The most discussed, Aisha, is traditionally cited as being married at age 6 and the marriage consummated at age 9

-1

Christians DO have moral superiority over Islam and to pretend otherwise is delusional

-8

Anonymous #1 2d

How old was Rebekah?

10

Anonymous #3 2d

The prevailing view among many scholars is that she was of conventional marriageable age, typically interpreted to mean early-to-mid teens or slightly older.

-2

Slavery was also common in those times, yet it was Christians who ended it thousands of years later based on new understanding of God’s eternal character. Biblical principles and natural law can allow us to reject pedophilia, but those who hold to the Islamic Hadiths must reconcile that their prophet (a perfect human) had sex with a 9 year old girl

-4

Anonymous #1 2d

Early teens is of marriageable age? 🤨

12

Anonymous #3 2d

Did Mary consent?

14

Anonymous #1 2d

Btw, recent research (seems to be based on pattern analysis to trace who said what) shows that the idea of Aisha being 6 or 9 likely came from an unreliable source almost 150 years after and 1000 miles away from the actual marriage https://newlinesmag.com/essays/oxford-study-sheds-light-on-muhammad-underage-wife-aisha/

11

Anonymous #3 2d

While 18 is the general age of majority for marriage in the U.S., child marriage remains legal in 34 states, often allowing teens as young as 15–17 to marry with parental or judicial consent. Four states—California, Mississippi, New Mexico, and Oklahoma—have no statutory minimum age, allowing marriage at any age with court approval.

-4

Anonymous #1 2d

No, your God just condoned the idea of owning child slaves lol

9

Anonymous #3 2d

Yes Mary consented

-5

Anonymous #1 2d

There are letters that still exist from christians in the US who are complaining to their senators that they deserve to have slaves because the bible said so

8

Anonymous #3 2d

If you make this claim, you reduce much of the Hadith teachings to hearsay and invalidate much of Islamic teaching

-3

Anonymous OP 2d

Christians ended slavery. Atheists never would have done that. The topic of slavery in the Bible is too complex for me to waste in a yik yak thread but there are interesting debates online. I’d reccomend the YouTube video “Slavery in the Bible: Atheist-Christian Dialogue (Trent Horn, Gavin Ortlund, Josh Bowen, Kipp Davis)”

-9

Anonymous #1 2d

I know. That’s the argument Little makes: “As it stands, any given hadith (sahih or otherwise) should be presumed to be inauthentic or unreliable, until the contrary can be demonstrated.”

5

Anonymous #3 2d

These two paragraphs are particularly interesting

8

Anonymous #1 2d

So you’re going to ignore all the christians who wanted slavery to continue so much they tried to reimplement it after the law changed? Or the christian lawmakers who passed segregation laws after?

3

Anonymous #3 2d

So Islamic scripture has been corrupted? Are you arguing for or against the veracity of Islam?

-3

Anonymous OP 2d

I wouldn’t judge Mozart because of how an amateur pianist played his piece. In the same way, God’s eternal character and genius remains the same, but there are Christians who fail to understand it. God’s morality must be judged separately from how a current small minority of “Christians” think

-1

Anonymous #1 2d

Fanny Wright was atheist and did that.

3

Anonymous #1 2d

I’m saying that the opinion of modern scholars seems to be that in some cases, the parts of some hadiths don’t hold up or don’t seem accurate. Traditionalists still treat them as second only to the Quran, so there is some conflict here. Aisha is usually cited as 6 or 9 in Sunni circles btw, but Shiites disagree. That’s where the sectarian conflict comes in

4

Anonymous #1 2d

You didn’t answer, yes or no do you acknowledge that there were christians in the US that fought to preserve slavery and when they failed, christians implemented segregation laws based on race?

1

Anonymous OP 2d

Isn’t the Southern Baptist Convention still around 😭

3

Anonymous OP 2d

bruh 😭

6

Anonymous #3 2d

Don’t tell 1 he’s gonna cry that this doesn’t count lol

5

Anonymous #3 2d

Fanny Wright spoke out against it, but organized Christianity is what defeated slavery. It might be too bold to say Atheists never would have done it, but atheism wasn’t really an organized movement during those times

-1

Anonymous #1 2d

Shifted the goalpost lol

4

Anonymous #3 2d

I see, I’ve never heard of that sectarian conflict. Would you see yourself as a Shiite?

-1

Anonymous #1 2d

I’m not Muslim, I’m just interested in some of these debates

3

Anonymous #3 2d

Obviously there are people who argue for slavery using the Bible, that was never a claim I made.

-1

Anonymous #1 2d

Organized Christianity both opposed and supported slavery. Churches split into northern and southern branches over this

3

Anonymous #1 2d

I asked a yes or no. Try again moron. You said “christians ended slavery” some christians actually fought extremely hard to preserve it. Most of the confederacy who fought for slavery was built of christian sects. Yes or no, hurry up.

0

Anonymous OP 2d

More like clarified a hyperbole

-2

Anonymous #1 2d

So you acknowledge that christians also fought to preserve slavery?

1

Anonymous OP 2d

What was the yes or no question? I must have missed it

-1

Anonymous OP 2d

Yes duh I’m not historically illiterate

-1

Anonymous #1 2d

Great then your original response in response to the slavery topic holds no weight lmao

1

Anonymous OP 2d

What was my original response that hold no weight.

-2

Anonymous #1 2d

You tried twice to say “christians ended slavery” it wasn’t a single use of a hyperbole, you attempted to make that specific argument. Do you acknowledge that God commanded people to own children, as property of the master, without those childrens consent, yes or no?

1

Anonymous OP 2d

“Christian’s ended slavery” is a fact. I’m not dismissing that there were Christians on both sides, but clearly one side won. And no, God did not command people to own children. He placed regulations on an existing system, there was no command to actively engage in slavery

-1

Anonymous #1 2d

“Christians” did not end slavery; some christian’s did. You acknowledge the distinction, yes or no? And nice try! But that’s not what your own bible says. “children remain property of the master”

1

Anonymous OP 2d

The hyperbole I wanted to clarify is that I said “Atheists never would have done that” which is an unverifiable statement that I don’t actually hold as a factual truth

-1

Anonymous #1 2d

That’s not an answer

1

Anonymous OP 2d

First off, the slavery of the Bible is extremely different from the slavery you might imagine. I can see you are using AI recommended lines of reasoning so please engage in the material instead of posting AI. That Exodus passage isn’t about forcing people into slavery; it’s their own choice to sell themselves. What we see here is the Law of Sale. It’s like saying, children didn’t consent to be adopted by other family, and therefore the Law of adoption is to be blamed.

-2

Anonymous #4 2d

To be between 16-19. 4. A lot of scholars interpret her being 6 years into marriage age and not literally 6 years old. 5. She was previously married and widowed before this marriage 6. People didn’t live long back then 1500 years ago and married much younger, regardless of religion. 1500 years from now women will get periods at 20 and adults will be 30 and they will all call us pedos for losing it in high school

9

Anonymous #1 2d

That’s a direct excerpt from the bible. I didn’t ask you to justify the verse. Answer, yes or no do you acknowledge the distinction? God is telling people to own children as property of indentured servants; but the children can’t consent to being owned as property of the “master” You said that didn’t happen; the bible states otherwise.

4

Anonymous #4 2d

I think you meant to respond to 1

1

Anonymous #1 2d

Here’s the whole verse, read it in context. You did not send a direct excerpt. After reading the full text please ask a new clarifying question

-1

Anonymous OP 2d

Also as far as your distinction goes, it’s pure semantics. Yes I acknowledge the distinction but that doesn’t change that fact that Christians ended slavery

1

Anonymous #1 2d

What do you think my question is in relation to? Repeat the full question back to me I think you’re lost. I’ve read the full text. God explicitly said that children would be born as property if the parents who did consent to being slaves, had children while working for him. You said that didn’t happen, you’re objectively incorrect.

1

Anonymous #1 2d

And christians tried to preserve slavery! That’s equally as accurate

1

Anonymous #1 2d

i think the point of OP’s argument is you can’t claim moral superiority because “christian’s ended slavery” when they were the ones that also started it. you can’t claim moral superiority for fixing a problem when the exact same scripture was used to promote it that’s like a group of people setting a forest on fire, some members of that same group put it out and then claim that the group is morally superior because they put out the fire

4

Anonymous #5 2d

also i don’t mean christian’s literally started the concept of slavery, i meant they created the system for the trans atlantic slave trade (and used the bible to promote/justify it)

6

Anonymous #5 2d

This^

1

Anonymous #1 2d

also no one abrahamic religion is morally superior from the other good things have been done in the name of each, just as atrocious things have been done in the name of each as well and each scripture talks about peace and love as well as the justification/promotion of violence and harm

11

Anonymous #4 1d

Over 90% of Muslims regard the hadith that states that Aisha was six years old when married and nine years old when she was raped to be authentic. The "secondary book" it comes out of it is considered to be the most authentic of all.

9

Anonymous #8 1d

*of all secondary books

1