Muhammad raped Aisha

It is obvious the Con is dragging us back to the definition of rape. I clearly stated that rape has various definition that varies from one another. What do you want me to define again Con? I gave a very simple definition of rape. Well, it seems the definition is more important than the allegation against Muhammad being a "Rapist", I will give you some definitions of rape from various sources. Are you ok with that Sir? First of all, section 357 of the Criminal Code defines rape and it has this to say: "Any person who has unlawful carnal knowledge of woman or girl without her CONSENT or with her CONSENT, If the CONSENT is obtained by force or by means of FALSE or FRAUDULENT representation as to the nature of act, or in the case of a married woman by impersonating her husband, is guilty of the offence which is called rape. Source: Section 357 of the Nigerian Criminal Code. Definition of Rape. The exact definition of "rape" differs from state-to-state within the U.S. and by country internationally. In the US, it is often called "criminal sexual conduct in the first degree". Generally, rape is defined as sexual contact or penetration achieved: without CONSENT, or with use of physical force, coercion, deception, threat, and/or when the victim is: mentally incapacitated or impaired, physically impaired (due to voluntary or involuntary alcohol or drug consumption) asleep or unconscious. One of the most critical issues regarding rape is consent. Sexual activity should not take place unless both parties have freely given CONSENT, and CONSENT is understood by both parties. SILENCE does not mean CONSENT Source:http://www.pandys.org... Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse or other forms of sexual penetration perpetrated against a person without that person's CONSENT. The act may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority or against a person who is incapable of VALID CONSENT, such as one who is unconscious, incapacitated, or below the legal age of CONSENT. Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org... Note: All emphasis are mine. By now the Con must have been satisfied with those definitions. You wrote: "CONSENT of sex between two couples is a ridiculous question unless an evidence is established. you cant be asking married people around if their sex is mutual agreement because it is agreement that brought together in the first place. so the pro shot himself in the leg because it can be said that he has not provided any evidence that Aisha was raped by his husband. the hadith brought forward can not be tenable" I'm afraid your analogy is wrong sir. Yes it is agreement that binds couples together as you said. Please give us the agreement between Muhammad and Ayesha not between Muhammad and Abu Bakr. Calling Ayesha Muhammad's wife is preposterous, gibberish and sheer baloney because the little girl gave no consent to the marriage. The little girl didn't know what was going on. She was too young to understand sex and marriage(a lifetime institution). Hence, since there was no consent on her part Muhammad is guilty as charged. I have a very important question for Con. According to Islam, a girl must be consented before getting her married. Why didn't Muhammad consent Ayesha before marrying her? Even if she was ever consented, she was too young to make a gigantic decision like marriage. We are not talking about whether she will eat chocolate or not, we are talking about a 9 year old child spending her eternity with a 54 year old man nearing his grave without her Consent to the marriage. To you it is marriage because Muhammad did it, but to rational people this is pure rape. The con make the marriage look like a consensual one by branding it "couples", as if it was a marriage between two consenting adult. That is understatement because Muhammad married Ayesha when she was 6-years old and consumed his marriage with her when she was 9-years-old. How could a 54 year-old man calling himself the messenger God have sexual feelings for a 9-year-old girl? Is that the Con definition of marriage? Where an old man in his fiftys rape a minor with the pretext of marriage? I am not bothered of the marriage of the prophet with a daughter of Abu Bakr, but the fact that Ayesha was a child. It is not proper for a messenger of God to have sexual feelings for a little girl and it is unconscionable to act on them. In this day and age if a 54-year-old man has an intercourse with a 9-year-old girl he will be jailed and despised as a pedophile-Rapist. Why should the Prophet be forgiven? Furthermore, you said: "WAS THERE AN EVIDENCE THAT AISHA WAS DEAF AND DUMB WHEN SHE GOT MARRIED? IS THE PRO SAYING THAT ALL THE MARRIAGES WHERE THE BRIDE IS YOUNG IS RAPE? is this the definition of rape? The minimum age for marriage in the US-State of Delaware in year 1895 was 7. were all the men that married legally during this time rapists?" This questions defies logic! Ayesha was neither deaf, dumb nor blind when Muhammad married her without her own consent. So? What are you getting at precisely Con? Oh! You meant she should have said I am not marrying Muhammad because he is an old man old enough to be my Grand Father? right? The Con is making this marriage look like the 9 year old girl was an adult who can discern what marriage is. This is absurd! Can you just cite a single reference where either Muhammad or Abu Bakr ever consented Ayesha before betrothing her to Muhammad. Since there was no consent on her part it is rape. Muhammad married her without consenting her and slept with her without consenting her as well. What should we call such sexual intercourse or the marriage itself? The fact remains that Muhammad also broke Islamic rule himself by marrying Aisha without her knowledge, because in Islam, the bride must be consented before getting her married. The Con is incriminating Muhammad more and more with his petty excuses. Aisha is not deaf and dumb but she knew nothing about sex or marriage because she was a minor who needs education, not ejaculation, pen, not penis of Muhammad! My opponent made another point by citing the age limit for marriage in the U.S state of Delaware. I'm afraid my opponent is engaging in a logical fallacy called Tu Quoque(You Too) or the appeal to hypocrisy. This fallacy illustrates that if I accuse Muhammad of rape then I must accuse the U.S state of Delaware too of rape since they also marry minor in 1895 as well. I am afraid the Con is incriminating Muhammad more. This people never claimed to be thel ast messenger of God,the best example to follow, the most perfect man, the seal of prophets and every other title Muhammad betrothed to himself. Therefore, comparing them to Muhammad is nonsensical unless the Con admit that these people are as the same as Muhammad or even better since they never claimed to be the messenger of God who came to guide mankind. I thought you are here to defend Muhammad but to my surprise you are dragging him in the mud more sir! Are you admitting Muhammad was just like an ordinary man not a prophet anymore? Eh! The Con also said and I quote: "I asked about the how the pro makes his moral judgement but he is afraid to answer because he does not understand common sense. we dont expect you to base your judgement on what you think because you are nobody to make moral judgement. i suggested (and i am right) that the pro makes his judgement with his religion where he learnt ethics and here is what we found. Mary, who is the mother of his god got impregnated by holy spirit between the ages of 11 and 14. Joseph (her husband) was as old as 99 when he married Mary when she was in the age range above (http://www.newadvent.org......),. is the pro saying the holy spirit is a rapist or mary had no clue what was going on in her life? Readers can see the Con is engaging in red herring again by diverting our attention to Mary and Joseph which is not the topic at hand. Well you don't need to be a professor to know that sleeping with minors is ethically and morally wrong. According to the moral judgement of the Con raping minors with marriage pretext is right I presumed? I am condemning a man who called himself the Prophet of Allah, the "Mercy of God in the worlds" Rahmatu"llah lil Alamin" and the example for all mankind, who instead of setting the example of morality and rectitude followed the customs of his primitive society and thus reaffirmed them and perpetuated them as something to emulate. We are judging Muhammad based on his own title he made he called himself. 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. 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? Right? Raping 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. Hence, Muhammad raped Aisha. The Con said: "Aisha's parents were the ones who married her to our Prophet as no evidence says contrary, and that no Muslim or even pagan objected to the marriage because it was widely practiced. And even until today in 3rd world countries (Muslims and non-Muslims), little girls as young as 9 or 10 do get married. so what is the pro's issue? is it that he lacks historical knowledge or he is just angry?" The Con lied. It was Muhammad who requested for Aisha. The Prophet did not marry Ayesha at the insistence of her parents. There are many Hadithes that show it was the Prophet who desired Ayesha and asked Abu Bakr to give him his then 6-year-old daughter for marriage. In fact Abu Barkr was shocked by such a request. He objected that he was a foster brother to the Prophet, which would have made such a marriage illicit. But the Prophet dismissed his concern saying that they were not real blood brothers and their oath of brotherhood was of no relevance in this case. Sahih Bukhari 7.18 Narrated 'Ursa: The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for 'Aisha's hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said "But I am your brother." The Prophet said, "You are my brother in Allah's religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry." You asked if I'm angry. Yes I am. I am angry that a man who call himself a prophet of God slept with a 9 yr old without her consent which is rape. I am angry because ever since the death of Muhammad Muslims have been emulating and evincing this shameful act of raping little children by with the pretext of marriage. I am angry because Muhammad not only raped Aisha, she destroyed her childhood and womanhood. He destroyed her childhood by depriving Ayesha her the fundamental human right to choose her spouse by herself. He destroyed her womanhood because after the death if Muhammad the young widow never remarried since Muhammad prohibited anyone from marrying her after his demise. She never bare any child till she died. Now tell me why I shouldn't be angry? Would you be happy if she was your daughter? You also said marriage with minors was widely practiced in Muhammad's time. Really? Didn't Muhammad claimed he had come to bring people out of ignorance by calling the pre-islamic era Jahiliya(ignorance)? Why was he doing the same thing? If he had come to bring people out of ignorance why didn't he stop this savage and shameful act of raping minors calling it marriage? Has this not shown Muhammad Muhammad was charlatan opportunist who used god to ride his benighted followers? 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. Furthermore you quoted Sahih Bukhari 5.58.234 to show Ayesha was not raped since it was her parents who took her to Muhammad's house. The Con forgotted that the consent of the girl is what we are talking about here not her parents. The hadith state that she was playing on a swing before she was taken to Muhammad's house. The Con still fail to show if there is any consent of Ayesha here. Therefore, Muhammad raped her. She has no knowledge of what was going on until Muhammad appeared to her undress. No wonder her hair fell! Con siad" urthermore,the words my opponent wants us to note shows that Aisha remembers what she used to do when she was young.now,some questions arise,for example: #.WHICH IS EASIER TO REMEMBER,RAPE OR PLAYING WITH DOLLS? #.WHY DIDN'T AISHA REPORT BEING RAPED? If aisha was raped,we should be seeing something like this in the hadiths: Narrated aisha:the prophet raped me when I was nine,OR: Narrated aisha:the prophet had sex with me without my consent. BUT WE FIND NONE OF THOSE REPORTS IN THE HADITH!! ' This is nonsense. Aisha was a kid that doesn't understand what sex is so it is obvious she remembered her doll more than the escapade. She did not know what Muhammad did to her! Why should Aisha report rape when she doesn't even understand what sex is? Are you joking? This is absolute nonsense. Even if she ever reported being raped, will Muhammad followers pu thay in record too? Won't that discredit Muhammad? You must give us a reference where Aisha consent was ever questioned. Not only that, you must give us an hadith that says "the prophet married me with my consent' ls there any? Bring it forth! Finally, you wrote: "CONSENT where is the evidence that aisha did not consent to her marriage? is it normal to ask a lady that never complained about her marriage whether she consent to her marriage? no. how do we know where a lady consent to her marriage? we provide evidence!. so the pro need to prove to us that aisha did not consent to her marriage." I have proven beyond reasonable doubts that Aisha was not consented before he was married to Muhammad. According to Islamic law, the marriage is null and void since there was no consent on her part. Hence, Muhammad Raped her! The con should give us a narration where Aisha was asked if he would marry Muhammad. Conclusion: Aisha was a kid that doesn't understand what sex it. She never consented on the marriage or the sex(read, RAPE). Since there was no consent on her part rape is rape. Muhammad raped her! There is no consensual relationship between a 9yr old and a 54 yr old man. There is no mutual or consensual sex between a child and an old man of 54. Therefore, Muhammad is guilty of not only rape but child molestation and pedophilia. The rest of your rebuttals are ad hominem. I won't comment on that. I remain cordially yours Regards!