More refutations about the Prophet's marriage to Aisha

Rebuttal to Sam Shamoun's Article "Revisiting the Issue of Muhammad's Marriage with a child bride: How one Muslim Dawagandist attempts to defend the morally indefensible"

By

Bassam Zawadi

Warning To Christians: You are going to find a part of this article to be offensive, since I will be using strong language against the Biblical Jesus in response to Shamoun calling the Prophet a "filthy and immoral man". This is to tame animals such as Shamoun and make him think twice next time to insult the Prophet in this manner and let him know how bad it feels to have your religion insulted.

Sam Shamoun's articles could be located here and here.

Shamoun has attacked strawman throughout most of his first article.

He spent most of the time trying to prove that Islam allows marriage to girls under the age of puberty. I never disputed this throughout the entire article that I wrote before. I was arguing that the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not CONSUMNATE THE MARRIAGE with Aisha before she was able to do so.

In Islam, parents can betroth a child who did not hit puberty to someone else. We don't dispute this in any way. If the child grows up and decides to divorce the one she/he was betrothed to then fine, otherwise they can consummate the marriage since they are already married. I am not arguing against this. If Shamoun argues that this is immoral then let him PROVE that this is the case.

Now in regards to Aisha CONSUMNATING THE MARRIAGE with the Prophet (peace be upon him), I would challenge Shamoun to prove that she wasn't physically or mentally able to do so. He thinks he met my challenge. Let's see if that is the case.

Shamoun quotes from islam-qa and concludes that the reason why Aisha was allowed to play with dolls is because she didn't hit puberty.

The fool Shamoun still doesn't understand the Islamic ruling on dolls. Let us break it down for this fool so that he may understand (truly, it is the idiots guide to understanding Islamic fiqh):

-          In Islam it is haram to play with dolls that have certain images.

-          Only those who did not hit puberty are allowed to play with them.

-          However, there are dolls that do not have these kinds of images.

-          It is permissible for both adults and children to play with them.

-          I quoted Ibn Uthaymeen and gave other evidence that suggested that there was a good chance that the dolls that Aisha played with are not the dolls that are forbidden for adults.

-          Thus, just because Aisha was playing with dolls (the permissible ones) that does not necessarily imply that she didn't hit puberty.

-          The burden of proof is on Shamoun to show that Aisha played with forbidden dolls with an image during the time she consummated the marriage with the Prophet in order to successfully prove that she didn't hit puberty.

-          Shamoun did not do such a thing.

Islam-qa makes it crystal clear that there are dolls that adults can play with and that one does not necessarily have to be prepubescent in order to play with them:

With regard to those in which the shape is incomplete, in which there is only a part of the limbs or head, but the shape is not clear, there is no doubt that these are permissible, and these are like the dolls with which 'Aa'ishah used to play. (Narrated in al-Bukhaari, 6130; Muslim, 2440). 

But if the shape is complete, and it is as if you are looking at a person - especially if it can move or speak - then I am not entirely at ease with the idea of them being permissible, because this is a complete imitation of the creation of Allaah. It seems that the dolls with which 'Aa'ishah used to play were not like this, so it is preferable to avoid them. But I cannot say that they are definitely haraam, because there are concessions granted to young children that are not granted to adults in such matters. It is natural for young children to play and have fun, they are not obliged to do any of the acts of worship so we cannot say that that they are wasting their time in idle play. But if a person wants to be on the safe side in such matters, he should cut off the head or hold it near the fire until it softens, then he should press it until the features disappear. (Majmoo' Fataawa al-Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him), 2/277-278, cited here)

So when Shaykh Uthaymeen says:

there is no doubt that these are permissible,

He is speaking about dolls, which are not haram and that anyone can play with. He then states that this is most likely what Aisha played with:

and these are like the dolls with which 'Aa'ishah used to play.

Therefore, it is not necessary to assume that Aisha must have been prepubescent in order for her to have played with her dolls.

Sheikh Uthaymeen then argues that there are dolls that are haram, but there could be exceptions to children:

But I cannot say that they are definitely haraam, because there are concessions granted to young children that are not granted to adults in such matters.

But again, Uthaymeen emphasizes that these were not the kind of dolls that Aisha played with:

It seems that the dolls with which 'Aa'ishah used to play were not like this,

Hopefully Shamoun can stop acting like a fool and get the point and realize that the burden of proof IS ON HIM to show that Aisha was playing with forbidden dolls.

He should stop appealing to authority and quoting Al Khattabi and start PROVING that Al Khattabi was right. Even Ibn Hajar al Asqalani stated that Al Khattabi's opinion was questionable.

Shamoun said:

Zawadi is splitting hairs at this point since to argue that Ibn Hajar didn't say this, but merely quoted someone else who did, doesn't deny the fact that this is found in his work. And that was my point, that Ibn Hajar mentioned the fact that Aisha hadn't reached puberty which accounts for why she was still playing with dolls.

Just because Ibn Hajar quoted the opinion of someone that does not mean that he agreed with him. Ibn Hajar clearly stated that Al Khattabi's opinion was questionable:

"To say with certainty 'that she was not yet at the age of puberty' is questionable"'

Shamoun stated:

As I documented, al-Asqalani was not disputing whether Muhammad married Aisha before puberty, but whether she was still prepubescent during the expedition against Khaibar. Al-Asqalani asserted that the strongest view is that she hadn't attained puberty even at that time when she was already 14 years old, and thereby soundly refutes and exposes Squires' assertion that Aisha was pubescent when Muhammad married her.

Shamoun is a liar. I CHALLENGE Shamoun to show us where in the entire commentary Asqalani said that the strongest opinion was that Aisha did not hit puberty. Asqalani did not say this. He said that the strongest opinion was that the incident took place at the time of Khaibar. However, Asqalani did not state that Aisha did not hit puberty at the time of Khaibar. He only said that it was possible because she didn't hit the age of fifteen yet. It was only the translator of the hadith that inserted in brackets his assertions, not Asqalani's. So the translator was mistaken while Shamoun is a liar since he continues to push forth the translator's mistake.

Shamoun said:

Zawadi then brings up a red herring by referring to the fact that there have been cases of girls in warmer climates that reach puberty at the age of eight. Later he provides quotes from Muslim authorities claiming there were nine-year-old girls who had menstruated often and of one particular girl who was a grandmother at the age of 21!

This is not a red herring. It is to show that it is not surprising or astonishing to know that Aisha could have been able to consummate her marriage at such a young age and it does not require some extraordinary evidence to prove so.

Shamoun the foolish deceiver then has the nerve to accuse me of being a deceiver and liar:

Zawadi then says something which further proves that he will use deception or even make things up in order to defend the indefensible:

I also personally know of a 23 year old girl in my Masters class who is very intelligent and still keeps a teddy bear in her car.

What makes this statement rather curious is that this sure sounds like what the following Muslim poster stated concerning someone he knew:

Qatadah

04-24-2008, 01:44 PM

asalaam alaikum

trustingod, i remember a brother saying that he knew someone who is 23, and she still keeps a teddy bear. besides, we see in her life how she was so mature throughout the marriage, and that she was fit enough for it - that's why it continued so perfectly. (do the shafi's believe Aisha married without hitting puberty; source)

Now what are the odds that both of these gentlemen know of a girl who happens to be 23 years old and still plays with a teddy bear? In light of Zawadi's track record of lying and deception it seems pretty certain that this is another time that he has taken over the statements of someone else and made them his own.

Now it is one thing to quote someone, or even paraphrase a point that one has taken from another source without referencing it. It s quite another thing to take someone else's words and experiences and then pass them off as your own in order to justify wicked and immoral actions such as Muhammad's marriage to a minor.

The only thing that is wicked and immoral is to falsely accuse someone of something without evidence.

Shamoun the fool should read what brother Qatadah said carefully:

i remember a brother saying that he knew someone who is 23, and she still keeps a teddy bear.

Qatadah is not saying that he knows the 23 year old girl, but that he knows someone who knows a 23 year old girl that has a teddy bear.

Now Shamoun the fool should have figured out that this person is me, for I have already stated this over five months ago in another forum:

And that by the way is not childish, just 2 weeks ago I knew of a 23 year old girl in my masters class who is very intelligent and still keeps a teddy bear in her car. (Anti-Islam website attacks Prophet [s] with this sharh of ibn hajar [ra], December 18, 2007, Source)

Yes Shamoun, we know you feel like a fool. So what's new?

Proceeding with Shamoun's arguments, he gets all emotional and argues that Aisha not being able to marry after the Prophet (peace be upon him) was a cruel thing to her:

This was one of the worst curses a young maiden could ever experience in her life. To think that women such as Aisha never had the joy of raising children or of having husbands to comfort and meet all of their needs for the rest of their lives is truly heart wrenching to say the least.

This is just another typical subjective Christian argument with no objective basis.

This is God's law and we accept it, full stop. If God wanted to test Aisha this way then so be it. There is probably wisdom behind this law that we don't know about.

Can't I argue the same thing against Christianity? Christianity teaches that if a woman gets married to a man and then after a couple of years she finds out that he can't satisfy her in bed or has a bad personality, SHE IS FORCED TO STAY MARRIED TO HIM. This won't be a valid reason for her to divorce him. She has to put up with him until the day he dies (1 Corinthians 7:39) or cheats on her (Matthew 5:32).

Thus, we return Shamoun our emotions:

This is one of the worst curses a young maiden could ever experience in her life. To think that women could never have the joy of having husbands to sexually and spiritually comfort them after mistakenly making the wrong choice in marrying someone (which could happen to anyone) and meet all of her needs for the rest of her life is truly heart wrenching to say the least.

Okay, we expect Shamoun to convert to Islam any second now. Give me a break.

The rest of Shamoun's article tries to prove that Islam permits us to marry prepubescent girls and this is something that I have never argued against. I was always speaking about consummating the marriage.

Shamoun states:

do not seem to be at all concerned with the biological and psychological aspects of the girl, whether she has the physiological and mental maturity to experience such intimacy.

But I already addressed this here so no need to reinvent to the wheel.

Shamoun argues:

What makes this all the more amusing is that Zawadi proceeds to refute his own argument and establish the fact that Muhammad Muhsin Khan was correct in translating the term as "immature girl":

The companion might have attributed her carelessness due to the fact THAT SHE WAS YOUNG and did not take seriously her responsibility over her tasks. However, this does not imply she was immature [sic] or psychologically incapable [sic] of being married. (Emphasis ours)

It is so sad that Zawadi doesn't see that his comments establish the point that, by saying she was a young girl, Aisha was acting as any immature child would, e.g. she was careless and irresponsible, who would rather play with kids her own age than do house chores. And yet this is the same young girl that Zawadi wants to convince us was old and mature enough to get married to a fifty-four year old man!

I made my position clear in my previous article. I stated that just because someone might be immature at work (like how many people in their early twenties are) and do not take their job seriously that does not necessarily imply that the person is too immature to get married.

Also, the narration does not say that Aisha would leave her work and play with her friends instead. It says that she would sleep.

It is very likely that Aisha in her young age would not take her house chores seriously (just as I and many other bachelors do, if you see my room it is a mess!), but I really do not see how this in any way shows that she was too immature to get married. Someone not taking a certain thing seriously might be said to be immature in regards to that thing, but that does not necessarily imply that he/she is immature in everything. I honestly do not see the strength in this argument.

For example, I find that women being unnecessarily jealous of their husbands to be childish and immature. I find that aspect or act to be immature, but I in no way find the person as a whole to be immature or incapable of being married.

Enough with the examples, I think I put my point across.  

Now let us begin with Shamoun's part 2.

Shamoun states:

The evidence was provided by the other quotations which we had sourced such as the following:

Umar asked Imam Ali for the hand of Bibi Umme Kulthum (as) in marriage, to which Ali replied, 'O Commander of the Faithful, SHE IS A MILK FED CHILD'. To which Umar replied, 'By Allah! That is not true. You are seeking to avoid me'. 'Ali therefore ordered that Umm Kulthum have a bath and then wear a shawl. 'Ali told her to go to the Khalifa, 'give him my regards and ask him if he likes the shawl, he can keep it, other wise, he should return it'. When she came to Umar, he said, 'May Allah bless you and your father, I like it'. Hence Umm Kulthum came back to her father and told her that Umar did not open the shawl but just looked at me. Ali married her to Umar and they had a child named Zayd. (Ibn Sa'd's Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kubra, Volume 8, p. 463, Dhikr Umm Kulthum; source; capital and underline emphasis ours)

"'Umar asked 'Ali for the hand of his daughter, Umm Kulthum in marriage. 'Ali replied that SHE HAS NOT YET ATTAINED THE AGE (of maturity). 'Umar replied, 'By Allah, this is not true. You do not want her to marry me. If she is underage, send her to me'. Thus 'Ali gave his daughter Umm Kulthum a dress and asked her to go to 'Umar and tell him that her father wants to know what this dress is for. When she came to Umar and gave him the message, he grabbed her hand and forcibly pulled her towards him. 'Umm Kulthum asked him to leave her hand, which Umar did and said, 'You are a very mannered lady with great morals. Go and tell your father that you are very pretty and you are not what he said of you'. With that 'Ali married Umm Kulthum to 'Umar." (Tarikh Khamees, Volume 2, p. 384 ('Dhikr Umm Kalthum'); Zakhair Al-Aqba, p. 168)

For more references and details please consult this article.

Can't Shamoun the fool see that these narrations work against him and not for him? If Ali truly believed that it would be immoral for Umar to marry his daughter when she was that young then why did he eventually allow it to occur?

Now the question on everyone's mind would be why Ali initially reacted the way that he did. Well there are two possible answers.

First, it is possible that Ali thought that Umar wanted to get married and consummate the marriage with Umm Kulthum right away. Thus, Ali stated her age because he believed that his daughter was still not ready for intercourse (which was true since Umar consummated the marriage a year after marrying Umm Kulthum).

Secondly, Ali did not want Umar to marry his daughter and only used the age of his daughter as an excuse. This might be an argument that Shias use since they hate Umar, however I believe that it is possibly the case for a different reason. As I argued in my previous article, there are sources that indicate that the companions did not want Umar to get married to another woman for fear that she might distract him from his duties as a Caliph. Thus, it is very likely that Ali didn't want Umar to get married for the same reasons and only used the age of his daughter as an excuse. However, his excuse was wrong/bad and he knew it, therefore he eventually married his daughter to Umar.

Thus, Shamoun has shot himself in the foot for appealing to these narrations since they actually show that it was acceptable for girls that young to get married.

Also, Shamoun ignored my argument regarding it being normal during that time for young girls to get married and that it would be difficult to believe that the Arabs found Umar's marriage to Umm Kulthum to be morally objectionable.

One can also find the rebuttal to the article that Shamoun has referred to here.

Shamoun states:

Here, Zawadi has "borrowed" the arguments of Christian apologists and philosophers in order to defend the indefensible.

Actually, this is what I already believe as a Muslim. I only cited Christians since you hold them to be authoritative and to show that you apply double standards.

Shamoun states:

Be that as it may Zawadi defines the internal critique as internal consistencies, specifically examples of Muhammad failing to apply his own standards. Even though we have documented many instances where Muhammad broke his own rules and had no shame doing so (*).

If the Qur'an itself is the one giving the Prophet these privileges then there is no internal inconsistency.

Shamoun goes on:

The example he gives concerning a universal critique is one which actually begs the question, namely that raping a little child is something which everyone deems to be evil (except, of course, to those who are doing the raping!). We do agree with him that such an act is wrong simply because the God of the universe tells us that it is in his holy Word, the Bible (1, 2).

Yes, we agree with Shamoun that raping a little child is wrong. Actually, raping anyone would be universally condemned. That is why Shamoun's false rapist and sex hungry Biblical God should be universally condemned:

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/rape_in_the_bible

But the interesting thing is that rape entails forcibly making the person engage in sexual intercourse with you. Where on earth has Shamoun shown that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) forced Aisha into marrying her? Her parents and she consented to the marriage! Talk about false analogies.

Shamoun then goes on to quote verses from the Qur'an, which state the permissibility of one having sexual intercourse with his slave girls. He then states that this entails that Islam permits rape. He argues that it is unlikely that the slave woman would consent to sleeping with her master.

We agree that not all slave women would consent, but that doesn't mean that all of them wouldn't. Also, there is plenty of evidence in Islam that one cannot harm those under his authority. To say that the Muslim has the right to rape his slave girl just because he has the right to engage in sexual intercourse with her is as good as saying that a Muslim has the right to rape his wife when she refuses his bed, which is absolutely ridiculous and absurd. (See here).

WE CHALLENGE SHAMOUN TO SHOW US WHERE IN THE QUR'AN OR AUTHENTIC HADEETH, ALLAH OR THE PROPHET CLEARLY PERMITTING THE RAPE OF WOMEN JUST AS IT IS CLEARLY ORDERD BY HIS FILTY AND IMMORAL FALSE BIBLICAL GOD.

And I don't mean Shamoun imposing his understanding on the text, but clearly showing that the text states this.

Recommend reading: http://www.authenticsunnah.org/karim/no_rape_of_female_slaves.htm

It also seems like that Shamoun forgot that sex with slave girls existed in the Old Testament and that this same argument could be used against him! Truly, what a foolish missionary.

Shamoun states:

And since Muhammad took for granted that the Judeo-Christian worldview was valid to criticize his so-called "revelations":

And if thou (Muhammad) art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee, then question those who read the Scripture (that was) before thee. Verily the Truth from thy Lord hath come unto thee. So be not thou of the waverers. S. 10:94 Pickthall

This implies that he comes under judgement and criticism for going against God's moral standard for marriage.

We addressed the Christian missionary distortion of this verse over here:

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/refuting_the_argument_that_the_qur_an_orders_the_prophet_and_doubting_believers_to_refer_to_the_christians_and_jews_for_consultation_

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun_s_article__muhammad__man_of_faith_or_one_filled_with_doubts__

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun_s_article__muhammad_the_doubter_still__being_another_reply_to_a_dawagandist_

Shamoun then argues that marriage at age 9 can cause damages. But there are so many examples of women marrying at this age who didn't receive these damages. Just because some may get harmed, that doesn't mean that all of them would. (e.g. Don't ban Pepsi for everyone just because a diabetic can't drink it)

Shamoun stated:

As one last act of desperation Zawadi criticizes the Holy Bible for teaching that Jesus followed the cultural norms of his day by referring to Gentiles as dogs and for supposedly dishonoring his mother, all of which have been refuted here: 1, 2, 3, 4

I read those articles and they only address why Jesus referred to his mother as "woman". However, even I myself admitted in my article that this argument is not that strong and I appealed to other statements of Jesus.

Shamoun states:

In conclusion, Zawadi failed to provide an INTELLECTUAL AND RATIONAL defense for his prophet's marriage to a minor.

Yes I did, your just angry that you can't PROVE what subjectively bothers you is wrong.

Shamoun states:

Zawadi may deceive Muslims by this trick but those whom God has blessed with a better moral sense

Again, the subjectivity continues to come in. Who on earth is Shamoun to say that he has a "better moral sense" without proving so?

Millions of Muslims thank God for blessing them for having a "better moral sense", since at least our religion prescribes a modest dress code for women unlike Christianity. That it bans alcohol completely, unlike Christianity and the list goes on and on. Who does Shamoun the fool think he is for saying that he is blessed with a moral sense?

Shamoun states:

For example, Zawadi will often bring up the examples of the OT wars to complain that the Bible condones brutality and evil. Yet does he apply the internal critique to see whether this is morally objectionable from the perspective of the Judeo-Christian worldview? Not at all, since if he did he would have to admit that these wars were thoroughly just in God's eyes: http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/q_amalekites.htm

First of all, I have made it clear that my personal position regarding violence in the Bible is that it is subjective and I only use it for retaliatory purposes. (See introductionhere and read here)

Secondly, I can definitely level a stronger argument against the morality of the false Biblical God than Shamoun can dream of against Allah.

I can easily level an internal critique. For instance, the false Biblical child-murdering God of the Old Testament contradicts Himself when He states that children shouldn't be punished for the sins of their fathers (2 Kings 14:6 & Job 21:19), yet He ends up doing so (Exodus 20:5-6, Leviticus 26:22, Numbers 14:18, Deuteronomy 5:9 & 2 Samuel 12:13-19).

Thus, this is an internal critique and I can provide many more examples. However, I have no interest in doing so since I concern my self with providing real objective arguments unlike emotional and subjective missionary fools like Shamoun.

Shamoun states:

Moreover, is he applying the ethnocentric critique to condemn these wars? No, since these military acts would have been considered normal procedure by the peoples of that time. In fact, even his own false prophet condoned and accepted that these wars had God's approval and were therefore just:http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zaatri_amalikites.htm

What a joke! Shamoun is stating that it was okay for innocent civilians to be murdered at that time, yet it is not so in the 21^st century. I can barely hold my self from laughing (and puking for that matter).

So basically Shamoun is arguing that these things are not okay today since God's laws have to adapt to changing cultures and societal behavior. Surely this is absurd and it should actually be the other way around.

In conclusion, Shamoun has not provided a rational and objective basis for any of his arguments.

NOTE: I am not going to kindly request Shamoun to stop insulting my beloved Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). I don't kindly request anything from foolish thugs. All I am going to say is that if he continues to insult, then I will insult right back. If Shamoun removes his insults, then I would promise to edit this article and remove my harsh comments as well. He needs to be tamed and understand that in interfaith dialogue we have to be sensitive about the other person's feelings, since these topics are very sensitive to people.

We apologize for offending any other Christians, since it wasn't our intention.

Refuting arguments made against the Prophet's marriage to Aisha

Refuting Sam Shamoun's Arguments Regarding The Prophet's Marriage To Aisha

by

Bassam Zawadi

Sam Shamoun has written a number of articles regarding the Prophet's marriage to Aisha:

http://www.answeringislam.net/Shamoun/prepubescent.htm

http://www.answeringislam.net/Shamoun/prepubescent2.htm

http://www.answeringislam.net/Shamoun/prepubescent3.htm

Since, there are plenty of articles on the Internet that have already addressed much of what Shamoun has stated, I will only be focusing on four specific arguments that he has put forth and have not seen direct refutations to:

           - Aisha Playing with Dolls Proves She Was Too Immature To Marry the Prophet

           - Companions of the Prophet Thought That Aisha Was Immature

           - The Companions Condemned Umar ibn Al Khattab For Marrying Umm Kulthum

            - Muhammad Should Have Established a Higher Moral Standard

Aisha Playing with Dolls Proves She Was Too Immature To Marry the Prophet

Sam Shamoun said:

Moreover, the hadiths provide further support that Aisha had not reached puberty since they speak of her playing with dolls:

'A'isha reported that she used to PLAY WITH DOLLS in the presence of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and when her playmates came to her they left (the house) because they felt shy of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), whereas Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) sent them to her. (Sahih Muslim, Book 031, Number 5981)

The reason why Aisha was permitted to play with dolls in front of Muhammad is because she hadn't attained puberty yet:

Narrated 'Aisha:
I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, NOT YET REACHED THE AGE OF PUBERTY.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13) (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151)

Narrated 'Aisha:
The Prophet was screening me with his Rida' (garment covering the upper part of the body) while I was looking at the Ethiopians who were playing in the courtyard of the mosque. (I continued watching) till I was satisfied. So you may deduce from this event how a little girl (who has not reached the age of puberty) who is eager to enjoy amusement should be treated in this respect. (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 163)

Squires thinks he has a way of undermining the significance that Aisha's playing with dolls has on establishing the position that she was prepubescent when Muhammad slept with her:

Now in regards to the various hadiths ([1][2][3][4]) that anti-Islamic apologists have employed in an attempt to prove that 'Aishah - radi Allahu 'anha - was still a young girl who was playing with dolls at the time of her marriage. Well unfortunately for them, they've jumped to some hasty conclusions since none of these hadiths ([1][2][3][4])explicitly indicate whether the marriage had been consummated at this time. Rather, one could just as easily conclude - especially in light of the evidence I've presented above - that the incidents in which 'Aishah - radi Allahu 'anha -was playing with dolls along with her young friends occurred at a time when she was still living with her parents (i.e. after the betrothal and prior to the consummation). Actually, based on the fact that the Prophet - salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam -was known to regularly visit 'Aishah's father Abu Bakr - radi Allahu 'anhu, these events could have taken place anytime during 'Aishah's childhood - radi Allahu 'anha. (Source: bold and underline emphasis ours)

Let's see if Squires' claim holds any weight:

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and he was taken to his house AS A BRIDE WHEN SHE WAS NINE, AND HER DOLLS WERE WITH HER; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old. (Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3311)

It is rather unfortunate for Squires that he did not read the hadiths carefully since they quite clearly show that Muhammad did consummate his marriage with Aisha while the latter was still playing with her dolls at the age of nine.

As if this weren't bad enough he dares to misquote Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani's position:

* Even Hafiz Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani concludes that: "To say with certainty 'that she was not yet at the age of puberty' isquestionable"' and this view is seemingly based on considering this hadith in isolation without taking textual evidence from other sources in account...but Allahu 'alim. Thus in the final analysis, the so-called "evidence" and "proof" that this hadith provides to those trying to spin a case of prepubescent marriage is anything but decisive.

This is the same al-Asqalani who stated in Fateh-al-Bari, Volume 13, page 143, that the reason why Aisha was even allowed to play with dolls is because she hadn't reached puberty! This seeming contradiction is easily resolved when we realize that Al-Asqalani's comments were not made in regard to Aisha's age or maturity at the time of her marriage. They refer to this specific hadith:

Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin:

When the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) arrived after the expedition to Tabuk or Khaybar (the narrator is doubtful), the draught raised an end of a curtain which was hung in front of her store-room, revealing some dolls which belonged to her.

He asked: What is this? She replied: My dolls. Among them he saw a horse with wings made of rags, and asked: What is this I see among them? She replied: A horse. He asked: What is this that it has on it? She replied: Two wings. He asked: A horse with two wings? She replied: Have you not heard that Solomon had horses with wings? She said: Thereupon the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) laughed so heartily that I could see his molar teeth. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 41, Number 4914)

Here is the context of al-Asqalani's quote:

Al-Haafiz goes on to say:[43: Fath al-Baaree 10/400, Baab (91), related to Hadeeth no.5954, 5955.]
Abu Daawood and An-Nasaa'ee have narrated with another chain (wajh aakhar) from 'Aa'isha (may Allah be pleased with her) that she said:" The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) returned from the battle of Tabook or Khaibar...".

Here he mentioned the Hadeeth about his (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) tearing down the curtain which she (may Allah be pleased with her) attached to her door. She (may Allah be pleased with her) said:" Then the side of the curtain which was over the dolls of 'Aa'isha (may Allah be pleased with her) was uncovered. He (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: What is this, O 'Aa'isha? She said: My dolls. She then said: then he (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) saw amongst them a winged horse which was tied up. He (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: What is this? I said: A horse. He said: A horse with two wings? I said: Didn't you hear that Sulaiman (Solomon - peace be upon him) had horses with wings? Then he (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) laughed"[44].

Al-Khattaabee said: From this Hadeeth it is understood that playing with dolls (al-banaat) is not like the amusement from other images (suwar) concerning which the threat (wa'eed) of punishment is mentioned. The only reason why permission in this was given to 'Aa'isha (may Allah be pleased with her) is because SHE HAD NOT, AT THAT TIME, REACHED THE AGE OF PUBERTY.

[al-Haafiz says:] I say: To say with certainty, [that she was not yet at the age of puberty] is questionable, though it might possibly be so. This, because 'Aa'isha (may Allah be pleased with her) was a fourteen year old girl at the time of the Battle of Khaibar - either exactly fourteen years old, or having just passed her fourteenth year [and entering into the fifteenth year], or approaching it (the fourteenth year).

As for her age at the time of the Battle of Tabook - she had by then definitely reached the age of puberty. Therefore, THE STRONGEST VIEW is that of those who said: "It was in Khaibar" [i.e. WHEN SHE WAS NOT YET AT THE AGE OF PUBERTY], and made reconciliation (jam') [between the apparent contradictory rulings, of permissibility of dolls, in particular, and the prohibition of images, in general] with what al-Khattaabee said (above).

[al-Khattabee said that images are prohibited, except in the case of dolls for young girls]. This, because to reconcile (make jam') is better than to assume the ahaadith to be in contradiction (at-ta'aarud). Here Shaykh Bin Baaz concludes his quotation from al-Haafiz, saying: The above is the essence of the words of al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar. (The Beneficial Response Concerning the Islamic Ruling of Pictures/Images, by Shaykh Abdul-Azeez Ibn Abdullah Ibn Baaz, rendered in English by Abu Muhammad Abdur-Ra'uf Shakir; source; bold, capital and underline emphasis ours)

Al-Asqalani was not disputing whether Muhammad married Aisha before puberty, but whether she was still prepubescent during the expedition against Khaybar. Al-Asqalani claims that the strongest view is that she hadn't attained puberty even at that time when she was already 14 years old! Thus, al-Asqalani soundly refutes and exposes Squires' assertion that Aisha was pubescent when Muhammad married her.

My Response:

Let's take some of Shamoun's statements individually and address them.

He said:

The reason why Aisha was permitted to play with dolls in front of Muhammad is because she hadn't attained puberty yet:

Scholars have said that children below the age of puberty may play with dolls that are forbidden for adults. However, that doesn't mean that adults are forbidden to play with dolls that are not haram.

The dolls that are forbidden to play with (for adults) are those that have a face.

For as Shaykh Uthaymeen said:

With regard to those in which the shape is incomplete, in which there is only a part of the limbs or head, but the shape is not clear, there is no doubt that these are permissible, and these are like the dolls with which 'Aa'ishah used to play. (Narrated in al-Bukhaari, 6130; Muslim, 2440). 

But if the shape is complete, and it is as if you are looking at a person - especially if it can move or speak - then I am not entirely at ease with the idea of them being permissible, because this is a complete imitation of the creation of Allaah. It seems that the dolls with which 'Aa'ishah used to play were not like this, so it is preferable to avoid them. But I cannot say that they are definitely haraam, because there are concessions granted to young children that are not granted to adults in such matters. It is natural for young children to play and have fun, they are not obliged to do any of the acts of worship so we cannot say that that they are wasting their time in idle play. But if a person wants to be on the safe side in such matters, he should cut off the head or hold it near the fire until it softens, then he should press it until the features disappear. (Majmoo' Fataawa al-Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him), 2/277-278, cited here)

As Shaykh Uthaymeen argues it was possible that Aisha's dolls were shaped in a way that it wasn't haram for an adult to "play with" or entertain one's self with. Maybe the doll had no eyes or facial components, thus making it halal.

Ibn Abbass said:

"What constitutes the picture is the face so if it were to be removed then it is not a picture anymore" [Sheikh Albani declared this narration to be authentic in Silsilah Al-Saheeha, Hadith no. 1921]

Thus, if Aisha's dolls had no face or if it wasn't structured in a way that it was haram then we don't have to argue that it was permissible for her to have them or play with them because she didn't hit puberty.

Also:

Saheeh Bukhari

Volume 3, Book 31, Number 181:

Narrated Ar-Rubi' bint Mu'awadh:

"The Prophet sent a messenger to the village of the Ansar in the morning of the day of 'Ashura' (10th of Muharram) to announce: 'Whoever has eaten something should not eat but complete the fast, and whoever is observing the fast should complete it.' "She further said, "Since then we used to fast on that day regularly and also make our boys fast. We used to make toys of wool for the boys and if anyone of them cried for, he was given those toys till it was the time of the breaking of the fast."

The above Hadeeth proves that dolls of children were nothing like what we know as dolls nowadays, since they are nothing but stick wrapped with wool that take no shape and if someone looked at it he won't be able to recognize what they symbolize. Knowing that, we can explain why the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not recognize the toy of Aisha (he didn't know that it was a horse), therefore inquired about it to the extent that he could not tell the wings as it was just extra piece of wool or sheet added to the toy.

Shamoun said:

This is the same al-Asqalani who stated in Fateh-al-Bari, Volume 13, page 143, that the reason why Aisha was even allowed to play with dolls is because she hadn't reached puberty!

Actually, it was not Ibn Hajar that said that. It was Al Khattabi and Ibn Hajar was simply quoting him. 

Shamoun said:

As for her age at the time of the Battle of Tabook - she had by then definitely reached the age of puberty.Therefore, THE STRONGEST VIEW is that of those who said: "It was in Khaibar" [i.e. WHEN SHE WAS NOT YET AT THE AGE OF PUBERTY], and made reconciliation (jam') [between the apparent contradictory rulings, of permissibility of dolls, in particular, and the prohibition of images, in general] with what al-Khattaabee said (above).

Notice Shamoun's deception. In brackets he puts "WHEN SHE WAS NOT YET AT THE AGE OF PUBERTY".

Where did Shamoun get the idea that Ibn Hajar supported the view that Aisha did not hit puberty? Let us quote Ibn Hajar's view in context (emphasis will be mine):

[al-Haafiz says:] I say: To say with certainty, [that she was not yet at the age of puberty] is questionable,though it might possibly be so. This, because 'Aa'isha (may Allah be pleased with her) was a fourteen year old girl at the time of the Battle of Khaibar - either exactly fourteen years old, or having just passed her fourteenth year [and entering into the fifteenth year], or approaching it (the fourteenth year).

Notice that Ibn Hajar said that the idea that Aisha did not hit puberty is only a POSSIBILITY, not a CERTAINTY. Why did Ibn Hajar say this?

Well, Ibn Hajar follows the Shafi' school of thought. According to the Shafi' school of thought if someone reaches the age of fifteen then that person has certainly hit puberty regardless of whether the person has grown pubic hairs, went through her menstrual cycle, etc.

Ibn Hajar was stating that Aisha was fourteen years old at the time. So if she was fourteen years old and you don't have any actual evidence to prove that she had her menstrual cycle, grew her pubic hairs, etc. then that means that it is possible that she still didn't hit puberty. The Shafi' school of thought does not teach that anyone below the age of fifteen did not hit puberty. They only teach that if one is fifteen years of age then that person has definitely hit puberty.

Sheikh Salih Al Munajjid states:

Puberty has signs which are well known for both males and females. For a male, puberty is reached when one of three things happens: the emission of semen, the growth of coarse hair around the private part, or reaching the age of fifteen. 

For a female, puberty is reached when of these three things happens, and there is a fourth sign, namely menstruation. 

It is not essential that all of these signs appear, rather one sign is sufficient to establish that a person has reached puberty. 

See: al-Sharh al-Mumti', 6/202. (Source)

Therefore, in order for Shamoun to successfully argue that Muhammad (peace be upon him) did not marry Aisha when she hit puberty, he must prove that Aisha did not emit any sexual fluid, begin her menstrual cycle or grow pubic hair at the time she consummated the marriage with the Prophet (peace be upon him). How he can prove such a thing is beyond me.

Is it so difficult to believe that Aisha could have hit puberty and been able to consummate at that age? I don't believe so.

The Cambridge World History of Food says:

Albrecht von Haller (1775), for example, claimed that girls in the southerly regions of Asia, where the climate was warm, were marriageable in their eighth year and gave birth in their ninth or tenth year; conversely, women in Arctic regions did not menstruate until age 23 or 24.  This view was shared by other eighteenth-century writers, most notably J.F. Freind (1738), Herman Boerhaave (1744), and Montesquieu (1751).  (The Cambridge World History of Food, p.1455, Source)

The Christian royals were marrying girls as young as nine, according to an article written by Professor Lynda Garland of theUniversity of New England:

Child brides, whether Byzantines or foreign princesses, were the norm rather than the exception, especially from the late twelfth century. Irene Ducaena, wife of Alexius I Comnenus, was twelve at her marriage, and empress before she was fifteen; the Byzantine princess Theodora, Manuel's niece, was in her thirteenth year when she married Baldwin III of Jerusalem; and Margaret-Maria of Hungary married Isaac II Angelus at the age of nine. (Professor Lynda Garland of University of New England, Agnes-Anna of France,wife of Alexius II and Andronicus I of the Comneni Dynasty, Source)

It is also interesting to note that Aisha considered herself to be a woman at the age of nine when she stated:

When the girl reaches nine years of age, she is a woman. (Sunan al-Tirmidhi, Kitab: al-Nikah, Bab: Maa Jaa'a fee Ikraah Al Yateemah 'alaa al tazweej, Hadith no. 1027, Source)

Shaikh Abdur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri in his commentary on Sunan al-Tirmidhi said:

أن عائشة قد كانت أدركت وهي بنت تسع سنين

Aisha knew (that she hit puberty) when she became nine years old. (Shaikh Abdur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri,Tuhfat AI-Ahwadhi, Kitab: al-Nikah, Bab: Maa Jaa'a fee Ikraah Al Yateemah 'alaa al tazweej, Hadith no. 1027, Source)

Thus, we have a statement from Aisha herself that clearly seems to indicate that she was aware of hitting puberty at age nine.

One may argue that this still doesn't mean that all nine year old girls are physically or psychologically capable of engaging in sexual intercourse and could be physically or psychologically harmed if they did so.

However, we must remember the "don't harm yourself or cause harm to others" principle in Islam.

Something might generally be deemed to be permissible or even recommended, yet could be forbidden at times.

For instance, fasting could be prohibited for a person with diabetes:

If fasting is difficult for him and will cause him harm, such as a man who has kidney disease or diabetes and similar cases where fasting will cause harm. In this case fasting is haraam. (Source)

We must remember to apply this principle to all situations. Therefore, if it happens to be that a woman will undergo physical or psychological harm if she were to engage in sexual intercourse at an early age, then doing so will be haram for her.

We have no reason to believe that Aisha has undergone such problems. Thus, why can we object then?

Also, regarding the narration that stated that when Aisha was fourteen the Prophet (peace be upon him) found her dolls; the narration does not say that she was playing with them. It only says that they were in her possession. The only way the Prophet (peace be upon him) found out was because they were uncovered by the curtain covering her storage room. So this narration only shows that she was still in possession of them, but not necessarily playing with them. Plus, if she was in a habit of playing with them, why would she cover them up with a curtain in her storage room and why did the Prophet (peace be upon him) just find out about them? He would have seen her always playing with them.

There was nothing immature about playing with dolls. Interestingly one says:

The toy dolls that existed before the 1700's served chiefly as playthings for adults as well as for children.At that time, adults and children were more alike in their attitudes and interests than they are today, and childhood as we know it did not really exist. Youngsters were regarded as little adults and were expected to act like them. They shared the work of supporting the family with their parents. People of nearly all ages enjoyed the same simple toys, including dolls and jack-in-the-boxes. Most of the dolls were shaped and dressed like adults.

Adults first came to regard childhood as a special time during the 1700's and especially the 1800's. The first dolls specifically for children probably were made in the 1700's. The dolls themselves looked the same but could be dressed as babies, children, women, or men. In the West, the first doll to be designed as a baby appeared at the London Exhibition of 1851 and came from Japan. (Source)

Many over aged girls even today still keep their Barbie dolls. Look at what this individual says:

Wednesday, March 12, 2008 1:29:00 PM  

I love Barbie. As an only girl, I played with her a lot. When I got Ken, Barbie's first boyfriend, they would go out on dates in Barbie's car. Barbie was very independent & she always wanted to pick Ken up.

Thanks to my special niece I could continue to play with Barbie as an adult...we would have a lot of fun! My niece is getting older now and I'm afraid it's true that the Brat dolls have all but taken over her playroom. I like the Bratz dolls but I will always be most fond of Barbie :)
Happy Birthday Barbie xoxo

Source: blog.ediets.com/2008/03/barbie-little-girls-dream-or-parents.html

I also personally know of a 23 year old girl in my Masters class who is very intelligent and still keeps a teddy bear in her car.

Thus, to argue that Aisha must have not hit puberty because she played with or was in possession of dolls is not a strong nor is it a convincing argument.

Companions of the Prophet Thought That Aisha Was Immature

Sam Shamoun said:

There are other narrations which provide additional (albeit implicit) support that Aisha was too young for consummation due to the fact that she was prepubescent:

Narrated Urwa bin Al-Musayyab, Alqama bin Waqqas and Ubaidullah bin Abdullah:

About the story of 'Aisha and their narrations were similar attesting each other, when the liars said what they invented about 'Aisha, and the Divine Inspiration was delayed, Allah's Apostle sent for 'Ali and Usama to consult them in divorcing his wife (i.e. 'Aisha). Usama said, "Keep your wife, as we know nothing about her except good." Buraira said, "I cannot accuse her of any defect except that she is still A YOUNG GIRL who sleeps, neglecting her family's dough which the domestic goats come to eat (i.e. she was too simpleminded to deceive her husband)." Allah's Apostle said, "Who can help me to take revenge over the man who has harmed me by defaming the reputation of my family? By Allah, I have not known about my family anything except good, and they mentioned (i.e. accused) a man about whom I did not know anything except good." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 48, Number 805)

. Buraira said, 'No, by Allah Who has sent you with the Truth, I have never seen in her anything faulty except that she is a girl of IMMATURE AGE, who sometimes sleeps and leaves the dough for the goats to eat.' . (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 48, Number 829)

'A'isha said. The women in those days were light of weight and they did not wear much flesh, as they ate less food; so they did not perceive the weight of my haudaj as they placed it upon the camel as I was A YOUNG GIRL at that time. Barira said: By Him Who sent thee with the truth, I have seen nothing objectionable in her but only this much that she is A YOUNG GIRL and she goes to sleep while kneading the flour and the lamb eats that. (Sahih Muslim, Book 037, Number 6673)

Many years after Muhammad had married Aisha and she is still described as being young and immature! Obviously, a girl who is described in such a manner is far from being ready for consummation with a grown man. The question that should be asked is what business did a fifty-four year old man have marrying such a girl in the first place?

My Response:

Looking at the Arabic text أنها جارية حديثة السن , I don't see word "immature" anywhere. It only states that she is a young girl, which we will already know. But if someone is young that doesn't necessarily imply that he or she is immature.

Secondly, the companion was not criticizing Aisha for her age. Rather, he was saying that her fault was that she:

goes to sleep while kneading the flour and the lamb eats that

Imam Nawawi states in his commentary:

ومعنى هذا الكلام : أنه ليس فيها شيء مما تسألون عنه أصلا , ولا فيها شيء من غيره إلا نومها عن العجين .

And the meaning of this statement is that there are no faults about her (Aisha) to begin with. There is nothing wrong about her except that she sleeps while kneading the flour. (Imam Nawawi, Sharh Saheeh Muslim, Kitab: Al Tawbah, Bab: Fee Hadeeth Al Ifk Wa Qubool Tawbat Al Qaazhif, Commentary on Hadith no. 4974,Source)

The companion might have attributed her carelessness due to the fact that she was young and did not take seriously her responsibility over her tasks. However, this does not imply she was immature or psychologically incapable of being married.

Even in my workplace when we bring in new marketing research trainees who are fresh graduates and are in their early twenties, our managers would criticize them for being careless in their jobs, since they haven't matured and are too young for these kind of responsibilities and tasks. Now, in no way would that imply that these individuals are immature or incapable of being married. However, their age and inexperience does play a role in them not being efficient and serious at the work place like someone who has been working for several years.

I believe that the companion who spoke about Aisha had the same intentions when he uttered that statement regarding Aisha.

Nevertheless, nothing that Shamoun has presented shows that Aisha was too incompetent to have been married to the Prophet (peace be upon him)

The Companions Condemned Umar ibn Al Khattab For Marrying a Young Girl

Sam Shamoun said:

In fact, Haddad himself cites a reference where Umar spoke out against those who would ridicule him for marrying a girl so young:

He came to the Muhajirun among the Companions as they sat between the Grave and the Pulpit ? their usual place for meeting `Umar to discuss news: "Felicitate this newlywed!" Then he told them he had married `Ali's daughter Umm Kulthum and said: "I heard the Messenger of Allah say, upon him blessings and peace: 'Every lineage and means will be severed on the Day of Judgment except my lineage and my means.' I have kept company with him and wished to add this also." Later he again said, on the pulpit: "DO NOT DISPARAGE ME [FOR MARRYING A YOUNG GIRL], for I heard the Prophet say may upon him blessings and peace: 'On the Judgment Day every means will be cut off and every lineage severed except my lineage.'" (Source; bold and capital emphasis ours)

The sharp reader should be able to see why the foregoing data poses problems for the claim that such marriages were culturally acceptable at that time. If marrying nine-year-old girls were permissible during that time then why did Ali and the other Muslims vehemently oppose and object to Umar's marriage proposal to Ali regarding his daughter? If Umm Kulthum was too young for Umar even though she was approximately 11 years old at that time, and Umar was roughly 58 years of age, then wouldn't this prove that Aisha was too young for Muhammad in light of her age being nine and Muhammad was fifty-four years old when they consummated their marriage?

My Response:

I visited the link for Dr. Haddad's article and I saw that Dr. Haddad has not provided a reference for this story. No where can I find this story.

Secondly, notice that Dr. Haddad put "FOR MARRYING A YOUNG GIRL" in brackets. This seems to indicate that it is not part of the original text and is only an interpretation of Umar's statement. Where is the evidence that this is what Umar ibn Al Khattab intended to say? Other evidence suggests that the reason why Umar ibn Al Khattab might have uttered this statement is because the companions were concerned that him getting married would distract him from his duties as a Caliph. Nothing is mentioned about the age difference.

Thirdly, evidence from other sources seems to indicate that the companions received the news quite well. Instead of opposing Umar, they all prayed that Allah blessed their marriage. (Sunan Al-Bayhaqi al- Kubra: Volume 7, page 64. However, this narration is mursal)

Thus, unless we can see that the narration regarding Umar's statement is authentic I am going to doubt it.

Another good reason to doubt that the companions objected to Umar's marriage is that they would not do such a thing if they already knew that it was something that the Prophet (peace be upon him) would do (i.e. his marriage to Aisha).

It was also a normal habit of the Arabs at that time:

- Imam Al-Shafi'e said in Siyar A'lam Al-Nubala', Volume 10, p. 91 "During my stay in Yemen I have come across girls at the age of nine whom menstruated so often"

- Imam Al-Bayhaqi in Sunan Al-Bayhaqi Al-Kubra, Volume 1, p. 319 narrated that Imam Al-Shafi'e said: "I have seen in the city of Sana'a a grandmother while she was twenty one. She menstruated at the age of nine and gave birth at the age of 10"

- Ibn Al-Jawzi narrated similar stories from Ibn U'qail and U'bad Al-Mahlby in his Tahqeeq Fi Ahadith Al-Khilaf, Volume 2, p. 267

[Quick Acknowledgement: Thanks to brother Ayman bin Khaled for the above quotes]

Thus, it doesn't make sense that the companions would object to Umar's marriage as being immoral.

Shamoun is required to find the reference for that statement for Umar and to provide the authentic chain of transmission for it as well if he wants to convince us Muslims about the effectiveness of his "rebuttal".

Muhammad Should Have Established a Higher Moral Standard

Sam Shamoun said:

Putting it simply, theists expect that God would inspire his prophets to set a higher ethical code for humans to emulate, not merely subscribe to the cultural norms of their time, especially when such norms are morally reprehensible. This is irrespective of whether those prophets were able to live up to such standards, so long as God didn't justify their failure to comply with his moral standard.

My Response:

Shamoun speaks and asserts, but does not prove. How does he know what constitutes a "higher ethical code" or not without God stating so Himself?

Both Muslims and Christians believe in the Divine Command Theory, which teaches that our morals are derived from God's commands. One cannot presuppose that something is moral or immoral and then judge whether something is moral or immoral. Rather, one has to know what is moral and immoral by knowing what God has said about the matter.

Dr. William Lane Craig himself states:

So the problem isn't that God ended the Canaanites' lives.  The problem is that He commanded the Israeli soldiers to end them.  Isn't that like commanding someone to commit murder?  No, it's not.  Rather, since our moral duties are determined by God's commands, it is commanding someone to do something which, in the absence of a divine command, would have been murder.  The act was morally obligatory for the Israeli soldiers in virtue of God's command, even though, had they undertaken it on their on initiative, it would have been wrong.

On divine command theory, then, God has the right to command an act, which, in the absence of a divine command, would have been sin, but which is now morally obligatory in virtue of that command. (William Lane Craig, Slaughter of the Canaanites, Source)

As Dr. Craig rightfully states, we can't state that something is immoral unless we have evidence that God has not divinely approved of it.

So when Shamoun states that the Prophet's marriage to Aisha is immoral, he is begging the question that Islam is false. What Shamoun is trying to do is show that Muhammad (peace be upon him) is a false prophet by putting forth this argument. However, he can't do such a thing. What he has to do is first prove that Islam is false and then put forth this claim.

In order to put forth a successful argument Shamoun must level a stronger critique.

There are two kinds of critiques that one can form.

1)      Internal critique:

This is criticizing someone or something by pointing out its internal inconsistencies. This is usually a strong argument. Now, has Shamoun put forth an internal critique against the Prophet's marriage to Aisha? Actually, he hasn't. He has not shown how the Prophet (peace be upon him) contradicted Islamic principles when he married Aisha.

2)      External critique:

This is using an external standard to judge somebody or something in order to critique that person or thing.

There are two types of external critique:

i)                    Universal external critique:

This is appealing to universal standards and beliefs (e.g. raping a little child is wrong according to everyone) as a standard. However, has Shamoun shown that Muhammad's (peace be upon him) marriage to Aisha violates universal standards? Of course not.

ii)                  Ethnocentric external critique:

This is appealing to one's own cultural or religious beliefs as a standard for critiquing. Philosophers have stated that this form of argumentation is weak unless one can prove that the standard that he is using should be binding upon everyone.

Now, this is the kind of critique that Shamoun is launching.

Shamoun must be using a moral law in order to judge whether the Prophet's marriage to Aisha is moral or not. If he is using a moral law, then that implies that there is a moral law giver that he is appealing to.

Now, since Shamoun is a Christian we are going to assume that his moral law giver is the God of the Bible. Has Shamoun proven that Muhammad's (peace be upon him) marriage to Aisha violates biblical standards for morality? No he has not.

Secondly, even if Shamoun was able to prove that Muhammad (peace be upon him) violated Biblical standards for morality then SO WHAT?

Why should I care if Muhammad (peace be upon him) did not live up to the moral standards of the Bible? Has Shamoun shown us that the Bible is the complete true word of God and that it is binding upon us? The answer is no.

If he would like to reply back and say that the Qur'an affirms the Bible and that means that Muslims should hold the Bible as authoritative, then I ask the reader to refer here.

It is also funny how he says:

Putting it simply, theists expect that God would inspire his prophets to set a higher ethical code for humans to emulate, not merely subscribe to the cultural norms of their time,

Yet, the Biblical Jesus "subscribed to the cultural norms of his time" when he referred to the gentiles as "dogs" and spoke disrespectfully about his mother. See here.

In conclusion, Shamoun cannot provide an INTELLECTUAL AND RATIONAL argument against the Prophet's marriage to Aisha. He can only provide an EMOTIONAL argument.

However, Muslims let their rationality overcome their emotions and don't fall for these silly appeal to emotion arguments. That is probably the main reason why we aren't Christians.

Shamoun replied to this article and I responded back.

Rebuttal to did the Quran copy off Jewish legends surrounding Abraham and Nimrod

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/the_qur_an_and_the_city_of_ur__a_rebuttal_to_david_wood