Comments by Shaikh ibn Baz who was the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia - i.e. a top scholar of Islam: at the holiest Mosque in Mecca

“I advise the young ladies not to refuse a man because of his older age. Even if he be ten, twenty or thirty years older, this is not a valid excuse. THE PROPHET (PEACE BE UPON HIM) MARRIED AISHA WHEN HE WAS FIFTY-THREE YEARS OLD AND SHE WAS NINE YEARS OLD. Older age is not harmful. There is no problem if the woman is older than the man and there is no problem if the man is older than the woman. The Prophet (peace be upon him) married Khadijah when she was forty years old and he was twenty-five years old, before he received his first revelation. That is, she was fifteen years older than him (may Allah be pleased with her). AND AISHA WAS MARRIED WHEN SHE WAS A YOUNG LADY OF SIX OR SEVEN YEARS AND THE PROPHET (PEACE BE UPON HIM) CONSUMMATED THE MARRIAGE WHEN SHE WAS NINE YEARS OLD AND HE WAS FIFTY-THREE YEARS OLD. Many of those who talk on the radio or television and speak against having disparaging ages between husband and wife are wrong. It is not permissible for them to say such things. Instead, what must be done is, the woman must look at the prospective husband and, if he be pious and appropriate, she must agree to him even if he is older than her. Similarly, the man must try to marry a woman who is pious and virtuous, even if she is older than him, especially if she is still less than mid life. In any case, age should not be taken as an excuse. It should also not be considered a shortcoming, as long as the man is pious or the woman is pious. May Allah make the affairs good for everyone!”

Tit for tat,

Although you quoted a Wahhabi scholar (Bin Baz) if you refer to alazhar references re the prophet’s wives and how he married them, is a different one again.

The prophet was in a monogamous relation from the age of 25 till after the revelation.
Given the known history of Islam and persecution of Muslims, the prophet was preaching the message for the following 13 years. As Muslims we see it as follows:

- He married his wives in the last 10 years of his age (ie 53 to 63).
- Many of the marriages were with older women (widows of war) and some of his wives were the least regarded on the scale of good looks.
- Inter-marriage with two Jewish wives and one Christian (Maria, the mother of his only son Ibrahim). The Jewish marriage was post war with a Jewish tribe and caused all Muslims to release their Jewish prisoners.

Regardless, polygamy is not related to prophethood and judging historical events should be within the time and cultural constraints of the time. For us he is the last prophet and the Qu’ran is God’s word.

PS: there is a number of references on Aisha age so I am not going to dwell on these but Arabs, Jews and other tribes used to consider puberty as the age of consent. Believe what you want to believe I guess

PS: I noticed you did a ‘copy & paste’ of your comment on different topics.

'Loyalty to Islam comes first, as the home grown bombers prove.'

What? As opposed to say, loyalty to one's nation?

Is it better to kill for reasons of patriotism and national pride than religion? Because there's a lot of the former going on in the secular world.

What does loyalty to Islam come before? Because if you mean pride in one's country I still think suicide bombers (who have mainly targeted countries involved in supporting Israel or the war in Iraq) are acting out of national pride as well. Take South Africa for example. Terrorism over there was against white oppression and a desire to be an autonomous people free of apartheid. I'd say that's motivated by pride in one's nation.

India's the same. Vietnam – another great case study where oppression breeds nationalism and nationalism breeds violence.

Wow we're so far off from talking about Islam; I wonder how it's relevant at all?

Oh Palestinians! They're Muslims!
Oh but wait. The very first terrorists against Israel were Japanese communists. Neither Muslims OR Arabs.

Gee what a let down Islam. I guess when it comes to living up to its bad ass image, Islam doesn't make the cut! Unless your source is the Daily Telegraph as opposed to say, history.

And unless you want to talk about 7th century Islam because that's soo relevant to today huh? Because according to Dee nothing's changed since!

And while we're at it can we also just isolate the few incidents of terrorism that have been done to death in the media and forget about the myriad of attacks, offences, bloodshed, war and horror that the West has inflicted and supported on the Middle Eastern Muslims? Great!

And how many people supported the war in Iraq at first? How many now? I think after 9/11 practically everyone supported it (once again, trying desperately to make the tenuous link between Islam and terrorism).

You do realise it's a joke war right? Somehow (thanks to Fox news) the whole war on Terrorism was changed to the War on Terror.
(continued)

(continued)
The "ism" was just dropped off the face of the earth. Now we're fighting against a feeling, an emotion.
Hey tomorrow I'm starting a war on Anger and Fluster. Don't think you can get all 'agitate' on me because soon I'll be starting a war on that too!

I can see that you knew little and you still do. To think that you might know more on Islam after "Muslim immigration" is a worry particularly with the views you have expressed.

Thanks Logic for clearing that up. It takes Bozo a while to see past his own bigotry.

In response to your hypothetical, if a Christian or a Rabbi preached in Syria or Saudi Arabia to the Muslim population saying "stop covering up your women this is the reason the Western world is attacking you" then yes I can imagine it would cause an uproar.

If a Christian or a Rabbi preached to his Christian or Jewish followers telling them to adhere to what they believe is the correct version of Christianity or Judaism so that they won't get attacked by non-Christians and non-Jews (and saying that if they DO get attacked it's their own fault) – Well I still don't think Al-Jazeera would make quite the fuss.

Politicians would not get involved, trying to deport them, no fatwas would be declared and I certainly don't think it would "divide the community".

Sharkfin.

You want people to intermarry? Go tell Israel to change their laws then. In fact, while you're at it, get Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories. I'm sure you can put on a convincing argument too. Just tell the Prime Minister what you just told me. You know, a nice succinct version of history (and just forget to mention OTHER reasons for why these wars may have occured) - so long as he gets the idea that his segregated, Apartheid, ethnocratic state of Israel is wrong and is the reason why peace will never exist in the world.

Got all that down? Can't wait to hear his response!

Fleurette,

U wrote: "...oppression breeds nationalism and nationalism breeds violence"??

Is that how you quickly jumped to a conclusion that suicide bombing is justifiable? In fact the way you think, you can justify ANYTHING !!

I think this is better: "...oppression... breeds 'struggle'".

But then why should oppression breed nationalism? Please provide your profound reasoning.

U wrote: "The very first terrorists against Israel were Japanese communists"

Not that I think it is relevant/important, but I'd like to know what information you have on this, since it seems to be significant to you.

btw, may you regard Iraq war as a joke war, perhaps Afghanistan included. I don't. And I believe it is inevitable some countries (eg. Iran) will have to be dealt with. Many people understand the significance of war on Terror(ism). I am sure you disagree.

U wrote: "You want people to intermarry? Go tell Israel to change their laws then..."

You are twisting Sharkfin's logic. He correctly regards a steadfast refusal to inter-marry as an issue. It does not mean he excluded the possibility that inter-marry may actually be a problem elsewhere. So why would you relate to Israeli laws?

You are "right" that peace will never exist in the world, until the state of Israel is destroyed, followed by United States... destruction of freedom and democracy... we all convert to Islam... Then all that there will be are sporadic brotherly squabbles among our various Islamic sects. (I don't think they use the word "sisterly" much)

You've got quite a brain !!

TurnRightThenLeft - "my point was that plenty of muslims have as well, the part you're studiously ignoring."

I'm not ignoring it, I simply don't believe it. I think 'moderate Muslims' are a myth - and even if there are such creatures, they have little or no influence. A few 'fatwah' threats are enough to shut them up.

It is not possible to misinterpret the koran - hundreds of verses instruct Muslims to avoid, convert by force, or kill 'disbelievers'. It is possible to ignore those verses, I suppose - is that what you mean by a 'moderate Muslim'?

I find it impossible to believe one word from a person whose religion includes a doctrine (taqiyya) which permits them to lie 'in defence of Islam'. That phrase covers a very wide field and Islam is the only religion that gives its followers permission to lie under any circumstances.