According to official Islamic sources, Muhammad, the false prophet who founded Islam, began having dreams about a young child named Aisha (1), whom he then married when she was only 6 years old, raped when she was 9, and left a childless widow when she was 18 (2). In other words, as much as the Qur'an claims Muhammad is a beautiful pattern of conduct for those seeking Allah (Qur'an 33:21), Muhammad was a filthy, Hellbound pedophile.
A few decades ago, one of the most "Islamophobic" things you could do is point that out. You could read it aloud from the very sources, and both Muslims and their Liberal allies would shout you down as a racist, Islamophobic bigot for saying it's there. These days, however, the elements of that particular crime has shifted. It's no longer Islamophobic to say Muhammad had sex with a 9 year old, but to have a problem with the fact that Muhammad had sex with a 9 year old.
We can all thank God that, at least for now, most countries (particularly those not dominated by Islam) have a certain standard for maturity. That is, children are recognised as children, and are thus not allowed to participate in, or consent to, certain things. This includes marriage and sex. Here in the UK, for example, the age of consent is 16 (which I would argue is not ideal, but I think we can all agree it's better than 9...). Any sexual activity between an adult (let's say a 50 year old caravan robber) and a child (let's say a 9 year old girl playing with dolls) is considered rape, even if the child consents.
Nevertheless, a civilised country does permit the free expression of one's own beliefs, even if those beliefs offend other people. The First Amendment of the United States constitution, for example, forbids the government from compelling or suppressing a religious view. Because of this, it is legal to criticise Islam, even if it offends Muslims, but it is also legal for Muslims to verbally defend Islam, even if it means verbally defending pedophilia. Thus, rather than denying the now well known fact that Muhammad was a pedophile, Muslim apologists have instead taken to defending the practice. Based on the fact the age of consent varies according to region (usually between 14 and 18), they claim the age of consent is actually arbitrary, and based on the feelings of weak-minded, secular society. But it's not just the secular aspect they like to attack.
One of the world's leading defenders of pedophilia, Daniel Haqiatjou, argues that not only is the secular world arbitrary in how they define the age of consent, but that Christians, in particular, are inconsistent for supporting the concept. Apparently, pedophilia is a part of our religion, too. To prove this, he claims the Catholic Encyclopedia puts Mary at about 12 years old when she married Joseph, meaning if we insist on criticising Muhammad for Aisha, we should just as readily criticise Joseph for Mary.
The first major problem with this argument is that we can actually afford to run with it. See, in the Christian faith, no one is good but God (Matthew 19:17), all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23), our righteousness is as filthy rags because of our sin (Isaiah 64:6), and even the prophets are people of unclean lips dwelling in the midst of people of unclean lips (Isaiah 6:5). What that means is you can accuse any Biblical figure of any sin, and regardless of whether the charge is true or false, it doesn't make a dent in our faith. The sole exception is Jesus, but He is so perfect, even His persecutors could not come up with a genuine reason to persecute Him as they did.
But that answer actually requires Haiqatjou and his ilk to be correct when they accuse Joseph of marrying Mary when she was 12. Let's examine their source for this claim. Allegedly, it comes from the Catholic Encyclopedia. So, here's what the Catholic Encyclopedia actually says:
"It will not be without interest to recall here, unreliable though they are, the lengthy stories concerning St. Joseph's marriage contained in the apocryphal writings. When forty years of age, Joseph married a woman called Melcha or Escha by some, Salome by others; they lived forty-nine years together and had six children, two daughters and four sons, the youngest of whom was James (the Less, "the Lord's brother"). A year after his wife's death, as the priests announced through Judea that they wished to find in the tribe of Juda a respectable man to espouse Mary, then twelve to fourteen years of age, Joseph, who was at the time ninety years old, went up to Jerusalem among the candidates; a miracle manifested the choice God had made of Joseph, and two years later the Annunciation took place. These dreams, as St. Jerome styles them, from which many a Christian artist has drawn his inspiration (see, for instance, Raphael's "Espousals of the Virgin"), are void of authority; they nevertheless acquired in the course of ages some popularity; in them some ecclesiastical writers sought the answer to the well-known difficulty arising from the mention in the Gospel of "the Lord's brothers"; from them also popular credulity has, contrary to all probability, as well as to the tradition witnessed by old works of art, retained the belief that St. Joseph was an old man at the time of marriage with the Mother of God." (3).
The irony here is that Haqiatjou is borrowing a Roman Catholic apologetics strategy. That is, just as Roman Catholics do with 1 Peter 3:21, he has taken a large block of text, focused on a few words within it, and even though the rest of the text refutes what he says, he cites it as supporting evidence.
Within this text, from the Catholic Encyclopedia, we do indeed see the words "...they wished to find in the tribe of Juda a respectable man to espouse Mary, then twelve to fourteen years of age, Joseph, who was at the time ninety years old, went up to Jerusalem among the candidates...". Already you can see the problem: 12 to 14. And that's just when they were looking for a candidate to espouse Mary, not when the marriage actually happened. The text goes on to say "...and two years later the Annunciation took place."
So, we'll take the absolute minimum age presented in the text: When Mary was 12, they were looking for a man to espouse her, and Joseph submitted himself as a candidate. 2 years later, when Mary was 14, she was still a virgin, and Gabriel, who is described very differently than in the Islamic sources, tells her "...Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus." (Luke 1:30-31). And what did she reply? "How will this be, since I am a virgin?" (Luke 1:34). Furthermore, in Matthew 1:22-25, we read "All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us). When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus."
So, if we assume an absolute minimum age, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Mary was 12 when she was betrothed to Joseph, was still a virgin when the angel told her she would get pregnant at 14, got pregnant while still a virgin (as foretold by Isaiah), and only then, once she had given birth to Jesus, at an absolute minimum age of 14 years and 9 months did Mary consummate her marriage with Joseph. Keeping in mind, the lowest age of consent in Europe is 14.
Also keeping in mind, the only reason there needs to be an age of consent is because of physical maturity. Going into detail makes me physically sick, but in PG terms, there are certain things a child cannot handle until they have developed, both physically and mentally. As God had specifically chosen Mary to be the mother of His Son, and her marriage was not consummated until after that birth, she was absolutely physically mature, even if we accept the absolute minimum age ascribed by the Catholic Encyclopedia.
But what makes this even worse is that the age is not specifically ascribed by the Catholic Encyclopedia. The thing Muslim apologists miss, and hope you also miss, is "It will not be without interest to recall here, unreliable though they are, the lengthy stories concerning St. Joseph's marriage contained in the apocryphal writings." and "...void of authority; they nevertheless acquired in the course of ages some popularity"
So basically, the Catholic Encyclopedia is giving a brief nod to ancient Christian fanfiction. It's not an actual part of our religion, people made this stuff up, and it just got popular. What's worse is that we know exactly why they did this. The early Church was clouded with some particularly unBiblical ideas, ranging from the goofy to the outright heretical. Much of the New Testament was written to correct these errors. There were groups like the Judaisers, who preached circumcision and Legalism, who received a scathing rebuke in the book of Galatians. There were Gnostics, who preached that the flesh is inherently evil, and Christ was merely a phantom, who were called anti-Christs by John. Christ Himself warned that many would rise up and claim the second coming had already happened in secret, and not to believe them, and unsurprisingly, this is exactly what happened many times throughout history.
One of many unsound views that arose early on is that Mary was a perpetual virgin. But of course, that doesn't work very well with Scripture, some of which was penned by the very hands of Christ's own brothers. It is also mentioned, quite explicitly, that Christ had brothers and sisters! On top of this, in 1 Corinthians 7:5, spouses are commanded not to deprive each other sexually, and so it would have been a sin against Joseph for Mary to trap him in a sexless marriage. All of this meant the pressure was on these early heretics to explain why the firstborn Son of a perpetual virgin had both siblings and a step father. Solution? Make a bunch of stuff up. Joseph was an old man, uninterested in sex by this point, but he had kids in previous marriage, making these children Christ's siblings by marriage.
All of this is entirely fictional, or as the Catholic Encyclopedia puts it, "unreliable" and "void of authority". But the Roman Catholic Church retained the perpetual virginity narrative, canonising it among the Marian dogmas. So, however old Mary or Joseph were when their marriage began, it was never consummated. 9, 12, 90, Mary never slept with Joseph, if indeed we are to take the Catholic Encyclopedia as seriously as Muslim apologists want us to.
The only salvation for Muslims, at this point, is the point out that actually, for me, this is not a valid escape route, because I don't believe Roman Catholicism is true, or even Christian. Thus, I believe the Catholic Encyclopedia is void of authority. But even this fails, because while it's not a valid escape route for me, there's also nothing for me to escape from. Why? Because the entire claim revolves around the misquoting of the Catholic Encyclopedia in the first place!
See, as a Christian, I believe in a doctrine called the Sufficiency of Scripture (a.k.a. Sola Scriptura). Sola Scriptura is the belief that "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17). This teaching is far older than the Roman Catholic Church, and any source alleging that Mary was 12 when Joseph betrothed her at 90. In fact, it is the very word of God, penned by the hand of His Apostle, Paul, before he was martyred in the mid 60s A.D. This means it is not only of infinite authority, but also reduces, if not completely voids the authority of anything that is not Scripture. If nothing else, it tells us that Scripture equips the man of God to live a complete and righteous life.
To do this, it records certain descriptive truths. It tells us, for example, that Adam was 130 years old when he fathered Seth. But this doesn't really tell us a lot about what we should be doing, especially since most of us won't even live to be 100 years old, much less 130.
It also tells us the works of David, how he had at least 8 wives, and several concubines, just as his son, Solomon, had a great many wives and concubines. This, too, is descriptive, showing us that the men of God were not perfect men. The Torah, to which authority David and all Israeli kings were bound, quite explicitly commands that a king "...shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold." (Deuteronomy 17:17).
What we see, from these descriptive examples, is actually that the Bible is true. David's love of women tragically lead him to one woman in particular: Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hittite. David took her and had an affair, then had her husband killed so he could take her. For this, God actually punished David, and quite severely. In other words, as Deuteronomy promised, acquiring multiple wives lead David's heart away.
So again we see that descriptive elements tell us next to nothing on their own. When a Biblical figure sins, their sin is theirs alone, and they are not to be imitated. Rather, their example shows that rebellion against God's commands brings the very thing of which we are warned. There is discipline, though for the faithful there is also mercy. As David himself writes, "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin." (Romans 4:7-8, cf. Psalm 32:1-2).
Now, ultimately, none of that matters, because there is no Biblical description of exactly how old Mary or Joseph were when they married, or when they consummated their marriage. There is, however, a rather clear prescription that marriage is for the mature.
The first "clue" is in the definition of marriage itself. In Genesis 2:21-25, we read "So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed."
From this, we see that marriage is based on Adam and Eve (a fact Christ Himself would later reiterate in Matthew 19 and Mark 10), and that, based on this adult couple, a man shall leave his father and mother, and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become "one flesh". Adulthood is already implied here, unless you believe Adam was created in the form of a 50 year old, but Eve was created as a toddler.
Even the "one flesh" thing only makes sense in light of adulthood. Reproduction is the one part of human anatomy that requires another person to complete. We all have our own hearts, lungs, stomachs, most of us even have our own brains. But no woman has the required male anatomy to make her own baby, nor does any man. But just as a child's heart could not pump blood around an adult's body, so also can a child's reproductive system handle adult reproductive activity (which, frankly, is a superfluous statement).
The rest of Scripture clearly speaks of maturity in marriage too. First, you will note that no Biblical figure is explicitly noted to have married a child. Not even Isaac, whom Muslim apologists deceptively claim married Rebekah when she was 3. Without going into the insane arguments Muslims use to reach this conclusion, let's look at the passage in which Abraham's servant meets her: "Before he had finished speaking, behold, Rebekah, who was born to Bethuel the son of Milcah, the wife of Nahor, Abraham's brother, came out with her water jar on her shoulder. The young woman was very attractive in appearance, a maiden whom no man had known. She went down to the spring and filled her jar and came up. Then the servant ran to meet her and said, “Please give me a little water to drink from your jar.” She said, “Drink, my lord.” And she quickly let down her jar upon her hand and gave him a drink. When she had finished giving him a drink, she said, “I will draw water for your camels also, until they have finished drinking.” So she quickly emptied her jar into the trough and ran again to the well to draw water, and she drew for all his camels. The man gazed at her in silence to learn whether the Lord had prospered his journey or not." (Genesis 24:15-21).
Note how the passage refers to Rebekah as a "young woman", and "a maiden whom no man had known". Another clue to her maturity is that she was capable of drawing sufficient water for a man and his multiple camels, an impressive feat even for an adult. A single camel can drink up to 30 gallons of water in one go (5), which would weigh nearly 250lb! No 3 year old is getting that much water several times over.
The reason Biblical figures didn't typically marry children, nor give their children in marriage, is fairly obvious to anyone who isn't a pedophile: They're just not ready. In fact, in the book of Ezekiel, God uses this very obvious fact in poetic fashion. "“And when I passed by you and saw you wallowing in your blood, I said to you in your blood, ‘Live!’ I said to you in your blood, ‘Live!’ I made you flourish like a plant of the field. And you grew up and became tall and arrived at full adornment. Your breasts were formed, and your hair had grown; yet you were naked and bare. “When I passed by you again and saw you, behold, you were at the age for love, and I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your nakedness; I made my vow to you and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Lord God, and you became mine." (Ezekiel 16:6-8).
Here, God is speaking to Israel in poetic fashion, describing her as a faithless bride. The parable begins in Israel's youth, so abhorred by the other nations that "...on the day you were born your cord was not cut, nor were you washed with water to cleanse you, nor rubbed with salt, nor wrapped in swaddling cloths." (v4). But notice, throughout the parable, the baby grows up, and the "age for love" occurs after her breasts formed, and her hair has grown. In other words, even in a poetic passage not specifically designed to prescribe an "age for love", physical maturity is set forward as the standard for it!
The New Testament strengthens this even more. In 1 Corinthians 7:36, we read "But if any man thinks he is behaving improperly toward his virgin, if she is past the flower of youth, and thus it must be, let him do what he wishes. He does not sin; let them marry." Note that phrase, "if she is past the flower of youth". The thing about the word "if" is it is naturally accompanied by an "else". If she is past the flower of youth, a man is not sinning by marrying his virgin, but if she is not, the natural implication is that he is.
This, by the way, is where most age of consent laws come from. They aren't perfect, but they are designed to ensure everyone who consents to marriage or sex are past the flower of youth. Yes, some people reach that point earlier than 18. It's even possible some reach it at 14 (not that I'd advise that risk even if you do live where it's legal). But the point of the age of consent is to ensure everyone, or at least the vast majority of people, are ready. Current scientific understanding is that most people reach that age at around 17, and so 18 is probably the best age to set it at (allowing for a 1 year margin of error).
But Islam is so Satanic, it has the opposite principle. Aside from his own marriage to Aisha, Muhammad encouraged his followers to marry, divorce, and re-marry other children. Discussing the "iddah" (that is, the time a woman must wait following a divorce before she can get remarried), Qur'an 65:4 tells us that for a post-menopausal woman, that waiting period is 3 months, as it is for those who have never menstruated. In other words, much like Aisha herself, these are children who are not even old enough to have had their first period!
Whether Muslim apologists like it or not, our two religions are not the same. Muhammad, unlike any Biblical figure worth admiring, was a sexual predator, and he encouraged his followers to do likewise.
Ultimately, however, it is impossible to use a moral argument against any religion, because to do so assumes the truth of another religion. That makes it a circular argument. This is why atheists cannot logically use the evil Bible argument. But there is a single logical exception. When one religion confesses another religion as true, it becomes permissible to use the other religion as a benchmark. Well it turns out, the Qur'an quite explicitly says the Bible is true.
In Qur'an 5:47, we read "And let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient." Qur'an 5:68 goes even further, saying "Say, "O People of the Scripture, you are [standing] on nothing until you uphold [the law of] the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed to you from your Lord." And that which has been revealed to you from your Lord will surely increase many of them in transgression and disbelief. So do not grieve over the disbelieving people." These are just two of many verses in the Qur'an that confirm at least one part of the Bible as the direct revelation of Allah.
Now, ultimately, Muhammad was excessively ignorant about... well... everything he ever spoke about. He even gained a reputation for being "all ears" (Qur'an 9:61), and it was known even in his day that he would pass off his own twisted versions of ancient tales as revelations (Qur'an 68:15). Perhaps the most hilarious error he made is his belief that the doctrine of the Trinity teaches the existence of 3 gods, which apparently includes Mary as the third. With such ignorance on one of the most basic Christian doctrines ever, which even he should have understood by the hearing of the ear, it is of no surprise that Muhammad didn't quite understand the Scriptures he affirmed. But affirm them he did, and so the Bible, thanks to Muhammad's own stupidity, is a valid moral guide by which anyone can judge him.
And it turns out he is guilty as sin.
Quite literally.
The false prophet Muhammad (God's Wrath Be Upon Him) was a liar. Muhammad (GWBUH) was a blasphemer. Muhammad (GWBUH) was a murderer. Muhammad (GWBUH) was a rapist. Muhammad (GWBUH) was a pedophile. Muhammad (GWBUH) is eternally condemned to the pit of Hell, and he lead others to the pit of Hell, and he will continue to lead others to the pit of Hell, and if Satan gets his way, he will lead you, my Muslim brothers in Adam, to the pit of Hell.
But you don't have to go. There is an alternative. The same Jesus who was born to the very much mature virgin never sinned. And according to 2 Corinthians 5:21, "...He (God) made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." You're a sinner. I'm a sinner. Muhammad was definitely a sinner. But Jesus never sinned, and so when He suffered the penalty for sin, it was for our sin, not His own. You can be forgiven! You can receive God's mercy, never having to worry about joining Muhammad in the fires of Hell, because while we deserve it, He doesn't. The choice is yours. Follow an ancient pedophile into Hell, or follow the sinless Savior into His everlasting Kingdom. I pray this article will encourage you to make the right choice.
References
1. Sahih al-Bukhari 7012, Book 91, Hadith 30 (link)
2. Sahih al-Bukhari 5134, Book 67, Hadith 70 (link)
3. Souvay, Charles Leon - St. Joseph, Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913, Wiki Source (link)
4. Jerome - Against Jovinianus, Book 1 (link)
5. How Much Water Does a Camel Drink? Facts & FAQ, Animal World, February 19th 2024 (link)
Commentaires