Muhammad raped Aisha

In the Con introduction he said: "I shall ignore mostly all said by pro because, sorry to say, all I see is ranting and repetition of already destroyed points, it even get hilarious when the pro claims knowledge of Islamic laws.. it a point where one will say "hold up, stop right there". However, I wont let the readers down now because I am set for new interesting argument which should come in no better time than now because they are based on roping the pro with his logic. I will present just two, the first I call "the hadith approach" while the other is called the "common sense" approach." It is clear for all to see that the Con is short of argument. Am I an Islamic scholar? I never said so, the Con did. At the beginning of the debate, the Con didn't bother to talk about Ayesha's age with the so-called logic approach, but when the Con got cornered he reverted to HIS own logic-approach in determining the age of Aisha. This is not a comic, it is a debate. If you want to make people laugh you should go to a circus! The Con can do better being a stand up comedian(Pun intended). Let's examine his so-called hadith approach and commonsense approach: In the Con hadith approach he wrote: "As a muslim, we understand our religion more than the pagans and that should be respected as we can be an authority with our culture. I am not proposing blind argument here but common sense which whether the pro like it or now he needs to work with. The first law in hadith is that, whatever comes in the quran have superiority to whatever comes in hadith, and another one suggests that, in the evidence of contradiction (which can happen because hadiths are real life narrations from men), history, frequency of repetition, common sense or believing in constant message shall be given privilege. For example: (I will give only graphical example because of space) If it is said that muhammed performed a miracle and the first hadith says there were 100 people present and the second says there were 115 people there, muslims will focus on the event and discard the contradicting numbers." Note that the pagan he mentioned in his statement is me. I'm a pagan just because i don't share the same ideology with the Con. We can see from the beginning that the Con attack me in person rather than the subject. This is called Ad hominem. Well, I will maintain my civility as I have since the beginning of the debate. The Con said since I'm a pagan(read, Christian) and he's a Muslim, he knows the Islamic culture more than me which I must respect. What culture are you talking about? A culture that sanction raping of minors with the pretext of marriage? A culture that supports beating of women? Marrying minors without their consent? Killing of apostate, gays, Atheist? Honor killings, chopping of hands, public beheading, female genital mutilation(FGM), terrorism etc? Or a culture that view women as imbeciles i.e deficient in intelligence? These are barbaric culture for primitive people. Yes! Muslims understand their religion more than us. No wonder why you see evil men like Ayatollah Khomeini, Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi, Abubakar Shekau, Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin, Osama Bin Laden etc, understood the real Islam by becoming terrorists. Did they misunderstood Islam? What I understood in Islam is that Muhammad raped Aisha a 9-year old child! You said whatever come in the Quran is superior before the ahadith yet we can find in the Quran where Muhammad said he cannot perform any miracle but in the hadith we can find bogus miracles attributed to Muhammad like splitting the moon. You must admit such miracles are forgery since they contradicted the Quran! Furthermore, the Con said: " In the event of the topic, it has being proven beyond doubt that the age of Aisha at marriage cannot be determined with the hadiths in question. I will be the shorter version of the argument." Here again the Con is lying. According to the ahadith Aisha was six year old when Muhammad married her and raped her when she was 9 year old. Please don"t say it was not rape because a 9-year-old child is not mature enough to consent and if she cannot consent it is rape. Your defense incriminates the messenger of Allah even more than my accusations. You said that the marriage was symbolic. How symbolic it could be if the Prophet approached Ayesha when she, according to her own testimony, was still playing with her toys and gave her a completely different kind of toy to play with that "SURPRISED" that little girl? Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 90 Narrated Aisha: When the Prophet married me, my mother came to me and made me enter the house (of the Prophet) and NOTHING SURPRISED ME BUT THE COMING OF ALLAH'S APOSTLE TO ME IN THE FORENOON. There are numerous hadith that state Aisha's age when she married Muhammad. Here are some of them: Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3310: 'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old. Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64 Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death). Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65 Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that 'Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death)." what you know of the Quran (by heart)' 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). It is clear for all to see Aisha was 6 year old when Muhammad married her. It still amaze me how the Con could deny such overwhelming evidence from the hadith. This denial appalls me. Since the Con got cornered, the best form of defence for him is denying the hadith. Eh! What a logic! The Con went on formulating a lot of theory in order to show Ayesha was above 6 year old when Muhammad married her. Readers should nor forget that my opponents has no problem with Aisha's age prior to now. He changed his tune she was more than 6 when Muhammad married her after I smashed all his evidence. He went on denying the hadith calling them inauthentic for determining the age of Aisha. This is nonsense! Let's look at what this hadith says: Sunan Abu-Dawud Book 41, Number 4915, also Number 4916 and Number 4917 Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin: The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) married me when I was seven or six. When we came to Medina, some women came. according to Bishr's version: Umm Ruman came to me when I was swinging. They took me, made me prepared and decorated me. I was then brought to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him), and he took up cohabitation with me when I was nine. She halted me at the door, and I burst into laughter. In the above hadith we read that Ayesha was swinging, This is a play of little girls not grown up people. The following Hadith is particularly interesting because it shows that Ayesha was so small that was not aware what was going on when the Holy Prophet "surprised" her by going to her. Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 90 Narrated Aisha: When the Prophet married me, my mother came to me and made me enter the house (of the Prophet) and nothing surprised me but the coming of Allah's Apostle to me in the forenoon. Must have been quite a surprise! But the following is also interesting because it demonstrates that she was just a kid playing with her dolls. Pay attention to what the interpreter wrote in the parenthesis. (She was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty) 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, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13) Muhammad died when he was 63. So he must have married Ayesha when he as 51 and went to her when he was 54. Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 33 Narrated 'Aisha: I never felt so jealous of any woman as I did of Khadija, though she had died three years before the Prophet married me, and that was because I heard him mentioning her too often, and because his Lord had ordered him to give her the glad tidings that she would have a palace in Paradise, made of Qasab and because he used to slaughter a sheep and distribute its meat among her friends. Khadija died in December of 619 AD. That is two years before Hijra. At that time the Prophet was 51-years-old. So in the same year that Khadija died the prophet married Ayesha and took her to his home 3 years later, i.e. one year after Hijra. But until she grow up he married Umm Salama. In another part Ayesha claims that as long as she remembers her parents were always Muslims. Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 245 Narrated 'Aisha: (the wife of the Prophet) I never remembered my parents believing in any religion other than the true religion (i.e. Islam), If Ayesha was older i.e. 18 or 20 as the Con and some Muslims claim, she would have remembered the religion of her parents prior to becoming Muslims. Now someone like the Con may still claim that all these hadithes are lies. You are free to say whatever they want. But truth is clear like the Sun for those who have eyes. No sane person would be aroused by a 9-year-old child. Decent people wince at the thought of this shameful act. Yet some Muslims deny them. The question is why so many followers of Muhammad would fabricate so many false hadithes about the age of Ayisha, which incidentally confirm each other? I can tell you why people would attribute false miracles to their prophet. There are many absurd miracles attributed to Muhammad in the hadiths, despite the fact that he denied being able to perform any miracles. But why should anyone fabricate a lie about the age of Ayisha that would portray his Prophet as a Rapist-pedophile? Even if we assume the Con narrative to be accurate, we have no reason to give it more weight than those that are so detailed about Aisha "s age, describing her, playing with her dolls and with her little friends who hid when Muhammad entered the room, her memories of playing on the swing when her mother called her and washed her face and took her to Muhammad, her ignorance of what was going on when Muhammad took off his pants and her "surprise" when got into action. These events are more likely to be remembered by child than when a particular Surah was revealed. It is more likely that a person confuse one Surah with the other than confuse all those details of her own life. This site continues: So according to the Con hadith approach Muhammad married Aisha without her consent when she was 6 year old with overwhelming evidence I presented. Thus, Muhammad raped her! The Con claims are thoroughly rebutted and dismantled. The only sad thing there is that the Con vilified and berated Hisham. He even accused him of suffering from unbalanced memory like someone suffering from Amnesia(loss of memory). The Con should be grateful he's not living in core Islamic countries like Pakistan, Iran, Iraq or Afghanistan, because he may lose his head for such statement. In the Con's commonsense-approach he said: "It is apparent that the pro keeps throwing on our face that Aisha did not consent to her marriage (WHICH NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRESENTED OR WILL BE). The pro has no backing for age of consent, I had tried to borrow him sense from his bible on the age of consent and also from history, but he said it is "red herring""fine. So now, since the pro cant provide an age of consent according to any law (used in the past) (divine or constitutional). We shall assume that with his baseless arguement, any age a lady got married is rape. So by this, we can say as I am typing this (which is at the middle of the night), the pro"s father is probably raping his mummy. I am not sorry to say this because this is his implication of his argument. YOUR DAD IS A CRIMINAL (A RAPIST) BY YOUR DEFINITION. WOW! CAN WE SAY THE SAME ABOUT MY DAD AND MUHAMMED? My dad is a muslim, so is Muhammed so they both follow the injunction of quran which says.........." The abovementioned statement of the Con is nothing but an attack on my person(ad hominem), vituperations, vilify, attack on my family and insults. The Con should have shown a lot of decorum, courtesy and civility here. I'm disappointed in you sir. Let me quickly address some of the relevant issues there. I have proven Aisha didn't gave her consent to the wedding. She is too young to understand what a demanding institution like marriage was. Hence, Muhammad took advantage of her parents blind devotion and Ayesha na"vet". If a man sleep with a woman without her consent it is rape. Aisha was not even a woman. She's was a minor who was playing gently on a swing before she was taken to Muhammad to devour. I don't even need to produce any age consent in the past since we are dealing with Islam. And according to Islam a lady consent must be sought before marrying her off. Was Ayesha consent ever sought? Even if sought, how can a six year old make a decision of her own? It is not just an ordinary decision but a lifetime decision like marriage. This is rape. Muhammad raped Ayesha. The Con also quoted a Quran passage that has nothing to do with the debate. Quran 4:6 is talking about orphans, how Muslims should spend, when an orphan should be given a property of her own. How does this add to the debate? Moreover, is Aisha an orphan? I'd like to cite another episode of rape in Muhammad's time. Muhammad was asked about coitus interruptus in particular: "O Allah's Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus?" The Prophet said, "Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence." (Bukhari 34:432) As indicated, the prophet of Islam did not mind his men raping the women, provided they ejaculated within the bodies of their victims. Let me ask the Con, was there any consent of the slaves captured by Muhammad and his gangsters before they slept with them? Isn't this rape? Arabs used to betroth their children at small age. They were both of similar age. The actual marriage took place when both children were adult. This practice of old men marrying small children started with Muhammad, whom Muslims regarded as the best example to follow. Furthermore, assuming this was an old practice of the Arabs as the Con said, is it something good? It is certainly a despicable act. A child has not the mental capacity to decide for her future and forcing her to marry someone whom she has not chosen is violation of her human rights, especially if the man is old enough to be the girl"s grandfather. I am not going to even talk about the harm done to her body as I believe any sane person know that already. The question is why instead of condemning this evil practice Muhammad practiced it? By doing so he made that evil practice a sunna for his benighted followers. The legal age of marriage in all European countries is 18. The only two countries that allow the minimum age of 16 are Albania and Malta, both influenced heavily by Islamic culture. Again, we are talking of an old man"s sexual relationship with a child. That is not the same for two teens loving each other and fooling around. It is normal for two teens falling in love. But it is not normal for a 50 year old man lusting for a 6-year old child. This is rape! The age of consent worldwide ranges between 18 and 21 with very few exceptions that allow marriage at 16. http://en.wikipedia.org... You said how can we judged past event with the present. If we are not allowed to make such judgment then we can"t judge the crimes of any historic figure. One who is unable to know this act is evil is not worth to be called a rational person. Moreover, this is not about the past. Muslims regard Muhammad as the best example to follow for all times. So children are raped in all Islamic countries every day in the 21st century because Muhammad did it in the 7th century. The funniest part is that playing with dolls are prohibited in Islam, Muhammad did not object that she plays with her dolls because she had not reached the age of puberty when the "prophet" took her to his bed. She was playing dolls and Muhammad wanted to rape her. Finally, the Con appeal to red herring again by diverting our attention to Jewish scripture. Even Hagar, the woman in question was an ADULT not a kid like Aisha who couldn't make her own decisions. Your analogy is wrong. We are talking about child rape not consensual intercourse between two consenting adults. I have said it earlier that Muhammad followers were mute because they believed he was living according to the ordain of Allah. They never knew Muhammad only used his god to ride them and kick them like football. When Muhammad asked for Aisha's hand in marriage Abu Bakr protested that he was like a brother to Muhammad but Muhammad outsmart him with divine excuses. If they never raised any flag it was because they've submitted their intelligence and sold their conscience to Muhammad. How dare them question the messenger of Allah? How he got away with it? He claimed to be a prophet and as such put himself above the scrutiny of mortals. Who dared to question Allah and his messenger? He had control over the life and death of the people in Medina. He acted very much like Jim Jones in his Jonestown in Guyana where he could sleep with any woman he pleased, and like David Korsh in his compound, where he had sex with every woman and even with the teenaged daughters of his followers while prohibiting them to touch their own wives. Conclusion: I have proven beyond reasonable doubts that Muhammad raped Aisha a girl of 9 when he was 54. There's no consensual sex between a 54 year old man and a minor of 9 year old. It is rape. Calling Muhammad sexual intercourse "consummation of marriage is evil and diabolical'. Only sick people find children sexually attractive by raping them and call it marriage. We should ask ourselves, can we betroth our daughter of 6 year old to a wretched man in his 50's for marriage? If we can't why should we forgive Muhammad for this despicable act? Muhammad is hereby found guilty on three count charges viz 1. Rape 2.Child molestation 3. Pedophilia When we say Muhammad raped a 9 year old child, Muslims brush it away and bring all sorts of excuses to justify this shameful act. This is the nature of blind faith and cognitive dissonance. Maybe by visualizing it, some of them will would come to their senses and realize how evil what Muhammad did was. The Con should stop telling us Muhammad only did what others did in his time. Yes, we should not compare the customs of the primitive and tribal societies with the customs of the modern and advanced societies of today. But why should we emulate them? Why should we follow them? Why should we accept their prophet who was incapable to break away from that primitiveness, barbarity and savagery? If the Prophet was truly a prophet, he would have acted differently. He would have not followed the customs of his primitive society but would have set a new standard. If he followed the example of his primitive society why are we following him? On one hand the Muslims of the world study Muhammad"s life meticulously, try to imitate him in everything he did. They dress like him, shave like him, walk like him and talk like him, do as he did and live as he lived. They believe everything he did, was ordained by God and he was sent to be the example to all humanity. Yet you say that he did just what his ignorant and primitive society used to do and we should forgive his sins because he was just a victim of that society. Hence, I have proven Muhammad raped Aisha!!! I remain cordially yours Regards!!!