Challenging the Church #3: In Defense of The Prophet's Marriage to Aisha (رَضِيَ ٱللَّٰهُ عَنْهُ)
About Aisha (عائشةرَضِيَ ٱللَّٰهُ عَنْهُ )
Aisha (r.a.) was the daughter of Abu Bakr (r.a.) and Umm Ruman (r.a.), two of The Prophet's closest companions. As stated by Muhammad al-Bukhari (r.a.) Aisha was six years old when she married Muhammad (saw) and was nine years old when they consummated their marriage, something that was not unusual for the time period. Aisha never spoke any ill of The Prophet even after he and her father passed away although she had every ability to do so. When a companion asked Muhammad, "who is the person you love most in the world?" he responded, "Aisha."[1] It is also important to note that there exists evidence that Muhammad did not view himself as entirely superior to Aisha, at least not enough to prevent Aisha from speaking her mind, even at the risk of angering Muhammad.[2]
Modern critics of The Prophet (saw) often focus on his marriage to Aisha bint Abu Bakr (r.a.) by using modern ideas of adulthood and consent to besmirch his reputation. The problem with this narrative is two-fold: (1) pedophilia is a modern concept based on modern ideas of maturity and sexuality (2) during the time of the Nabi marriage secured physical safety and life's necessities (like food, water, clothes, etc.) for women in ways that no other institution could provide.
Historical Ideas of Maturity & Consent
It is easy with 1400 years of technological & scientific progress to look back on the people of antiquity and the middle ages as brutish and uncivilized, but is it fair to do so? The first issue with this criticism of The Prophet (saw) is that even in the modern age the idea of maturity & sexual readiness is a ever-changing concept. In traditional societies of old, the age of consent for a sexual union was a matter for the family to decide, or a tribal custom. In most cases, this coincided with signs of puberty; menstruation for a woman, and pubic hair for a man. The first recorded age-of-consent law dates from 1275 in England; as part of its provisions on rape, the Statute of Westminster 1275 made it a misdemeanor to "ravish" a "maiden within age," whether with or without her consent. The phrase "within age" was later interpreted by jurist Sir Edward Coke (England, 17th century) as meaning the age of marriage, which at the time was twelve years of age. Before 1896 the word pedophile had never been used in all of human history to describe attraction to children who had not yet reached puberty.[3] Several Western countries have raised their ages of consent in recent decades. In 1880 in the Americas, the ages of consent were set at 10 or 12 in most states, with the exception of Delaware where it was 7. These include Canada (in 2008—from 14 to 16); and in Europe, Iceland (in 2007—from 14 to 15), Lithuania (in 2010—from 14 to 16), Croatia (in 2013—from 14 to 15), Spain (in 2015—from 13 to 16), and Estonia (in 2022—from 14 to 16).
Due to the secular feminist culture in the West the age continues to get raised not based on any kind of objective science but instead because of the modern education system and industrialized society. Since women are expected to enter the workplace in the modern age, which means being educated and physically capable of doing labor, the idea of young women marrying has become both criminal and taboo in much of the United States.
The Problem with the Modern Secular View on Child Marriage
The stigma against men interested in young women is so powerful that most people, regardless of their actual beliefs, would never defend "child marriage" as it's understood today. But this stigma isn't based on science, nor are the laws surrounding marriage and sexual consent, which is evident when you look at the statistics regarding pregnancy. While some research does suggest risks associated with younger women getting pregnant it is also true that there are equally high, if not higher, risks when a woman above age 35 conceives. So why is nobody campaigning to stop women in their late 30s and early 30s from having children? Where is the stigma and criminalization of such risks that are supported by modern science? It doesn't exist.
The biggest problem with this modernist, liberal criticism of our prophet is the inconsistency in liberal ideology regarding sex. They decry young people getting married as immoral but want to teach sexual education to kids as young as ten, in some cases younger than that.
They aren't vocal opponents of these "children" having sexual intercourse with each other, often describing youths having sex as inevitable. They don't see sex as something that should require marriage and see no problem with someone who is just graduating high school having a double-digit 'body count'. The reality of the situation is that the modern liberal idea of sexual liberation is far more harmful to society than young people getting married ever could be.
Within Islam puberty is an absolute requisite in order to consummate a marriage. For women this means having their first period which is the second-to-last stage of puberty. Only 1-2 years after a woman's first cycle she reaches her permanent adult height, her pubic hair fills out, and her hips, thighs, and buttocks fill out. At this point she has fully finished puberty, even by modern medical standards.
Christian Hypocrisy
Christians are among the biggest critics of Our Prophet for this marriage. The problem with this is if you scan The Holy Bible for guidance on this topic you will not find anything prohibiting it. To the contrary, below is a verse from Numbers in which the prophet Moses (a.s.) specifically approves of it:
"Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves."
Now some Christians will try to rewrite history and tell you this was Moses speaking on his own without divine revelation from God. Others will tell you that during the Old Covenant (time of the Old Testament) it was permissible but once Jesus (a.s.) brought the New Covenant it was no longer allowed. But is this even true? Jesus never prohibited child marriage or the practice of taking concubines. How could it be possible that such a rule was put in place if Jesus never even mentioned it? It can't be. This problem is compounded by the fact that Christians believe Jesus was literally God so the idea he neglected (or worse, he forgot) to mention something so important is beyond comprehension. In fact Jesus reaffirmed the importance of the messages relayed by the prophets that came before him.
“It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’"
So since the Bible sanctions child marriage and the sexual use of female virgin captives how can Christians attack Our Prophet for his marriage to Aisha? They cannot without also denouncing their own prophets Moses (a.s.) and Abraham (a.s.). Some Christians will concede that the bible does not give a minimum age for marriage or sex, but they will insist that in ancient society child marriage or sex was not commonplace. The problem with this modernist rewriting of history is that none of the enemies of The Prophet or those who fought Muslims following his death ever criticized his marriage to Aisha. This includes:
Richard the Lionheart
Reginald de Chatillon
Godfrey of Bouillon
Frederick II
Subutai
Byzantine Emperors
Sassanid Shahs
So if child marriage was so unthinkable and abhorrent historically how come this marriage was never subject to criticism before the past century or so? Reginald de Chatillon swore to defile the sacred cities, to drag the body of the Prophet Muhammad (saw) from his tomb for the purpose of charging Muslims to see it, and to destroy the Kaaba, Islam's most sacred place.[4] If Our Prophet's marriage to Aisha was so controversial and immoral how could an enemy with such hate for him neglect to attack his character like Christians today? It doesn't make any sense. There is only one explanation for this contradiction: Christians are more interested in promoting modern secular ideas of sexuality and maturity than their own religion's views on these topics.
Conclusion
t is my belief that no true believer in Islam should ever criticize any part of the Sunnah (life and practices of The Prophet). This includes his marriage with Aisha, his taking of concubines, his purchasing of slaves, etc. Instead our focus should be on pointing out that the new modern ideas of morality with regards to these topics are rife with contradiction and hypocrisy. After all, Muhammad (saw) treated his wives better than any man throughout history. He treated his slaves with compassion and respect, and he freed many of them throughout his life. One of the most pious deeds that Islam encouraged Muslims to adopt was freeing of the slaves. Prophet Muhammad banned the Arab practice of raids to take slaves. He said that no free man could ever be taken into slavery. Muslims were taught to avoid confrontation even with their avowed enemies at all cost.[5] The Nabi's modern critics fail to reach ideological consistency regarding sex and marriage.
Western liberals want sexual liberation which has weakened the institutions of marriage and family. They complain when Muslim women observe hijab but see nothing wrong with a teenage girl wearing next to nothing. They encourage the posting of bikini pictures, skin tight clothing, skanky dances, showing off belly button piercings, and a whole lot more. They have no moral superiority to Muslims, in fact they are morally far inferior to the teachings of Islam on these matters. They want women in the workplace, not at home raising their families. They have higher rates of rape and divorce than the Muslim world. Our Prophet did not sin by marrying Aisha and his teachings on the treatment of women were clear. There were very few cultures through all of history to this point that gave women as many rights as Islam. Literally with his dying breaths The Prophet Muhammad (saw) reaffirmed the importance of taking care of women.
Personal Note: I defer to the Quran and the Sunnah for my beliefs on morality and ethics. I believe in Allah and that Muhammad (saw) was his final and greatest prophet. I mostly stayed away from making arguments that are backed by Islamic doctrine because my goal with this was to refute the atheist and Christian arguments against The Prophet's marriage to Aisha within the framework of their own ideologies. My wife is only one year younger than me, and in the modern day with longer lifespans and a much larger world population I don't see child marriage as a necessary practice. This doesn't mean I'm staunchly opposed to it, I wouldn't have wrote this article if I was, but my focus is more oriented around defending Our Prophet's reputation than the actual practice. Even still, I regard premarital sex and adultery as far greater evils than child marriage not only because of the severity of these sins within Islam but also because they do far more harm to society. Consummation should require a woman's first period, but marriage/engagement should not have a minimum age in my view. Within Islam coercion is never allowed so obviously a female and her family should be in agreement before Nikkah (marriage) is permitted. Women should be provided for and protected by her husband and he should always treat her gently with kindness. Alhamdullilah for Islam. Feel free to comment your thoughts below.
Additional Sources
https://www.pbs.org/muhammad/ma_women.shtml#:~:text=Islam%20teaches%20that%20men%20and,proposal%20and%20to%20initiate%20divorce.
https://stepfeed.com/this-is-how-islam-led-the-world-with-women-s-rights-0090
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha
https://www.nairaland.com/2701942/child-marriage-bible
Comments