Apostate prophet reads between the lines; marrying pre-pubescent girls in Quran?

In answer to the video "10 Reasons to Reject Islam"

65:4"And (as for) those of your women/nisaa who have despaired of menstruation, if you have a doubt, their prescribed time shall be three months, and of those too who have not had their courses; and (as for) the pregnant women, their prescribed time is that they lay down their burden; and whoever is careful of (his duty to) Allah He will make easy for him his affair".

The verse comes in the context of divorce obviously as seen from the preceding verses, and is an expounding of the general rule mentioned prior in 2:228. It speaks of nisaa. Nisaa' only means mature women, not atfal/children who havent reached puberty 24:58, and obviously only nisaa can menstruate 2:222.

Even the commentators often quoted to support child marriages never speak of children in their analysis of 65:4 and "those who have not had their course". Ibn Kathir or ibn Abbas for instance infer that the reason for delayed menses is them being young. Since when did youth only cover children? ibn Abbas himself states that the age of nikah spoken of in 4:6 is puberty. Girls can reach puberty without menstruation. Body changes like body shape, breasts or pubic hair happen around 2 years before the first period. Sometimes menstruation is delayed longer due to medical and environmental reasons. But the girl will still be of marriageable age despite the delay, provided that she is also mentally ready. Those who often accuse Islam of allowing "pedophilia" have in mind sex with non-menstruating girls. The age of consent in some European countries today like Italy, France or Germany is 14-15. Yet, as stated earlier, many girls reach those ages without menstruation. Would this entail that even those most secular countries allow pedophilia? Those who defend that system would then argue that consent only applies to boys and girls of similar ages. It is thus better morally, spiritually and for the fabric of society to have 2 minors fornicating than a minor marrying an adult with her and her guardians' consent? Where are the parents in the equation, can they disagree and prevent a girl of 15 to have sex with another teenage boy? Does "age of consent" implies knowing what is good for oneself, especially in our modern societies where boys and girls are everything but mentally mature at this stage? Also, a 17 year old boy fornicating with a non menstruating girl of 14 is fine but if the boy is 18 he becomes a pedophile? Even more absurd is that a girl of 17 marrying a man of 25 is pedophilia while the same girl at 18 marrying a man of 50 is fine.

Yes, even in the patriarchal model, abuse is possible. Parents can be corrupt or careless and agree to a bad marriage. Just as they could be abusive and irresponsible to their children even while under their care. But at least they always are part of the equation whenever it comes to deciding for their well being, contrary to secular Judeo-Christian societies. And parents, for the most part will always do and agree only for what is best for their children. The premise of parenthood and guardianship in the Quran and every healthy society is that of care and protection of those under authority. These are the people who are intended in the spirit of the shariah, not abusive and careless guardians.

From a purely medical perspective, pelvic and general body size, as well as fat deposits are almost complete when the first period occurs, mostly between the 8-13 age range. In other words a girl reaches her adult shape at menarche, hence the reason they generally appear bigger than boys of the same age. There is no evidence of minor marriage and consummation at menarche intrinsically causing any more psycho-physical harm than for a girl in her mid 20s, especially not in a traditional backgrounds where girls are safeguarded by their guardians, only married depending on their overall readiness. The statistics showing harmful early marriages do not occur in such contexts and are most often due to poverty, improper medical care, absence of specialists, trained midwives etc. Such social factors elevate the risks of pregnancy and delivery across all age ranges. Spiritually, even evolutionary speaking it makes no sense that a girls' body is made capable of childbearing but that this potential is negated. Peak attractiveness of females is considered to be youth and fertility, not maturity, status or college education. Clear studied have shown that the majority of mature men have sexual thoughts and desires at the sight of minor and early pubescent girls. Due to  post-modern social stigma, these men for the most part did not openly admit it, unless the ages of the girls were hidden. Attractiveness of males generally occurs in the late 20s, with features such as status, maturity, and general manliness like facial hair, bone and muscle density.

The secular and modern Judeo-Christian argument boils down to saying that humanity has only now discovered that early marriages are harmful, even deadly due to physical and mental effects, than later marriages.

Going back to the classical jurists, al Shafi'i states that no virgin is to be given in marriage "until she reaches the age of puberty and they ask her permission". Same for ibn Taymiyya. This is based on the Quran's clear statement in 4:5-6 as well as the prophetic practice, who disolved arranged marriages where the bride wasnt asked permission and seemed unhappy. An nawawi quotes al Shafi'i and agrees with him "what they said does not go against the hadith of Aisha". Of course the classical scholars used ijtihad to apply the verse to marriages of interest done very early on in the ancient times. These unions were contracted but not consummated until both parties were physically and mentally mature. As ibn battal says "The scholars agreed that it is permissible for fathers to marry off their young daughters even if they are in the cradle, except it is not permissible for their husbands to consummate the marriage with them until they are prepared to safely have intercourse". 

The jurists stipulate that in such situation, the girl remains in her guardians' home until they deem her mature enough to consummate the marriage. This is established on physical appearance and mental development, which varies depending on many factors, internal to the person and environmental. At that point, and as shown earlier, the girl is free to reject the marriage proposal, prior to consummation as unanimously agreed. The prophet said 

"A previously married woman has more right (to decide) about herself (with regard to marriage) (than her guardian), and a virgin should be consulted by her father. [Sunan an-Nasa’i 3264]" 

"A virgin should not be given in marriage until her permission is granted. [Sahih al-Bukhari 6970]". 

Consent, which obviously implies mental maturity, is therefore always understood as part of the equation whenever the jurists discussed marriage procedures. Even if she accepts the marriage, no complete intercourse is allowed to occur if there is fear of physical and mental harm. And this can be due to many reasons besides youth, including illness or thinness. What is allowed then, are other type of harmless sexual acts husband and wife normally happily consent to.

When the classical jurists practiced ijtihad to determine the minimum age of marriage, they did not use Aisha's age as reference. Hanafi for instance define it as puberty based on 65:4. Hanbali, Shafi'i and Maliki place it at what they deem the average age of mental/physical maturity as per Quran 4:5-6, at around 15years old. Marrying a 9, 15 or 40 year old is not more of a command Muslims must follow than riding camels for transport or searching for a well to fill a bucket with water, just because the prophet did what was appropriate to his time, needs, context.

Thus the Muslim layman, scholars and jurists never saw the early marriage of Aisha to the prophet as sunna, a practice incumbent on Muslims to emulate. This is seen by the fact that statistically and since the beginning of Islam, girls being fully married around the early age of 9 was very rare. The numbers are dwarfed in comparison to the rapes and abuses of prepubescent boys and girls and minors, institutionalized and covered for centuries by the Catholic Church throughout the world and till this day. Yet these are the people who would like to paint Muslim societies in light of their own failures.

The words of the Quran have no specificity of age and are interested in dealing with determination of pregnancy via menstruation -a device that cannot cover prepubescent girls, unless they are well into the age of puberty but did not have their first period yet- and in addition the conditions are attached to the word nisaa in the beginning of the sentence, which only means physically mature women.

The 2 potential roots of the word nisaa denote either forgetfulness (n-s-y) or delay (n-s-hamza) and the manner in which these meanings relate to a physically mature women is that she has either forgotten when she had her last period or that her period is delayed. Both situations describe a woman who is potentially pregnant or that may become one. In the verse, there is no shift from talking about women to talking about children. A woman divorced prior to having her period should wait 3 menstrual periods to significantly reduce the chance of a pregnancy wrongly associated with the new husband.

There are several physiological reasons for otherwise normally menstruating women that might cause them to fail having their courses, including pregnancy, medical conditions, hormonal dysfunctioning, stress, too much physical exertion, diet etc. It can be delayed and some women may not bleed very much, to the point its hardly noticeable such as what happens in the menopausal stage, before the postmenopause which is the period where women cannot get pregnant anymore.

Those women "who have not had their courses" therefore covers all these categories. The verse also speaks of those that might be in postmenopause and unable to carry children anymore but one isnt 100% sure they have reached such stage, hence the words "if you have a doubt" in the phrase

"And (as for) those of your women who have despaired of menstruation, if you have a doubt".

It speaks of women in a condition of despair as regards their monthly courses, women who are beyond the normal age limit and who have not had their courses anymore as they should. Any woman who has seen the effects of that natural phase in other women knows how well off she was during her menstrual phase and relatively mild bothersome symptoms that she experienced.

In comparison there are much more increased risks of health issues to a postmenopausal woman, like heart and bone diseases among many other conditions, not to speak of the mental factor of having to accept infertility, especially for those women without children and who married late. Some unsuccessfully tried to argue that since postmenopausal women must wait 3 idda despite them not having had their courses for a long time and having only a slight chance at pregnancy, then nothing negates that prepubescent girls must also wait 3 idda since, just like the former case, they too have not menstruated for long and in addition they too have a little chance of pregnancy about a month prior to their first courses.

However the wording denies their inclusion. Although one may "doubt" whether a pre-pubescent girl with whom one had intercourse is pregnant or not, just like one may doubt if a woman in postmenopause is pregnant, a pre-pubescent girl is certainly not one who has "despaired of her menstruation". Only one who is well into, if not already passed the normal age range at which women become postmenauposal, qualifies as "despaired of her menstruation". And besides, to include prepubescent girls among those who have "despaired of their menstruation" would entail they are well into, if not passed the normal age limit at which girls get their first period, ie the very late teens. This of course, doesnt serve the purpose of those claiming the Quran allows marriages at very early ages.

An important thing to note here, in regards to the precision of the verse's wording, is that "doubt" over "possible" menstruation doesnt cover

"those too who have not had their (menstrual) courses". 

The advocates of prepubescent marriage need the "doubt" to cover them but it doesnt. It only concerns the women who are in postmenopause as described earlier. "those who havent had their courses" are women, again, flagged as NISAA', of menstrual age and in addition have already actually menstruated. They are fully expected to keep on menstruating, but they are not currently for the physiological reasons already given.

The purpose of the 3 month waiting period of idda is to determine if the woman about to divorce is pregnant 2:228. For a woman who is expected to menstruate normally, such delay might almost certainly mean pregnancy and also the womb starts to take on visible signs of pregnancy at that stage. This is why 33:49 states those that are divorced prior to sexual intercourse do not have to go through the idda waiting period. Obviously without sexual intercourse, there is no possibility of pregnancy.

That the issue of idda is all about ascertaining potential pregnancy via menstruation is also seen with the second part of the verse 65:4 which mentions the case of confirmed pregnant women, while the first part dealt with those that were potentially pregnant, saying their waiting period is no longer 3 months, but the whole length of the pregnancy.

In light of the above, the lack of menstruation concerns specifically women who are EXPECTED to have their period, which isnt the case of pre-pubescent girls. There is a reason the Quran contrasts the menstruation in terms of expectation (potential pregnancy) versus non-expectation (confirmed pregnancy). The fact that one claims such a verse refers to girls that can't even get pregnant is the utmost absurdity, because nobody expects them to get pregnant. Additionally, if one argues it does refer to pre-pubescent girls, then it renders the whole argument that consummation can only happen after puberty as null and void.

During both cases -that of a woman potentially pregnant having to wait for 3 idda and a confirmed pregnant woman having to wait until delivery- the man must fully sustain the woman without any kind of oppression, though they are going through a hard phase that will probably end in divorce 65:6-7.

Apostate prophet chases Aisha; can we know her age at marriage?

In answer to the video "10 Reasons to Reject Islam"

It is well documented in the works of historians, like Tabari, that Aisha, along with all of Abu Bakr's children were born in Jahilliya (1) and this despite the fact that Tabari is aware of the 6-9 hadith as he quotes it in the same book (2). This refers in Islamic terminology to the period prior to the beginning of Muhammad's prophethood. The hijra, or migration towards Medina occured 13 years later, the same year which it is alleged that Aisha was married to the prophet, or the year after according to al-Nawawi (3).

This means there is no way possible she could have been less than 13 years old at the time of Hijra as some ahadith suggest. The proponents of Aisha's early age at the time of hijra ignore that statement of Tabari. This is significant because Tabari says that following their engagement, the prophet waited before consuming the marriage. But not because he wanted her to first reach puberty as implied in Bukhari or Muslim. It was rather due to his poor financial situation, inability to arrange a proper home for her and establish himself.

This is just one of the blatant examples of tension that exists within the hadith corpus as regards Aisha's age at the time of marriage, let alone the established marital pattern of the prophet. There perhaps exists no other topic within the sahih compilations which is at such a high level of contradictory tension with the rest of the remaining traditions. 

Another noteworthy observation in that regard is that the prophet himself denied his daughter Fatima's marriage to AbuBakr, then Umar, because she was comparatively too young to either of them (Sunan an-Nasa’i 3221). He instead married her to Ali who was 21 while it is reported that Fatima was 9. What better occasion was there for AbuBakr to mention the precedent of his own daughter marrying the prophet at 6 and expecting the prophet to reciprocate? The prophet would not have used the age argument to deny his daughter's hand to AbuBakr seeing that he married the latter's daughter at even a younger age and with an age gap exceeding that between Fatima and AbuBakr. This refusal can be understood in different ways; the age of 9 is not a benchmark for girls marriage, rather a combination of factors must be taken into account, including physical and mental readiness, which can occur at 9 or later but also compatibility in regards to personality. The other way to understand it is that the reports about Aisha's age of marriage are inaccurate.

According to a narrative in sahih Bukhari the revelation of al qamar:46 occured when Aisha was a young girl/jariya. Jariya never refers to a 4 years old. But if she was 12 then her reference as jariya by bukhari makes sense. The chapter ends a mere 9 verses later at v55 and it is obvious from the topic that v46 to v55 were revealed together and could not have been cut off. So the argument that some suras were revealed in portions with long intervals of time in between verses is moot. Besides all scholars agree this is a Meccan sura, whose finalization the opinion varies between the 4th and 8th year (4) of the call to prophethood.

But even if we consider Aisha's traditionally accepted date of birth in the 5th year of revelation as true, and in addition accept the latest estimation for the date when sura al-qamar was finalized on the 8th year of revelation as true, then this would mean Aisha was able to memorize with precision a verse and its reference when she was merely 3, which is highly unlikely. 

Other historians such as Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham say she accepted Islam before Umar, who himself converted in the 9th year of revelation. These historians both say she was among the earliest converts. Ibn Ishaq places her at the 18th and ibn Hisham places her approximately at the 20th place chronologically. This takes us back during the 1st or at most the 2nd year of revelation. Aisha isnt supposed to have even been breathing at the time if she was truly born in the 5th year of revelation.

Even if we assume that this date of birth is true, how can anybody reasonably argue that someone willingly accepts a religion 3 years later at 3 years old (ie before Umar's conversion in the 9th year)?  
Aisha describes her vivid memory of events that supposedly happened when she was but an infant, such as Abu bakr's migration to Ethiopia in the 5th year of revelation, the year she was supposedly born in (5). This shows again, her birth could not have been later than the pre-islamic era, as confirmed in Tabari's reports.

As said in introduction, before her union with the prophet she was engaged to Jubayr ibn Mut'im ibn Adi. This is found, among others in Ibn saad's tabaqaat with authentic asanid. His father was a vehement enemy of the prophet, before Abu Bakr accepted Islam. The engagement was broken off by Jubayr's father when Abu Bakr converted and planned to go to Abyssinia in the 5th year of revelation, the year of Aisha's alleged birth (6). Even if we were to argue that this arrangement happened while both Aisha and Jubayr were toddlers, even infants, as would sometimes happen in ancient times among families seeking to strengthen their bonds, then this still doesnt allow for Aisha being born anytime than prior to the revelation. Mut`im bin Adi and his wife were polytheists when the engagement was made and resented the idea that their son would become Muslim if he married Aisha. Abu Bakr on the other hand was among the most zealous companions calling people towards Islam. This makes it highly unlikely that the staunch pagan Mut`m bin Adi mentioned his interest to Abu Bakr after the revelation.

She relates herself as having played an active role during the migration; getting the travelling goods together in a highly tense situation per the narrations. An 8 year old could not have acted in such a way. Again she describes herself how she reached Shajra along with the soldiers in the battle of Badr that took place in 2H. Nobody under 15 years old was allowed to join the soldiers in the battlefield. This was to avoid being captured and raised as idol-worshippers or killed and become a problem for the army. Yet she is alleged to have been 9 or 10, meaning she had absolutely no business whatsoever in being at the battlefield. But if she was born prior to the revelation, then by that time she would be around 18 years old, which makes sense. In fact there are reports of the prophet sending back some Muslim youths who tried, out of eagerness, to go along with the Muslim army.

The very notion that the Prophet would set an age limit to 15 for people to participate in battle, but allow 9-10 year olds or 11 year old females to accompany the battlefield, especially in such situations, is against all common sense. Why would young men below 15 be forbidden to be at the battle-field, but 9-10 year old girls be allowed to take care of people wounded and on the verge of death. Does one think the Prophet would have exposed these girls to the chance of being captured and eventually mistreated and abused by masters who used to force their female slaves into prostitution?
Anas further describes Aisha along with Umm Sulaim lifting their dresses up to avoid any hindrance in their movement, at the battle of Uhud. The idea of lifting the dress in Arab tradition, as is evident in abundant pre-Islamic poetry is a reference to women fleeing the battlefield, having to raise their skirts exposing their shins. This is what happened in Uhud when Muslim men were panicking, because the unbelievers had sent them into disarray. It had reached such an extent that they abandoned the Prophet.

Yet, here is a 'nine or ten year' old girl running back and forth, to various Muslim men assisting them with their needs in the midst of battle:

“On the day (of the battle) of Uhud when (some) people retreated and left the Prophet, I saw Aisha daughter of Abu Bakr and Umm Sulaim, with their robes tucked up so that the bangles around their ankles were visible hurrying with their water skins (in another narration it is said, ‘carrying the water skins on their backs’ (7). Then they would pour the water in the mouths of the people, and return to fill the water skins again and came back again to pour water in the mouths of the people”.

How can people think that at the height of the battle, when Muslims were panicking and even leaving the Prophet, Aisha was 9-11 years old, not even slightly panicking while attending bravely wounded soldiers, and was allowed to go into battle? Dont the narrations specifically tell us the Prophet constantly warned his men not to abandon their posts on the hill? If he was so keen about that matter and so keen on males being a specific age, what makes people think he was going to take females that would burden the army?

The fact is Aisha actively participated in battles during the prophet's life, assisting the men at the battlefield along with other women, which is why by the time of Ali's reign as Caliph, she gathered enough experience and credibility that she could rally a huge fighting force.

Apostate prophet diggs into compromising verses; Quran allows young marriages?

In answer to the video "10 Reasons to Reject Islam"

The Quran ties puberty with intellectual maturity together as a prerequisite for starting one's own life, showing that marriage is not only a question of physical maturity 4:5-6. Wealth is handed back to them when they reach maturity/rushd, determined intellectually, as well as a mariageable age, determined physically. If, by the way, the "reaching" of that age isnt determined through observable physical signs as occurs at puberty, but rather the reaching of a specific age, why doesnt the verse simply give that age? The reason is that these bodily changes occur at different ages. Further, to specify an age of marriage would be unpractical. Life expectancy varies depending on many factors. Some countries' average is in the 30s, even today. These conditions necessitate childbearing to happen at the earliest possible time so as to avoid demographic decline. Also, this marriageable age does not have to be at the very start of puberty. It is left to the parent's appreciation who must also evaluate mental readiness. This is done by talking and interacting socially with a person. By their behaviours in different situations and answers to topics like married life, one can evaluate readiness. Anyone who has children understands this process of maturity. The approach to marriageable age in Islam is thus holistic, instead of arbitrary as is the case in modern, secular societies. Muslim fathers, and traditional fathers in general are very protective towards their children and girls in particular. They will never just give away their daughters in marriage without making sure they are ready for full marital life, which includes being capable of shouldering multiple household tasks. Neither would they accept anyone marrying their daughters who is not in the best interest, spiritual, physical, material, to their daughter.

Age of consent in non-muslim countries has varied greatly throughout recent history. It went from "undefined" (ie during puberty) to around 15 years old. The reason they began raising the age was to avoid abuse and child prostitution. On the flip side, these unnatural regulations generated other problems. A child of 8-15 hitting puberty starts experiencing strong sexual desires. The best course of action is to have the consensual option of channeling those desires within the safe bonds of marriage. But modern societies prefer having their children engaging in hidden deviations including fornication, masturbation, pornography. Abstinence is a known failure in this age range and especially in our time of overexposure to information and temptations, as well as almost limitless gender mixing. The true fact is that in these Judeo-Christian liberal societies, by the time a girl reaches what is considered an acceptable marriage age in her mid 20s, she would have already accumulated multiple sex partners. The burden is thus on Judeo-Christian and secular societies to propose an alternative to the Islamic solution.

Also, and as is obvious in our modern times, mental maturity occurs much later than it did in earlier societies. In Islam however there is no such thing as age of consent. Sex is only possible if both parties enter into marriage agreement. And this necessitates mental readiness as amply seen from the Quran and sunna. Neither the Quran nor the prophet ever allowed abusing anyone.

The verses 4:5-6 state that the orphans about to live independently are to be put through intellectual trials prior to their reaching the age of nikah

"And test the orphans until they attain mariageable age".

If the orphan reaches the age but fails those tests then he cannot be left to fully unite with another and consume the marriage, since starting a life of married couple necessarily includes managing a family and property. A woman receives the dower agreed upon with the husband, either before or after the marriage but always before there can be sexual contact 2:236-7,4:4,19,24-25,5:5. This is a very important point.

The husband cannot retain this amount under any circumstances unless the wife willingly chooses to remit some part of it. An immature woman cannot freely dispose of her wealth, not even a portion of it, meaning her mental maturity is a prerequisite for releasing the dower which must happen before sexual contact.

This shows again that mental and physical maturity are tied together as a prerequisite for living together as a married couple and starting one's own life. All this is demonstrated in the case of female orphans whom the guardian is taking care of and managing the property. The verses 4:5-6 are part of a passage dealing with the well being of orphans. It urges the guardian to make sure the orphans under his care are fully able to enter independently into society. Why would the same guardian do any differently with his own children? This is why commentators including ibn Abbas and ibn Kathir argue for the general application of the verse 4:5-6 to any immature individual. Similarly in 60:12 there is nothing specific for believing women. Bukhari reports that the Prophet, based on this verse addressing women, used to take pledge from believing men on exactly the same terms as believing women.

Elsewhere the Quran refers to marriage as a covenant/mithaq 4:21. As there can be no agreement unless both parties give their consent to it, marriage in Islam can only be contracted with the free consent of the two parties.

The fiqh of even the classical schools argue that a female needs to be consulted regarding her marital status. There is absolutely no such concept as a forced marriage in Islam and every female enters into the contract willingly and mentally capable to understand the situation she is getting into. The actual complete expression is mithaq ghaleezan/a solemn covenant and is used elsewhere to denote a serious bilateral agreement unbefitting of a child 4:154,33:7.

A Girl once came to the prophet, anxious and saying she dislikes the man her father has arranged for her, the Prophet answered

“If you do not like him, that is an end to the matter. You have full authority. Go and make the choice of man whom you would like to marry.”

This attitude from the Prophet was unheard of in a time where girls had nothing to say in that matter. His daughters married the men of their choice, when Ali came to him asking the hand of Fatima, he answered

"Several persons have come to me to ask the hand of az-Zahraa but by the displeasure of her countenance she has refused them. Now I shall inform her of your request.”

Apostate prophet accuses; Prophet marries underrage Aisha? Quran allows pedophilia?

In answer to the video "10 Reasons to Reject Islam"

Aisha was the daughter of Abu Bakr. The prophet Muhammad married her 2 years after Khadija's death. As a prelude, it is important to note, the companions of the prophet were cconcerned for his emotional health, seeing how his sadness wouldnt go away following Khadija's passing away, even after marrying Sawda. It was Khawla, a prominent Muslim female companion that suggested Aisha. Being a known tactful person the prophet did not approach Abu Bakr directly but told Khawla to go back and

"mention me to them".

Abu Bakr then doesnt object, otherwise he would have simply said that she was already engaged at the time to Jubayr, whose family was non-Muslim. The only objection voiced by him was

“Is she good for him? She is his brother’s daughter”.

Nothing about inapropriatness based on age, rather Abubakr assumed that the false preislamic notion that assigned blood ties between people which do not actually exist, such as in adoption, still applied. The prophet corrected that false notion, again through Khawla. Abu Bakr was honored but never broke his pledge to Jubayr's father, it is he who later broke it as he did not want his son to be married in a Muslim family. Jubayr's father knew nothing of Abu Bakr's desire to give his daughter to the prophet. Even the consummation itself was urged by Abu Bakr, which disproves any reluctance from his side.

Not only did Abu Bakr consent, but the initial idea, the engagement and the consummation were all initiated and urged by people other than the Prophet. As to Aisha, in her own words, not only did she consent but actually overjoyed at the initial idea.

The prophet Muhammad proposed to her father Abu Bakr at a time when Muslims were facing the most tormented time of their history. Muslims had to be closer than ever and the Prophet, after being rejected by all influential men and tribes had to strengthen his ties with his few companions. Abu Bakr was still a respected man among the Quraysh and could therefore provide Muhammad with some protection. After Khadija's death, and following his marriage to Sawda, the widow of a companion that died in Abyssinia, he thus asked Aisha's hand.

Apostate prophet is finally out of confusion; when to kill an apostate?

In answer to the video "10 Reasons to Reject Islam"

Once more, there is no compulsion in religion 2:256,18:29 so no punitive measure can be directed at an apostate neither can he be compelled to go back to Islam or forced to repent solely on the basis of his choice of creed. Per the Quran and as made clear in 4:88-90 quoted earlier, action is to be undertaken against an apostate when he engages in hostile behavior towards Muslims and the Muslim state. 

Fighting, punishing or killing an apostate has therefore nothing to do with a person's choice of creed but with his behavior towards the Muslims.

The capital punishment solely for renouncing one's religion isnt Quranic, it is a Biblical ruling outlined in Deut13 or Deut17:1-7 and stipulates that all those who are caught enticing others into, or commiting idolatry, are to be put to death, in such a forceful manner that all the inhabitants of the city are to be indiscriminately executed, their livestock and possessions burned and their dwellings razed to the ground. A demonstration of the law's application, on a large-scale and in a systematic way, directly commanded by God is when thousands of Israelites were executed by their own brethren for having reverted to idol worship during the exodus. This incident is reported in both the Torah and Quran. Further the Biblical law of apostasy is general to all situations. When the Israelite prophets executed apostates and idolaters from among their own, it wasnt in war times where the apostate risked joining enemy ranks or spying on their or refusing to contribute economically as a full fledged member of a community with his rights and obligations. Later on in the course of their tumultuous history and as they were adapting the revealed law (of apostasy and other inconvenient and/or difficult laws) to their needs and whims, or their life circumstances, the passing of the death penalty required a much more stringent procedure. It was the case before, during and after the time of Jesus which is why it was rarely if ever applied then, whether by Jews or early followers of Jesus. 

This by the way is one of the many points that undermine the crucifixion tale, as will be shown further below.

In Christianity a similar process of reinterpretation occurred as regards the capital punishment for apostasy. Up to the middle ages, whether it was church leaders, popes, thinkers and saints the likes of Thomas Aquinas, all justified and applied whenever they could, based on passages of both the HB/NT, the death penalty to apostates, as well as heretics and open sinners. It was not until Christianity and its church weakened through reforms and secularism that the capital punishment for religious transgressions was abandoned.

The Jews, in the times of Jesus didn't have any authority to try jesus for a death penalty, among other reasons, because of the procedures they had put into place so as to avoid the harsh mosaic punishments befalling their community for their frequent capital offenses:

-the NT says that the high priest headed up the trial. The high priest never headed the Sanhedrin, that role fell to Nasi and the Av Bet Din, neither of whom are mentioned in the NT.

-To pass a death penalty a Jewish Sanhedrin had to meet in the Chamber of Hewn Stones in the Temple, but in 28CE which is prior to Jesus' supposed execution, the Chamber was destroyed so the Sanhedrin moved to another room on the Temple Mount, and then into the city itself (Talmud, Shabbat 15a, Rosh haShanah 31a).

Deut17:8-13"go up to the place that G-d your L-rd shall choose"

means the chamber of carved/hewn stone. Just as the Tabernacle was the only place in which to bring animal offerings until the final place was identified as the Temple, so to was the place for the court identified as the chamber in the Temple. Also, the Romans had removed the right to pass the death penalty according to Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews 17:13). Around the year 6 CE, Herod Archelaus, was dethroned and banished to Vienna. He was replaced, not by a Jewish king, but by a Roman Procurator named Caponius. The legal power of the Sanhedrin was then immediately restricted.  When Archelaus was banished the Sanhedrin lost the ability to try death penalty cases in favor of the Roman procurator (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 20:19). So right there we have two impediments to the Jews passing a death sentence.

-The Sanhedrin never met at night Matt26:57,Mk14:53 or in secret, on Shabbat or any holy day -- or even on the day BEFORE. Misnah (Sanhedrin IV:1) and Maimonides (Hilkot Sanhedrin XI:2).

- A death penalty case required two eye witnesses to the crime even when the Jews had the authority. When a death sentence was passed a minimum of 24 hours was given before it was carried out, giving time for witnesses to come forth on behalf of the condemned 

-Jewish trials were never held in anyone's house, only in the Temple 

So, in addition to the many legal proceedings which would have had to be broken for such trial to have taken place as is depicted in the Gospels, something that never happened in Jewish history, the Jews, living under Roman dominion, didn't have any authority to try Jesus for a death penalty. Why would they even make such effort, organizing this secret meeting just prior to the Passover festival, a time of religious preparations, breaking a long list of mosaic comandements along the way, yet knowing that their endeavor would be fruitless and their judgement would bear no legal weight? And not only in the eyes of the authorities but in light of Jewish law itself since the halakha requirements for a legal trial were not fulfilled? When the Pharisees take him to the authorities, Pilate tells them to 

"Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law". 

This is because, supposing Jesus did break some religious law, which he never did, this charge would carry no weight in Roman courts except if it threatened the state. To try creating a valid criminal case they begin accusing him of rebellion against the state and claiming kingship. These charges have no bearing on Jewish law, so that this historically exceptional Sanhedrin had to be hastily set up. This is because the messianic king supposed to usher the era of Jewish dominance over the entire world will do just that. Bar Kochba, a messianic claimant who came just a few years after Jesus was supported by those very Pharisees, hoping he would fulfill those very "crimes" they supposedly accused Jesus of committing. 

That "pre-trial" was thus irrelevant on all counts. They could have just handed him to Pilate, on the charge of rebellion, this way saving time on passover eve, in preparation for their festival. They would have also avoided breaking a long list of requirements while setting up this hasty trial, making it invalid even by their own law.

The whole story is fiction, meant at demonizing the Jews so that the blame is not shouldered by the Roman executioners, when they reluctantly put Jesus to death. The gentile authorities, painted as borderline Christians, were this way appeased and could be targeted for missionary activity, as occured soon after. Consequently, we never see in history Christians blaming, oppressing and mass murdering Italians in retaliation for Jesus' death, but rather Jews, despite them being in fact the necessary tools in the cosmic scheme of salvation through God's suicide..

Apostate prophet cant find historical precedent; the ridda wars?

In answer to the video "10 Reasons to Reject Islam"

The misquoted reports about Abu Bakr's ridda wars do not come in the context of apostasy. The people fought against were regarded as Muslims according to many other reports, although a minority had apostised. They were fought for their refusal to pay due government taxes and poor rate, and after they initially and unexpectedly attacked those that sided with Abu Bakr on the issue, and after causing bloodshed among government ranks and attempted to overthrow the first caliph. 

Prior to giving further details about this event, it is important noting that the Quran sanctions warfare against anyone, including Muslims, who refuse to desist from destructive practices such as riba 2:278-9. The events of the ridda war occurred shortly after the prophet's death when many disheartened recent converts apostised and others attempted to reduce their community contributions. Umar is reported to have pleaded with Abubakr to be more lenient with those that refused paying their dues, which he categorically refused. Clearly the issue was not about spiritual apostasy or else Abubakr would have acceded to Umar's request, accepting that they pay less in exchange of their adherence to the Muslim community. Abubakr sent them an official letter calling them back to Islam, those very people who were nominal Muslims, but that refused adhering to the laws of the Islamic state. 

He instructed his emissaries to fight the rebels after they have been informed of their obligations towards the state and have rejected

"(the duties) that are incumbent upon them and [the advantages] that accrue to them, and (the emissary) should take what is [imposed] on them and give them what they are due".

In his letter Abubakr additionally appealed to the prophet's practice in a similar situation. When he was confronted to Muslims who rebelled against the state and refused paying their dues, unjustly taking advantage of the system which others were sacrificing their own wealth and lives to maintain

"he struck whoever turned his back to Him (God) until he came to Islam, willingly or grudgingly".

Such a behavior is equal to turning one's back to God, as is represented by the state religion. This isnt speaking of simply renouncing the religion while remaining a full fledged citizen with his rights and obligations.

The rebels of the ridda war launched their assault by night while the majority of the Muslim soldiers were sent on an expedition outside Medina. Abu Bakr fought back with his people and killed those who were involved. It is with such historical and Quranic perspective that the killing of apostates as reported in the history and hadith books should be understood, spiritual apostasy was never the sole charge warranting the death penalty, but rather political apostasy ie socio-political destabilisation and conspiracies to commit bloodshed, especially in times of war or other sort of trials that caused the early Muslims to be on high alert against those who wished to overthrown the system. In addition, some among the early Muslims' enemies pretended converting in attempts to infiltrate the community and harm it through inciting sedition and providing vital information in times of war 3:72,33:60. All governments would punish and sometimes execute foreign spies, double agents, or traitors to an enemy with whom one is at war. These are the people covered in the saying

"The one who leaves his religion AND SEPERATES from the community, kill him".

This clearly puts 2 condition for the execution of an individual in war times, leaving the religion combined with separation from the community to join the enemy. Leaving the religion while remaining a full fledged citizen with his rights and obligations does not warrant the death penalty. This openly declared threat would make the conspirators think twice before engaging in their insidious behavior. All scholars have understood that leaving Islam must be coupled with a will to harm it and its people, to warrant the death penalty.

Ibn Taymiyah said

"Muhaarabah (waging war against Islam) is of two types: physical and verbal. Waging war verbally against Islam may be worse than waging war physically – as stated above – hence the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to kill those who waged war against Islam verbally, whilst letting off some of those who waged war against Islam physically. This ruling is to be applied more strictly after the death of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Mischief may be caused by physical action or by words, but the damage caused by words is many times greater than that caused by physical action; and the goodness achieved by words in reforming may be many times greater than that achieved by physical action. It is proven that waging war against Allaah and His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) verbally is worse and the efforts on earth to undermine religion by verbal means is more effective".

 Another typical example is that of Abdullah Ibn Sad Ibn Abi Sarh who had converted then apostised, joined the enemy side and began undermining the authenticity of the Quran by spreading rumors that he had been forging verses. He in addition incited the opposite party to war. 

When the Muslim side finally overcame against all odds and his own inciting efforts, his inevitable, legitimate fate was now execution for high treason. This is what governments generally do once a traitor is apprehended, especially when a conflict ends while the person is still among enemy ranks. At that point, ibn Abi Sarh sought Uthman's intercession and came to the prophet to pledge his allegiance. The prophet ignored Uthman's plea twice before finally accepting. The prophet knew that he deserved to be put to death but at the same time, because of the general amnesty he had declared upon Mecca's conquest, he hesitated in the case of Sarh' special case, leaning more towards the capital penalty. By his silence, he left it to the attendance of close followers to do as they liked and as he saw that they leaned the opposite way, he reluctantly validated their judgement and accepted Sarh's pledge. 

However and as already shown from the Quran, should one leave Islam peacefully without intending any harm to the community, not combining apostasy with public rejection of the state system, which includes refusal to acquit oneself from fiscal obligations, then the consequences of the sin are left for the Creator to decide in the Hereafter. A case in point is that of a bedouin that apostised though he had accepted Islam, pledging allegiance in front of the prophet the day before. The prophet did not punish him, the most that he did was to ignore him 3 times before stating

"Medina is like a furnace. It expels its impurities and collects what is pure".

The early caliphs followed the same line. Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz did not bother a group of apostates so long as they did not rebel against government laws. It is thus rejection of the religion in a way that threatens the stability of the Islamic system in place that warrants death penalty. These were the

cases covered by the prophet's saying

 "Whosoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him". 

In fact there are explicit reports where the prophet let people leave the community in security following their spiritual apostasy.

Apostate prophet defends the oppressed; ostracism against apostates?

In answer to the video "10 Reasons to Reject Islam"

Severing of social ties must be made with apostates who were former hypocrites, especially in the context of war as in the verses that will be quoted, since these former Muslims used to hide their hatred and enmity from other Muslims, and now openly declare it, even striving to make them leave their religion

4:88-89"What is the matter with you, then, that you have become two parties about the hypocrites, while Allah has made them return (to unbelief) for what they have earned?..They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike".

They are therefore to be cut off from the community to avoid the spread of their mischief

4:89"take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes)/hajiru in Allah's way".

Ties with them can only be restored when they decisively return to Islam (as indicated by the clause "fi sabilillah/for Allah's sake") and prove their faith to the rest of the community through difficult sacrifices such as leaving their homes and doing hijra in Allah's way, forsaking the domain of evil for an environment where they can practice their faith without restrictions, as the true believers were doing. If they do not do so then their expression of Islam is only for the purpose of spying and destruction, serving the purpose of those with whom Muslims are at war. In this case

4:89"if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper".

They must be executed because of their open and secret hostile activities. However if those apostates refuse to flee their homes in Allah's way but nevertheless end the threat from within the community, by migrating for

4:90"a people between whom and you there is an alliance"

or who decide to remain within the Muslim community but have decisively abandoned all hostilities

4:90"who come to you, their hearts shrinking from fighting you or fighting their own people..withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not given you a way against them".

This Quranic passage establishes the social ruling as regards apostasy. The Quran frames it exclusively in the context of war, which is also the historical context in which the early scholars of Islam discussed the law of apostasy. That is why neither the Quran nor the scholars impose a punishment solely for the act of apostasy, but when it is coupled with hostile activity, verbal or physical. 

Ridda is the word used in reference to those who engage in this multifaceted behavior. This historical perspective is often missed, disregarded or obscured whenever critics quote a saying from the prophet on apostasy, or the rulings of the fuqaha'. One can now understand the words of the prophet 

"The one who leaves his religion AND SEPERATES from the community, kill him". 

Here, the apostate is to be killed if he in addition severes all ties with the community. In those days, this amounted to joining enemy ranks. If the apostate remains in the community he is left unharmed. We thus see the prophetic practice in clear congruence with the aforementioned Quranic passage.

To further corroborate, under Uthman's caliphate, a man named Abdullah Ibn Saba and his followers deeply resented Uthman, favoring Ali instead whom they saw as a semi divine figure more eligible to be caliph. Their over exaltation of Ali took them outside the fold of Islam, making them apostates. Their true aim by feinting conversion was to spread political and social discord to destabilize the caliphate. They planned on capturing and killing Uthman should he refuse stepping down, and Uthman was eventually murdered. Ali eventually arrested them, exiled some of them and executed others. The fact some were exiled shows that although they were all considered apostates, they did not all qualify for the death penalty. The executions were not motivated by choice of creed, which isnt an endorsed practice by the Quran, but rather for the capital offense of fasad fil ard, which per the Quran warrants the death penalty. Although the brief and most authentic reports do not clearly say how this was done, some say that they were first burned then thrown into a ditch while others say they were first beheaded then had their lifeless bodies burnt. 

In both possible cases, Ali had done something which the prophet forbade;

- the first potential misdeed was execution by fire. It is reported "When we intended to depart, Allah's Apostle said,

"I have ordered you to burn so-and-so and so-and-so, and it is none but Allah Who punishes with fire, so, if you find them, kill them".

In another report

"We were with the Prophet and we passed by a colony of ants which had been burned, and the Prophet became angry and said, ‘It is not fitting for any man to punish with the punishment of Allah.” 

- the second potential misdeed was mutilation of lifeless bodies. It is reported

"The Prophet forbade robbery (taking away what belongs to others without their permission), and also forbade mutilation (or maiming) of bodies.”

The traditions explain that this instruction is rooted in a Quranic verse

16:126"And if you take your turn, then retaliate with the like of that with which you were afflicted; but if you are patient, it will certainly be best for those who are patient".

This verse is said to have been revealed after the prophet had seen the violent manner in which his uncle Hamza's dead body had been ripped open and then threatened

"Never yet have i felt more anger than now i feel; and when next time God gives me victory over Quraysh, i will mutilate thirty of their dead".

This emotional, on the spot declaration was never fulfilled, and the prophet in addition forbade mutilation as shown above, in obedience to the Quranic directive. Even in warfare, killing must be swift, without recourse to inefficient weapons that cause unnecessary suffering 

"The Prophet forbade the throwing of stones (with the thumb and the index or middle finger), and said "It neither hunts a game nor kills (or hurts) an enemy, but it gouges out an eye or breaks a tooth".

When ibn Abbas learned of what Ali had done (either burning or mutilating), he publicly rebuked him by appealing to the prophetic sunna mentioned above, which embarrassed Ali, hence his first reaction

"Wayh Ibn Abbas!".

Ali either knew about the prophet's commands but let his emotions overcome him in the execution of the right course, or had forgotten them. So he admitted his error and praised ibn Abbas for speaking the truth

"When ‘Ali was informed about it he said: How truly ibn Abbas said!"

Apostate prophet urges Muslims; Keep Islam. Do not apostise or die!

In answer to the video "10 Reasons to Reject Islam"

The youtuber here is struggling and wants to know what is the Quranic stance on apostasy.

18:29,2:256"There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing" 

When 2:256 says there is no compulsion in religion, it also gives the reason for the prohibition of compulsion

"truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error".

The reason is that truth has been clearly explained, there is thus no need to enforce it. It is available for anyone to consider, while knowing the consequences of accepting or rejecting it. The clause on which the prohibition of force is based ie "truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error" was never reversed, whether before or after the "verses of the sword" meaning the effect must equally remain unchanged.

Islam requires that belief follows reason and understanding. There is no need for compulsion in a matter whose advantages and disadvantages are clearly defined and the reward and punishment for accepting or rejecting it well-explained

"the right way has become clearly distinct from error".

This is why the prophet is told that he is not a warder, keeper and guardian over those who turn away. Like all prophets that passed before him his task consists in warning and giving glad tiding to the people, he has no power to influence their freewill or force their belief 17:54,42:48,88:21-2. He should therefore let him disbelieve whoever wishes to 18:29 after making sure that the message has reached them 13:40 in the most kindly manner 6:108,16:125.

Also, anyone can leave Islam and come back time and time again without punishment or being killed 4:137 which bellies the idea of killing a person as a punishment for leaving Islam or wavering in his faith. However God will only accept his repentance if it is sincere 3:86-89 and not followed by constant periods of disbelief then belief 4:137. 

As reported by ibn Abbas 

"A man from among the Ansar accepted Islam, then he apostatized and went back to Shirk. Then he regretted that, and sent word to his people (saying): 'Ask the Messenger of Allah [SAW], is there any repentance for me?' His people came to the Messenger of Allah [SAW] and said: 'So and so regrets (what he did), and he has told us to ask you if there is any repentance for him?' Then the Verses: 'How shall Allah guide a people who disbelieved after their Belief up to His saying: Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful' was revealed. So he sent word to him, and he accepted Islam."

Nowhere does the Quran say a person must be punished or killed solely for the act of apostasy and all it mentions is that apostates shall face a terrible punishment in the Hereafter. This of course excludes those who apostize unwillingly, who are

3:86-91,16:106"compelled while his heart is at rest on account of faith".

Such a person is compelled to renounce faith with his lips due to imminent danger on his life while he remains a firm believer in his heart. This is what is often referred to as taqiya. The Quran doesnt condone lying, rather commands to uphold one's pledges, to judge with equity, to speak justly, kindly, with integrity, without corruption, with the outward locution corresponding to the intent 

4:5-9,135,6:152,2:83,235,3:32,70"O you who believe! Reverence God and speak justly". 

It is further to be noted here, that although martyrdom in the cause of faith is highly meritorious, still the Quran absolves those who sincerely, not out of lack of faith, cannot go to such an extent because

2:233"no soul shall have imposed upon it a duty but to the extent of its capacity". 

Saving life takes precedence over following the law. That is why a Muslim may eat pork if facing starvation. Exactly what Jesus taught in the Gospels when he transgressed the sabbath by citing David's example.

Punishment in the hereafter for the sin of apostasy is therefore solely the lot of the one who willingly, without any compulsion renounces Faith and:

"opens (his) breast to disbelief-- on these is the wrath of Allah, and they shall have a grievous chastisement".