Topic: Muhammed's underage bride

[montalban]

Typical internet apologist... if a quick google search doesn't yield results IT MUST NOT BE REAL!  FWIW http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0944359035/102-0568811-0339369?v=glance&n=283155

There actually is a refrenced to the age of St. Joseph being older in the liturgical texts:

Typical? I've not questioned that your souce is 'real' or not, but only stated that I couldn't find it. You cite a bookshop that has a book. So far that's hear-say; you mention that a book that might support your theory on an early age of Mary.

I've cited the only work I know on the issue (note I've given the text and a link). And it's not widely accepted (by most Chistians) as being genuine - due to when it was written. Does your 'source' accept Mary's age as being young?

Let's look at what we do know...
"When Mary turned fourteen, Zaccharia told her, “It is customary for all young maidens at your age to marry.” That night an angel appeared to the old priest in a dream and said, “Do not worry, Zaccharia. Tomorrow have each suitor bring with him a staff. The Holy Spirit will give a sign as to who shall be Mary’s husband.”

The next day the suitors crowded into the Temple, each holding a staff in his hand. Kneeling, they prayed for a sign. All at once a lily was seen to bloom from the staff held by the widower Joseph, a builder and carpenter. And then a snow white dove alighted upon the staff before flying off. “How can it be that the Lord has chosen me?” Joseph said, astonished “I have been widowed for some time and have sons nearly as old as this tender young girl.” But Zaccharia shook his head “The Lord has given a sign, Joseph.” And turning to Mary the priest asked “Mary what is your wish?” Moved by the events and Joseph’s humble words, Mary extended her hand to Joseph, saying, “I accept.”

That day the marriage contract was signed, and in twelve months the wedding ceremony would be celebrated. In the meantime, Mary returned to her parents while Joseph departed for a distant town where he was about to begin work on the building of a Temple. The commission was a great honour, but it would separate the couple for nearly a year."
http://www.sol.com.au/kor/21_01.htm

Can you do maths? That already brings her age up to 15, not 12, and certainly not 9 as with Aisha. So given it's not widely accepted and pseudepigraphical, but even if accords her an older age then that of Aisha, what is your point?

[EkhristosAnesti]

In defence of the Jews I must note that they agreed to early betrothals.

And St Mary was a Jew; hence she would have been betrothed at an early age, probably within the range of 12—14 years old, which is alot more defendable than the Islamic standard.

There's two issues here really, one that Joseph was married earlier, and two the young age of Mary.

My point is that the source in question accounts for both facts; that the former fact is denied by the RCC which holds St Joseph to have been a virgin, indicates a bias against recognising any other historical point affirmed by that source.

The evidence that Mary was young stems from one source that is not widely recognised

You’re being equivocal; apocryphal NT books may not be considered canonical, but they nonetheless support a range of Orthodox traditions, and are at times appealed to with respect to such traditions. According to a well-referenced online RC article:

"When she was fourteen, the high priest wished to send her home for marriage…We have already seen that St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Germanus of Constantinople, and pseudo-Gregory Nazianzen seem to adopt these legends.”

Source: http://www.pax-et-veritas.org/BVM/bvm.htm[/quote]

According to this claim, certain Fathers followed the apocryphal tradition on this particular issue. Unfortunately no reference is given for this particular claim, but considering that the article you link us to in your response to Nektarios is also written by an unknown author who does not even bother providing references, then I’m assuming you will have no problem accepting this source.

In any event, as noted above, it is irrelevant whether or not her age is directly mentioned or implied in any credible historical source. Being a devout Jew, St Mary would have lived in conformity with traditional Jewish norms of the time, which included early marriage. You would have to come up with a substantial reason as to why St Mary would have abandoned these Jewish norms.

Can you do maths? That already brings her age up to 15 not 12, and certainly not 9 as with Aisha.

No one has suggested that St Mary was 9; she most certainly could have been 12, but even then we are talking about betrothal, not marriage. As I have argued all along however, this is not damaging to our case against Islam.

According to Islam, the female does not even have to be 9 years old to be married; she could be 8 or 7 even, as long as she has had her first menarche; this is because Islam erroneously equates the commencement of sexual maturity or puberty with the time when a female has her first menarche, which is medically incorrect. According to Jewish tradition, the female has been in puberty for at least 2-3 years before she is given over to marriage. The earliest suggested date for betrothal is 12 years old, which means the earliest suggested date for marriage is 13.

"In the first century betrothal could take place starting at the age of twelve. Mary's age is unstated. It is during this betrothal stage that Gabriel breaks the news."
 
Source: http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/index.php?action=getCommentaryText&cid=3&source=1&seq=i.49.1.4

According to Professor Matthew Keener:

“Jewish women were often betrothed as young as twelve or fourteen, upon reaching puberty…Joseph and Mary like most of their Jewish contemporaries, practiced sexual restraint before their marriage. A couple would normally marry a year after their betrothal.”

Source: A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, pages 88-89

Ofcourse, St Mary and Joseph practiced sexual restraint throughout their whole lives together (since St Mary is the ever-virgin), however the point is that according to Jewish cultural norms, the earliest date that a girl could have been exposed to sexual activity is the age of 13, which a completely different story to Islam’s standard of “whenever she has her first menarche” which could occur as early as the age of 7.

[montalban]

And St Mary was a Jew; hence she would have been betrothed at an early age, probably within the range of 12—14 years old, which is alot more defendable than the Islamic standard.

My point is that the source in question accounts for both facts; that the former fact is denied by the RCC which holds St Joseph to have been a virgin, indicates a bias against recognising any other historical point affirmed by that source.

You’re being equivocal; apocryphal NT books may not be considered canonical, but they nonetheless support a range of Orthodox traditions, and are at times appealed to with respect to such traditions.

The particular source I cited is NOT accepted, it is considered pseudepigraphical

Anyway, in large part we are in agreement, insofar as this is a totally different example from the Islamic one; which is why my 'maths' quip is directed to Νεκτάριος

[Νεκτάριος]

Typical? I've not questioned that your souce is 'real' or not, but only stated that I couldn't find it. You cite a bookshop that has a book. So far that's hear-say; you mention that a book that might support your theory on an early age of Mary.

I've cited the only work I know on the issue (note I've given the text and a link). And it's not widely accepted (by most Chistians) as being genuine - due to when it was written. Does your 'source' accept Mary's age as being young?

Why do you constantly feel the need to refer to the book as the 'book' or my 'source'?  Simply because your research on the topic is scanty doesn't mean that the sources I cite need to be put in quotations.  

Whether Panagia was 12 or 15, the point is still the same that in Orthodox tradition she was very young and St. Joseph was much older.  I noticed you conviently skipped over my other citation about the age of Joseph.  If you want sources look at the liturgical texts surrounding Christmas, the presentation of the Theotokos in the temple and other relevant feasts: http://www.tcgalaska.com/glt/Polytonic/

[Justin Kissel]

And St Mary was a Jew; hence she would have been betrothed at an early age, probably within the range of 12—14 years old, which is alot more defendable than the Islamic standard.

Oh really? Is that what you are going to argue in court, that forcing a 12 or 15 year old (whether by physical force, coersion, lies, or whatever else) into a sexual encounter is more defensible than forcing a 9 or 10 year old? Mary might have had a choice and she might not have; 99.9% of Jews in her position would not have had a choice. Even in Orthodox countries people were often not given a choice. The part of the liturgy about asking people if they were entering a marriage of their own free will was, for many centuries, a complete fiction. Oh yeah, you could say "No, I don't want to get married". Yeah, and you'd get beaten for the rest of your life, or perhaps die a few weeks later from starvation or freezing to death because you got thrown out of the house for "disgracing the family". There is abuse today, both physical and sexual, there is coersion today, and there are hundreds of thousands of homeless today; if you think it was better in 13th century wherever because it was "Orthodox" then you are dreaming. And much like slavery, the Church either looked past it as a necessary evil, or tried to curb it as much as possible by making laws that regulated--but simultaneously tacitly approved--unbelievably evil conduct.

[GiC]

Oh really? Is that what you are going to argue in court, that forcing a 12 or 15 year old (whether by physical force, coersion, lies, or whatever else) into a sexual encounter is more defensible than forcing a 9 or 10 year old? Mary might have had a choice and she might not have; 99.9% of Jews in her position would not have had a choice. Even in Orthodox countries people were often not given a choice. The part of the liturgy about asking people if they were entering a marriage of their own free will was, for many centuries, a complete fiction. Oh yeah, you could say "No, I don't want to get married". Yeah, and you'd get beaten for the rest of your life, or perhaps die a few weeks later from starvation or freezing to death because you got thrown out of the house for "disgracing the family". There is abuse today, both physical and sexual, there is coersion today, and there are hundreds of thousands of homeless today; if you think it was better in 13th century wherever because it was "Orthodox" then you are dreaming. And much like slavery, the Church either looked past it as a necessary evil, or tried to curb it as much as possible by making laws that regulated--but simultaneously tacitly approved--unbelievably evil conduct.

Thought this was a cultural reality for much of the world in the 13th Century, there is a fundamental difference between the Christian and the Moslem approach. We never condoned this kind of action, we simply tolerated the existing culture...Islam, on the other hand, embraced this culture and made it a part of their religion, thus while we would look upon such actions in disgust and openly condemn them today, Islam upholds them as standards of virtue and tries to force these conditions on people even in the modern world.

[Timos]

There was a thread before on violence in the OT in comparison to the violence in Islam, but I couldn't follow everything. It was very in-depth.

So, simply, what would I tell people who say that just as Islam's god ordered killing of thousands, the God of the Bible also ordered killings of thousands of people....ie. Jerichom what was that all about!? I truly donm't understand and thats why when any priest or layperson asks me to read the bible, I refuse to read the OT. All I read about in the OT is killing and stealing pagan's riches- or not stealing it because it is "defiled."

How is it that say, one of our pagan ancestors who was a "good pagan" who woudl sacrifice to Apollo or Athena for example as they were taught and say the Jewish army on command from God, was ordered to kill the whole city, elders, and babies, how can God do that?

Except for the Psalms and the prophecies, the OT history makes me sick and i know its wrong but I can't justify murder coming from God...

[montalban]

[quote author=Νεκτάριος link=topic=8377.msg111171#msg111171 date=1142179342]
Why do you constantly feel the need to refer to the book as the 'book' or my 'source'?  Simply because your research on the topic is scanty doesn't mean that the sources I cite need to be put in quotations. ÂÂ

Whether Panagia was 12 or 15, the point is still the same that in Orthodox tradition she was very young and St. Joseph was much older.  I noticed you conviently skipped over my other citation about the age of Joseph.  If you want sources look at the liturgical texts surrounding Christmas, the presentation of the Theotokos in the temple and other relevant feasts: http://www.tcgalaska.com/glt/Polytonic/


[/quote]
Yes, I know it can be trying to actually provide evidence. It's so trying that you've in fact ignored that I've already dealt with the presentation in the temple (even though you'd not named it), in post #45.

The fact is she was in her mid-teens (according to this one unreliable source) and it's got no relevance to the debate over Aisha who was only nine.

[Matthew777]

No 'we' don't.

Calm down, friend. Calm down.

Peace.

[montalban]

There was a thread before on violence in the OT in comparison to the violence in Islam, but I couldn't follow everything. It was very in-depth.

So, simply, what would I tell people who say that just as Islam's god ordered killing of thousands, the God of the Bible also ordered killings of thousands of people....ie. Jerichom what was that all about!? I truly donm't understand and thats why when any priest or layperson asks me to read the bible, I refuse to read the OT. All I read about in the OT is killing and stealing pagan's riches- or not stealing it because it is "defiled."

How is it that say, one of our pagan ancestors who was a "good pagan" who woudl sacrifice to Apollo or Athena for example as they were taught and say the Jewish army on command from God, was ordered to kill the whole city, elders, and babies, how can God do that?

Except for the Psalms and the prophecies, the OT history makes me sick and i know its wrong but I can't justify murder coming from God...

One difference is is in the fact that the OT was (much of it) for its time. Thus we Christians are free to eat pork, etc, despite the OT commands for it.
If you found Jesus encouraging us to continue with violence, you'd have a good parallel to Islam, where-in there's no 'NT' of the Koran; there's no one coming after Muhammed to modify their behaviour - so for them, killing non-believers is still in force

[Νεκτάριος]

Perhaps you missed it, but I posted relevant liturgical texts already.  So either the liturgical texts in question are wrong or you are.  You seem to be ignoring the actual texts though - perhaps daffy duck doesn't read Greek?

[montalban]

Calm down, friend. Calm down.

Peace.

How is telling you we don't not being calm?

[Matthew777]

How is telling you we don't not being calm?

I am sorry but you are incorrect. The reason why the Gospels refer to Jesus' brothers and sisters is because they were children of Joseph's previous marriage, because he was substantially older than Mary.

Peace.

[montalban]

[quote author=Νεκτάριος link=topic=8377.msg111186#msg111186 date=1142193413]
Perhaps you missed it, but I posted relevant liturgical texts already.  So either the liturgical texts in question are wrong or you are.  You seem to be ignoring the actual texts though - perhaps daffy duck doesn't read Greek?
[/quote]
I'm not ignoring the text. I stated it's pseudepigraphical. I've also asked you to show how this is comprable to Aisha's case where she wasn't even at the age of puberty. In fact others have pointed this out to, but you ignore them too.

As for Greek, ni thuigmn (I don't understand it - in Irish )

[montalban]

I am sorry but you are incorrect. The reason why the Gospels refer to Jesus' brothers and sisters is because they were children of Joseph's previous marriage, because he was substantially older than Mary.

Peace.

You asked don't we believe that Mary was in her early teens. The only pseudepigraphical source we have suggests that she was at least 15 at the time of her marriage, so you are inccorect, despite
a) ignoring my question to you about posting elsewhere
b) saying that 'no we don't is not being calm
and
c) you now shifting from a focus on Mary being in her early teens to Joseph being much older than her - the crux of this thread is about Aisha being very young - nine years old, to which you've entered to obviously suggest that Mary's situation was similar. It isn't because she was no where near as young. I hope this seems 'calm' enough

[Νεκτάριος]

I'm not ignoring the text. I stated it's pseudepigraphical. I've also asked you to show how this is comprable to Aisha's case where she wasn't even at the age of puberty. In fact others have pointed this out to, but you ignore them too.

The text I'm refering to are Liturgical texts of the church - which I have linked in this thread.  

As for Greek, ni thuigmn (I don't understand it - in Irish Smiley )

My sympathies.  That aside, how do you expect to be taken seriously in this discussion if you can't read primary texts involving church beliefs (i.e liturgical documents) in their original language?  Those are what I have refrenced as to making the point about what the church believes regarding the ages of the Theotokos and St. Joseph - so unless you can counter those you don't really have anything to sat.  

[EkhristosAnesti]

Asteriktos,

Oh really? Is that what you are going to argue in court

Indeed; so sue me  

that forcing a 12 or 15 year old (whether by physical force, coersion, lies, or whatever else) into a sexual encounter is more defensible than forcing a 9 or 10 year old? Mary might have had a choice and she might not have; 99.9% of Jews in her position would not have had a choice.

It is implied in the apocryphal account of St Mary’s early life, that she did in fact have a choice. If you have reason to believe that “99.9% of the Jews in her position would not have had a choice” then I’d like to see some evidence for this, simply for the sake of satisfying my curiosity as to whether or not this is actually true, for it doesn't really pose any significant threat to my actual case.

I have spoken of the defensibility of a 12-15 year old being married on strictly medical grounds i.e. with respect to issues of sexual maturity. Such medical issues are discerned objectively, since the biological construct and development of a female is not contingent upon time or culture to any significant extent. With respect to the psychological or emotional attitude of a girl to forced marriage, who is to say that it would have been so negative at the time and in the circumstances where such arrangements were made; as far as I’m concerned you do not present anything but a subjectively emotional response to the issue, which you choose to retroject into the mindset of every 12-15 year old Jewish girl of that era and culture.

In any event, as I have emphasized over and over again, we are speaking about a cultural norm with respect to the Jewish practice, and not a religious guideline. Assuming therefore that the idea of forced marriage was a fatal flaw, it is nonetheless a cultural flaw. All I’ve attempted to argue is that the Jewish cultural norm at that time was far superior than the divinely inspired religious precedent set by Muhammed, the moral exemplar of the religion of Islam. I never attempted to argue that Jewish cultural standards were perfect.

Even in Orthodox countries people were often not given a choice.

Again, assuming the validity of your argument with respect to the issue of forced marriage, we are nonetheless dealing with a cultural norm and not a religious one, so I fail to see how you present any valid objection in light of my actual arguments taken in context.

[montalban]

[quote author=Νεκτάριος link=topic=8377.msg111198#msg111198 date=1142194793]
The text I'm refering to are Liturgical texts of the church - which I have linked in this thread.  [/quote]
You need to get your story straight. First you've claimed that I've denied your book works. Then you cite a bookshop selling - whopee, as if that's a reference to the text. Next you give me a link that doesn't seem to work, and somehow this presentation of Mary in anyway shows that she was as young as Aisha?
I've already pointed out that I dealt with the presentation of the temple in Post #45
I understand that Mary was about 15 when she finally married Joseph (according to the sources discussed). Or that she was presented to the temple aged 3.
[quote author=Νεκτάριος link=topic=8377.msg111198#msg111198 date=1142194793]
My sympathies.  That aside, how do you expect to be taken seriously in this discussion if you can't read primary texts involving church beliefs (i.e liturgical documents) in their original language?  Those are what I have refrenced as to making the point about what the church believes regarding the ages of the Theotokos and St. Joseph - so unless you can counter those you don't really have anything to sat (sic?)

[/quote]
That's right, when they translate books from Greek to English they compeltely fail to do so. I love that argument; the same Moslems use about the Koran in Arabic. It's that kind of strange un-Orthodox attitude that would have kept the Bible in Greek, and not given to the Slavs. Well done!
“According to the tradition of the Church, the Theotokos was brought to the Temple at three years of age, where she was consecrated to God and spent her days until she was fourteen or fifteen years old; and then, as a mature maiden, by the common counsel of the priests (since her parents had reposed some three years before), she was betrothed to Joseph.”
http://www.goarch.org/en/Chapel/saints.asp?contentid=267

“She remained in the house of God for twelve years, emerging at the age of fifteen with a purity and wholesomeness found in no other creature of God.”
http://home.it.net.au/%7ejgrapsas/pages/presentn.htm

In accordance with the tradition of the times, Mary was presented to the Temple of God as soon as she reached the age of three. Joachim and Anna brought her to the priests of the Temple, where she remained for twelve years, or until the age of fifteen. Mary was presented to the Temple on November 21st
http://www.st-seraphim.com/present.htm

Obviously the Greeks can’t read Greek either, or maybe when they translated this into English they lost the meaning of the original? LOL!

Now if you can only show how this is relevant to Mohammed’s under-aged bride!

So in summary, I’ve stated that Mohammed had ‘consummated’ his marriage with a nine year old. Some apologists have leapt in to speculate that Mary was similar in age. The only written source we have says she was about fifteen, so there’s no real comparison, also others have noted that Mary had a real choice in her acceptance of Jesus into her.

You’ve added your own argument in favour of the Moslem apologists by re-stating that a Divine Liturgy relies on this apocryphal work. How does this relate to Muhammed?

[Νεκτάριος]

You need to get your story straight.

Ok, let's give this another shot before you get you feathers ruffled, (name calling removed, second time).

First you've claimed that I've denied your book works. Then you cite a bookshop selling - whopee, as if that's a reference to the text.

My real complaint is that maybe you have to broaden your search beyond the internet.  The book I linked to is not that uncommon in Orthodox circles - probably at least someone at your parish would have a copy they could loan to you.  In the book are plenty of patristic refrences to establish with some precision what and why the Orthodox Church believes. ÂÂ

Mary in anyway shows that she was as young as Aisha?

And pray tell where did I mention that?  My only point is that Panagia was young and St. Joseph was very old in Orthodox tradition.  I didn't give a specific age. ÂÂ

That's right, when they translate books from Greek to English they compeltely fail to do so. I love that argument; the same Moslems use about the Koran in Arabic. It's that kind of strange un-Orthodox attitude that would have kept the Bible in Greek, and not given to the Slavs.

Look, have you even been posting a week here, Daffy?  Do some searches for threads on English liturgy and you will see that I am one of the more vocal proponents of English on this forum.  And don't lecture me about Slavs - in that I am myself a Slav, I'm well aware of the work of Sts. Kyril and Methodios.  Nonetheless, that is irrelevant to the discussion - liturgical and devotional life are seperate from either the academic study of Orthodoxy or apologetics.  Of course knowledge of another language is not needed for the former, but for the later at least a reading knowledge of Greek should be a bare minimum - especially if you have to delve into more obscure Orthodox sources which are still not in English. ÂÂ

 As to the rest, I think you are missing the point that some have been making here - regardless of whether Panagia was 12 or 16 she was still younger than the modern accepted age for most Americans. ÂÂ I didn't post in one way or another regarding Mohammud, I simply replied with a refrence towards a book with an Orthodox perspective about the life of the Theotokos. ÂÂ

You’ve added your own argument in favour of the Moslem apologists by re-stating that a Divine Liturgy relies on this apocryphal work.

Please link the post where I stated the Divine liturgy relies on an apocryphal work.  Please also link the post where I have added to the arguments of Muslim apologists.  Thanks, Daffy. ÂÂ

[montalban]

[quote author=Νεκτάριος link=topic=8377.msg111244#msg111244 date=1142227960]
My real complaint is that maybe you have to broaden your search beyond the internet.  The book I linked to is not that uncommon in Orthodox circles - probably at least someone at your parish would have a copy they could loan to you.  In the book are plenty of patristic refrences to establish with some precision what and why the Orthodox Church believes.[/quote]
And what suggests that Mary's age is less than what I've stated, using the Internet's poor resources?

[quote author=Νεκτάριος link=topic=8377.msg111244#msg111244 date=1142227960]
And pray tell where did I mention that?  My only point is that Panagia was young and St. Joseph was very old in Orthodox tradition.  I didn't give a specific age.  [/quote]
So what relevance does it have in a thread about Aisha. This is a thread about the very young age of Aisha. She was only nine. One person chimed in to suggest that there was a parallel between her young age, and that of Mary.

To which I've replied that even if you go by an unreliable source, she was 15. Your whole debate is pointless then if it's nothing to do with the thread.
[quote author=Νεκτάριος link=topic=8377.msg111244#msg111244 date=1142227960]
Look, have you even been posting a week here, Daffy?  Do some searches for threads on English liturgy and you will see that I am one of the more vocal proponents of English on this forum.  And don't lecture me about Slavs - in that I am myself a Slav, I'm well aware of the work of Sts. Kyril and Methodios.  Nonetheless, that is irrelevant to the discussion - liturgical and devotional life are seperate from either the academic study of Orthodoxy or apologetics.  Of course knowledge of another language is not needed for the former, but for the later at least a reading knowledge of Greek should be a bare minimum - especially if you have to delve into more obscure Orthodox sources which are still not in English.  [/quote]
Despite you being rude here in calling me names, you're convinced that Orthodoxy can only be understood in Greek (as a Slav, you must know that the Russian church has a wealth of learning not available outside Russian), but it still begs the point of what your rant here is about anyway, as you've yet to show that Aisha's age was comparable to Mary's. It isn't. As noted one unreliable source says she was much older. My web-sites show me this, you've not disputed that, but gone off on tangents about how the web is limited (tell me if you dispute Mary's age) and that I must know Greek.
[quote author=Νεκτάριος link=topic=8377.msg111244#msg111244 date=1142227960]
 As to the rest, I think you are missing the point that some have been making here - regardless of whether Panagia was 12 or 16 she was still younger than the modern accepted age for most Americans. ÂÂ I didn't post in one way or another regarding Mohammud, I simply replied with a refrence towards a book with an Orthodox perspective about the life of the Theotokos. ÂÂ [/quote]
Then you are entering this 'fact' in a thread about Aisha as a relativst statement. You need to make up your mind. Yet others have pointed out that Mary's relationship to Jospeh was vastly different from that of Aisha's to Muhammed - or do you want to argue against that. Please make up your mind.
[quote author=Νεκτάριος link=topic=8377.msg111244#msg111244 date=1142227960]
Please link the post where I stated the Divine liturgy relies on an apocryphal work.  Please also link the post where I have added to the arguments of Muslim apologists.  Thanks, Daffy. ÂÂ
[/quote]
Again ignoring your rudeness, the very fact you've cited Mary's young age in relationship to Joseph's on a thread about Aisha's young age to Muhammed is plain to see, even if you're trying to be cute and beat around the bush.

Or did you learn that in Greek too?

[montalban]

Despite some entertaining attempts to relativse the immoral attitude Muhammed had towards Aisha (by bringing up the relationship of Mary to Joseph), I'd like to continue with the OP - despite my lack of Greek

I'd like to remind people of the issue...
"Question: Is it possible to have intercourse with girls before puberty, would not this physically and mentally harmful to the girl. Is such a thing permissible in Islam, and if it is permissible then what is the minimum age for marriage execution in Islam, since puberty is not a requirement.
Answer: In The Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.
Jurists discussed the issue of marrying a girl before puberty, i.e. a girl who might not be able to have sexual intercourse due to her young age.
They agreed that the Wali can marry a girl before puberty. But when she reaches puberty, she has the right to choose either to nullify the marriage contract or to continue her marital life.
Also, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, married `Aishah, may Allah be pleased with her, before she reached the age of puberty.
Hence, we conclude that puberty is not a condition for executing marriage. The only condition is the wife’s ability to bear responsibilities of marital life. However, we do not recommend marriage before puberty because at that early age the girl can’t fulfil her obligations towards her husband properly, nor can she know her rights towards him.
Thus, to avoid any negligence or liability on her part we do not recommend marriage at such an early age.
Allah Almighty knows best.
Dr. Su`aad Ibrahim Salih"
http://www.islam-online.net/livefatwa/english/Browse.asp?hGuestID=YFCeOS
see also:
http://www.islamicvoice.com/august.98/marriage.htm#EAR
and
http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=22442&dgn=4
and from the same site...
http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=1493&dgn=4

[Νεκτάριος]

Despite you being rude here in calling me names

He has a screen name, and you should use it.

you're convinced that Orthodoxy can only be understood in Greek (as a Slav, you must know that the Russian church has a wealth of learning not available outside Russian)

Deleted - your profile says that you have been registered for seven days here.  I've been posting on this board since 2002.  You are making a fool of yourself with those accusations considering the bulk of what I've posted, especially if you search out some of the threads on English liturgy.  Although some posters here will find it amusing that you are accusing me of being convinced that Orthodoxy can only be understood in Greek. ÂÂ

but it still begs the point of what your rant here is about anyway

It is more a question of you methodology than anything else.  Your tactics and style is little different than the myriads of wannabe Roman Catholic online apologists.  I simply found it interesting when I recomended two two sources for the Orthodox traditional on the Theotokos that you simply couldn't copy and paste and otherwise prooftext into a past it was met with so much hostility. ÂÂ

To which I've replied that even if you go by an unreliable source, she was 15. Your whole debate is pointless then if it's nothing to do with the thread.

But, according to the Orthodox tradition Panagia was 12 as testified by Saint Nikolaj of Ohrid in his Prologue http://www.westsrbdio.org/prolog/my.html?month=November&day=21&Go.x=10&Go.y=13

[montalban]

[quote author=Νεκτάριος link=topic=8377.msg111267#msg111267 date=1142235017]
No one is forcing you to have Daffy Duck as your avatar.  [/quote]
No one's forcing you to avoid respecting me by referring to me by my UserName.

Get back to me when you want to show how your posts are relevant to this thread and when you want to show some respect. I guess it stems from the fact you think anyone who can't speak Greek can never be as Orthodox as you.

Balls in your court.

[montalban]

[quote author=Νεκτάριος link=topic=8377.msg111267#msg111267 date=1142235017]
But, according to the Orthodox tradition Panagia was 12 as testified by Saint Nikolaj of Ohrid in his Prologue http://www.westsrbdio.org/prolog/my.html?month=November&day=21&Go.x=10&Go.y=13
[/quote]
Your own source says she was 'betrothed' at 12

Betrothed:
To promise to give in marriage: was betrothed to a member of the royal family.
Archaic. To promise to marry.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=betrothed

Given that my own sources (which you still refuse to question; except over that they're not in Greek (LOL!) have already agreed with this.

So my sources say she wasn't married till she was 15. Your source doesn't say that she wasn't married then. She never consummated the marriage with Joseph, anyway, so what's this got to do with Muhammed and Aisha you've yet to demonstrate.
 

[montalban]

So, trying to get back onto the topic of the OP I would like to mention that some Moslem apologists say that a woman can't marry without giving her consent. However, in Islam you're deemed (for the purposes of marriage) a woman at puberty. And, your silence can be deemed to be 'consent'.

[SouthSerb99]

Nektarios,

 ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  Any name calling or personal stuff will not be tolerated.  Also, being "cute" about someone's avatar has no effect on the obvious.  Please keep the debate substantive.

[montalban]

What I found to be a double standard with regards to Moslems and this issue is that they deem a girl to be an adult when she reaches puberty - so they can 'marry' her. BUT at the same time many Moslem nations deny this 'adult woman' the right to drive or vote, or do other 'adult' things; so it seems that this 'rule' is in place simply so she can be wedded.
Is this harmful?
Yes...
"Fact Sheet No.23, Harmful Traditional Practices Affecting the Health of Women and Children
Traditional cultural practices reflect values and beliefs held by members of a community for periods often spanning generations. Every social grouping in the world has specific traditional cultural practices and beliefs, some of which are beneficial to all members, while others are harmful to a specific group, such as women. These harmful traditional practices include female genital mutilation (FGM); forced feeding of women; early marriage; the various taboos or practices which prevent women from controlling their own fertility; nutritional taboos and traditional birth practices; son preference and its implications for the status of the girl child; female infanticide; early pregnancy; and dowry price. Despite their harmful nature and their violation of international human rights laws, such practices persist because they are not questioned and take on an aura of morality in the eyes of those practising them."
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu6/2/fs23.htm
Fact Sheet No.23, Harmful Traditional Practices Affecting the Health of Women and Children
"Child marriage robs a girl of her childhood-time necessary to develop physically, emotionally and psychologically. In fact, early marriage inflicts great emotional stress as the young woman is removed from her parents' home to that of her husband and in-laws. Her husband, who will invariably be many years her senior, will have little in common with a young teenager. It is with this strange man that she has to develop an intimate emotional and physical relationship. She is obliged to have intercourse, although physically she might not be fully developed."
(Ibid)

[montalban]

I've yet to see any Moslem (on any forum) condemn Muhammed's actions.

[montalban]

I'd like to see if someone would respond to this thread. I recall in debate with some Moslems that they cited the OT saying that the Jews allowed marriage to a three year old.

I'm not aware of this verse, so it might simply be regarding a promise in marriage, as opposed to the 'consummation' of a marriage as carried out by Muhammed.

[Jetavan]

"There are really only three reasons to insist -- as so many do -- that Aisha was only 9 years old when Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam (PBUH) married her: Either you are such a crazy Islamophile that you are willing to go to your grave insisting Muhammad could do whatever he wanted, or you are such a crazy Islamophobe that you want to insist he did, or you are such a weirdly religious sex-crazed pervert that you hope accusing him makes it OK for you to do it too.

There is absolutely no other reason to either make or repeat that disgusting claim. Aisha was married in 622 C.E., and although her exact birthday is unknown, Abu Ja'far Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari recorded that it happened before Islam was revealed in 610. The earliest surviving biography of Muhammad, Abu Muhammad 'Abd al-Malik bin Hisham's recension of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah -- The Life of the Messenger of God records that Aisha accepted Islam shortly after it was revealed -- 12 years before her marriage -- and there is no way she could have done so as an infant or toddler.

Furthermore, it is a matter of incontrovertible historical record that Aisha was involved in the Battles of Badr in 624 and Uhud in 625, in neither of which was anyone under the age of 15 allowed."

[Theophilos78]

"There are really only three reasons to insist -- as so many do -- that Aisha was only 9 years old when Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam (PBUH) married her: Either you are such a crazy Islamophile that you are willing to go to your grave insisting Muhammad could do whatever he wanted, or you are such a crazy Islamophobe that you want to insist he did, or you are such a weirdly religious sex-crazed pervert that you hope accusing him makes it OK for you to do it too.

Argumentum Ad Hominem.

There is absolutely no other reason to either make or repeat that disgusting claim.

Logical Fallacy of False Dilemma.

Aisha was married in 622 C.E., and although her exact birthday is unknown, Abu Ja'far Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari recorded that it happened before Islam was revealed in 610. The earliest surviving biography of Muhammad, Abu Muhammad 'Abd al-Malik bin Hisham's recension of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah -- The Life of the Messenger of God records that Aisha accepted Islam shortly after it was revealed -- 12 years before her marriage -- and there is no way she could have done so as an infant or toddler.

Why not? Where is evidence for that?

Furthermore, it is a matter of incontrovertible historical record that Aisha was involved in the Battles of Badr in 624 and Uhud in 625, in neither of which was anyone under the age of 15 allowed."[/font]

Where is evidence for these two claims?

Let the TRUTH cry out:

EVIDENCE THAT AISHA WAS 9 WHEN SHE CONSUMMATED HER MARRIAGE

The Islamic source materials state that Aisha was 9 when they consummated their marriage.

From the hadith of Bukhari, volume 5, #234

    "Narrated Aisha: The prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six. We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Harith Kharzraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became all right, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's messenger came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age."

Bukhari vol. 7, #65:

    "Narrated Aisha that the prophet wrote the marriage contract with her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: "I have been informed that Aisha remained with the prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death).""

From the hadith of Muslim, volume 2, #3309

    Aisha reported: Allah’s Messenger married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house at the age of nine….

From the hadith of the Sunan of Abu Dawud, volume 2, #2116

    "Aisha said, "The Apostle of Allah married me when I was seven years old." (The narrator Sulaiman said: "Or six years."). "He had intercourse with me when I was 9 years old."

From "The History of Tabari", volume 9, page 131

    "Then the men and women got up and left. The Messenger of God consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old. Neither a camel nor a sheep was slaughtered on behalf of me"...(The Prophet) married her three years before the Emigration, when she was seven years old and consummated the marriage when she was nine years old, after he had emigrated to Medina in Shawwal. She was eighteen years old when he died.

From the Encyclopedia of Islam, under "Aisha":

    "Some time after the death of Khadija, Khawla suggested to Muhammad that he should marry either Aisha, the 6 year old daughter of his chief follower, or Sawda Zama, a widow of about 30, who had gone as a Muslim to Abyssinia and whose husband had died there. Muhammad is said to have asked her to arrange for him to marry both. It had already been agreed that Aisha should marry Djubayr Mutim, whose father, though still pagan, was friendly to the Muslims. By common consent, however, this agreement was set aside, and Muhammad was betrothed to Aisha... The marriage was not consummated until some months after the Hidjra, (in April 623, 624). Aisha went to live in an apartment in Muhammad's house, later the mosque of Median. She cannot have been more than ten years old at the time and took her toys to her new home."

More evidence: http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/prepubescent.htm

[NorthernPines]

Theophilos, just a few questions,

A.) Do you believe all the hadiths (such as you are quoting) to be historically accurate then?

B.) if this is even true (for arguments sake let us say she was 9 yrs old) how does that make Muhammad any different from any other man with his authority in medieval Arabian/Bedouin society? Wasn't this fairly common then?

C.) If this is true, so what? What does it prove? Do you think this will convince a Muslim to convert away from Islam? Would you convert away from Christ based on some strange story in our Tradition, (not even in our Scriptures)?

My two cents is that I don't think we can know anything about this there seems to be so many conflicting traditions that it's all pointless to try and figure it out. Even if we did, I doubt it's going to convince a Fundamentalist anymore than mountains of evidence convinces Christian Fundamentalist Protestants that Constantine was not an evil proto-Stalinist, possessed by Satan jerk out to destroy Christianity. See my point? People will believe what they want to believe. If this is a scholarly discussion then continue to pursue that, however if it's an attempt to show how "evil" Islam is, well, I can fig up some nice juicy Bible verses that can "prove" the same thing about Christianity. I guess what I'm saying is I question using the same arguments the New Atheists use, not because the arguments are automatically bad, some of them are good, but only because arguing and disrespecting Islam's prophet probably only makes us feel good and doesn't do anything for the Gospel of Christ.

I'm not saying we should just let Islam have a pass, not at all, then again I don't think Christianity should get a pass either.

Anyways I'm not sure what it is I'm saying, more like just some thoughts out of the blue. No offense intended.

NP

[CRCulver]

If this is true, so what? What does it prove? Do you think this will convince a Muslim to convert away from Islam?

It may. When they write testimonials, Muslims who have converted to Christianity (alas, often of the Evangelical Protestant kind) often say that their first suspicions of Islam came when they examined the life of Muhammed, as he didn't seem to live the sort of life that their intuitions say is holy.

[Theophilos78]

Theophilos, just a few questions,

A.) Do you believe all the hadiths (such as you are quoting) to be historically accurate then?

What matters is not what I say on this issue, but what the majority of Muslims believe and teach about the historical accuracy of those Hadiths.

B.) if this is even true (for arguments sake let us say she was 9 yrs old) how does that make Muhammad any different from any other man with his authority in medieval Arabian/Bedouin society? Wasn't this fairly common then?

It could have been common or totally unusual, but we should not forget that Muhammad claimed to be different than any other man of his time and of all times and places. He said he was the ONLY person to receive God's final and perfect revelation. Islamic tradition also considers Muhammad sinless and infallible like the rest of the former prophets.

Muhammad said that his deity told him to leave idolatry and be a strict follower of monotheism although most people of his time (even the tribe he descended from) practiced polytheism. This proves that Muhammad could go against what was considered common and natural in his time.

C.) If this is true, so what? What does it prove?

It proves that Muhammad was away from perfection despite his claims concerning the final revelation. He should not be regarded as a model of piety or moral perfection.

Do you think this will convince a Muslim to convert away from Islam?

Some of the people who leave Islam present Muhammad's child bride as one of the major reasons underlying their conversion.

Would you convert away from Christ based on some strange story in our Tradition, (not even in our Scriptures)?

What kind of a tradition? Give me an example please.

My two cents is that I don't think we can know anything about this there seems to be so many conflicting traditions that it's all pointless to try and figure it out.

Conflicting traditions in Islam is a result of some modern Muslim scholars' wish to deny and replace "traditional" traditions.

Even if we did, I doubt it's going to convince a Fundamentalist anymore than mountains of evidence convinces Christian Fundamentalist Protestants that Constantine was not an evil proto-Stalinist, possessed by Satan jerk out to destroy Christianity. See my point? People will believe what they want to believe.

Yet this should not prevent us from teaching the things stated in the Islamic tradition about Muhammad and his child bride.

If this is a scholarly discussion then continue to pursue that, however if it's an attempt to show how "evil" Islam is, well, I can fig up some nice juicy Bible verses that can "prove" the same thing about Christianity.

For instance?

I guess what I'm saying is I question using the same arguments the New Atheists use, not because the arguments are automatically bad, some of them are good, but only because arguing and disrespecting Islam's prophet probably only makes us feel good and doesn't do anything for the Gospel of Christ.

In what way do you expect the critique of Islam to be directly affiliated with the Gospel of Christ? 

I'm not saying we should just let Islam have a pass, not at all, then again I don't think Christianity should get a pass either.

Defense and attack should go hand in hand. Even if Christianity failed to pass the test, this would not save Islam from error or make Muhammad a true prophet.

Anyways I'm not sure what it is I'm saying, more like just some thoughts out of the blue. No offense intended.

NP

No offense taken. Thanks for your comments and questions.

[ialmisry]

Theophilos, just a few questions,

A.) Do you believe all the hadiths (such as you are quoting) to be historically accurate then?

What matters is not what I say on this issue, but what the majority of Muslims believe and teach about the historical accuracy of those Hadiths.

B.) if this is even true (for arguments sake let us say she was 9 yrs old) how does that make Muhammad any different from any other man with his authority in medieval Arabian/Bedouin society? Wasn't this fairly common then?

It could have been common or totally unusual, but we should not forget that Muhammad claimed to be different than any other man of his time and of all times and places. He said he was the ONLY person to receive God's final and perfect revelation. Islamic tradition also considers Muhammad sinless and infallible like the rest of the former prophets.

Muhammad said that his deity told him to leave idolatry and be a strict follower of monotheism although most people of his time (even the tribe he descended from) practiced polytheism. This proves that Muhammad could go against what was considered common and natural in his time.

C.) If this is true, so what? What does it prove?

It proves that Muhammad was away from perfection despite his claims concerning the final revelation. He should not be regarded as a model of piety or moral perfection.

Do you think this will convince a Muslim to convert away from Islam?

Some of the people who leave Islam present Muhammad's child bride as one of the major reasons underlying their conversion.

Would you convert away from Christ based on some strange story in our Tradition, (not even in our Scriptures)?

What kind of a tradition? Give me an example please.

My two cents is that I don't think we can know anything about this there seems to be so many conflicting traditions that it's all pointless to try and figure it out.

Conflicting traditions in Islam is a result of some modern Muslim scholars' wish to deny and replace "traditional" traditions.

Even if we did, I doubt it's going to convince a Fundamentalist anymore than mountains of evidence convinces Christian Fundamentalist Protestants that Constantine was not an evil proto-Stalinist, possessed by Satan jerk out to destroy Christianity. See my point? People will believe what they want to believe.

Yet this should not prevent us from teaching the things stated in the Islamic tradition about Muhammad and his child bride.

If this is a scholarly discussion then continue to pursue that, however if it's an attempt to show how "evil" Islam is, well, I can fig up some nice juicy Bible verses that can "prove" the same thing about Christianity.

For instance?

I guess what I'm saying is I question using the same arguments the New Atheists use, not because the arguments are automatically bad, some of them are good, but only because arguing and disrespecting Islam's prophet probably only makes us feel good and doesn't do anything for the Gospel of Christ.

In what way do you expect the critique of Islam to be directly affiliated with the Gospel of Christ? 

I'm not saying we should just let Islam have a pass, not at all, then again I don't think Christianity should get a pass either.

Defense and attack should go hand in hand. Even if Christianity failed to pass the test, this would not save Islam from error or make Muhammad a true prophet.

Anyways I'm not sure what it is I'm saying, more like just some thoughts out of the blue. No offense intended.

NP

No offense taken. Thanks for your comments and questions.

I'll just add to Theophilos' excellent analysis, that in the Islamic world, when one legislates on the age of consent, one doesn't consider at what age a girl can make such decisions for herself and give her consent to engage in such activities and responsibilities.  They try to determine instead at what age Muhammad consumated his marriage with Aisha, or whether that was her first period and thus that setting the age of consent.

[Conservative Rebel]

The more I learn about Mohammed the more I become sure that he was in fact possessed with a demon and that Koran was dictated to him not by God, but by this demon. Islam is really a diabolical caricature of Christianity.

[Theophilos78]

The more I learn about Mohammed the more I become sure that he was in fact possessed with a demon and that Koran was dictated to him not by God, but by this demon.

Even the Sirat literature (Muhammad's life story) supports this theory.

So I [Muhammad] read it, and he [Gabriel] departed from me. And I awoke from my sleep, and it was though these words were written on my heart. (Tabari: Now none of God's creatures was more hateful to me than an (ecstatic) poet or a man POSSESSED: I could not even look at them. I thought, Woe is me poet or POSSESSED - Never shall Quraysh say this of me! I will go to the top of the mountain and throw myself down that I may kill myself and gain rest. So I went forth to do so and then) when I was midway on the mountain, I heard a voice from heaven saying ‘O Muhammad! thou are the apostle of God and I am Gabriel.’ (The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, with introduction and notes by Alfred Guillaume [Oxford University Press, Karachi, Tenth impression 1995], p. 106)

Source: http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/zawadi/mo_borrower1.html