» Earn on-going rewards and help us do more! «

Prophet Muhammad’s Marriage to Aisha at Young Age with Ali Dawah

share this pageShare Page
Mohammed Hijab

Channel: Mohammed Hijab

Episode Notes

Episode Transcript

© No part of this transcript may be copied or referenced or transmitted in any way whatsoever. Transcripts are auto-generated and thus will be be inaccurate. We are working on a system to allow volunteers to edit transcripts in a controlled system.


00:00:03--> 00:00:06

See Sony was on it.

00:00:08--> 00:00:09

With me.

00:00:19--> 00:01:00

Really, this is, from my experience on the comments section on my YouTube channel, one of my emails from this is really one of the most oft repeated insults against Muslim, a prophet are the nine year old, it's kind of things that always comes up. Now, before I start, I do want to make a quick disclaimer that everything that I'm gonna say be saying right now is going to be for the process. So for the purposes of academic discussion, yeah. So I'm going to be going, I'm going to be going into philosophy, a little bit of anthropology, or sociology, history, and then afterwards, I'll come back to the reality.

00:01:02--> 00:01:08

Listen to I'm going to say, the first question you have to ask is, who is asking that question?

00:01:09--> 00:01:31

Because, from my experience, there's two or three main groups of people could ask you based on the word demographic, it could be an atheist that's asking you that question. Why is it important by a nine year old? It could be a Christian asking you that question. It could be a Hindu asking you that question. So the first thing you have to ask the atheists is the following. First, the atheist,

00:01:32--> 00:02:09

in your opinion, in your estimation, based on your rationality or your means of finding out the truth? How do you attain objective reality? objective morality? Now, if you really push this question to them, and you asked them, I mean, if you really analyze what the philosophical works of the major atheists say, you'll realize that actually, the majority of philosophers or philosophers are atheists, come to the conclusion that objective morality doesn't exist. And this is something that almost all of the postmodern if not one of them, wouldn't have thought most atheists Say, say that.

00:02:10--> 00:02:11

Bertrand Russell,

00:02:13--> 00:02:27

Jacques Derrida, all of them say this, there is no such thing as objective morality. Now, here's the point. If there is no way of the atheist ascertaining a full truth, which is more moral,

00:02:28--> 00:02:50

basically a certain moral truth, then really, they have no business asking you any moral question, because that premise is unsubstantiated. This is the point. If you put emotion to the side, and you put everything to the side, this is the first point. The second point is as follows. You have to ask yourself, why is it that the atheist,

00:02:51--> 00:03:11

he is over the painting on a 21st century constructed, socially constructed, legalistic definition of adultery, that'd be the example of what I'm saying. If you think of the historical era, you'll find that historically, and almost every civilization that has existed,

00:03:13--> 00:03:26

ever, you know, puberty was defining who would be an adult. And this is written in many different books. One of them is an emphatic civilization written by redskin. He writes that, actually, the majority of people

00:03:27--> 00:04:11

that in the in the early before the 1900s, or before the 19th century, he says that, I must say 200, he said, The adulthood was defined by puberty. Now, if you look at it from a purely biological perspective, and I'm not saying we should do that, but just for a second, if you look at it from a purely biological perspective, there's a book called The developing human or human development. And this book says that the majority of females re reach the age of puberty is typical for those whose age to get a job. This is the biological reality. Now, you might think, okay, you're trying to justify, you know, I'm just saying to you, we're looking at it from a broad perspective, we're not

00:04:11--> 00:04:48

looking at a snapshot of history. And anachronistically trying to superimpose an arbitrary subjective 21st century legalistic definition of pedophilia on all of the human societies that have ever existed in the past. And if we did, this is what would happen. Did you know that in the 1880s 1880s, in the United States of America, that almost all of the states had the legal age for marriage as 10 years old, and did you go that who had accepted?

00:04:50--> 00:04:59

So, what you have to see from a objective philosophical perspective, is that this what you call an anachronistic

00:05:00--> 00:05:03

reasoning of superimposing a realistic definition

00:05:04--> 00:05:44

on previous generations and dispensations is unsubstantiated. From anthropological perspective. If you look at Clifford, Clifford gates, who's a well known anthropologist, he says, I really, you've got to think of it. When you look at a society, you have to analyze the thick description of that society, you can. This is an anthropological fallacy when you try and put one society's ideas onto another. This is ridiculous scholarship, it would not be tolerated in the academic world, yet they use it out of frustration and aggravation, realizing not realizing, not realizing that actually, was the norm. Now, you might argue,

00:05:45--> 00:05:55

so why is it now that I mean, we couldn't let's be honest, as adult people were, imagine going into primary school, taking out a child from year five,

00:05:57--> 00:05:58

and saying, Let's get him married, let's

00:06:00--> 00:06:24

imagine it is something that is, we would react to this scope, our cultural paradigm in order to understand that, but that is what is required in order for scholarship to take place. That is how the world what pedophilia, when it was written in the dictionary, I define Deus is a very recent thing, and is a product of 20th 20th century

00:06:25--> 00:06:30

20th century thought. And in addition to that, in addition to that, let me tell you something

00:06:32--> 00:06:35

that really, there is a psychological element

00:06:37--> 00:07:07

of the social sciences, there is a psychology but like, for example, Jeremy brona, or Bruner, he says that adulthood, biologically, it's very, very possible for a person to become an adult at the age of nine or 10, or 11, for at which stage age is absolutely possible. But from a psychological perspective, there's a massive difference of opinion as to what constitutes quote unquote, maturity. Now, Bruner, for example. He says that it depends on it

00:07:10--> 00:07:11

depends on

00:07:12--> 00:07:18

he says, it depends on the period of play how kids play independently.

00:07:20--> 00:07:43

Because play actually has a very deep psychological educational functionality. When you're interacting with the extraneous variables of the world, you're recognizing how to deal with the objects around you. Piaget was another psychologist, he said, No, it's more to do with logos. And he had this very famous bottle experiment that he did. And other experiments were made. And different psychologists have different understanding.

00:07:44--> 00:08:22

But really, if you think about it, so it does make sense, because now we're living in an age of technology and, you know, industry and stuff like that, for kids to have an extended period of play. Why? Because there's more to it to experiment with, there's more technology and stuff like that. So I mean, I can see the justification, I'm not saying I can't see the justification for adulthood moving from, let's say, seven years old, because that was the norm. That was absolutely the norm, to let's say, 12 1314, I can see the justification. And by the way, the shadow of Islam, it does not take into account the cultural variables. In fact, they all sort of sort of factor which is a

00:08:22--> 00:08:26

principles of jurisprudence, there is a there's a kind, there's a principle that says

00:08:29--> 00:09:05

that culture has a lot to be something which is bought into consideration when you make a decision. And moreover, there is another, there is another principle letter or letter, which actually handy, you can't cause harm to yourself or anyone else. Therefore, we wouldn't say today like, you know, let's, let's have let's go back to the old piece, you know, let's have you know, 70 year old adults, no, I'm not saying we should do that. Our religion has an inbuilt flexibility, which deals with social, social and cultural change. But what I am saying to the atheist therapy, because it's usually gay, it's not mostly Christian. What I'm saying to him directly, is that you cannot, under

00:09:05--> 00:09:33

your worldview, do two things. Number one, you cannot superimpose your legalistic definition, which has depended upon the western paradigm, and the cultural atmosphere in the West. And superimposed on all the other history, historical societies, you can't do that. That's not a that is not an academic exercise that is called is basically you're painting everything with the same brush. And it's not something which is it's not something which is scholarly, or something, which is academically.

00:09:35--> 00:09:59

It doesn't have any currency. Number two, you have no reason not for the Christian when it comes to it. And he says the same thing, but no, we have objective money because the Bible says look at the Bible. Look at Numbers, chapter 31, verse 18, just go back and look at the old countries forget about why say, forget about what your apologists say. Just look at what the rabbinical commentary say about that. Numbers 31 at what you can do with the address

00:10:00--> 00:10:01

Three decimals.

00:10:02--> 00:10:32

So marriage, you can take them for yourself. Look at what it says in Deuteronomy 2221 10 to 1314. Take a look at that table. That's the Old Testament, where you know what this is the God of the Old Testament is the God of the New Testament, you should accept him. And Jesus says, I'm not going to do away with the law of the profits come to London. So, you know, if you look at the Bible, and you compare it with the discourse, actually, the practice was much more strict in terms of this is the irony of all ironies, the people

00:10:33--> 00:10:37

that are criticizing Muslims, and the Prophet Muhammad Sallallahu sallam,

00:10:38--> 00:10:41

of the very people that don't have any legs to stand on.

00:10:42--> 00:11:28

If you think about it really deeply, you'll find that those individuals that are criticizing the Prophet Mohammed Hassan are criticizing the very man who came with the Sharia from Allah, we believe, that basically stipulates restrictions in marriage with youngsters, previous lessons, and then there are systems don't have any such restrictions. The ADC paradigm has no such restriction or an objective level. Christianity has no such restriction. Historically speaking, Judaism has no such restriction Hinduism, look at my Bharata or whatever how you call it. Mahabharata. Yeah. This this book of the of the Hindu says that one of the major Gods had a 1000 child sex slaves 1000 child sex

00:11:28--> 00:12:21

names, what religion does what Islam does, and gives us restrictions? What what system can you put forward that has more restriction against marrying someone who's a youngster that isn't? In fact, they're throwing stones. They're throwing big, heavy stones, but they fail to know and realize that they live in a fragile, weak glass house. And that is the reality of the situation. So don't let modern 21st century thoughts encompass you from every direction, extrapolate yourself. Seriously, extrapolate yourself from that realize that you are being bombarded with Western tropes, or we accept some of it is good. But it's not justifiable to attack the Prophet Muhammad Sallallahu

00:12:21--> 00:12:22

wasallam

00:12:23--> 00:12:25

for doing something that your system allows,

00:12:27--> 00:12:35

on an exacerbated level today, which our system doesn't, so that is the irony of all ironies. I think there's anything going

00:12:41--> 00:12:41

on as well.

00:12:42--> 00:12:43

If you guys

00:12:49--> 00:12:50

if you guys hate

00:12:51--> 00:12:53

you hate their guts,

00:12:54--> 00:12:56

what will you attack them?

00:12:57--> 00:13:07

You will want to attack them with every little thing that you see that if that's the case, why do we have a single narration from anyone enemies of

00:13:09--> 00:13:10

these people that hate

00:13:13--> 00:13:13

more than

00:13:19--> 00:13:23

any ever condition? Because it is used against them?

00:13:26--> 00:13:35

Why do people use against it? Because it was the norm of the society. You can't deny it was the norm of a society is that we go get an

00:13:36--> 00:13:37

LED

00:13:38--> 00:13:40

Kenya, for example.

00:13:42--> 00:13:42

Agents

00:13:44--> 00:13:51

like Julio can see because today's become the law. So from that perspective, you can use that as well as

00:13:52--> 00:14:18

like, if he if he wanted to do that, you know, why is it that he just picked it up? Why did he keep keep doing it? Why does the marriage for such a long time? There's reasons behind it, just because one thing that's really crucial brother and sister is that I'll see you two, once she messaged me on Instagram, and she said I'm on the verge of leaving his son. Yeah. Okay, what's, what's the problem? I walked out, I said, no problem. I said, let me come and meet you. in public.

00:14:19--> 00:14:25

We sat down, I said, Just whatever you've got written down and just go through every single point by one of the ones that I know.

00:14:28--> 00:14:42

It's just the thing is just that she just had these things because in the Western society, and our friends have bombarded her with this, just because you will not see the wisdom doesn't make sense to me that for example, that if

00:14:43--> 00:14:44

this

00:14:47--> 00:14:59

was gonna happen, why am I here? Yeah, I tried to go to office we can do as well. But there's things that you don't understand, but you're leaving your religion because of that is stupid.

00:15:00--> 00:15:05

One game is not right. Why? Because on the Day of Judgment, I'm not gonna leave a

00:15:08--> 00:15:08

lot

00:15:10--> 00:15:10

of

00:15:11--> 00:15:23

my time on things I don't understand that you need to understand just because I don't see the wisdom doesn't mean there's no wisdom. If a child is wanting to keep a child

00:15:35--> 00:15:37

alive, but for the child, you see the

00:15:39--> 00:15:43

picture. So don't leave that because of this because

00:15:48--> 00:15:49

I didn't understand this.

00:15:51--> 00:16:04

Okay, so you can see then it will sink in and you'll understand, is it worth leaving the religion over something doubtful. We should understand that these things don't understand fully. But

00:16:06--> 00:16:06

anyways,