I contemplated Christianity and even read some of the Bible as well, but not to offend your beliefs, it seemed just as absurd as the Quran if not more so.
There different versions of the Bible, some add and remove specific gospels, which then some churches/denominations deem cannon or non cannon. For example the book of enoch, the whole story is basically absurdity about a race of half human half angels, was originally in the catholic bible but later renounced. Except it is still used in some versions of the bible followed by orthodox churches in Ethiopia and Eritrea. Note that this is just one example, there are many of things being added and removed from the new testament. In fact historically, the apostles of jesus thought he would return in their lifetime, but when people alive in jesus’s lifetime started dying, they decided to wrote everything down and compile it together.
Second is the fact that jesus did not fufill the jewish prophecy of a messiah, and started claiming he was son of god and had attributes of god, which is why they decided to crucify him as they he basically went against the teachings as attributed in the hebrew bible. Now christians claim that when jesus returns he will fulfill the remaining prophecy, but this is not a jewish belief, the messiah was supposed to establish God’s kingdom and what not outright, also its been over 2000 years where is Jesus???
Third, the ridiculous amount of denominations and sects within Christianity. It has more denominations than any other religion. The fundamental belief of christians non is in the trinity and that jesus sacrifice was to free us from the original sin. Yet the original christian sects did not necessarily believe this, the original christians were jews and there were gnostics, nazarenes, ebionites the later two who rejected jesus as god or the son of god and claimed that jesus never died but was taken to god by heaven. When the concept of the trinity and resurrection were introduced, which came quite some time after these were considered heresies and condemned. Now in the modern perspective we have catholics, protestants, baptists, mormons, latter day saints, just to name a few on top of countless other denominations we span on and on. How do you know which is the right one? They have fundamental conflicting beliefs, and not all of them can be right. Simply believing in the trinity and original sin is not enough, there’s more to fundamental christian beliefs, and jesus even claims in the bible not all who call him their lord and perform miracles in his name will get to see heaven.
Fourth both religions are similar in their ridiculous theology. A lot of people bring up mohammad being a pedophile for the case of aisha. But the virgin mary was reported to be about 12 when jesus was born, some sources claim older but no more than 14. This is hardly any better, wtf god decides to impregnate a 12 year old? I understand that obviously she conceded a baby without intercourse by your beliefs of course, but it still disturbing that given her age God made her conceive his child, who was also him in flesh form (which again seems absurd, but not the point). Then there’s the stories where God commands the israelites to massacre entire villages, including the animals and children. At time God himself just sounds fairly evil. Add in how humanity was organized destined to go to hell for the original sin, adam eating the apple. It doesn’t make logical sense because why would someone be punished for another person’s mistake, when they knew nothing about this or couldn’t stop this from happening? And then jesus comes in to die for our sins, but only if we believe he’s god, son of god, and that he sacrificed himself for us, and we follow his teachings, and we abstain from further sin. Okay... why did he need to die? How can he die if he’s god? Why can’t god just forgive us without the need for all this absurdity’s? Why are even being punished for a forgotten ancestor’s mistake? What did any of this prove if people are still going to go to hell, for choosing to wrong religion, thinking its the path to god, or the wrong sect thinking that their path to salvation was the true path and that the path to salvation was narrow and that few find it?
This is no better than Islamic theology where you can be a really good person, do your best to help animals and humanity, avoid harming anything or anyone with your words or actions, and even hold onto a belief that maybe god exists but no being able to know which god given the thousands of religions and sects. In the end youre spend an ETERNITY being tortured in a gruesome manner while some asshole who believed and asks for forgiveness for his sins before he dies goes to heaven? This is fundamentally bullshit, how can God claim to be loving, benevolent, merciful and then condemn people to being tortured forever because they believed in a wrong version of him or didnt know if he existed???? Not even the worst of humanity would do that! And not only this but the lack of proof of his existence! All these stories of him performing crazy miracles back in the day, raising the dead, water into wine, all sorts of stuff and now he does nothing? All we have are arbitrary books which are incredibly vague, make no sense, contradict themselves and each other, require centuries of study and still can’t be explained properly with millions of interpretations? As for miracles of god, how many times if you prayed for something genuine, like for a loved one to be safe, or for God to help you pass a test, or something innocent, and been refused? People who pray for their cancer or diseases to go away but still died and were not christian thus sent to hell? This is not love, this is not justice, this is EVIL at its core. This is the most significant contradiction I find in these two religions, and aside from this we find countless other contradictions, God gives us free will but predestines us and has his own plan for all of us, God tells us not to kill but then commands us to kill anyways, God says he loves us more than anyone else but smites us for making a mistake, then theres the literal contradictions in the bible where one thing is said, then the opposite is said later.
Atleast hindus, jains, sikhs, bahais, buddhists, jews believe that we’re judged for our own actions and not arbitrary belief. Some religions remove the idea of hell altogether saying that life on earth (given how much pain and suffering there is) is the closest to ‘hell’ we would be and to become close to god we just have to be good to those around us, and if we fail, we get to try again in another life until we get it right.
The fact of the matter is though that Newton’s third law, an action has an equal and opposite reaction, is justice. If I don’t believe in God for 60 years, he doesn’t believe in me and I cease to exist for 60 years, that’s fair. But what isn’t fair is an eternity of burning in a fire. Even a serial killer, he deserves to be punished for a finite period of time in relation to his sin. He kills 10 people, he should die 10 painful deaths, he lives 50 years as a murder, okay then 50 years in hell, not an eternity. But even then, a serial killer probably did some things in his life which were good as well, those can’t go ignored either right? Eventually he should get salvation. Now God claims to love us more than anyone else and be super merciful or whatever, more than anyone else. How can that be, if he creates a literal place for eternal torture for a creation of his that he made imperfect, and basically now way to affirm his presence but plenty of ways to reject everything i his sacred to texts. I remember Abdullah Sameer saying that if you create a product with a 8% failure rate, thats very bad and you need to improve it before releasing it to the public. But if the failure rate is fuckin over 80% this is horrible and by no means should you release it. That’s basically what God did tho, if were given destiny by him we don’t even have a fact in the matter. He’s punishing us for something he himself willed. This world is proof enough that God isn’t most merciful, kind, loving, whatever. Look at all these natural disasters, disease, war, torture, starvation. People resort to its God’s punishment, okay but I thought God was most merciful? I am indifferent to most people most I would anyone, not even a crazed pyscho murdering pedophile rapist to be inflicted with a painful disease or beaten to death. Rather I would want him to get the appropriate help so that he can reform and become a productive member of society who does good for the people and the world. So now by that logic, me, an ordinary dude on reddit, is more merciful than God. Now take in how entire nations get killed due to trivial shit. Look at what happened to the jews in the holocast, look at whats happening to kids starving in africa and india, look at how christians and enslaved are being killed by ISIS in arab countries, look at how muslims are being tortured and killed in China, Burma, and North Korea, look at the extensive history of racial violence of large scale disasters that killed and gravely injured millions. Not all of them could have been bad people or had the wrong belief right? Wtf. Meanwhile some of the richest people in the world are funny enough agnostic or atheist. Elon Musk, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Larry Page. It doesn’t take much faith or proof to look around the world and see that it isn’t fair or just which goes against the principle that God if fair or just, and throw in an afterlife, were the majority if people are tortured forever, and this basically sounds no different than a fairytale.
Funny enough Islam and Christianity are also the only two religions that really had forced conversion indoctrinated into them. That explains why the majority of the world falls into these two, because of people killing and enslaving each other for not believing its the truth, and using the fear of the death penalty, punishment in the grave, and hell to beat them into submission.
To this very day I am still terrified of what happens if I die, thanks to the harmful ideologies imposed by my family through their religion, and if I was born Christian it would have been the exact same. Sorry for the rant but I feel I just had to let all of this out lmao.

Genital cutting is an ancient ritual practice. In fact, it is so ancient, it predates recorded history. It is impossible to pinpoint exactly when, how, or why it originated (or who came up with the idea in the first place). It exists in many cultures across a very large expanse of time. But the history of genital cutting is far from stagnant and by piecing together a timeline of events, thoughts, and cases it begins to shape a cohesive narrative of these practices and the body parts in question.
The prepuce (or foreskin) evolved with Homo sapiens hundreds of thousands of years ago. This body part is present in nearly every mammalian species (species such as the platypus and echidna have a preputial sac. Regardless, all mammals have an external protective structure for their reproductive organs). Circumcision most likely does not have a single origin point, but following it back far enough indicates two areas in particular where the practice can be traced to: Sub Saharan Africa and Australia. On the Australian continent, circumcision is practiced as a coming of age ceremony among certain Aborigine tribes, some of which practice further genital cutting such as subincision where the underside of the urethra is split open. While ancient, the practices here have remained largely isolated to the continent. Sub Saharan Africa may very well be ground zero where circumcision across the continent and the Middle East can trace their roots to. Similar to the Australian version, it seems to have also begun as a coming of age ritual and tribal marker. Other possibilities are punishments for enemy prisoners, reduced punitive measures from death or castration, sacrifices to deities, and alternatives to child sacrifice. (Glick, 2005)
The first people to practice some form of genital surgery on boys and young men lived somewhere in the region extending from northern Africa and the northeastern shore of the Mediterranean to the eastern shore of the Black Sea. The practice appears to have reached the Egyptian people by 3000 bce, but employed for many centuries principally as a badge of initiation into the priestly caste. The operation probably consisted of a simple longitudinal cut into the upper surface of the foreskin, creating an apron-like opening. There is no evidence of more radical surgery resembling our own version, and nothing to suggest that anyone ever performed genital surgery on infants.
c. 2400 BCE A relief in the Necropolis of Saqqara contains what is probably the oldest reference of genital cutting. It shows two youths (one of which is restrained) as they are undergoing some form of genital cutting by priests. The inscription reads:

"Hold him and do not allow him to faint"
”Thoroughly rub off what is there”
”I will cause it to heal”

c. 2300 BCE An Egyptian named Uha boasted that he and his peers faced the ordeal with stoic calm

When I was circumcised, together with one hundred and twenty men. There was none thereof who hit out, there was none thereof who was hit, and there was none thereof who scratched and there was none thereof who was scratched."

Circumcision is now so closely associated with Jews because, while many Middle Eastern peoples, including the ancient Hebrews, genitally altered some boys or youths as a custom usually done at puberty, it was not until around 500 bce that the Judeans defined circumcision as an obligatory ritual practice for all male infants. In pre-Yahwist times, circumcising a son (not necessarily an infant) was probably a personal offering to the gods in support of a request for a special favor or forgiveness. (Glick, 2005)
It may also have originated from the agricultural practices. Pruning is an important part of cultivating grapes and olives. Perhaps some believed that “pruning” the male organ would also help with men’s fertility. In fact there are even comparisons written later within the Torah regarding this

“When you enter the land and plant any tree for food, you shall regard its fruit as its foreskin. Three years it shall be uncircumcised for you, not to be eaten. In the fourth year all the fruit shall be set aside for jubilation before the Lord; and only in the fifth year may you use its fruit—that its yield to you may be increased.”

[Leviticus 19:23]

The Torah

Assembled in the sixth century bce, this is where circumcision starts becoming more familiar with most westerners as the Jewish ritual performed on boys. Within the Torah, the Five Books of Moses, which makes up the beginning of the Old Testament of the Bible, circumcision is mentioned numerous times. However, only twice is it declared as a ritual requirement to be performed on boys. First in the story of Abraham, then in Leviticus.

“When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared before Abram and said ‘I am God almighty. Walk with me and be blameless. And I make my covenant between me and you, and will make you exceedingly numerous.’ Then Abram fell on his face; and God said to him ‘As for Me, this is My covenant with you: You shall be the father of a multitude of nations. And you shall no longer be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations. I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make nations of you; and kings shall come from you. I will establish my covenant between me and you, and your offspring after you through their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. And I will give to you, and to your offspring after you, the land where you are now alien, all the land of Canaan, as a perpetual holding. I will be their God.’
“God said to Abraham, ‘As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you, throughout their generations. This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. Throughout your generations every male among you shall be circumcised when he is eight days old, including the slave born in your house and the one bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring. Both the slave born in your house and the one bought with your money must be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.’”

[Genesis 17:1-14]

“The Lord spoke to Moses saying: ‘Speak to the people of Israel saying: If a woman at childbirth bears a male child, she shall be ceremonially unclean seven days as at the time of her menstruation; she shall be unclean. On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.’”

[Leviticus 12:1-3]
A few points to make on these texts. First: no single individual wrote the Torah. Biblical scholars have shown that the Five Books consist of a number of texts, composed over several centuries by authors with distinctive mentalities and styles, and eventually assembled sometime shortly after 500 bce. Most scholars recognize four texts, labeled J, E, D, and P. The earliest, J, stands for Jahwist— that is, the text in which Jahweh (or Yahweh, ‘‘Jehovah’’) appears as the deity; in E he is often called Elohim (literally, ‘‘gods’’). These two, probably composed during the tenth and ninth centuries bce, include parts of what are now Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers. The text called D, constituting most of Deuteronomy, was composed in the seventh century bce by religious reformers intent on eliminating polytheistic worship of local deities.
Last of all, P was the work of the priestly class that emerged into prominence in the late sixth century, after the return from Babylonian exile. Also a composite text, it includes nearly all of Leviticus and much of Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers. All the various texts were combined into a single Torah in the fifth century bce by an unknown author or authors known as Redactor.
Genesis 17 is part of P, the last text to be composed but the first to mention circumcision. This was written over a thousand years after the figure of Abraham would have existed.
586 BCE The Babylonians conquer Judea, destroyed the Temple, exiled the Israelites for the next sixty years, and destroyed the Hebrew monarchy.
Upon their return, the newly established priestly caste assumed control of the small region and it’s population establishing what was effectively a theocracy. (To clarify, these are priests, not rabbis. Rabbis will take a larger role later on.) It fell on the priests to establish a rigorously tight knit tribe as well as a degree of independence from their neighbors. This can be seen in many of the laws within Leviticus and Deuteronomy such as forbidding intermarriage, temple centered sacrifice, ritual bathing, strict control over male ejaculation, and, of course, circumcision.
The holy covenant, or bris milah (literally ‘covenant of cutting’) performed on male children on the eighth day of life (the day they are born counts as 1) was a new invention. Circumcision was performed by other Semitic tribes at the time, sometimes as ritual blood sacrifice, sometimes on slaves, sometimes on prisoners of war.
But this invention by the priests worked as an initiation to the father, not the son. Judaism existed as an intensely patriarchal culture. And a man’s sons represented his future lineage, especially his son’s penis. As the priests devised it, it was the father who performed the operation. In this way, the father was forced to submit his sons, his future lineage, to the will of the tribal elders as he cut into the flesh of his foreskin, the blood being a ritual sacrifice to the Lord as symbol of the covenant. If the father refused, he would be cut off from his people, which in ancient times was akin to a death sentence. Similar to the psychological effects of hazing, after sacrificing part of his child to ensure his place in society, it is very difficult to turn away from it. Those who have studied economics may recognize this as the sunk cost fallacy. “Well, I’ve already put in so much money/time/effort into this, if I left now it would all have been for nothing. I should keep putting into it to salvage my investment rather than quitting to prevent further loss.” What better way to promote such social cohesion in an ethnically exclusive tribe in hostile territory?
It should be noted that the version of circumcision being discussed is much less severe than what most of us are familiar with today. The original brit milah removed only the very end of the foreskin that overhang past the glans at birth.
Howard Eilberg-Schwartz (a rabbi and anthropologist) has shown that for ancient Judeans the trimmed penis was a symbol not only of patrilineal social organization but of male reproductive prowess and male social supremacy. He points out that in verse 11 of Genesis 17 (‘‘that shall be the sign of the covenant’’), circumcision is called ot, which may be translated as either ‘‘sign’’ or ‘‘symbol.’’ No great imagination is required to understand why the circumcised penis was an ideal symbol of the Lord’s covenant, and of everything that the priests intended to promote with their new rite of initiation: male reproductive success, continuity in the male line, male-defined ethnic identity and exclusiveness, acknowledgment of patrilineally legitimated priestly authority. (Schwartz, 1990)
A commonly made claim is that ancient circumcision originated as a hygiene measure. There are several problems with this. First, this claim is entirely modern, only arising in the twentieth century by circumcision advocates in the American medical community. Second, there is no mention in the ancient texts themselves regarding hygiene in connection to circumcision. This combines the western idea that people did not bathe “back then” (another myth, hygiene habits of ancient people are well-documented) and an Americanized misunderstanding of normal penile anatomy which leads to the cultural myth that the foreskin is inherently dirty and difficult to wash. In fact, the texts explicitly mention bathing must be performed by men and women who became “unclean” (meaning spiritually unclean) on a frequent basis. [Exodus 30:17-21, 40:30-32, Leviticus 6:27, 11:24-28, 13:6, 13:58, 14:8-9, 14:43-47, 15:4-13, 15:16-18, 16:26-28, 17:15-16, Numbers 8:5-7, 19:10, 19:17-19, 31:24, 19:7-8, Deuteronomy 23:9-11]. The modern form of circumcision where the entire foreskin is excised did not evolve until centuries later, meaning the ancient Hebrews still had the majority of their foreskin to wash regardless. Not to mention the majority of cultures never practiced circumcision from Inuits to Semites with no issues with their hygiene. And lastly, the doublethink required to believe that the environment made it impossible to maintain basic hygiene, yet was sterile enough to perform a surgery on a newborn’s or slave’s genitals makes the idea that circumcision was done for hygienic reasons absurd to say the least.
There is one more point to consider as to why the Jewish priests decided on this body modification in particular. The Torah has very strict rules regarding when and where a man may not ejaculate. Leviticus 15:1-18, 32 is a prime example, as well as Leviticus 22:4 and Deuteronomy 23:10. This line from Leviticus clearly shows the authors' thoughts on sexuality:

“If a man lies with a woman and has an emission if semen, both of them shall bathe in water, and be unclean until the evening.” [Leviticus 15:18]

As will be shown throughout this timeline, sexual control of males is a recurring theme of ritual circumcision. It is no accident that a sexually repressive society included a partial amputation on children’s genitals as part of it’s practice. Circumcision was not implemented as a hygiene measure, but rather as a tribal marker and a method of psychosexual control of members of the ancient Hebrew tribe.
333 BCE Alexander the Great annexes all of Palestine. In the now Greek controlled Mediterranean, Jewish emigrants begin trading and moving across the Hellenistic world seeking greater economic opportunities.
c. 200 BCE Some Jewish men, looking for more acceptance in the greater Hellenistic culture, begin the practice of stretching their foreskins to regain the lost tissue. Key features of Hellenistic culture were athletic exercises in gymnasia and athletic performances in public arenas, where men appeared in the nude. A penis sheathed in an intact foreskin was an acceptable sight, but a circumcised penis was another matter entirely. Jewish men, with their shortened foreskins and semi-exposed glans, were mocked and ridiculed for their indecency. But, by applying tension wither with a cord or weight, the skin would stretch until they had a socially acceptable coverage.

“They built a gymnasium in Jerusalem, according to Gentile custom, and removed the marks of circumcision, and abandoned the holy covenant.”

[1 Maccabees 1:14–15]

“And now I announce unto thee that the children of Israel will not keep true to this ordinance, and they will not circumcise their sons according to all this law ... and all of them, sons of Beliar [Belial, the Devil], will leave their sons uncircumcised as they were born. And there will be great wrath from the Lord against the children of Israel, because they have forsaken His covenant and turned aside from His word, and provoked and blasphemed, inasmuch as they do not observe the ordinance of this law; for they have treated their members [i.e., penises] like the Gentiles, so that they may be removed and rooted out of the land.”

[Charles, Jubilees 15.33–34]
170 BCE Antiochus outlaws circumcision on penalty of death
167 BCE The Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes, a determined Hellenizer, forcibly entered Jerusalem, plundered and defiled the Temple, and instituted widespread repressive measures. Antiochus is said to have demanded that the Jews ‘‘leave their sons uncircumcised.”
125 BCE John Hyrcanus conquered Idumea. The Idumeans were required to convert to Juadism and to be circumcised as a token of their acceptance

“Hyrcanus took also Dora and Marissa, cities of Idumea, and subdued all the Idumeans; and permitted them to stay in that country, of they would circumcise their genitals, and make use of the laws of the Jews; and they were so desirous of living in the country of their forefathers, that they submitted to the use of circumcision, and the rest of the living Jewish ways of living; at which time therefore this befell them, that they were thereafter no other than Jews.”

[Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews]
c. 100 BCE Approximately 3 million Jews live within the Roman Empire.
First Century CE The historian Strabo, in his Geographica, composed early in the first century, describes the ‘‘successors’’ of Moses as having acted righteously for a time; but eventually, he says, ‘‘superstitious’’ and ‘‘tyrannical’’ priests gained control and the culture took a downward turn:

‘‘From superstition arose abstentions from foods, such as are customary even now, and circumcisions and excisions and similar usages.’’

[Strabo, Geographica 16.2.37]
The first-century historian Tacitus also describes Jewish culture in hostile language, citing circumcision as one of the ‘‘base and abominable’’ practices characteristic of Judaism.
[Tacitus, Histories 5.1]
First-century biographer and historian Suetonious, who had once served as Hadrian's secretary, recalled that

“In the days of Domitian the collection of the Jewish tax was carried out with especial severity. .. . I myself remember a scene from my youth, when the Procurator, surrounded by a host of his assistants, subjected an old man of about ninety to a physical examination, in order to determine whether or not he was circumcised."

[Suetonius, Domitian 12.2, in Lives of the Twelve Caesars.]
30 CE Philo of Alexandria lived outside of Judea and received a classical Greek education. As a Stoic-Platonic philosopher, he wrote apologetic pieces on Judaism as he sought rational explanations for Jewish customs, hoping to vindicate Judaism as a civilized religion. On the topic of circumcision:

“I will begin with that which is an object of ridicule among many people. Now the practice which is thus ridiculed, namely the circumcision of the genital organs, is very zealously observed by many other nations ... . And therefore it would be well for the detractors to desist from childish mockery and to inquire in a wise and more serious spirit into the causes to which the performance of this custom is due, instead of dismissing the matter prematurely and impugning the causes to which the performance of this custom is due, instead of dismissing the matter prematurely and impugning the good sense of great nations.”

[Philo, Special Laws, 1.2-1.3.]
He says there are two main reasons for it:

“One is the excision of pleasures which bewitch the mind. For since among the love-lures of pleasure the palm is held by the mating of man and woman, the legislators thought good to dock the organ which ministers to such intercourse, thus making circumcision the figure of the excision of excessive and superfluous pleasure, not only of one pleasure but of all the other pleasures signified by one, and that the most imperious.
“Two is that it is a symbol of a man’s knowing himself, and discarding that terrible disease, the vain opinion of the soul; for some men, like good statuaries, have boasted that they can make the most beautiful animal, man; and then being puffed up with arrogance, have deified themselves, hiding from sight the true cause of the creation of all things namely, God.”

[Philo, Special Laws, 1.8–12, 104–7.]
And why perform it on infants, rather than at least on boys who will understand the significance of the operation?

“It is very much better and more farsighted of us to prescribe circumcision for infants, for perhaps one who is full-grown would hesitate through fear to carry out this ordinance of his own free will."

[Philo, Works of Philo]
Contrary to the Greeks and Romans, who believed in keeping the glans covered to show sexual control, Philo argued that removing the foreskin was what allowed Jewish men even greater control over their sexual passions. But why circumcise only males? In a volume entitled Questions and Answers on Genesis, Philo’s answer is that

‘‘the male has more pleasure in, and desire for, mating than does the female, and he is more ready for it. Therefore Herightly leaves out the female, and suppresses the undue impulses of the male by the sign of circumcision. [So] it was proper that his pride should be checked by the sign of circumcision.’’

[Philo, Questions and Answers 3.47, 241–42.]
50 CE At the Council of Jerusalem, or Apostolic Council, the early Christian church declared circumcision was not necessary for Christians
52 CE The Apostle Paul recruits followers to the new Christian religion. He also criticizes the practice of circumcision heavily

“Now I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to everyman who receives circumcision that he is bound to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. ... For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love.”

[Galatians 5:2–4, 6]
Paul’s teachings begin to be the defining core for separating Christianity as it’s own religion rather than a subset of Judaism and also the question of whether converts would have to convert to Judaism first before becoming a Christian. Beyond the theological reasons for nullifying the holy covenant, there was a practical reason as well. Early Christianity needed converts badly. And the prospect for an adult man to have to go through a genital cutting ritual is an obvious turn off to potential recruits. So, for the sake of marketing as well as divinity, circumcision was not included as a Christian tradition.
70 CE The Romans capture the city of Jerusalem during the First Jewish Revolt and destroy the second Temple. With it’s destruction cam an end to the priestly era. Leonard Glick describes the transition from a centralized authority to decentralized communities led by studious men who took up the mantle of social and spiritual leaders within the local communities

“Priestly Judaism was a sacrificial religion, appropriate to a settled agricultural economy. Ordinary people brought animals and crops to the Temple for sacrifices conducted by priests, either as communal offerings or offerings by individuals seeking absolution for sins and transgressions. This way of life persisted for more than five hundred years, through the Hellenistic period and into the era of Roman rule. But, as I’ve noted, by the second century bce large numbers of Jews had left Judea and settled throughout the eastern Mediterranean, particularly in such urban centers as Alexandria, Damascus, and Antioch. Since these emigrants could attend sacrificial rituals in Jerusalem seldom, if ever, they developed their own version of Judaism, centering on synagogues, where they met for everything from communal prayer and Torah study to family celebrations and casual socializing. Men rose to leadership in these communities not through patrilineal descent, and obviously not through claims to priestly authority, but because their fellow Jews recognized and respected their learning and wisdom. It was these men who were called rabbis: ‘masters’ or ‘teachers.’” (Glick, 2005)

c. 90 CE A head tax, the Fiscus Judaicus, is levied against Jews in the Roman Empire.
95 CE The Roman Emperor Titus Clemens is executed for circumcising himself after converting to Judaism
Second Century CE During the Rabbinic period, the rabbis, now attempting to maintain a dispersed Jewish population, reevaluated many Jewish traditions including circumcision. Particularly, they addressed the issue of men “uncircumcising” themselves by stretching their remaining foreskin, effectively undoing the holy covenant. Around 140 ce is when circumcision transformed from the original form to what it is recognized as today. In order to prevent the obliteration of the seal of the covenant, rabbis instituted brit peri’ah (that is ‘covenant of tearing’) which lay bare the glans. The mohel (traditional circumciser) would grasp the remaining foreskin and underlying mucosal tissue, forcibly separating this from the glans (using sharpened thumbnails), and tearing it away. Failure to remove all of the mucosal foreskin tissue, the rabbis ruled, rendered the circumcision invalid. This made the mark of the covenant both irreversible and a stronger marking of Jewish identity.
Probably at the same time they added metsitzah b’peh (sucking) where the mohel would place the freshly circumcised penis in his mouth and suck away the blood from the wound.
132 CE Hadrian outlaws circumcision in the Roman Empire under penalty of death and reiterated the ban on castration. The fact that circumcision received the same penalty as castration attests to the views Romans had on the subject
[Scrpitores historiea Augustae: Hadrian 14.2]
140 CE Emperor Antoninus Pius modified the ruling of Hadrian allowing only Hebrews to circumcise their children, while upholding the legal protection for all others

“Jews are permitted to circumcise only their sons on the authority of a rescript of the Divine Pius; if anyone shall commit it on one who is not of the same religion, he shall suffer the punishment of the castrator.”

[Digesta 48:8:11. Trans. Amnon Linder]

“Roman citizens, who suffer that they themselves or their slaves be circumcised in accordance with the Jewish custom, are exiled perpetually to an island and their property confiscated; the doctors suffer capital punishment. If Jews shall circumcise purchased slaves of another nation, they shall be banished or suffer capital punishment.”

[Paulus, 5:22:3–4, in Linder, *(n. 64), pp. 117–20. 67. Ibid., pp. 138–44.]

The Mishnah

The Mishnah (completed around 200 ce) serve as an ongoing dialogue between rabbis across generations. This text is an organized summary of every precept on social, economic, and ritual behavior that for centuries had been discussed, argued, and interpreted. Circumcision is mentioned several times throughout with some sections devoted entirely to the practice. Rabbinic explanations of circumcision are not concerned with the philosophical and medical rationales claimed by later sources, but with the sanctification of a divine commandment.

“19.2 They do prepare all that is needed for circumcision on the Sabbath: they cut, tear, suck [out the wound]. And they put on it a poultice and cumin. If one did not pound it on the eve of the Sabbath, he chews it in his teeth and puts it on. If one did not mix wine and oil on the eve of the Sabbath, let this be put on by itself and that by itself. And they do not make a bandage in the first instance. But they wrap a rag around [the wound of the circumcision]. If one did not prepare [the necessary rag] on the eve of the Sabbath, he wraps [the rag] around his finger and brings it, and even from a [the necessary rag] on the eve of the Sabbath, he wraps [the rag] around his finger and brings it, and even from a different courtyard.

Here is a discussion piece in the Mishnah between several rabbis on the term “uncircumcised” and it’s interpretation:

"R. Eliezer b. Azariah says, ‘‘The foreskin is disgusting, for evil men are shamed by reference to it’’ ... R. Ishmael says, ‘‘Great is circumcision, for thirteen covenants are made thereby.’’ R. Yose says, ‘‘Great is circumcision, since it overrides the prohibitions of the Sabbath, which is subject to strict rules.’’ R. Joshua b. Qorha says, ‘‘Great is circumcision, for it was not suspended even for a moment for the sake of Moses, the righteous’’ ... Rabbi says, ‘‘Great is circumcision, for, despite all the commandments which Abraham our father carried out, he was called complete and whole only when he had circumcised himself as it is said, Walk before me and be perfect (Gen. 17:1).’’ ‘‘Another matter: Great is circumcision, for if it were not for that, the Holy One, blessed be he, would not have created the world, since it says, Thus says the Lord: But for my covenant day and night, I should not have set forth the ordinances of heaven and earth (Jer. 33:25).’’

210 CE The special value attributed to the prepuce in Greek culture is mirrored in the medical literature when Galen singles it out as being among the most brilliantly useful adornments of the body

“Nature out of her abundance ornaments all the members, especially in man. In many parts there is manifest ornamentation, though at times this is obscured by the brilliance of their usefulness. The ears show obvious ornamentation, and so, I suppose, does the skin called prepuce at the end of the penis and the flesh of the buttocks.”

[Galen, De usu partium corporis humani 11.13. Trans. Margaret Tallmadge May, 2 vols. 1968 2: 529]
339 CE The Chrisitan Emperor Constantine outlaws the circumcision of slaves, making it punishable by death
[Schäfer, The History of the Jews]

The Talmud

The Talmud (completed around 500 ce) is made up of the continued dialogue among rabbis after the writing of the Mishnah. According to rabbinic legislation it is a Jewish father's duty to have his son circumcised (Sh. Ar., YD 260:1). the penalty of non-observance being "karet," excision from the people. Should he neglect to do so, it devolved on the bet din (ibid., 260:2). It is not a sacrament, and any child born of a Jewish mother is a Jew, whether circumcised or not (Ḥul. 4b; 'Ab. Zarah 27a; Shulḥan 'Aruk, Yoreh De'ah, 264, 1). Although circumcision may be performed by any Jew (including a woman, if no man is available: Maim. Yad, Milah, 2:1), in the first instance it is desirable that the operator, called a mohel, be a loyal adherent to the tenets of Judaism (Sh. Ar., YD 264:1). Even in talmudic times, he was described as a craftsman. In most modern communities, he has been specially trained in the principles of asepsis and in the technique of circumcision and has received rabbinic recognition. The operation must be performed on the eighth day, preferably early in the morning (YD 262:1), thus emulating Abraham in his eagerness to undertake a divine command. Should the child be premature or in poor health, the rite must be postponed until seven days after he has recovered from a general disease or until immediately after recovery from a local disorder (262:2–263:3). Should a child for any reason have been circumcised before the eighth day or have been born already circumcised (i.e., without a foreskin, aposthia), the ceremony of "shedding the blood of the covenant" (hattafat dam berit) must be performed on the eighth day, provided it is a weekday and the child is fit (263:4). This is done by puncturing the skin of the glans with a scalpel or needle and allowing a drop of blood to exude. If the eighth day is a Sabbath or festival, the circumcision must nevertheless take place (266:2) unless the child is born by Cesarean section, when it is postponed to the next weekday.
Here is a line referencing the later addition of periah

"The commandment of periah [uncovering and laying bare the corona] was not given to the Patriarch Abraham."

[BT Yevamot 71b]
In a Talmudic passage that relates the Hebrew word “uncircumcised” with “unclean”

“‘the uncircumcised male, like the tumtum [one with incomplete genitals], is a person of ambiguous sexual identity. ... One who is uncircumcised is not only not fully Jewish but also not fully male. ... the uncircumcised Jewish male is not only barely a Jew— he is also, from the Jewish perspective, barely a male”

[Yebamot 70a–72a]
Interestingly, the Talmud also includes exemptions of boys from being circumcised if the parents had lost previous sons to the operation

“It was taught: If she circumcised her first son and he dies, and her second son and he died, she should not circumcise her third son, so taught Rabbi. Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel stated that she should circumcise her third child, but [if he died] her third son, so taught Rabbi. Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel stated that she should circumcise her third child, but [if he died] she must not circumcise her fourth… Rabbi Yochanan said there was once a case in Zippori in which four sisters had sons: The first sister circumcised her son and he died, the second sister circumcised her son and he died, the third sister circumcised her son and he died, and the fourth sister came to Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel and he told her ‘You must not circumcise your son.’”

[Yevamot 64]

The Quran and the Hadiths

Islam, the third Abrahamic religion, was founded in the early seventh century by Muhammad ibn Abdullah. Despite being the most recent major religion, it is the currently the largest circumcising culture in the world. The Quran, made up of Muhammad’s divine revelations, says nothing about circumcision. Only in the Hadiths, his sayings, is it mentioned. It is also within the hadiths that circumcision is a practice for women as well (female circumcision meaning excision of the clitoral hood, defined today by the WHO as type Ia FGM). In the most widely accepted tradition, he is supposed to have taught that "circumcision is a sunnah (ordinance) for men and a makrumah (honorable) for women. Although the Muslim code of religious law (shariah) recommends performance of circumcision at the age of seven days, this is seldom followed. Genesis 17 says that Abraham circumcised Ishmael, the putative ancestor of Arab peoples, at age thirteen, and this age is generally taken as the latest acceptable date (though it is still done later). Most Muslims circumcised young boys, with considerable age variation. Muhammad himself has two conflicting stories regarding his own circumcision. The first is that he was circumcised on his seventh day by his grandfather, Abd al-Muttalib. The second, later version is that he was born circumcised (aposthetic). This seems to be a reflection of the rabbi’s retroactive edits that the Jewish patriarchs were born circumcised (and, by extension, perfect). Circumcision at the time was a common practice in the Arabian peninsula by both Jews and pagans (pagans practiced on boys and girls), so including the practice into the new religion would not be a difficult feat. Differing accounts within the Hadiths sometimes include circumcision, and other times do not.

“Five things are fitra [acts considered to be of a refined person]: circumcision, shaving pubic hair with a razor, trimming the mustache, paring one’s nails, and plucking the hair from one’s armpits.”

[Abu Hurayra, one of the companions of Muhammad]

“Ten are the acts according to fitra: clipping the mustache, letting the beard grow, using toothpicks, snuffing water in the nose, cutting the nails, washing the finger joints, plucking the hair under the armpits, shaving the pubic hair, and cleaning one’s private parts with water. The narrator said: I have forgotten the tenth, but it may have been rinsing the mouth.”

[Aisha, one of Muhammad’s wives. The Book of Purification.]
While the scriptural evidence in support of female circumcision is weak, it is still heavily practiced in Islamic and Islamic adjacent countries to this day. For those who follow the practice, hadiths can be found to support their beliefs:

“A woman used to perform circumcision in Medina. The Prophet said to her: ‘Do not cut severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband.’”

[Sunan Abu Dawood]
During the rise of Islam and it’s spread, the act of circumcision rose and spread with it. While female circumcision was inconsistent, male circumcision was prominent and undoubtedly considered mandatory by early Muslims.
The myth that circumcision was implemented by the ancient Hebrews for environmental or hygienic purposes follows the origins of Islamic circumcision as well. And just like it’s ancient predecessor, these claims are easily debunked. There are no mentions of hygiene or sand being problematic at the time. Bathing is mentioned so frequently it could not be considered a rare occasion for people of the era. Circumcision is only mentioned in regards to submission of oneself to Allah and to follow the way of the prophet Muhammad.
There are some arguments to be made that circumcision is not prescribed by the Quran. The prophet Ibrahim (Abraham) is not circumcised in the Qur'an, or if he is, no mention of it is ever made in the 67 times that his name is written. A covenant sealed with circumcision, as it is described in the Bible, is also never mentioned. Some quotes even seem to speak directly against the practice

"Let there be no change in Allah's creation."

[ar-Rum 30:30]

Arabic Hadith:

لَمَّا كَانَتْ لَيْلَتِيَ الَّتِي كَانَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم فِيهَا عِنْدِي انْقَلَبَ فَوَضَعَ رِدَاءَهُ وَخَلَعَ نَعْلَيْهِ فَوَضَعَهُمَا عِنْدَ رِجْلَيْهِ وَبَسَطَ طَرَفَ إِزَارِهِ عَلَى فِرَاشِهِ فَاضْطَجَعَ فَلَمْ يَلْبَثْ إِلاَّ رَيْثَمَا ظَنَّ أَنْ قَدْ رَقَدْتُ فَأَخَذَ رِدَاءَهُ رُوَيْدًا وَانْتَعَلَ رُوَيْدًا وَفَتَحَ الْبَابَ فَخَرَجَ ثُمَّ أَجَافَهُ رُوَيْدًا فَجَعَلْتُ دِرْعِي فِي رَأْسِي وَاخْتَمَرْتُ وَتَقَنَّعْتُ إِزَارِي ثُمَّ انْطَلَقْتُ عَلَى إِثْرِهِ حَتَّى جَاءَ الْبَقِيعَ فَقَامَ فَأَطَالَ الْقِيَامَ ثُمَّ رَفَعَ يَدَيْهِ ثَلاَثَ مَرَّاتٍ ثُمَّ انْحَرَفَ فَانْحَرَفْتُ فَأَسْرَعَ فَأَسْرَعْتُ فَهَرْوَلَ فَهَرْوَلْتُ فَأَحْضَرَ فَأَحْضَرْتُ فَسَبَقْتُهُ فَدَخَلْتُ فَلَيْسَ إِلاَّ أَنِ اضْطَجَعْتُ فَدَخَلَ فَقَالَ ‏"‏ مَا لَكِ يَا عَائِشُ حَشْيَا رَابِيَةً ‏"‏ ‏.‏ قَالَتْ قُلْتُ لاَ شَىْءَ ‏.‏ قَالَ ‏"‏ لَتُخْبِرِينِي أَوْ لَيُخْبِرَنِّي اللَّطِيفُ الْخَبِيرُ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ قَالَتْ قُلْتُ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ بِأَبِي أَنْتَ وَأُمِّي ‏.‏ فَأَخْبَرْتُهُ قَالَ ‏"‏ فَأَنْتِ السَّوَادُ الَّذِي رَأَيْتُ أَمَامِي ‏"‏ ‏.‏ قُلْتُ نَعَمْ ‏.‏ فَلَهَدَنِي فِي صَدْرِي لَهْدَةً أَوْجَعَتْنِي ثُمَّ قَالَ ‏"‏ أَظَنَنْتِ أَنْ يَحِيفَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْكِ وَرَسُولُهُ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ قَالَتْ مَهْمَا يَكْتُمِ النَّاسُ يَعْلَمْهُ اللَّهُ نَعَمْ ‏.‏ قَالَ ‏"‏ فَإِنَّ جِبْرِيلَ أَتَانِي حِينَ رَأَيْتِ فَنَادَانِي فَأَخْفَاهُ مِنْكِ فَأَجَبْتُهُ فَأَخْفَيْتُهُ مِنْكِ وَلَمْ يَكُنْ يَدْخُلُ عَلَيْكِ وَقَدْ وَضَعْتِ ثِيَابَكِ وَظَنَنْتُ أَنْ قَدْ رَقَدْتِ فَكَرِهْتُ أَنْ أُوقِظَكِ وَخَشِيتُ أَنْ تَسْتَوْحِشِي فَقَالَ إِنَّ رَبَّكَ يَأْمُرُكَ أَنْ تَأْتِيَ أَهْلَ الْبَقِيعِ فَتَسْتَغْفِرَ لَهُمْ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ قَالَتْ قُلْتُ كَيْفَ أَقُولُ لَهُمْ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ قَالَ ‏"‏ قُولِي السَّلاَمُ عَلَى أَهْلِ الدِّيَارِ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَالْمُسْلِمِينَ وَيَرْحَمُ اللَّهُ الْمُسْتَقْدِمِينَ مِنَّا وَالْمُسْتَأْخِرِينَ وَإِنَّا إِنْ شَاءَ اللَّهُ بِكُمْ لَلاَحِقُونَ ‏"‏ ‏.

Translated (summarized by me):

The prophet appeared to be asleep, but he got up quietly and snuck out. I (Aisha) followed him to Al Baqi' (name of a graveyard). He started leaving, then started running, so I ran home and got in bed. He asked me why I was panting. I said nothing. He said tell me or else the subtle and all-knowing (Allah) will. I pleaded, Messenger of Allah, may my father and mother be ransom for you^[A] .. then I told him the whole story..
..He gave me a nudge strike on the chest which I felt hurt me, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you?^[B] She said: Whatsoever the people conceal, Allah will know it. He said: Gabriel came to me when you saw me. He called me and he concealed it from you^[C] . I responded to his call, but I too concealed it from you (for he did not come to you), as you were not fully dressed ^[D] . I thought that you had gone to sleep, and I did not like to awaken you, fearing that you may be frightened... (continuation not relevant)

Context Translated (by me), from the Arabic Explanation:

Hadith Explanation #1:

Yes, the prophet hit her with an open palm on her chest.

^Bonus: the person submitting the question asks about Abu Bakr slapping her in a different incident, and the sheikh confirms it.
Hadith Explanation #2:

Though the prophet hit her hard on her chest, the pain of this strike did not exceed the body. But, amazingly, it was more loved by her than anything else ^[E] So the question appears: what made the prophet hit one of his favourite people? And above that, how did Aisha (the mother of believers) with her wit and skill to capitalize on this situation to end it with great wisdoms and benefits that will benefit the ummah till the end of time?^[F]

Further down in the explanation:

the prophet hit her with his noble hand^[G]

Hadith Explanation #3:

the word "lahd", which is what the prophet did, means a "push to the chest", and does not qualify to the same degree as beating that is intended to hurt and humiliate

The author then lists several definitions of the word that include push, press, and "hard push to the chest"

and all these synonyms indicate that the prophet did not beat her like the appellants claim (note the tone), but he only pushed her in the chest which caused pain, but it was unintended pain. The intention was alerting and teaching^[H]

The author then praises the prophet's character, defending the point that he did not beat her. He then says:

but the haters and apellants (I kid you not) would LOVE to find out that the prophet beat up his wife, or at least violently hit her for the purpose of humiliating her, but they have failed. If someone wants to hurt and humiliate, he would not stop at a push to the chest, but would have instead released his power on the sides of the body or the face, leaving a humiliating mark in the spirit of the beaten, but none of that was mentioned in her hadith ^[I]

Personal Commentary:

Where to begin.. I am frustrated beyond words. I urge you to note the marked sections [A] to [D] and note how abusive they are

• A: she is so terrified that her response is to offer her parents as ransom (figuratively)
  
• B: he is gaslighting her into admitting that he would never be cruel (before being cruel)
  
• C: he is gaslighting her by saying that things happened that she could not hear or see
  
• D: he is putting blame on her because of the way she dressed. Do keep in mind that the full hadith mentions what she was wearing, and it doesn't seem to be indecent
  

Then let's look at the muslim interpretations and what excuses they give for this. It is appalling

• E: LOOK AT ME WITH A STRAIGHT FACE, IMAAM, AND TELL ME SHE LOVED BEING HURT BY THE BEST OF HUMANITY
  
• F: the imaam spins this to highlight how good she was at taking the abuse and how this story is somehow useful for us all
  
• G: his noble hand.........
  
• H: the imaams/sheikhs go into any problematic hadith with the mentality that it's the "haters" who are wrong. How pathetic is this? And how childish? This is not youtube drama. It's a matter of life and death
  
• The pièce de résistance.. [I]: if he wanted to beat her, he would've fucked her up. She (the victim, 1400 years ago) didn't say he did that
  

My Conclusion:

This stinks of physical and emotional abuse.

Whoever says the opinions of all these different imaams don't represent islam, please, give me your own excuses. I'm listening.

Supporting Link(s) with More Details:

sunnah.com hadith
hadith context #1: answer to "did the prophet hit Aisha?", in Arabic
hadith context #2 in Arabic
hadith context #3 in Arabic

Wednesday, the 28th of February 2001, was called black Wednesday, due to violent economic eruptions. The robberies, thefts and instability created sudden economic and market break down. This made the already weak Turkish Lira drop its value by 25 to 30 percent (which resulted in the unemployment of 100,000 workers and thousands of journalists). The consequence of this violent shaking is becoming more and more serious. Turkey is now drowning in darkness.
A look back at Turkey's recent history finds that it has never had a moment of light. Its history is full of grief, sorrow, scandals and crises.
It is known that the 10,000 murders classified as unsolved are committed by the state. After the earthquake the state revealed its true face to the public. It was a state careless about the fact that thousands of people were lying beneath rubble. A state without mercy, both oppressive, and harmful towards its population. A state slow to deal with a natural disaster but yet quick to arrest and persecute Islamic activists during the same period.
The state considers it vital to implement the 28th February legislation's (passed in 1997). Legislation is directed towards Muslims and Islam. It is through such legislation Muslims are persecuted and interrogated. Legislation that declared war on Muslims via the Khimar(islamic dress), Quranic schools, prayer and other Islamic practices. This crafty and merciless battle against Islam and the Muslims is being waged through the states institutions and other contraptions of the State. The murders and conspiracies, which have occurred under the name Hizbollah are all lies, their purpose is to distort Islam and to cast fear into the hearts of the population and keep them in an iron grip.
All these conspiracies and events remain clear in the population's mind and the effects of fear and horror are still felt.
What is of the economic situation of the population?
The majority of the population are poor and starved. Families work most of the day but barely earn enough money to feed themselves.
Human beings are turned into slaves and robots, fighting each other to survive. The saying: One man's dead is the other man's bread is a ruling principle amongst the population.
These are dark times. Never has it been seen in Turkey's history that Satanism, whorehouses, and bars where so great in number. Fatimas, Aishas and Muslims women are being brought up in a Western environment, which in fact is a prostitute environment.
The suicide statistics are increasing. Are there any countries whose alcohol and drug situation is worse than Turkeys, perhaps very few.
In Turkey there is one library for every 65,000 persons. For every 7 people there is one book. There are approximately 10,000,000 books in the 1226 libraries. On the other hand in Sweden there is 45,000,000 books in only 12 libraries. 61% of the youth do not read books at all. Out of 10,000 peoples only 8 read books. 12% of the Turkish population are illiterate. 43% has 5 years of schooling. 13% has 8 years of schooling. 20% has 10 years of schooling. 7% has a university degree (5% unknown).
These percentages are not a result of economic scarcity; no these are the result of backwardness and the standard of values. The democratic culture has possessed the minds of the populations and made them worship wealth and material goods.
Turkey has established brotherhood and friendly relationships with the Jews. The same Jews known throughout history as the most treacherous and cowardly people. The Jews who recently in a picture portrayed the prophet Muhammad (saws) as a pig and then distributed this picture publicly. The Jews who murdered prophets. The Jews whom our Lord describes in the Qur'an:
Amongst those who have the most enmity and hatred towards the Muslims you will find the Jews and the idol worshippers.
Although the Turkish rulers are deeply affected by the western culture, Turkey's love for Europe is not mutual. Do they (the European Parliament) not pass laws and decisions that acknowledge a massacre upon the Armenian population? Do they not keep Turkey out of the Europe's common military? Do they not try to rip Cyprus out of the hands of Turkey? Do they not give Turkey a slap in the face one after the other? Don't they always say that until Turkey is Christian we cannot accept you into the EU? Even after all this the losers continue to insist on being part of Europe. The treacheries are great and words cannot describe the complete picture that reflects Turkey's real circumstances.
O you with common sense among the soldiers, thinkers, politicians and business people.
When you established this republic you talked of achieving the same level as the modern western civilisation. This was one of the main philosophies behind the establishment of the republic. A modern civilisation in which ugly naked pictures are used to manipulate people. The pursuit of a modern civilisation with an irreligious generation and no mosques, leading instead to Satanists and their evils. With whorehouses and cafe shops spreading evil instead of pure mosques and libraries. Are you satisfied with what has been achieved?
You almost worship the Western civilisation and their culture. A culture where an overwhelming part of American and English children are illegitimate. Where an overwhelming part of their women have been raped and where many of them have been sexually abused as children, even by their own parents. This Western civilisation, which you love in this superficial way, is plotting and planning against you night and day. This Western civilisation hates and despises you only because you call yourselves Muslims. Whilst your forefathers like Fatih, Kanuni and Yavuz were under the Islamic Khilafah. The very same Islam and Khilafah which you consider hostile and a path to darkness, but which in reality are the real reasons for your and your forefather's strength.
You are sending millions of Turks as slave labour to Europe to clean their toilets at a cheap price, whilst your forefathers went to Europe with the Islamic Khilafah as a leading force - examples of leaders and rulers that spread justice, true guidance and light.
Did Ecevit not take a 500 hundred-year-old document to Clinton in October 1999. Found in a church, kept protected respectfully by priests and Christians this document outlined the justice of the Khilafah without prejudice.
Whilst the Europeans divided the Muslims into small cartoon states through treacheries like the Lausanne treaty, they attempt to unite themselves in every aspect. Yet you are fanatic about keeping the artificial borders that the Europeans created with their pens. Now these western parliaments conspire to divide Turkey into even smaller parts e.g. more Kurdish areas.
You are about to transfer your destiny to the colonialist and hostile USA, even though it struggles to establish a pro American Kurdish state in North Iraq and for which it has designed a role for you where you serve their interests in the Middle East, the Balkans and in Central Asia.
It has been 77 years since you abandoned the Islamic model of education, but which scientist, expert, thinker, politician or statesman have you produced, that has not been educated in the USA, England, France or Germany or graduated from the American and French universities. If you deny this then why are you calling those like Kemal Dervis home from USA.
You have in fact regressed with your secularised democratic and western project. You are bankrupt and have forced the population to sink with your ship. You have created this dark hole and exposed the population to identity crises and depression. You have not delivered anything but misery and you have done all this in the name of the modern civilisation and at the expense of yourselves, your people's history, deen, personality and culture. You have even alienated them from these ideals by the use of the fire and the iron hand. This is why the word of The Creator of the worlds is a reality for you. Allah says (the meaning being): Allah does not change the condition of a people unless they change what is in themselves.
And Allah says, (the meaning being): "Those who turn their back to the merciful injunction will have a miserable life and we will on Judgement day revive them as blind. Then they will say oh my Master, I was not blind why did you revive me as blind, then Allah will say: My injunction came to you but you ignored it that is why I have revived you as blind."
And words of wisdom from a true statesman; Omar bin Khattab when he said: We were a degraded people and Allah gave us power by Islam. Allah will give misery to the one who seeks honour and power by other than Islam.
Oh Muslims the Messenger of Allah says to you, (the meaning being): "You should know that the wheel of Iman will spin forever. So spin with this wheel in accordance with Allah's book no matter where it spins. You shall know that the state and the book will be separated from each other, but look out, You may never be separated from the book. You should know that you will get rulers that lead you to kufr if you obey them, but if you do not obey them and are rebellious towards them then they will kill you." Then one of those present asked: "Oh The Messenger of Allah what shall we do?" The Messenger of Allah (saw) answered: "Do as Isa's Ummah did. They threw them into flames of fire and mutilated them with saws, but even then they did not compromise with their Deen. It is better to die in the condition where you are obedient towards Allah than to live in a condition where you are disobedient." (Ibn Hacer, al-Metalibul-Aliye 4/267; Haithemi, Mecmauz-zevaid 5/228)
Indeed The Book was separated from the state 77 years ago. But O Muslims what have you done? And what are you doing today?
O Muslims!
Isn't it you who are left to famine and thirst? Is it not you who are oppressed and treated unjustly? Is it not you who say: This is our state, whilst experiencing fraud, injustice, misery and living in a state of no hope?
Was it for this that liberation battles were fought, wherein the pure blood of the martyrs was shed? Was it for this dark and miserable state of condition our Sahaba and our Master Muhammad (saws) fought and struggled against? Do we not have a promise from Allah? Did our Prophet (saws) not say, (the meaning being): Do not under any circumstances let yourself be separated from The Book?
Where are you heading? How long will you be like sheep that bend your heads to suppression, kufr and misery? When will you be like Seyh Samil the one who said: Rather a beautiful and honourable death than a dammed and miserable death? Or like Hamza who once said: I do not fear that which my eye sees, I fear that which my eye cannot see (Allah). And Salahuddin who said: May it become haram for me to smile and be happy as long as al-Quds is occupied. Or Omar who said: We were a miserable people, Allah honoured us with Islam. Anyone who turns his back on Islam Allah will give him misery. Or Fatih who said to a roman ruler: If you keep on degrading us then I will turn your land into a stable for my horses. Or Mutasim who sent a letter to a kafir ruler stating: To the dog of the Romans from the Khalif of the Muslims. If you do not release our sister, I will send such an army that will begin at you and end at me.
That is how Islam and Khilafah gave you honour, pride and status. You where the gentlemen of the world. It was Islam and the Khilafah that brought you into the light and onto the world arena whereas democracy, capitalism and the western culture has brought you to a burning abyss in which you have fallen and become buried in darkness. Wake up from the misery and hopeless condition which democracy, capitalism and the western culture have given you - and stand and shake it off you. Release yourselves from the chains of the western culture which has tied you minds. Then bury this secular state into the earth and liberate yourselves from the jahil death mentioned by Allah's Messenger (the meaning being): "The one who dies without giving baya to the Khaleefah, will die the death of jahilliyah". And this demands the presence of the Khilafah whereby it becomes fard upon you to re-establish the Khilafah.
Oh Ulama! O those who have knowledge in Islam, and those who have memorised the Quran!
The Messenger of Allah says to you (the meaning being): If two groups in my Ummah are good then my Ummah will be good, if they are corrupt then my Ummah will be corrupt. And these two groups are the ulama and the rulers.
Allah (swt) also says (the meaning being): "Those who hide the Book which Allah has sent down and exchange it for a small amount of money, that which they are filling their belly with is nothing but fire. Allah will on the day of Judgement neither talk to them nor will He declare them as innocent". (TMQ Baqarah: 174)
Furthermore The Messenger of Allah says (the meaning being): "That which I fear most for my Ummah's peace is those who are known as alims, but who in fact are hypocrites".
Because of the dark state of our Ummah's condition, you are much more responsible and sinful. You are to blame for the abyss filled with fire that this ummah has fallen in. You have not fulfilled your responsibility and you continue not to do so. You do not roar as lions for the truth. You do not inform people about the reality of this secularised state. Neither do you tell people about Islam without twisting the verses. You have sold yourselves and your pencils. Do you not know that the ones who established this secular republic state are agents for the Jews and the English - the ones who abolished the Khilafah and the rule of Allah? If you do not know this then ponder over these facts.
Lausanne was not just a peace agreement but it was an agreement in the interest of the west, especially the English. Its primary concern was to destroy the ummah, Islam and to make a radical change to Islamic history, language, personality, and even dress. Lord Curzon's reply when criticized by the English parliament because of Turkey's independence was, "Turkey is finished, from now on Turkey will not be able to straighten its spine because we have destroyed Turkey's moral strength and political strength - Islam and the Khilafah."
The Jewish rabbi Hayim Nahum, the very man refused by Abdulhamid because he wanted Palestine, was amongst those who abolished Abdulhamid. His family are financial advisers of one of the largest economic institutions and protectors of Jewish rights in Turkey.
This Jewish rabbi Hayim Nahum said to Lord Curzon: Acknowledge Turkey's independence and I will promise you they will fall into a condition where they stamp on Islam and that which represents Islam (the Khilafah).
Hayim Nahum closely co-operated with Mustafa Kemal and a woman who was working for the British secret agency who later became very close to Ismet Inonu and their relationship became so intense that even the delegation that were at Lausanne became worried.
Reflect upon the following conversation between Ismet Inonu and Mustafa Kemal:
Mustafa Kemal: What is it that you are reading with such a interest Ismet? Is it concerning that order which the English king will honour me by?
Ismet Inonu: What is it with this order?
Mustafa Kemal: Have you not read the American and the rest of the world's newspapers. The English king will honour me with the highest order?
Ismet Inonu asks in a cold way: Okay and in what concern does he honour you by it?
Mustafa Kemal: You above all else Ismet should know that the English people love me much and this is proved by abolishing Lloyd George (an opponent of the Turkish independence).
And the English newspaper the Daily Telegraph wrote about Mustafa Kemal the 11. of November 1983: Mustafa Kemal's death was a great death to our country. He as the only dictator with his instinct was a true English ally.
It was this triangle which abolished the Khilafah - the English, the Jews and Mustafa Kemal who was both a Jew and an English agent. They made and worked on a clever plan, hiding their innermost motives to abolish the Khilafah and remove Islam to the last. These hypocrites got people to fight the war of independence under slogans such as: Come we shall save the Khilafah and the Quran whilst complimenting the Khaleefahs until they got the power. Then a handful of Jews, English and Mustafa Kemal betrayed them and the people and plunged Islam and the Khilafah's history into darkness. This is the true version of the abandonment of the Khilafah which is in contrast to the false version which I was taught officially.
Oh learned Islamic experts!
Some people said to Abdullah bin Omar: When we stand and talk in front of the rulers we behave different than when we are among each other. Abdullah bin Omar said: In the time of Prophet Muhammad (saws) we called this hypocrisy. (Bukhari)
One of El-Iz bin Abdusselam's students asked him, "When you rebuked the Khaleefah Ayubi where you then not afraid of him? Abdusselam answered him: "My son wallahi (by Allah), when I thought of Allah the almighty then the Khaleefah compared to a little cat."
The uncle of Ahmed ibn Hanbal, Ishak said that one day I visited Hanbal in prison and said to him: "As you can see your friends have answered and they are now free. It is only you who is left in prison." Ahmad answered: "Oh my uncle if the learned do not tell the truth, but speak only to escape prison, then the ignorant remains in ignorance and the truth is not made clear." How quickly you have forgotten the hadith where Habab tells: "Those before you were tortured so terribly that their flesh was separated from their bones, but still they hung onto the truth." Ishak said: "After Ibn Hanbal's reply we gave up."
So you who are learned in Islam! Take such people as role models. Those such as Hanbal, Sayid Qutb and Taqiudeen An-Nabhani, who refused to live in this miserable condition of darkness and who died honorably working to change the state of affairs.
Oh noble Ummah!
Your vital cause is to abolish this secular state and re-establish the Khilafah to rule by what Allah has revealed and thereby ensure the sovereignty of Islam.
This solution comprehensive and is the solution to all your problems and other vital concerns. Come and take up this vital cause. Hear and obey Allah and His Messenger, Come and join that fight which the Messenger and Sahaba began, do not be ignorant and be of those who pick the temporary life which is filled with misery but instead be of the honoured and mighty who choose the eternal life of the Hereafter.
The prophet said concerning this cause: "Wallaahi (by Allah) even though you place the sun in my right hand and the moon in my left I will never give up this cause, until it prevails or my head is separated from my neck."
Oh mighty Ummah!
Hasten to join the rows that are seeking jannah, the jannah that is prepared for those who fear Allah correctly and worship Him (swt) in the way He (swt) deserves. Allah (swt) says (the meaning being):
Oh you who have believe, answer the call of Allah and His Messenger when he calls you to that which gives you life. (Surah Enfal)
Samil Cevval
The above article was published in Khilafah Journal (www.khilafah.com)

I hope everyone is doing well. A while ago, someone on this sub fervently denied my claim that Islam and the Quran contain a myriad of misogynistic verses and ahadith (the sayings of Mohammed). As a woman, and on behalf of all oppressed ex-Muslim women, I would like to tell him that unfortunately, he is full of crap. I never resort to ad hominem, but desperate times call for desperate measures, I guess.
Please excuse any errors, as English is not my first language, and I am not as eloquent as I would like to be.
Quran:
"Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand." (Al Nisa, 4:34).
Right off the bat, we could notice the problems in this verse. First off, women possess almost no autonomy over their bodies nor decisions in Islam, as men are in charge of women. Men are the sole breadwinners. In Islam, the dowry and nafaqah (financial support) that a husband pays comes with a price: absolute obedience. But we'll address that later.
The second part contains a multitude of egregious teachings. The Quran orders a sequence of punishments to deal with disobedient wives. The first being admonishment, then denying them intercourse, followed by beating. Now, a professional mental gymnast or an apologist might jump and say: "BUT YOU HAVE TO BEAT THEM LIGHTLY! WITH A SIWAK (a small stick)!" This is a dumb excuse for domestic violence. Also, the Quran does not explicitly mention that. It left room open for interpretation. This is why many translators chose to disregard the striking part completely, lest men interpret it as they please.
Beating someone is a no-no. It does not take a genius to understand that two parties in a healthy, consensual relationship are on an equal footing. Giving one party the right to abuse the other tips the balance. It keeps the wife in an inferior position.
Beating is domestic abuse, light or not. A wife is also not a child to be reprimanded. Therefore; there is no proper justification for this verse but sheer violence and misogyny.
EDIT:
To those saying that “strike” doesn’t mean “hit”, here is the context:
قَالَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ : نَزَلَتْ هَذِهِ الْآيَةُ فِي بِنْتِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ سَلَمَةَ وَزَوْجِهَا سَعْدِ بْنِ الرَّبِيعِ أَحَدِ نُقَبَاءِ الْأَنْصَارِ ، فَإِنَّهُ لَطَمَهَا لَطْمَةً فَنَشَزَتْ عَنْ فِرَاشِهِ ، وَذَهَبَتْ إِلَى الرَّسُولِ عَلَيْهِ الصَّلَاةُ وَالسَّلَامُ ، وَذَكَرَتْ هَذِهِ الشِّكَايَةَ، وَأَنَّهُ لَطَمَهَا ، وَأَنَّ أَثَرَ اللَّطْمَةِ بَاقٍ فِي وَجْهِهَا، فَقَالَ عَلَيْهِ الصَّلَاةُ وَالسَّلَامُ: ( اقْتَصِّي مِنْهُ )، ثُمَّ قَالَ لَهَا : ( اصْبِرِي حَتَّى أَنْظُرَ ) ، فَنَزَلَتْ هَذِهِ الْآيَةُ: ( الرِّجالُ قَوَّامُونَ عَلَى النِّساءِ ) ، أَيْ مُسَلَّطُونَ عَلَى أَدَبِهِنَّ وَالْأَخْذِ فَوْقَ أَيْدِيهِنّ َ، فَكَأَنَّهُ تَعَالَى جَعَلَهُ أَمِيرًا عَلَيْهَا ، وَنَافِذَ الْحُكْمِ فِي حَقِّهَا، فَلَمَّا نَزَلَتْ هَذِهِ الْآيَةُ ، قَالَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: ( أَرَدْنَا أَمْرًا وَأَرَادَ اللَّه أَمْرًا ، وَالَّذِي أَرَادَ اللَّه خَيْرٌ )"
Translation:
Ibn Abbas narrated: This Aya was sent for Bint Muhammed Bin Salama, and her husband Saa’d Ibn Al Rabee. He beat her (on her face) and she withdrew from his bed, and went to the prophet. She complained to him that he has slapped her, and left a mark on her cheek. So the prophet said: “beat him back”. Then he told her: “wait until I look into this”. So the Aya: (Men are the rulers of women....) came to place, which means they are the ones responsible for disciplining them and taking their hands, it is as God made a man a prince over his wife, etc etc etc.
Source
Here are a few videos of Muslim apologists justifying the heinous crime of beating in Islam.
Ahadith:
"Abu Hurairah reported the Prophet (ﷺ) as saying “When a man calls his wife to come to his bed and she refuses and does not come to him and he spends the night angry, the angels curse her till the morning.”
Sahih (Al-Albani) Reference : Sunan Abi Dawud 2141, In-book reference : Book 12, Hadith 96 English translation : Book 11, Hadith 2136.
Ah, good ol' Mo and his timeless wisdom.
This hadith states that if a woman denies her husband sex, the angels curse her till the morning. She cannot have any excuse to refuse. She could be tired, sick, not in the mood, you name it. Islam prohibits sex during menstruation, but a woman is still obliged to please her husband if he calls her to bed during her period.
"Whenever Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) wanted to fondle any of his wives during the periods (menses), he used to ask her to wear an Izar."
Sahih al-Bukhari 303, Book 6. (English) reference : Vol. 1, Book 6, Hadith 300.
Islam also does not acknowledge marital rape. In fact, go mention it to a scholar and he'll probably call you a blasphemer. Sex need not be consensual at all; a man could force his wife and not be held accountable, nor be counted as a sinner. There are no angels to curse him till the morning.
Allah's Messenger (ﷺ), "In case there is not before him (an object) like the back of a saddle, a Muslim's Salat (prayer) would be cut off by (the passing of) a woman, a donkey and a black dog." And it concludes: "the black dog is a devil." [Reported by Muslim].
Ah, my favorite. If a a woman, a donkey or a black dog pass in front of a dude who's praying, his prayer would be considered invalid. Even Aisha saw through this bullshit and retorted: "You have made us (i.e. women) dogs" Sahih al-Bukhari 511. Bless her.
I will probably post a part 2 soon as I am too exhausted to continue. And frankly, I am horrified by all of this, despite having read it multiple times.
Edit: Grammar

In some Youtube comment section
Muslim Woman:
Here i found it from quara I couldn't actually tell them all in English So i just read it fast and saw that wd kinda have same idea No, Aisha was not 6 and not 9. Married Kadijah at age 25. He was married to only her until she died when he was 50. They were married for nearly 20 years.
2.He remained unmarried from ages 50-52 3.Between ages 53-60, he married his other wives. He seldom spent time with them due to his many travels and the wars.
4.He married these women, despite the ban on more than four wives for the following reasons: to preserve the teachings for the enxt generation. To cement tribal alliances and seal treaties. To care for and protect the widowed and and orphaned women by brining them into his family. To demonstrate the just and compassionate treatment of women. He did not have mistresses nor cast out any women. . To be a role model to Muslims: Most of his wives were old and previously married. Many were from other nations. Two were the widows of former enemies. He did not rape and discard or kill these women as was the custom of the time. These women brought all their people into Islam.

1. In total, Muhammad married 12 wives. When he died, he had nine wives.
   
2. Their names are : Khadijah bint Khuwaylid, Sawdah bint Zam’ah, `A’ishah bint Abi Bakr, Hafsah bint `Umar ibn Al-Khattab, Zaynab bint Khuzaymah, Umm Salama, Zaynab bint Jahsh, Juwayriah bint Al-Harith, Umm Habibah, Safiyah bint Huyay ibn Akhtab, Maymunah bint Al-Harith, Maria the Copt.
   

Aisha was Muhammad’s last wife and the considered the greatest woman in Islam. She came from a family that was noted for their learning and education. she, herself, was very well educated and was a teacher, cleric, and military leader during her lifetime. She was engaged to another before Muhammad, but the engagement was broken when the fiance refused to convert to Islam.
Was Aisha nine years old when married? No. But don’t the Hadiths say she was? Some do, but they all quote one very old man and are considered weak Hadiths. The Hadiths are the recollections of Muhammad’s Companions. Some are strong and well documented and supported. Others are weak because they are not supported, not witnessed by others, contradict others that are supported. Here’s how we know Aisha was much older when married: Aisha was always referred to as bikr, which literally means “an adult unmarried woman who is a virgin.” She was never referred to as a jariyah, which is a “young girl.”
“And make not over your property (property of the orphan), which Allah had made a (means of) support for you, to the weak of understanding, and maintain them out of it, clothe them and give them good education. And test them until they reach the age of marriage. Then if you find them maturity of intellect, make over them their property...” (Quran, 4:5-6). No seven year old, nor nine year old is mature enough to handle her own finances and property, yet Aisha was given hers at marriage.
More information on this area is here: http://www.ilaam.net/articles/ayesha.html Aisha’s exact birthday is unknown, but she was born before 610 CE when Islam was revealed. Aisha is recorded as accepting Islam shortly after it was revealed. She could not have done so as an infant or toddler. The youngest she could have accepted Islam would be 7 y/o, but that’s a guess. She was married in 622 CE 12 years after she accepted Islam. (7 + 12 =19 years). Further, Aisha fought in the Battles of Badr and Uhud (624/5 respectively). No one under 15 fought in those battles, let alone be a leader of them. Also, Asma, Aisha’s eldest sister (by ten years) died at age 100, 72 years after Aisha’s marriage. Process of elimination and mathematics, Aisha could not have been married before she was 14 and the consummation before she was almost 20. “The Quran states a woman's consent is essential, and the Sunnah confirms that both Aisha's betrothal and consummation occurred with Aisha's enthusiastic agreement. In fact, some even imply she went against the initial wishes of her Dad!” By mathematical reasoning: 622 + 72 = 694 -100= 594 year of Asma’s birth. 622-594= 28 yr of Asma at Aisha’s wedding Asma is recorded as ten years older than Aisha. Therefore: 28-10= 18 Aisha’s age at wedding. More detailed info on her age is here:
​
My response:
I just want to say I don't dislike you personally and I don't think you are a bad person I am just trying to show you that your interpretation isn't widely excepted based on major islamic sources. I saw this before and this debatable to say the least. I'm just going to respond to what was said about Aisha. Firstly, if you look at all the dates when Muhammad married his wives most of them married him after Aisha with the exception of Khadijia and Sauda. I can say for certain that he married Safiyya after Aisha. As I have demonstrated there has been many Hadiths and non-Hadiths both from many different sources that consistently confirm that widely believed age of 6 and 9 and you can find them in said collections one of which was narrated by Aisha herself (Shahih Bukhari Hadith 2661) which I do believe did refer to Aisha as "جريح" or "Jariyah" at one point. Even someone who claims that Aisha was older said she was referred as such(https://medium.com/@talalrafi/was-aisha-9-years-old-when-she-married-the-prophet-muhammad-20ae7516e428). As for "Bikr" this post is not consistent with the one you gave me (https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-meaning-of-bikr-in-Arabic-both-classical-and-modern-What-are-all-possible-meanings-of-it-Is-it-plural)
As for Quran, 4:5-6 the translation that I have says
https://quran.com/4?reading=false
It clearly states here that marriageable age doesn't always mean "capable of sound judgment" and only when they have that can they get their wealth. When comparing it to yours it seems that the intended meaning does not change.
“And make not over your property (property of the orphan), which Allah had made a (means of) support for you, to the weak of understanding, and maintain them out of it, clothe them and give them good education. And test them until they reach the age of marriage. Then if you find them maturity of intellect, make over them their property...”
Again we see that "maturity of intellect" and "the age of marriage" are not symonomise but they aren't mutually exclusive either I'll give you that.
Finally I could not access any of your links but I'll try and respond to some of your statements. I could not find anything that suggested that Aisha was fighting in the battles but according to Bukhari V2 P381 she was seen carrying water for the wounded. Assuming she was born in 612 CE this is defiantly something an 11 year old can do. Asma was born before the revelation of the Quron and she was one of the first Muslims according to Ibn Ishaq so she was defiantly older than Aisha but we know that they had different mothers because Asma's mother is divorced from Abu Bakr and Abu Bakr had a daughter(Umm Kulthum bint Abu Bakr) who has born shortly after his death so its not unfathomable that Aisha could have been born later in his life.
If I don't sound convincing that's fine. I don't need to be convinced that the problematic Hadiths are not to be believed other Muslims do. Only muslims can change the narrative surrounding islam. I personally do not prescribe to Christianity either but modern christians are much different than christians even 50 years ago. It was christians that pushed narratives to make Christianity less homophobic and sexist not Christianity itself(in my personal view).

What are some real world consequences of the normalization in the Islamic world of early marriages due to Mohammed marrying Aisha (sex: female, age: 6 years)?
Besides the fact that the girls are real young, and that it affects them, I would imagine that this custom affects the children of these unions too.
Update: I know that Mohammed married Aisha when she was six, not nine. Fixed that.
Second Update: I Googled for about two minutes. I found a news article in an Indian newspaper called the Hindoostan Times.
Link: https://www.hindustantimes.com/india/hazrat-aisha-was-19-not-9/story-G4kaBHqM0VXoBhLR0eI2oO.html
About a month ago the world media reported a shocking decision by a Saudi judge in which he refused to annul the marriage of an 8-year old girl to a 47-year old man. But to those who are already familiar with the so-called Islamic laws of Saudi Arabia, this ruling was merely the latest in the sequence of several such cases of human rights abuse in the name of the shariah. The question is: does Islamic law really uphold child marriage?
Then, I saw this.
Even in India, Muslim institutions including the Deoband and the All India Muslim Personal Law Board have not outlawed child marriage. Yet they congregated not once but twice to condemn terrorism.
And I went, "Whoa!". Does this mean in India they have child marriages?

I've taken this article from this website . Let me know what you guys think of it after reading it completely. I see this article get mentioned by muslims all over the net, and I'd be glad if someone were to refute or respond to some parts, especially the "narrow view on time" and "aishas lived experiences" parts.
Article starts from here.
Abstract
In recent years, few criticisms of Islam have taken the spotlight as much as condemnations of the Prophet’s marriage to Aisha. Muslims are accused of following the example of a man who had inappropriate relations with a 9-year-old girl. As a result, this has led many to doubt their faith and the moral compass it provides. However, this criticism is based on fallacious reasoning. When reviewing the available evidence, we not only find that early marriage was normal in many early societies, it also made moral sense given their circumstances. Throughout human history, populations had to adapt to their physical and social environments while optimizing their ethical judgments accordingly—much as we do today. This paper elucidates the flawed nature of accusations of the Prophet’s alleged immorality as well as how Islam teaches us to adapt the message of the Qur’an to changing circumstances.

Introduction

In 2014 the Pew Research Center estimated that roughly 57,800 minors (i.e., individuals under 18) were legally married in the United States. Of those marriages, 55% were between an underage girl and an adult man.[1] And while these numbers vary across the nation, in some states the rates are much higher. This includes California, which has recently been entangled in a legal drama over whether an age limit for marriage with parental consent should be established. Influential organizations like Planned Parenthood and the ACLU have been hostile to any proposed changes by legislatures and have thus far been successful in removing any amendments that would place restrictions on juveniles being able to marry with parental agreement. In other words, California currently considers child marriage permissible as long as the child’s parents agree.[2] Likewise, France is currently debating whether or not it should establish an age of consent. The country has had no set legal age up to this point, which has led to a significant number of acquittals for men accused of raping a minor (as young as and even younger than the age of 11).[3] These cases are odd given the United States’ and France’s apparent support for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and its subsequent agreements, including the Convention on Consent to Marriage, Minimum Age for Marriage, and Registrations of Marriage (1964), which stipulates that:
Parties to the present Convention shall take legislative action to specify a minimum age for marriage. No marriage shall be legally entered into by any person under this age, except where a competent authority has granted a dispensation as to age, for serious reasons, in the interest of the intending spouses.[4]
This is especially disconcerting, considering the ways in which children are exploited and abused by these practices in the contemporary period. Young girls are the most vulnerable to the consequences of early marriage, which not only limits their social, educational, and economic opportunities but exposes them to health risks due to early pregnancy along with psychological and emotional trauma.[5] How can a society opposed to the exploitation of children allow such practices to exist? And what sort of message is being conveyed through the legal support of such a practice? In an age of the ever-growing phenomenon of child sex trafficking and pornography on the internet, this is especially concerning. For example, just this year, German law enforcement uncovered an online child pornography ring with a membership of nearly 90,000 users. Only a handful of them have actually been arrested.[6]
Given this reality, it is unsurprising that the well-being and protection of children continues to be one of our greatest concerns, as well as a very sensitive topic. However, while concerns and sensitivities are undoubtedly warranted, they can sometimes lead us to make rash judgments about past communities—judgments outside the realm of established scientific fact and reason. This is no better exemplified than in what might be considered the most popular criticism of Islam today: the marriage of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and Aisha.

A Narrow View of Time

It’s impossible these days to look for information on Islam without being bombarded by warnings about the “dangers” of the religion. Whether the topic is about how Islam supposedly promotes terrorism or how a minority population seeks world domination by deceiving people through halal meat and curry, faux experts from around the world spare no effort in demonizing a faith spanning 14 centuries and around 1.6 billion followers. However, the easiest way to do this is by appealing to the protective instincts of parents everywhere through presenting Islamic sources detailing the age of the Prophet Muhammad’s ﷺ youngest wife on the day of their marriage:
Narrated by Aisha: The Prophet ﷺ married me when I was six years old and consummated our marriage when I was nine years old. Then I remained with him for nine years (i.e., until his death).[7]
This narration has triggered both indignation and doubt about the moral integrity of the Islamic faith. How could an adult man—declared a moral exemplar among his followers—marry a child? Such questions have resulted in people either dismissing Islamic primary sources as inauthentic or condemning Islamic morals altogether as barbaric. Some Muslims have become so traumatized by the moral implications of these traditions that they’ve argued that the hadiths about Aisha’s age are spurious and have offered in their stead convoluted rationalizations that she was far older when she married (i.e., 18 years of age).[8]
While such reactions seem valid in the context of our 21st-century, Western experiences, they make little sense when discussing the circumstances of people who lived more than a millennium ago. It is far easier to condemn 7th-century desert nomads as “barbarians” than for us to comprehend that our moral judgments are as much a function of our environment as the judgments of our ancestors.
Realizing this means recognizing how often we succumb to a fallacious form of reasoning known as presentism—an anachronistic misinterpretation of history based on present-day circumstances that did not exist in the past.[9] This is a very common mistake made by historians and laypersons alike. However, complex issues almost never come with such easy answers, no matter how high our expectations may be. More often than not, historical realities take time and effort to understand. This is especially the case when we allow for false ideas to become popular sentiment, forcing us to wade through pre-existing biases. This struggle has come to be referred as Brandolini’s Law, named after Alberto Brandolini, an Italian computer programmer who invented the now famous maxim: “The amount of energy needed to refute [nonsense] is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.”[10]
That said, moral judgments can still be made about past people and events. Murder is still murder, theft is still theft, and rape is still rape, no matter the time or place. But how we judge situations of murder, theft, and rape depends on the contexts in which they were committed. For instance, it’s one thing to read about how a historical figure killed another person, but it’s another to know that they did so due to dire need or just cause (e.g., self-defense, war, corporal punishment, etc.). And determining those contexts isn’t always easy, especially when they are so dissimilar to our own. In other words, when studying history, things aren’t always as they appear.
Likewise, when we examine the scientific evidence regarding human development, maturity, and marriage in the past, what we find is a context that not only dispels the moral outrage regarding the marriage between the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and Aisha, but also allows us to appreciate our ancestors for their struggles; for without them we would not be having this discussion today.

Aisha’s Lived Experience

The story of human development has gone through many phases. Empires have risen and fallen, plagues have burned through entire populations, droughts have starved generations, and natural disasters have buried the most advanced metropolises—a testimony to the fragility of human civilization. Yet, despite all of these trials and tribulations, we are still here, struggling and adapting to the ever-changing conditions of our existence. How we were able to get to this point is a long and complex tale spanning millennia, but one of many reasons may be related to the flexibility of our reproductive capabilities. The ways in which our ancestors have defined childhood, maturity, and marriage have been diverse and quite different from contemporary Western definitions.
Those who hold to the notion that we are morally superior to our ancestors attribute this dissimilarity to historical societies’ ignorance about physical and psychosocial maturity or nefarious intentions to abuse and take advantage of children. However, it is an extraordinary and unsubstantiated accusation that most of our ancestors were unaware of how to care for their own children, were not concerned about their children’s well-being, had ill intentions, or suffered from a worldwide mental disorder (i.e., pedophilia)—this accusation is easily contradicted by scientific and historical evidence. While it may seem impossible to us that a nine-year-old could be capable of anything other than going to school and engaging in play, this is only because we mistakenly assume that children’s circumstances and capabilities have remained static throughout history.
For example, today we expect our children to go through several years of primary and secondary education, and at least four years of university to provide them with economic and social opportunities. And this is a perfectly rational expectation, given an average global life expectancy of over 70 years[11] along with the increasing complexities of the global world. However, no such conditions existed 1400 years ago. While people in the past sometimes did reach older ages, this was not the norm. Case in point, 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.[12] Skeletal remains reveal that prior to death, most laborers suffered from chronic arthritis, fractures, displacements, and even bone cancer. This was due to their very poor diets—primarily stale bread, rotted grains, and little protein—and harsh working conditions.[13] And if they didn’t die from their work, they still had to contend with war, disease, and famine.
The female half of society didn’t have it any easier. The average life expectancy of women was between 34.5-37.5 years if they managed to live past infancy.[14] Due to high rates of infant mortality, women had to endure 5 to 7 full-term pregnancies just to keep the population stable.[15] Couple this with high maternal mortality during childbirth—due to iron deficiency resulting from a combination of continuous pregnancies and poor diet—and you have an extremely fragile situation. Given these high mortality rates, it made sense to begin procreating as early as possible.[16] In more affluent families, marrying young also guaranteed the maintenance and acquisition of wealth, securing the future of the family inheritance through a kind of business merger.[17] Likewise, political elites took advantage of early marriage to establish alliances between opponents; an expedient alternative to war. This is why the average age of marriage for young girls in ancient Rome was around 14/15, with the legal minimum being 12.[18] Even so, the Romans didn’t consider the age of marriage synonymous with the age of consent for sexual relations, which could be as young as seven.[19]
Thus, working-class children who were fortunate enough to survive infancy had only a little over two decades left to establish the next generation, with nearly half of them losing a parent by the age of 15.[20] This was especially the case for young girls, who at the onset of puberty were expected to transition from childhood directly into adulthood. In other words, there were no family vacations, no recesses, no girl scouts, no school field trips, no sweet sixteen, no prom, no graduation, no air-conditioned movie theatres, no gluten-free meals at overstocked supermarkets, no advanced healthcare facilities, no vaccines, no running water, and subsequently far fewer guarantees that one would survive to see the next morning. And if this was the situation for common people in the most advanced civilization at the time, what more could we possibly expect from desert-dwelling Arabs? Although there is little to no data on Arab marriage practices in late antiquity, given a lack of written records,[21] we do have sufficient documentation of other Semitic cultures during this time. For example, historian Amram Tropper notes the realities of Jewish youth—especially females—in late antiquity:
Most men would have married sufficiently late that we would no longer consider them to have been children, yet many women (particularly in Babylonia) married so young that today we would consider them to have been girls, not women. The goal of maximizing fertility in particular must have lowered the age at first marriage and the price of this goal is the early, we might say premature, end of girlhood. For many girls, adolescence was not a time for fun, education, experimentation or professional training, rather it was a time when one was already expected to assume the full responsibilities of a mature woman, as wife and mother.[22]
The rationale behind maximizing fertility was really something no one could argue against considering the likelihood of young women not living long enough to see their first child reach maturity. When looking into history, we tend to forget many of these notable challenges of our ancestors’ lives and take our own advantages for granted. If you knew that you probably wouldn’t live beyond your 30s, most of your children would die in infancy, and the only education you would receive would be for one of a handful of jobs consisting of hard labor, wouldn’t your plans for life change dramatically? Of course they would. Not only that, but such circumstances would also force you to make moral decisions that you thought you would never need to make; decisions that, in hindsight, were necessary and morally appropriate. This is precisely why bioarchaeologists like Mary Lewis have warned against anachronistic thinking when discussing the subject of childhood and maturity in the past:
No matter what period we are examining, childhood is more than a biological age, but a series of social and cultural events and experiences that make up a child’s life…The time at which these transitions take place varies from one culture to another, and has a bearing on the level of interaction children have with their environment, their exposure to disease and trauma, and their contribution to the economic status of their family and society. The Western view of childhood, where children do not commit violence and are asexual, has been challenged by studies of children that show them learning to use weapons or being depicted in sexual poses…What is clear is that we cannot simply transpose our view of childhood directly onto the past.[23]
Because presentism is such a pervasive fallacy, even scientists themselves have been prone to the error, often mistaking biological age with psychosocial fitness. In this respect, bioarchaeologists Sian Halcrow and Nancy Tayles have elucidated some of the obstacles facing research on human development in the past. In their investigations, they found that contemporary Western anachronisms often obstruct more objective analyses of the data:
Much of the tension in the investigation of age in the past arises from the assumption that we can link “biological” to “social” age…distinctions between the categories, particularly “child” cf. “adult,” are the product of the current limitations of osteological methods for age estimation in adults, and that using biological developmental standards for ageing results in the construction of artificial divisions of social and mental development between these categories…Also, in contrast to modern Western society where social age is closely linked to chronological age, in many “traditional” societies, stages of maturation are acknowledged in defining age…These stages take into account not only the chronological age but also the skills, personality and capacities of the individual.[24]
Perhaps the most relevant example of how presentism negatively affects our understanding of the past can be seen in contemporary moral judgments regarding the Prophet’s youngest wife Aisha (ra). The idea that her marriage was contracted at the age of six and ultimately consummated by nine is seen as an affront by most people. However, when considering the aforementioned evidences, it shouldn’t be so difficult to understand why this practice was perfectly acceptable at the time. Aisha (ra) was merely following in the footsteps of so many girls before her who had reached puberty and were ready to start their adult lives. She herself states that she had reached maturity prior to her marriage:
Narrated Aisha (ra): I had seen my parents following Islam since I attained the age of reason [i.e., puberty]. Not a day passed, but the Prophet ﷺ visited us, both in the mornings and evenings.[25]
What this hadith states is clear if one is aware of the context surrounding it. Aisha (ra) was born in 614 CE and was the daughter of the Prophet’s closest companion, Abu Bakr as-Siddiq—a wealthy merchant who was among the first Muslims and who would eventually become the first caliph. Thus, she lived a rather privileged life in comparison to other children around her. However, in 622 CE, after suffering years of religious persecution at the hands of the pagans in Mecca, she and her family decided to migrate to a safe haven in the neighboring city of Medina. Upon their arrival, Aisha’s (ra) parents set up a temporary residence where she eventually came down with a fever (possibly due to being weakened by the long and arduous journey prior).[26] It was around this same time that the Prophet ﷺ was visiting them “both in the mornings and evenings,” and when she began to notice her parent’s outward expression of faith. Shortly thereafter, Aisha (ra) would consummate her marriage with the Prophet ﷺ and move into his household, completing the marriage contract as a full-fledged woman.[27]
The fact that she was nine years of age when she reached puberty should not be surprising, especially given recent studies that have found that the onset of puberty has fluctuated dramatically throughout history. Case in point, while it would have been normal for a young girl to start puberty at around 14 years of age during the Western Industrial Revolution (18th–19th C.), in the 21st century some girls start puberty as early as six.[28] The reasons for these fluctuations are still largely undetermined, although they have been connected to variances in genetics, nutrition, stress, and even the over-sexualization of Western societies.[29]
However, one may rightfully retort that just because a young girl has begun the process of physically maturing, this does not necessitate that she therefore possesses an adult mentality; to suggest otherwise would be considered absurd by contemporary standards. And that’s a very appropriate conclusion to come to considering that, even by today’s standards, we don’t necessarily regard legally acknowledged adults as independent and functioning members of society; they still need time to learn and experience the world before being considered cognitively and emotionally mature. There’s a reason that 18-year-olds still largely rely on their parents for economic support, despite the law defining them as ‘mature.’
That said, our ancestors faced very different circumstances to which they had to adapt—circumstances that determined their physical and psychosocial fitness. In this regard, endocrinologists Peter Gluckman and Mark Hanson have emphatically stated that the mismatch between biological and psychosocial maturation is a relatively recent phenomenon:
For the first time in our evolutionary history, biological puberty in females significantly precedes, rather than being matched to, the age of successful functioning as an adult. This mismatch between the age of biological and psychosocial maturation constitutes a fundamental issue for modern society. Our social structures have been developed in the expectation of longer childhood, prolonged education and training, and later reproductive competence. This emerging mismatch creates fundamental pressures on contemporary adolescents and on how they live in society.[30]
So, while it is certainly true that the onset of puberty does not make someone an adult today, this same judgment does not apply to people of the past. By indulging in presentism, we disregard the facts of how our ancestors were forced to live just to survive. Furthermore, we open ourselves to intellectual embarrassment by misinterpreting history.
The most obvious manifestation of this fallacy can be seen when examining contemporary interpretations of some notable hadiths on the life of Aisha (ra). For example, many anti-Islam websites love to quote the following narration when arguing that Aisha (ra) was not mature enough to be married:
Narrated Aisha (ra): I used to play with dolls in the presence of the Prophet ﷺ, and my girlfriends also used to play with me. When Allah’s Apostle ﷺ used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet ﷺ would call them to join and play with me. [The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for Aisha (ra) at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty].[31]
Many people assume that since Aisha (ra) was playing with dolls, she must have still been a child at the time of this narration. Prior to addressing the implication that playing with dolls equates to lacking maturity, what is immediately noticeable about this hadith is the statement in brackets (i.e., “…a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty”). However, there is a glaring problem with the way this hadith is presented. For those thinking this a clear affirmation that she was a child, the fact of the matter is that the last statement is nowhere to be found in the hadith itself; rather, it is an addition from a hadith commentary called Fath al-Bari fi Sharh Sahih Bukhari, authored by the famous hadith scholar Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (d. 1449 CE). This is important to note because it’s not made apparent in the hadith itself. The fact that some translators of the hadith have decided to include this is also telling. For what reason did they put this commentary in the hadith? And why would Ibn Hajar claim that Aisha (ra) hadn’t reached puberty? In order to answer these questions, we need only refer to Al-Asqalani himself:
I [Ibn Hajar] say: To say with certainty, [that she was not yet at the age of puberty] is questionable, though it might possibly be so. This, because A’isha (ra) was a 14-year-old girl at the time of the Battle of Khaybar—either exactly 14 years old, or having just passed her 14th year, or approaching it. As for her age at the time of the Battle of Tabook, she had by then definitely reached the age of puberty. Therefore, the strongest view is that of those who said: “It was in Khaybar” [i.e., when she was not yet at the age of puberty], and made reconciliation [between the apparent contradictory rulings of the permissibility of dolls in particular and the prohibition of images in general]…[32]
This explanation by Ibn Hajar reveals a number of important points which run contrary to the initial impressions of the hadith. The first and most obvious issue with Ibn Hajar’s commentary is that he admits that Aisha (ra) was at least 14 years of age at the time this narration takes place, putting her well above the average age of the onset of puberty in the Near East during late antiquity (and even by today’s standards). This is most likely why Ibn Hajar felt his own conclusion was questionable. Despite his own doubts, however, he suggests she must have not reached puberty due to reasons completely unrelated to her actual biological or psychosocial maturity: it helped him to reconcile an apparent contradiction in her behavior with the legal prohibition of adults playing with dolls. However, what makes Ibn Hajar’s opinion even more tenuous is that his view was countered by other master scholars of hadith and Islamic jurisprudence, such as Imam al-Bayhaqi (d. 1066), who claimed that the prohibition was only declared after the events narrated in the hadith in question.[33] That aside, it was not uncommon for young women in the past to own and even play with dolls, as these objects would be among the very few possessions they had prior to marriage. Commenting on the interpretation of toys and similar objects from past societies and cultures, anthropologist Laurie Wilkie notes:
Highly valued toys and childhood objects can be curated well into adulthood and passed on to subsequent generations of children; therefore, artefacts found in the archaeological record may not adequately reflect the full range of material culture used and cherished by the users.[34]
However, many of these realities escape the mindset affected by presentism, placing one in the position of making inappropriate moral judgments about our ancestors and their lived experiences. The fact that just a cursory analysis of the aforementioned narration so easily exposes the erroneous assumptions about Aisha’s (ra) lack of maturity should be evidence enough of the fallaciousness of this form of reasoning. That said, even if one were to admit to the complexities of childhood and development over time, these realities appear to allude to moral relativism—the idea that moral principles are only valid given their specific time, place, or culture. However, this couldn’t be further from the truth.

An Exemplar in a Changing World

Not only has our perspective on history been skewed by the fallacy of presentism, but so has our understanding of morality. Today, many people seem to think that morality is absolute and that this implies that the circumstances in which moral decisions are made have remained static. However, this is false. But to claim the opposite extreme—that morality is relative—is also false. As in all complex problems, black-and-white conclusions tend to miss the mark. The reality is that one can validly hold unchanging moral principles while still believing in historically contingent moral dilemmas. In other words, there can be, and are, correct and incorrect choices for every conceivable moral issue, regardless of varying circumstances.
For example, when considering an immoral act like murder, or taking the life of a person unjustly, what constitutes murder depends entirely on the circumstances in which the killing took place. Was the person killed accidentally? Was it an act of self-defense? Or was it because of malicious intent? These are general questions that can be answered and judged in the same manner, regardless of time or place. However, the details are what make things interesting.
Imagine that you’ve been chosen to serve on a jury for a murder trial. Both the prosecutor and defense attorneys present their evidence, eyewitness testimonies, potential motives, criminal histories, etc. However, after hours of deliberation, you’re still confused. Then, suddenly, the prosecution presents a forensic DNA analysis that conclusively shows that the accused was not only at the scene of the murder (contrary to his alibi) but that the blood of the victim was found on his clothing. Guilty as charged.
Now, let’s take a similar murder trial, but from 1984—prior to the development of DNA profiling. In this instance, would it be morally unjustified for you or anyone else to declare the accused ‘guilty’ without the use of forensic evidence? Would it be reasonable to condemn the jurors, despite them not having access to such technology? According to those enchanted by presentism, every murder trial prior to 1984 must be immoral, despite people doing their best to safeguard society and implement justice with the options they had available.
A perhaps more relevant example can be found in contemporary age-of-consent laws across the world. Anyone younger than a legally stipulated minimum age is generally regarded as too incompetent or too vulnerable to consent to sexual or emotional relationships. Subsequently, adults who engage in sexual relations with minors are declared to be pedophiles or child molesters. However, if we recall the aforementioned evidences showcasing the vast differences in development and maturity over time, it would be utterly illogical to apply the parameters of legal consent today to past societies. Not only were our ancestors more prepared to consent to such relationships at younger ages, but their circumstances limited who they could conceivably consent to; lower lifespans and harsher environments didn’t give people many options—once one reached puberty, it was time to be an adult. In other words, our ancestors’ views on what constituted maturity were not tied to chronological age, but to other signs of development and competence.
To make this point more persuasive, we need only attempt another thought experiment. Let us imagine that we have a time machine (as in the film Back to the Future). With an understanding of morality firmly rooted in presentism, you assume that all you need to do is apply contemporary laws to the past so as to solve all our ancestors’ problems and improve the future. With this righteous intention in mind, you get into your DeLorean and go back 1400 years to the Arabian Peninsula. After you arrive, you manage to convince the natives of your moral superiority as they marvel at your powers to traverse time and space. As a result, these simple desert dwellers make you their leader and adopt your laws, patiently waiting until the age of 18 to be considered adults (to work, use transport, marry, raise a family, go to war, and take on other major responsibilities). All starts off well in your newly formed utopia of heightened moral consciousness. However, as the years go by, you notice that your newly enlightened population has begun to dwindle at an extremely fast pace. Puzzled by this, you investigate.
What you find is startling: not only has the average age at death remained intact but so have all the other trappings of late antiquity. Contrary to the native’s former laws and customs—when puberty was the mark of adulthood—you now have middle-aged “children” doing nothing but consuming the hard-earned resources of their elders and giving nothing back to society. Not only that, but you’ve forced these youth into a situation where they now only have an average of 17 years remaining to get married and raise families—most inevitably dying before their own children have reached legal majority.
This subsequently leads to a disproportionate ratio of minors to adults, leaving future generations in the hands of individuals legally incapable of performing basic societal tasks. In summary, the ultimate outcome of your social experiment would be a civilization paralyzed by its own laws and a population bound to become extinct through natural causes or a hostile takeover from neighboring tribes who had the sense to conscript their male members at earlier ages.
You may realize at this point that the judicial and cultural structures of the past weren’t necessarily the problem, but rather the conditions in which those customs manifested themselves. However, it’s too late—your claim to moral superiority has destroyed a once-flourishing society and the entire course of history has been altered as a result. Future generations have ceased to exist and you may have now even put your own existence in jeopardy.
Thankfully, you’re still alive and this is just a hypothetical scenario born from awesome 1980s pop science fiction. But it helps to illustrate that historical laws and customs were not always necessarily on the wrong side of the moral spectrum. What we need to understand is that many moral choices and customs of the past were merely a function of the circumstances people faced. Therefore, it is not fair to consider ourselves morally superior to our ancestors when we aren’t forced to make the decisions they had to make. Likewise, it wouldn’t be fair if our descendants judged us in the same light without regard for our own circumstances. In summary, presentism ultimately negates the past and undermines any and all reasonable moral judgments.
However, Islam neither negates the past nor undermines moral judgment, because intrinsic to the faith are concepts which manage to simultaneously support absolute moral principles and historically contingent circumstances. The first and most important of these is the idea that the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ is a perfect moral exemplar (uswatun hasana) for all times, places, and cultures. In other words, every statement or action the Prophet ﷺ ever performed is considered to have been the most appropriate response to the dilemmas he faced during his time and a standard from which we can learn and which we can apply to analogous situations in the future. This theological view not only implies that no one could have behaved better nor ever will, but also that there is an absolute moral standard that can be understood and followed, regardless of historically contingent circumstances. This is no less exemplified in Islamic jurisprudence itself (fiqh); a sophisticated legal tradition with a flexible methodology that adapts to changing circumstances.
(I can't continue the rest because reddit says 40k words is the max,but you guys can go to the link above to read the rest).

AN APPEAL BY HABIB ALI AL-JIFRI

basmala In the Name of God, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful
I claim not that my soul is innocent for indeed the soul of man incites to evil, except inasmuch as my Lord had mercy; truly my Lord is All-forgiving, All-compassionate (Quran 12:53)
And it is He who accepts repentance from His servants, and pardons sins, and knows all that you do (Quran 42:25)
God created human-beings with an innate nature to know each other and a preference of community to solitude which requires of them that they co-exist with people of different affiliations, approaches and beliefs. Therefore, an individual must continuously seek to perfect their understanding of how to deal with others in order to achieve the loftiest meanings of the Prophetic inheritance and characteristics.
Divergent hearts, abusive speech, and disembracing hands are the conditions of some people at present and they breed only suffering and alienation. These conditions are the result of issues within which no opportunity should be left to the satan to disrupt the harmony and compassion which generally exists between people.
People who have lived amongst others generally find that there is nothing as effective as kind words, a soft disposition and good character in affecting them. The impact of this affect causes others to lend an ear to what one has to say and nothing is greater in fostering friendliness, inviting agreement, achieving unity and avoiding divisiveness.
Such was the guidance of the Prophet Muhammad, upon him be peace. Once, he was approached by Zayd b. Sa’na, a Jewish rabbi, who came to demand repayment of his debt two or three days before it was due. He narrated, “I approached him (the Prophet) and gripped him by the shirt and cloak. I looked at him with a harsh face and said, ‘O Muhammad, will you not pay my dues? By God, I have not known the House of Abdul-Muttalib to be ones who evade payment, and I have know that from living amongst you. I looked towards Umar to find that his eyes were rolling like a round ship. He then gazed at me and said, ‘O enemy of God, are you addressing the Messenger of God with what I hear and doing unto him what I see? [I swear] by He who has sent him with the Truth that, if not for what I fear I could sacrifice, I would strike your head with my sword.’ The Messenger of God, upon him be peace, was looking at Umar with serenity and patience, and then said, ‘O Umar, myself and him were in greater need of other than this; that you command me with good fulfillment [of my debt] and command him with good manners in demanding his dues. Umar, take him and give him his due and increase it by twenty saas[1]of dates in compensation for threatening him.’” Zayd said, “Umar escorted me and granted my dues and added twenty saas of dates. I said, ‘What is this increase, O Umar?’ He said, ‘The Messenger of God instructed that I increase [your dues] in place of threatening you.’ I said, ‘And do you know me, O Umar?’ He said, ‘No, who are you?’ I said, ‘I am Zayd bin Sa’na.’ He said, ‘The rabbi?’ I said, ‘The rabbi.’ He said, ‘So what led you to do unto the Messenger of God, blessings and peace be upon him, what you did and say unto him what you said?’ I said, ‘O Umar, there was nothing of the signs of prophethood that I did not identify in the face of the Messenger of God save two [qualities] that I did not learn of him; his forbearance overrules his anger and the anger practiced unto him only increases his forbearance. Now I have witnessed them. So bear witness O Umar that I accept God as lord, Islam as religion, and Muhammad as prophet, and bear witness that half of my fortune, and I hold great fortune, is charity for Muhammad’s nation.” (Related in Al-Mu’jam al-Kabir by al-Tabarani 5/222 number 5154, and the al-Mustadrak ‘ala al-Sahihayn, in the Book of Knowing the Companions may God be pleased with them, 4/34 number 6626. al-Hakim said “The chain of transmission of this hadith is authentic even though it is not cited by Bukhari and Muslim, and it is among the finest of hadiths, and Muhammad b, Abi al-Siri al-’Asqalani is trustworthy.”)
In the Musnad of Imam Ahmad, Lady ‘Aisha, the mother of the believers, narrates, “That the Prophet, upon him be peace, told her, ‘Whosoever is granted their share of gentleness has received their share of good bounty in this world and the hereafter; and honoring the ties of kinship, good manners, and good neighborliness spread prosperity amongst households and prolong the lives of people.” (Ahmad 6/159 number 25298)
In light of the above
I appeal to every Muslim, man and woman, young and old, Arab and non-Arab, scholar and ignorant, present and absent, distant and near, living and dead and everyone with whom I share the belief of divine unity (tawhid) and they who find a space for themselves, as I do, in the sacred law of the messenger of God, that they pardon and forgive their brother, the writer of these modest lines, for God’s messenger, upon him be peace, said “God increases the honor of a servant who forgives, and elevates a servant who shows humility for His sake” (narrated in the Sahih Muslim 4/2001: 2588 and musnad of Imam Ahmad 2/386:9008),
How relevant are the words of the scholar Ibn al-Qayyim in his book Madaarij as-Salikeen (Ranks of the Wayfarers): “Whoever has offended you and then approached you to apologise, humility obligates that you accept his apology whether it is truthful or not, and that you leave his secret thoughts to God. The sign of generosity and humility is that if you notice a defect in his apology, you do not address it nor hold him against it.” (2/338)
The most precious thing in life is the ability to touch the hearts of those we love, and the worst is to hurt them without any apology that is met by forgiveness.
However, the above does not mean in any way that I abandon or deny what I believe to be documented and accurate within the doctrine of the Ahl al-Sunna wa al- Jama’a in its wider, universal understanding. This understanding is not exclusive to any particular sect or group even though they may make claims of their sole representation of it and refer to other communities of the umma as deviant and misguided.
The request for forgiveness that has preceded is a Quranic principle that calls to the practice of having constructive self-criticism, as mentioned in Sura Yusuf, “Yet I claim not that my soul was innocent.”
I use it to retract the unintentional wrong that has taken place for reasons of:

• Hastiness or confusion in citing Prophetic hadiths
• Vexation that overcome the discourse at times and was brought to my attention by people for whom I ask God reward, regardless of how they approached it.

I firmly believe that the presentation of ideas, debating of views and dealing with others are most appropriately done through committing to the Quranic principles of discourse of having wisdom, exhibiting good admonition, avoiding the ignorant, and recognizing that multiplicity and diversity in opinions are a manifestation of God’s mercy. When a man wrote a book called The Book of Difference, Ahmad ibn Hanbal said, “Call it The Book of tolerance.” (narrated in Ibn Taymiyyah’s Fatwas 14/159). Likewise, Anas b. Malik narrates, “We used to travel with the Prophet, upon him be peace, and the fasting ones among us did not criticise the ones not fasting neither did the ones not fasting criticise the ones fasting.” (Sahih al-Bukhari 2/678 number 1845)
I requested from the management of this website that a section be dedicated to the revival of the Quranic principal of self-criticism “Yet I claim not that my soul was innocent – surely the soul of man incites to evil.” This will be done through first presenting and then correcting the errors that I, the needful servant, have committed in citing Prophetic sayings (hadith) due to inattentiveness, the manner of speech or any other context in which it may have been. I plead to everyone who identifies an error on my part to be charitable and point it out by communicating it through the website or otherwise.
May God have mercy on whoever guides me to my shortcomings that I may rectify them while I can, before the final day when remorse will not be useful anymore. May God make us and you amongst the people of safety.
Your brother who is poor unto the forgiveness of his Lord
Al-Habib Ali Zain Al-Aabideen Al-Jifri
May God grant forgiveness to him, his parents, and all Muslims
He is Patron of this and capable of it
[1]A saa is a measure of volume that is relevant to many Sacred Law rulings related to the Muslim zakat (obligatory almsgiving) and other topics. Modern estimates of the weight of a single saa place it at 2.035 kilograms.