“So marry them with the permission of their people ahlihinna (of their people/family)and give them their due compensation according to what is acceptable. They should be (muh’sanatin ghayra musafihatin) chaste not those who commit immorality, nor those who take lovers (akhdanin). (Qur’an 4:25)
﷽
Perhaps the single biggest polemic or attack directed towards Islam has to do with the claim that the Blessed Prophet (saw) married his wife Aisha (ra) at a very young age.
For modern Christians, this represents the height of moral repugnance. Even when it is pointed out to Christians that what makes a female a woman is puberty. Even when it is pointed out that there is no definitive age given for marriage in the Bible, they still persist.
But here comes the problem. The Bible that Christians have in their hands today portrays the Christian Jesus as giving a law in which a 6 or 9-year-old was raped (not given in marriage) but raped, her rapist would pay 50 shekels of silver to her father. The man can never divorce her.
So, by this reasoning, if a person should never even consider Islam because of this, on what consistent basis should one become a Christian or remain a Christian given this shocking text?
Are Christians out to create more atheists than believers?
So let us look at the text in context. Let us look at the various ways Christian apologist try and soften the text.
The law that the Christians Jesus gave.
“If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel. If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her. If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.” (Deuteronomy 22:22-28)
So let us analyze the text.
Case 1. “If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.”
Prima Qur’an comments: The plain reading here is that a man (married or unmarried) sleeps with a woman (married) and they are found they are both to be killed. The text indicates both parties consent.
Case 2. “If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.” The text indicates both parties consent.
Prima Qur’an comments: The plain reading here is that a man (married or unmarried) sleeps with a woman (not married but engaged) and they are found they are both to be killed.
Case 3. “But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.”
Prima Qur’an comments: The plain reading of the text is if the man rapes a woman in the countryside the man is to be killed and the woman is to be spared. The reasoning being is that it is presumed that even if she did cry out for help no one could help her. This text does not indicate that the parties consent.
Case. 4 “If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.” This text does not indicate that the parties consent.
Prima Qur’an comments: The plain reading of the text is that if a man rapes a virgin who is not engaged and they are discovered he must pay the father 50 shekels of silver. He cannot divorce the young woman.
Analaytical breakdown of Deuteronomy 22:28-29.
We can translate the text as:
“If a man happens to meet a virgin (betulah) who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the ((na’arah) young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.”
or
“If a man finds a young woman (na’arah) who is a virgin (betulah), not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.”
The definition of na’arah here is:
a girl (from infancy to adolescence).
Source: https://biblehub.com/hebrew/5291.htm
What becomes immediately shocking is the law treats it as a property and marital crime against the father, not a violent assault on a child! In fact, the agency of the child is not considered at all.
Few points of clarification.
- This text is not endorsing rape of children.
- The text is informing us of what happens if a child is raped.
- This text is not saying that he must marry that child.
- The female child has no agency in this at all.
This is bloodcurdling evil. It represents a malevolence in its absolute, horrifying, and nightmarish form. Especially from the perspective of the female.
On a plain reading, this law applies to any virgin female under her father’s authority who is not betrothed, regardless of age. The remedy is marriage to her rapist and no divorce.
The Purpose of the Law: This law served two purposes:
- Financial penalty to the father (who lost the bride-price a virgin daughter would command).
- Social protection for the woman, who would otherwise be “damaged goods” and unmarriageable. Forcing the rapist to marry her and never divorce her provided her with lifelong financial and social security. (This is abhorrent to modern ethics, but it was intended as a protection for the woman in that ancient patriarchal context.)
Notice the law treates this as a property and marital crime against the father and not a violent assault on a child!
That’s it. No age. No consent requirement. No exception for young children. No minimum threshold.
People (including scholars, pastors, and apologists) claim the Bible clearly excludes children from laws like Deuteronomy 22:28-29, they are adding to the text, not reading from it. The text says what it says. The rest is tradition, inference, or moral discomfort dressed up as exegesis.
Jews and Christians panic. This is not rape at all! It’s a case of seduction!
These are many different translations of the text into English.
https://www.biblestudytools.com/deuteronomy/22-28-compare.html
One thing that Jews and Christians will do is to say that the text is not talking about rape at all but seduction!
There are many reasons why this does not hold water and they know they are being decietful.
Notice the text says:
“He must marry the (na’arah) young woman, for he has violated her.”
“and she shall become his wife because he violated her”
“Humbled” / “violated” — does the punishment fits the crime
The word translated here as “violated” is also translated “afflicted” and “humbled”.
If it’s consensual, why can he never divorce her because he “violated/humbled” her?
If it’s consensual, there was no humbling or violation involved but she was an enthusiastic participant.
How do the Jews and Christians reconcile their idea that Deuteronomy 22:28 is consensual sex when the man is told he can never divorce the woman because he has humbled her?
Consensual sex doesn’t humble or disgrace a woman in that culture — marriage does not humble her. The humiliation is the forced nature of the act, the loss of her virginity by violence, the public shame. The permanent marriage without divorce is not a reward; it is a lifelong penalty to him (he cannot rid himself of her) and a provision for her (she would otherwise be unmarriageable and destitute). But that provision does not negate that the act was rape.
Exodus 22:16 vs. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 — different verbs, different meanings
Some Jews and Christians while trying to obfuscate the discussion quickly bring up Exodus 22:16.
Look at what it says:
“If a man seduces (patah) a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.” (Exodus 22:16)
“If a man finds a young woman (na’arah) who is a virgin (betulah), not betrothed, and seizes (taphas)her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he (anah)violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.” (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)
Terms.
patah. Meaning: allure, deceive, enlarge, entice, flatter, persuade, silly one
Source: (https://biblehub.com/hebrew/6601.htm)
anah. Meaning: To afflict, oppress, humble, answer, respond
Source: (https://biblehub.com/hebrew/6031.htm)
taphas. Meaning: To seize, capture, grasp, take hold of
Source: (https://biblehub.com/hebrew/8610.htm)
There’s a difference between a man who has sex with a woman and then marries her and a man who seizes a woman, has sex with her, and then marries her. In the first case, he can divorce her. In the second case, he cannot. It only makes sense if he has done some unusual harm to her.
Notice in both cases the man still pays the fifty shekels of silver to the father. In the case that is consensual the marriage is at up to the father. The woman has no agency. In the case that it is non consensual the marriage must take place. The woman has no agency.
Note that Exodus 22:16 uses language of seduction (patah — to entice, persuade), while Deuteronomy 22:28 uses taphas (seize, overpower, force) and anah (afflict, humble, violate).
Examples of taphas.
“She caught him by his cloak and said, ‘Come to bed with me!’ But he left his cloak in her hand and ran out of the house.” (Genesis 39:12)
“Caught” = taphas (תָּפַשׂ) — Potiphar’s wife seizes/grabs hold of Joseph’s garment. The verb implies physical force or grasping, not a gentle or seductive touch.
“He took Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and all his people he totally destroyed with the sword.” (1 Samuel 15:8)
“Took” = taphas (תָּפַשׂ) — Saul captures/seizes King Agag. This is the language of military capture and physical restraint.
“Then Elijah commanded them, ‘Seize the prophets of Baal. Don’t let anyone get away!’ They seized them, and Elijah had them brought down to the Kishon Valley and slaughtered there.” (1 Kings 18:40)
First “Seize” and second “seized” = taphas (תָּפַשׂ) — Elijah commands the people to physically capture/restrain the prophets of Baal. Again, forceful taking of persons.
Example of anah.
“But when she brought it to him to eat, he took hold of her and said, “Come to bed with me, my sister.” “No, my brother!” she said to him. “Don’t force me! (tə·‘an·nê·nî) This thing should not be done in Israel. Don’t do this wicked thing. What about me? Where could I get rid of my disgrace? And what about you? You would be like one of the wicked fools in Israel. Please speak to the king; he will not keep me from being married to you.” But he refused to listen to her, and since he was stronger than she, he (way·‘an·ne·hā) raped her.” (2 Samuel 13:11-14)
Both of the words translated as: Don’t force me! and raped her are verb forms of the word anah.
You know what context the word (anah) never appears in the Bible? Where a woman has consensual sex.
Christian apologist dig deep to obfuscate the matter one last time.
So one Christian wanted to show that anah only means humbled and not rape.
So here the Bible god gives the people two choices. Submit to forced labour (which includes your men, women, and animals) or we fight kill the men and which result sin forced labour (minus the men).
“When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.” (Deuteronomy 20:10-15)
So this Christian cited the following text:
“When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have (‘in·nî·ṯāh)dishonored her.” (Deuteronomy 21:10-14)
Such Christians are truly dark individuals.
So this Christian believes that once a man goes into a village, kills a woman’s entire family, takes her prisoner, brings her home, and “marries” her after she mourns her dead family (mother and father) for a mere month that this ‘marriage’ was consensual?
One last plead by the Christian apologist. The phrase: ‘They are discovered’ and the ‘no cry for help.’
- The phrase “they are discovered” (wə·nim·ṣā·’ū) does not imply consent. It implies the act became known—whether through pregnancy, witness, rumor, or later discovery. A raped girl might well be silent out of fear, shame, or trauma (as Tamar was—she “put ashes on her head” and went away desolate, but she did not immediately run to report it).
Imagine a woman who walking on her way to work and she sees man holding a woman at knife point. She discovers them. Does that make the encounter mutual or consensual no it doesn’t.
This causes us to go back and look at case 2 above.
Case 2. “If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.”
This law given to us by the Christian Jesus is very legally crude by modern standards. It also shows us to us that the Christian Jesus cannot be Almighty God becuase his logic is flawed. When the Christian Jesus teaches us: “cry = rape” / “no cry = consent” we must object on moral and logical grounds.
Here the seeker of truth and the Christian who is distraught over these teaches of Christiain Jesus is comforted by the Muslim who says to these text given by the Christiain Jesus. “It doesn’t work like that at all!”
Any of these would explain why a raped girl — especially a child of 6 or 9 — might not cry out:
- Gagged — physically unable to scream
- Weapon held to throat — silent or die
- Threats against her family — “I’ll kill your father if you scream”
- Threats against her livelihood — “I’ll make sure you and your family starve”
- Fear-induced paralysis — freeze response is documented, common, and not consent
- Authority figure — if the man is her employer, a relative, or someone with power over her family
- Shame or confusion — especially in a child who may not fully understand what is happening
- Previous threats — “No one will believe you”
A Muslim would never attribute such sick and deperaved reasoning to Jesus (upon whom be peace). Let alone attribute this to God Almighty!
Context of (Deuteronomy 22:22-28) shows that verse 28-29 is non consensual.
Notice that Deuteronomy 22:22-28 is split into two sections.
Case 1 and Case 2 which indicate consent. and Case 3 and 4 which showcase cohercision.
“But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die.” The word translated ‘rapes her’ in verse 25 is the Hebrew word
The word translated “rapes her” in verse 25 is the Hebrew (wə·he·ḥĕ·zîq).
chazaq means: To be strong, to strengthen, to harden, to prevail, to take hold of
Source: (https://biblehub.com/hebrew/2388.htm)
“If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered.”
The word translated as “rapes her” in verse 28 is the Hebrew (ū·ṯə·p̄ā·śāh)
taphas. Meaning: To seize, capture, grasp, take hold of
Source: (https://biblehub.com/hebrew/8610.htm)
So it is very clear that verse is speaking of cohercision as it comes under the section dealing with cohercision.
Betrothed vs. unbetrothed — the father’s property distinction
The only reason the rapist is punished is in the previous text is because she belongs to another man.
In Deuteronomy 22:22-27, if a betrothed virgin is raped in the city and does not cry out, she is executed alongside the rapist (presumed consent). See Case 2 mentioned above.
If a betrothed virgin is raped in the field, only the man dies (she is presumed innocent). See Case 3 mentioned above.
The difference is property rights — a betrothed woman belongs to another man. An unbetrothed virgin belongs to her father. The rape of an unbetrothed virgin is a property crime against the father (hence the fine paid to him), not primarily a crime against the person of the girl.
That is why:
- A betrothed woman’s rape is adultery against the husband (death penalty)
- An unbetrothed woman’s rape is theft from the father (50 shekels + marriage)
The woman herself is not the primary rights-holder in either case.
That is precisely why the law given to us by the Christian Jesus is abhorrent by modern standards: it treats the rape of a child or unmarried woman as a financial and marital offense against her male guardian, not as a violent crime against her. It’s this dehumanization of women by the Christian Jesus that has left many Christians devesated and soul searching.
The Septuagint — biasamenos (by force)
The Greek translation (LXX) uses βιασάμενος biasamenos — from biazō, meaning “to use force, to compel, to rape.” There is no ambiguity. The translators of the Septuagint (Jewish scholars centuries before Christianity) understood the Hebrew to mean forcible rape.
Source: (https://www.septuagint.bible/-/deuteronomion-kephalaio-22)
Source: (https://biblehub.com/greek/971.htm)
There is no Christian case to be made against the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) based upon reports of him marrying Ayesha (ra). That is to say there is no consistent case. If one is to reject Islam because of the hadith reports that he married Ayesha (ra) at the age of 9, then the Christian is asking the Muslim to reject Christianity altogether. There is no way the two models are morally equal.
One is a claim not based upon the Qur’an but upon Islamic secondary sources that the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) consensually married Ayesha (ra) at the age of 9.
The other is a claim that the Christian Jesus gave us a law where a man who rapes a young female virgin at the age of 6 or 9 pays 50 shekels of silver to her father and then marries the young female virgin. This was done without her consent. Such a law is not found in the oral tradition but in the very heart of the sacred text of the Christians and Jews.
No morally sound person could ever consider Christianity knowing that the Christian Jesus gave such scuzzy and crummy laws.
You may also be interested in reading the following:
May Allah Guide the Ummah.
May Allah Forgive the Ummah.
Prima Quran 