Silencing the Jews
"Moderate" Muslim Tarek Fatah follows Islamic tradition when he objects to a synagogue holding a discussion regarding Muhammad's child bride. How dare the Jews slander the prophet!
Samau’ al al-Maghribi converted to Islam from Judaism in 1163 C.E., and shortly afterward wrote an anti-Jewish polemic entitled Silencing the Jews. Al-Maghribi’s “Silencing” — ostensibly a “philosophical” tract — employs Islamic Biblical criticism to characterize the Jews as ignorant, unreasonable, and hypocritical, complemented by their Koranic depiction as accursed prophet-killers who transgress Allah’s will, corrupt his message, and harbor the most intense hatred for the Muslims. Moshe Perlmann (d. 2001) translated al-Maghribi’s tract into English and was the preeminent scholar of Islam’s medieval polemic against the Jews. In his introduction to Silencing, Perlmann (in 1964) observed that this literature was redolent with motifs from the Muslim creed’s foundational texts:
The Koran, of course became a mine of anti-Jewish passages. The hadith did not lag behind. Popular preachers used and embellished such material.
In an earlier study (published 1948) of 11th century Muslim Spain — idealized, falsely, as the paragon of Islam’s ecumenism — Perlmann had described how such polemical tracts and sermons incited the mass violence which destroyed the Jewish community of Granada during the catastrophic 1066 pogrom. Its death toll of some 3000 to 4000 Jews exceeded the number of Jews reportedly killed by the Crusaders during their pillage of the Rhineland, some thirty years later, at the outset of the First Crusade.
Last week, the National Post of Canada published an editorial and subsequent comments (see comments section, 7:20 PM) by Tarek Fatah — self-proclaimed “hardened secular Muslim” and much-ballyhooed Muslim moderate — addressing Canada’s Jews and the Jewish community at large. Nearly 850 years after al-Maghribi, Fatah’s defamatory screeds abandon any façade of philosophical debate in his transparent effort to silence discussion of Islam by modern Jews.
The pretense for Fatah’s diatribe was an appearance by intrepid Muslim freethinker Wafa Sultan at a Toronto synagogue. Canadian journalist Joanne Hill, who attended (and recorded) the event, wrote an assiduously documented reply to Fatah at the National Post exploding his mendacious claims about Sultan’s alleged “intent.” As I will demonstrate, Fatah’s remarks ignore (in order to bowdlerize) what Islam’s foundational texts state plainly about the Muslim prophet Muhammad’s behaviors towards his child bride Aisha and the Jews of Medina and Khaybar. Fatah’s rant then maliciously castigates Wafa Sultan’s Jewish audience — consistent with Islamic law (Sharia) precepts regarding “blasphemy” that the “hardened secularist” Fatah claims to reject — for daring to have such an uncensored, “blasphemous” discussion of Islam’s prophet:
Not one member of the audience found it objectionable that a synagogue was being used to slam the Prophet of Islam as a child rapist. Not one person raised an objection. We were reminded that the synagogue was a “house of sanctuary” and that anyone causing trouble will be expelled from the assembly. Yet, calling the founder of Islam a child rapist was deemed totally appropriate. Referring to Muhammad as a Jew killer seemed just fine to the 500 attendees.
According to Canadian law, for example, statutory rape is sexual intercourse with anyone under the age of 14 — a punishable offense unless both parties are aged within two years of each other, or the accused is aged 12 to 13. Here is how the two most important canonical hadith collections describe Muhammad’s “relationship” with Aisha — their “marriage contract” and its sexual consummation — when the Muslim prophet was some four decades older than his child bride:
Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3311: Aisha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) 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.
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88: Narrated Ursa: 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 Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151: Narrated Aisha: 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 Apostle 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 Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, who had not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13)
Sahih Muslim, Book 031, Number 5981: Aisha reported that she used to play with dolls in the presence of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and when her playmates came to her they left (the house) because they felt shy of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), whereas Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) sent them to her.
Page 1 of 3 Next -> View as Single Page
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
In their usual touchy feely PC manner, apologists for Islam contend, that just as there are moderate Christians, moderate Jews-meaning non-religious fanatics-so too are there ‘moderate’ Muslims.
That would be true IF Jews & Christians were both slaughtering innocents in the name of Hashem or Jesus,just like Muslims do in the name of Allah. The argument falls apart EVERY time a Muslim slaughters and screams Allah Akbar!
Further, the true scholars of Islam, those held in the highest esteem and repute among Muslims themselves, admit that Islam IS Islam, that jihad-holy war-is its highest mandate, and that submitting to Islam(Islam means to submit) is non-negotiable.
Therefore, in a nutshell, only for PC public relations a ‘moderate’ version of Islam has been made up out of whole cloth. Again, while there are some moderate behaving Muslims, there is NO moderate Islam, unless and until an Islamic Reformation takes place.
It IS what it IS!
Speaking at Kanal D TV’s Arena program, PM Erdogan commented on the term “moderate Islam”, often used in the West to describe AKP and said, “These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.”
It is of course only Tarek Fatah/and all the leaders of Islime that “insult the Koran/Islime” by claiming the Jews have no connection with the land, (the Jews who understand their faith become Muslims Koran:3:113)
The Koran is obsessed with converting the Jews; but according to today’s “insulters of Islime”, “Jews have no claim/connection to the land” except the Koran makes it clear that “the Jews exist on the land” predating Islime.
Something is rotten outside Denmark! I demand these rascals that obviously no nothing about the Koran/Islime stop insulting Islime/Koran by claiming Jews have no connection to the land!
1. Adina Kutnicki, Israel,
I so agree with your statement and I have appreciated so many of your posts and I just wanted to take this moment to say that to you and send you a big (((HUG)).
Until we understand that ISLAMists want to destroy any/all in their path that is not of ISLAM and ultimately SHARIA, we are toying with fire that will ultimately be our own ignorance that results in our self-imposed doom.
The first liberty lost under Islam is the right to free speech. Swiftly followed by the rest of the ten commandments and the equivalent of the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution.
Islam commands its followers to convert the infidel, using any means at hand. The sword is as good as a speech in Muslim theology. Most Judeo-Christian beliefs have moved beyond the use of the sword to encourage conversion; Judaism hasn’t used force since the Second Temple.
The reason for the faux outrage is simple: the truth hurts.
“C.E.” Does that mean “Christ Era”? I like it because it actually uses Jesus’s commonly known title – Christ, the Messiah. Nonetheless, as for me and my house, we will still be using A.D.
Anyone, especially Jews, who think that Islam can coexist peacefully with other religions for long should go talk to a Zoroastrian about that.
Oh wait, you can’t, because Zoroastrianism was reduced from a religion about 1-2x the size of Judaism in the ancient world to one that today has less than 100,000 followers by Islamic violence!
In “Inside the Revolution” by Joel C. Rosenberg, three streams of Islam are looked at. The stream of “Islam is the answer; jihad is the way” does a good job of describing Nasrallah, Zawahiri, bin Laden, and those of that ilk.
Then there are those who are described as “Islam is the answer; but jihad is not the way”.
Then there are those who are described as, “Islam is not the answer, and jihad is not the way; Jesus is the way”.
The third group hear the second group, but conclude that it is the first group who is reading the Qu’ran correctly.
One other thing, I find it interesting to see this taking place when Geert Wilders is on trial. Ostensibly because his persecutors have a nagging suspicion that Wilders is right regarding the fuzzy line which separates Islam and Islamism.
Some simply can’t stomach that.
Dear Tarek:
It’s OK. I mean carnal relations with children is widely regarded as acceptable behavious among the more enlightened Hollywood elites in America and Western Europe(I refer you to Roman Polanski and his many supporters). Child rape is just another life style choice. And, after all, who are we to judge the rites and practices of another culture. If Mighty Mo thought diddling a nine year old was right and proper, then so be it. Saalam, bro. Have a blessed day.
Want to find out if a Muslim is a for real practising Muslim? Go up to them and say “I admire the Prophet Mohammed, may pee be upon his head and spit upon his grave.” If you walk away with your head attached then congratulations, you’ve found a non-practising Muslim.
Dr. Bostom,
I have never denied that the Quran does not have unflattering remarks about Jews. There is no question about it.
This issue never came up in the discussion on the Michael Coren show. Had the host asked me, I would have been more than happy to acknowledge the fact
In my upcoming book about Muslim anti-Semitism, I identify the verses where Jews are targetted and dwell on how Muslims should reconcile the Quran with the reality on the ground.
Where we differ is that I am not convinced that Muslims will give up their faith at the switch of a button and just because people like Wafa Sultan sneer and mock at them. I have chosen to be a Muslim and to fight Islamism at the same time. This may not meet your expectation, but I cannot help that.
As far as Wafa Sultan is concerned, I am surprised that you would not find her blanket ridicule of all 1.3 billion Muslims worthy of criticism.
In her book, A God who Hates, Wafa Sultan writes:
“I have never in my life seen Muslims talk without disagreement. … If one says ‘Good morning,’ the other will reply, “But it’s night time now’. … Shouting has become their hallmark and the main characteristic they use when they engage in conversation with someone whom they don’t agree with. Without it they have no sense of their own worth or existence; without it they have no sense eve of being alive. … On top of shouting their way through a conversation, they have acquired the habit of shrieking, and they take pleasure in hearing their own shrieks. They believe that the louder they shriek, the more they prove they are right. Their conversation consists of shouting, their talk is a screech, and he who shouts loudest and screeches longest is, they believe, the strongest. They fabricate disagreements so as to give themselves an opportunity to shout. They seek contradiction so that they can scream. … Islam canonized the Muslims’ desert nature, and from that moment on they were unable to acquire new ways of communicating with others. But, I wonder why does this shrieking and shouting persist?”
Just as Muslim Anti-Semites portray Jews as having an incorrigible evil nature (fitra), Wafa Sultan applies a similar principle to describe Muslims. She writes:
“The first moral question a person learns is the difference between the concepts of “yes” and “no” — in other words, the ability to decide what to accept and what to reject. … A Muslim lives his whole life and dies without ever having learned this lesson. Islamic culture has no clear concept of “yes” and “no.” The two opposites are confused in a way that makes Muslims’ behaviour incomprehensible to others who interact with them.”
In the eyes of Wafa Sultan, the world’s one and half billion Muslims are diseased and need to be treated. Such is her contempt for Muslims, this physician told a Jewish fundraiser in LA that “I have 1.3 billion patients,” referring to the global Muslim population. Her remarks were so caustic that Rabbi Stephen Stein later wrote in the LA Times, he had to walk out of the fund raiser. Not only does she consider all 1.3 billion Muslims as suffering from a disease that needs treatment, her disdain for Muslims crosses all thresholds of rational discussion. Demonstrating an ignorance of history that does not dignify a response, she rails in her book:
“God placed donkeys and mules at Muslims’ disposal, while the West gave them mastery over new forms of transportation … Before oil was discovered in the Gulf states, Muslims lived in primitive existence. Then, in the twinkling of an eye, the modern world descended upon their campsites, disfigured their world with palaces, high-rises, cars, and technology, and threatened the unchanging silence of their environment. … When people make an overnight transition from the Stone Age to the age of the airplane and the Internet, it is inevitable that they should undergo some kind of internal struggle in the process, and find themselves subject to depression and other psychological ills, specially when they continue to cling desperately to the teachings and social structure of their former environment. Muslims ran before they had learned to crawl, and tried to climb a ladder they had not even reached.”
Zeroing in on her own Arab community, Sultan claims:
“When an Arab revokes his agreement he justifies himself by insisting that he had never agreed in the first place, as he had not said yes, but had merely smiled and nodded his head. This ambiguity means that Muslims’ relationship with others are capricious and uncertain, and this has made it hard for people to trust them. People who cannot differentiate between yes and no and can express neither unambiguously have a confused notion of concepts in general.”
I have lived in the Arab world and among Arabs for a decade and I admit, there is much they can be criticized for. However, not even the Arabs’ worst enemy would accuse them of being uncultured or inhospitable. One could say the hospitality of the Arab is their saving grace. Their poetry, their language and their generosity has charmed the likes of Moshe Dayan and Amos Oz. Yet, so blinded is Wafa Sultan with her hatred of the Arab, she told the Toronto Jewish Tribune that it was only when she came to the USA that she learned to say “Thank you” or “excuse me”. She told the Jewish Tribune, “I practised medicine for nine years in Syria. Believe it or not, I learned how to say thank you [only] when I came to America. For the first time. Because you have to thank Allah and Mohammed, nobody else. I learned how to say please, how to say excuse me.”
Perhaps this Pakistani-Canadian could teach Wafa Sultan how to say, “Shukran” (Thank you) or “Min Fadlaq” (please) or maybe her hatred of the Arab has caused her to be deaf to these words, since they are two most oft repeated sounds that confront a stranger in an Arab capital or village. However, if her contempt for the Arab is evident, her disdain for the non-Arab Muslim is worse. She does not consider non-Arab Muslims to be true muslims. In her eyes, if the Arab is inferior, the Pakistani is not even worthy of the Islam she hates.
Mehnaz M. Afridi is Professor of Judaism and Islam at the Antioch University in Los Angeles. She recounts a talk at a Jewish Temple where she shared the head table with Wafa Sultan. She told me, “I had the inopportune moment to present at a Jewish Temple in Los Angeles with Wafa Al-Sultan. We were asked to show similarities between Judaism and Islam, and i did. I was the first presenter, she was second and gave a talk on how awful Islam was and how i was not a real Muslim because i am South Asian [of Pakistani descent]”
In her book, she dismisses non-Arab Muslims, claiming, “a Christian born and brought up in Jordan is more Islamic in his behaviour and way of thinking than a Pakistani Muslim.” At the 2006 LA fundraiser where rabbi Stein staged a walkout, he recalls Wafa Sultan’s own racist attitude towards non-Arab Muslims:
“Then this provocative voice said something odd: ‘Only Arab Muslims can read the Koran properly because you have to speak Arabic to know what it means — you cannot translate it.’ Any translation is, by definition, interpretation, and Arabic is no more difficult to accurately translate than Hebrew. In fact, the Hebrew of the Bible poses many more formidable translation problems than Arabic. Are Christians and Jews who cannot read it ill-equipped to live by its meanings?”
Certainly you would agree that the existential threat we face at the hands of Islamism can be faced without giving in to the temptation of racism and bigotry towards an entire people. I would hope, you would not be advocating a mass “convert to Christianity” policy of Ferdinand and Isabel.
Best wishes,
Tarek Fatah
I used to work with a Ba’hai woman from Iran. Her family fled Iran after the Shah was disposed, that’s when the crackdown on non-Moslems began. It’s not possible for Moslems to live in complete peace with non-Moslems…as we are seeing by the rate of their intolerance to non-Moslems in their host countries. You have to wonder about a people who would worship Mohammad.
#11 Tarek:
I am a 5th generation Canadian (on my mother’s side). Prior to 9/11, I never saw ONE SINGLE HIJAB in all of Toronto. Now you outnumber Jews 3:1 and anti-semiitism, hate-speech filled mosques, graffiti on synagogues, violent anti-Israel rallies are a regular occurance.
WHAT GIVES YOU MOSLEMS THE RIGHT TO INFECT MY CITY, MY COUNTRY WITH YOUR PRIMITIVE AND MISOGYNIST POLITICAL CULT?? HOW DARE YOU COME TO MY COUNTRY AND TELL ME WHAT IS ACCEPTABLE AND WHAT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE!!!
If you do not wish to live peacefully in Canada, a JUDEO-CHRISTIAN country, then GET THE HELL OUT AND GO BACK TO THE BOWELS OF THE EARTH FROM WHENCE YOU CAME. I am sick of our politicians kissing your a$$es for votes. If you are going to live here, then SIT DOWN, SHUT UP and obey the laws of your host country.
#Tarek
I am a 5th generation Canadian on my mother’s side. Prior to 9/11, I never saw one single hijab in Toronto. Since my government decided to let in Moslems en masse, Moslems outnumber Jews 3:1. As a result, York University has gone from a once great, predominantly Jewish University, to a cesspool of Islamic, Jew-hating fascists at the hands of their new Moslem president, violent anti-Israel rallies take place almost monthly. Hate-speech spews from Mosques by radical Imams, honor killings cover the front pages of our newspapers. Where are the “moderate” Moslems standing up against these “twisters of true Islam?” I read in the Canadian Jewish News about all the Jewish outreach groups to Moslems, but where are the Imams preaching tolerance and love for their fellow ‘people of the book?’
Here is my message to you and to your fellow Moslems who do not like Western values:
GET OUT OF MY CITY. GET OUT OF MY COUNRY and TAKE YOUR PRIMITIVE, MISOGYNIST, CHILD-MARRYING, ANTI-SEMITIC, VIOLENT, OPPRESSIVE, HATE-FILLED, RACIST, TRIBAL, 7TH CENTURY RELIGION WITH YOU.
I am sick and tired of being told that Islam is a “religion of peace” ……sick and tired of being told that most Moslems are really moderate and peace-loving. You are not fooling anyone with your lies and bloodlust.
GET OUT OF MY CITY. GET OUT OF MY COUNTRY and let Canadians live in peace.
For a comment to be ’slamder’ it has to be FALSE. Mohammad was a child abuser.
Actually “CE” and “BCE,” “Common Era” and “Before Common Era,” were adopted in the archaeological community long before the age of PC, largely because in much of the Middle East they were working with (or were) Jews and Muslims.
Besides, Anno Domini is rather obsolete, since we now know it doesn’t sync up with Jesus of Nazareth’s actual birth.
Sorry Tarek. I am unconvinced that any sizable segment of the Moslem world can be considered ‘moderate’, tolerant, and willing to exist in comity with the ‘unbelievers’. The behaviour of your co-religionists in the Middle East, Western Europe, and North America bespeaks of an intolerant, hostile and non-assimilatable foreign presence intent on forcing Islam on whatever host nation that it alights in. The immigrant does not have the right to demand that his adopted home accede to his customs. Quite the contrary. The immigrant must adjsut to the culture that he has adopted. Otherwise why emigrate in the first place. I do not trust the motives of Moslems. Too many remain stuck in the 7th century.
Paul -Indiana — In the Shari’a, slander is not defined as false speech, but speech which insults a Muslim, whether it is true or not:
“Slander (ghiba) means to mention anything concerning a person that he would
dislike.”–’Umdat as-Salik r2.2
Could someone please explain to me why isn’t this event (the “great prophet” marrying this six year old girl Aisha) discussed more openly in ALL of the (now former) West?
“Not one member of the audience found it objectionable that a synagogue was being used to slam the Prophet of Islam as a child rapist.”
According to what I’ve read, your prophet was a alaver, a murderer AND a violator of little girls.
If hearing the truth offends you….buy some earplugs.
To #13 Anonymous: these “politicians” don’t only get votes, they get money and lots of it from these muslims; and the muslims not only do they buy politicians with their petrodollars, but media and universities as well, in both North America and the EU.
Unless the West puts a stop to it, it will become islamist within two generations.
And a final point: the atheist jews are the strongest supporters of islam in the West.
Tarek;
One could say the hospitality of the Arab is their saving grace.
Why do they not show that famous hospitality to the Palestinians?
Toronto Girl;
What part of the world do most of your area’s Muslims come from?
# 4 – Delia, thanks for the support. So MANY people hate Jews, Israel and Conservatives in general, it is nice to hear kind words every so often.
At the end of the day, either Israel will prevail and western civilization will be saved in the process, or, we will all go down together. This time it will not be just the hated Jews-this I am sure of.
#11. Tarek Fatah
………………
Tarek,
On the internet it states you are involved in “advocacy for a “liberal, progressive form” of Islam”
What exactly does this mean?
Thanking you in advance for your time to answer this very important question.
Best Wishes,
Rochelle Michaels
There may some Muslims who are moderate, but there is no such thing as moderate Islam. It is a pathological political ideology pretending to be a religion. It is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Please spare us all the commentary on muslim “hospitality”.
Muslim hospitality is where the muslim offers his “giest” hot tea while pissing on the guest’s leg all the while insisting it’s merely rain. That sums up the koran, hadith, and sunna.
16. It’s not like “Common Era” is even intellectually honest. Either say, “Christian Era” or stop trying to rewrite our calender. You make me want to vomit.
#25. Jack in Silver Spring:
According to Dictionary.com …
Mus·lim
–adjective
1. of or pertaining to the religion, law, or civilization of Islam.
–noun
2. an adherent of Islam.
========
What is the definition of a “Moderate Muslim” ?
For your reference, According to Dictionary.com
Jew – http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/jew
Christian – http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/christian
#21 – Athiests Jews are not THE strongest supporters of Islam in the West, that is absolutely fallacious. However, I will give you that by being liberal, they tend to side with those who dislike liberty, morality and anything that invokes the name of G-d. I am hoping that their eyes will be open one day.
#22 I don’t have the exact stats, but the ones that are always in the news are mainly Pakistani, Middle Eastern or African.
# 25: “There may some Muslims who are moderate, but there is no such thing as moderate Islam. It is a pathological political ideology pretending to be a religion. It is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.”
No Jack, there are no moderate Muslims and there is no moderate Islam. It has been a radical ideology from day one and is still a radical ideology/cult. Period!!! Moderate Islam/Muslim is a concept of Muslim apologists and some Western “experts” so as to provide a free pass to Muslims who don ‘t outwardly participate in terror and jihadic activities. In the heart of their hearts they are all radical!!
Your conclusion”it is wolf in sheep’s clothing” should remind all of the non-Muslim world the true nature of Muslims/Islam.
#18. Thanks for the info. However since the cult of Islam tends to redefine terms in its own interest, I still think that telling the truth is not slander. BTW, is it ’slander’ to point out that the fast during Ramadan is nothing more than a change of meal times? They can pig out all night if they choose, although I think that going without water all day is not too easy. However, if they tank up just before daylight they can coast at least until noon.
If Muslims are going to worship Allah, and follow Mohammed they are not extreme. That is Islam.
Any Muslim who does not follow the perfect man Mohammed who murdered, raped, and lied his whole life, needs to find another religion as they are Apostate. These are the true extremists.
ROPMA!
The Islamic daily prayers include repeated recitations of al-Fatihah, the first chapter of the Qur’an. In these few verses, every Muslim prays that they will be guided on the straight path, not like the Christians (‘those who have gone astray’) or the Jews (‘those who incur Allah’s wrath’). This simple contrast, that whereas Christians have lost their way, Jews have fallen under the anger of Allah, neatly summarizes Islam’s attitude to the Jews.
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/21447.htm
A faithful Muslim who said all their prayers would recite this sura at least seventeen times a day, and over five thousand times a year.
To be genuine and effective, reconciliation between Muslims and those they refer to as ‘People of the Book’ (Jews and Christians), requires that Al-Fatihah and its meaning be discussed openly. That devout Muslims are daily declaring before Allah that Christians have gone astray and Jews are objects of divine wrath, must be considered a matter of central importance for interfaith relations. This is all the more so because the interpretation of verse 7 which relates it to Christians and Jews is soundly based upon the words of Muhammad himself. As Al-Fatihah is the daily worship of Muslims, and represents the very essence of Islam itself, the meaning of these words cannot be ignored or glossed over.
http://markdurie.blogspot.com/2009/12/greatest-recitation-of-surat-al-fatiha.html
@29: The “liberals” aren’t necessarily “radicals” and by and large the “radical left” has the atheist jews as its intellectual spring, not necessarily because of “religion” (they don’t give a **** for allah or any other “deity,” but because they hate Christianity exactly because of its deity, morals and socio-economic principles. Atheist jews devised the terms “anti-semite” and “islamophobic,” just as they devised terms like “truther” and “birther” etc., all part of the radical left’s lexicon-related, Alinsky-ite type strategy of intimidation, ridicule and effort towards “elimination.” They have been perfecting the moral equivalent of the nazis’ “final solution” for their perceived ideological enemies, they wish to intellectually exterminate. In that, they have alligned with the islamists, in a new “holy alliance.”
Rochelle Michaels @ #28: Don’t quite know what you’re getting at. I might note that Judaism and Islam share many characteristics, and it would not be incorrect to characterize Judaism as a religion, law (especially Orthodox Judaism) and a civilization. The difference between that is after two millenia of being a persecuted minority has leavened the Jews, giving them an entirely different perspective on the world. Also, I might add, insofar as Jews have lived predominately in Western civilizations since the expulsion from Spain, they have imbibed deeply of the Liberalism (not the current kind, the classical kind) that is part and parcel of Western Civilization. In the end, Judaism and Islam have become something like the two Kirks that emerged from an accident in the transporter: one good and one evil (although one can only take that analogy so far).
Urja @ #30 – What I meant was that not all Muslims are prepared to enforce the words of the Koran, although apparently enough are so as to make everyone else’s life miserable.
Sam @ #33: Islam needs not only a reconciliation with Christianity and Judaism, it needs one with all the other infidels who are not people of the Book. As things stand now, Islam is an aggressive political ideology bent on world domination.
I agree with this moderate Muslim. Any discussion of anything negative about the Prophet or Islam must be necessarily construed as aggression, provocation, intolerance, and criminal insensitivity to cultural and religious minorities. Saying Islam is violent must be punished with the harshest of force. Insulting the Prophet must result in beheading and displaying the head publicly as a public warning against insensitivity. Only then can we achieve a world society of peace, harmony, and mutual understanding.
I am glad to see the many comments above that show an understanding of the duplicitous nature of Muslims under the influence of the Islam cult.
#13 & #14
Ditto
Islam is as Islam does.
If it looks like a snake, acts like a snake, it’s a snake.
Tarek – do you also speak out publicly (and in Arabic) against anti-Jewish racism? If yes, provide citations please.
Note how Tarek Fatah ignores the issue of the ahadith presented by Bostom. Tarek Fatah will not publicly admit that in the “sahih” ahadith Muhammad “consummated” his “marriage” to Safiya after invading her people and killing her husband, and “consummated” his “marriage” to Ayesha when she was 9. To admit this, Tarek Fatah would have to admit that he was wrong, and that Wafa Sultan had a clear basis for what she was saying. He would have to apologize to Wafa Sultan.
p.s. In defense of Tarek Fatah, the implication by Dr. Bostom that Fatah is anti-Jewish is unfounded. In addition, Fatah is not actually calling for Islamic blasphemy laws. Mr. Fatah’s reaction to Wafa Sultan’s remarks about Muhammad committing rape strikes me as a natural one that many believers (Christians, Jews, Hindus, and others, not just Muslims) have when confronted with criticisms, coming from non-believers, about the worst and most archaic parts of their texts. Hence, his reaction is understandable. Also, Fatah raises some valid points (even if they are not directly relevant on the narrow issue of Sultan’s statements about rape) in criticizing Wafa Sultan’s over-the-top rhetoric.
However, Mr. Fatah should definitely address these ahadith regarding rape in more detail, since these are the basis for Sultan’s statement. In addition, Fatah should address Quran verses 33:50-52 and the mainstream tafsirs thereof.
#11 Tarek says “I have never denied that the Quran does not have unflattering remarks about Jews. There is no question about it.” That is just a EUPHEMISM for rabid antisemitism how about this from your Koran ‘the trees and the bushes will call out there is a JEW hiding behind me come and KILL him’ and you have the HYPOCRISY and downright CHEEK to call that “UNFLATTERING”.
You and your paedophile Profit are beyond disgusting.
Tarek please take your TAQQIYA elsewhere there are people here who have actually READ the Koran and aHadith and who have lived amongst Muslims and KNOW you are lying through your teeth.
Another point to note for those of a moonbat sentiment. The Koran makes claims for itself to be ‘The ACTUAL and UNALTERABLE word of GOD’ so can someone please explain where COMPROMISE and REFORMATION can take place in this context. Also the Mohammedan God PREDESTINES everything even down to wether you will believe in HIM or not. But the SAME evil sadistic ILLOGICAL God also says he will punish ‘in ETERNAL hellfire’ those that DONT believe in him. So this God creates people with the SOLE purpose of punishing them ETERNALLY and Mohammedans have the HYPOCRISY to call this God the MOST merciful. LOL
Here is the difference between a radical Moslem and a moderate Moslem. A radical Moslem will kill you if he can. A moderate Moslem will make excuses for him and confuse the issues intentionally.
11. Tarek Fatah = Flaming FUGLY
No wonder they have to rape women and children. How else would they get ‘any’ before the honor killin’ of evil wimmin’.
Hey, Tarek F,
Since you read American websites, what do you think of our own Apostate Muslim President?
Just askin’.
Guys!
As far as the nine year old child bride of of the prophet, nothing has changed in the muslim world.
Ayahtolla Khomeni of Iran married a ten year old girl when he was twenty-seven. She was pregnant by age eleven.
The muslim world is so proud of these child brides-especially these child raping grooms.
Silencing Jews! Child’s play! The Muslims, and oil money bribes have silenced all of the USA and Europe! We don’t have a chance against them. Ben laden (one of their saints) has brought the western world to its knees, whimpering and sobbing, and begging to be understood, on the very brink of economic collapse! We are dead! This son of many mothers and a savage, primitive religion is twenty times as strong as any effete westerner! Think not? Then why can’t we catch him?
And… Now What?
Hi Andrew Bostom,
As always, an excellent read, full of history and reaching a coherent conclusion… and… now what?
Yesterday I finished reading “Son of Hamas” by Mosab Hassan Yousef, and Yousef’s reason for leaving Shin Bet has inspired an unusual observation for you, as the author of this excellent article, and also to those on the “other side” who defend Allah, Islam, Muhammad, Sharia.
Metaphorically speaking, you “shoot” Tarek Fatah an excellent and laser focused question about quoting Islamic authors… and… now what?
“… is it “Islamophobia” to quote such statements — rife with Koranic Jew-hatred, and made by authoritative Muslim clerics … .”
Tarek Fatah has an informed response in # 11 that he “shoots” back at you… and… now what?
Fatah crouches in position behind his boulder as he “shoots” anecdotal info and innuendo against Wafa Sultan and her comments in her book… and… now what?
“Perhaps this Pakistani-Canadian could teach Wafa Sultan how to say, “Shukran” (Thank you) or “Min Fadlaq” (please) … .”
Maybe later someone else will crouch behind a boulder and “shoot” their own anecdotal info and innuendo against Tarek Fatak and others of his ilk… and… now what?
The “shooting” continues… and… now what?
Mosab Yousef said in his book that after 10 years as a spy with Shin Bet he realized that nothing was changing for the better. The “shooting” continues… and… now what? 10 more years of spying? More shooting and killing? (Mosab did the spying, Israel and Hamas did the shooting and killing.)
His conclusion?
The problem was not, is not and never will be the Muslim people. The problem is with what the “scholars” and “experts” were teaching.
The BIG problem is the with BIGGEST gangster of all the terrorists, Allah himself, and the words of the Qur’an that Muhammad used as his authority for killing the people of the book, Jews and Christians.
The problem with Allah today is that the “top-rung-of-the-ladder” jihad true believers of today are emulating the “perfect” man, Muhammad, and using the words of Allah in the Qur’an as their authority for killing with impunity non-Muslims and apostate Muslims as the true believers seek to impose Islamic law (sharia) in dar-al-harb.
My observation is that, historians and excellent authors such as yourself MUST continue to “shoot” true words of history and MUST continue to “shoot” quotes at the defenders of Allah, the crescent moon God of the Arabian Peninsula.
Also, maybe it is time for more and more Arabic speakers who know the Arabic of the Qur’an, and who have experienced insight into terrorism such as Walid Shoebat and now Mosab Yousef, be encouraged to take center stage and drive the stake into the very heart of the BIG problem of the biggest gangster of Islam with the words of Jesus himself… “love your enemies… even those who abuse you.”
That is what Yousef wrote about in his book as his inspiration for leaving Islam and stopping his personal climb to the “top-rung-of-the-ladder… jihad and killing,” and also leaving the spying for Shin Bet after his 2005 conversion to Christianity as a follower of Jesus.
Well, it’s just an observation… and, maybe it’s an observation whose time has come. At least for Mosab Yousef, he said the time had come for him, and it is something he will be doing for the rest of his life.
God willing… a long and productive life.
However, the true believers in the religion of peace don’t like him anymore. It seems that the truth about Allah wanting his enemies killed because they would not kow tow to Muhammad’s inspiring rhetoric to drive all the Jews out of Arabia is a truth that can’t stand to “love your enemies”… unless they submit and convert or dhimmify. If not, you die.
This explains why Pharaoh Hussein and his wazira Hitlery feel justified in snarling at the Jewish people – after all, we are just pigs and monkeys – not worthy of being equal conversational partners.
The truth is we are hated by the Muslim world. It is not only political correctness, but also political madness to hear the words of hatred aimed at the West and not accept them as
reality. Even the threats of Osama bin Laden were taken from the eighth and ninth chapters of the Koran.
“When you meet the unbelievers strike them in the neck…. If you do not go out and fight, God will punish you severely…Whenever you find the polytheists, kill them, seize them,besiege them, ambush them…You who believe do not take Jews and Christians as friends…The Hour of Judgement will not come until Muslims fight the Jews and kill them”.
A good muslim is a jihadist. A bad muslim wants peace.
Tarek Fatah,how can you defend a man marrying a six year old?I saw you on the Michael Coren show referring to Aisha as a nine year old (woman).Not a child or a girl,but a woman.
Not being a practising Muslim,why would you be offended by negative comments about Muhammad?
Mr Fatah,
I have,for a long time read and appreciated your positions regarding inter-faith dialogue,but now I am not so sure,today,you seem like every other muslim spokesman in canada,unable to embrace free speech !
If you are still reading this blog perhaps you would explain something to me
What is it about Islam that you like so much,do you think it is superior to judaism or christianity – if so,how ? and if not-why do you not convert ? afterall…canadians will not kill you if you convert.
I mean REALLY just that(being killed for apostasy) would be enough for me to drop Islam !
Dear Tarek Fatah,
why did you lie? Why did you weasel and lie on national TV to defend the indefensible?
Why do you go to great length to post here more prevarications, taqiyya & unrelated stuff?
Just apologize and take it on the chin. Or are you not man enough for that?
When Aisha was told, at age 6, that she was to be married to Mahound, she got sick and all her hair fell out. This was according to the hadiths.
Now, what would cause that to happen to a young child?
Qualities of Aisha and her role in Islam
In any discussion on the age of Aisha (ra: may Allah be pleased with her) at the time of her marriage with the Holy Prophet Muhammad (may peace and the blessings of Allah be upon him), it is of the greatest relevance to note the pivotal role she played as a teacher, exponent and interpreter of the religion of Islam. Aisha was an exceptionally intelligent and astute woman, a young prodigy, and this was the main reason why she was got married to the Holy Prophet, as is clearly proved by events after the Holy Prophet’s life. She entered his household, shortly after his emigration to Madina, just at the time when the teachings of Islam in all fields of life for the Muslim community were starting to be revealed to the Holy Prophet and demonstrated by him by his example and practice. An intellectually gifted person was required who would have daily contact with the Holy Prophet at the closest and most personal level, so as to absorb the teachings that he was giving on all aspects of life by his words and actions. Such a person would need to possess the following qualities:
* an excellent, precise memory to retain a vast amount of detail accurately,
* the understanding to grasp the significance and the principles of the teachings,
* powers of reasoning, criticism and deduction to resolve problems on the basis of those teachings,
* the skills to convey knowledge to a wide range of audience,
* and, finally, have the prospect of living for a considerable period of time after the death of the Holy Prophet in order to spread his message to distant generations.
That Aisha possessed all these qualities and carried out this mission is an absolutely positive and undeniable, historical fact. After the Holy Prophet’s death, she acted as a teacher and interpreter of Islam, providing guidance to even the greatest of the male Companions of the Holy Prophet Muhammad. They made a special point of going to her to gain knowledge and seek her opinion. A vast number of sayings and actions of the Holy Prophet are reported from her in books of Hadith. She not only quoted his sayings and reported her observations of events, but interpreted them to provide solutions to questions. Whenever necessary, she corrected the views of the greatest of the Companions of the Holy Prophet. She made rulings and judgments on which Islamic law is based.
The following are two examples of what the Holy Prophet’s male Companions said about her:
“Abu Musa said: Whenever there was any hadith that was difficult [to understand] for us, the Companions of the Messenger of Allah, and we asked Aisha we always found that she had knowledge about that hadith.”
“Musa ibn Talha said: I never saw anyone more eloquent than Aisha.” [1]
In the famous compilation of the lives of saints in Islam, Tadhkirat-ul-Auliya, the author Farid-ud-Din Attar, who lived eight centuries ago, introduces the life of the early female saint Rabia of Basra as follows:
“If anyone says, ‘Why have you included Rabia in the rank of men?’, my answer is that the Prophet himself said, ‘God does not regard your outward forms’. … Moreover, if it is proper to derive two-thirds of our religion from Aisha, surely it is permissible to take religious instruction from a handmaid of Aisha.” [2]
It is thus recognised, from the earliest times in Islam, that some two-thirds of Islamic Sharia is based on reports and interpretations that have come from Aisha.
In view of these exceptional qualities of Aisha and the towering role played by her in the transmission of the teachings of Islam, it is simply preposterous and outrageous to suggest that she was the victim of some form of child and marital abuse. We ask in particular the Christian and Jewish critics of Islam, who are reviling the Holy Prophet Muhammad on the basis of his marriage with Aisha, whether they can point out any example of a woman in their religions who played a role like that of Aisha in learning the religion from its founder and becoming the teacher and instructor of all his followers, including men, after his death.
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.
The Bible on marriage of young girls with much older men
As it is Christian evangelists and other believers in the Bible who have been bitterly reviling the Holy Prophet Muhammad on account of his marriage with Aisha, we put to them the practices of the great patriarchs and prophets that are recorded in the Bible itself in this connection. The main accusations regarding the marriage of Aisha are that she was too young in age while the Holy Prophet was a much older man, being fifty years of age, and that consent to marriage was either not obtained from her or she was not capable of giving it.
Abraham
In the book of Genesis in the Bible it is recorded about Abraham:
“Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no children. But she had an Egyptian maidservant named Hagar; so she said to Abram, ‘The Lord has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my maidservant; perhaps I can build a family through her.’ Abram agreed to what Sarai said. So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian maidservant Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife. He slept with Hagar, and she conceived. … So Hagar bore Abram a son, and Abram gave the name Ishmael to the son she had borne. Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore him Ishmael.” (Genesis, chapter 16, verses 1–4, and 15–16, New International Version. Bolding is mine.)
Firstly, it is evident that as Abraham (who then had the name Abram) was 86 years old, Hagar must have been some fifty years younger than him, and probably even younger, to bear a child. Secondly, the Bible speaks of Sarai giving her maidservant Hagar to Abraham. So Hagar’s consent was not obtained but rather she was commanded by Sarai to go and become Abraham’s wife.
David
The first book of Kings in the Bible begins as follows:
“When King David was old and well advanced in years, he could not keep warm even when they put covers over him. So his servants said to him, ‘Let us look for a young virgin to attend the king and take care of him. She can lie beside him so that our lord the king may keep warm.’ Then they searched throughout Israel for a beautiful girl and found Abishag, a Shunammite, and brought her to the king. The girl was very beautiful; she took care of the king and waited on him, but the king had no intimate relations with her.” (1 Kings, chapter 1, verses 1–4, New International Version. Bolding is mine.)
So there seems nothing wrong, according to the Bible, in procuring a young virgin, again apparently without her consent, whose duties include lying with the elderly king in bed. The intention was certainly for sexual enjoyment, otherwise there was no necessity of looking for a young, beautiful virgin. A much older woman, perhaps a widow, could have performed all these duties, including lying with the king to keep him warm.
Mary and Joseph
The most famous marriage in Christianity is no doubt that of Mary, Jesus’ mother, with Joseph. While the following details are not in the canonical Gospels in the Bible, it appears from other early Christian writings (known as apocryphal writings) that Mary was twelve years old when the temple elders decided to find a husband for her. They selected the husband by drawing lots, and Joseph whom they chose was an elderly man, being according to some accounts ninety years old. The husband was selected and Mary was handed over to him, and she played no part in his selection.
These accounts are summed up in the Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913 edition, which is available online, as follows:
“It will not be without interest to recall here, unreliable though they are, the lengthy stories concerning St. Joseph’s marriage contained in the apocryphal writings. When forty years of age, Joseph married a woman called Melcha or Escha by some, Salome by others; they lived forty-nine years together and had six children … A year after his wife’s death, as the priests announced through Judea that they wished to find in the tribe of Juda a respectable man to espouse Mary, then twelve to fourteen years of age, Joseph, who was at the time ninety years old, went up to Jerusalem among the candidates; a miracle manifested the choice God had made of Joseph …” [13] (Bolding is mine.)
Although these apocryphal accounts are not now accepted by many Christians, and the Catholic Encyclopedia says that they “are void of authority”, yet it also speaks of their influence as follows:
“they nevertheless acquired in the course of ages some popularity; in them some ecclesiastical writers sought the answer to the well-known difficulty arising from the mention in the Gospel of the Lord’s brothers; from them also popular credulity has, contrary to all probability, as well as to the tradition witnessed by old works of art, retained the belief that St. Joseph was an old man at the time of marriage with the Mother of God.”
However, these accounts are accepted by the Eastern churches. The website of the Ukrainian Orthodoxy has an article on this subject entitled An Elderly Joseph which agrees with the presentation in the apocryphal writings “of Joseph as an elderly man, a widower with adult children”. It concludes:
“The Christian East’s picture of Joseph as a courageous, faithful, God-centred elderly widower rings true.” [14]
We give below, as Appendix, a quotation from one of these apocryphal books, The Infancy Gospel of James, describing how Mary’s husband was selected.
While the Western Christian churches may not accept these accounts as authentic, the Eastern churches in Europe do accept that Mary was 12 years old and Joseph a widower 90 years old when they married. Moreover, there is nothing in the Gospels of the New Testament to contradict these accounts, and the Gospel stories are not at all inconsistent with these ages for Mary and Joseph.
References
[1]. Tirmidhi, Abwab-ul-Manaqib, i.e. Chapters on Excellences, under ‘Virtues of Aisha’.
[2]. Muslim Saints and Mystics, abridged English translation of Tadhkirat-ul-Auliya, by A.J. Arberry, p. 40.
[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’. For Muhsin Khan’s translation, see this link and go down to reports listed as 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. (Go here to see an image of the full entry in Urdu.)
[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. See this link.
[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’. See this link in Muhsin Khan’s translation and go down to report listed as Volume 4, Book 52, Number 131.
[12]. Fadl-ul-Bari, vol. 1, p. 651.
[13]. In article St. Joseph, under letter J. Here is a link to this article in the online Catholic Encyclopedia.
[14]. Here is a link to this article An Elderly Joseph.
Appendix: The Infancy Gospel of James, Chapter 8 verse 2 to Chapter 9 verse 11
“When she [Mary] turned twelve, a group of priests took counsel together, saying, ‘Look, Mary has been in the temple of the Lord twelve years. What should we do about her now, so that she does not defile the sanctuary of the Lord our God?’ And they said to the high priest, ‘You have stood at the altar of the Lord. Go in and pray about her. And if the Lord God reveals anything to you, we will do it.’ And the priest went in taking the vestment with twelve bells into the holy of holies and prayed about her. Suddenly, an angel of the Lord stood before him, saying, ‘Zachariah, Zachariah, depart from here and gather the widowers of the people and let each one carry a staff. And the one whom the Lord God points out with a sign, she will be his wife.’ So the heralds went out to the whole surrounding area of Judea and the trumpet of the Lord rang out and all the men rushed in.
Throwing down his axe, Joseph went out to meet them. And after they had gathered together with their rods, they went to the high priest. After receiving everyone’s rod, the high priest went into the temple and prayed. When he was finished with the prayer, he took the rods and went out and gave them to each man, but there was no sign among them. Finally, Joseph took his rod. Suddenly, a dove came out of the rod and stood on Joseph’s head. And the high priest said, ‘Joseph! Joseph! You have been chosen by lot to take the virgin into your own keeping.’ And Joseph replied, saying, ‘I have sons and am old, while she is young. I will not be ridiculed among the children of Israel.’ And the high priest said, ‘Joseph, fear the Lord your God and remember what God did to Dathan and Abiron and Kore, how the earth split open and swallowed them because of their rebellion. Now fear God, Joseph, so that these things do not happen in your house.’ Fearing God, Joseph took her into his own possession.”
— Translation by Shelly Matthews, available at this link. For other translations of this gospel see this link.
The apologetics about Aisha’s age quoted by Abdullah Yahya, above, have been thoroughly rebutted by Sam Shamoun at the Answering-Islam website, and by Shaykh Gibril F Haddad in his article Our Mother A’isha’s Age At The Time Of Her Marriage to The Prophet
(Answered) at the Sunni-Path website.
Bottom line: Most Muslim scholars believe that Aisha was 9 at the time Muhammad “consummated” the marriage, and this marriage of Muslim men to child brides is still practiced by many Muslims in the Islamic world.
Bottom line on the Fatah controversy: He didn’t claim Wafa Sultan was quoting a traditional interpretation. He flipped out and accused her of making up her story, and he initially made no such mention of any ahadith at all. He presented this as though it was just “hate” from Sultan. Only later did he start backtracking and taking a seldom-used apologist line. Now he must apologize to Sultan.
Dear KinanaOfKhaybar, thank you for your suggestion to seek reference from GF Haddad which I had looked into and received it as another point of view. Knowledge is most revere and wisdom must be sought to anticipate the one who imagines himself to be all knowing will surely suffer on account of his ignorance
Though it is an understatement to be referred as ‘apologetic’ .
Abdullah,
If you (a) realize the importance of the Hadith in mainstream Islamic scholarship and that most Muslim scholars accept the belief that Aisha was 9 when Muhammad “consummated” the marriage, and (b) that based on this belief the practice of Muslim men marrying child brides still continues in many countries today, then why don’t you take your argument to those Muslims and convince them to stop what they are practicing or to change their beliefs about this?
Dear KinanaOfKhaybar
The essence of The Prophet marrying Aisha had been a testimonial for almost two third of the Islamic Law assert on her account which puts her an acclaim authority on the life of the prophet and thus shows Islamic women were praise and dignified.
Our position is to put things in perspective within Islamic point of view and seek to complement Islamic teaching into our livelihood as individual muslim who cherish his faith, to provide guidance those closest to us and relentless effort to work on our values to be more Islamic. Our effort is to make today better than yesterday and tomorrow will yield far reaching objective in our life.
As an example, the Prophet had in his lifetime drink while standing only once but many today did not comply. The prophet act is an acknowledgement that’s it is okay and not forbid drinking while standing. Can we implore the Muslim to act in such haste to be precise whence their basis on Islam is feeble.
On marrying and other muslim action upon many deeds, many were derived from desire and culture thus putting Islam to be blame as had happened in your statement.
Verily every action is by intention. Thank you once again a word of wisdom ;
one who develops the trait of greed and avarice invites degradation
one who keeps on advertising his poverty and ill-luck will always be humiliated
one who has no control over his tongue will often have to face embarrassment and discomfort
Dear KinanaOfKhaybar
The essence of The Prophet marrying Aisha had been a testimonial for almost two third of the Islamic Law assert on her account which puts her an acclaim authority on the life of the prophet and thus shows Islamic women were praise and dignified.
Our position is to put things in perspective within Islamic point of view and seek to complement Islamic teaching into our livelihood as individual muslim who cherish his faith, to provide guidance those closest to us and relentless effort to work on our values to be more Islamic. Our effort is to make today better than yesterday and tomorrow will yield far reaching objective in our life.
As an example, the Prophet had in his lifetime drink while standing only once but many today did not comply. The prophet act is an acknowledgement that’s it okay and not forbid drinking while standing. Can we implore the Muslim to act in such haste to be precise whence their basis on Islam is feeble.
On marrying and other muslim action upon many deeds, many were derived from desire and culture thus putting Islam to be blame as had happened in your statement.
Verily every action is by intention. Thank you once again and a word of wisdom ;
one who develops the trait of greed and avarice invites degradation
one who keeps on advertising his poverty and ill-luck will always be humiliated
one who has no control over his tongue will often have to face embarrassment and discomfort