53-year-old Muhammad’s marriage to 9-year-old Aisha has been the subject of much debate. This is my take on the Aisha problem in Islam. For it is a huge problem.
Muhammad was not a pedophile — and although I recognize that he could still possibly have behaved like one in one instance in a lifetime, he did not do so in Aisha’s case. If Aisha had NOT developed secondary sexual characteristics when Muhammad “consummated his marriage” with her, he would be guilty of that aberrant behavior. Yes, she was unusually young. But she was inescapably pubescent and the word ‘pedophile’ is simply inaccurate. Also, his relationship with her lasted into her adulthood and was evidently the most sexual as compared with the rest of his wives. He was moved by her youth — but not by her childishness. Sounds like a normal sexuality to me.
The moral crime really lies in Muhammad’s role as a setter of precedent. With Aisha’s early initiation into sex and marriage, he set the precedent for all future followers in all ages that the onset of menstruation marks sexual readiness in girls: this is a medically, socially and psychologically harmful position to hold.
That’s Muhammad’s moral crime, of which he was of course completely unaware, not being the prophet of God. And that’s what Muslims have to face and refute: a prophet of god setting a harmful precedent.
There was a more immediate moral crime in his marriage to Aisha, and that was the harm caused to Aisha herself. This is trickier territory, but I will take my cue from a highly sensitive rendition of the internal life of a modern-day Aisha:
Lolita.
She was a ‘nymphet,’ as I suspect Aisha was — girls who are early on not so much aware of their sexuality, but have hit puberty and almost unconsciously adopt certain womanly traits as they move towards becoming women. They hold a certain sexual attraction for say, ephebophiles, who are far more common than pedophiles and whose sexuality is also more fluid between pubescent children and adult women.
[Almost all traditional Arab men, in my experience, are ephebophiles and to a certain extent, this could be a culturally learned attitude.]
But the moral crime in Lolita is not early sexualization of her by an adult man, as she was already experimenting sexually and was very sexually self-aware. The moral crime was the adult act of inhibiting her sexuality to be restricted ONLY to him, preventing her from even socializing because of jealous fears (ring a bell?). Essentially, she was a child; emotionally, she wasn’t ready for a full-fledged ‘relationship’ with an adult with all the power imbalance of such an arrangement. She was robbed of a normal childhood.
Much the same can be said for Aisha: she was robbed of a childhood. She was initiated without consent into a cult, both of polygamy and of Islam, and made to bear the burden of that for the rest of her life — she couldn’t have a sexual relationship after Muhammad’s death (when Aisha was only 18) and so for most of her long life, she was deprived of that which had formed the cornerstone of her most formative years (sex). That’s a moral crime. And for what? Posthumous jealousy.
I feel morally appalled by what Muhammad did to Aisha. At the same time, I cannot help but acknowledge that my being (subjectively) morally outraged at it has about the same relevance in a debate about religion and ethics as say, the moral outrage some people feel when I say I have sexual desire for men twice my age. Still, the fact that people of ordinary morality are immediately shocked by the act of an alleged prophet of God, speaks volumes.
The Muslims who try to excuse Muhammad’s act, and the non-Muslims who are ‘understanding’ of his weakness, allege that this was a common thing in that era, hence couldn’t be “immoral” as morality is a social construct that changes with time and place. I agree with that last bit but the gall of Muslims using moral relativism is astounding – people who believe in an eternal religion suddenly abandon absolute morality when it suits them.
I’ll be the first to admit that in matters of sex and sexuality, the lines are arbitrary; the morality is fuzzy. But fuzzy morality is OUR prerogative, as infidels. Not the Muslims’.
For extremely well-researched and concrete Islamic refutations of those who’d rather deny the evidence of the ahadith than admit that Aisha was a child when Muhammad took her to his bed, see here.
Filed under: Islam/Religion
Islam’s Lolita, I am stunned by its brilliance and daring. The writing is beautiful; and the bravery of a young woman writing about men fills me with awe.
Keep keeping on, the Apostate.
Cheers,
middleXeast
“in matters of sex and sexuality, the lines are arbitrary; the morality is fuzzy. But fuzzy morality is OUR prerogative, as infidels. Not the Muslims’.”
Doesn’t it make you a bit uncomfortable to make a statement like that? Think about what you’ve done: on the basis of a sweeping generalization, you are refusing the right of millions to decide their own minds about their religious ideas. Regardless of what you think of their religious ideas, isn’t that just a bit chilling?
Obviously you are justifying yourself through logic, but the fact is that religion is never based on logic. I wrote an essay about that a long time ago, and am quite curious as to what you might think of it. It’s at http://liberalislam.net/reason if you’re interested.
“…on the basis of a sweeping generalization, you are refusing the right of millions to decide their own minds about their religious ideas.”
Well…not quite. I can’t take away anyone’s right to do anything just by writing a post on an obscure blog. That said, I don’t think even Muslims will disagree with me that they believe in a system of absolute morality. There has to be a point, Zeeshan, where people take responsibility for their views. Why should anyone be allowed to get away with simultaneously believing in two contradictictory beliefs at once? If they want to be moral relativists, they have to stop subscribing to an absolute moral system.
“…the fact is that religion is never based on logic.”
Tell that to the Muslims, who never get tired of advertising the ‘rational’ bases of Islam.
I’ll check out your post — thanks for the link.
Zeeshan – I read your article. Very interesting stuff, and well-written. I might respond in a post, if you don’t mind.
Article was well written and very informative. However I would ask one question, what do u mean by “people with ordinary mentality”? U cannot convince somebody by your personal definitions of the right and the wrong. Your criticism seems to be sugar-coated with a diplomatic secular stand.
shauli:
Glad you found the post informative.
As for what I mean by ‘people of ordinary morality’ (note, *morality*, not mentality)…that’s your average Joe (or Jane) who has no pretensions to an exalted understanding of ethics. My reference is to ‘intuitive’ morality that we all have, through socialization or ‘conscience.’
And I didn’t think my criticism was sugar-coated or diplomatic at all.
Really interesting. I enjoyed reading this.
[...] them on my blog (even if nobody reads it) is sometimes a greater act of courage than writing Islam’s Lolita and practically begging for a [...]
i have to agree on the point that i find it strange to hear the moral relativism argument from a tradition which goes on generally about ‘absolutes’ and thinking things like drinking, eating pork, sleeping with your boyfriend if you’re not married as haram. strange things to make haram when the so-called perfect early muslims were enslaving people and having concubines. that i find really sick.