Muhammed the Pedophile? Yes and no.

Submitted by Michael S (United States), Feb 1, 2015 at 20:07

Hi, DNM

You seem to have an Islamic audience in mind, in posting this, as I suspect that most non-Muslims (such as I) cannot fathom the depth of it. I did a lookup:

Marriage to Muhammad

...British historian William Montgomery Watt suggests that Muhammad hoped to strengthen his ties with Abu Bakr;^[10] the strengthening of ties commonly served as a basis for marriage in Arabian culture.^[20]

Age at marriage

See also: Criticism of Muhammad (Aisha) and Child marriage

According to Sunni scriptural Hadith sources, Aisha was six or seven years old when she was married to Muhammad and nine when the marriage was consummated.^{[11][12][13][14][10][21]}

-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha

By reading this Wikipedia article, one can see that Aisha was highly influential in Islam. As I recall, Muhammed was a Meccan merchant, who seems to have wanted to make something of a name for himself in the religion business. Abu Bakr was a fellow-merchant who became a powerful clan leader, who was able to use Muhammed's evil genius to further his own ends.

Aisha was nothing more than a pawn in the contract between the two men, so it might be unfair to call her a "slut". Marriage contracts involving children, and the ensuing pedophilia, are common in Pagan, Jewish and even Christian tradition; so casting the practice in a negative light like this is disingenuous. There was a widely publicised case on Pitcairn Island a few years back, in which about half the men on the island (British, Seventh-Day-Adventist descendants of the Bounty mutineers) were jailed for pedophilia, because of their marriages to girls on the island. Nobody was offended by this practice, until some outsiders came there and raised a high-handed, moralistic stink.

Aisha was apparently none the worse for her marriage with Muhammed, as she went on to be a leader in the movement (as did her father, the first successor to Muhammed after his death). She even is said to have led the men into a battle on a camel, something of a Muslim "Joan of Arc".

That, it seems, is the story behind the tweet-poem.

Cheers.

PS. I see that you and I are yet again engaged in presenting opposite sides of a moralistic debate: Modern Moralistic Atheism (your side) vs. Traditional Realism (as I would call it -- my side). That's what it really is, regardless of what it's called. It's a debate that tends to raise the fur in people, without their realizing it. I hope we can keep it cool.

BTW. I admire you for sticking your neck out concerning "insulting the Profit" (oops -- sp.?), while all these fatwas and murders are going around. That said, we need to do what we can to not be seen as wrongdoers by sane people. Crossing the profanity line probably doesn't help us.

Shalom shalom.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".