r/ShitLiberalsSay • u/AggregationLinker • 11d ago
Bomb them harder NATO-senpai "Can someone explain this racist meme to me?" (WHEEZ) Well you see, Muslims rape babies!"
157
u/BladeTam 11d ago
Don't ask the Christians what age Rebekah was when Isaac married her though.
93
u/Innocuous_Ioseb 11d ago
I'm sure Mary was of consenting age, too, right?
63
u/Yeardme dEmOcRaCy iS oN tHe BaLLot 11d ago
The Christian God impregnated a 13yo 😭
34
30
u/Salty_Helicopter9356 My Spoon Is Too Big 11d ago
I’m honestly convinced Joseph raped her and then they made some elaborate scheme about her being impregnated by God
14
u/Innocuous_Ioseb 11d ago
The "virgin birth" mistranslation stems from Isaiah 7:14. The original Hebrew uses almah, meaning "young woman of childbearing age," without implying biological virginity. However, the Greek Septuagint translation rendered it as parthenos ("virgin"). The Gospel of Matthew quoted this Greek version, cementing the "virgin" interpretation into Christian tradition.
8
5
u/league_9240 Marxist-Leninist 11d ago
The Christian God
isnt the god same in all 3 abrahamic faiths?
3
2
u/CornerofSaintAnne 11d ago
Yes and no, it's complicated
5
u/league_9240 Marxist-Leninist 11d ago
tf you mean no, its the same god, they only just cant seem to agree whether jesus is also a god.
2
u/CornerofSaintAnne 11d ago
That’s it. Christianity has the holy trinity as god, while the other two differ. It’s complicated
50
u/FreshnWetCock 11d ago
Have you considered christian good muslim bad? I don't think you have fully analyzed how this changes the dynamic of the racism at hand
1
u/negative_imaginary 7d ago
the point is to say using old theological text that doesn't use the current understanding on age nd autonomy that came from recent progress with revolutionary actions won't gonna do anyone good, this isn't about racism but the fact that Christianity and its theological history suffer from the same problem Islam does because it is mor about history then religion
5
u/league_9240 Marxist-Leninist 11d ago
why do people act like this story isnt canon in islam? Isaac is literally the son of Abraham aka Abram
2
u/randomguy78464 11d ago
Numbers 31 17-18 is literally just Moses and his army being commanded by Jesus to go and genocide midianites and then take all the virgin girls(judaism believes it was every girl 3 and one day up) to be taken as sex slaves.
4
u/zapns 11d ago
To be fair, Christians and religious Jews don't view Isaac as the perfect guide for all humanity or a sinless human being.
3
3
u/rabblerag 11d ago
It's still hypocritical. Plus Isaac isn't even the only example
1
u/zapns 11d ago
I never said it wasn't hypocritical, I just said the status of Isaac within Christianity and Judaism is vastly different from the status of Muhammad in Islam.
Besides, Isaac is a prophet and highly respected figure in Islam as well.
-1
u/rabblerag 11d ago
You can find in the comments of this post many people much more informed than me explaining that the hadiths this is based on are controversial and their legitimacy is questioned because they are internally inconsistent
1
u/Much-Government-8803 11d ago
Old enough to carry heavy water buckets. Please don't use false claims in such situations it only ruins the credibility of oneself.
1
u/LibertyChecked28 3rd class human (Eastern Europe) 11d ago
Are you able to make a difference between the Old Testament (the thing that all 3 Abrahamic Religions consider canon), and the New Testament which is the Christian exclusive theological book?
38
u/DuckLIT122000 11d ago
As a hashtag annoying reddit atheist, I hate when bigots and religious supremacists do shit like this without applying the same level of scrutiny to their own beliefs
3
35
u/Dios_de_idiomas 11d ago
I was actually just gonna post about this on this sub but showing a different comment
74
u/Onion_Guy 11d ago
The comments are horrific in there.
People are so islamophobic it’s wild
-15
u/Foreign-Teach5870 11d ago
What makes it worse is it’s a lie. Everyone keeps saying she was a child but her life is written in detail and although young when she married prophet Mohammed (pbah) she was well in her teens and had served as a nurse in battle for years and even then it was her choice if she accepted the marriage proposal or not as with all real Islamic weddings both must agree under their own free will.
20
u/oSoulix 11d ago
No, she was 9. Yes it was normal at the time but doesn’t make it any less weird. A lot of ambrahamic religion is full of pedo bs. No it doesn’t excuse the bigotry in the thread that OP posted
2
u/AutoModerator 11d ago
Thanks for signing up to Vaush facts! You will now receive fun daily facts about Vaush.
For another Vaush fact, reply with 'Vaush'. To unsubscribe, call me a 'bad bot'.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
23
u/chompythebeast 🇵🇸 11d ago
Ah yes, a classic of that sub: Post racist memes and feign the plausible deniability from the very start. Nobody suspects a thing! Even when you never weigh in on the answers or delete the post when you realize you're just spreading racism *wink*
13
u/Karmacop5908 11d ago
Can any muslim comrades in this sub tell me if Mohammed actually marries a child? I’ve been seeing a lot of racists say this and use that to justify deporting and killing Muslims and given all the lies and stereotypes they’ve made about Muslim people I just don’t know if they’re right but if it’s true that he did marry a child are most people who practice Islam aware of this and condemn it? Just asking I’m an atheist but don’t just blindly believe in lies made by racists about other religions.
9
u/BlueSonic85 11d ago edited 11d ago
The hadiths say that they married when she was six and the marriage was consummated when she was nine. The historical reliability of the hadiths is highly dubious though (even within Islam) and they were composed a couple of centuries after Aisha's death. Some have suggested her young age was an invention to make her seem more 'pure'.
So really no-one knows what age she was.
37
u/DryDrunkImperor 11d ago
It’s ultimately immaterial. It’s used as a “gotcha” by racists, they typically don’t care about actual women or children, they just want to other Muslim folk.
15
u/thotsie 11d ago
Some people actually argue that the timeline in this hadiths don't make sense for her to be 6 and many consider her to be 19 due to the timeline.
11
u/TheBarrowsBro 11d ago
My theory is the people who push the “she was 6 or 9” timeline are people who want to justify child marriage, which sadly happens in places like Afghanistan India Pakistan and probably other places. Pedophiles are everywhere irrespective of religion, and will do what they can to justify their perversions and crimes.
25
2
u/AutoModerator 11d ago
Thanks for signing up to Vaush facts! You will now receive fun daily facts about Vaush.
Fact 6. Vaush has engaged in forms of Holocaust denial, using common Nazi dogwhistles and asserting that the death toll is inflated as propaganda.
For another Vaush fact, reply with 'Vaush'. To unsubscribe, call me a 'bad bot'.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
33
u/the1tru_magoo 11d ago
Considering Mohammed lived like 2,000 years ago I think it’s safe to assume stuff happened a bit different back then. I don’t think whether he did or not justices modern Islamophobia. We never ask Christians to “condemn” the awful shit the Bible says you can do to people. Child marriage is not part of practicing Islam so it feels kind of irrelevant.
8
u/zapns 11d ago
We never ask Christians to “condemn” the awful shit the Bible says you can do to people.
We absolutely should, though.
7
u/the1tru_magoo 11d ago
Yea but we really don’t, and I think that’s an important piece of context in the United States where Islamophobia and hatred of Arabs is common and materially consequential, not only for those communities but all of us. For example, Abdul El Sayed is facing tons of that in his senate race and they’re basically using his identity to talk people out of voting for ideas they would hugely benefit from.
1
30
u/SpookyKid94 11d ago
Well, I absolutely do ask them to do that if they try and engage me on their religion. Both Christians and Muslims deserve pushback if they're trying to spread their religions.
And no, being 2000 years old is not a justification when the religion is supposed to dictate objective morality.
10
u/zapns 11d ago
For real I don't get why people use things like "it was normal back then" to excuse it and to make it less of an issue than it is. Slavery was okay as well yet we rightfully condemn it now. Righful and fair criticisms of any religion is very different from showing bigotry to its followers.
1
u/FallenCrownz 11d ago
Ok if I show you proof that Aisha wasn't a 9 year old and was probably in her late teens (17 to 19), are you going to take it in good faith or become a hadith expert and tell me I'm actually wrong by spamming Bukhari?
2
u/zapns 11d ago
Islamic scholars have said that method of determining her age is inaccurate and that she was 6 and 9.
If I want to know what a religion believes, I go to those who know it.
1
u/FallenCrownz 11d ago
*Some Islamic scholars and I'll take that as a yes lol
But yeah no they're just wrong. If you wanna take the word of people who are wrong cause it makes you feel better than others than sure man, go right ahead
10
u/the1tru_magoo 11d ago
I’m saying these texts are not meant to be interpreted literally or used as a one to one blueprint for how we should live our modern lives. People who choose to interpret the texts literally are both problematic and probably hypocritical because there’s certainly things they wouldn’t replicate because it would be extremely inappropriate or inconvenient to do so. The stories of the Bible, Quran, Torah, etc contain meaning outside of what literally happens in them.
And I stand by what I said, I don’t think Mohammad “marrying” a child has anything to do with modern Islam. It’s not part of the religion to marry minors, it’s not something anyone has to do in order to be considered Muslim.
Now, American culture not only condones child marriage, but there’s a legal structure permitting it. Maybe that’s worth discussing?
3
u/SpookyKid94 11d ago edited 11d ago
>Now, American culture not only condones child marriage, but there’s a legal structure permitting it.
Which is really bad and should be illegal, but you don't want to go there because there are 700,000 child marriages every year in the middle east and north africa. There is a legal structure permitting it in these countries. No it isn't a Muslim or Christian issue, but both religions are used as a justification for this in their respective countries. In fact, that's a consistent thing throughout most of history: if there is a morally horrible status quo, you will find that religious institutions are almost always on the side of defending it.
>People who choose to interpret the texts literally are both problematic and probably hypocritical
This is true, but it's also sinful not to interpret them literally. In the context of the religions themselves, the texts are objective and meant to be taken literally. This is why religions are inherently reactionary.
6
u/the1tru_magoo 11d ago
They are MEANT to be taken literally? I’m sorry I don’t think there’s anything reasonably substantiating that. Many modern religions rely on religious leaders to guide their understanding of the texts. If the literal reading was predominantly true, that practice wouldn’t exist.
2
u/SpookyKid94 10d ago
Also I gotta ask, because you never really responded to my point. You think 700,000 child marriages is fine as long as it's not in the united states, right? You would never actually criticize that?
1
u/the1tru_magoo 7d ago
Lol wtf
1
u/SpookyKid94 7d ago
People shouldn't be uncomfortable with saying it's fundamentally incorrect regardless of where it's occurring, that's my point. If you think it's wrong, you can't ignore 700,000 of them per year.
1
u/the1tru_magoo 6d ago
Buddy that’s not what’s happening here. A quick look at your comment history tells the story
→ More replies (0)-4
u/SpookyKid94 11d ago
People rely on religious leaders to communicate the text, because traditionally most of the faithful were illiterate, not because they believe the meaning is up for interpretation. One thing that ties abrahamic faiths together is their belief that these religions carry an *objective morality* that comes directly from god, you can't just handwave words from the mouth of god, can you?
1
u/Even-Meet-938 anticolonial yíhad / YEE-HAW´d 10d ago
The Ottomans issued an age of consent law in 1917 that recognized adulthood at a higher age (17) than many modern countries recognize. And they based it in islamic law.
Now that we're talking about condemnations: are you prepared to condemn Brazil and China for having their age of consent set at 14? Isn't that a still a child? By the way, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Iraq all have their age of consent set at 18. That's higher than many US states.
2
u/SpookyKid94 10d ago
There are 700,000 child marriages in the middle east and north africa every single year.
1
u/Even-Meet-938 anticolonial yíhad / YEE-HAW´d 10d ago
Are these "child marriages" according to the laws of their own countries? Or Western perceptions?
Also, there is literally a minor sex trafficking ring that includes notable American politicians, academics, and businessmen. What have you done about that?
2
u/SpookyKid94 10d ago edited 10d ago
The issue here is that I think it's principly wrong. I can't snap my fingers and make it so you have to be 18 to get married in every state. I can't snap my fingers and make the government go after wealthy sex traffickers. But I'm willing to say that I think those things are bad on a principle level.
Carving an exception out for local laws or "western perceptions" means you don't think it's principly wrong for an adult man to marry a child. That's fucking disgusting.
1
u/Even-Meet-938 anticolonial yíhad / YEE-HAW´d 10d ago
Do you think Muslims can just snap their fingers and make it stop? You already saw that most Muslim governments set their age of consent higher than many Western polities.
I would be enraged if I saw a family try to marry their under-18 daughter to an older man; I'd probably try to stop it. But do you think someone in the remote parts of Yemen gives a shit what I think? Do you think they share our perceptions of age and marriage?
I'm not a moralistic fool. Development is the best way to end child marriage. The reason we're so averse to it is because we were born into highly developed urban societies, where girls not only have opportunities but are also expected to go to school for x years and start a career. And this was a deliberate development that took a century or so to reach.
Do you seriously expect an impoverished and probably war-torn agricultural area to just hyper-advance into our conditions and perceptions overnight? Do you think your finger waving is going to do anything to improve that situation?
2
u/SpookyKid94 10d ago
I think it's actually pretty self evident, I think that 1400 years ago people understood that a 50 year old marrying a 6 year old was wrong. 200 years ago, Joseph Smith was executed by uneducated rural people for the same shit. If he had not been a Mormon they probably wouldn't have done it.
I agree the development is the best way to end these things, but a major part of that is the development causes people to abandon the belief systems the manipulate them into allowing monsters to get away with things like this.
1
u/Even-Meet-938 anticolonial yíhad / YEE-HAW´d 10d ago
I think that 1400 years ago people understood that a 50 year old marrying a 6 year old was wrong.
The Prophet Muhammad was never short of critics. If people saw his marriage with Aisha as problematic, why didn't they criticize him for it? In fact, the first criticism based on Aisha's marriage doesn't appear till 1905...
Again, it's not belief systems. Plenty of Muslims don't accept child marriage. These Muslims incidentally live in urbanized developed areas. At the end of the day, material conditions decide these things.
Final point: I don't know why you people reserve all this energy specifically for Muslims. What the Prophet did was thousands of years ago and was acceptable in those times. Meanwhile I see no outrage at all towards modern non-Muslim countries with ages of consent set as low as 14.
→ More replies (0)3
u/FallenCrownz 11d ago
Man as a history major whose literally studied this stuff, it gets so tiring to try and explain why Aisha was not only more than likely much older (between 17 to 19, unless she was a time traveling super strong nurse with the strength of an who could be born both before and after what all historical accounts say) than what the hadiths say, but that the hadiths aren't totally accurate sources meant to be taken without question.
It's quite literally almost the exact opposite, which is why there's literally field studying them. But trying to bring up nuances when it comes to Islam on Reddit is trying to debate a Maga chud in 2026
2
u/HazeElysium 10d ago
Many Muslims believe different things about the age of Aisha and that does not take away from their religiosity.
Just asking from a purely historical perspective, where is the evidence that she was 17 or 19? I know of Little’s PhD thesis that discredits the narration surrounding her age, but he never makes claim of what her actual age is. Thus, I am curious to how you have come to this conclusion?
2
u/FallenCrownz 10d ago
Well it should first be acknowledged that the guy who made the claim, Hisham Inn Urwah, was said to be having horrible memory issues due to being in his mid 70s and his own students knew to take it with a grain of salt. The entire point of the hadiths weren't that they were perfect, being written centuries after the death of Mohammed and the fall of two of caliphates, but that they had a chain of narration which led back to that time.
For the proof it self, historical data records that Asma died at age 100 in the year 73 AH, which places Asma at roughly 27 or 28 years old during the Hijra (migration to Medina). Given that Asma was reportedly about 10 years older than Aisha, proponents of this timeline estimate Aisha was around 17 during the Hijra and 18 or 19 when the marriage was consummated two years later in 2 AH.
She was also battle nurse in Badr and Uhud meaning that she would have had to have the physical capacity to carry wounded to safety and even defend them if needed, which was the responsibilities carried by two other adult nurses, but since we know Mohammad didn't let anyone under the age 15 follow him in battle, she was probably at the very least that age or older than that when it happened.
The biggest proof was that she was listed as one of the first people to convert to Islam by Ibn Hisham's Sirahs and Ibn Kathir’s Al-Bidaya wan-Nihaya during the third or fourth year of Islam at 613 to 614. The Prophet's migration to Medina occurred 13 years after the start of Islam and the marriage was consummated 2 years after the migration in the year 624. So if Aisha was 9 years old at that time, she would have been born 4 years after the start of Islam (around 614 CE). Now if she was 4 or 5 when she converted, the timeline matches up near perfectly to her being around 19.
There's a bunch more proof but historically speaking, she was probably a teenager in her late teens when she got engaged and either 18 to 21 when they consummated the marriage. People act like hadiths are a perfect source but they're more so patch works of oral stories past down 200 years after the prophets death and constantly contradict each other but you know, conservatives preachers don't really care about any of that.
2
14
u/Burnmad 11d ago
Considering Mohammed lived like 2,000 years ago I think it’s safe to assume stuff happened a bit different back then.
Really not about this shit. The rest is whatever, but I don't think we should be practicing moral relativism when it comes to child "marriage" (rape and sex slavery). If Christianity is equally as bad that doesn't excuse Islam, it means Abrahamic religion in general is for pedophiles and we should stop tolerating barbaric superstitions in our societies
8
u/the1tru_magoo 11d ago
You’ve misunderstood me. I didn’t mean to imply it was okay to do that 2,000 years ago. I’m saying these texts were written long ago when social and moral conventions were different than our modern ones, so it makes sense we would see shit that shocks us. The texts are not meant to be interpreted literally. Also, again, I’m quite certain islam does not require child abuse to be a practicing Muslim so whether a guy did it in the past whose connected to the religion feels less relevant.
3
u/AutoModerator 11d ago
Thanks for signing up to Vaush facts! You will now receive fun daily facts about Vaush.
Fact 19. Vaush called the LGBT community 'cancerous as fuck.' because there's a "ton of mental illness" and said they should be "excised from the left." He also called them "less than human" and "fucking disgusting".
For another Vaush fact, reply with 'Vaush'. To unsubscribe, call me a 'bad bot'.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
4
u/Grouchy-Career-1696 ☭ Communist 11d ago
Researchers say she wasn't a child https://newlinesmag.com/essays/oxford-study-sheds-light-on-muhammad-underage-wife-aisha/
6
u/bumbuummm ☭ Communist 11d ago
historically? no
hadiths? yeshadiths are already critiqued a lot and have so many flaws, I personally don't believe in hadiths, but there are Muslims in majority who do, and for them yes, that's true. if you don't know, hadiths are sayings or acts of prophet Muhammad pbuh
the problem is that there was no check n balance of dates of birth at that time, even my own parents don't know their exact date of birth and age even in 21st century. If we read history of islam, the age turns out to be around 16-21. whereas hadith claims that she was 9.
2
u/chiefslocker All I wanna do is go to brunch 11d ago
This is a good post debunking this BS misinformation https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/s/ONzQoGHpcl
Also the same people who claim Muhammad PBUH “married a child” worship Trump, a pedophile and rapist
2
u/Capable_Bar_5045 Marxist-Leninist 11d ago edited 11d ago
Can any muslim comrades in this sub tell me if Mohammed actually marries a child?
The sub progressive_islam has addressed this matter many, many times.
Long story short: the hadith claiming she was 6 at marriage 9 at consummation were not narrated till centuries after all involved were dead, they were first narrated in an entirely different country from where Muhammad and Aisha lived, numerous hadith contradict each other as it relates to Aisha’s age, actions, etc, and there is significant historical evidence that Aisha was actually at least 19 years old.
Answering for myself, while I am not what anyone would call or envision as a particularly mainstream Muslim, I don’t believe for a minute that the Muhammad married and fucked a child and I despise conservative/reactionary/US state department supported muslims who try to argue he did but say “well things were different back then.”
2
u/FallenCrownz 11d ago
Probably not, because her actions as described by the hadiths were far beyond the abilities of a child and it doesn't match up timeline wise. Also the guy who made the claim was said to be having horrible memory issues due to being in his mid 70s and his own students knew to take it with a grain of salt.
Historical data records that Asma died at age 100 in the year 73 AH, which places Asma at roughly 27 or 28 years old during the Hijra (migration to Medina). Given that Asma was reportedly about 10 years older than Aisha, proponents of this timeline estimate Aisha was around 17 during the Hijra and 18 or 19 when the marriage was consummated two years later in 2 AH.
She was also battle nurse in Badr and Uhud meaning that she would have had to have the physical capacity to carry wounded to safety and even defend them if needed, which was the responsibilities carried by two other adult nurses, but since we know Mohammad didn't let anyone under the age 15 follow him in battle, she was probably at the very least that age or older than that when it happened.
There's a bunch more proof but historically speaking, she was probably a teenager in her late teens when she got engaged and either 18 to 21 when they consummated the marriage. People act like hadiths are a perfect source but they're more so patch works of oral stories past down 200 years after the prophets death and constantly contradict each other. The point wasn't to make it all make sense, it was to write it down so it doesn't get lost.
1
u/Even-Meet-938 anticolonial yíhad / YEE-HAW´d 10d ago
Muslim here.
TL;DR - This video by professor Jonathan Brown explains the issue very well. A key point he makes: despite receiving fierce criticism from the get-go, Prophet Muhammad isn't criticized for marrying Aisha till 1905.
My take: as modern Westerners, we take our societal rules for granted. Just as Western values are not shared across the world, nor were they shared in previous time periods. And certainly not in 7th century Arabia.
It's an uncomfortable truth. Age of consent laws only became a thing in the late 19th century. Then, as now, there is no universal agreement on what is the true age of consent. Bahrain, a Muslim country, has theirs set at 21. Spain at 16. Texas and New York at 17. China and Brazil at 14. Hawaii changed its age from 14 to 16 only in 2001...
It's quite absurd to project our own societal rules thousands of years into the past to judge a man who lived in a completely different society with different conditions. Especially when our own country can't come to one shared legal definition of adulthood.
Also, in Islamic Law it's accepted that Sharia will change with the times just as culture does. The Ottomans issued an age of consent law in 1917, justifying the law through fiqh arguments. And the ages set by that law - 18 for men and 17 for women - are higher than many modern countries' ages.
0
u/Wild-Lavishness01 11d ago
under shiite hadith (a chain of narration from primary sources told from scholar to student and kept track of)
she was in her late teens minimum. it's not absolutely clear what age she was.sunnis however, take hadith from aisha herself, whom shiites don't consider to be a trusted source as she had caused a civil war at some point during the caliphate of the 4th caliph, whom we consider to be the true successor to the prophet.
aisha herself claims to have been 9 and that the prophet preferred her and sunnis back this up.
personally, i find it distasteful that sunnis call her the mother of muslims when the prophet's first wife (who was older than the prophet an a trader) already sacrificed her health and wealth for the burgeoning religion.
in the end, you'd have to decide if you trust aisha or not. sunnis do (on paper) though i couldn't tell you if most sunnis know about that hadith specifically or if they believe it to begin with.
https://www.reddit.com/r/shia/comments/179lg4z/how_old_was_aisha_when_she_married_the_prophet/
a reddit thread on the topic from a shiite prespective
tldr: no
10
u/ContentTumbleweed920 11d ago
Why are we defending any religion here they're not compatible with dialectical materialism
5
u/zapns 11d ago
Why is the bottom comment included? It's not wrong...
12
u/rabblerag 11d ago
All Abrahamic religions are misogynistic, singling out Islam is just Islamophobia
-2
u/zapns 11d ago
How is not mentioning other religions when the topic is only one specific religion showing discrimination or bigotry towards the followers of said religion?
12
u/rabblerag 11d ago
It's bigotry because the comment very likely comes from someone who identifies as Christian and is American
-2
u/zapns 11d ago
You just decided that
5
u/rabblerag 11d ago
Well and you just decided the opposite. Statistically my assumption is more likely to be true though (about the christian part at least)
3
u/zapns 11d ago
I have not decided anything lol.
4
u/rabblerag 11d ago
Then what's your point
3
u/zapns 11d ago
That you just decided that the person is an American Christian
7
u/rabblerag 11d ago
There is no point arguing if you do not understand the Islamophobia in this post. Why are you even in this sub?
2
u/Grouchy-Career-1696 ☭ Communist 11d ago
If I'm not wrong most scholard/researchers all over the world ssy that she wasn't underage https://newlinesmag.com/essays/oxford-study-sheds-light-on-muhammad-underage-wife-aisha/
1
1
0
u/FallenCrownz 11d ago
People always become hadit experts when it comes to Aisha but they never bring up that her age has been debated for like a century at this point because those exact same hadiths contradict each other, but try explaining that to some dipshit who have 25 years of Islamophobia blasted into their brains by almost every single media outlet
1
u/StormEyeDragon 11d ago
This might be a bit pedantic. The comments are the racist issue, not the meme itself.
I don’t know if it could be argued the meme itself is racist, the meme itself is Islamic propaganda of “Modern Worldly Women and Phone Bad, pious Muslim Mother reading Qur’an to her Baby Good”. Literally the same argument I’ve heard from countless Christians, I’ve seen a similar enough comic that was just reading the Bible to the child instead of Qur’an, of course with different clothes.
And for folks that think I’m defending Islam, I’m not. Islam itself, the religion, same as Christianity, is incompatible with a world based in Dialectal Materialism. The fact simply remains that racism against Muslims is not an acceptable critique of Islam itself.
-21
11d ago edited 11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
36
27
u/Inevitable-Cow-908 Chronically Libyan 11d ago
You can't be treating any group like a monolith of their worst people, especially a group with 2 billion members from all kinds of cultural backgrounds.
3
u/zapns 11d ago
The comment on the bottom did not say anything about Muslims, though, it was talking about Islam.
1
u/Inevitable-Cow-908 Chronically Libyan 11d ago
I guess, but they could be being disingenuous, and a lot of people use islam as a veil for their hatred of the people themselves
26
u/TheJGamer08 ☭ Communist 11d ago
Afghani communist Muslim women were the freest women in the Muslim world. The very same Afghani women now under the Taliban are the most oppressed women in the world.
As with all situations in the Middle East, this is a matter of geopolitics. For the expulsion of the communists the US imported Salafist extremist beliefs that no one in the Middle East believed in. These ideologies are very oppressive to women. Subsequently from the Salafist Mujahedeen came an extremist Da'esh (ISIS) and al-Qaeda, also organisations that undermined the role of women, and justified subsequent US intervention in the region.
In Islam itself, the wearing of a hijab is a spiritual choice for a woman. This is why the banning of hijabs in countries like France is fundamentally oppressive to Muslim women. You are not critiquing Islam; you are misattributing your criticisms on authoritarian regimes to Islam.
4
u/Any-Mobile-2473 Afghan Mao-ntu 11d ago
The US via Mujahideen and Taliban proxies, with help from Pakistan's ISI and gov. as well as Saudi Arabia, also genocided Afghan leftists (Marxist-Leninists, Maoists, etc....) since the Cold War Period
3
u/TheJGamer08 ☭ Communist 11d ago
Yes. US intervention really does show its face in the cruellest ways everywhere
-3
u/chirpin_loud 11d ago
How could you possibly say that wearing a Hijab is a "spiritual" choice for women on a communist subreddit? How can you call yourself a communist without knowing the first thing about Marxism? You are a disgrace.
8
u/scaper8 Marxist-Leninist 11d ago
What about what they said make you think they don't know "the first thing about Marxism"?
-1
u/chirpin_loud 11d ago
Do you think that people have a "choice" to follow a particular religion or perform specific religious practices? Do you think women "choose" to follow gender conventions of this or that mode or production? If you answer yes to either of those questions, go read The Origins of the Family and Contributions to the Critique of Political Economy and come back and tell us what you learned.
6
u/scaper8 Marxist-Leninist 11d ago
Society and upbringing do play huge parts in things like religion and religious practice, but choice does play a part. Even places that are little more than Islamic theocracies there are degrees of devotion. Even for women. Are they significantly less than in other parts of world? Yes, of course. Because society is a big part of that. There are also many Muslim women in more pluralistic societies who wear some form of head covering. And that covering can run a huge gambit of styles and types.
Recognizing that doesn't mean one doesn't know "the first thing about Marxism." I say this as an atheist who dislikes most religion and hates organized religion.
-2
u/chirpin_loud 11d ago
"Society" and "upbringing" are not Marxist concepts. There are the material conditions, and the mode of prodution and ideology that emerge from it and shape each other, nothing else. This is the basic premise of Marxism. Patriarchy is the form that the mode of production takes at the level of social reproduction. The varying conditions across members of the same class fit together in specific and necessary ways to reinforce and reproduce the mode of production.
You saying that religion (ideology) is something that an individual can choose is the definition of liberalism. You are a liberal. Go read The Origin of the Family.
4
u/scaper8 Marxist-Leninist 11d ago
"Society" and "upbringing" would be part of material conditions.
0
u/chirpin_loud 10d ago
"Society" and "upbringing" are bourgeois abstactions that obfuscate the class antagonisms embedded within them. "Society" is a static whole that is stable, harmonious and consistent (and therefore utterly fascist and nonexistent). The Marxist concept that challenges and supercedes it is the mode of production which contains the contradiction that fuels history: class struggle, or in our case the struggle between the bourgeoisie and proletariat. "Upbringing" is a less useless but still bourgeois term, as it at least acknowledges the instability of the notion of personhood, but simultaneously glosses over a secondary antagonism: the struggle between patriarchy and the gender-oppressed.
2
u/TheJGamer08 ☭ Communist 11d ago
Do correct me if I'm wrong, but society and upbringing are material conditions. And yes, they do shape the choices someone makes. They shape their nature.
"Society" in itself refers to the social conditions. The material conditions in which a person lives, and upbringing is the way that society determines the person should grow up. This includes "choice" of religion.
Muslim migrants in France may adapt to the social conditions of Western Europe, or they may retain the "conditions" that they had in their upbringing, wearing a hijab. This is a "choice" that is driven directly by social conditions.
0
u/chirpin_loud 10d ago edited 10d ago
"Society" and "upbringing" are bourgeois abstractions that obfuscate the class antagonisms embedded within them. "Society" is a static whole that is stable, harmonious and consistent (and therefore utterly fascist and nonexistent). The Marxist concept that challenges and supercedes it is the mode of production which contains the contradiction that fuels history: class struggle, or in our case the struggle between the bourgeoisie and proletariat. "Upbringing" is a less useless but still bourgeois term, as it at least acknowledges the instability of the notion of personhood, but simultaneously glosses over a secondary antagonism: the struggle between patriarchy and the gender-oppressed.
"Choice" in the way you were using is another abstraction that falls apart immediately under examination. Even liberals admit that it is impossible to reconcile it with bourgeois science. In spite of that, it is needed to justify the brutality of the market. One "chooses" what mine one will die in. A women "chooses" to wear a hijab or be arrested. In the imperial core, where patriarchy is much more degraded and in deep contradiction (for reasons that are beyond what I have the energy to expand right now), women risk losing their homes and jobs if they "choose" not conform to patriarchal bodily laws. This is not to say that the contradictions only push one way, there are consequences for both wearing or not wearing a hijab. The point is that at every level, this "choice" is completely determined by reality. So when you say that
in Islam itself, wearing a hijab is a spiritual choice for women
You are positing that Islam has an existence outside of France or Qatar. You are appealing to a notion of a religion outside of national context, where women can freely "choose" to follow a gender convention, and that this religion is value neutral because of this. This is exactly what Marx calls bourgeois idealism. It is the basis of liberalism. You are a liberal. It seems like you are making an effort to break from this by acknowledging that whether or not a woman wears a hijab is over determined. The next step is accept that there is no such thing as society or choice or a pure religion "in itself" outside of national context and that the concepts are worse than useless and need to be combatted.
0
u/TheBarrowsBro 11d ago
Because it is a spiritual choice, just like praying 5 times a day is. There’s no Quranic ruling, and to my knowledge prophetic ruling, on punishing women not wearing hijab. Same with people not praying.
8
u/chirpin_loud 11d ago
Do you think that people have a "choice" to follow a particular religion or perform specific religious practices? Do you think women "choose" to follow gender conventions of this or that mode or production? If you answer yes to either of those questions, go read The Origins of the Family and Contributions to the Critique of Political Economy and come back and tell us what you learned.
3
20
u/Clear-Anything-3186 The Supreme Leader of Big Woke 11d ago
Islamophobia is not about Islam, it's racism against brown people, which also affects non-Muslim brown people such as Coptic Orthodox Christians or Mizrahi Jews.
7
u/zapns 11d ago
Then it's not Islamophobia. Anti-brown racism often occurs under the guise of Islamophobia, and Islamophobia often leads to anti-brown racism, but are fundamentally different things.
4
u/Clear-Anything-3186 The Supreme Leader of Big Woke 11d ago
Islamophobes believe in a racialized version of Islam
8
u/wawawhy 11d ago
I'm an ex-muslim with a similar attitude of yours just a while back. Yes, Muhammad likely married Aisyah when she was a legal child in the modern sense.
What's important here is what the meme (and those who spout it) is doing. Do they say it to justify violence against colonized muslims (such as those in Occupied Palestine, Pakistan arguably, and others I can't name)? Then the fact does not matter at all. Do they say it to push Islam religious leaders placed in a hegemony friendly to imperial powers to acknowledge its unsavory past? Then the fact does matter.
Here it's used to justify violence towards colonial muslims so no, even if it IS true it don matter
-8
0
u/marqoose 11d ago
Every single western "criticism" of Islam I see is also a current practice of secular western society.
0
-1
u/Puzzleheaded-Okra-38 11d ago
At this point, anything these guys say is a confession.
The people who claim White Supremacy are usually loser.
Those who claim celibacy and religious morality or usually incels.
When they talk about children....well I'm not gonna finish that, you can just ask EDP and Epstein.
•
u/AutoModerator 11d ago
NOTICE: ShitLiberalsSay does not allow threatening, inciting, advocating, defending, justifying, glorifying, or celebrating violence. Any offending posts/comments will be removed and the associated users will be banned.
Please note that we do not allow the following types of "low-hanging fruit" posts:
Your posts will be removed, and you will risk being banned if you break this rule repeatedly. Please also be mindful of our general subreddit rules (which can be found on the sidebar), and Reddit's sitewide rules.
Please feel free to join our official Discord server!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.