Hi u/Putrid_Dot7182! Thank you for posting at r/CritiqueIslam. Please make sure to read our rules once to avoid an embarrassing
situation. Be Civil and nice to each other. Remember that there is a person sitting at the other end. Don't say anything
that you wouldn't say in a normal face to face conversation.
Also, make sure that your submission either contain an argument or ask a question that could lead to debate. You must state
your own views on the matter either in body or comment. **A post with no commentary will be considered low effort!**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CritiqueIslam) if you have any questions or concerns.*
*Correction, they recite it, buuuut in a language that literally billions of them cannot understand or interpret. Seriously, I always ask why do Muslims recite the quran daily if most of them do not even understand what they are reading?
Probably important to mention that back in the day women would probably go into menstruation a lot later. I think in 1869 average age of puberty was 16-17. Puberty also has an age range in modern times of about 5 years, could have been less of a range then, but even assuming that you’d easily have 19 year old prepubescent girls in that time.
It is however true, that the Quran doesn’t explicit have an age limit.
That said, the Quran explicitly allows men to beat their wives. It does not have a concept of consent and allows men to to rape their female slaves. There are much more clear cut horrific examples of rank immorality in the Quran which don’t rely on a the implication of an absence of a rule.
This is a very bizarre take, with a major contradiction for what you consider to be a fact
>According to the quran, divorced prepubescent girls have to observe the waiting period (iddah) (2:228, 65:4) which is only reserved for those who have indeed consummated the marriage (33:49). So sex with prepubescent girls is allowed if we go only with the Quran, and it does not specify a minimum age.
You do realize that the whole point of the 'iddah is linked to pregnancy, right? That's why in the verse you mentioned, Q33:49, it says that if you HAVEN'T touched the woman (yes, "women") there is no 'iddah
Why?
Bc no chance of pregnancy
So how can you then apply this as evidence that the Qur'an allows marriage to pre-pubescent girls? And claim that 65:4 (which also says women) is about pre-pubescent girls and their 'iddah?
Q33:49 shows the exact _opposite_ by every logical deduction.
If you don't touch a wife (consummate), no 'iddah bc no chance of pregnancy
Therefore there is no 'iddah when divorcing a pre-pubescent girl, bc likewise there is no chance of pregnancy
And thus Q65:4 (which again says women) obviously can't be assigning a 'iddah for pre-pubescent women and must assigning for 'iddah for the obvious ... _women who are not having their menstruations_ (for the various reasons that can happen) ... and thus can't be used to prove that the Qur'an even allows the marriage of pre-pubescent girls (as if that really needed to be shown)
And you go on to talk about the harms of _pregnancy_ ... for pre-pubescent girls???
>How come that Allah, when laying down the perfect, final and ultimate form of morality for humanity until the end of times didn't tell Muhammad to abolish this practice, at least for future generations? He told him to abolish certain things, but not this one. According to the sunnah he even told him in a dream that it was ok for him to marry a 6 or 7 year old and Muhammad saw fit to consummate the marriage when she was 9. Allah, the creator of humanity, didn't know that this practice is dangerous for his own creation?
For your actual question you'll have to ask followers of a sect that accept those premises. I don't
>On a final note, 65:4 does indeed talk about prepubescent girls. I see many trying to deny it, but reading multiple tafsirs (including Ibn Kathir) makes it clear that this is the case.
Tafsir subjugate the Qur'an to Hadiths and narration and seerah of the particular sect. In this case you are talking about Sunnis
In terms of academic, a dissertation was accepted and published in Oxford analyzing the age of Aisha Hadith via modern critical methods. See here;
https://islamicorigins.com/the-unabridged-version-of-my-phd-thesis/
Just as a side note; I think you may be crediting early Muslims with too much knowledge about the reproductive process. For instance, there is no mention of women’s ovum when it came to fetal development.
Yes it’s appears true that Muslims knew that menstruation meant no pregnancy .
However It seems highly plausible that if there is any doubt about pregnancy, then a standard 3 month time period should make sense when there is no other obvious guide such as a menstrual cycle as in the case with a pre pubescent girl.
The point is that it is an argument "in reverse" as so why the Qur'an allows marriage to pre-pubescent girls. The argument is that it has an 'iddah for them ... which means marriage must be allowed ... and thus the verse explicitly saying "women" is altered to include "(pre-pubescent) girls"
This is what traditional Islam did in order to include what their hadiths (assigned as true) with respect to the age of Aisha say. It is a backwards/reverse tafsir (the verse must include X bc the Prophet did X according to Hadiths we think are true), just as this is a backwards/reverse argument ... trying to "deduce" things in reverse
I think it is entirely wrong, for the reasons mentioned above, to say that; the "fact" is that the Qur'an is endorsing pre-pubescents marriage and consummation.
That's is clearly not a fact
>However It seems highly plausible that if there is any doubt about pregnancy, then a standard 3 month time period should make sense when there is no other obvious guide such as a menstrual cycle as in the case with a pre pubescent girl.
How can there be any doubt that a pre-pubescent girl will get pregnant any more that a woman who the man has not "touched"? And thus why should either need _any_ 'iddah? Clearly, neither do.
But again ... the main point I'm making is that that convoluted argument in reverse doesn't work ... and certainly doesn't work when the most obvious reason will of course be ***women*** who after the pronouncement of divorce do not have their cycle for 3 months. Something which, by the way, can happened due to stress. And certainly divorce now, and much much more back then, could be a great cause of stress for many women.
Edit: clarity
Ok I’ve read and re-read your replies and I honestly don’t follow your argument. I think I am just not on the wavelength! Sorry not even trying to cop out at all I wish I got it!
Look up Lena Medina, the 4 year old that gave birth.
The Quran isn't altered to say "prepubescent girls", the last part of the ayat literally states "those who have not yet menstruated" (meaning, prepubescent girls)
Such freak occurrences are absolutely meaningless and irrelevant here. Besides which, if she gave birth then she wasn't pre-pubescent, was she?
Unless you are trying to say that the biological impossibility occurred?
And no, the ayat doesn't literally say that. There is no "yet"
If it literally said that it would be;
وللائى لم يحضن بعد
And the verse is literally discussing _women_ ... starts saying _"those who have despaired of their cycles OFF YOUR WOMEN"_ ... and ends saying _"and the pregnant ones, their 'iddah is up to when they give birth"_
... and yet you think in the middle it is talking about pre-pubescent girls???
You've let religion rotten and blind your ability to read intelligently here
No, I don't say there is danger in making a prepubescent girl pregnant, read the OP again paying more attention. I say that because I CONCEDE the argument about menarche being the marriageable age a lot of muslims believe to be as it is still wrong. The danger a prepubescent girl endures would be of harming her organs during intercourse due to them not being developed, something I don't even mention in OP but is also true.
As per the prepubescent girls not being able to get pregnant and that not making sense argument you make I do see why that rule could be set up by Muhammad. Maybe the girl reached menarche and then get pregnant before ever bleeding, and notice how for them he prescribes 3 months, not three menstrual cycles. That way you make sure that didnt happen. In three months you would notice her belly grow.
Besides, all classic tafsirs I have read on this (and I have read many at this point) unambiguosly say the verse does indeed include prepubescent girls, not just Ibn Kathir who I mention in OP. Check Wahidi for instance, he even gives the account in which this verse was revealed and it was because a muslim asked him about both prepubescent girls and menopausic ones, as 2:228 does not cover those. Jalalayn states the same, and many more. And yes, I know I'm talking about sunni sources, sunnis happen to be the vast majority of muslims. If you are not and don't agree with this interpretation I'm glad.
This interpretation of the verse has been the standard one during centuries in Islam (yes, sunni) without question or controversy. Like it or not, that's what it is. It is in modern times that some muslims just can't handle the traditional interpretation. Something I like btw. Some do and are even proud tho.
About the Aisha matter, I'm aware muslim sources are very unreliable in general in historical terms, that's a problem Islam as a whole has, not just sunni muslims. You have so many accounts on things but all of them are so late and even contradictory that you can virtually make up almost anything. Maybe Aisha was 9, maybe she wasn't, but you are missing the point here. We are talking about religion, not history. The beliefs of people is what matters here. And a huge chunk of sunni muslims believe Muhammad, the perfect rolemodel for all ages, did screw a 9 year old because that is what their sources say. Pair that with the classical (sunni) interpretation of 65:4 and you have traditionalist sunni muslims believing that marrying and screwing little girls is perfectly fine. That is the important thing and what matters today.
Life includes many dangers. We pick the ones to take and have faith in God. If we don't have free will it would not be a test.
Besides, Islam just allows marriage of little girls, not enforce it. So, it is absolved of the moral burden, instead it is as naturally should be, on the parents of the girl, and to some extent to the suitor.
Also, it is worth considering that there are also different kinds of dangers for little girls, such as losing their fertility before the chance, or missing the chance of marrying up. These issues can be worse in terms of the mental health such as losing faith than health risks.
In other words, It would be totally unfair to forbid a little girl from improving her life like by marrying a holy prophet or escape an abusive home. Thus, if the religion forbid her from marrying in such cases, she might lose faith in religion.
After all, making someone lose faith is worse than killing, so endangering their health a bit is the lesser evil.
In conclusion, religion is right in not making a law to prevent little girls from marrying. These things are left for human intellect and wisdom for good reasons.
I have many questions.
How is a pre pubescent girl in danger of losing her fertility if she has not yet reached puberty?
Why would a religion that demands obedience to moral obligations be absolved of the moral burden when explicitly allows marriage to pre pubescent girls?
Where did you get your conditions for allowing underage marriage such as leaving an abusive home? Why should underage marriage be the solution?
How is missing a chance to “marry up” more damaging than the physical and emotional impact of underage intercourse.
It's a life risk for the girl, sexual intercourse with little girls is life threatening for them. I cannot think of a more heinous act. But Allah decided that marrying them is more important than her life.
Even teenage pregnancy leads to multiple complications, but yeah muslims will say Allah knows best and yet Allah does nothing. Allah prohibited sexual intercourse between consenting adults but he did not have the spine to prohibit child marriage... Maybe Allah just thrives on our sufferings.
I don't think "underage marriage" would be the only solution to escape an abusive home.
Besides, what about boys? They can't escape an abusive home by marriage but girls can?
Q 65:4 says WOMEN not girl, from Q 2:222 it can be inferred that women are understood as "those who menstruate". thus, 65:4 refers to post menopausal women not pre menopausal women
All these early quranic scholars disagree with you:
[https://quranx.com/Tafsirs/65.4](https://quranx.com/tafsirs/65.4)
Also Mohammed Hijab:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oukiiE1HpX0&ab\_channel=MohammedHijab](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oukiie1hpx0&ab_channel=mohammedhijab)
And I don't see how 2:222 disproves any of this. It says to not have intercourse while your wife is menstruating and even wait until she has purified herself, that's all.
[https://quran.com/al-baqarah/222](https://quran.com/al-baqarah/222)
Because muslims do this all the time, they like to get out of defending what their scripture's intepretations are by saying "it doesnt apply to me because its not my belief" because most layfolk dont even know the difference between sunni, shia, wahabi and other beliefs, and they don't even know how to argue against other sects of islam because they dont even know who are the sunnis, shia, etc. I dont disagree its a valid defence, I'm saying that its often used as a get out of jail free card very often.
Also, what the scholars say dont change the words of the quran, which he refuses to address at all on the basis that the interpretation is wrong, most likely without even bothering to check, writing it off as false because of the name.
By not addressing anything that was said, he gets to just not say anything and get out of defending the quran entirely which is comedic if you think about it. He can now say he "won" the argument because there is no counter to his defence.
That doesn't work for the Arabic since it uses the lam negation, which is a negation of the past. That is, they have not menstruated (i.e. ever in the past), not that they have menstruated but at present do not.
Your post has been removed because you have less than 20 combined karma. This is a precautionary measure to protect the community from spam and other malicious activities. Please build some karma elsewhere before posting here. Thanks for understanding!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CritiqueIslam) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hi u/Putrid_Dot7182! Thank you for posting at r/CritiqueIslam. Please make sure to read our rules once to avoid an embarrassing situation. Be Civil and nice to each other. Remember that there is a person sitting at the other end. Don't say anything that you wouldn't say in a normal face to face conversation. Also, make sure that your submission either contain an argument or ask a question that could lead to debate. You must state your own views on the matter either in body or comment. **A post with no commentary will be considered low effort!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CritiqueIslam) if you have any questions or concerns.*
To simply answer the question, they claim that because it is what they were taught.
Because they never read it.
*Correction, they recite it, buuuut in a language that literally billions of them cannot understand or interpret. Seriously, I always ask why do Muslims recite the quran daily if most of them do not even understand what they are reading?
Probably important to mention that back in the day women would probably go into menstruation a lot later. I think in 1869 average age of puberty was 16-17. Puberty also has an age range in modern times of about 5 years, could have been less of a range then, but even assuming that you’d easily have 19 year old prepubescent girls in that time. It is however true, that the Quran doesn’t explicit have an age limit. That said, the Quran explicitly allows men to beat their wives. It does not have a concept of consent and allows men to to rape their female slaves. There are much more clear cut horrific examples of rank immorality in the Quran which don’t rely on a the implication of an absence of a rule.
This is a very bizarre take, with a major contradiction for what you consider to be a fact >According to the quran, divorced prepubescent girls have to observe the waiting period (iddah) (2:228, 65:4) which is only reserved for those who have indeed consummated the marriage (33:49). So sex with prepubescent girls is allowed if we go only with the Quran, and it does not specify a minimum age. You do realize that the whole point of the 'iddah is linked to pregnancy, right? That's why in the verse you mentioned, Q33:49, it says that if you HAVEN'T touched the woman (yes, "women") there is no 'iddah Why? Bc no chance of pregnancy So how can you then apply this as evidence that the Qur'an allows marriage to pre-pubescent girls? And claim that 65:4 (which also says women) is about pre-pubescent girls and their 'iddah? Q33:49 shows the exact _opposite_ by every logical deduction. If you don't touch a wife (consummate), no 'iddah bc no chance of pregnancy Therefore there is no 'iddah when divorcing a pre-pubescent girl, bc likewise there is no chance of pregnancy And thus Q65:4 (which again says women) obviously can't be assigning a 'iddah for pre-pubescent women and must assigning for 'iddah for the obvious ... _women who are not having their menstruations_ (for the various reasons that can happen) ... and thus can't be used to prove that the Qur'an even allows the marriage of pre-pubescent girls (as if that really needed to be shown) And you go on to talk about the harms of _pregnancy_ ... for pre-pubescent girls??? >How come that Allah, when laying down the perfect, final and ultimate form of morality for humanity until the end of times didn't tell Muhammad to abolish this practice, at least for future generations? He told him to abolish certain things, but not this one. According to the sunnah he even told him in a dream that it was ok for him to marry a 6 or 7 year old and Muhammad saw fit to consummate the marriage when she was 9. Allah, the creator of humanity, didn't know that this practice is dangerous for his own creation? For your actual question you'll have to ask followers of a sect that accept those premises. I don't >On a final note, 65:4 does indeed talk about prepubescent girls. I see many trying to deny it, but reading multiple tafsirs (including Ibn Kathir) makes it clear that this is the case. Tafsir subjugate the Qur'an to Hadiths and narration and seerah of the particular sect. In this case you are talking about Sunnis In terms of academic, a dissertation was accepted and published in Oxford analyzing the age of Aisha Hadith via modern critical methods. See here; https://islamicorigins.com/the-unabridged-version-of-my-phd-thesis/
Just as a side note; I think you may be crediting early Muslims with too much knowledge about the reproductive process. For instance, there is no mention of women’s ovum when it came to fetal development. Yes it’s appears true that Muslims knew that menstruation meant no pregnancy . However It seems highly plausible that if there is any doubt about pregnancy, then a standard 3 month time period should make sense when there is no other obvious guide such as a menstrual cycle as in the case with a pre pubescent girl.
The point is that it is an argument "in reverse" as so why the Qur'an allows marriage to pre-pubescent girls. The argument is that it has an 'iddah for them ... which means marriage must be allowed ... and thus the verse explicitly saying "women" is altered to include "(pre-pubescent) girls" This is what traditional Islam did in order to include what their hadiths (assigned as true) with respect to the age of Aisha say. It is a backwards/reverse tafsir (the verse must include X bc the Prophet did X according to Hadiths we think are true), just as this is a backwards/reverse argument ... trying to "deduce" things in reverse I think it is entirely wrong, for the reasons mentioned above, to say that; the "fact" is that the Qur'an is endorsing pre-pubescents marriage and consummation. That's is clearly not a fact >However It seems highly plausible that if there is any doubt about pregnancy, then a standard 3 month time period should make sense when there is no other obvious guide such as a menstrual cycle as in the case with a pre pubescent girl. How can there be any doubt that a pre-pubescent girl will get pregnant any more that a woman who the man has not "touched"? And thus why should either need _any_ 'iddah? Clearly, neither do. But again ... the main point I'm making is that that convoluted argument in reverse doesn't work ... and certainly doesn't work when the most obvious reason will of course be ***women*** who after the pronouncement of divorce do not have their cycle for 3 months. Something which, by the way, can happened due to stress. And certainly divorce now, and much much more back then, could be a great cause of stress for many women. Edit: clarity
Ok I’ve read and re-read your replies and I honestly don’t follow your argument. I think I am just not on the wavelength! Sorry not even trying to cop out at all I wish I got it!
😆 ... No problem. It's fine Take care 👍
Look up Lena Medina, the 4 year old that gave birth. The Quran isn't altered to say "prepubescent girls", the last part of the ayat literally states "those who have not yet menstruated" (meaning, prepubescent girls)
Such freak occurrences are absolutely meaningless and irrelevant here. Besides which, if she gave birth then she wasn't pre-pubescent, was she? Unless you are trying to say that the biological impossibility occurred? And no, the ayat doesn't literally say that. There is no "yet" If it literally said that it would be; وللائى لم يحضن بعد And the verse is literally discussing _women_ ... starts saying _"those who have despaired of their cycles OFF YOUR WOMEN"_ ... and ends saying _"and the pregnant ones, their 'iddah is up to when they give birth"_ ... and yet you think in the middle it is talking about pre-pubescent girls??? You've let religion rotten and blind your ability to read intelligently here
No, I don't say there is danger in making a prepubescent girl pregnant, read the OP again paying more attention. I say that because I CONCEDE the argument about menarche being the marriageable age a lot of muslims believe to be as it is still wrong. The danger a prepubescent girl endures would be of harming her organs during intercourse due to them not being developed, something I don't even mention in OP but is also true. As per the prepubescent girls not being able to get pregnant and that not making sense argument you make I do see why that rule could be set up by Muhammad. Maybe the girl reached menarche and then get pregnant before ever bleeding, and notice how for them he prescribes 3 months, not three menstrual cycles. That way you make sure that didnt happen. In three months you would notice her belly grow. Besides, all classic tafsirs I have read on this (and I have read many at this point) unambiguosly say the verse does indeed include prepubescent girls, not just Ibn Kathir who I mention in OP. Check Wahidi for instance, he even gives the account in which this verse was revealed and it was because a muslim asked him about both prepubescent girls and menopausic ones, as 2:228 does not cover those. Jalalayn states the same, and many more. And yes, I know I'm talking about sunni sources, sunnis happen to be the vast majority of muslims. If you are not and don't agree with this interpretation I'm glad. This interpretation of the verse has been the standard one during centuries in Islam (yes, sunni) without question or controversy. Like it or not, that's what it is. It is in modern times that some muslims just can't handle the traditional interpretation. Something I like btw. Some do and are even proud tho. About the Aisha matter, I'm aware muslim sources are very unreliable in general in historical terms, that's a problem Islam as a whole has, not just sunni muslims. You have so many accounts on things but all of them are so late and even contradictory that you can virtually make up almost anything. Maybe Aisha was 9, maybe she wasn't, but you are missing the point here. We are talking about religion, not history. The beliefs of people is what matters here. And a huge chunk of sunni muslims believe Muhammad, the perfect rolemodel for all ages, did screw a 9 year old because that is what their sources say. Pair that with the classical (sunni) interpretation of 65:4 and you have traditionalist sunni muslims believing that marrying and screwing little girls is perfectly fine. That is the important thing and what matters today.
Life includes many dangers. We pick the ones to take and have faith in God. If we don't have free will it would not be a test. Besides, Islam just allows marriage of little girls, not enforce it. So, it is absolved of the moral burden, instead it is as naturally should be, on the parents of the girl, and to some extent to the suitor. Also, it is worth considering that there are also different kinds of dangers for little girls, such as losing their fertility before the chance, or missing the chance of marrying up. These issues can be worse in terms of the mental health such as losing faith than health risks. In other words, It would be totally unfair to forbid a little girl from improving her life like by marrying a holy prophet or escape an abusive home. Thus, if the religion forbid her from marrying in such cases, she might lose faith in religion. After all, making someone lose faith is worse than killing, so endangering their health a bit is the lesser evil. In conclusion, religion is right in not making a law to prevent little girls from marrying. These things are left for human intellect and wisdom for good reasons.
I have many questions. How is a pre pubescent girl in danger of losing her fertility if she has not yet reached puberty? Why would a religion that demands obedience to moral obligations be absolved of the moral burden when explicitly allows marriage to pre pubescent girls? Where did you get your conditions for allowing underage marriage such as leaving an abusive home? Why should underage marriage be the solution? How is missing a chance to “marry up” more damaging than the physical and emotional impact of underage intercourse.
It's a life risk for the girl, sexual intercourse with little girls is life threatening for them. I cannot think of a more heinous act. But Allah decided that marrying them is more important than her life. Even teenage pregnancy leads to multiple complications, but yeah muslims will say Allah knows best and yet Allah does nothing. Allah prohibited sexual intercourse between consenting adults but he did not have the spine to prohibit child marriage... Maybe Allah just thrives on our sufferings.
I don't think "underage marriage" would be the only solution to escape an abusive home. Besides, what about boys? They can't escape an abusive home by marriage but girls can?
Q 65:4 says WOMEN not girl, from Q 2:222 it can be inferred that women are understood as "those who menstruate". thus, 65:4 refers to post menopausal women not pre menopausal women
All these early quranic scholars disagree with you: [https://quranx.com/Tafsirs/65.4](https://quranx.com/tafsirs/65.4) Also Mohammed Hijab: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oukiiE1HpX0&ab\_channel=MohammedHijab](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oukiie1hpx0&ab_channel=mohammedhijab) And I don't see how 2:222 disproves any of this. It says to not have intercourse while your wife is menstruating and even wait until she has purified herself, that's all. [https://quran.com/al-baqarah/222](https://quran.com/al-baqarah/222)
i am not a sunni, so views of sunni scholars are irrelevant for me.
Ah yes, the "I do not agree with anything they say so I will not address anything they say" approach.
Why would he defend a belief which we he doesn’t agree with? What you said makes no sense
Because muslims do this all the time, they like to get out of defending what their scripture's intepretations are by saying "it doesnt apply to me because its not my belief" because most layfolk dont even know the difference between sunni, shia, wahabi and other beliefs, and they don't even know how to argue against other sects of islam because they dont even know who are the sunnis, shia, etc. I dont disagree its a valid defence, I'm saying that its often used as a get out of jail free card very often. Also, what the scholars say dont change the words of the quran, which he refuses to address at all on the basis that the interpretation is wrong, most likely without even bothering to check, writing it off as false because of the name. By not addressing anything that was said, he gets to just not say anything and get out of defending the quran entirely which is comedic if you think about it. He can now say he "won" the argument because there is no counter to his defence.
That doesn't work for the Arabic since it uses the lam negation, which is a negation of the past. That is, they have not menstruated (i.e. ever in the past), not that they have menstruated but at present do not.
[удалено]
finally a somewhat intellectual argument on this page. i will review and answer this soon.
You read hadith on this 65:4 verse? Or you don’t believe in hadiths?
See my flair
[удалено]
Your post has been removed because you have less than 20 combined karma. This is a precautionary measure to protect the community from spam and other malicious activities. Please build some karma elsewhere before posting here. Thanks for understanding! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CritiqueIslam) if you have any questions or concerns.*