[Assam] “WE WILL REMOVE THIS SITE IF PROVEN WRONG”: Series of logical articles from THE site posted here to prepare for the challenge, as some people in Assam even using loud speakers to spread their message without a challenge. Article32: Aisha & morality.

[Bartta Bistar]

 Moral Evaluations of the Marriage of the Prophet with Aisha
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/ayesha_moraleval.htm
------------------------------

By Ali Sina <http://www.faithfreedom.org/Author/Sina.htm>

Aisha  was 9 lunar years old or 8 years 9 months old according to solar
years when Muhammad slept with her. This is a fact
demonstrated<http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/ayesha.htm>by a
great number of hadiths. There is no controversy in that. There has
never been until now that some of the Muslims have come in contact with
western values and are ashamed to admit that their Prophet could commit such
an indecency. They deny the facts and have made it a
controversy<http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/ayesha_age.htm>.
The majority of Muslims still have no problem with the young age of the
Aisha  and they ridicule these Modern day "moral relativists" who are
twisting the truth to please the morality of the westerners. (See
this<http://salam.muslimsonline.com/%7Eislamawe/Polemics/aishah.html>site)

An American lady, with whom I used to correspond about Islam, was interested
in this religion because of her Muslim boyfriend. She admitted that the
thought of Muhammad having sexual intercourse with a 9-year-old girl
appalled her but she was relieved to know that there are some Muslims who
deny it and this is the subject of a controversy not agreed by all the
Muslims. This is what I wrote in response.

"There are people who deny the holocaust. This happened only 55 years ago
and it is very well documented. Yet it has not stopped some people to deny
it. So they start a controversy. Would you doubt the holocaust because it is
a subject of a controversy? Intelligent people are not affected by
controversies. They look at the facts and are not swayed by hearsays.
Feeble-minded people become confused and do not know which way to turn.
These people switch off and avoid the issue altogether, because for them,
making a decision is not an easy task. That is why some people start the
controversy.

Only a few years ago Sheikh Baaz in Saudi Arabia issued a fatwa that any one
who said the Earth is round is Kafir. Obviously this did not go very far but
he started a controversy. So what is your opinion about the shape of the
Earth? Would you stay out of it because it is a controversial issue? How
about the evolution? There are many Muslims as well as Christians who do not
agree with evolution. They believe in the Biblical and Quranic fables of
Adam and Eave and the creation. This is a big controversy. Are you going to
stay away from it? Is it a none-issue for you? Almost everything under the
Sun is a controversial issue. From death penalty to hunting, from spending
money for space exploration to aiding the poor countries, everything is a
controversy. Even the very subject of religion is a controversial issue. So
you cannot walk away from responsibility when you are faced with
controversies.

I agree that morality<http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/ethicsmorality.htm>is
relative and we should not judge the ancient people's morality with
our
modern morality.

Obviously we all cringe when we think of pedophilia and acknowledge that it
is a shameful act of immorality. But during the time of Muhammad, and even
today in some Islamic countries, marrying a 9-year-old child was not
immoral. In fact Aisha  was given to Muhammad with the consent of her
parents and no one raised an eyebrow. The question is, if sleeping with a
nine year old child was not deemed bad and therefore was not considered
immoral, was it ok? Not everything that a society accepts as moral is right.
Having sex with a minor may not have been immoral for Arabs 1400 years ago,
but it is now, as it was then, unethical. Moralities are defined by
circumstances, but ethics transcend time and space. They are rooted in
logics. Morality can vary from culture to culture, from time to time and
from person to person. Who is to determine what is moral and what is not? "


Having sex with a minor may not have been immoral for Muhammad and his
contemporaries in that uncivilized culture, but it was ethically wrong. If
Muhammad was a messenger of God or an honorable man, as he made his Allah to
proclaim him thus, he should have known that what he was doing was
dishonorable and unethical.

Although it is true that in the past people married at very young age. And
it is also true that occasionally wealthy old men married very young girls.
We have to realize that these people acted on their culture. We do not
condemn them for they did not know better. What they did was the norm. But
we do condemn those cultures.

However, we cannot forgive with the same amnesty those who claimed to be the
standard of rectitude amongst mankind. If average people could not
distinguish the right from the wrong, the messengers of God, if they were
from God, should have known better. If their claim was true, if their
knowledge was divine, if they were inspired, they should not have followed
the tradition of their people but should have set the example. Muhammad
followed the morality of his people. But that morality was ethically wrong.
He claimed to be the best human and the last messenger of God. According to
him God has said to people all he wanted to say in the Quran and his
religion is complete. There is no more guidance to come and his examples and
teachings are all we need to know and follow for eternity. Yet what he did
and said, under the light of modern values prove to be very wrong.

Now we realize that we cannot live by his examples any more, nor can we
practice his teachings. Our morality has changed. We would certainly put a
man in jail if he wanted to follow the Sunnah of the prophet in this day and
age and "marry" a 9-year-old child. We would not allow someone to take
people as slaves or trade in slavery as Muhammad did.

If we cannot follow the morality of Muhammad any more, if what he said and
did do not fit in this modern day, why we need Muhammad? What part of his
teachings should we accept and what part should we discard? Who will
determine that? This is an important question. If we give ourselves the
freedom to pick and choose the teachings that most suit us we should give
the same freedom to others.

Suppose you believe that marriage to a minor should be outlawed, or you do
not feel that polygyny is appropriate any more for this day and age. Suppose
you disagree with slavery, male or female circumcision, beating of the wives
and do not believe in Jihad any more. You prefer to concentrate on other
parts of Islam that you like, e.g. Salat, Zikat, Haj, etc. This is your
choice. But can you deny other Muslims whose choices are distinct from
yours? How could you stop a Muslim who wants to follow those teachings of
Islam that you consider outdated? By what authority can you dissuade one who
wants to spread Islam by Jihad, like Muhammad did? How can you prohibit him
not to assault sexually a 9-year-old child by marrying her? What would you
say to a Muslim who wishes to marry up to four wives and decides to punish
them by beating them if they are disobedient, as the Prophet instructed him
to do? If you use logic in picking the teachings that are best, you are
saying that logic is superior to revelation and therefore you are
subscribing to the freethinker's way of thinking not Muhammad's.

Many Islamic countries have realized that true Islam is impractical. Very
few of them can practice it faithfully; they all have modified it to certain
extent and have incorporated secularism into their laws to make life
bearable. Those that do follow Islam are hells on Earth. Interestingly the
civility and the progress of these countries are proportionate to the level
of their secularization. In the Middle Ages, when religion had plunged
Europe into the dark ages, Islamic countries were progressive and
prosperous. This was possible because of the tolerance of the rulers of
those days, their independence from the Mosque and their disinterest to
implement Islam.

Zakaria Ar-Razi, one of the greatest minds of Islamic world, attacked
religion in general and Islam in particular with a force unthinkable in this
day. He wrote:

"*The prophets—these billy goats with long beards, cannot claim any
intellectual or spiritual superiority. These billy goats pretend to come
with a message from God, all the while exhausting themselves in spouting
their lies, and imposing on the masses blind obedience to the "words of the
master." The miracles of the prophets are impostures, based on trickery, or
the stories regarding them are lies. The falseness of what all the prophets
say is evident in the fact that they contradict one another: one affirms
what the other denies, and yet each claims to be the sole depository of the
truth; thus the New Testament contradicts the Torah, the Koran the New
Testament. As for the Koran, it is but an assorted mixture of "absurd and
inconsistent fables," which has ridiculously been judged inimitable, when,
in fact, its language, style, and its much vaunted "eloquence" are far from
being faultless. Custom, tradition, and intellectual laziness lead men to
follow their religious leaders blindly. Religions have been the sole cause
of the bloody wars that have ravaged mankind. Religions have also been
resolutely hostile to philosophical speculation and to scientific research.
The so-called holy scriptures are worthless and have done more harm than
good, whereas the "writings of the ancients like Plato, Aristotle, Euclid,
and Hippocrates have rendered much greater service to humanity."  *

This kind of criticism of Islam today, would carry the death sentence. Can
any intellectual speak so freely against Islam calling the prophets "Billy
Goats" as Ar-Razi called them disdainfully in these days and live? Does the
fatwa against Salman Rushdie ring a bell? It is clear that in those days of
the golden age of Islam, Islamic countries enjoyed a freedom and a level of
secularization that has since been disappeared. And along with that, the
glory of Islamic world also has ebbed. Islam can be used as an index of
barbarity and backwardness. The more a country applies Islam, the more
uncivilized and uncultured it becomes.

I have no doubt that if Islam was eliminated completely, we'll regain the
past glory of those secular days and even surpass it. There is no reason to
believe that the black-eyed race of Middle East is inferior to the blue-eyed
Europeans. The number of Middle Eastern scientists, academics and scholars
in the West is an indication that given the opportunity we are no less
intelligent than any other race. The reason that we are backward,
uncivilized and barbaric in our native countries is because Islam has taken
away our dignity, humanity and intelligence. Islam has brainwashed us, and
like a drug has damaged the minds of our people.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://assamnet.org/pipermail/assam_assamnet.org/attachments/20071116/1fbc0e4e/attachment.html