Sheikh there is one massive difference between the Islamic society that Rasul set up and if one were to set up an Islamic society in Pakistan right now this very second.
In Medina (1st psuedo-Islamic society) , after the pilgrimmage Makkah ---> Medina , Rasul was the leader. Tell me of one leader that we have had in the past that has been completely good, a faithful muslim, and has implemented Islamic laws fairly , w/o abuse in the land. You saw what Gen Zia did, right? I suggest you read up on this drunkard's history and his impact upon society. He introduced what HE THOUGHT was an islamic society.
Also, the sharia is still in its early form. Today, for example, we have forensics. Do you think there would be room in the sharia to include forensics. I say this, becuase today women are being convicted and stoned for adultery in Pakistan when they are really rape victims. A simple medical procedure will show that they have been raped, and did not commit adultery. But the Hudood Ordinance hasn't made room for these medical procedures. Is it because they didn't exist at the Prophet's time and thus should not be used?
rubbish, I say.
To Jonny: I understand the disgust you must feel. I feel it too somewhat, but I realize that its because I've been raised in the American society where a nine year old has a drastically different life than the nine year old of 500 A.D. I got my first period at 10. Its very possible that Aisha got her period at 9. I'm sure the Prophet would not "consummate" a marriage with a child, who hasn't reached puberty.
Also, you have to remember, that there were no "schools" or "universities" as we know it today in 500 A.D. in Makkah and Medina. You learned everything as an apprentice - and the learning began when you were big enough to talk and (if you had money) write. So you must look at history and the customs of the land at that time to get an idea of why she was 9 (if that's even true - some hadith used today are actually bogus or doubtful).
Plus, saying a 9 year old post-puberty "adult" is not capable of marriage in 500 A.D. is agism on our part.
You gotta look at all sides of the issue first.
Now weren't we talking about immorality? Lets revert back to that.
[This message has been edited by PyariCgudia (edited July 14, 2002).]