NOT MUCH ADO BACK THEN
Above, we established that fact that getting married at puberty was an accepted practice amongst not only today's "primitive cultures", but specifically amongst the Semitic (i.e. Hebrew, Arab, Syriac, etc.) peoples of the Middle East. In order to provide additional proof that Muhammad's صلى الله عايه وسالم marriage to 'Aishah did not raise any eyebrows at that time, I here submit quotations from two Western female scholars who have studied Islam in detail:

In the above quotation, the sources which are given for the latter date are "Nawawi" and "Tabari". Both Imams al-Nawawi and al-Tabari were great Muslim scholars, but their works contain material that is less than authentic by Islamic standards, which is probably the reason over her questioning which date is authentic. This is all beside the point, since we've already shown that authentic Islamic sources state that 'Aishah, may God be pleased with her, was "nine years old". The main point to note is that in "no version" was any comment made on their age difference or on 'Aishah's young age. Why? Such an early marriage was normal in all Semitic societies - such as the ones that Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad grew up in!

Another author, Karen Armstrong, has this to add: "Tabari says that she was so young that she stayed in her parents' home and the marriage was consummated there later when she had reached puberty".9 This further establishes that the marriage took place at puberty and that, as such, no eyebrows were raised. "Tabari", it should be mentioned, refers to Abu Jafar Muhammad ibn Jareer al-Tabari (225-310 AH / 839-923 CE), who was a great Muslim scholar who is well known in the West for his Qur'anic commentary and history of the world.

It is no surprise that both of the above authors agree on the fact that the marriage of 'Aishah and Muhammad صلى الله عايه وسالم took place when the former had reached puberty and that this was normal at the time. This is no surprise, since anyone who studies the Muslim sources and Semitic culture would be forced to come to the same conclusion, since it is simply a historical fact. It should be pointed out that both of the above quoted female authors do not hesitate to misrepresent Islam (intentionally or unintentionally) in their other writings. Suffice it to say that if there was some other "damaging" information available, they would not hesistate to bring it to light. Nabia Abbott, who has done some useful research on Islam in some areas, was basically an "Orientalist" in the classic sense. Her book which was quoted above, ,b>Aishah-The Beloved of Mohammed, is actually nothing but a disgusting second-guessing of 'Aishah's life. If a book with a similar mix of speculation and inauthentic sources were written about someone of significance in the West, it certainly would not be sitting on scholarly bookshelves. It's has long been established that Orientalists with a bone to pick with Islam liked to decide on the authenticity of a story based on their pre-conceived notions. If an inauthentic story seemed to belittle the Prophet of Islam, it became oft quoted. However, any authentic material that contradicted their theories was simply ignored. It's analogous to writing a historical biography of Jesus and using quotations from apocryphal gospels to override the Canonical ones whenever whimsically deemed appropriate. This is how Orientalists and Christian missionaries have been treating Muhammad صلى الله عايه وسالم for centuries. For those who want to know more about this, please read our article Orientalism, Misinformation and Islam.

SO WHAT'S THE VERDICT?
Overcoming cultural bias or admitting your own double standards is not always easy. For some people, it takes years for them to admit that they've been hypocritical. Hopefully, the thoughts presented here will plant the seed of reflection in some people so that they may reflect on the truth. Admitting that there's a problem is often half the battle, so before the reader heads off to make a final personal judgement on where they stand on this issue, I want to provide some more food for thought. Montgomery Watt, a long time scholar of Islam, had some choice words on how the West should judge Muhammad صلى الله عايه وسالم. I have never agreed with many of Watt's conclusions about Islam, but I have always viewed him as one of the more open-minded and open-hearted Orientalist scholars. Possibly, this is because he was more of a promoter of understanding than a narrow-minded Christian missionary. Years of studying Islam brought Watt to this conclusion:

"The other main allegations of moral defect in Muhammad are that he was treacherous and lustful . . . Sufficient has been said above about the interpretation of these events to show that the case against Muhammad is much weaker than is sometimes thought. The discussions of these allegations, however, raises a fundamental question. How are we to judge Muhammad ? By the standards of his own time and country ? Or by those of the most enlightened opinion in the West today? When the sources are closely scrutinized, it is clear that those of Muhammad's actions which are disapproved by the modern West were not the object of the moral criticism of his contemporaries. They criticized some of his acts, but their motives were superstitious prejudice or fear of the consequences. If they criticized the events at Nakhlah, it was because they feared some punishment from the offended pagan gods or the worldly vengeance of the Meccans. If they were amazed at the mass execution of the Jews of the clan of Qurayzah, it was at the number and danger of the blood-feuds incurred. The marriage with Zaynab seemed incestuous, but this conception of incest was bound up with old practices belonging to a lower, communalistic level of familial institutions where a child's paternity was not definitely known; and this lower level was in process being eliminated by Islam . . . From the standpoint of Muhammad's time, then, the allegations of treachery and sensuality cannot be maintained. His contemporaries did not find him morally defective in any way. On the contrary, some of the acts criticized by the modern Westerner show that Muhammad's standards were higher than those of his time. In his day and generation he was a social reformer, even a reformer in the sphere of morals. He created a new system of social security and a new family structure, both of which were a vast improvement on what went before. By taking what was best in the morality of the nomad and adapting it for settled communities, he established a religious and social framework for the life of many races of men. That is not the work of a traitor or 'an old lecher'."10

FROM ABRAHAM (AS) TO "PICK-AND-CHOOSE / FEEL GOOD RELIGION"
Everything that we have discussed above logically frees Muhammad صلى الله عايه وسالم from the unjust criticism that he has received (at least amongst those who can be intellectually honest and fair-minided). One point, however, still needs to be made a bit more clear. Even though we've mentioned it in passing, the hypocrisy and double standards of Christians who criticize Muhammad صلى الله عايه وسالم for his morality needs to be more thoroughly analysed and exposed.

Before moving on to an analysis of Biblical morality, I would like to offer some advice and encouraging words to my fellow Muslims. My main piece of advice is to not be discouraged by slanderous attacks on Islam or how it is distorted in the media. Certainly, we all hate to see such things occur, but in the "Information Age" which was brought about by a culture that (allegedly) places a supreme value on freedom of speech, there is not much that we can do to stop it. The flip side to this coin is the fact that the Truth of Islam is still out there and people are finding it. Yes, Islam is spreading in spite of these hypocritical methods that Christians and others are using to stop it. From the "moon god" lies of Robert Morey to the almost daily distortions in the media, Islam is still spreading in the West. Actually, the fact that those who make a career out of attacking Islam, such as Christian missionaries, have to resort to lies and distortions when they discuss Islam is a good sign. Certainly, if they discussed Islam as it was meant to be understood, they would only be hurting their own cause. When Islam is presented by non-Muslims in the West, usually matters of peripheral importance are addressed and criticised. The core beliefs of Islam, if discussed at all, are presented in a distorted manner. If Islam was just some ridiculous "Third World" religion with no appeal, they would not have to treat it this way. As a matter of fact, a great deal of the anti-Islamic literature that fills Christian bookstores (and the Internet) is not designed to convert Muslims, but to turn Westerners off to Islam. The people who write these lies are just trying to poison the minds of people so that they won't be receptive to the message of Islam when they hear it.

Their methods, however, are failing. In Europe especially, the Christian religion is in a severe state of stagnation and people are looking for truth elsewhere. Christians have always been embarrassed by their almost complete inability to convert a notable Muslim to Christianity. Certainly, they have their converts that they hold up as examples, however all of them seem to have been only nominal Muslims (at best) when they converted. However, many notable Westerners have embraced Islam, recently as well as in the past. One of the most interesting things about this is many (if not all) of these people could be called "Searchers for the Truth". By this I mean that they were the type of people who were spiritual, open-mined and read books on many subjects. They were not brainwashed simpletons who simply wanted to join an easy religion and the dominating culture of the time. They were people who knew a lot not only about religion, but about history, philosophy and other disciplines. Suffice it to say that the truth of Islam is out there, in spite of all the negative press that it gets today. The following is just one testimony that Islam is spreading in the West:

"Unprecedented numbers of British people, nearly all of them women, are converting to Islam at a time of deep divisions within the Anglican and Catholic churches. The rate of conversions has prompted predictions that Islam will rapidly become an important religious force in this country . . . Within the next 20 years the number of British converts will equal or overtake the immigrant Muslim community that brought the faith here", says Rose Kendrick, a religious education teacher at a Hull comprehensive and the author of a textbook guide to the Koran. She says: "Islam is as much a world faith as is Roman Catholicism. No one nationality claims it as its own". Islam is also spreading fast on the continent and in America. (The Times, London, Tuesday, November 9th, 1993, Home-News page)

Thanks be to God that many of us who are former "pew warmers" finally decided to go out and investigate what they try to spoon feed us from the pulpit and TV. Why does Islam succeed in attracting Christians and others? Because it's the Clear Way of Abraham. No other religion today can honestly claim this! Islam isn't just a "feel good" religion where they just tell you what you want to hear and read selected verses from the Bible. Most Christians today approach religion like they do Sunday brunch: they take what they like and leave what they don't like. They have this attitude in spite of the fact that Abraham is held up in their Bible as a towering example of faith. Abraham Peace be Upon Him, who was going to sacrifice his own son because Almighty God commanded it, certainly knew the basis of morality. It is clear in both the Bible and the Qur'an that Abraham knew that whatever God commands is the right thing to do. However, how many Christians today can say that they honestly believe that on all issues? How many of them have reflected on the moral ramifications of what is contained in their Bible? Seemingly, not even their learned apologists who attack Islam have reflected on it too deeply!

The question "What is our basis for morality?" is an easy one for those who follow the faith of Abraham —and that's what Islam is. Islam is submission to the Will of Almighty God - "We hear and we obey"- the faith of our father Abraham Peace be Upon Him. If it was good enough for Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, then it's good enough for me! It is this truth and this attitude that attracts people to Islam. The entire basis of Islam, which produces this attitude, is Unity—the Unity of Almighty God and the unity of mankind. To be sure, the message of Islam appeals to the very nature of man. No wonder it is spreading! A Christian theologion, relatively recently, observed:

"It is probable that early in the twenty-first century Islam will have become numerically the largest of the world religions" 11

Quite possibly, if you count only Sunni Muslims (which are at least 85% of Muslims), we are already the largest religion in the world when compared not to "Christians" as a whole, but to either the Orthodox, Roman Catholics or Protestants each separately.

A CASE STUDY IN BIBLICAL MORALITY
Now that we've taken an detailed look at an alleged moral difficulty in the life of Muhammad صلى الله عايه وسالم, for the sake of balance, let's take a look at a moral difficulty in the Bible. We've already made statements above concerning the nature of Biblical morality, but many readers may be unaware of some of its "difficulties". For better or for worse, in Sunday school they generally skip the verses which we are going to deal with below. However, these verses certainly are useful tools in putting intellectually honest Christians in the same "moral dilemna" that they think Muslims should be in due to Muhammad's صلى الله عايه وسالم young marriage to 'Aishah, may God be pleased with her. It should be kept in mind that the purpose of this discussion is the basis for morality, not the inspiration of the Bible (or lack thereof). For the purposes of this discussion, we accept the Bible "as is". However, this should not be interpretted to mean that we are endorsing it as the "Word of God" in toto. On the other hand, it should not be interpreted to mean that we are attacking the "Word of God", since we are discussing it simply because Christians consider it to be the "Word of God" (whatever their particular definition might be). For those wanting more detailed information on the Muslim view of the Bible, please ref.

The portion of the Bible that we want to look at begins with the Book of Numbers, Chapter 31, verses 17 and 18. Here, Moses, following the Lord's command, orders the Israelites to kill all the Midianite male children. The order continues with the following:

". . . kill every woman who has known man by lying with him, but all the female children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

One can only guess how the Israelites determined who the virgins were. Most probably, they did it based on age and maturity, assuming that all of the female "children" who had not reached puberty were virgins. Keep in mind that this was done, according to the Bible, on God's command to "Avenge the Israelites on the Midianites". Later, God gives Moses instructions on how to divide up the booty, "whether persons, oxen, donkeys, sheeps or goats". Based on this command, "thirty-two thousand persons in all, women who had not known a man by lying with him" were divided up. This was done so that the Israelite soldiers could have these young girls "for themselves". I do not suspect that anyone reading this is either so naive or ignorant of King James English to not know what this means!

Moving along to another great example of Biblical morality, . . . in Deuteronomy 21:10-14 the Biblical "God of Love" gives the following command:

"When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands and thoust has taken them captive, and seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and have a desire unto her, that though would have her to be thy wife, then though shalt bring her home to thine house . . . and after that you may go into her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. But if though have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go".

This should serve as sufficient proof that the morality that is taught in the Bible often is not what Christians make it out to be. In spite of what they teach in Sunday school, the above mentioned verses demonstrate the following:

Almighty God, at least according to the Bible:
* Ordered innocent babies to be killed; and
* He allowed young women to be forced into sex against their will

Before moving on, it should be noted that killing women and children in war is never permitted under Islamic Law (the actions of some ignorant Muslims around the world notwithstanding). Some Christians may take issue with the words "innocent babies" above, since they believe that even babies are tainted with "Original Sin". However, this is not the topic of the discussion at hand. Suffice it to say that Biblical support for the Doctrine of Original Sin is contradictory at best. There are some verses that seem to support it, but there are others that seem to clearly deny it. One strike against "Original Sin", besides the fact that it's simply unjust, is the fact that the Jews—who read the Old Testament—never belived in it the way Chrisitnas do. But anyway . . . when faced with the problematic parts of the Old Testatment, Christians react in various ways. Many offer up the ill thoughtout "Well-That's-in-the-Old-Testament" defense. In spite of the fact that they usually don't brush the Old Testament aside so quickly when they are being shown alleged prophecies which match Jesus, a few other thoughts can be presented. Some of the things that make brushing aside the Old Tesament a bit more difficult (at least for Christians who want to remain intellectually honest) are: 1) the same God that "inspired" the Old Testament "inspired" the New Testament; 2) this same God is "unchanging" according to the Bible; 3) Jesus in the New Testament endorses the "Law and the prophets" (i.e. the Old Testament) in several places; and 4) without the Old Testament there is no basis for Christianity.

When put in this predicament, Christians, have one of two choices: 1) stop thinking about it and fall back on a liberal "pick-and-choose" religion that just makes them "feel good" but does not answer any of life's more difficult questions; or 2) accept the (allegedly) Divinely Revealed morality of the Bible "as is" and en toto.

There are Christians out there who claim to accept the Divinely Revealed morality of the Bible. They understand what's at stake and the issues at hand. If people are allowed to whimsically decide what is right and what is wrong, there would be chaos. Just as importantly, if people decide what is "God's Word" and what is not His word based on their preconceived notions and "modern" sensibilities, nothing would be left of the Bible. As such, there are Christians who, in principle, say that killing babies is "moral" as long as God clearly commands it. For someone who understands the nature of Divinely Revealed morality, we would have to agree in principle but with certain reservations. As mentioned above, Almighty God—according to Islam—never commands the killing of innocent children. That is one "difficulty" that I am glad that Muslims don't have to explain their way out of! Killing babies is okay as long as God commands it!?! So much for having Christians as baby-sitters!

The bottom line is that morality comes from Almighty God and from Him alone. However, if ones studies the Bible, it is plain to see that it is not a foundation for morality. The examples above are just a few that can be provided from both the Old and the New Testament. The people who promote "Biblical morality" pick and choose from the text as they please. Only in Islam can one with good conscience accept "the whole package" without ignorantly or hypocritically denying things that they don't like. This is how true internal peace and balance are achieved. If one belongs to a religions without accepting everything in its scripture (real or alleged) one is not only bearing false witness againt themself but against God Himself. With all the false ideas in the modern age, it's easy to be lead astray. The liberal Westeran morality that has now touched all corners of the globe is, culturally speaking, something like an eight-hundred pound gorilla. It's very hard to stand in its way or speak out against it. However, being encouraged by others to follow "vain desires" has been an eternal problem for mankind, as Almighty God makes clear in the Qur'an: