Tag Archives: Old testament

An Example of Tahrif (Corruption) in the Bible

Muslims are often told that the corruption of the Bible as Muslims believe in, cannot be demonstrated. Simple examples of taḥrīf (corruption; technically: to move something from its place) are generally dismissed as copyist errors which do not affect the overall meaning of the message, though it does need to be pointed out that at some point there will be enough small changes that they aggregate into meaningful differences. If it was the case that many small changes were ineffectual in the validity of scripture (its meaning and authority) then either it is the case that the scripture itself is so vague and impactless that changes don’t matter on a macro scale or it is the case that the changes do eventually matter because the sanctity and preservation of scripture matters.

The Qur’ān makes a few claims regarding the taḥrīf of the Bible:

“Do you ˹believers still˺ expect them to be true to you, though a group of them would hear the word of Allah then knowingly corrupt it after understanding it?” – 2:75 (trans. by Dr. Mustafa Khattab).

“But they broke their covenant, so We condemned them and hardened their hearts. They distorted the words of the Scripture and neglected a portion of what they had been commanded to uphold. You ˹O Prophet˺ will always find deceit on their part, except for a few. But pardon them and bear with them. Indeed, Allah loves the good-doers.” – 5:13 (trans. by Dr. Mustafa Khattab).

Prof. Adam Gacek writes in his Vademecum (pp. 31-32) regarding the definition of the word taḥrīf:

2. distortion, error, usually involving either transposition of letters within a word, e.g. علم/ عمل or شقر /شرق , or mispronunciation, e.,g. طغرا /طرة (MU, X, 57; MQ, 641: al-taḥrīf bi-al ziyādah aw bi-al-naqṣ); falsification (of a text), comp. al-qalb al makānī, taṣḥīf.”

Regarding “al-taḥrīf bi-al ziyādah aw bi-al-naqṣ”, this means a change by means of increasing or by decreasing (letters, words, passages, etc).

Let’s now proceed by looking at an example of a simple change of one word in which it was swapped with a word of the opposite meaning. At first we will look at a Jewish translation (CJB; emphasis mines), then at Christian translations (ESV, NIV; emphasis mines).

Now it would come about when the cycle of the feasting days would be over, that Job would send and summon them, and offer up burnt-offerings early in the morning burnt- offerings according to the number of all of them, for Job said, “Perhaps my sons have sinned and blasphemed God in their hearts.” So would Job do all the days. – Job 1:5 (CJB).

“And when the days of the feast had run their course, Job would send and consecrate them, and he would rise early in the morning and offer burnt offerings according to the number of them all. For Job said, “It may be that my children have sinned, and cursed[a] God in their hearts.” Thus Job did continually. – Job 1:5 (ESV).

Now the Hebrew text (MST – Masoretic Text):

וַיְהִ֡י כִּ֣י הִקִּיפוּ֩ יְמֵ֨י הַמִּשְׁתֶּה֜ וַיִּשְׁלַ֧ח אִיּ֣וֹב וַֽיְקַדְּשֵׁ֗ם וְהִשְׁכִּ֣ים בַּבֹּקֶר֘ וְהֶֽעֱלָ֣ה עֹלוֹת֘ מִסְפַּ֣ר כֻּלָּם֒ כִּ֤י אָמַ֣ר אִיּ֔וֹב אוּלַי֙ חָטְא֣וּ בָנַ֔י וּבֵֽרְכ֥וּ אֱלֹהִ֖ים בִּלְבָבָ֑ם כָּ֛כָה יַֽעֲשֶׂ֥ה אִיּ֖וֹב כָּל־הַיָּמִֽים:

The word used in the English is “blasphemed”, the word used in Hebrew is H1288 or the word for “blessed”. “Blasphemed” and “blessed” are words with the opposite meaning, so what happened here? The CJB offers little explanation (at least the digital version I checked), but the ESV rightly has a footnote there:

Job 1:5 The Hebrew word bless is used euphemistically for curse in 1:5, 11; 2:5, 9

As this footnote explains, this issue has arisen in multiple places within the text of Job, at a count of at least four (4) times. They do offer one explanation, the word bless is used euphemistically to mean curse. Yet, is this true? Not exactly, the NET in Translation Note #30 says (emphasis mines):

The Hebrew verb is בָּרַךְ (barakh), which means “to bless.” Here is a case where the writer or a scribe has substituted the word “curse” with the word “bless” to avoid having the expression “curse God.

For similar euphemisms in the ancient world, see K. A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament, 166. It is therefore difficult to know exactly what Job feared they might have done. The opposite of “bless” would be “curse,” which normally would convey disowning or removing from blessing. Some commentators try to offer a definition of “curse” from the root in the text, and noting that “curse” is too strong, come to something like “renounce.”

The idea of blaspheming is probably not meant; rather, in their festivities they may have said things that renounced God or their interest in him. Job feared this momentary turning away from God in their festivities, perhaps as they thought their good life was more important than their religion.

This would be less of a problem if the entire story of Job did not rest on the meaning of this one word. In the Bible, Satan challenges God by claiming that the only reason the Patriarch Job is so faithful to God, is only due to the blessings which God had bestowed upon him (wealth, a good family, good health, etc). Satan then suggests to God, that should God take these blessings away from Job that Job will then either curse God (if the translations are right) or that Job will bless God (if the edited Hebrew text is right). In other words, either Satan wins the challenge against God or God wins the challenge against Satan.

Given that Job ends up cursing God and repenting for it, and given the use of the original Hebrew word of “curse” (i.e. the word before the scribes changed it to bless in the Hebrew), this would mean that Satan won the challenge against God.

The Challenge by Satan (Job 1:11 – NIV):

“But now stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face.”

Job’s Admission of Cursing God (Job 42:1-3 – NIV):

Then Job replied to the Lord:

“I know that you can do all things; no purpose of yours can be thwarted. You asked, ‘Who is this that obscures my plans without knowledge?’ Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know.

Interestingly, the NIV has no footnote to indicate that the word should be read in its opposite (and therefore in its original) meaning. To further illustrate this point, the Benson Commentary on the Old and New Testaments says (emphasis mines):

Job 42:3. Who is he that hideth counsel? — What am I, that I should be guilty of such madness? Therefore have I uttered that I understood not — Because my mind was without knowledge, therefore my speech was ignorant and foolish; things which I knew not — I have spoken foolishly and unadvisedly of things far above my reach.

Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary says (emphasis mines):

42:1-6 Job was now sensible of his guilt; he would no longer speak in his own excuse; he abhorred himself as a sinner in heart and life, especially for murmuring against God, and took shame to himself.

In conclusion, this is striking because the Qur’ān teaches:

There are some among them who distort the Book with their tongues to make you think this ˹distortion˺ is from the Book—but it is not what the Book says. They say, “It is from Allah”—but it is not from Allah. And ˹so˺ they attribute lies to Allah knowingly. – 3:78 (trans. by Dr. Mustafa Khattab).

and Allah knows best.

The Prophecy of Zephaniah 3:9

One of the most peculiar verses in the Old Testament is that of Zephaniah 3:9, let’s begin by first looking at two translations of this passage:

cc-2019-sm-menprayinginrow

“Then I will purify the lips of the peoples, that all of them may call on the name of the Lord and serve him shoulder to shoulder.” – Zephaniah 3:9 (NIV)

“For then I will convert the peoples to a pure language that all of them call in the name of the Lord, to worship Him of one accord.” – Zephaniah 3:9 (Rabbi Rosenberg)

The first translation is one done by the Christian community while the second is from the Jewish community. Both translations say roughly the same thing but there are minute differences which will shape how the verse is meant to be understood. It is therefore important to break up the verse into its constituent parts to help us understand the message it is trying to convey:

9a –
Then I will purify the lips of the peoples (Christian translation)
For then I will convert the peoples to a pure language (Jewish translation)

9b –
that all of them may call on the name of the Lord (Christian translation)
that all of them call in the name of the Lord (Jewish translation)

9c –
and serve him shoulder to shoulder (Christian translation)
to worship Him of one accord (Jewish translation)

Analyzing 9a –

The message being conveyed here seems to be that God will convert or change this ‘pious nation’ such that they adopt a pure language. This immediately rules out the options of Christianity and Judaism as neither faith in the present day rely on one ‘pure’ language as the basis for worshiping God. The Qur’an therefore teaches:

“We know indeed that they say, “It is a man that teaches him.” The tongue of him they wickedly point to is notably foreign, while this is Arabic, pure and clear.” – Qur’an 16:103 (Yusuf Ali)

A point to keep in mind is that all Muslims read the Qur’an in Arabic for Salaah (daily worship).

Analyzing 9b –

Of the major religions of Christianity and Judaism, neither use a single and pure language to call upon the name of God. Rather, if we were to go into any Masjid, anywhere in the world, they would all use the name Allah (the Arabic name of God in Islam). If I were to go to an Arab Christian he may say Yasu’, yet if I went to a European or North American Christian they may call God by the name of Jesus, both of which are not of the same language nor of a language that specifically describes itself as pure and clear. Indeed there is no one language that neither the Christian community nor the Jewish community would agree on presently for which they can use to refer to God together. The Qur’an teaches:

“Surely in the remembrance of Allah do hearts find comfort.” – Qur’an 13:28 (Dr. Khattab)

A point to keep in mind is that the Imam begins the Salaah with the Takbir (Allahu akbar, trans.: God is the greatest).

Analyzing 9c –

This passage is most interesting because of the fact that Muslims stand shoulder to shoulder in Salaah and in Salaah we have one Imam who leads everyone in the prayer:

Narrated Anas bin Malik: The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “Straighten your rows for I see you from behind my back.” Anas added, “Everyone of us used to put his shoulder with the shoulder of his companion and his foot with the foot of his companion.” – Sahih al Bukhari, Book 10, Hadith 199

Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar: The Prophet (ﷺ) said: Set the rows in order, stand shoulder to shoulder, close the gaps, be pliant in the hands of your brethren, and do not leave openings for the devil. – Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 2, Hadith 276

Indeed, it is a condition for Salaah to be valid behind the Imam, that one follows the Imam:

Narrated Abu Hurayrah: The Prophet (ﷺ) said: The imam is appointed only to be followed; when he says “Allah is most great,” say “Allah is most great” and do not say “Allah is most great” until he says “Allah is most great.” When he bows; bow; and do not bow until he bows. And when he says “Allah listens to him who praise Him,” say “O Allah, our Lord, to Thee be the praise.” – Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 2, Hadith 213

In fact, the word used in Zephaniah 3:9c for worship and serving is the Hebrew equivalent to ‘Ibadah (عبادة) which is the term for worship (prayer) in Arabic. The Hebrew word used in this case is Ibadow (לְעָבְד֖וֹ), Strong’s #5647.

Conclusion

All in all, this passage when analyzed demonstrates for us the truth of Islam with absolute clarity.

and Allah knows best.

Dialogue Video: Navigating Differences in Theology – Br. Ijaz and Mr. Alex Kerimli

I recently had a dialogue with my friend and colleague, Mr. Alex Kerimli in Toronto. Today the video of that event is being released. The event was graciously hosted by the i3 Institute, which offers courses for young Muslims in the Greater Toronto Area.

Poster

The event went extremely well and in the end I have to say that I definitely enjoyed my time with Mr. Kerimli. We met a second time following the dialogue and had a second more informal dialogue that would be released in the near future. In the meantime, this dialogue took place in the context of a discussion I have been having with Mr. Kerimli for the past two years. It mainly revolves around the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur’an’s relationship with both of those books. We explore these relationships, the existence of a possible “Madinian Torah” and other fascinating questions about textual preservation in light of historical evidences.

At the end of the dialogue, it was all smiles from both sides of the theological divide.

P_20171109_220234_vHDR_Auto.jpg

In addition to releasing the video of the dialogue I am also including my PowerPoint presentation slides in PDF form. There are two versions of these slides. There is the original presentation as I used it in the dialogue. Following the event I noted that there was a miscitation of a quote from Mark, instead of Mark 4:15 I accidentally put Mark 4:20. There was also another miscitation, instead of Pslam 40:6-8, I wrote Isaiah 40:6-8. Along with that error, I also clarified my use of terms in the table comparing the contents of the Shema in the Gospels and the Septuagint editions. To be fair, I am releasing both the original version with the errors and the corrected version for clarity. I will follow up with Mr. Kerimli to see if he would be willing to do the same.

Here is the dialogue video:

and Allah knows best.

 

Terrorism in the Bible – Is the Godhead of the Bible Morally Upright?

Most Christians either completely gloss over or ignore the violence of the Old Testament. Such an apologetic is usually framed in the form of contextualising this violence as being for a specific period and people. We’re speaking about genocide, mass rape, mass torture, and horrendous acts of this nature. When compared with the New Testament, it is difficult to reconcile the two versions of God being presented to us. Our most read article also inspects some of these stories of the Old Testament.

The Old Testament contains the single most violent passage among any scripture in world history:

However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. – Deuteronomy 20:16.

Rivaled by none, the scale of sheer violence and bloodshed in the Bible is not only disturbing, it is also extremely difficult to accept that this is the God that Christians want us to build a relationship with. Concerning the apologetic that such violence is meant for a specific place and time, this betrays the Bible’s teachings itself. To begin with, the Bible teaches that all of God’s laws are eternal:

All your words are true; all your righteous laws are eternal. – Psalm 119:160.

Pursuant to this belief, of the 613 commandments given in the Old Testament, several of them are to act upon the rules of Deuteronomy Chapter 20. This includes Deuteronomy 20:16. Some Christians in reading this chapter may state that it mentions Israel a number of times so it must only refer to the Children of Israel, however this is incorrect as the Church today is considered to be partakers in Israel, as is explained by one popular Christian ministry (emphasis mines):

Finally, Galatians 3:29 says, “If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” In other words, in Christ, believers are counted righteous by faith in the same way that Abraham was (Galatians 3:6-8). If we are in Christ, then we are partakers of the blessing of Israel and all nations in the redemptive work of Christ. Believers become the spiritual descendants of Abraham. Believers do not become physical Jews, but they may enjoy the same type of blessings and privileges as the Jews.

and God knows best.

[Updated] Aisha (raa) Marriage to the Prophet Muhammad {saw} of Islam.

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

A simple answer to a Judaic – Christian attack on the truth of Al Islam

To begin with, two facts must be established. Aisha (ra) was:

  • Six (6) years of age when the marriage contract was done.
  • Nine (9) years of age when the marriage was consummated.

We can establish this information, from a hadith, narrated by, Aisha (ra) herself:

Narrated ‘Aisha (ra):

that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).[1]

It is important to state who the narrator of this hadith is. It is directly from the lips of Aisha (ra). The person at the very heart of this great debate.

It is best to enter into the following sets of information with an objective mind. Removing all bias and applying proper academic principles to the information that is about to bestowed upon you, the reader. Take note that all quotes are cited. This has been done so that you can do research yourself and see the reality of the situation, rather than depending on hearsay. In order to proper understand the validity and purpose of the marriage we must first ask ourselves some very basic questions:

  • Who are the people that we should focus the research on?
  • Where did they live?
  • What kind of society did they have?
  • When was this society in existence?
  • Why did they do this marriage?

These five (5) questions form the basis of our research which employs critical thinking. Critical thinking can be summarized as:

Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth and fairness. [2]

Therefore we must ask ourselves, what field of study, which by using critical thinking, can we seek to answer the five (5) questions listed above? The answer is anthropology. What is anthropology you might ask?

Anthropology is the study of humans, past and present. To understand the full sweep and complexity of cultures across all of human history, anthropology draws and builds upon knowledge from the social and biological sciences as well as the humanities and physical sciences. A central concern of anthropologists is the application of knowledge to the solution of human problems. Historically, anthropologists […………] have been trained in one of four areas: sociocultural anthropology, biological/physical anthropology, archaeology, and linguistics. Anthropologists often integrate the perspectives of several of these areas into their research, teaching, and professional lives.[3]

To summarize, we’ll look at this issue from a biological/ physical anthropological perspective and a sociocultural perspective. I’ve also added the dimension of secular law into the equation so that the subject matter’s relevance in our times can be properly digested.

(1) Anthropology –  Biological/ Physical.
(2) Anthropology –  Sociocultural.
(3) Secular law.

Biological/ Physical Anthropology.

The first major issue commonly associated with this marriage, is that Aisha (ra) is commonly referred to as a child, prepubescent, a girl. This draws into the plot that this was a child marriage. Yet, are these adjectives properly being applied to the person of Aisha (ra)? We must then ask, what is a child? A child is one who has not entered into the age of sexual maturation (the age at which one is able to begin sexual reproduction).[4]

A child is defined as:
child (chīld)
n. pl. chil·dren (chĭl’drən)

1. A person between birth and puberty.
2. A person who has not attained maturity or the age of legal majority.
3. An unborn infant; a fetus.
4. An infant; a baby.

Aisha (ra) reached this age, thus she was not a child nor prepubescent.

“Puberty is the stage of life during which you become biologically and sexually mature. It is the entry into adolescence, a period of tremendous changes in the body, emotions, attitude, values, intellect and relationships. This is the transition from the world of the child that gives way to the world of the adult.”[5]

So the question asks itself, did Muhammad (saw) consummate the marriage when her menses began?

Narrated ‘Aisha {ra}: (the wife of the Prophet) I had seen my parents following Islam since I attained the age of puberty. Not a day passed but the Prophet visited us, both in the mornings and evenings. My father Abii Bakr thought of building a mosque in the courtyard of his house and he did so. He used to pray and recite the Qur’an in it. The pagan women and their children used to stand by him and look at him with surprise. Abu Bakr was a soft hearted person and could not help weeping while reciting the Quran. The chiefs of the Quraish pagans became afraid of that (i.e. that their children and women might be affected by the recitation of Quran).”[6]

What to the scholars of Islam also say on the age of marriage?

The fact that it is permissible to marry a young girl does not mean that it is permissible to have intercourse with her; rather that should not be done until she is able for it. For that reason the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) delayed the consummation of his marriage to ‘Aa’ishah. Al-Nawawi said: With regard to the wedding-party of a young married girl at the time of consummating the marriage, if the husband and the guardian of the girl agree upon something that will not cause harm to the young girl, then that may be done. If they disagree, then Ahmad and Abu ‘Ubayd say that one a girl reaches the age of nine then the marriage may be consummated even without her consent, but that does not apply in the case of who is younger. Maalik, al-Shaafa’i and Abu Haneefah said: the marriage may be consummated when the girl is able for intercourse, which varies from one girl to another, so no age limit can be set. This is the correct view. There is nothing in the hadeeth of ‘Aa’ishah to set an age limit, or to forbid that in the case of a girl who is able for it before the age of nine, or to allow it in the case of a girl who is not able for it and has reached the age of nine. Al-Dawoodi said: ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) was reached physical maturity (at the time when her marriage was consummated).[7]

Therefore in terms of a biological stand point, if we were to accept scientific principles (upon which our “modern” society operates), we must conclude that she was not a child, not prepubescent nor physically immature.

Sociocultural Anthropology.

In Semitic cultures, the age at which one is suitable for marriage begins with sexual maturation. For Jews, the boys have the Bar Mitzvah, indicated by puberty (sexual maturation). The Muslims judge the woman, by menstrual cycle, with sexual maturation, one earns the ability to have a menstrual cycle, also referred to as menses. This was the standard way to tell a girl from a woman, the known world has used this standard for ages, dating back to the most primitive of cultures. They judged a woman by her individual characteristic of having her menses which signalled adulthood.

Almost all primitive cultures pay attention to puberty and marriage rituals, although there is a general tendency to pay more attention to the puberty rites of males than of females. Because puberty and marriage symbolize the fact that children are acquiring adult roles, most primitive cultures consider the rituals surrounding these events very important. Puberty rituals are often accompanied with ceremonial circumcision or some other operation on the male genitals. Female circumcision is less common, although it occurs in several cultures. Female puberty rites are more often related to the commencement of the menstrual cycle in young girls.[8]

We can further see this historical fact, present in freely and easily available Jewish literature:

The Age of Maturity.

The Rabbis, however, reckoned the age of maturity from the time when the first signs of puberty appear (Nid. 52a), and estimated that these signs come, with women, about the beginning of the thirteenth year, and about the beginning of the fourteenth year with men. From this period one was regarded as an adult and as responsible for one’s actions to the laws of the community. In the case of females, the rabbinic law recognized several distinct stages: those of the “ḳeṭannah,” from the age of three to the age of twelve and one day; the “na’arah,” the six months following that period; and the “bogeret,” from the expiration of these six months. In the case of males, distinction was made in general only between the period preceding the age of thirteen and one day and that following it, although, as will be seen below, other stages were occasionally recognized.

The attainment of the age of majority, however, did not of itself render one an adult; the prescribed age and the symptoms of puberty together were necessary to establish the majority of a person. If there were no signs of puberty at the age of majority (i.e., at the beginning of the thirteenth year in a female and at the beginning of the fourteenth in a male) the person retained the status of a minor until the age of twenty. If after that period signs of impotence developed, thus explaining the absence of the signs of puberty, the person was admitted to the status of an adult; if such signs did not develop, the person remained in the status of a minor until the age of thirty-five years and one day—the greater part of the time allotted to man on earth (comp. Ps. xc. 10). In the case of a woman, the bearing of children was regarded as sufficient to establish her majority (Yeb. 12b; Maimonides, “Yad,” Ishut, ii. 9; comp. “Maggid Mishneh” and “Leḥem Mishneh” ad loc.; for the whole subject see Nid. v. 3-8; vi. 1, 11-12; “Yad,” l.c. ch. ii.).

Marriage of Minors.

The ḳeṭannah might be given in marriage by her father, and the marriage was valid, necessitating a formal divorce if separation was desired. Her earnings and her findings, also, belonged to her father, and he could annul her vows and accept a divorce for her (Nid. 47a; Ket. 46b). In the absence of her father, her mother or her brothers might contract a marriage for her, but such a marriage might be annulled by her without any formality before she reached the age of maturity (see Mi’un). Illegitimate intercourse with her carried with it the regular punishment for the transgressor, although she could not be punished (Nid. 44b). The na’arah, however, although still under the control of her father (Ḳid. 41a), was considered a responsible person; her vows were valid (Nid. 45b). The bogeret was regarded as entirely independent of her father’s will and was looked upon as an adult in all respects (Nid. 47a).

The Rabbis recognized in males a stage similar to that of the ḳeṭannah. A boy nine years of age was regarded as being of a nubile age, so that if he had illegitimate intercourse with a woman forbidden to him she would be liable to punishment, although he could not be punished until he reached the age of maturity—thirteen years and one day (Nid. 44a). His marriage, however, was not valid (Ḳid. 50b; “Yad,” l.c. iv. 7), although he could acquire a “yebamah” through intercourse (Nid. 45a; B. B. 156b). A stage similar to that of the na’arah was recognized by the Rabbis in the case of the rebellious son (Deut. xxi. 18-21). The period during which one might become liable to the punishment inflicted upon the rebellious son was extended to include the three months (six months in Yer. Sanh. viii. 1) immediately succeeding the age of maturity (Sanh. 69a). After a boy had reached the age of maturity he was regarded a responsible person in all ritualand criminal matters, and the court inflicted punishment upon him for any transgressions. The Rabbis entertained the belief that heavenly punishment was not visited for sins committed before the age of twenty (Shab. 89b; comp. B. B. 121b; Maḥzor vitry, ed. Hurwitz, p. 550; Ḥakam Ẓebi, Responsa, § 49; but comp. “Sefer Ḥasidim,” ed. Wistinetski, § 16, where the opinion is expressed that the heavenly punishment does not depend on age but on the intelligence of the transgressor; see also Asher ben Jehiel, Responsa, xvi. 1).[9]

Secular Law.

Secular law states that all girls become women at a legally fixed age. Although biologically absurd, the concept behind this is related to a filed of politico-economic studies termed “adult suffrage”. Adult suffrage essentially guarantees under a sovereign nationa’s legislative system, that at a particular fixed age, members of society earn certain rights, one such being that of voting. It may also refer to a citizen’s right to legally have a driver’s permit, have an identification permit, earn the authority to sign contracts with institutions etc. While I could go more into adult suffrage, that topic escapes the purpose of this article. However, I do encourage you, the reader to continue investigations into that subject matter. Secular law can state that females become legal or earn adult suffrage when they are 18, 16, or in some cases, like France, at the age of 14. Usually the age of sexual consent is commonly associated with the age of adult suffrage.

The Purpose of the Marriage:

1 – He saw a dream about marrying her. It is proven in al-Bukhaari from the hadeeth of ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said to her: “You were shown to me twice in a dream. I saw that you were wrapped in a piece of silk, and it was said, ‘This is your wife.’ I uncovered her and saw that it was you. I said, ‘If this is from Allaah then it will come to pass.’” (Narrated by al-Bukhaari, no. 3682). As to whether this is a prophetic vision as it appears to be, or a regular dream that may be subject to interpretation, there was a difference of opinion among the scholars, as mentioned by al-Haafiz in Fath al-Baari, 9/181.

2 – The characteristics of intelligence and smartness that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) had noticed in ‘Aa’ishah even as a small child, so he wanted to marry her so that she would be more able than others to transmit reports of what he did and said. In fact, as stated above, she was a reference point for the Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them) with regard to their affairs and rulings.

3 – The love of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) for her father Abu Bakr (may Allaah be pleased with him), and the persecution that Abu Bakr (may Allaah be pleased with him) had suffered for the sake of the call of truth, which he bore with patience. He was the strongest of people in faith and the most sincere in certain faith, after the Prophets.

It may be noted that among his wives were those who were young and old, the daughter of his sworn enemy, the daughter of his closest friend. One of them occupied herself with raising orphans, another distinguished herself from others by fasting and praying qiyaam a great deal… They represented all kinds of people, through whom the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was able to set out a way for the Muslims showing how to deal properly with all kinds of people. [See al-Seerah al-Nabawiyyah fi Daw’ al-Masaadir al-Asliyyah, p. 711].[10]

– Hope this answers the issue.

wa Allahu Alam.

[1] – Sahih Bukhari :: Book 7 [Wedlock, Marriage, Nikah] :: Volume 62 :: Hadith 64.

[2] – http://www.criticalthinking.org/aboutCT/define_critical_thinking.cfm

[3] – http://www.aaanet.org/about/WhatisAnthropology.cfm

[4] – http://www.thefreedictionary.com/child

[5] –  http://www.ifsha.org/yp/puberty.htm

[6] – Sahih Bukhari :: Book 1 :: Volume 8 :: Hadith 465

[7] – http://islamqa.com/en/ref/22442/age%20of%20consent

[8] – “An Overview of the World’s Religions” – http://www.theology.edu/relig02.htm

[9] – http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=91&letter=M&search=age+of+maturity#ixzz0u6JujGf1

[10] – Excerpt from: [ Zaad al-Ma’aad, 1/106; By Imam Ibn al Qayyim al Jawziyyah]