 David Wood wants you to envision her as a defenseless little child. This is very easy. It's very easy to show how this works. She was highly jealous of other wives. There's no dispute, zero. David Wood is inevitably attacking the character of all Muslims. We don't try to tell you how to figure out how a father can be his own son and a son can be his own father. We're sitting in the presence of greatness here. What evidence is David Wood hiding? Let's talk about it. David Wood isn't telling you that Aisha was very happily married to the Prophet, peace be upon him. And she was highly jealous of other wives. Now think about that. She was highly jealous of other wives. Does that sound like someone who's been abused? She never spoke about any type of abuse or unhappiness. She defended the Prophet adamantly until the day that he died with his head in her lap. David Wood might find that to be some sexually arousing, I don't know, but he died with his head in her lap, peace be upon him. She was a very well-educated scholar of Islam who could have easily spoken about abuse if in fact there was any. If in fact there was any. She was a strong triumphant Muslim woman who had the capacity of character and the means to lash out at anyone who might have abused her. She had ample opportunity after the Prophet died, peace be upon him. But David Wood wants you to envision her as a defenseless little child. Okay, well she grew and she was a woman that could have spoken up if she had been abused. We don't hear about that. David Wood is attempting to totally negate and dismiss various opinions by modern and contemporary scholars and historians on this issue as if their opinions are somehow less valid than those who hold the traditional view. David Wood wants you, but this is what it boils down. David Wood wants to decide the debate for the Muslims themselves by picking the side that best fits, yes indeed, his Islamophobic agenda. And what's his intention? To demonize the Prophet and again, thereby demonize all Muslims who want to emulate him, peace be upon him. David Wood is inevitably attacking the character of all Muslims and I'm not gonna sit by and allow it. I'm not gonna put up with it. So we're gonna end this today, David. So as Muslims, we do indeed have the right to disagree and in fact, on this issue, there are valid reasons to disagree and on this topic there's disagreement amongst Muslims. So Allah gives guidance in the Quran about coming to common terms when there's disagreement amongst people and that Allah himself will eventually inform people about that which they used to differ on the day of judgment. The common terms amongst Muslims on this matter, as well as many decent, unbiased, non-Muslim scholars and historians, is that there was absolutely no wrongdoing committed on the part of the Prophet in regards to this marriage, peace be upon him. So that's what we should focus on because that's where the consensus of agreement lies. David Wood, we don't try to tell you how to figure out how a father can be his own son and a son can be his own father and you're not gonna define for us, for the Muslims, which side of this issue that the Muslims debate is the correct one. You don't get that opportunity, it's not gonna happen. Okay, maybe in your world of Islamophobes in the puppet show you put on, but not over here. So while it is true that many Muslim scholars have accepted the tradition that Aisha was nine years old when the marriage was consummated, others believe that she was older and both sides have strong arguments based on various hadiths to justify their theories. The disagreement amongst Muslims in this ongoing debate proves Aisha's age cannot be confirmed either way. What it goes down to is no one knows for sure. No Muslim truly knows what her age was. No non-Muslim knows what her age was. Let's face it, we weren't there. Muslims, you weren't there. David was, wasn't there, no one knows. New World Encyclopedia addresses this marriage and this state, think about what's being said. They have no reason to, you know, they're not Muslims obviously, so they state, the age of Aisha at marriage is an extremely contentious one. The age of Aisha at marriage is an extremely contentious one, contentious amongst who? Muslims, the Muslims debate about it. On the other hand they say there are several hadiths that would state that were narrated by Aisha herself which claimed that she was nine or six or seven years old rather when engaged in nine when the marriage was consummated. But they state, on the other hand, there's evidence from early Muslim chronicers like Ibn Ashaq that indicates, and others they say, that Aisha may have been 12 to 14 years old just past the age of puberty, or perhaps even older they say, some Muslim scholars point to other traditions they say that conflict with those attributed to hadith narrated by Aisha on this matter. He says, I didn't tell you that Aisha was happily married and he says that Aisha could have spoken up if she'd been abused. Yeah, it was really safe to say what a horrible person Muhammad was in that culture where you'd be killed for saying such a thing. And by the way, Aisha said that she wanted a monogamous relationship whereas Muhammad had nine wives and not counting as slave girls. And so that was an ongoing source of distress for him. He says that Muslim scholars agree that there was no wrongdoing. Why do they agree that there's no wrongdoing? Because you won't criticize Muhammad. If you did have a problem with it, you'd be ex-Muslims and you'd be endlessly ridiculed by Muslims. I think Kenny said that we can't, yeah, we said that we can't prove her age. How many references that I give? Now, notice, just notice that. We'll talk about this more, but Kenny quoted a variety of sources. Who is he? Gary Wills or something like that? Who was I quoting? Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abu Dawud, Sunan An-Nasai, Sunan Ibn Maja, the history of At-Tabri, Ibn Qathir. These are who I'm quoting. Who is he quoting? Gary Wills. Who? The encyclopedia of what? Is this how Islam works? The Islamophobes quote authentic Muslim sources and then the opponents quote none. The defenders of Islam quote the encyclopedia of such and such. Interesting methodology going on here. So he quotes the New World Encyclopedia and other sources saying that she may have been 12 to 14 or older. He quotes someone who says that Ibn Asaq and Ibn Qathir and others say that she was in her late teens. This is very easy. It's very easy to show how this works. Ibn Asaq, page such and such says she was 14. Give the reference. Give the reference. Ibn Qathir on page such and such says she was 14 or 16 or 18. What did Ibn Qathir say? I literally read the reference. Ibn Qathir says there's no dispute. Zero, no dispute at all on Muhammad having sex with Aisha when she was nine years old. Somehow we get these mystery references where Aisha was much older. It's very simple. Ibn Qathir, volume what? Page what? He said Muslim scholars disagree on their ages. Yeah, again, they disagree now. They didn't disagree in the second century after Muhammad or the third century or so on. They disagree now because it's so embarrassing for them. Then Kenny said that a person in Islam can't marry until they've reached the age of puberty. Did we entirely miss the discussion of surah 65 verse four? Surah 65 verse four, which gives divorce proceedings for divorcing a girl who's too young to have reached puberty after you've had sex with her. So let me go ahead and read this. Surah 65 verse four, we'll read the beginning. And those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the iddah, that's the waiting period after you divorce them, so in case they get married again. If you have doubts about their periods, their periods is three months. And for those who have no courses, no monthly period, for those who have no courses, i.e. they are still immature, their prescribed period is three months likewise. So girls who don't have a monthly menstrual cycle because they're immature. And in case you think I'm misinterpreting this, Tafsir of Ibn Kathir says this refers to the young who have not reached the years of menstruation. Tafsir Jalalayn, one of the most popular commentaries of all time says this means, and also for those who have not yet menstruated because of their young age, their period shall also be three months. Tafsir Ibn Abbas, Ibn Abbas, one of Muhammad's companions. He says that he gives the historical background here, Muhammad's giving these rules for divorce, upon which another man asked, oh messenger of Allah, what about the waiting period of those who do not have menstruation because they are too young? And then we have the answer in Surah 65, verse four. Tafsir of Maududi, modern Muslim scholar. He says therefore, after discussing the issue, he says therefore making mention of the waiting period for the girls who have not yet menstruated clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away the girl in marriage at this age, but it is also permissible for the husband to consummate marriage with her. Now obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Quran has held permissible. So not only does he say, yeah, that's the rule. He says no Muslim can forbid marrying and having sex with a prepubescent girl because you'd be contradicting Allah. We're standing in the presence, I mean we're sitting in the presence of greatness here. This is someone who gets to overrule Allah in the Quran and who knows what these verses mean greater than the greatest Islamic scholars of all time. The greatest Islamic commentators of all time, Ibn Abbas, Ibn Qathir, the two Jilals, they all agree. And yet, well, we've got Gary Wills and the Encyclopedia, the New World Encyclopedia. Some people like the verses of the Quran that he's trying to suggest that are telling people they can have sex with a prepubescent child. I know it doesn't say that. Matter of fact, these verses are in Sra Anisa and this is the women. It doesn't say the Jaria, it says the Nisa, the women that you can divorce and all those things. So again, he is distorting the facts and distorting the truth because he has an agenda. And let's take it a step further because again, you often find out more about the accuser than the one being accused. And if someone's gonna talk so adamantly, we need to know about, let's look at the big picture and not just through a narrow window. John Gil's expose, let me go to a Bing Dunn, Old Testament Commentaries on Ezekiel, the Book of Ezekiel by Nancy Bowen. Now I'm going here for a reason and so he can try to disqualify it but he knows that, the reason he even brings that up because he knows that he's wrong with the issue. But they state that the issue in the Book of Ezekiel means that a baby girl arrived at full-blown womanhood at her sexual maturity as her breasts developed and her pubic hair sprouted, she was ripe for marriage. In addition to numerous Bible commentaries, there are many scholarly opinions on the passage that refer to this issue. A work titled Marriage as a Covenant of Biblical Law and Ethics developed by Malachi by Gordon Hugenberger. He says that the age of sexual love in Ezekiel 1618 may suggest that women generally married soon after puberty and the Song of Songs by Continental Commentary by Othmar Kiel says that the names that the development of the breast and the growth of pubic hair as signs of puberty regarding that verse when the girl became eligible for marriage. So another one, the Hebrew Narrative in Poetry by Dan Bergent and Dave Cotter says that the mention of developed breast and appearance of pubic hair were signs of puberty that signaled the woman's physical preparedness for marriage. Someone could look at this information based on what the doctors say, Dr. Stephanie Behringer in that article and say, okay, well, they're saying that here in the United States a young lady could reach the age of puberty at eight years old and that also the environment has something to do with it. He's trying to disqualify all that because he's bent on trying to demonize the prophet and thereby demonize all Muslims who want to emulate the prophet, okay? So, but the thing is, again, we go back to the truth of the matter and that the Muslims themselves are disputing on the issue. Again, they're disputing on the issue and David Wood doesn't get to decide for the Muslims which side is correct. The fact is no one knows. No one knows they weren't there. None of us were there. David Wood wasn't there. But he wants to insist that and talk about it as though he knows for sure. You know, mentioning this hadith and that hadith. Look, we can go back and forth. The scholars do that. The Muslim scholars themselves do that and they come up to different conclusions.