# If ethics change over time, how can today's ethics judge the Prophet's marriage? *Ethics change with time, so how can today's ethics be the yardstick* - URL: https://muftiabulayth.org/r/0ovisexs4ca/s/13/ - Date: 2017-01-11 · Kind: question · Transcript tier: machine · Recording: Age of Aisha (ra)- Mufti Abu Layth (1:35:34–1:38:13) - Status: general teaching - Watch from the start of the segment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oVIsExS4cA&t=5734s - Recording page: https://muftiabulayth.org/r/0ovisexs4ca/ **Topics:** Islam and modernity; Legal theory and method **Question as asked:** Ethics change with time, so how can today's ethics be a yardstick; what if in fifty years people come to accept this? **Summary (not a quotation; machine-made, unchecked):** Base ethics such as the wrongness of harm do not change, and the issue is consent, which a minor cannot give. Mufti Abu Layth does not believe people will ever come to accept otherwise. **Checked position (checked by two independent reviews, not by the channel):** Mufti Abu Layth holds that the question turns on consent, which a minor cannot give, and says he does not believe people will ever come to accept such a marriage, since the prevention of harm is a universal ethical base. **Evidence, his words at 1:36:50:** “this issue rests upon the concept of consent and how can there be consent from a girl who is a minor and since she can't reason” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oVIsExS4cA&t=5810s) ## Longer summary Mufti Abu Layth agrees that ethics develop and that twenty-first-century ethics differ from those of earlier centuries, but says he does not believe people will ever come to accept this marriage, because humans work towards benefit and the prevention of harm and universally accept that harm is bad, differing only on the details. He says the issue rests on consent: a minor cannot reason and so cannot consent, which makes the act harm and assault. He says today's society, in this part of the world, gives men, women, the elderly, the disabled, children, animals and the environment more rights than at any time in history, and that if humanity ever moved towards eliminating consent he would not advocate it and would hold them wrong. ## Sources and names cited - consent as the basis of a valid marriage - prevention of harm ## Transcript (machine tier, 1:35:34–1:38:13) [1:34:54] with the sanctification of certain books like bukari and then some people start to exaggerate in this sanctification especially of that movement people like the absolutist uh the Shafi School in general and Other M Salah and other people start to say well this is absolutely certain anything that is in this in this book it is conclusive and then to the extent that other people become influenced that they they almost forget that there was a time that this was not the mainstream kind of view and so on so I I think you are right that this has become common but [1:35:33] that is as a byproduct of certain phenomena phenomena that had occurred I don't believe that this was always the view you are right that the ethics of a society of a civilization do continue to develop and we definitely 21st century ethics seems very different um from even 20th century ethics let alone 19th 18th century ethics so that is true um the question if we're understanding this well look you're you're saying this today because it doesn't sound right and [1:36:11] it doesn't fit in but what if 50 years from today people change and they start saying this is okay firstly I do not believe that that will happen in that sense ever because human beings are working towards the betterment and the preservation of uh of benefits to humans and the prevention of harm so I feel at an as an underlay we all universally do accept certain uh kind of like like base ethics [1:36:50] like we accept that harm is bad and we accept that the prevention of harm is good now yes societies dis disagree on the permutations that these things have and the details but we accept this Universal base as human beings so this issue rests upon the concept of consent and how can there be consent from a girl who is a minor and since she can't reason so the opposite of that is then [1:37:28] harm and assault so you're saying well sexual assault so I do not agree that human Societies or generally especially human civilization as we see it today because we are in an age today whether people accept wholeheartedly or don't but we especially in this part of the world we are in a society where human beings men women uh the elderly disabled children animals the environment all have more rights than they have ever had preserved throughout human [1:38:07] history so we are in an that is undeniable I'm not saying it's perfect I'm not saying it's it's wholesome I'm saying but it is more uh positive and more preserved the rights for all of these things for people for the sick for the disabled for uh you know for all sorts for minorities for animals for pets for the environment for plants for trees then has ever occurred on a societal level throughout human history so if you're telling me well okay human beings seem to be working towards a trajectory now this trajectory will work towards okay eliminating ## Cite Mufti Abu Layth Archive, segment 0oVIsExS4cA/s/13. https://muftiabulayth.org/r/0ovisexs4ca/s/13/ Not a fatwa: these answers were given to specific people at specific times. Ask a qualified scholar about your own situation.