Muhammad a pedophile? how?

[Salvador]

Keep in mind you are talking about the equivalent of a 3rd grader who probably doesn't have her adult teeth grown in. Lady or woman shouldn't be mentioned at all.

Thanks for your comment, Sees. I would agree that nowadays it would be immoral for a man to have sex with any 9-year-old girl. However, I think we can agree that human survival was much more of a struggle where and when Muhammad had lived. I can see the logic of why a 52-year-old man there and then would want to procreate his genetic code with a young female who had just reached child bearing age, which could have been age 9 for Aisha.

 

[Unification]

Aisha's sexual maturity would be relevant, because she could have reached puberty at age 9. Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children. If Aisha was sexually mature enough to reproduce instead of prepubescent at age 9, then Muhammad by definition would not have been a pedophile; even if he had sex with a 9-year-old young lady who had passed her age of puberty.

"Knowledge" and "conscious" maturity.

 

[Unification]

Thanks for your comment, Sees. I would agree that nowadays it would be immoral for a man to have sex with any 9-year-old girl. However, I think we can agree that human survival was much more of a struggle where and when Muhammad had lived. I can see the logic of why a 52-year-old man there and then would want to procreate his genetic code with a young female who had just reached child bearing age.

Only procreation in scripture is the knowledge in the brain. Conscious impregnating subconscious and stored in the brain. Adam knowing Eve. Knowledge. Not sex.

 

[Unification]

Aisha's sexual maturity would be relevant, because she could have reached puberty at age 9. Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children. If Aisha was sexually mature enough to reproduce instead of prepubescent at age 9, then Muhammad by definition would not have been a pedophile; even if he had sex with a 9-year-old young lady who had passed her age of puberty.

In your humble opinion, at what age is the human brain mature and developed enough to begin child bearing?(knowledge of good or evil)

Child: seed of knowledge growing/stored in brain.

 

[Salvador]

In your humble opinion, at what age is the human brain mature and developed enough to begin child bearing?(knowledge of good or evil)

Child: seed of knowledge growing/stored in brain.

I think some females do mature faster than others, physically and mentally; so then some females are psychologically ready to give birth at an earlier age than others. The youngest mother in recorded history is Lina Medina who was Lina was five years, seven months, and 21 days old at the time when she gave birth to a nearly 6 pound healthy baby boy named Gerardo. Lina gave birth via Cesarean section at a Peruvian hospital in 1939. She has been healthy throughout her life and she is still alive today. Medina's son Gerardo died in 1979 due to an illness that was unrelated to his mother's young age at his birth. Gerardo's biological father has remained a mystery. Now I Know – The World’s Youngest Mother

 

[McBell]

Aisha's sexual maturity would be relevant, because she could have reached puberty at age 9. Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children. If Aisha was sexually mature enough to reproduce instead of prepubescent at age 9, then Muhammad by definition would not have been a pedophile; even if he had sex with a 9-year-old young lady who had passed her age of puberty.

OMG
One wonders why so many people think that ONE incident a "pedophile" makes.
Frankly, it matters not if Aisha was a bleeder at the time the consummation.
The very definition of pedophile indicates one incident does not make one a pedophile.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

That's a very good and reasonable question, ma'am. I'm not familiar with other religions/cultures, so I'll talk about my knowledge of Islam in this regard.

Men in Islam cannot get married in such an early age. Men in Islam are obligated to be both physically and financially capable (please note that physical maturity and physical capability are two different things), enough to take care of and provide for a family. Without those, getting married would inflect negative results to a family that has just started. Maybe now there are solutions that can take care of that, or conditions that do not require the two, but in the harsh and lawless past it was definitely necessary as a norm to be both physically and financially capable for men taking care of a family. It is/was impossible for a man as young as 12 years old to have both. Since our case here is ~1400 years old, I believe we cannot then consider the solutions and condition of the modern days here. I'm 32 and still not married basically because of the financial part. With our traditional way of marriage here, I fear that I would bring misfortune to my wife.

Just to be clear, I'm against child girls marriage. I cannot talk about the past, and I believe those who do actually don't know what they are talking about, but now it is definitely wrong in normal cases.

I think the barriers to boys 12 years old marrying older women because they aren't ready yet is precisely the reason behind why the reaction to girls that young marrying older men. They simply are not physically prepared to gestate, birth, and care for offspring. Not at a maternal mortality rate that is ethical, at least. Many cultures still maintain a position of glossing over pre-teen girls and teen girls mortality rates from pregnancy and childbirth. Worse yet, are the cultures that maintain a genital cutting that severely elevates the risk of maternal mortality during childbirth.

These practices compound the risks, yet unfortunately, seeing girls in the same light as boys....recognizing that they simply are not ready yet at a young age....is a hurdle that many still need to overcome.

Note to all:
I noticed some hostility and passive aggressive. Please try to keep the thread reasonable and appropriately discussed.

Granted, yes. If any rule violations are seen, please report them to staff to handle and refrain from engaging.

I'd like to emphasize again that negotiating the legitimacy of a marriage based on the fertility of a female reproductive system is brutal and results in many many girls dying at the hands of the customs imposed.

 

[Smart_Guy]

I think the barriers to boys 12 years old marrying older women because they aren't ready yet is precisely the reason behind why the reaction to girls that young marrying older men. They simply are not physically prepared to gestate, birth, and care for offspring. Not at a maternal mortality rate that is ethical, at least. Many cultures still maintain a position of glossing over pre-teen girls and teen girls mortality rates from pregnancy and childbirth. Worse yet, are the cultures that maintain a genital cutting that severely elevates the risk of maternal mortality during childbirth.

These practices compound the risks, yet unfortunately, seeing girls in the same light as boys....recognizing that they simply are not ready yet at a young age....is a hurdle that many still need to overcome.

"Not ready yet" I believe is unclear and general, not specific. As a reminder, we are discussing a matter from the past. Being ready in the past was much heavier on men than women in a family. The only concrete requirement for a women to get married was her general maturity but for men it was way beyond that. Men had to become financially and physically capable (different than mature and a step beyond). Families in the past needed a strong man to protect and take care of physicality and a career to provide in a rough time, not to mention having to pay the dowry before marriage. Those were never feasible in the past for a 12-year-old boy rendering him not ready.

I don't see how the above "not being ready for men" affect the decision to marry young girls. If a women is not ready, on the other hand, she also should not get married. As a not ready man getting married case would bear negative results, a not ready woman case would have the same result. I don't support underage girl marriage of course.

Soft reminder: we are originally discussing a controversial unclear ~1400 year old event, not current affairs, a time long enough to have people different in how they matured, and how life actually was.

Granted, yes. If any rule violations are seen, please report them to staff to handle and refrain from engaging.

Roger that, ma'am.

 

[Ingledsva]

Aisha's sexual maturity would be relevant, because she could have reached puberty at age 9. Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children. If Aisha was sexually mature enough to reproduce instead of prepubescent at age 9, then Muhammad by definition would not have been a pedophile; even if he had sex with a 9-year-old young lady who had passed her age of puberty.

BALONEY! It is unlikely she had reached puberty at age 9, - however - even if she had - she is too young for sex and childbirth, and home responsibilities.

These children hemorrhaged to death while trying to birth those babies! They are too SMALL! This death of - RAPED - (because that is what it really is)little girls, continues to this day in some countries. Have you read up on how many - women - died in childbirth? And how many of these little girls continue to die today?

There is no excuse for adult males to want to scr*w little girls.

And again - Islam was not the only group doing this.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

Thanks for your comment, Sees. I would agree that nowadays it would be immoral for a man to have sex with any 9-year-old girl. However, I think we can agree that human survival was much more of a struggle where and when Muhammad had lived. I can see the logic of why a 52-year-old man there and then would want to procreate his genetic code with a young female who had just reached child bearing age, which could have been age 9 for Aisha.

You can see logic in a 52-year old wanting to scr*w a young child, whom statistically would probably die in childbirth? I don't. I see patriarchal pedophilia.

Why wouldn't a sane man want a full grown young woman, with childbearing hips, as his wife? That makes sense. The genes are more likely to be passed on, - rather than die with the child bride at the birth/death.

This has nothing to do with passing on genes! It is patriarchy rearing its ugly head - in grown men wanting to have sex with girls as young as possible!

Even babies - 3-years and 1 day old - in some cases!

EDIT - I forgot to add - recent studies show that a male 40-years and older, when his wife conceives, - raises the chance of Down's syndrome, and other birth defects, greatly, and the stats grow by the years added after that age.

So - someone that old is not only risking the death of his child-bride, and his baby, but is also increasing the chance of birth defects in his offspring.

And there Is NO way in hell - that these people didn't notice that these little girls died in huge numbers! And that says a lot about how they thought about females.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

I think some females do mature faster than others, physically and mentally; so then some females are psychologically ready to give birth at an earlier age than others. The youngest mother in recorded history is Lina Medina who was Lina was five years, seven months, and 21 days old at the time when she gave birth to a nearly 6 pound healthy baby boy named Gerardo. Lina gave birth via Cesarean section at a Peruvian hospital in 1939. She has been healthy throughout her life and she is still alive today. Medina's son Gerardo died in 1979 due to an illness that was unrelated to his mother's young age at his birth. Gerardo's biological father has remained a mystery. Now I Know – The World’s Youngest Mother

Indeed - cesarean section - because she was too small and would have hemorrhaged to death, along with the baby, otherwise!

Just as little girls abused like this - died in droves then, - and still die today.

I have already mentioned the National Geographic article on this, and all the death and drudgery for these poor little girls, - even today!

*

 

[MysticSang'ha]

"Not ready yet" I believe is unclear and general, not specific. As a reminder, we are discussing a matter from the past. Being ready in the past was much heavier on men than women in a family. The only concrete requirement for a women to get married was her general maturity but for men it was way beyond that. Men had to become financially and physically capable (different than mature and a step beyond). Families in the past needed a strong man to protect and take care of physicality and a career to provide in a rough time, not to mention having to pay the dowry before marriage. Those were never feasible in the past for a 12-year-old boy rendering him not ready.

Yet this is why the apologetics from the past continue to this day. Girls die from childbirth. Teens have a higher maternal mortality rate from pregnancy and childbirth than women over 19. It's the notion that marriage was not all that hard for girls.

They just needed to start their period. I call that rubbish as a legitimate measure in any era or part of the world for marriage and - as assumed - carried the role of gestating, birthing, and raising offspring.

I don't see how the above "not being ready for men" affect the decision to marry young girls. If a women is not ready, on the other hand, she also should not get married. As a not ready man getting married case would bear negative results, a not ready woman case would have the same result. I don't support underage girl marriage of course.

I'm not saying you do support child marriage. However, cultures around the world and people did and still do. We have seen how barbaric the Tower of London treated it's prisoners, how certain forms of torture and execution is in the past is no longer practiced because of the greater understanding of human rights and what constitutes barbarism. We can see now and can educate people that child marriage regardless of place and time is most certainly barbaric. It's placing a girls life at risk. Particularly if her role in marriage is to make babies for a patrilineal custom.

Soft reminder: we are originally discussing a controversial unclear ~1400 year old event, not current affairs, a time long enough to have people different in how they matured, and how life actually was.

I'm fully aware of that. I stand just as strong against child marriage if it were 1400 years ago or if it were in rural Arkansas 1980. My ex-husbands grandmother was married at 12 and had her first child at 13. The consequences to her health and to her sense of happiness were far reaching and impacted her until she passed in her 70s.

It's not good nor forgivable. At all, IMO.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Yet this is why the apologetics from the past continue to this day. Girls die from childbirth. Teens have a higher maternal mortality rate from pregnancy and childbirth than women over 19. It's the notion that marriage was not all that hard for girls.

They just needed to start their period. I call that rubbish as a legitimate measure in any era or part of the world for marriage and - as assumed - carried the role of gestating, birthing, and raising offspring.

Which is a wrong justification and approach (I mean that for the apologetics). I agree with you.

I also mean by maturity and being ready, that to be completely fit physically. Just having the first period does not mean ready.

I'm not saying you do support child marriage. However, cultures around the world and people did and still do. We have seen how barbaric the Tower of London treated it's prisoners, how certain forms of torture and execution is in the past is no longer practiced because of the greater understanding of human rights and what constitutes barbarism. We can see now and can educate people that child marriage regardless of place and time is most certainly barbaric. It's placing a girls life at risk. Particularly if her role in marriage is to make babies for a patrilineal custom.

I know you don't, I'm just putting myself on the safe side confirming it.

But I don't see that all times have the same position. We do not know how was the physical state of people in different (distant) times. I however still don't take it as a rule that ~1400 years ago child marriage should had been a rule. Maybe the cases of completely physical ready-ness was just more existent. Also the age of mother Aisha at that time is not really took for certain it was really 9.

I'm fully aware of that. I stand just as strong against child marriage if it were 1400 years ago or if it were in rural Arkansas 1980. My ex-husbands grandmother was married at 12 and had her first child at 13. The consequences to her health and to her sense of happiness were far reaching and impacted her until she passed in her 70s.
It's not good nor forgivable. At all, IMO.

Further to what I said above, and I too share your same stance, please have a look at this previous post of mine:

Yes but if a 9-year-old these days is so immature and very underage, why would that be compared to how it was with people 1400 years ago? Let alone if it really was 9 in the first place! What if was 19 instead and it was changed by time?

Marriage is not basically connected with age, it is connecting with the mental and physical maturity. Age restrictions these days are originally based on those.

The standards we take are not necessarily the same they were in the past!

I don't see why people argue about this point and completely forget or ignore other sources saying that Aisha loved Muhammad from the bottom of her heart!

When Muhammad was dying, she rest his head on hear chest, hugged him and stayed like that until he passed away. They used to play games with each other they even raced like children do, kiss her before going out, calling here a nickname "Aish".... Why would a molested child and the molester have such a life?

If he really was a pedophile, he would have used his position as a big leader for that instead of just staying with Aisha. Not to mention that he married widows and women older than anything close to being children.

It is also known for a fact that (almost) every rule has an exception. If really she was 9, then she most certainly was a real exception. Also, in 1980, people are like exactly physically the same as we are now and we know that for a fact because we experienced it. We did not experience how different physical stats of people were in the distant past and we can't just claim we can. Again, this explanation I provide only if she really was 9 for real, just because of how she lived with him. She said nothing but good word about him in his life and after his death.

I'm justifying doing it because it happened in the past, I'm only standing in defense for Muhammad. He's dead now and people don't care about that and keep bashing and bad mouthing him, a dead man.

 

[Salvador]

You can see logic in a 52-year old wanting to scr*w a young child, whom statistically would probably die in childbirth? I don't. I see patriarchal pedophilia.

Why wouldn't a sane man want a full grown young woman, with childbearing hips, as his wife? That makes sense. The genes are more likely to be passed on, - rather than die with the child bride at the birth/death.

This has nothing to do with passing on genes! It is patriarchy rearing its ugly head - in grown men wanting to have sex with girls as young as possible!

Even babies - 3-years and 1 day old - in some cases!

EDIT - I forgot to add - recent studies show that a male 40-years and older, when his wife conceives, - raises the chance of Down's syndrome, and other birth defects, greatly, and the stats grow by the years added after that age.

So - someone that old is not only risking the death of his child-bride, and his baby, but is also increasing the chance of birth defects in his offspring.

And there Is NO way in hell - that these people didn't notice that these little girls died in huge numbers! And that says a lot about how they thought about females.

*

I would agree with you that it's very risky for a 9-year-old female to give birth to a child. However, it's debatable that Aisha was only 9-years-old when she had consummated her marriage with the great prophet Muhammad. Aisha could have very well been a little bit older than she or her parents had thought. She didn't have a birth certificate and her parents could have lost track of her age. People in ancient societies neither kept track of birthdays nor each passing day of the calendar. She could very well have been age 10 when she and the great prophet Muhammad had consummated their love and marriage together. And consequently, she would have been at least age 11 by the time should would have given child birth for Muhammad if she were to have been impregnated by Muhammad (PBUH). I've seen some pretty healthy size 11-year-old females.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Which is a wrong justification and approach (I mean that for the apologetics). I agree with you.

I also mean by maturity and being ready, that to be completely fit physically. Just having the first period does not mean ready.

Yes, I agree. That's at the extreme end of the spectrum, though the spectrum of readiness exists. A 12 year old girl might be "more ready" than a 9 year old girl who experienced her first menstruation, but that does not justify using "more ready" as the reasoning behind marrying her off to an older man.

Which at this point, is the two of us nodding in agreement. This I see.

I know you don't, I'm just putting myself on the safe side confirming it.

But I don't see that all times have the same position. We do not know how was the physical state of people in different (distant) times. I however still don't take it as a rule that ~1400 years ago child marriage should had been a rule. Maybe the cases of completely physical ready-ness was just more existent. Also the age of mother Aisha at that time is not really took for certain it was really 9.

Granted. I'm open to the age debate on where Aisha was when she was married (1) and when the marriage was consummated (2). My standards remain unchanged, however.

Further to what I said above, and I too share your same stance, please have a look at this previous post of mine:

I understand her love has been described as having been great, and I also understand how much she accomplished during her lifetime. She has quite a history that is virtually unknown to many of us.

It is also known for a fact that (almost) every rule has an exception. If really she was 9, then she most certainly was a real exception. Also, in 1980, people are like exactly physically the same as we are now and we know that for a fact because we experienced it. We did not experience how different physical stats of people were in the distant past and we can't just claim we can. Again, this explanation I provide only if she really was 9 for real, just because of how she lived with him. She said nothing but good word about him in his life and after his death.

We have some good ideas of how people were structured and how societies were structured 1400 years ago based on archaeology and historical writings. There was much that elevated the status of women and girls because of Muhammed. My stance is that an elevation in status does not necessarily translate to equality....but that's a feminist argument which may or may not be tangential to this thread.

I'm justifying doing it because it happened in the past, I'm only standing in defense for Muhammad. He's dead now and people don't care about that and keep bashing and bad mouthing him, a dead man.

I understand your position. I also sincerely stand for the rights of women regardless of place or time, so we just may disagree on the point of debating whether or not Aisha was brutalized....perhaps less brutalized than other females in her time, which says more about the culture as a whole rather than singling out one man who was a prophet. If she was married at 9 - and that is an "if" - I do not see how she along with numerous other girls throughout history were avoiding being put at greater risk of brutality and maternal mortality.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Yes, I agree. That's at the extreme end of the spectrum, though the spectrum of readiness exists. A 12 year old girl might be "more ready" than a 9 year old girl who experienced her first menstruation, but that does not justify using "more ready" as the reasoning behind marrying her off to an older man.

Which at this point, is the two of us nodding in agreement. This I see.

Granted. I'm open to the age debate on where Aisha was when she was married (1) and when the marriage was consummated (2). My standards remain unchanged, however.

I understand her love has been described as having been great, and I also understand how much she accomplished during her lifetime. She has quite a history that is virtually unknown to many of us.

We have some good ideas of how people were structured and how societies were structured 1400 years ago based on archaeology and historical writings. There was much that elevated the status of women and girls because of Muhammed. My stance is that an elevation in status does not necessarily translate to equality....but that's a feminist argument which may or may not be tangential to this thread.

I understand your position. I also sincerely stand for the rights of women regardless of place or time, so we just may disagree on the point of debating whether or not Aisha was brutalized....perhaps less brutalized than other females in her time, which says more about the culture as a whole rather than singling out one man who was a prophet. If she was married at 9 - and that is an "if" - I do not see how she along with numerous other girls throughout history were avoiding being put at greater risk of brutality and maternal mortality.

Point taken, ma'am.

Thank you for sharing your views

It is not that I'm blaming people for what they say, I'm only trying to imply that we are discussing unclear things and that they should not give certain judgements for it.

I believe the best way to judge then is to see the results afterwards, not to judge the case itself like we think we are perfect.

We just need to be considerate and not hard headed. If we achieve this on a high level, the world would become a much better place.

Peace

 

[Aquitaine]

Nowadays, life is different than 1,400 years ago. Mortality rates are now much lower and the human population is much higher. I think Allah would have allowed child marriages back then, but Allah now would probably forbid child marriages.

But if your Allah wanted child marriage *to pe practiced only* in times/areas of lower population and higher infant mortality rates, then why didn't he intervene to "uplift" their living conditions so such acts wouldn't have occured in the fist place?

*EDIT.

 

[Ingledsva]

But if your Allah wanted child marriage *to pe practiced only* in times/areas of lower population and higher infant mortality rates, then why didn't he intervene to "uplift" their living conditions so such acts wouldn't have occured in the fist place?

*EDIT.

Yep! Plus getting little girls pregnant actually RAISES the infant mortality rates, - and the child mortality rates (dead child brides,) which actually makes the bad situation worse. So such are just excuses to rape little girls.

*

 

[Salvador]

But if your Allah wanted child marriage *to pe practiced only* in times/areas of lower population and higher infant mortality rates, then why didn't he intervene to "uplift" their living conditions so such acts wouldn't have occured in the fist place?

*EDIT.

Allah had made paradise for Adam and Eve; but since they disobeyed Allah, they were expelled out of the Garden of Paradise where they had perfect living conditions . God doesn't uplift living conditions for humans; because they had been disobedient and sinful against Allah. Furthermore, I believe that Allah wants to give everybody his own free will to improve living conditions here on Earth.

 

[Ingledsva]

Allah had made paradise for Adam and Eve; but since they disobeyed Allah, they were expelled out of the Garden of Paradise where they had perfect living conditions . God doesn't uplift living conditions for humans; because they had been disobedient and sinful against Allah. Furthermore, I believe that Allah wants to give everybody his own free will to improve living conditions here on Earth.

So if he doesn't want to change conditions, - why would he want child rape?

*