In Christian tradition, it is reported Joseph at 90 married Mary who was 12 which is the double age difference than that of Muhammad when he allegedly married Aisha. That is besides the disturbing notion of an eternal deity impregnating a young virgin with whom the age difference is infinitely greater than Muhammad and Aisha, and out of whose private parts was born an entity combining human and divine attributes.
1. Church leaders that argued what was inerrant and what was not, never challenged the age. In the story itself we read that the society accepts and even expects a 12 years old to be sexually active "When she turned twelve, a group of priests took counsel together, saying, "Look, Mary has been in the temple of the Lord twelve years. What should we do about her now, so that she does not defile the sanctuary of the Lord our God?" Her turning 12 is what prompted the priests to gather to find her a husband. God himself, finding nothing wrong with her age, chooses the old Joseph for her, from among other men of advanced age "And the high priest said, "Joseph! Joseph! You have been chosen by lot to take the virgin into your own keeping". As already said, neither God nor the society saw a problem with a 12 year old given to marriage. Joseph then expresses his fear that he might be ridiculed among the people, and this is due to 3 precise factors; he is old, meaning barren. The angel instructed Zachariah to seek potential husbands from among men of advanced age for a reason, protecting the virgin birth from any accusation. Joseph further said he already has sons, meaning beyond the need for a progeny, and Mary is young, meaning the marriage would appear to be simply motivated by lust, not even companionship. Had he feared mockeries because of the age difference, the mention of him having sons would be unnecessary and he would have stressed her being "too young" not simply "young". Why would a young woman be married to an old, barren man who already has children, in addition impotent? Her pregnancy only occurred 4 years later while Joseph had not defiled her. Little in the NT indicates Mary's age when she was married to Joseph. She is described as reciting a short 10 verses prayer, which isnt a hard task for a 12 years old, and undertaking a trip from Nazareth to Judah, which of course did not have to be undertaken by foot.
2. Not a single 'apocrypha' scripture was rejected based upon the age of Joseph marrying Mary.
3. Just because an apocrypha was rejected, does not mean it was rejected for all of it's contents. For example, the same Apocrypha can say that Jesus was born in a stable and 3 wise-men came and visited him. Is this story 'false' because it's in Apocrypha? Besides the fact that it is known that we find reference throughout the Bible to information extracted from lost and non canonical texts. But let us assume this particular detail of Mary’s age was made up. It would then make the point even stronger that it is acceptable, one could even say recommended for such a marriage to happen in Christian tradition. It is the venerated, idolised Mary who is supposed to have been given by the respected temple priest to Joseph at that age. No Christian of that time would have invented that detail in her story if such union was seen as morally wrong.
4. One man's apocrypha is another man's scripture, thus the example of the book of Revelation, among other books, being rejected as apocrypha until later on.
5. What is the minimum age of virgins allowed to be taken as war captives in Num31?
Assuming the Quran allows pre-pubescent marriages, and that the prophet did, how does this claim discredit Islam or its prophet, especially coming from Christians? They in general level this claim to attack the prophet's personality and imply that he couldnt be a prophet based on his evil deeds. What is the biblical criteria for a true prophet and does it include "not marrying pre-pubescent kids"? There is a reason why nothing at all is said about uprightness of character. In fact one needs turning to the Quran, not the Bible, to see among the criteria of a prophetic envoy, impeccable morality as one of the primary requirements. Looking at these Christians' own bible, the characters and deeds of its most prominent prophets, then, simply based on behavior, even if one would accept every single calumny the Christ-loving evangelists have been throwing, then adding many more on top, it would still do nothing to erode Muhammad's credibility even an iota. None of the individuals the bible calls "prophets" ceased being prophets while premeditating their murders, committing adultery and debauchery, hoarding wealth and enslaving nations, idolatry, capturing countless virgins in their holy genocidal wars. Some repented and others never did, and it is besides the point. These Judeo-christian critics lack consistency and intellectual honesty; Condemning a man as a false prophet while the book they stand for approves of prophets whose deeds should give them a heart attack if they finds the supposed charges against Muhammad offensive. That is why no Muslim is bothered by such dishonest criticism. They can only hope to trouble Muslims if they argue from the angle of the Quran's standards of the prophets as sublime examples of morality, then showing that the prophet Muhammad's supposed deeds are in conflict with those standards. So long as the accusers keep the bible as a standard of morality of the true prophets, these attacks self-destruct. By the Quranic standard, one that is extremely high in comparison to the Bible, as well as the accepted standards of morality, Muhammad did not commit a single inappropriate deed for a prophet. Finally, it is interesting to note that the prophet, whom those critics claim invented the Quran, as well as committed every possible misdeed under the sun (misdeeds that still make him look like a saint in comparison to the true prophets of the Bible) went out of his way to establish a pattern of morality among the prophets that contradicts his own. He had every reason to not change a single thing of what is shamelessly attributed to the Biblical prophets, so that he might justify his supposed misdeeds all the while claiming to be a prophet of God, in line with those very prophets of the Bible.
1. Church leaders that argued what was inerrant and what was not, never challenged the age. In the story itself we read that the society accepts and even expects a 12 years old to be sexually active "When she turned twelve, a group of priests took counsel together, saying, "Look, Mary has been in the temple of the Lord twelve years. What should we do about her now, so that she does not defile the sanctuary of the Lord our God?" Her turning 12 is what prompted the priests to gather to find her a husband. God himself, finding nothing wrong with her age, chooses the old Joseph for her, from among other men of advanced age "And the high priest said, "Joseph! Joseph! You have been chosen by lot to take the virgin into your own keeping". As already said, neither God nor the society saw a problem with a 12 year old given to marriage. Joseph then expresses his fear that he might be ridiculed among the people, and this is due to 3 precise factors; he is old, meaning barren. The angel instructed Zachariah to seek potential husbands from among men of advanced age for a reason, protecting the virgin birth from any accusation. Joseph further said he already has sons, meaning beyond the need for a progeny, and Mary is young, meaning the marriage would appear to be simply motivated by lust, not even companionship. Had he feared mockeries because of the age difference, the mention of him having sons would be unnecessary and he would have stressed her being "too young" not simply "young". Why would a young woman be married to an old, barren man who already has children, in addition impotent? Her pregnancy only occurred 4 years later while Joseph had not defiled her. Little in the NT indicates Mary's age when she was married to Joseph. She is described as reciting a short 10 verses prayer, which isnt a hard task for a 12 years old, and undertaking a trip from Nazareth to Judah, which of course did not have to be undertaken by foot.
2. Not a single 'apocrypha' scripture was rejected based upon the age of Joseph marrying Mary.
3. Just because an apocrypha was rejected, does not mean it was rejected for all of it's contents. For example, the same Apocrypha can say that Jesus was born in a stable and 3 wise-men came and visited him. Is this story 'false' because it's in Apocrypha? Besides the fact that it is known that we find reference throughout the Bible to information extracted from lost and non canonical texts. But let us assume this particular detail of Mary’s age was made up. It would then make the point even stronger that it is acceptable, one could even say recommended for such a marriage to happen in Christian tradition. It is the venerated, idolised Mary who is supposed to have been given by the respected temple priest to Joseph at that age. No Christian of that time would have invented that detail in her story if such union was seen as morally wrong.
4. One man's apocrypha is another man's scripture, thus the example of the book of Revelation, among other books, being rejected as apocrypha until later on.
5. What is the minimum age of virgins allowed to be taken as war captives in Num31?
6. The Bible forbids, even under the death penalty by stoning, certain morally and physically harmful sexual practices like adultery and homosexuality. Why would it be silent on minor marriage, a very common practice in all ancient and pre-modern societies around the Judeo-Christian world and among Jews and Christians themselves, had the God of the Bible and His prophets disapproved of it?
7. More importantly, does the Bible even set an age of consent, or gives any ethical instructions to consider when determining marriage age, contrary to the Quran which clearly lays out psycho-physical requirements?
Assuming the Quran allows pre-pubescent marriages, and that the prophet did, how does this claim discredit Islam or its prophet, especially coming from Christians? They in general level this claim to attack the prophet's personality and imply that he couldnt be a prophet based on his evil deeds. What is the biblical criteria for a true prophet and does it include "not marrying pre-pubescent kids"? There is a reason why nothing at all is said about uprightness of character. In fact one needs turning to the Quran, not the Bible, to see among the criteria of a prophetic envoy, impeccable morality as one of the primary requirements. Looking at these Christians' own bible, the characters and deeds of its most prominent prophets, then, simply based on behavior, even if one would accept every single calumny the Christ-loving evangelists have been throwing, then adding many more on top, it would still do nothing to erode Muhammad's credibility even an iota. None of the individuals the bible calls "prophets" ceased being prophets while premeditating their murders, committing adultery and debauchery, hoarding wealth and enslaving nations, idolatry, capturing countless virgins in their holy genocidal wars. Some repented and others never did, and it is besides the point. These Judeo-christian critics lack consistency and intellectual honesty; Condemning a man as a false prophet while the book they stand for approves of prophets whose deeds should give them a heart attack if they finds the supposed charges against Muhammad offensive. That is why no Muslim is bothered by such dishonest criticism. They can only hope to trouble Muslims if they argue from the angle of the Quran's standards of the prophets as sublime examples of morality, then showing that the prophet Muhammad's supposed deeds are in conflict with those standards. So long as the accusers keep the bible as a standard of morality of the true prophets, these attacks self-destruct. By the Quranic standard, one that is extremely high in comparison to the Bible, as well as the accepted standards of morality, Muhammad did not commit a single inappropriate deed for a prophet. Finally, it is interesting to note that the prophet, whom those critics claim invented the Quran, as well as committed every possible misdeed under the sun (misdeeds that still make him look like a saint in comparison to the true prophets of the Bible) went out of his way to establish a pattern of morality among the prophets that contradicts his own. He had every reason to not change a single thing of what is shamelessly attributed to the Biblical prophets, so that he might justify his supposed misdeeds all the while claiming to be a prophet of God, in line with those very prophets of the Bible.
As a final observation, among the most outspoken Christian polemicists on that particular issue, many admit, knowing the lowly moral standards of those described as true prophets in their Bible, that should one prove Muhammad's prophethood then they would not object to him marrying Aisha as described in the hadith. Here lies their dishonesty, they will defend the authenticity and veracity of the information in those particular ahadith, but will reject other reports from the same books with no slightest bit of controversy as are found as regards Aisha's age, describing Muhammad as a prophet of God, receiving revelation, experiencing miracles, either as the direct agent or indirectly, making prophecies, giving information of the unseen.
No comments:
Post a Comment