem like Aisha was some young and pretty girl, when in reality she was in her thirties. This is just my say on this, only Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) knows best.

If Rasulullah(S) would be interested in young pretty girls and that would be his driving motivations in life then surely he would have married 100s of women, he would also be able to become wealthy due to his status among Muslims and live his life in luxury castles with 100+ women, but that is not the kind of man that Rasulullah(S) was, even though he had the opportunity to be one and it would be easy for him.

I think anyone who might have negative thoughts about Rasulullah(S) due to the age of Aisha at marriage, should remember his full life history and rethink whether he was a man driven by lust and shallow things or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Hussain Haider Bilgrami said:

According to Shia sources, it says she was roughly 15 - 18 when she was married. I hear from people that some people corrupted the hadith to make it seem like Aisha was some young and pretty girl, when in reality she was in her thirties. This is just my say on this, only Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) knows best.

If you read the previous posts in this thread you will see that the Shi'a also have narrations stating that A'isha was only 9-10 years old.

Wallahu a'lam 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thought that crossed my mind:

Would God have given a vision to and allowed the Prophet to do something which would blacken his name and legacy for billions of people on this planet for hundreds to thousands of years to come?

We can argue about what a mature woman was in the 7th century all we like, or even about laws in Europe up until whatever era, but I'm talking about something much more long term and significant than that.

If that was the case that God ordained the Prophet to marry a nine year old then why would people even want to convert to Islam or practice a religion taught to the people by a Prophet who did something like that? It gives people no incentive. 

To me at least that seems something lacking in logic and wisdom, and to me God is logical and wise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Would God have given a vision to and allowed the Prophet to do something which would blacken his name and legacy for billions of people on this planet for hundreds to thousands of years to come?

This sounds like a massive exaggeration to me. Billions of people and hundreds of thousands of years? 

Our generation is probably the first to 'object' (naudhubillah) to this marriage and even then its a limited amount of people who mainly seem to already have issues with Islam to begin with. 

Wallahu a'lam 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Mahdavist said:

This sounds like a massive exaggeration to me. Billions of people and hundreds of thousands of years? 

Our generation is probably the first to 'object' (naudhubillah) to this marriage and even then its a limited amount of people who mainly seem to already have issues with Islam to begin with. 

Wallahu a'lam 

Of the 1.8 or so billion Muslims most agree it was something practiced but unless they have interests in children would not practice it themselves. Of the however billions of Christians most would object to the practice, a small percentage who have interests in children would not. The same pattern goes for any other culture on this Earth. So I disagree, I don't think it is a massive exaggeration at all.

As for the time, do you not think our society will survive for over a hundred years? Only Allah knows of course, but one might hazard a guess that our world won't come to an end for at least a hundred years and that's conservative.

There are converts or born Muslims in their hundreds who have left the religion because they consider child marriage abhorrent. These people never had an issue with Islam in the first place as you state, if anything they yearned to embrace it. These people now find themselves lapping up the opinions of people like Ridwan whatshisface the Apostate Prophet. So why would Allah allow an act which would cause people to leave the truth? To leave the truth and enter a life full of things that they once would consider tickets to Hell? As I say, that to me does not make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So why would Allah allow an act which would cause people to leave the truth? To leave the truth and enter a life full of things that they once would consider tickets to Hell? As I say, that to me does not make sense.

It is the choice of each individual. There are over a billion Muslims today, we haven't left the religion just because our Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) may have had a wife who was 9-10 years old, just like many other people in the past centuries. 

If this is the basis for someone to leave religion then I am sorry to say that their faith was very easily shaken. 

May Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) keep us firm on the right path. May He protect us from deviation.

Wallahu a'lam 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/13/2019 at 8:07 PM, coconut said:

Salam alaikum!

Please read what I'm saying with a chill voice lol I don't want anyone to think I'm angry. 

If I'm correct, its saying you can get your infant to marry one person until the reach an appropriate age. Its like wanting to have your daughter to marry a specific person, you sign a contract I believe and wait for then to get older. But the child growing, that could always change. This is common amongst royal families or the wealthy, but suddenly us common folks, its all wrong. I find the perspectives very interesting. I do understand why its strange, I myself am still learning about this but with what I've given you, maybe you can further do the research, I will as well when I get the chance. O: also I could be giving the wrong information as I learned this years ago. I had forgotten about this. Regardless, I believe its also important to understand why such ruling was made to be ok. Hopefully someone who may see this and know the information could share. 

You posted it on 13th of septembre??!! But I saw it tonight!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/13/2019 at 8:07 PM, coconut said:

Salam alaikum!

Please read what I'm saying with a chill voice lol I don't want anyone to think I'm angry. 

If I'm correct, its saying you can get your infant to marry one person until the reach an appropriate age. Its like wanting to have your daughter to marry a specific person, you sign a contract I believe and wait for then to get older. But the child growing, that could always change. This is common amongst royal families or the wealthy, but suddenly us common folks, its all wrong. I find the perspectives very interesting. I do understand why its strange, I myself am still learning about this but with what I've given you, maybe you can further do the research, I will as well when I get the chance. O: also I could be giving the wrong information as I learned this years ago. I had forgotten about this. Regardless, I believe its also important to understand why such ruling was made to be ok. Hopefully someone who may see this and know the information could share. 

Salam

Those fatwas are immoral and inhumane.  It is inhumane to marry a baby or a child to someone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, shadow_of_light said:

Salam

Those fatwas are immoral and inhumane.  It is inhumane to marry a baby or a child to someone else.

l think fatwas need to be ranked by the number of qualified endorsements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...