Mohammed Hijab – Age of Aisha RA #02 – Definition of Childhood
AI: Summary ©
The Old Texan is used in the Bible and the Prophet Muhammad is important in modern religion. The morality of people's views on Christ's death is discussed, including the importance of proving the harm caused by a sexual partner and the need for evidence-based decision-making. The shift in the age of consent and the importance of early child birth are also discussed, including the need for education and language in communication. The speakers emphasize the need for a social construct and scientific framework to determine appropriate age for children.AI: Transcript ©
Salam aleikum wa rahmatullah wa barakato. Welcome to the second part of our discussion about the union of the Prophet Muhammad SAW Salam with Aisha Raja lon, and some issues regarding that. And before we continue with what we were going through, perhaps it makes sense for us to do a bit of a recap and for me to ask everyone to summarize some of the arguments. Now, we
discussed a particular verse in the Bible, the Old Testament, who remembers what verse it was and what the contents of that verse man did you remember the
contents of Dallas?
Okay, I did that was the rescue here. I just know the names. I don't know the verse.
So if it's not going to be with the numbers
3118 Remember all of a sudden, what does it say?
That basically, when you go, we're going to paraphrase and when you go to a specific nation to war, and you kill the men, you keep the woman that untouched, by the way. So not all of them. The ones that are virgins for yourself.
Something else that was mentioned, sorry.
Kill the men and kill keep the woman who have been on touch for yourself. Okay, that might be one translation. But what was the words that you remember? They weren't? Yes, that's beautiful. The Hebrew word, the Hebrew word, Torah. Casa. Yeah. What does that mean? Well, it looks at lexicons and there was a word test was it mean, actually?
Young girls, and girls and some, some C three year old, right, some but rabbis. I mean, that's different now, but we just focus on one thing at a time, this question of what is tough? What is it? What other translations do we have?
Yes, young girls. Okay, good. So what does this show us?
Go ahead.
So it shows even the oldest mannerism was allowed for,
for the Jews to
marry.
In this case, little girls, okay, and so good. Thank you very much. Now, if I've come back and said, Okay, he's speaking to Christian now. And Christian sends back shackle and says, look, I mean, that was the Old Testament. Now we have the New Testament.
Why? Oh, you know, we believe that Jesus died and across and all these things in the Old Testament, we don't really accept. So how would you? How would you answer that? Say, Okay, but did God commanded in Old Testament? So yeah, he didn't the Old Testament. Okay, so that, that means that it's not wrong in all time, or times or places or situations? Yeah, it's just like our, you know, for example, you guys believe in Adam and Eve that the offspring had probably committed *. And we're in agreement.
Okay, so you the difference between me and you would be that we believe that,
you know, Jesus Christ came, and he, that we don't want to have these laws. You guys believe that the Prophet Muhammad Salam was a guide for all times in all places.
Yeah.
Yeah. So So for you, it's still, you can still follow him
can still follow the profit here? What we're saying is that that was absolutely right now, for example, like as a Christian this year, as a Christian, I would say,
just as you believe that * is done, or has been had been done by the offspring of Adam, and SLM. And
that was that was applicable at that time in that place. We believe that there's an applicability of this particular ruling, you know, of taking the youngest for yourself, no problem, we except for the sake of argument,
difference being between us and you is that you believe that this is continual to our times. What was the problem?
This is this is the argument we're putting forward that this is no longer applicable. We're saying this and we're at some moralities, you know, are applicable, sometimes they're not applicable all the time. Yeah, that's fine. So
I'm not trying to like just be like, pedantic, I don't even understand the point in all situations is we're talking circumstantially here. So the question is discussion has to become about what analysis we're using how we're analyzing the circumstances to allow things or not allow things but it sounds like we're in agreement that there is a substantial consideration as a Christian what I'm saying is, for example, that
after Jesus come and died on the cross, okay, okay. And immorality become absolute when what I'm saying is that when Jesus come these old change, Old Testament injunctions are no longer applicable. No problem by
what you believe that Prophet Muhammad, whatever he's done, yes.
You know, is still applicable. This is the difference between me and you. Why is why Christianity is a religion, which is adaptable, and you know, and you guys need to reform your religion actually. So I you need to formulate what's the disagreement? Like? I'm not? Well, I don't understand what's the disagreement? So basically saying that God can't come in? Yeah, no. It's basically
we help somebody. Yeah.
Yeah. So basically, what they're saying is that,
with us the process and with them, with the Christians, basically, they have now the new law, Jesus died for their sins, they don't need to follow the old law. Whereas with you Muslims, you have to follow a proper manner to this day this day, meaning you can marry a six year old. So this was he didn't say that. I want it. I want to see it in different words. Yeah. Look, I wanted to like if you didn't say that was I wanted you to say that. You didn't say that? Because I mean, let me make it. Because now the devils in the details, it's not breathing. Let's, let's say so for you guys, you'd still believe that marrying a six year old and consummating the marriage of a nine year old is a
morally acceptable thing to do in the 21st century, for example, whereas you would say, you know, mentioning, or citing Old Testament laws to try and state the Christian position today would be something which would be completely unnecessary, or, in fact, inappropriate. Simply, in Islam, you're allowed to marry an adult if it's not going to cause harm to the individual.
Okay, well, we're talking about hammer, we're talking about autism. That's what we're factoring in this in the circumstance analysis. Why?
Because that is based on that is solely principles and all these things, you know.
But that's what what, that's what we're explaining to you guys. So
let me let me push ally for a little bit, because these are, these are the things you're going to encounter. Yeah.
I know, it's today we're doing. We're pushing everyone today, because this is the kind of thing you'll definitely want to face. Because you're not I'm saying like, like, from my standpoint, yeah. If you're not going to be very clear that I have a problem with the fact that it's 6am. I don't just kind of want to give that to you. I'm saying, if you don't, you're done well, but there was a few things you missed out. Because here's, here's what I would say,
when you we kind of went through this last time, but this is very important that you follow the method of this. Because if you follow the method of it, you're going to trap the guy, you will trap the guy. If you remember last time in last week's discussion,
we, we said something to two or three things which are very important. First thing, you don't trap somebody by making a point, you trap someone by asking a question. Just remember this point. You can never trap anybody by asking and making a point. You don't see like, for example, the interrogate the interrogate T in the police station, and he's sitting down and then the investigator comes in, and the investigator starts putting question point know, he's asking questions, questions, questions, and to a point where this interrogated one now. He's going to start feeling trapped. The first question Who remembers on this point? Yes.
Yes. Okay. So let's, let's start again. Okay. So before you start, I want to get this get the template, right. Yeah, that's what I'm trying to have understood. But do you remember the first question that we have to ask? Yes, sir. Is it good?
Don't use what deontological because most people understand what basically is categorically wrong or consequential. Good. So now, once we agree that it's not category,
okay, fine. So I'm coming in now. So same question. Okay. So you as Christians, we believe, yes. That when Jesus Christ came,
you know, he died for our sins. Okay. Okay. And he was crucified, resurrected on the third day, and so on. Okay. And so we don't actually, when you cite Old Testament material, yeah. For us, that's not applicable. Okay. Because Jesus died for our sins. And we believe in the New Covenant now. Okay. Okay.
So that's the difference between us and you. Because what we're saying is that this morality is no longer applicable. You guys believe in a prophet who married, you know, a young girl at the age of six, and then the consummation of mine, to this difference between us and you. So okay, so firstly, that we agree that this was categorically wrong. Do you disagree? It's not categorically wrong, because at one time, the God of the Old Testament allowed it right. So what are you asking him? Honestly, very simple, do you believe is categorically wrong, consequentially wrong? What was exactly that, for example, that in the book of Numbers, yeah, yes. So do you believe that one moment
of time, God allowed that to happen? Yeah, at one point in time, so did you have a problem with that?
One moment of time, at one point in time so that you don't be this categorically wrong.
Okay, good. So now you have to agree that there has to be consequences. It has to be so that we're both on the same page, because what that means is for time and place, due to bear in mind the consequences the changes.
We know the consequences will be very trauma
Tip for young person trying to see is this as you are consequential? Are you are you? Are you justifying? Are you justifying a child being? She stopped talking to me? Are you justifying? It just shut up.
Okay, so since you believe it's consequentially wrong, we are at the same page with you guys. Because you're saying at that that moment of time, that was not that God ordered that to happen. And it was right at that time. And we're seeing the same thing. So when it seems that the Prophet Muhammad, Marian Asha, is categorically going to take place in every moment of time, at this time, it's it's consequentially we look at the consequences. So
am I on the right track? Okay, but one thing, the consequences must have been very dire, very traumatic for, again, the fact that you accept the federal allow you No, no, no, no. Would you allow? No, no, no, no, what?
What we're saying is that in that specific instance, that if you believe that we're on the same page, we both believe that God commanded something to happen in that specific instance for that time. So that means in today's time, just as you believe Jesus came and died for the sins of the world, and it's a whole different paradigm, we follow the same constantly the same principles, it is good that I'm liking the fact that you're cool headed, because this is the kind of behavior
because they want you to be angry. Yes. But I liked it. There was now you've done almost everything. Well, you understand?
The first good thing is you asked a question, and I had two answers. And I was forced into one of them. Yes. Then you ran with that. It's like now you since it's the World Cup, you know, you pass it and there's a through ball now. So you're running up the pitch. I like it. But we need now to get today. Okay, good. The penalty box. Now,
the concept when they go through the consequence. Remember, we said there's two options, they can either say consequentially wrong or categorically wrong. If they go with the consequences, the wrong option?
What do we need to outline?
That is not in all times, in all places? It's no but what before we even talk about that Maddie proved that Rhonda was harmed. Beautiful. So before that, we need to we need to establish what consequences are we talking about? Okay. So you ask them what consequence what negative consequence for example, are you talking about? So now they're going to say what age harm harm or harm? So, the moment they use the word harm, the burden of proof shifts on them on them? Because now I am clearly making a claim. I am saying that this marriage will this union between the Prophet Muhammad Salah Monash at the age of nine, it caused harm. Now you can break that down what kind of psychological
harm, physical harm, societal harm whatever sociological, whatever harm you want to bring to the table. Now I have to bring evidence. Now I've become if it's if it's a biological case I'm making, that we're going to start exchanging scientific information. If it's if a psychological case I'm making, then that's where the fires,
you see. But so you're on the right track, I think. You have to get used to asking questions. be fine. Be comfortable asking them questions. Because when you ask them questions, and they agree, you've taken them once you've taken the ball one step further to the penalty box. You're about school to go. Yeah. Okay. So one more time. Let's do this one more time. Okay. So okay, so let's start again. Okay, let's start again. So yeah, basically. So this time, we're gonna start with Maddie, and then you're going to jump in? Yeah. Go ahead. So many, yes.
You have an advantage, I must say, because you've had two people already before you okay. And we've done a lot of thing. But so the difference between us and you, as Christians is that we say we are saying that, you know, numbers 31 818. That was something? Yes, I agree. If it was to be implemented today, it would be abhorrent. It's absolutely abhorrent. But that's why Jesus came the second covenant. And you know, He's crucified for us, because we don't have to think about the Old Testament laws. The difference between us and you is that you believe you believe that the Prophet Muhammad is continually a role model for you that his behavior was justified. So are you basing this
on as a categorical thing? Or is it based on consequences? What do you mean, exactly? I don't understand it. So you're saying, for example, the age of consent, or, you know, when you can have * with someone? Yes. Is this based as a category thing? Like, is this age? They can have * with someone? Or is it based on consequences?
I think
I think you can make a case for either I'm not talking about that. I am actually what is the age of consent?
purposes?
How do you define the age of consent? Okay, good. I mean, look, you could make a case for consequences, you know, you could make a case for consequences, right. And we've looked in the world now, some countries have 14 Someone's 15, Japan is 13. So, you know, how you measure this is when the when the child is or when the person becomes adolescent. As physically mature. We agree. So
yeah, so we follow the process along Yeah. So he married I show the Ranga, which was an adult. Yes. Why are you so well? How do we know she's an adult? How can you prove that she's an adult? Do you have a plethora of evidence
What's the evidence? I mean, just look at the literature. Okay. So you're saying, you know, she has to be an adult, for anyone to get married or having to close if someone loves * in Islam? There can't be any harm the schools between partners, so I think there was harm between them. Yeah. 100% Imagine if you have a nine year old daughter, and you know, she was engaging in *, you told me there was all this fallacy of presenteeism here. So, you know, I asked the same question again. So how can you prove that there was harm in this marriage? I can prove it by saying that if any nine year old today EFI you're saying today, right? Yes, we're gonna talk about today. Assumption, okay.
What you're not allowed to do is now we know what it's not based on the age the specific age
is based on the harm. Okay, beautiful. See, this is good. You see, this is the kind of question you're gonna get. Isn't that true ally. This is the kind of career you've done this a lot. This one,
you're gonna get worse, but this one, they're going to come soon. Because they think they got the they got the golden bullet, they're going to come straight for it.
And they're going to be rude. They're gonna cut you off. And this across the board, however, whatever their level this is their this is their, what they believe is the golden bullet for them. Alright.
I think we get it. You ask them a question. Get them to answer the question. Move on to the next thing. Ask them question again. What kind of harm is it? What kind of get them the getting them pushed toward? The more you push the burden of proof on them and
get them to answer questions, the more you're in charge. By speaking a lot actually shows you anxious.
If you speak a lot, you're speaking a lot, especially with this kind of thing. You're not in control.
Someone who speaks a lot is anxious.
Okay, now today, inshallah we're going to ask what was a child question? I guess we just we ended with it. And this is a book called The disappearance of childhood. I'm going to read this out. In fact, has anyone got this in front of them? Maybe someone else should read them out?
Have you got the I've got the slides is in the group. Yeah.
Which says
in an all award, there is not much of a concept of an adult and therefore even less of a child. And that is why in all sources, one finds that in the middle, middle ages childhood ended at age seven. Why seven. Because this is the age at which children have command over speech, they can say and understand what adults can say and understand. They are able to know all the secrets of the tongue, which are the only secrets that they need to know. And this helps us to explain why the Catholic Church designated age seven as the age at which one was assumed to know the difference between right and wrong, the age of reason, the right or wrong and the age of reason. It also helps us to explain
why until the seventh 17th century, the word used to denote two young males could refer to men of 3040 or 54. There was no word in French, German or English for a young male between the ages of seven and 16. The word child Express, express kinship, not an age, but most of all, the oralism of Middle Ages, helps us explain why there were no primary
primary schools, primaries, it should be from schools. Okay, that's all I can see. So let me continue. So for where biology determines communication competence, there is no need for such schools. The medieval way of learning is the way of the oral list. It occurs essentially through apprenticeship and service, what we would call on the job training, such schools as existed were characterized by a lack of gradation in the curriculum according to the difficulty of the subject matter. The symbols annuity with which subjects were taught the mixing of the ages, and the liberty of the pupils. If a medieval child got to school, he would have begun as late as age 10. Probably
later, he would have lived on his own lodgings in the town, far from his family, would have been common for him to find his class adults of all ages, and he would be perceived, and he would not have perceived themselves as different from them. He certainly would not have found any correspondence between the ages of students and what they studied.
I think this is very powerful, actually quotation, can
we take a break for about five minutes you talk to the person next to you about this quotation, take two or three bullet points, and then we'll present exactly what postman is trying to say here in this in this quotation, yeah, we'll have a quick break.
Okay, well, let's quickly some just read something. And it had a lot in there. So let's quickly summarize some of the points in there. So, what are some of the points which have come out in that in that particular quotation? But basically, they're, they're defining it as,
as when the child
When they their childhood is over once they get command of a speech so they can understand what's what, you know what's going on around them. Also that they can define they have capability to understand reason, the right and wrong. So that's another factor that they're using. What about that particular quotation? Tonic would you say is?
What institution did they reference? And
why is it important? Is the Catholic Church? Okay, that's one institution. Yeah, they reference the Catholic Church. And their particular definition is the age of seven. Okay? How can we use that, for example, we can throw it back at them, because they're questioning our values. And we can just say that your main,
you know, numeric main body of Christians as the Catholics, and this is their definition, which is lower than our definition. Yeah, technically, it's a really good point. In that quotation, as long as there's reference to schools, we need to think about this together, right. So it says this.
The word child Express kinship, not an edge.
But most of all, the oral ism of the Middle Ages helps us explain why there is no primary schools. For where biology determines communication competence, there is no need for such schools.
The medieval way of learning is the way of the oralist. It occurs essentially through apprenticeship and service, what we would call on the job training.
Schools as existed were characterized by a lack of gradation in the curricula, according to the difficulty of the subject matter, the symbols annuity, with which subjects were taught, and the mixing of ages, and the liberty of the pupils. If a medieval effeminate, evil child goes to school, he would have begun as late as age 10. Probably later,
he would have lived on his own lodgings in the town, far from his family, it would have been common for him to find his class adults of all ages, and would not have perceived himself as differently from them, he certainly would not have found any correspondence between the ages of students and where they studied. So going back to Tyler, and Maddie,
what in particular, let's put let me put the question very clearly.
When we're talking about the medieval times,
we're talking about 1000 years worth of history here, maybe from about 400, to about 1400, before the Renaissance. Okay.
What in particular, would you say, are the main differences that we have relating to schools, in the medieval times,
according to this, from what we have today,
so in the medieval times is more like, work based. So it's not, it's more necessarily based on, you know, your indiscrete at this age, it's more based on capability. So it's like, you can always rely on the motherboard before just like numbers, you reach this age, and you do this certain thing. But hey, it's more based on your capability, your ability, cognitive size and stuff. So it's not even discriminatory to age just on ability. Okay, that's a good point. So this is about competence, about ability, what would what would you add to that thought I did this. They in the Middle Ages, they, the,
the children, what, sorry, they would be classed as adults. And they could live independently on their own, and they could interact as adults with with their surroundings. So this point here, I think, is a very important point what you just said here, so look, how we determine what a child is,
historically, and contemporaneously. One of the things that we use is schools.
And there's a there's a connotation here. When you think of a child, you think of schools, I mean, these two things, it's almost inconceivable that you can imagine a primary school adult, it's almost like a juxtaposition or some kind of oxymoron. What kind of primary school adult you're talking about anyone in primary school is a child by definition. But what's being said here is something which is paradigm shifting in the sense that it's telling us in history wasn't like that.
What we consider today to be children in primary schools, yesterday were adults in lodgings that would have had an independent life, that if they went to schools, they would have seen no difference between themselves and say, a 30 year old or a 25 year old, they would have considered themselves to be co equal, in a sense to that individual or to that particular pupil.
Which brings us to, I think, a very important part of this discussion.
When we consider when the
ages of consent changed in the world. Because if you look at America, you look at the states in America, you look at the United Kingdom, you look at Canada, you look at Scotland, all these things, all these places. Even if you look at some of the colonized places like India, which by the way was first to change the ages of consent, even before the United Kingdom,
you'll find that the ages of consent, they changed by and large after the World War, the first world war that is, when did the first world will take place?
1914 to 1918. Okay, that's the first World War. The Second World War was from 1939 to 1945. Okay, these are two, probably the most historically significant historical events in the 20th centuries, everyone should know these days. So we're talking about 1914 to 1918 and 1939 to 1945. World War One. World War Two.
World War one you had who or who was fighting kuj? Who remembers just for the trivia of it? Who was fine.
Huh?
Who was on whose site? One says was Germany?
Ottomans. Ottoman Empire is French, British one. Eventually Russians. Okay, so Americans, America, we're talking more about the world war two here now, you know, when?
Yeah, but so the Ottoman Empire? You mentioned it? When did it break up? Do you know?
One year 1924? Yeah, 92, the first five years after the five or six years after after the World War One
719 18, finished by in 2424 25 and 24. So that's the 60s. So we're talking about that was a significant event.
But when World War One took place?
what did this do to the infrastructure in Europe?
It destroyed the infrastructure in Europe.
So there were new policies that liberal governments or governments in Europe decided to enact.
And some of these policies included educational policies.
Don't forget first wave feminism was alive and well at this time. When did women get the vote
in the UK?
1980 in the UK in 1980. And I think Canada was the first one of the Western countries to have it might have been 1917 and then 1918, the United States of America then I think 1919 lignite kingdom, but I can double check this year 1917 1819.
Okay, after this, by the way, when the United Kingdom when the woman's in French hands, when female enfranchisement took place, and women had the vote, it wasn't all women, it was women and to a certain age,
women above the age of 35. It was only until 1928.
Where the
was 18 and over
1928. So that's less than 100 years ago, if you think about it's quite shocking, actually, you know, 1928 women aged 18. And over. And the same year, there was something called the marriage act
the same year, because the campaigning of the first wave feminist movement, in addition to the Liberal government, because it was not called the Liberal Democrats at that time was called the Liberal Party. Okay. The Liberal government decided to do some educational reforms.
So two things will happen at the same time, you had protest movements and so on.
You had reformation. And you had they needed a new educational program. Now from the extract, we've just read, we said that childhood has always been connected to matters of what
schooling?
Yeah, schooling.
We just read, you know,
okay, so now when you extend the age of two things, consent, and the amount of time that it will take for someone to finish school, you've redefined what it means to be a child.
Childhood is clearly a social construct.
And this is what we're talking about in the break when he said that what is a woman has never been a question of great controversy
in the history of the world, but what is the child has been? And it's so ironic, that one of them is a controversy and one of them isn't because childhood is something clearly left to a great deal of subjectivity. It's not fully subjective, but there is a great deal of subjectivity. Because this is a historical
fact, when we talk about the fact that in the Middle Ages,
you know, these particular people were seen as children, who are adults, which we'll consider today to be children. And today, it's not that case.
The point is, at what point do we call this individual? Autonomous adult? And at what point, do we not?
There has to be some level as you say, 16? It can't be just 16. It can't that cannot be the answer.
It cannot be 16. Where exactly, Francis dropped it. Exactly.
So the point is, is this is that definitions of child have clearly changed. And they'll be connected to childhood and legal change.
Which is why you'll find if you look at all these law, pieces of law, you'll find that you know, in Delaware and Scotland and England, you know, the age of marriage was seven. And then when the Marriage Act happened, it was it became tough. That was, you know, and then we moved from 12 to 16.
Up until 1928, it's a serious matter.
Okay, so
already now.
That seems to be an issue with definitions.
When they come to you say your profit motive child
say, What do you mean by a child? Honestly, what do you mean by what is a child? A child as a 16 year old? A child, a 14 year old child is what exactly? Really?
So no problem? No.
No
biological realities.
So I've got some interesting
journals.
From just just a gamble, puberty, early starters, I'm just reading.
It's actually nature. This is the top. I think there's no yes is probably the top, you know, peer reviewed scientific journals. I'm reading it from it, and we read it.
For the first time in our evolutionary history, biological puberty in females significantly precedes rather than being matched to the age of the age of successful function as an adult, this mich mismatch between the age of biological and psychosocial maturation constitutes a fundamental issue of modern society. Our social structures have been developed in the expectation of longer childhood, prolonged education and training and later reproductive competence. This emerging mismatch creates fundamental pressures on contemporary adolescents, and how they live in society.
What she said what she's saying, Here, Shaka, can you explain it to me?
She's really
Joe, it's really again,
what what do you think has been communicated? Basically, what he's saying is that
because of this, you could say artificial prolongation of childhood that took place, as you mentioned in the early 20th century. Now you have a situation where, basically people are beginning to get involved in relationships and eventually reproducing later than their biology would indicate because they become mature, they develop the means to beautiful, I think that's a good summary. I like that. But I want you to let's focus again, on the wording here. This is very interesting. She's saying for the first time,
so this is something interesting. For the first time in our evolutionary history, biological puberty in females significantly precedes rather than being matched to the age of successful functioning as an adult. This mismatch, okay, between the age of biological and psycho social maturation. So you've got two things going on. There's biological maturation, and you have psychosocial maturation, cycle psychology, social society, sociology. Yeah.
They're saying there's a mismatch here. We are elongating. Yes, we are elongating one at the expense of the other, for example, or one is happening before the other. There is not.
It's not happening in tandem with one another. They're not in sync. So you're saying psychologically and socially? They are.
It's taking longer for them to mature compared to biologically. What we're saying is that society now doesn't treat adults at a certain age as an adult adults. Biological
else, for example, the expectation, the expectation of a 13 year old, let's say, Who is more than willing or more than capable, let's say a 1314 year old,
more than capable of reproducing more than capable of engaging in * more than capable and enjoying it and having no problem with it and all of these things.
I mean, all of these things, honestly, Yanni.
This individual is seen as a child,
the child sees itself, in fact, they will be treated as such.
This emerging mismatch, she says,
emerging emerging mismatch
creates fundamental pressures on contemporary adolescents and how they live in society.
This isn't science isn't nature, most religious fundamentalist saying these things atheist woman, feminist.
Interestingly, Mount Schaeffer, he said this, going back to biological reality has so many women in Yemen at the age of nine reaching the age of puberty, look what he called them. He called the women.
This is quite interesting. A chef I
Yes.
When did he die even on those
241 204?
Yeah, that sounds about right. Yeah. 204 sounds about right. So what 36 years before?
So this is third century after Hijra. Yeah, we're talking about 1200 years ago. He calls these he calls them women, does it, someone will look at and say, How can you call a nine year old woman?
How could you not everyone was doing that?
Just because today, there have been some changes in history and law. That's 90 years old, as old as some grandparents, I live in London, these changes are as old as people,
living human beings that would have remembered their mothers being
betrothed than married. And all of these things are very much younger age.
Just because these changes have taken place. Isn't it amazing how society has changed in line with that is shocking.
is actually it's to me, it's shocking how, you know, a culture can emerge from this is the best example of a social construct. I can imagine.
They've socially constructed.
This is a social construct.
And I can't imagine a social construct as big as this, the left wing haven't said anything about it. Well, they say a few things here and there. But why not? This is a social construct.
This is a social construct. What it means to be a child in the United Kingdom, or any other country with arbitrary numbers of consent is socially constructed from 90 years is, according to according to the biological markers. According to the historical reality, according to the legalistic framework, when you think over all of it together, it's a social construct. Now, when you bring a social construct to us, and say it has you have to conform to it.
We have to do that.
This is really, it's very odd actually.
Considering also the Roman Empire, the average life expectancy was 35 to 40.
Amram trapa, says the following his story, he says most women would have married sufficiently late
that we would no longer consider them to have been children.
Yet many women, particularly in Babylonia married so young, that today who would consider them to have today we would consider them to have been girls,
not women.
The goal of maximizing fertility in particular, must have lowered the age at first marriage and the price of this goal is early. We may, we might say premature end of girlhood. For many girls, adolescence was not a time for fun education, experimentation or professional training. Rather, it was a time when one was already expected to assume the full responsibilities of a mature woman as wife and mother. Thing is like it's pretty common sensical here, when you have a shorter life expectancy.
Then you have to do what you have to do quicker. Like if imagine, even in the world that we live in now. You go to Sub Saharan Africa, Sierra Leone or something country like this, see what is the average life expectancy 65 Or so I don't know what it is.
is considerably lower to then a place like the aging populations like Germany and Italy
She says 26% of population is over 65 years old 26% of it.
Why because whatever reason, the medic medical care, because his diets because of whatever reason. But the point is, even in the world that we're living in today, there's significant differences between average life expectancy from one country to another. So imagine if we go on a 500 years back 1000 years back, there is no such thing as a hospital even with perfect.
What do you think the average life expectancy in the world would have been in subsist in Sub Saharan Africa and Asia and Middle East 1000 years ago?
6070, maybe this is could be a good age to die, maybe at that age. But then if that's the case, if you're going to die at that kind of age 6070 Then why are you going to get married at the age of 45, or 41, or the average age of marriage in this country is 30 Something for a woman to say three, for a man, it could be 36 The average age of marriage is 33. At that time, you'd be you could be a grandmother. And you don't have time to play games like this, you might die you might get some some some disease might contract something, you need to propagate your genes, you need to have a progeny. This is the ridiculousness of comparing two time periods. Even on a very basic human geography
level. Like we know that the life expectancies are completely different. So when a woman is capable of getting married, she's not gonna go to university and get career and people have this crazy images. Because right now, if you close your eyes, and I say, imagine a child, you're already imagined, don't imagine, imagine any child. I imagine a primary school. That's what I imagined, for if you told me imagine a child, I imagine some kids playing on the slides and the primary school. So I imagine the same child if you put them a spotter, and essence he's already knows how to destroy all of us with the weapons and the swords and killing and all these things. Because there was no
time to play games.
Just because we're living in an age where there's time. There's time to play games.
You can play games for 18 years. Imagine
18 years
and before the that would have been the child's already done the huge things in their life.
What kind of adult everything everything?
Yeah, that's that's just the beginning of it.
Why would they waste their years? Think about it.
If you go to certain areas of the world, all you have to do is travel. To go to certain areas of the world you see children living completely in what we consider to be children, living completely independent lives, going to the village getting the water we're going there selling tissues on the streets.
The western mindset has distorted our reality
is a social construct
Oxon below once I was working as a teacher
and
there was a I was the eighth class.
And particular young man.
He was
I said to some of the things I said, this is not a 13 year old.
And they told me off in the staff room, I remember this is like yesterday. Please don't say that again. You know, this, you know, honestly, you know, it's seen as disrespectful and, and the boy was from Nigeria. Now, the boy was from Nigeria. I already know what that means. He's Nigeria. He's got Nigerian papers.
That's the truth.
They said, Listen, this is the almost accusing me of racism. Let's just put it that way. Almost, excuse me is the boy. Broad shoulders, the boy, broad shoulders, strong jaw, who would walk around the playground? To girls in his hand? It's no problem.
And you can see the stubble in his hit like here.
said this. I said Yeah, I would put him in like in the back and say, you know, whatever, you know.
After I left the school,
it emerged. My friend will lay he said to me call me said You know that guy, such and such person. He was a 24 year old 22 year old man from Nigeria.
He was at 22 We discovered the embassy called this and that 22 years old.
But because the social construct is so strong, it overrides what they saw in front of them. You saw a man this is a man. Oh Allah He that put that boy, that man. He would probably be up most of the teachers in the school. And he I saw him want them having a fight and he was destroying the opponent.
Throwing it on the floor. I was like, Come on, man. Hey, you know that you're, you're 22 years old, this guy's 13
and those kids whose little boys have no chance. You know, this is a truth well lie.
He might have been 1920 I can't remember exactly his age, but he was definitely not Kenny an adult. Yeah. And it was discovered that he left and it was a scandal. I even called The Guardian, I said, I've got a story for you. While I'm here, cuz I thought, you know, I left the school, we want to make a few bucks from this asset, what what kind of money are you going to offer me so we can't really offer you money as soon as we get it.
So if we get this man, we're gonna go into the office and this and that until you whatever. But the point is, is this, the social construct is so strong, that you will deny the image that you see in front of you.
You will accuse someone of racism, of ageism, of whatever ism. But you don't you see this as a human adult, with stubble on his face, and big chest and big arms? Looks like it's coming out of the gym.
This is ridiculous. This is ridiculous.
And I don't want to go further. But
I will go further. I'll go further off camera
that nobody can give examples of, you know, people at the age of 14 what they look like.
You know,
what the age of 1430? Well, they look like are you telling me that a child
the way your child may?
Well, the way your child, sorry to say.
historical reality is extended. So Mary Lewis,
she says the following about what I've just said, she goes no matter what period we are examining. Childhood is more more than a biological age, but a series of social and cultural events and experiences that make up a child's life. The time at which these transitions take place varies from one culture to another, and has a bearing on the level of interaction children have with their environment, their exposure to disease and trauma, and their contribution to the economic status of their family and society. The western view of childhood where children do not commit violence and are asexual has been challenged by studies of children that showed them learning to use weapons or
being depicted in sexual poses.
What is clear is that we cannot simply transpose our view of childhood directly onto the past says everything we want to say, really.
And this is really all there is to be said, I mean, it's there is a non there's no argument here to be made. You don't have to say your profit motive child and say, Look, you haven't even this, you haven't even decided what a child is.
social construct your definition is that's what it is, you know? And clearly,
our religion will I would put this to them as well. Is it a religion, which is clear, in its essence, that doesn't allow harm. Because one of the collide, one of the principles of the religion of Islam is a double user,
which is that harm is to be averted, in fact, a shot to be who wrote them off a cut in the 4/8 century. He said that
a principle in Islam, a chi that is it is more encroaching than an individual piece of evidence, because it includes many evidences. So for example, this principle of harm has to be averted. It is composed of many different pieces of evidence. And so since this is a principle of Islam, the religion of Islam, the way that marriage is seen, in the religious tradition, is as we started off by saying in the first session, something which yes, societally, we must look at what the person is capable of, we're not going to take a child out of the primary school today
and tell them to get married. Why, because they have not been given the training that an eighth century or ninth century, eight 910 year old has been given, they have not been given the training, so it's unfair for them.
And based on this principle, we wouldn't,
you know, transpose and these come on them. However, at the same time, if we're talking about the morality, or lack thereof, or something, it's unfair to use our standards today and transpose it on the past
and that is all we have to say about this matter. Is there something you want to add here? Yes, yes.
In the Hindu religion, yes, the Krishna thing Krishna entity is mentioned as marrying a girl of eight years old rock money and this is in the scanner Skanda Poron.
So it's a clearly mentioned the the, the girls ages ages I think it's very good that you mentioned that because you know, it's we mentioned Judas in which Christianity now Hinduism as well. So you can we can summarize by saying, Look, this is not outlawed in any way major world system.
Whether it's religion or ideology, and all of history has seen it, and only because you have a social construct now that you wish to badger us with, you're making an argument. But that's not a good enough argument for us.
They can't prove their conceptions of childhood are not socially constructed, they cannot prove that.
Especially when they don't have their biological marker. The thing is the same put it this way, especially for the the whole culture wars discussion and the Gender Wars. Yeah.
If you were to ask someone from the alt right or the right wing, what would be the arbiter for you? To answer the question? What is a woman? You'd say science, you'd say biology, you'd say the X, Y chromosome. Okay. The same question what is a child? What is arbiter society? Now you've become left wing all of a sudden, now you've become a social constructionist.
So if you're allowing it for childhood, why not allow for gender?
If you're allowing it for childhood, then you should allow for gender.
This is something with the left wing actually has if they made the argument, we have very strong argument. I don't know why they don't make the argument. If some of Matt Walsh came to me, and I was left wing guy with a purple hat.
And he said, What is it? What is a woman? I said, What is a child?
What is a child? That's I say a woman is whatever, but what is the child?
Because if you say a child is a 16 year old,
you say it's a 1415. whatever age you give it, you're not using science.
And if you're not saying if it's not a 1415 You are What is it then give us some scientific parameters. The moment you can assign two parameters, you can have an annual child adult, the moment you give scientific promises, it opens the door to an annual adult has finished, done.
Finished actually.
And this is how the left wing should actually reply.
They should say, though, if I was a left wing guy, if I was a structuralist, social construction, I would reply by saying I'd say look the same way that you determine what a child does with the seven what a woman is no difference
or minimal difference.
society decides human beings aside individual expression societal expression.
See, we don't like what how come you can have your cake and eat it both Matt Walsh or whoever is how can you can have your cake and eat both you can you allow some sets of social constructions but you deny others.
If you want science to be the arbiter you open the door to a nine year old adult finished done.
With that we're finished as well. And I hope you have enjoyed the session as much as we have was salam aleikum wa rahmatullah.
Related Episodes
- Abdur Rahman ibn Yusuf Mangera – Qasida Burda (The Mantle Ode) Part 19
- Faith IQ – Can A Woman Travel Without A Mahram In A Group That Guarantees Her Safety
- Moutasem al-Hameedy – A Thematic Commentary On The Quran #00 Introduction
- Abdur-Raheem McCarthy – Intro to Reflecting on the Quran Tadabbur pt2 Sh Abdur Raheem McCarthy
- Taimiyyah Zubair – Taleem al Quran 2021 J03-042D Tafsir Aal-e-Imran 30-32
- Hamza Tzortzis – No Doubt Course #04 – 10 strategies on how to deal with your and other people’s doubts
- Abdullah Hakim Quick – The story of Nusaybah Bint Ka’ab (رضی اللہ عنھا)