Age of Aisha RA #01
Date:
Channel: Mohammed Hijab
File Size: 41.70MB
AI Generated Transcript ©
Salam Alaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh How are you guys doing and welcome to another session where we are talking now about the Chable heights.
In the previous session we spoke about jihad, which, of course, is one of the classic Shovelhead two that anyone has to cover if they're going through
dour courses or anything like that, or even attempting to do Dawa, to a mainstream audience. This one is about the age of Arusha, and obviously, how union with the Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam.
And we have covered this in the past before, there's lots of materials, lots of discussions, lots of debates that we've done about this. But this will be more of a systematic kind of
approach, where we go through some of the verses some of the contentions some of the histories, because it's because of the nature of the Shabbat, and because of the fact that is constantly recycled, regurgitated, reiterated, it requires a little bit of effort from our side,
so that we can, you know, convey
an answer to this question in the best possible way. So what we're going to be covering today is the following, we're going to be talking about some of the claims that are being made, okay. And then we're going to be talking about them, meaning a definition of let's say, what it means to be an adult, what it means to be a child, all these kinds of things, to what extent are these things, social constructs, or not. And then we'll look at some verses of the Quran, which are often repeated in these discussions. Namely, we're going to be looking at chapter 65, verse four, a very kind of oft repeated verse and sort of Talaq on this matter. And then we're going to kind of relate this all
back to the relevance
of the discourse. Now,
before we start, I think we need to kind of think about what I, what I can refer to here are the meta ethical considerations.
First question, which is very important before talking about anything, which is moral, is where do you get your morality from? I mean, this is a very simple question. Because in the DA when people ask us questions, and people kind of interrogate us, or cross examine us, or at least think that they can, there was already an assumption that's being made. And the assumption is that there is a truth or moral truth that should be taken for granted that we both know about. But in this case, actually, there isn't because we both have different starting points, depending on who we're speaking to. And that needs to be fleshed out. Another meta ethical consideration is, we've got to
think about who is asking the question. So if the person is a Christian, if the person is a Jew, if the person is an atheist, because depending on what the who the person is, I think that the response should be tailored to whatever that that person is.
And we're going to be looking at something which is, especially if the person is a Christian, or do, I think very important, and I think one of the strongest arguments which can be used, which is a verse of the Bible, chapter 31, verse 18, of the book of Numbers, and we're going to be looking at some of the Scholastic resources relating to that some hermeneutical resources, and, and so on.
And then we're going to be looking at Hinduism as well. And now we're adding new information, which maybe we haven't spoken about before, because now obviously, there's discussions between us and Hindus, and Hindus, some Hindus, not all Hindus, will bring this up, or can bring this up would bring this up in discussions as well. How do we respond to Hindus.
And of course, with atheism, I've kind of alluded to this already, but with atheists or agnostics, or whoever they may be, if they come forward with this kind of thing. The meta ethical questions will have to start to be put into play,
questions relating to morality and so on.
And we also need to look at two fallacies in particular, which one of them is a fallacy of presenteeism, where you think that today what we're going through what we decided, our cultural apparatus, our cultural machinery of today, 21st century, or even to be quite honest, in the Western world, who's which is dominating the world. The morality that we have decided,
is the morality which should be the barometer for everything else. And so obviously, this brings us to another thing which is called anachronism. And anachronism is where you take today's standards, and you put it backwards on different civilizations and cultures.
And
we also because we have to look at the fact that with this whole situation, we don't find that the time of the Prophet not a single narration of someone at the time who was the detractor of the Prophet using this issue as a means to try and attack the prophets credibility. So let's get someone reading. Who wants to read
the some of the translations tell us what translations there are, of numbers there.
Do you want it because we're gonna start with the Christian and Jewish discourse, obviously numbers is a book of the Bible, the Old Testament. It's actually one of the books of the Torah, as well according to the Hebrew, sorry, according to the Jewish tradition.
So,
Maddie, have you got in front of you?
Okay.
Who's got it in front of them? Can someone read?
It's on the third page of the slides
check it out. We gotta hurry.
Okay, so if you could read it for us and then and tell us what translations they are and stuff like
that is the king is the King James Version. Yeah.
But all the women children have all the women children that have not known a man by sleeping with him. Keep alive for yourselves.
Okay, give us another translation.
This is the New International Version.
The International Version says that but safely ourselves every girl who has never slept with a man
we can use as well. The has a lot of additional tabs and bonus anyone? The English the English Standard Version, but all the young girls have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves. The New King James Version, but keep alive for yourselves all the young girls who have not known a man intimately.
Same thing. Okay, now I'm looking at the other slides. What scholarly resources are there which you could use? Say for example, if you're speaking to a Jew?
What would you what do you what would you use?
All right, so what first of all, tell me why the Talmud what how do Jews conceive of the Talmud?
As I understand it as an authoritative
exegetical source for, like, explanations of the Old Testament, be aware of the word exegetical, because that's more with what is referred to as the Midrash them. So, yeah, the I would say it's more jurisprudential in that sense, because
the Midrash them, which is the plural for the word Midrash. Is the exegesis of, for example,
the Old Testament, and so there's two streams of authoritative text
that the Jews have, there's the exegetical works, which are referred to as Midrash, or Midrash.
Like, for example, Genesis, rubber, Genesis, rubber. And this, by the way, according to some sources, has been written maybe about 300 years after Christ, not after Moses. So the Midrash was only codified like 300 years after Christ, at the same kind of time that origin of Alexandria was writing or something like that. So then you have the Talmudic texts, and they themselves are divided into different sub groups. So the Talmud is divided into like, for example, you have the Palestinian Talmud, you know, the Babylonian Talmud, and so on. And so if we're talking about cam, or if you like jurisprudence stuff, then the Talmudic texts are more.
Obviously, relevant here. And if we're talking about exegetical stuff, and the Midrash was more relevant, all of this can really be accessed in I think there's an online database now called sephora.com sephora.com. And it's been trialed, a lot of it has been translated. So if somebody wanted to access Jewish works, you can actually use keywords by using sephora.com. I think it's the Fourier is a safari with an s safari.com. And you can write down and you'll see the different things, which, by the way, this website includes both exegetical works and use Prudential work. So it includes the Talmud, and it includes the Midrashim as well. You know, so bear that bear that in
mind. So when we're talking about
rulings,
obviously, the Talmudic texts would be way more authoritative than Midrashim.
In that regard, okay. So what does tell us something about what it says there with the Talmud? You've seen?
Look at anyone look at the fourth slide.
And look at all the different things there is a
there is a bullet point that speaks about
a particular type of Talmud,
Babylonian,
okay, no, actually, this is the Palestinian town that I'm looking at here. Unless you're looking at something different.
Look at the fourth bullet point.
Sorry, the fifth one
of age. The one Yeah.
The Talmud of the Land of Israel, known as the Palestinian Talmud. Can anyone see that? Yeah.
All right. Can you read that?
You just hold the earliest of schools interpreted numbers here, kept us lips, kept us slippers. Okay, so what now this is now the next extract. Next bullet point is what the bat is what the Palestinian Talmud says.
So you'll read that.
So Sam Simon says the requirement is that age of virginity, these three years occurred within the sanctity of Israel. Yep. It was so tough. along the along the same lines, in the name of
our Seaman, a girl who converted at the age of less than three years and one day's body, the floor, her marriage into the priesthood.
What is the Scripture scriptural basis of this view?
But all the youngers who have not known man by line with him, kept alive for yourself.
There's numbers. So the way that the Talmud usually works is that they cite a name of an authority.
Okay, so the like, awesome, Ian, whoever it may be. And then they'll say something like this person states X, Y, Zed, and then this is the evidence that they use it.
So the Talmudic texts is stronger than a person's opinion is is closer to the authority of less Ailish. Ma. is closer to that.
So here, he's asking me in the saying that the requirement is that
her age of virginity that is three years because of the sanctity of Israel.
And then you have Phineas, a priest was with them.
And he also said, how he has also coached how the rabbi's interpret keep a life for yourself. To them, it says that they should keep them alive for themselves as slave boys and slave girls.
And then, as you can see here,
it's
the references mentioned, we will put the reference somewhere but the references mentioned. Now, someone will say, Well, okay, this may be valid to some Jews.
But it's not valid to the average evangelical Christian.
Or it's not something it's not, they're not obligated to believe in this.
Why is this still relevant to us? How is this number sets you on 18?
Important?
Now, even if you're speaking to Christians?
Yeah,
indicates that couple of things, number one, that it was at least understood by some heavy authorities at a particular time in this particular way, and particularly relates to Christians. This was something that was sanctioned by God. And so the Old Testament New Testament distinction doesn't really work or as a defense in this regard, because Jesus is also the God of the Old Testament, He is beautiful. This is what I wanted to get, because Christians would would say that the Godhead, which includes Father, Son, Holy Spirit, authored the Old Testament. So Jesus authored the new to the Old Testament, is a true statement.
Now, according to them, If Jesus authored the new to the Old Testament, and the Old Testament is telling us you can take slave girls for yourself that are prepubescent, therefore, Jesus sanctioned this thing, at least at one time.
Now, there's only one thing you can say to this, which is that you can say,
well, that was you can take a poor line,
approach to it and say, well, because Jesus died for our sins, we no longer obliged to look at the laws of the Old Testament.
And if we do take that, what would be the problem with that man, if we take this kind of approach, this poor line approach? What would be a response to that? Say, for instance, if someone said to
you said
to them, Well, you've got this verse in the Old Testament, which is numbers that you want 18, which says that you can take the young girls, the tough, the Hebrew word that's being used, you can take the young girls for yourself, is being interpreted and translated, as young girls, it was interpreted by the, the old Jewish rabbis in the Talmudic texts as being young girls in slavery means them having sex with them.
Say no problem. If they say fine, even if we admit for the sake of argument now speaking to a Christian, that's the case.
They'll say, then Jesus died for our sins, we no longer need to be compelled to those laws, what would be your response to that response?
Would it be that I think Jesus said he came to oppose the deal to Covenant as we'll see, that's one that is one possible response, which is to go down the James Ian, if you like route and say, well, actually, there's too many verses in the New Testament, which would indicate that Jesus didn't come and abolish anything. In fact, he said himself. But there's something else which goes back to our discussion about different types of morality.
You still have people purchasing people, heavy people like
scholars practicing
what they want to call it a failure.
So
they can't really come to us and saying, Oh, you did this? Or did that? Yeah. But if you put the articulation of that thing, it will be like, you know, it's too quick. We fallacies like, you know, you're saying, what about you? Are you admitting it for yourself? But you're nearly there. And I think this is where we should take a pause, and start exploring this. I want you to work in pairs. Yeah. And speak about how you would answer this question, because this is the stage two of the argument here. I think we've all established stage one. Stage one is, if you're speaking to a Christian or a Jew, let's say a Christian, because the majority of people that you may speak to are
going to be Christians, and or a large portion of them. Then they say, Well, now, God has come and die for our sins, Jesus has died for our sins. So these laws are no longer applicable to us.
Let's, let's have a quick break of two, three minutes, everyone think about it, and work in pairs. And then after that, we'll come back and present inshallah.
Okay, so we just had discussion in the class, and we're going to come now and present some of the things. The question, just to remind everyone is this is that say, for example, you having a discussion with a Christian? Yes. And we're at the point where you're having a discussion with a Christian, and what you've done is you've presented something with the Old Testament in numbers 13 831 18, where it says, keep the young girls for yourself, keep the tough for yourself. Okay, everyone knows diverse now. And then you've shown them some, some evidence, you know, jurisprudential evidence that this means young girls, and the rabbi said it and it's in the
Palestinian Talmud, and as much authority on this and linguistically and Jewish credentialing, whatever, they say, Fine, let's say for the for the sake of argument, they agree with their say, now,
we have Jesus Christ who died for our sins. And so we know all these things that happen in the Old Testament, some of the genocides and kill the donkey and do this and all that stuff
is irrelevant to us. We even condemn it. It's not something which we would, would say. So it's not applicable to us first, what you guys say is that your profit is a role model for all times in all places. There's a great difference here. So how would you, for example, Ally, how would you respond to this? Okay, so from obviously, what I've learned from yourself, is that we ask the question, Is that do you believe this categorically wrong or consequentially? Okay, good. So there's those two questions we ask that because if one moment they accept that in the Old Testament, Jesus that God stipulated this, so then they can't say is categorically wrong. Beautiful. Okay. This is good. I
think. If we start with an atheist or a Christian with this one question, I guarantee you will always logically win this argument. So let me give you the question. Okay. The question is,
do you believe having intercourse with somebody at the age of nine, because let's just be clear about what the situation is. having intercourse with a female at the age of nine is categorically wrong, or consequentially wrong? So you're giving them two options. They have two options. categorically wrong means is wrong in all times and all places consequentially wrong means it's wrong because of a consequence.
So they have two options. Let's say they say the Christian says, for example, it's categorically wrong. It's always wrong for someone to have sex with someone at the age of nine in any time in any place is categorically wrong.
Going back to Kantian ethics that we've spoken about before. Yeah.
If they say that then say fine, okay, then what you're gonna say, actually, let me ask you, what would you say? Well, Christian, yeah, if they say is categorically wrong? Well, we're saying you're basically saying that your God did something wrong, beautiful was to really do something your your god stipulated something which was wrong, morally wrong, because if you're saying is categorically wrong all times in all places you're Jesus who you're saying is the Old Testament God, and the author of the Old Testament told us to do something which was wrong, which is worse than doing it itself because you're now legalizing it for everyone to do it. It's not just one person. It's now
all of the people that you've allowed it. But what if they say it's consequentially wrong?
Then obviously, it's depends on time. And like, it depends on the situation, because it's now based on the harm principle, beautiful. So you ask them, What consequences are you talking about?
This goes back to a London anything if you guys remember, this was the line in London area that I spoke about this is this is it. This is the master key to this particular thing. You asked him, Is it categorically wrong? If they say yes, they lose, definitely they lose. You can understand why they lose. Yeah, everyone understands what if this says consequentially wrong. We asked them what was the what's the consequence that you're saying? That if it's there, then it becomes morally, morally wrong? What What was the one that you just mentioned?
I said harm factor? Yeah, beautiful. They're almost definitely going to mention harm. Because if you don't mention harm,
then you go back to categorical, because what you're gonna mention, oh, it's just wrong. Oh, it's just wrong that now you're going into categorical.
It's just wrong. It's just wrong. So you don't need to mention any consequences. So let's just say they mentioned harm.
What's the argument we're going to put forward?
Or what was the question that we're going to put forward? We're going to say the burden of proof is upon the one who's making the claim, as the promise that someone told us and it's a logical principle in them, well, I can tell by in a Talmud die, that certainly the burden of proof is upon the one that's making the claim. So now you have to show us how this caused Shahab, you have a plethora of historical information. Everything. There's a Hadith of the Prophet, he said that record everything that comes out of my two lips. And then the Sahaba said, even the anger stuff that you say he said, even if, if I'm speaking of anger recorded,
so we have even things which would seem to embarrass the Prophet Muhammad, Allah in the Quran and the Sunnah, we have all these things, all of his marriages recorded everything. Just give us one piece of evidence that this actually harmed Ashanti. Alana, this would be the the line of reasoning.
But going back, if they say is categorically wrong,
then they're in trouble. If they say it's consequentially wrong, then they don't have a case.
Is an atheist if he said he can face simply wrong, if he says categorically wrong? Yeah, because he doesn't have a scripture to know if the atheist is categorically wrong. Now he has to prove why. Because on what basis is then can an atheist have any kind of morality? Because think about it when we when we were when we were doing a Kantian ethics? And this goes back to that, if someone says is categorically wrong, does anyone remember how Kant proved that things were categorically wrong?
Everyone in society so everyone function, yes.
He called it the categorical imperative.
But there's no way of proving the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative is, at best, a thought exercise, thought experiment is best a thought experiment. It's not hard science, it's not mathematics. There's no way of proving as an eighth the best I would say, the best attempt that has probably been made in the history of ethics has been by Immanuel Kant. That's why he's so prominent, because the whole point of him is he's trying to show that ethics you can you can derive ethics without religion. That was what he was trying to achieve.
So he showed us a different way, however, even that way is not solid. So he says is categorically wrong. He still needs to go into the harm factor. No, no, he has to because if he said it could be wrong, and we say to him, why is it considered wrong? He's gonna say because it harms the Nano, right? If he says it's categorically wrong, he'll he'll tell you he can use Kant's categorical imperative,
which is not. But if everybody lied, it will cause harm to the society. It's not harmless impossibility, they'll say the, the the society will not function, which is a hump. It's not about harmony.
But not function isn't not some sort of, and it's not a consequence. It's not about consequences. Okay? Because remember, deontological ethics, or Kantian ethics
is, in many ways, opposed was opposite to consequentialism.
So that's, it's really interesting because there's a book out
I recommend for everyone actually, if you want to, like the beginnings of ethics and stuff. It's a book by Jay Mackey. I think I've mentioned it to you guys before. This is like the staple book for ethics that I think everyone should have. It's called ethics
by Jay Mackey. And he's an atheist. And in the he's a very famous atheist.
He mentioned at the end of his book, and I'll never forget this. He mentioned at the end of his book is that the only way you know and objective reality, and I'm just paraphrasing here, but as if they were in a list from God, and he quote unquote, lists from God, like you would not know what the objective morality is, or unless they were from a list from God or something like that. The point is, is that with categorical things, or objective morality, there's no actual way of deriving that into extrapolating that information. So just remember, what you're going to come in with is, you're going to come in, is it categorically wrong? Or is it consequentially wrong?
The third type of morality is virtue ethics. Yeah, virtue ethics, you know, Nicomachean Ethics of
Aristotle and these guys. But that doesn't have a mechanism. That's why no one uses it and law. But really, this is where it is. It's either consequential, wrong or categorically wrong. Once you've identified where the others are trapped everywhere, you always will win here. You will always win here, if you if they go categorical, if they go categorically wrong. So if statements, if they choose categorically wrong, yes, they have to either prove it, if they're an atheist, which they won't be able to the burden of proof lies, if they're a Christian, they lose because in the Old Testament.
So going back to, if it's consequentially wrong, they have to prove it again, the burden of proof, because they're making the claim, they have to prove that cause harm to action until
you see. So then you're throwing the burden of proof all the way back on them, they have to justify, they have to justify, because they want us on the backfoot. But if you if you organize it in a nice way, then they're on the backfoot. And that has a psychological impact, especially if you're speaking in front of people. So you justify to me, but you justify to me, but you're making the claim that has that's very powerful. You're pushing them on to the ropes, you're starting to hit them on the body now. They're the ones that need to throw back, they're in trouble.
And that's what we want. Now let's go to the next bit
of this.
So the Hadith itself, if we look at the Hadith,
it states that it's narrated by ASHA on July now that the Prophet Muhammad SAW Allah Alia Salam said to him, the Prophet Muhammad me when I was six years old, and consummated the marriage when I was nine, then I remained with him for nine years I until his death.
And she also narrated, she goes, I had seen my parents following Islam since I attained the age of puberty. So she admits that she had attained the age of puberty, not a day passed by but the Prophet visited us both in the mornings and evenings, my father, Abu Bakar, thought of a building or sorry, a thought of building a mosque in the courtyard of his house. And he did so he used to pray and recite the Quran in the pagan women and their children used to stand by him. And look at him with surprise. Abubaker was a soft hearted person, and could not help weeping while reciting the Quran, the chiefs of Quraysh pagans became afraid of that.
Now, this is clear, because it's saying that she she's claiming herself, she had attained the age of puberty, which is very important. And there are two issues here, which we have to kind of extract.
There's a difference between the cat contract. Okay, and the consummation of the marriage. And the contract is, I mean, it was a Kodama mentioned in his morning, for example, he mentioned that the contract is, it's like a business deal of some sorts, it doesn't necessarily mean that there has to be sexual interaction. Because we use the word marriage in the English, it indicates that or when he married her at the age of six, he didn't marry her and all that it means to marry someone
in the modern age, it just means that it was a contract, there was an agreement in place.
And number two is intercourse. And why I want to submit to you guys after having read some of the fapy tracts and you know jurisprudential texts and stuff, is that the
opinion of what the jurists really is that the person must be capable Kandra
Oh, is the TA the woman must be capable of it.
And I mentioned this, I mentioned very sticky examples, maybe we should say, and this is not necessarily with someone of a younger age, it could be someone who's an older age
You know if someone here
marries 100 year old woman
this could be haram where you do what's your break in your body and
if let's say she's you're marrying somebody who's got
a disease of some sorts, she's malnourished, she's you know, and you want to perform a sexual rights or that you go to a certain village or certain place in a malnourished place, impoverished place, different disenfranchised person, she hasn't got the ability. So the dabit or the the Islamic position on this is simply if the person's capable of doing it now the question obviously is who defines capability?
And Allah says in the Quran says Allah has decreed controllata animal asked the people of specialism if you don't know, and the Prophet Muhammad Salam said, Manta, tombola me a convicted criminal from somebody left some for bombing, whoever tries to be a doctor, and he's not with being a doctor or practitioner of medicine acquainted, and he humps a person, then that person is responsible. So in other words, doctors or medical professionals have a place in Islam
by the pneus of the Hadith,
and how they are out there, as you as you can see, I've sent you guys
so where he says, you know, innovative, I cannot, I mean, there's some Tabea so, you know, when she's before that for meta Kana, Tusla Whopper,
you know, when she was able to have intercourse, that's why the three years as you mentioned, because how the idea is not is writing, I don't know, 600 700 years ago, he's one of the he wrote, I don't know when he died, by the way, when did he die? I don't know. Maybe more than that, actually. But he was, he's mentioning clearly that she has to be capable of it.
You know.
Now,
someone reply and say, Well, hold on.
But if she was meant to be an adult, why is there this hadith of her playing with dolls?
Playing with those
that you know that she was playing with dolls and this and that incinerated.
And it Hajer even says, it has some Qalam on this, which I've put in there for you guys, so you can read it. So I want you guys to work as pairs again, and think about this for five minutes. So well. And you had this you had this interrogation. Do you want to say
friends, you want to read the whole issue read the Hadith? No to that issue I used to play with those in the presence of the Prophet as are some of my girlfriends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter my dwelling place, they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet SAW Salem would call them join,
to join and play with me.
The playing with those and similar images for building, this is not part of your commentary. So now, only call it
think about how you would respond to that. So I'm gonna give you guys five minutes, seven minutes. Yeah. And then we'll come back and present. Yeah, so the question now is, why is she playing with dolls if she was meant to be so mature?
Alright, so how would you respond to this those inquiry? I did.
Personally, I'll say there's an assumption that firstly, that she was a child. Because the assumption is that just because a person plays with a doll, you automatically means that they are prepubescent, then that means there's a lot of people that play with PlayStation or toys or dolls. Do we just do we make the conclusion that this person has, you know, a specific age? That's number one. I will say personally, a person playing with those doesn't, doesn't, it doesn't mean that it's simple, but it's true. It's true. The thing is, from what I remember, is that, in fact, nobody even has Kalani, he actually said that he quoted this hadith. And he said, This was at the time of battle
high bar, or the Battle of Cebu. And this was way before we after when they got married. So she was around 14 or 15 years old. So again, the assumption is they're they're they're thinking that she was a specific age, but she was around 1415. I like that piece of information. So to two angles, number one, just because somebody an individual plays with dos doesn't mean that they are a specific age. Because even today, send me that and secondly, I think we have times you've dealt with this session
of an expert and if you want I can teach you
that's what you're doing right now. It's
some kind of shuffle JD actually.
That's good, well done. So the age is very
important, what else would you guys bring?
Because she was nine at two,
the second year of hijra, and taboo was in the ninth. So we have nine to, let's say, seven years. 1616 1516. What about turbo cars? It says turbo hybrid. What was the intervention turbo hybrid? instabug? I'm
not really sure. Because then it makes the older node.
Turbos, the last one, then it makes her older if we go to a book, but let's go hybrid. She's 16. Wow, I mean, 1615. And
while they have so she's got she passed the age of consent, according to not not the enemy doesn't have much ammo at all. But let's just emphasize the issue. There's no contradiction between playing and being an adult. absolutely possible. Absolutely. You know, it's interesting, because when I was there was two people that were bringing this Shabbat, there was one girl. And it was David Wood and David Wood when he was talking about this. Behind him. He had a little doll. I don't know if you guys saw it. Yeah, he actually owns one. So we actually pointed out he's a grown man. And right behind you, when he's doing the video. There's a little you know, character. You know, these? Yeah.
Oh, Allah was laughing my head.
But yeah, it was interesting. Interesting, interesting. The fact that she was playing with other girls and stuff like that. What relevance is that? I mean, why is that important?
I guess it's maybe the fallacy of presence isn't that when we think about kids playing together, and we just have this imagination of young little girls who are just playing with their dogs and running around and playing hide and seek? So because we have that in our minds, we are ascribing it to back then. I would say, No, I could it not also be speculated. I mean, one could say like, for example, you've got children, I've got children, you're not playing with them sometimes. Right? So can one speculate that well, she was doing that because she was trying to entertain the the other girls were younger than her.
Do you see the point like, you know, because why is it that she's doing it? Why isn't she playing alone, Yanni,
she's playing in the presence of others. Like for example, if I played with my kids, the other day played toys, I bought the, you know, the Buzz Lightyear this kind of things to infinity and beyond and this and that, and play this. And then I told my son, you know, there's no such thing as infinity and beyond because of what we went through today.
And then he didn't understand that what I was talking about, but the point is, is yes, that is especially considering the other points that you just made very, obviously with with a great help, you know, please,
but you see, this doesn't prove anything. What I mean today nowadays, we have Halloween,
almost everyone's playing with toys now. There's almost as you know, there's makeup and this thing everyone's a character and Elon Musk is coming out with I don't know what he's dressed up as. This is playing with toys in my eyes, you know, he's playing with toys and he comes out and this and that people like to I mean, nowadays we have anime
you know, this enemies and stuff like that. And if you've got a sexual version, enemy, I don't know, even even pornographic versions of it now.
Honestly, I mean people around watching cartoons, you know, for these things. But these are grown people that are watching anime. One Punch Man and all these things and I don't know. I've never seen I was the One Punch Man
You shouldn't just see games for adults. on PlayStation. Oh, it's like the most unremarkable thing in any nowadays. People are playing Minecraft. ROBLOX my children are playing Roblox
is in phase four is?
No, but I mean, the kids are now sharing spaces with adults. It's quite dangerous actually, when you think about it, but I mean, kids are playing Roblox.
Minecraft. You know, Minecraft. It's a ridiculous game. It's like Legos moving about and stuff. It's like I'm going back in time, bro. I'm watching my kids. Like they were so shocked. Right. Yeah, let me let me show you Minecraft. I was like, let me come and see this minecraft I thought was gonna be amazing graphics. Now my time you know, we're on PlayStation two appears what appears to I thought now PlayStation five. This, the graphics is going to be undersold. I saw some blocks and go back to the SNEZ times. Super super Nintendo and Nintendo 64. And the kids are really they love it and stuff and and then adults play it. And then some adult came to my house and he was playing it and he was
really into and so he was just saying,
well, playing games is something which you know, unites by the way this unites the children with adults. It's the best language to unite. Some of the best bonding experience I've had with my children has been with the medium of playing games.
I asked my children recently actually I said, What do you like about what I do with you? The number one of the things that they said is
Playing games in a dark, you know, rough and tumble play, you know, pretending to hit them and you know, obviously, you know, just to pretending.
And, you know, this is rough and tumble and this and that and chalk slams and f5 and all this.
You know, whatever it is, but, you know, that is I think we've answered it quite well. But if there's anything else that
someone wants to continue, I'll tell you something that Laurie Laurie Wilkie says she's an individual. I think she's a psychologist. She says the fallen.
highly valued toys in childhood objects can be curated well into adulthood and passed on to subsequent generations of children. Therefore, artifacts found in the archaeological record may not adequately reflect the full range of material culture used and cherished by the users.
What do you think this means? Maddie?
This is the problem.
I mean, let me read it one more time here. highly valued toys and childhood objects can be curated well into adulthood and passed on to subsequent generations of children. Therefore,
artifacts found in the archaeological record may not adequately reflect the full range of material culture, material culture used and cherished by the users.
It can be another template.
Yes, yes. Yes, it can be and therefore shouldn't be used as proof to say that someone was
good. Okay, now I've got a secondary objection. This is objection one. I'm going to make it harder for everyone now.
You know, today we're making it harder.
And harder. Last Colonials. GFI. Okay, as you guys know, and he wrote to her belly and so on. And the sapphires
allow,
as as many of them as
they allow
the playing with toys for children.
Have you noticed this I've ever come across this fatwa? before? I think
that's the reason the head if you read in the commentary, actually, the they explained, they say this was allowed for Asha, because she was a child. I get it. But now the question is, if it's allowed, because now the argument comes forward. So look, your scholars say not just enough hammer to buy another mazahub. Your scholars say that
if you're a child, you're allowed to play with toys with faces on them. But here you have clearly as you're playing with the toys and the faces on them. Therefore, she's a child, according to your own speculation, Okay, before we before we answer this, because now I'm going to stage to interrogation speak to the person next to you for the next three to five minutes, and then we'll come back and answer this.
All right, so on that Ali, can you summarize for us? How would you respond to this dollar question? Okay. So, after discussing with JD, we came to a few conclusions that
so obviously we have another Hadith of the process, Selim that He prohibited his wife Aisha of having specific is some kind of pillow or facial features. So we have that so it shows that it was prohibited to his wife but then we have another Hadith which we were discussing now is about when he came in and he said like what are these and his wife said that these are my daughter's but the the process and have obviously asked him specifically about specific dog if you want to call it that, which had wings so I should give a description about it. So obviously from here that yes, there's the pin of the chef is that this could mean that she was a child, but we can say that the fact of
the process element the other half of the pillows mentioned that the pillows that facial features we chose that was not permissible. But with these dogs that she had, we can assume that the fact that process and dimension facial features that it was those for the for an adult to play with, without the facial features. Yeah, just like this, for example, just to just get the money out of their
vagina corner.
Bobby,
well, thank you very much for that. And what we're going to do now is we're going to break and then Charla, next week, we're going to go for part two of this session, obviously, because of this relevance to the discourse. We're going to do a two part series of this or two part session with this. And with that, I conclude with Salam aleikum wa rahmatullah Lightworkers