Mr/s. Obscenity (Ali Sina) trickily/stupidly tries to label Muhammed (s.a.s.) with "pedophilia."
If any Islamic source were to uphold pre-pubertal sex, I could trivially uphold that, too.
From a developmental-psychology textbook: "At about 3 or 4 years of age, the genitals increase in sensitivity, ushering in a new stage. (One sign of this new sensitivity, incidentally, is that children of both sexes quite naturally begin to masturbate at about this age.)" (on p.337 of "The Developing Child, Fifth Edition" by Helen Bee, 1989, HarperCollins).
No muslim might take the (anti-Islamic) "ijtihads" of simpletons such as Mr/s.Obscenity.
To ijtihad is to express some opinion about some matter of law. If that is a case of religious law, that has to relate to the religious sources -- and without making fallacies that contradict against the religious sources (while the sources have no inherent contradiction). Mr/s.Obscenity (AliSina) is a piece of junk (committing fallacies, wrong readings) throughout his/her opinions. There is no way to count him/her a valid imam.
Moreover, if imams may commit fallacies, or if hypocrites quote falsely, then, if/when we notice that, we have to get rid of that faulty portion. A hadith is explaining why the Quran criticizes some others (calling their priests their "gods") -- those who follow the words of priests even when priests contradict the Book that Allah had sent.
There is no pre-pubescent sex license, in Islam. Period.
I understand (as relates to marriage) puberty as menses (her first menstruating) -- because there is the iddah rule in the Quran, for divorcee "young wives," too. At most, if you would like to relax that to the most extreme young age, you still would allow only age-mates of menstruating girls, never any girl who is below menstruability. But as concerns menstruating (w.r.t. legal age), Islamic law imams have not taken that extreme, but rather thought of a safe-guess age of 15. (With modern technology (maybe in the future), doctors may look into non-menstruating girl's body, to find out whether she ovulates (although not menstruating), and for such rare cases, allow the girl to marry without waiting till that age 15. But so far, without knowing about who ovulates who not, the rule of iddah, is suggestive of sticking with looking at menses.)
So far as I know, there is no support for coercive-marriages, either -- but, unfortunately, there seem to be claims (that such (false) laws may exist). That is not the same issue (especially if sex is forbidden until menstruating, within such "marriages" as well), but that is abuse of rights.
Notice that, Mr/s.Obscenity's text[@, @] does not have even a single non-stupid paragraph.
To uphold Islam is trivial, and furthermore, you see what sort of "scholarly" people talk against Islam. I slam all of his/her paragraphs, especially to point out that stupidness.
In the first paragraph, Mr/s. Obscenity is lieing about at what age the marriage was. The subparagraphs of that paragraph constantly translate (or, happen to find quotes which translate) the word (in all the four hadiths he/she quotes), as "marriage" but for example even SamBot quotes the case of 6 in some cases as engagement, in some cases as marriage. Thus, the "marriage" was the figurative word. Thus, immediately obvious that, Mr/s.Obscenity polishes the data (through translating) to his/her own liking, to fool people. It is not quite "scholarly," but fraud.
Oops!?! Next, in paragraphs 4 & 5, Mr/s.Obscenity is listing hadiths "engage 6, marry 9" So, on a single page, he/she plants the hadiths variously to back up his/her slanders, momentarily. That fool is trying to fool you, and hopes that by the time you get to read the (subparagraphs of the) paragraphs 4 & 5, you would have no memory of what he/she told you, in paragraph 1, about this (age of marrying, 6-vs-9) issue.
The second hadith/subparagraph of his/her paragraph5, is certainly separating engagement (with the word "engagement") at 6, vs. "handing-over" at 9. Furthermore, the hadith/subparagraph of his/her paragraph4 corresponds to that "handing over" term with exactly the word "married," so the word "marrying" and the time of his (s.a.s.) consummation, concur in hadith: "When the Prophet married me, my mother came to me and made me enter the house (of the Prophet) and nothing surprised me but the coming of Allah's Apostle to me in the forenoon. Bukhari 7. 62. 90."
Engagement at six, marrying at nine. To "marry" at six would be figurative -- if that were/is the word in some narratives. Arabic past tense verbs (and "written"), tell of what will surely happen.
For example, the Quran is listing such statements about the Judgement Day, too.
Known in English, too -- like murmuring or exclaiming "You're dead!," if ready to kill.
The words of two trustable persons, and the highly attractiveness of the groom (s.a.s.) for marrying (with the girl's veto being unlikely), give credibility to that sureness.
Furthermore, people might have been narrating those hadiths with hindsight about the time of the decision (that agreement), as there was no glitch throughout the process.
Last, but not the least, if the word in the texts of (authentic words of authentic) hadiths, is "tazwij," then that is referring to "coupling" (the word "zawj" (of Arabic) is the word "mate" (of English), in lots of senses of the word). That fits for engagement, not wise to translate that as "marriage=6" -- especially given that Bukhari hadith of marrying at 9.
Was Mr/s.Obscenity so ignorant of Arabic, and not able to think even a single one of these?
Given the fraud of hadith-planting, the problem is not just ignorance, but FFI syndrome.
Father(s)-of-Foolish-Ignorance -- similar to Abu-Jahl's (a.l.) interpreting "zaqqum," etc.
Where in which hadith does it write that she (r.a.) was married at her exactly ninth birthday?!
32 years of sun, makes 32 lunar years. 9y3m lunar, makes 9y solar.
So, his/her pretenses of "math" is only about his/her guess. Not in hadith.
Furthermore, who cares the calendar age? The criteria might fit at different times of individuals.
How is that a problem whether Abu Bakr (r.a.) was offering, or Muhammed (s.a.s.) requesting?
Is there the least of evidence of some "unwillingness" on behalf of one or the other? No. Therefore, we have to presume that, Muhammed (s.a.s.), AbuBakr(r.a.), and Aisha (r.a.) -- and the women (r.a.) who congratulate her (r.a.) -- were thinking of that, as a perfect (all positive, not negative) choice. The sorrow may belong to opponents.
Mr/s.Obscenity accuses of pedophilia. Then, listing irrelevant points, to "refute" what "some muslims think." Noise, to seem as if having found something valid against Muhammed (s.a.s).
In other words, the paragraph would not belong to the topic of the page. Therefore, I first thought of passing through, without bothering to refute that. But, then, I took my own challenge that, there is not even a single non-stupid paragraph of Mr/s.Obscenity, and I thought of writing the point that, that paragraph is also baseless, and worthless.
Furthermore, while tallying the hadiths (the FFI pretenses of "scholarlyness"), hasn't Mr/s.Obscenity seen the hadiths about Muhammed (s.a.s.) being told (in dreams) whom (r.a.) he (s.a.s.) would marry? Why would he/she ask that to ignorant people?
If muslims would not know the history in hadiths, is it right to slander Islam? No.
Your opponent's not recalling the case, does not make you right.
By the way, if to consult only from sahih texts such as Bukhari, then that reminds of Omar (r.a).
Omar (r.a.) was that who was trying to marry his (r.a.) widow daughter, Hafsa (r.a.), and that could be what some muslims confused with, and told to Mr/s.Obscenity
Then again, this was how I had written at first (publishing on Mar.5,2010, this page), but Bukhari lists that, in that case, too, the offer was from Muhammed (s.a.s.) -- while Omar (r.a.) was trying to find a husband for her (r.a). So, my memory was not perfect, nor I happen to weep about having non-perfect memory, about a hadith that is not relating to how I am living by Islam. It seems, the hypocrites who try to slander Islam, have more interest in finding "history" quotes in all corners of literature, while lots of muslims have little interest in recalling what does not relate to our own Islamic living.
And in this case, this was for slamming some opponent of Islam. This happens to be why I found that hadith, again. Thus, again, not because of interest in history, but to fact-check (and to find out whether the hadith was in Bukhari), in the context of referring to case, while opposing some noise.
If muslims would not know the history in hadiths, is it right to slander Islam? No.
Your opponent's not recalling the case, does not make you right.
Moreover, about AbuBakr (r.a.), Tabari turns out to list that history/story "hadith" (if so), along with two other (not necessarily all compatible with each other) accounts of how/why the marriage would happen. Ironically, I found this (after publishing this page first on Mar.5,2010), in the list of the quotes-bag of yet another anti-Islamic hypocritical bigot, Shamoun, on pedophilia.
"Umm Ruman said that al-Mut‘im b. ‘Adi had asked ‘A’ishah’s hand for his son, but Abu Bakr had not promised anything. Abu Bakr left and went to Mut‘im while his wife, mother of the son for whom he had asked ‘A’ishah’s hand, was with him. She said, "O son of Abu Quhafah, perhaps we could marry our son to your daughter if you could make him leave his religion and bring him in to the religion which you practice." He turned to her husband al-Mut‘im and said, "What is she saying?" He replied, "She says [what you have heard]." Abu Bakr left, [realizing that] God had [just] removed the problem he had in his mind. He said to Khawlah, "Call the Messenger of God." She called him and he came. Abu Bakr married [‘A’ishah] to him when she was [only] six years old. (The History of Al-Tabari: The Last Years of the Prophet, translated and annotated by Ismail K. Poonawala [State University of New York Press, Albany 1990], Volume IX, pp. 129-130)"
Now that Tabari lists the case, then a question at this point is: How does Mr/s.Obscenity find that authority in himself/herself to bluntly oppose some "hadith" (if so) found in a history book (Tabari's)? We muslims may or may not accept such non-sahih (not-necessarily-authentic) sources as valid evidences, but how does some non-muslim hooligan decide to favor or oppose some historical account (while endorsing others, on whim), and that, with noisy pretenses of rebuttal?
If muslims would not know the history in hadiths, is it right to slander Islam? No.
Your opponent's not recalling the case, does not make you right.
She was not pre-pubescent. Lawfully wife. What is the word "minor" standing for, then?
The majority of 9-year olds, might think a lot better than (the tricky fool) Mr/s.Obscenity. (I think, it would not be surprise, if she (r.a.) had started talking regular words (at 2, or 3), with her (a.s.) IQ probably more than Mr/s.Obscenity's IQ, now.) Not to mention that, in a hadith, he (s.a.s.) commends Aisha (r.a.), as "she is Abu Bakr's daughter."
No, presumably, I am not exaggerating. Aisha (r.a.) probably had some commonsense, like most children have, maybe more, because she (r.a.) was intelligent, and daughter of a high family. In contrast, unfortunately, people who live in crooky cultures (who hardly have the concept of chasteness, or husband-&-wife), would start in the wrong path, and may go worse. If you would know that (upon a pending shock), you would lose your memory entirely, who would you choose for guiding you, afterward? Aisha (r.a.) in her two, or Mr/s.Obscenity? Most, or all, wise people would prefer the conscience of Aisha (r.a.), for advice on optimal-living, to start again.
What knowledge does it take to marry, and start a family? Girls tend to play with dolls [probably anticipating a prospective family, with her motherhood]. Newly-weds would probably know that, spouses might have babies, but not necesssarily know how.
Mr/s.Obscenity himself/herself is the fool. In contrast, Abu-Bakr (r.a.) is wise.
Abu-Bakr (r.a.) knew what risks a girl might face in a promiscuous [& abusive] world.
For starters, look at the statistics in USA -- where, marrying is forbidden but sex among pubescents, and pre-pubescents get into statistics. If lots of low-income kids have sex at 12& (some, 8), you might be only guessing how high-income kids (especially those without strict parental-supervision, or the faith to forbid non-marrital sex) would contribute to the statistics (or, be subject to the friend pressures/lobby). Solution? "Abstain?" "Pledge?"
Hypocrites might "question" whether Abu Bakr (r.a.) would not trust that his (r.a.) little girl would be "naturally" chaste. Well, Omar (r.a.) had buried his (r.a.) daughter (at 6) in pre-Islamic times. In our times, people know children of pious people who have gone wrong (and sometimes the vice versa).
Furthermore, do the hypocritical bigots who oppose the marriage, try to claim that, that was only a "co-incidence" that, she (r.a.) was his (s.a.s.) only maiden bride? I presume that, all others, inclusive of the teen brides he (s.a.s.) would marry, had got into marriage, "quickly," too. Requesting at that age was right -- to be the first husband.
Having got a marvelous son-in-law (s.a.s.), he (r.a.) had no concern about the couple.
You would not want to be the father who tells his waiting girl, at her 20, that, the king of the country, who happens to be the wisest, and among the most handsome, had offered to marry her, but you withheld your consent.The marriage of Muhammed (s.a.s.) and Aisha (r.a.) is immensely glamorous.
Mr/s.Obscenity might of course, think exactly the vice versa. Perhaps, concentrating to the "love" in the songs -- but neglecting how people circulate in that type of non-committal "in search" markets. Such "love" might not be continuing a lot or they would not be looking as if in a revolving door (in-and-out of the "love" relationships, serially).
So, Mr/s.Obscenity who lists himself/herself as "Ali Sina" is rather "Âli-Zina" -- with his/her tricky support to adultery, not marriage ("zina" is "adultery" in Arabic).
Furthermore, ironically, lots of people try their chances through match-making people/sites. So, how is that abusive, if the girl's father (who has the right to veto), pre-declares his consent? The girl has the right to veto, if she would not like that. Likewise, if the girl would accept/find her wish first, then the veto right was with the father. In contrast, the match-making step is what people might only find convenient, not formal.
So, what is the utopia/standard which Mr/s.Obscenity sells? The relationships in those songs and movies? Is the girl supposed to marry, or not? If to marry, how many boys would a girl need to find-&-test (so that, some "enlightened" people, such as the self-endorsing Mr/s.Obscenity (or, masonic lodges)), would approve of her situation? What is their utopic "enlightened" statistics (how many of the opposite-sex to test, or taste)?
Çetin Altan, a leftist mason journalist, had written about himself when he was a small child, and then how there was a talk in a French radio, about that girl baby-sitting him, fondling, and how he was willing for it. So, what is the "enlightenment" standard, really? None? Hypocrisy? Opposing Islam?
Islam is not allowing sex while baby/child -- until puberty (marriage). Thus, not a hedonist, nor asceticist extreme. Islam is the middle, optimal ruling.
Mr/s.Obscenity caters to the pedophilia market? The stupid and sick imagery of Mr/s.Obscenity glares especially in the 4th paragraph, as he/she projects bedroom-scene-guesses. Not in the hadith, but he/she continues to mess with the valid marriage, by offensively trying to guess some first-night private scenes, presumably tuning toward the pedophilia market ("girl's surprise," etc).
The hadith is telling only of how Aisha (r.a.) was surprised (and I would guess that, that is joy), when he (s.a.s.) came home. That is the hadith I quoted above. I guess no one saw in it the obscene "sense" of surprise which Mr/s.Obscenity "reads" into the hadith.
The second subparagraph/hadith of 5th (next) paragraph is again corresponding to the hadith in this (4th) paragraph, with the word "unexpected" corresponding to the "surprise." In that hadith, her mother's (r.a.) handing her (r.a.) over to Muhammed (s.a.s.), is stated, and expectably, that is after that surprise moment. How is the liar Mr/s.Obscenity corrupting this hadith's statement, although that hadith explains fully?
The keyword "surprise" is what is known to exhilarate exhibitionists (perverts who harass people by showing their own anatomy). The FFI type of anti-muslims, look like trying to shock the people with their noisy lies, and probably getting a satisfaction quite similar to that of those exhibitionists who like to shock unexpecting people.
Mr/s.Obscenity is obscene (and for your information, he/she reports in some other context that), people have put money on his/her head ($23000, probably for covering the expenses)). Now, there is an obscene fantasy of Mr/s.Obscenity, about Aisha's (r.a.) surprise. So, inferrably, muslims list the prizes for killing those who commit obscenity assaults toward the prophet's (s.a.s.) family (r.a). Not surprising, at all.
Furthermore, that stupid projection assumes people in their 9, as if they were infants.
By that logic, a girl would have been surprisable in her 15, or 21, too. If a girl is having her first time, surprise is (perhaps) normal [unless watching wrong types of movies, or a person tells her]. Mr/s.Obscenity projects his/her worldly experiences/watchings?
The world of today, and most likely, the Hijaz of pre-Islamic times, had left little or no surprises about sex. People would see sexy-women on the street, and know what goes around in (non-Islamic) parties, etc. Young and old, lots of people/men were probably boasting/bragging their life-styles (wishes and "successes"). Poetry, the mass media, of their times, is said to have lots of such. Thus, girls would witness a lot.
A girl who is playing with dolls, probably knows what a family is -- inclusive of how a father and mother relate (other than in the bedroom). So, no hint to guess "not readiness for marriage."
Perhaps (and most likely), his (s.a.s.) visits were in Abu Bakr's (a.s.) house, visiting the prospective bride. That is multiply wise. For contributing to her (r.a.) personality, getting feedback on how she likes him (s.a.s.), and perhaps curious about why she (r.a.) was the chosen.
The prophet (s.a.s.) calling the girls back, to continue playing with Aisha (r.a.), might fit both cases. If at her (r.a.) room in Abu Bakr's (r.a.) house, then that was before marriage, therefore, he (s.a.s.) was not willing to be left alone with Aisha (r.a). If afterward, then perhaps the girls (one or both) were pre-pubescents, and Aisha (r.a.) was (perhaps) getting the license to play, when those girls (r.a.) were playing, too.
Aisha (r.a.) was not a "small child." She (r.a.) was a pubescent, and marriage is not the optimal tool to satisy pedophilia, at all. If "sex" were the question, satisying that would need much less than marrying (especially in the corrupt times such as in the pre-Islamic times of ignorance).
If he (s.a.s.) were "pedophiliac", why would he (s.a.s.) not consummate her (r.a.) at 6? What definition is that? In other contexts, Mr/s.Obscenity tells of his/her belief about Muhammed (s.a.s.) writing the Quran himself (s.a.s.), or (hasha) making Allah craft laws to satisfy his (s.a.s.) lust/etc. Then, simply a law that would give the "small children" to the satisfy the ruler (there, himself (s.a.s.)) would fit pedophilia, most. (In feudal times of Europe, some landlords had the right of first night. In our times, allegations about some priests (in USA, etc), and some "godmen" (in India, they believe some people to be "gods"), reflects actually how pedophilia (or, persistent pubescent/teen selection) works. Muhammed (s.a.s.) is no case of pedophilia, whatsoever.
Marrying, is not about only sex. Mr/s.Obscenity is projecting his/her own limitations, presumably.
Marrying a young girl, has lots of advantages (of freshness, tuning), but if thinking about the short-term, then sex is not probably in that list of advantages, and most men (of adulterer type) would like to date with young women at about twenty (or, one-night-stands or short-terms with thirty-somethings, forty-somethings) as alternatives.
I am a sunni (muslim). The highest of the [shia] clerics is not the last word. Justify your own word. In any case, just to point out the stupidness of Mr/s.Obscenity (who interprets routinely wrong), I might trivially point out that, that cleric might have been referring to the issue I have just explained. The choice between the extra-fresh potential vs. ready grown-up. Otherwise, there is no "rule" (of biology or Islam) to make the wife inaccessible to husband, nor allowing the husband to refrain.
Again, the paragraph about his refuting some person, was not of interest for the rest of us, but to uphold the personal challenge I set "Mr/s.Obscenity has no non-stupid paragraph," I have chosen to slam some of the nonesense in his/her paragraph6, too.
Devoutness of Abu Bakr (r.a.), is what a muslim may empathize with. The opponents were trying to corrupt even Muhammed (s.a.s.), by suggesting him (s.a.s.) to rule Mecca, in return for getting rid of Islam. Marring with Abu Bakr's (r.a.) daughter, is a well-understood statement of solidarity.
Therefore, presumably relieving the tension they would hopefully exert to Abu Bakr (r.a.) to get out of Islam. Oops!, this happens to explain only what that shia cleric has told, as Mr/s.Obscenity quotes him. Otherwise, I have no endorsement toward that theory, because the hadith tells that Muhammed (s.a.s.) was told whom to marry, his (s.a.s) prospective wife, in dreams. But, again, perhaps Allah might have had that cause (together with lots of more family-minded issues, or how Aisha (r.a.) was fitting), toward endorsing Aisha (r.a.) to Muhammed (s.a.s.), in dreams. Thus, we might not accept or refute that cleric's opinion. Mr/s.Obscenity is again wrong in blunt rejection.
Mr/s.Obscenity is persistently stupid (or, trickster trying to make up noise balloons). Is he totally ignorant of the truth that, family bonding is strengthened through born babies (grandchildren of both sides). Both friends and foes understand that the bond is strengthened. So, there is no point of objecting to that, but perhaps to mention the term "having sex" (to provoke or brainwash muslims through assaults to honor), Mr/s.Obscenity questions the wisdom, again.
Allah has chosen not to give babies to that marriage. Thus, the point is not necessarily having to have extra strength, but people would not know that. Allah is the source of all strengths, any way ("but" people stick to sebebs (causes), too. For example, Muhammed (s.a.s.) had been praying to Allah in Mecca that, may He srengthen Islam by attracting one of the two Omars (Omar (r.a.), and Abu-Jahl (a.l.)), to Islam). In summary, if Muhammed (s.a.s.) were not have been told the choice in his (s.a.s.) dreams, the guess of that shia cleric would also make sense. Perhaps, they do not accept Bukhari hadith collection (thus, not accepting the hadiths telling of his (s.a.s.) dreams). That explains the shia position. Mr/s.Obscenity is objecting absurdly.
What "pawn?" Nothing looks wrong about Aisha (r.a.), at all. Not even a single hadith tells of her (r.a.) not appreciating Muhammed (s.a.s.) -- although hadiths on envy (toward Khadija (r.a.), and (sorbet hadith) toward another wife once) have been in there. So, Mr/s.Obscenity is presumably projecting his/her own ugly world (non-committal sex, and revolving-door relationships), and double standards, to us. In another context (other page), he/she is trying to hold (guessably/knownly unchaste) women who make "dazzling displays" on the street (of pre-Islamic Mecca), now objecting to Aisha (r.a.) not goig through a process (obviously) such as the Western youngsters fall through. No chaste family would like their daughter to sample the boys all around.
If a girl thinks of a boy/man, the girl might tell that to her father [through mother], but mostly, especially when there is no context of socializing, that is not necessarily the case. Furthermore, Muhammed (s.a.s.) was attending her (r.a.) family games (with dolls) that she (r.a.) was playing with other girls (r.a.), so he (s.a.s.) was the-boy-she-knew. Mr/s.Obscenity's double-standards (juggling social-liberalism, with hypocrisy pretending as if puritanism), might list only as a trickery, to slander Muhammed (s.a.s).
In the 8th paragraph, Mr/s.Obscenity accepts the other statement of that shia cleric, "the rule."
That is, "a rule" of sexual feelings. The paragraph6 and pararaph8 of Mr/s.Obscenity, are equivalent (in paragraph6, there is the quote from that shia cleric, too, while paragraph8 only refers to that). I have said above what that cleric might have meant.
That other FFI (Father-of-Foolish-Ignorance) that Mr/s.Obscenity endorses as "Islamocritic scholar," is not "demonstrating" a thing, at all. I suspect he/she is Mr/s.Obscenity, because he/she is similarly quoting somethings, then "interpreting" those quotes absurdly foolishly. For example, quotes a Dictionary of Islam (presumably, that dictionary is written by muslims, because the quote fits the Islamic law, as widely held), but next, interprets that totally absurdly.
The quote sentence is: "There is no particular age for marriage (Ref. 4, page 315)" and that is about the non-existence of any specific calendar age. People differ a lot about their attainment of physical & mental sufficiency for marriage. How might a (non-charlatan sort of) scholar, ignore that most known of the marriage rules? Trickery.
In the history cases, suggests alternative history books, putatively. Wishful opposition.
In paragraph9, Mr/s.Obscenity re-quotes that [other] FFI, quoting a book, about a court case.
Mr/s.Obscenity lists that as a "hadith" (a title which would add to its authority), but the quoting subparagraph is listing that as a (law) "case," (the [other] FFI type does not call it hadith or not; so, Mr/s.Obscenity thinks/promotes it so). So, it is thought by Islamic scholarly someones, perhaps. Perhaps, a heretical sect. That "Islamocritic" not only finds that quote, out of a book you or I might not have heard a lot (if at all), then interprets that wrong, too. That is, if the case was truly thus, those people happen to follow some other "sharia" (normally law, of Islam, but terms might generalize, for example, in the country I live (the secularist T.C./Turkey), not only the killed soldiers and police, but even lots of (atheist) communist terrorists, call their members "shehid" (the hardcore Islamic term), such as "revolutionary shehid" ("devrim sehidi")).
But, as long as there is a way of understanding it normally, we could not be taking slander as the rule. Interpreting that, is not too hard. So, while through this, let me interpret that, fitting to how we normally understand Islam -- with commonsense.
If I would be the judge, I would not necessarily sentence the same (no opinion), but the issue subject to noise now, is not the sentence (who gets what share of what money).
Interpreting: That "marriage" with infant, must be in the "having a contract" for prospective status.
They must be (realistically) assuming that, the girl would have no opposition (because if the groom is not a truly bad choice, the girl will get familiar, almost certainly not veto).
The term "two wives": The word is "zawj" (mate, wife) from Arabic? If so, two mates.
That adult wife's breast-feeding that infant (the up and coming prospective co-wife, now engaged, having her prospective husband ready), makes that co-wifeness impossible (because, she became her milk-mother, thus they may not be co-wives).
At age of 4 or 5, that is totally unlikely to be marriage, but engagement
-- unless that girl had a terribly high IQ, and developmental hormonal excess.
Besides, how is the telling of some "Islamocritic" passes in place of the existing Islamic law?!
Such anti-muslims are trying to sell us their ijtihads (their version of Islamic sharia), rather than quoting the fiqh mezheb (shariah, law) books billions of people have been subscribing to, for almost fourteen centuries. If your sources were truly so credible, why has no imam taken those into account, while inferring their Islamic mezhebs?
Ironically, Omar (r.a.) is getting the nod for marrying with that Umme Kulthum, through the permission of (her sister) Aisha (r.a.)? In paragraph7, Mr/s.Obscenity was shedding crocodile tears, about Aisha (r.a.) being a "pawn" of her father (r.a). Now, Aisha (r.a.) replicates that.
In truth, obviously, Aisha (r.a.) was fond of her (r.a.) own lifestory, with Muhammed (s.a.s.) being her (r.a.) mate. Having a high quality prospective husband, Omar (r.a.), for her (r.a.) sister, must have been a good agreement, from her point of view.
Nowhere we notice sorrow, "except" in the hysterical trickery of Mr/s.Obscenity, who is (supposedly) sorry both for Aisha (r.a.) and Umme Kulthum -- but not about the (pre-Islamic, or today) women making "dazzling displays" of their beauty on the streets (who he/she endorses explicitly), nor about pubescents who have sex out of wedlock.
Mr/s.Obscenity and that other FFI type, report the story/history of the case, only that far. Now that we know that, Aisha (r.a.) was engaged at 6, married at 9, you or I could be curious about when Umme Kulthum finally married (the time of her puberty). But those FFIs fail to report that.
Perhaps, the history/story was written incomplete, or otherwise, like in paragraph1, Mr/s.Obscenity's FFI gang might be hiding that information, for 4-5 to seem as if final.
If Umme Kulthum were sufficiently developed (with high IQ, and pubescent), then Omar (r.a.) would have no cause to postpone until a specific age. But presumably, it was engagement, yet.
In the subparagraph of the 12th paragraph, Mr/s.Obscenity quotes Muhammed (s.a.s.) as having said "If she grows up and I am still alive I will marry her." So what is the sense of interpreting that as allowing marrying while infant? That is just the vice versa. Not marrying, but postponing.
So far as I recall now, I have not seen the history book which Mr/s.Obscenity endorses as "monumental." Perhaps, it is. But that not being in sahih hadith books, is notable.