I asked myself to consider the source....Ahhh, from Wikipedia and "traditional" sources...of what happened umpteen centuries ago, and these verbal stories are 100% now intact and true?
Sorry, I have seen bogus things in our own American history due to the bias of the historians, so we are to believe in an objective scientific manner that these ancient stories from another part of the world are true as reported in Wikipedia and by "traditional sources"?
I am not questioning arranged marriages of children, that is still a common practice in some countries today, but the date of "consummation" and age of the bride are to be taken as a fact because of a blurb in Wikipedia and "traditional" sources?
Look, I'm not telling people what to believe, I just find it funny when avowed atheists like RM refer to unscientific and unprovable reports from well over a millenium ago...some people will betray their own consistency of thought to bash some group they hate...just as RM bashes Muslims and Arabs citing old stories as some supporting evidence to prop up his hatred.
It is very fine line, because I am a strong proponent of freedom of religion and a religion's ability to practice their beliefs without government intervention, so whether or not the stories in scriptures are "true" as reported....it is all about personal faith with things that happened so long ago without proper methods of recording "history" as it happens and the verification process.
Hell, in our court system today, it is widely known that the testimony of so called eye witnesses is often false, so what to say about what really happened in Mohammed's day?
Or Christ, or Buddha, etc.
That is a matter of faith, and a matter of a particular society's law, which I don't believe is really any of our business to pass judgment on other cultures...especially when our culture is so far from perfection.
The moral absolutists will do so, but few can make an absolute argument to defend their position.
Moralists will do their thing for any number of reasons...
Quote from olias:
From Wikipedia: According to the traditional sources, Aisha was six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad.[1][3][4] American historian Denise Spellberg states that "these specific references to the bride's age reinforce Aisha's pre-menarcheal status and, implicitly, her virginity."[3] She stayed in her parents' home until the age of nine, when the marriage was consummated
...well if the 'traditional sources' are so out of whack on a simple question of how old she was, how much credence can we give to any of those stories about Muhammad? This is a sincere question. Maybe you need to ask yourself that question before you come back with an answer for us.