 Save 10% with my code Bobby10 on raw, organic, grass-fed and grass-finished, freeze-dried organ meats from grassland nutrition. Link in the description box. All right guys, welcome back to the channel. If you're new, Manu is Bobby. Guys, trigger warning, outrageous title that we are going to react to today. The end of the f***ing argument by full metal theist. This video is an in-depth expose about the age of Aisha. This is a video recommendation of you guys, and I personally am interested to look at every angle of the argument. With no further ado, let's have a look. Why did I say that Mohammed was a mass murderer and a f***er? Because he was. The young girl Aisha, when she was six, and he consummated her at the age of nine. When he went from Maca... He consummated her. Mohammed was a f***ing vile. I talked about this topic many times in detail, and I thought it is very clear. I thought I don't have to repeat this. This is quite obvious. Look at this. Twitter wanted me to delete this tweet and lock my account until I delete it. Mohammed married Aisha when she was six and had f***s with her when she was nine. This is f***ing filial, and pointing out this fact is not Islamophobia. Thousands of people condemned Mohammed's relationship with Aisha. About 100 people said that they wanted to condemn Mohammed. The Prophet of Islam, Mohammed may peace be upon him, is said to have married Aisha at the age of six and consummated the marriage with her when she was nine. And that is why your average critic of Islam will tell you, well, that's a f***ing filial. You know the argument. In this video, you will also get to know why this very same argument is logically invalid and why a light of that, its conclusion that Mohammed peace be upon him is a f***ing filial, is a false conclusion. We will also make a positive case against the alleged immorality of such marriage and we will consider further reasons to dismiss the f***ing filial accusation. This video will provide you with the most complete answer you can get on this topic so far. I'm the full metal theist. As-salamu alaikum. Bismillah. What is a logical fallacy? For your information, a logical fallacy is a mistake in reasoning which renders the argument committing it invalid. There are a bunch being committed in this argument and chances are that in accordance with which further assumptions are made along with this critique, fallacies are more. We will look into these assumptions later on, suffice to say this argument is invalid and here is why. We know out of common experience that a car with not enough gas is not gonna start. But for you to go around the streets, see someone shouting at his own car because it's not starting and say, well, he ran out of gas. Well, you would be committing the logical fallacy of affirming the consequence. This fallacy fails to recognize that, well, there is more than a reason as to why a car is not starting. Likewise, critics of Islam fail to recognize that pedophilia is not the explanation but one assumption among many others as to why Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, married Aisha, radi Allahu anha. Not only, we will see a look in- Alright, I have to intersect here. For me personally, as a layman, as an outsider to the religion of Islam, simply hearing the fact that an old man, 40, 50 year old, married a six year old, for me personally, coming from my biases and taking everything else into consideration, of course, I would have to confirm that this in our day and age would be considered pedophilia. But hear me out, I am a naturalist of sorts and therefore biology is a reality. I fully agree with the Islamic narrative that once we enter puberty, we are good to go. This is the reality of things. Once we hit puberty, girls start menstruating and boys start ejaculating. This is the time of the natural calling for procreation. It is what it is. If you are a Darwinist, you would have to accept it. That's that a Darwinist has no moral baseline, has absolutely no origin for right or wrong, no objective truth other than nature and evolution. So if you take nature and evolution into account, you must agree that you are fertile at a given age and therefore you are ready for the sexual act. Islam, on the other hand, doesn't focus on sexuality itself. However, says now you're ready to get married. And therefore in that context, it makes sense. These are the reasons as to why this marriage happened. But we will recognize that in light of these, the pedophilia accusation is baseless. I wouldn't say it's baseless. That doesn't make sense. That's not fair. Of course, not baseless. Just looking at it at face value. It is not baseless. In logical fallacy, committed by this argument is one called presentism, according to which one would be judging past events or figures by modern. And that would be the only fallacy I argue. They contemporary standards, which are obviously different from those of these societies and people of the past that are so being dishonestly evaluated. Think about it this way. If you provide a moral judgment against someone who lived in a distant past, and you're expecting this person to behave in a certain way that was not permitted by his leaving conditions by his historical context, then you would be committing presentism. Why? Because simply the main difference here, especially if you look at Christians attacking Islam is not necessarily presentism. What they say is that there must be a universal standard of goodness, a universal standard of love. Therefore, they take the example of Jesus. The story of Jesus within the Christian context is a man that was sin free. He never had a woman whatsoever. And he sacrificed himself for us. This larger than life figure is the universal moral standard of all times. And this is why they take that standard and compare it to Mohammed. They do not compare it only to this present day and age, but they compare it to a universal standard would be assuming the existence of certain things that did not exist and not valid for these people in a way that would enable them to behave as you see appropriate. An example could be to say that 70 years ago, people were stupid for considering smoking cigarettes, healthy habit. What's saying that is actually false. These people were not stupid. We would simply be assuming they knew what we know today about cigarettes when they actually didn't. So one Yeah, but that is the definition of stupid. They didn't know something. I would they be stupid. In a similar way, let's take a look at the historical The video is not great, man. with Prophet Muhammad times and we will find the context that not only dismisses the moral outrage regarding his marriage with Aisha, radiallahu anha, but also allows us to appreciate our ancestors for their efforts. Let's go. The Middle Ages. That is the historical context in which the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad may peace be upon him, lived. The leading civilization during these times was the Roman civilization. Allow me in that regard to provide you with some information that might put things into perspective for you. Consider this, the average life expectancy for a working class Roman citizen in late antiquity was roughly around 35 to 40 years. If they lived past infancy, that is skeletal remains revealed that prior to death, most labors suffered from a set of diseases such as chronic arthritis, fractures, displacements, and even bone cancer. And this was due to the fact that they had very poor diets and that combined with harsh working conditions has this as a result. And if they didn't die from their work, they still had to contend with war, disease and famine. The female health of society didn't have it much better. And due to high rates of infant mortality, women had to endure 5 to 7 full term pregnancies just to keep the population stable. How crazy is that? I want you to wrap your mind around the fact that child infant mortality during the Middle Ages was so ferocious that around half died as children. Just let that sink for a moment, because it's crazy if you think about it. And given these high mortality rates, it only made sense for these societies to begin procreating as early as possible. This was especially the case for younger. This here is a good argument. Of course, we still have the issue in this case here that Mohammed was much, much older than Aisha. Even if you look at the Balkan nowadays and you see the Romans and Sintis, derogatory term for them would be Gypsies, they get married when they are 10, 11 or 12. Girls who at the onset of puberty were expected to transition from childhood directly into adulthood. They didn't have the time to go on family vacations. They had no such a thing. They didn't have school field trips, no graduation, no gluten free meals, no advanced healthcare facilities, no vaccines, no running water, no electricity. They were busy trying to survive. And if this was the situation for common people in the most advanced civilization at the time, what on earth could we possibly expect from desert dwelling A-Raps? Case in point, all the seven children of the Prophet Mohammed, may peace be upon him, died as either infant or didn't make it past 30 years old. So the rationality behind maximizing fertility was really something nobody could argue against considering the likelihood of young women not living long enough to see their first child reach maturity. The idea that Aisha's marriage with the Prophet, peace be upon him, was contracted at the age of 6 and ultimately consummated by 9 is seen as in a front by most people. However, when considering the just mentioned evidence and historical context, it shouldn't be so difficult to understand why this practice was perfectly acceptable at the time. Again, I agree with that argument. For that time, yes, if Aisha entered puberty at 9, then it was time to consummate the marriage. However, that being said, the issue that I'm seeing here personally is that they could have found a partner around the same age. There is no real reason for her to get married to a much older man. Was not married to the Prophet, may peace be upon him, because he was a pedophile. No, she was merrily following in the footsteps of so many girls before her who had reached puberty. This is an absolutely horrible argument, especially if we're speaking about Islam, because you say in her time, society and culture, but Islam comes with a universal message. It actually discourages people to follow in the footsteps of their ancestors and to follow the message of Tawhid, to follow the message of one God. So now to just say that Aisha simply followed what was right in her time, society and culture, goes directly against the message of Islam, of course, because Islam comes with a universal moral guidance that should transcend the time, society and culture. To start your adult life is really a bad video man. When it comes to childhood maturity and marriage, our ancestors established them in various ways which are different from contemporary Western definitions, but nonetheless justified by their own circumstances and the fact that these living conditions they found themselves into did not allow them to adopt the definitions of childhood maturity and marriage that we have nowadays. And to maliciously accuse the Prophet of Islam, may peace be upon him, because of his marriage with Aisha, is equivalent to affirm that societies and cultures on a worldwide scale prior to the 20th century somehow all suffered from a mental illness called pedophilia. Would you rather believe such an absurdity just because you aim at criticizing this man? Or would you actually be real? Alright, let me flip the script here. You, the video creator, would you like in this day and age the age of consent to be lowered to six years old? Is this something that you would like to see in this day and age? And again guys, with all due respect here, my critique is not at Prophet Muhammad, may peace be upon him, but the video maker, his arguments are absolutely ridiculous man. Welcome to a thought experiment where I will be your guide. Imagine yourself in the future at a about 1400 years from now and let's say this future is awesome. There's wordpies, flying cars, technology so developed and medicine so advanced that now humans leave to the age of 200 years and more. And you, you're sitting in your hyper technological room when you decide to say, Alexa, tell me some historical gossip from, I don't know, 2021? Oh my god, Alexa, he married a 20 years old girl? Ew, why would he marry a minor? Was him a pedophile? Not really. The age of majority back then wasn't set like today at 29 years of age. Since the average life expectancy in 2021 was 70 and not 200 like today, their definition of minors and childhood was different. We can't really call them pedophiles only because of that. And this is exactly the fallacious sort of reasoning. Critics of Islam commit nowadays in regards to the Prophet of Islam may peace be upon him. The historical reports have us know that Aisha was already betrothed to a man before the Prophet, peace be upon him. His name was Jubeir ibn Mu'taim. This goes to suggest that this kind of marriage was not an isolated case related to Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, for reasons of pedophilia. Yet an accepted practice within his society. It is also historically well established that early Islam had many enemies that antagonized the Prophet in many ways. None of these ways though was centered on Aisha's age. This goes to further confirm that Muhammad's marriage with Aisha was not an isolated case, yet common practice within his culture and time. Even when looking at external sources of criticism, the first condemnatory note regarding Aisha's age only comes in 1905 and by British Orientalist David Margo Yu. Did you hear that? 1905. The question is why did it take so long? Was every enemy of Islam between the rise of Islam in 1905 not creative enough, not hateful enough towards the Prophet of Islam? No, the answer is simple. This critique is once again, this critique by Islamophobes is only the product of a change in historical context and their inability to see it. Ruqayya was one of the daughters of the Prophet of Islam, peace be upon him, and she was given into marriage to Atman ibn Affan at the age of 10. This only goes to additionally suggest that it was a common practice within that society and time and not an isolated case motivated by immoral reasons such as pedophilia. We also have to know that this marriage didn't lack parental consent, both mom and dad of Aisha. And that is of course the main difference here. I agree with him absolutely because in this day and age, if we are speaking about pedophilia in 99.999% of the instances, we are talking about an adult violently taking control over a child. This of course not the case in this context here. We're talking about marriage. And yet again, Darwinists, atheists cannot find anything wrong with that. If two fertile human beings enter into marriage, there's absolutely nothing morally reprehensive against that. To the Prophet, peace be upon him. Not only they were friends of the Prophet, peace be upon him, and even after the marriage took place, the friendship did not end. Abu Bakr, the father of Aisha was Muhammad's best friend and that goes to suggest that much likely the girl was not under a regime of abuse, otherwise the marriage and the friendship would have been cancelled out by the family of Aisha. Years later, the Prophet of Islam gave Aisha and all his wives the option to cancel the marriage with him and leave him, but none of them did. Not a single one of them left the Prophet of Islam. Now even if we were to admit to the complexities of childhood and development over time, these realities seem to suggest moral relativism. The idea that moral principles are only valid in relation to a specific time, place or culture. The truth is that you can validly hold unchanging moral principles while believing in historically contingent moral dilemmas. In simple terms, I'm telling you that there are correct and incorrect choices, regardless of varying circumstances. Murder is still murder and rape is still rape. Doesn't matter the time or the place. But how we judge situations of murder and rape depends on the context in which they were committed. For instance, it's one thing to read that a historical figure killed another person, but it's another to know that they did so because of dire need or just causes, for example self-defense. It's one thing to say that a man married a child 1400 years ago therefore he's a pedophile, but it's another to know that 1400 years ago societies and not just a man, societies used to hold marriages at the onset of puberty due to their living conditions and because of that, their understanding of childhood was necessarily different. I agree with the statement that childhood back then was defined differently, however, what you're playing right now is literally moral relativism. You're trying to debunk moral relativism by appealing to moral relativism. For the pedophilia accusation is just modern individuals embarrassing themselves with an anachronistic fallacious interpretation of history for the sake of criticizing a man they don't like. That Muhammad peace be upon him is a b****. It all is a false conclusion because based on a fallacious argument, so here we are back to square one. Is the video over? No, I want to break the mutuality and provide you with further reasons to consider that we actually have more to believe this marriage and the intentions behind it as void of evil for abuse. Man, basically you're talking and talking and talking. All you could have said is during that time it was acceptable because people died early. Moreover, you should have given the argument that if you enter puberty by the standard of nature and hence by the standard of God, because God created nature, you are fertile and therefore this would be the right age to get married. Video done. Arguments is one I call justification for profit. And it goes to address questions like, isn't your Allah all knowing and all just? Doesn't he know the harms Aisha could have gone through at such a young age regardless of historical context. And from this question come to the conclusion that Muhammad peace be upon him was not a true messenger of God. I mean this is all the argument is about pretty much. And what is about to come, especially fear Muslim will prove you that this marriage was not immoral. If Allah is the only one true merciful just God and he did not condemn his messenger's marriage with Aisha according to the historically reported dynamics of such marriage, then such a marriage was void of evil intentions, abused and served a greater good. Allah is the only one true merciful just God, therefore his messenger's marriage with Aisha according to the historically reported dynamics was void of evil intentions, abused and served a greater good. I know that this rests on the assumption that Islam is the truth but I also want you to consider that we as Muslims have reasons to believe Muhammad a prophet of God which are external and beyond his marriage with Aisha. We do not believe this marriage to be invalidating his claims to prophethood because his prophethood and the claims behind it lie on reasons that are not dependent on the dynamics of his marriages. But rather we explain this marriage especially because I personally would believe the Quran that states that Muhammad was the messenger and his main purpose was to reveal the Quran. And any other event of his life where there is stuff to assume a light of his holy prophethood so we only assume the best out of him because he is the messenger of the only one true all merciful all just God. So in simple terms to make it easier for you if your question is why hasn't your all merciful Allah condemned this marriage if he's all merciful and Muhammad may peace be upon him is his messenger? Well the answer is that if he did not condemn it and that means there was no abuse and no bad intentions and it served a greater good and good lord we can pinpoint that greater good with such a precision this woman Aisha is behind practically more than 2000 narrations narrations upon which much of the Islamic tradition is built. I can see it you can see it if you don't like it well let's move the talk on whether Islam is the truth or not okay we enter now the final part of this video we have seen so far how the pedophilia accusation against the prophet of Islam a light of his marriage with Aisha is to begin with not an established conclusion like the Islamophobes want you to believe yet an assumption among others then we saw how it's actually a fallacious conjecture based on anachronistic interpretations of history and we then proceeded to explain how given Islam as true we can logically deduce how such a marriage was void of evil or abuse now i would like to present you with more and more considerations to confirm what we logically just deduced here's something that you need to remind every explanation suggested for a certain experience or event may be consistent with it yet at the same time it implicitly suggests the existence of relevant facts or predictions that are necessary for the very same consistency of said explanation i know it sounds a little bit complicated so let me break it down for you with an example if we accuse someone of having killed someone else with a gun then we can predict the existence of a gun and of reasons for which the murder was committed and finally we would expect an investigation to confirm the existence of these things because their existence is necessary for the consistency of our explanation slash accusation so if the person under investigation turns out i've never had a weapon whatsoever nor reasons to kill the victim a complete stranger nor any of the further facts we would expect to be real in case this person was a murderer the obvious conclusion is that he's not the one who committed murder why am i telling you all this stuff this is called inference to the best explanation and i want you to keep it in mind because we're about to do the same thing with ashad radiallahu anha and Muhammad peace be upon him okay fahisha radiallahu anha was the victim of child if her marriage was based on intentions of exploiting her sex way because the prophet of islam was a file then we would expect the existence of relevant facts that would confirm such a theory the american college of obstetricians and gynecologists can help us identify some of these facts let's check them out from the paper adult manifestations of childhood use we can read that a child who got sexually abused generally faces traumas on both a physical and psychological level and these are long lasting varied complex and often devastating they go on to say that the primary after effects of childhoods use include post traumatic stress distorted self-perception having nightmares or flashbacks emotions such as fear shame humiliation guilt and self-blame would be dominant on a physical level the situation is more severe and i quote gynecological problems including chronic pelvic pain dysparunia vaginismus and nonspecific vaginitis are said to be common diagnosis among survivors they also add anxiety and depression self-neglect eating disorders all these have been attributed to childhood sexual abuse adults abuse that children are four to five times more likely to have abused alcohol and illicit drugs they are also twice as likely to smoke be physically inactive and be severely abused now this is the profile of a child who's got and if it's true that isha radiallahu anha is a child who's got then this is what likely needs to be her profile so all we need to do is take a look at her character from the same source critics of islam used to claim she's a victim of child abuse we're not using something different here first of all we know that isha died at her home in medina on 16 July 678 when she was 67 years old you would agree with me now that's quite long live or someone who's expected to have a series of gynecological problem during the middle ages on top of it we'll show and more well this debunks the theory that people back then died in their 30s so know that she was an extremely intelligent and brilliant individual who grew up into being a very again guys sorry but i have to critique this video mega three prolific influential scholar during the times we have reports also stating how she was incredibly active someone who loved racing running and watching sport like events she was charismatic she would tease her husband in conversation despite his status as a prophet she did a shy away from confrontation and she was a brave woman during a controversial battle in muslim history she emerged writing a camel to lead the troops she was known for her assertive temperament now in light of this wasn't she supposed to be depressed to be anxious to be obese suffering from post-traumatic stress suffering of shame humiliation in a series of physical impairments chronic impairment wasn't she supposed to be the victim of abuse the character of aisha being that of a victim is not coherent with what historical reports tell us about her therefore such hypothesis loses further credibility aisha was someone who defended her husband even after he died and if your best answer to this is so-called syndrome then know that such a syndrome presupposes abuse the very same abuse of which confirming and expected evidence we just did it find the same goes for the prophet of islam he was a man with friends and companions he didn't suffer from loneliness or lack of empathy he was not anti social he did not make use of drugs or intoxicants it didn't suffer from lack of self-esteem he loved his previous one in brief he's not reported of suffering from any negative personality trait you could expect to find in a that's sad here's what you would expect the to do to stalk and seek victims to satisfy his deviancy it is not uncommon for them to be developing a long list of potential victims at one yeah yet again you have to take it into context here and nowadays is not an act within marriage anyway so therefore to compare those two things doesn't make sense in the first place in the case of the prophet of islam influential and authoritative as he was you would expect him to be easily satisfying these mentioned points if he was a did he the story goes that the marriage with isha was not even initiated by him he never brought it up it was suggested by someone else one of the female companions to his prophetic mission khawla bint hakim a female suggested that he should marry isha and then he simply agreed to it when muhammad peace be upon him stipulated a contract of marriage with isha's father as i mentioned before abu bakr his best friend isha was only six and they decided to wait till she reached puberty because back then that is how they defined the age of majority and for her that happened when she was nine well think about it they didn't decide to wait till she was nine what they decided to do is to wait till she would have attained puberty which if you think about it in that moment they had really no way to know that that would have happened by when she was the age of nine so if you're a pile and you're met with the perspective of having to wait indefinitely till the child you're attracted to would stop being a child that what kind of move is that for a file you would expect him to wait nothing not even those three years because that that was not waiting three years that was from their perspective indefinite waiting that's what it is it doesn't make sense from the perspective of hypothetically him being a pile and that aside why would someone who's got an absolute authority in his community and he's supposedly a file not just simply surround himself with child brides if you are a child predator why have this marriage only happened because it was suggested to you by someone else why stop at isha why not get further why respect the wait till puberty principle if you're attracted to having with children all right and this is it for this video thank god it is over if anything this video left us more confused than before really really poor job i said throughout the video but i have to repeat it again nobody likes a wise as he used a lot of fancy words ultimately not describing really the core doctrine that you can find within islam as well islam itself clarifies that once you hit puberty you can get married that's that and therefore he should have explained to the atheists to the modernist to the darvinist that this is their own doctrine survival of the fittest would lead to exactly that in nature you can observe that once fertility starts once the puberty started people animals everyone can procreate this is literally the only argument that you need all right guys and this is it for today's video very frustrating but if you liked it nevertheless leave it a thumbs up if you haven't subscribed already guys please do so and if you want to support this channel via patreon all the links are in the description box below thank you so much for your ongoing support guys as always may god bless you all much love and peace