Palestianian atheist arrested

[kai]

Mr. Sprinkles



There are as many Sahih Hadith as well as historical figures that counter what those hadiths state as well.

In any case, assuming that the Prophet did marry Aisha at nine it still cannot be called rape. One because you are imposing modern day morality on a society hundreds of years past. Child marriages are considered in the modern world because children do not have the capacity to reason and think for themselves. I don't see any problems with the logic of this and agree with it.

This statement is resolute, but only applies to our society. One where children are nurtured, coddled, and ignorant of the world into their late teens. Even a simple comparison between a person who is nine years old in an American suburb and a Bedouin will reveal significant differences between the two in terms of mental growth and the capacity to make important decisions.

Comparing a nine year old of today's society with Ancient Arabia is down right illogical. Especially considering that the average life span was half of today. A person from that time period would already be independent enough to live alone let alone decide on marriage prospects. This thought that morality is limited to a designated time period is not only mine, but also shared with Anthropologists who understand that it is imperative to remove any cultural bias when examining ancient cultures.

It is nonsensical to apply the standard definition of rape in the modern world to ancient Arabia.

I kind of get where you are coming from, but just because the ancients did it doesn't make it right, is also a good argument.

I also know that there are many interpretations explaining Aisha's age such as it was the ninth year after submission not from Birth. Its a subject of much contention.

 

[Bismillah]

but just because the ancients did it doesn't make it right

Kai I'm not arguing that rape is ok if the ancients did it. What I am arguing is that the mental capacities of a nine year old from ancient Arabia and now are inherently different and thus the standard objections to child marriage really do not apply to that society.

I also know that there are many interpretations explaining Aisha's age such as it was the ninth year after submission not from Birth. Its a subject of much contention.

My own personal view on it is unconcerned with Aisha's age. What matters to me is that the Prophet held her in dear regard and Aisha him. That much is apparent to me as well as the fact that this marriage was invaluable for the progression of Islam.

 

[kai]

Kai I'm not arguing that rape is ok if the ancients did it. What I am arguing is that the mental capacities of a nine year old from ancient Arabia and now are inherently different and thus the standard objections to child marriage really do not apply to that society.

Of that i am not too sure Abibi 9 is 9 in any age. I am sure it wasnt considered out of the ordinary at the time though.


My own personal view on it is unconcerned with Aisha's age. What matters to me is that the Prophet held her in dear regard and Aisha him. That much is apparent to me as well as the fact that this marriage was invaluable for the progression of Islam.

I am not concerned with it much either because It has to be taken in perspective, as you say at the time it s nothing unusual and not considered wrong at all.

 

[Sahar]

Which is his right.

No-one HAD to read his blog.
No-one HAD to visit his Facebook page.

Both would be easily avoided if one did not wish to read what he had to say.

Well this is my personal policy and it should be of any Muslim. Since we are commanded to stay away from the ignorant. I don't understand why Muslims join such groups and exert effort in replying back to their insults by other insults. Such groups are nothing but insults' exchange. The Muslim shouldn't go down to this low level and he shouldn't take part in such dirtiness.
"And the servants of ((Allah)) Most Gracious are those who walk on the earth in humility, and when the ignorant address them, they say, "Peace!"" Al-Furqan:63

"When thou seest men engaged in vain discourse about Our signs, turn away from them unless they turn to a different theme. If Satan ever makes thee forget, then after recollection, sit not thou in the company of those who do wrong." Al-An'am: 68

"Hold to forgiveness; command what is right; But turn away from the ignorant." Al-A'raf:199
(Show forgiveness, enjoin Al-`Urf (what is good), and turn away from the foolish) to His Prophet, the Messenger of Allah asked,
(`What does it mean, O Jibril) Jibril said, `Allah commands you to forgive those who wronged you, give to those who deprived you, and keep relations with those who cut theirs with you.''' Al-Bukhari said, "Allah said,

Very beautiful!
Ignoring is the best policy with the alike of this guy. I even try to practice it on RF. Because these people want nothing but to inflame others and they know they succeeded when they got the reactions from Muslims.
But I don't think it's his right to morally harm people. And I think through the many many pages of this thread we know for sure that we disagree on this. So we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Comparing a nine year old of today's society with Ancient Arabia is down right illogical. Especially considering that the average life span was half of today.

This is true, but people seem to get this whole "average lifespan" thing somewhat wrong though. An average lifespan of 30-35 does not mean that a 32 year old man was considered elderly. The main reason for the low average lifespan is due to infant mortality. I'm not saying you misunderstand this but just to be sure I'll try to make it clear with an example:

If you have ten people born at the same time where five of them die within their first year and the rest live to be 60 years old then the average lifespan of this particular group would be (5 x 1) + (5 x 60) divided by 10, giving you an average lifespan of 35. All those living to be 60 years old would follow a normal pace of life reaching their puberties somewhere between the age of 9 and 14 and would be considered middle aged at age 40-45.

Of course, in the past one was usually considered an adult much sooner than is done now (in many cultures around the age of 14), but I still don't see how a 9 year old girl should be considered ready for the consumation of a wedding.

This thought that morality is limited to a designated time period is not only mine, but also shared with Anthropologists who understand that it is imperative to remove any cultural bias when examining ancient cultures.

This is also acceptable and no-one is claiming that this is an isolated case. These things took place all over the world in that time and age. But it does raise the question of Muhammad's timeless and perfect morality. If it was indeed perfect, then it should be considered appropriate for any time period and not just the time in which he lived. If it was, as seems likely, affected by the traditions that were prevalent at the time then that means that all his moral teachings should be reevaluated and compared to how society works today.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Because these people want nothing but to inflame others and they know they succeeded when they got the reactions from Muslims.

Well, at least it's a better strategy than banning their opinions and throwing them in jail...

But I don't think it's his right to morally harm people.

I assume you are aware that many people think that Islam and religion in general is morally harmful?

And I think through the many many pages of this thread we know for sure that we disagree on this. So we will have to agree to disagree.

At least no-one has the right to force you to agree with them.

 

[Sahar]

I wanted to tell you good that you didn't quote the part where I said "ignorance is the best policy" :areyoucra I meant ignoring.... :rainbow1:

 

[Sahar]

At least no-one has the right to force you to agree with them.

I never said we should force others to agree with our beliefs.

 

[Bismillah]

This is true, but people seem to get this whole "average lifespan" thing somewhat wrong though. An average lifespan of 30-35 does not mean that a 32 year old man was considered elderly. The main reason for the low average lifespan is due to infant mortality. I'm not saying you misunderstand this but just to be sure I'll try to make it clear with an example:

Well it's a fact that people aged faster and gave birth earlier just a few hundred years back. Let alone, the main point that I am making is that because of the low life span of the average person, people's mental development was much quicker than that of today's society.

Of course, in the past one was usually considered an adult much sooner than is done now (in many cultures around the age of 14), but I still don't see how a 9 year old girl should be considered ready for the consumation of a wedding.

Not sure about the age of fourteen or where this was practiced, but ancient Arabia was a splintered tribal land. With ever changing powers and the very real threat of being killed or enslaved, espicially for women who were treated brutally in that society. In response to this women were physically and mentally ready to marry and start families after puberty. Clearly Aisha, regardles whether she was 9 or not, was ready to decide herself whether she wantedto marry. This is how society had raised her and she was ready to make her own decision.

 

[Looncall]

I think part of the reason for the support of censorship in some cases by some people is indeed because they believe they have absolute truth and therefore anything remotely negative said about what they believe can only be a lie, deliberate deception, and something ugly that should be stamped out rather than listened to.

Throughout history support for censorship has usually alluded to this or at least flirted with it.

"But this is the truth, we don't need alternative opinions. I don't want my kids exposed to them either because it would distract them from The Truth." As if they can't think for themselves.

On the other hand, it may be that the religious authorities know very well that the criticisms are merited, but would lose influence if that were to be realized by the people in general.

The cartoons incident is a case in point. The original cartoons were quite mild, so the clerics who set out to make trouble added pictures of pigs and so forth. Later, during the riots, many Danish flags were burnt. Where did those come from? I am sure that Danish flags are not a common item in those places. Those riots must have been set up by religious authorities, for their own benefit.

i wonder if these noisy muslims actually suspect that islam may be nonsense, but are afraid to consider the possibility. That would account for the preferences for censorship and isolation we see expressed on this forum.

After all, if islam were so clearly true, it would be easy to demonstrate that fact, and criticisms would not matter.

 

[Bismillah]

 

[arimoff]

Palestinian authorities used facebook to track down a man advocating for atheism and arguing against Islam. He is now facing life in prison, and many residents are calling for his death. RF Muslims: agree, or disagree?

Wow, where are all those human rights activists that so eagerly defend them? I thought the world is in love with them aren't they suffering? or are human rights violations are violations when it concerns just Israel?

 

[jarofthoughts]

Well it's a fact that people aged faster and gave birth earlier just a few hundred years back. Let alone, the main point that I am making is that because of the low life span of the average person, people's mental development was much quicker than that of today's society.

While they may have been looked upon as adults earlier, I am unsure about the claim that they aged faster. True, people are living longer now than they did then, but the major contributing factor to that would surely be better healthcare and the fact that we can now prevent/treat many of the ailments that would kill you in previous centuries.

Also, while expectations were different I'm not sure what you mean by mental development in this context. Speaking from an evolutionary point of view there is little reason to think that actual cognitive development was that different a thousand years ago.

Not sure about the age of fourteen or where this was practiced, but ancient Arabia was a splintered tribal land. With ever changing powers and the very real threat of being killed or enslaved, espicially for women who were treated brutally in that society. In response to this women were physically and mentally ready to marry and start families after puberty.

Catholics typically administer confirmation, generally seen as a rite of passage from childhood to becoming an adult, at the age of 13. Similarly Bar Mitzvah generally takes place at the age of 13 and Bat Mitzvah at the age of 12. So it would probably be more accurate to say around the age of 13. I admit I am uncertain about the existence of equivalent rites of passage within the Muslim faith.

Clearly Aisha, regardles whether she was 9 or not, was ready to decide herself whether she wantedto marry. This is how society had raised her and she was ready to make her own decision.

Do you have any sources to confirm this assertion?
I am willing to accept that it is possible that you are correct, but I'm not sure I would put it so bluntly as you have done here.

Also, I came across this page: Islam Question and Answer - Is it acceptable to marry a girl who has not yet started her menses?

I admit I have no idea of the validity of what is being said here, but if this is indeed how (some?) Muslims view the matter of children and marriage, and the consummation thereof, it is indeed disturbing. If you could comment on this and either confirm or dismiss these claims I would appreciate it.

 

[kai]

well well:

Chambers, a trainee accountant, was found guilty in May of sending a menacing electronic communication. This communication was a Twitter message Chambers posted on 6 January to his followers in which he said: "Crap! Robin Hood Airport is closed. You've got a week... otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!"

Advertisement
Although 26-year-old Chambers said during the hearing that he was only joking and venting his frustration after the airport was closed by snow in January this year, he was fined £385 and ordered to pay a £15 victim surcharge by a district judge.



Read more: Twitter users show support for Paul Chambers - 12 Nov 2010 - Computeractive
Software, gadgets, magazines and more in our webstore. Click here to see our latest offers.

 

[Bismillah]

While they may have been looked upon as adults earlier, I am unsure about the claim that they aged faster. True, people are living longer now than they did then, but the major contributing factor to that would surely be better healthcare and the fact that we can now prevent/treat many of the ailments that would kill you in previous centuries.

I remember reading an article of how European peasants aged faster than contemparary Europeans. This makes sense because aging is intrinsically related to stress and exertion of the body. Clearly in ancient times, the body underwent wear that far outstrips todays activity.

This as well as numerous articles of how women in the desert reach puberty earlier is reflective that even physical development is tied with enviornment.

Also, while expectations were different I'm not sure what you mean by mental development in this context. Speaking from an evolutionary point of view there is little reason to think that actual cognitive development was that different a thousand years ago.

What I mean by mental development is that a person will acheive maturity much earlier in a society that dictates that nine years a fifth of your life, than a nine year old in today's world.

I admit I am uncertain about the existence of equivalent rites of passage within the Muslim faith.

Prayers are obligatory for children when they attain puberty, so you could imply that is the age when they attain religious responsibilites and hence maturity.

Do you have any sources to confirm this assertion?
I am willing to accept that it is possible that you are correct, but I'm not sure I would put it so bluntly as you have done here.

Support what? It's a known fact that many people married at that age so it is logical that society raised her from a point of view that prepared her right? Clearly if people are marrying at that age and preparing to start families they have the capacity to make their own decisions?

I admit I have no idea of the validity of what is being said here, but if this is indeed how (some?) Muslims view the matter of children and marriage, and the consummation thereof, it is indeed disturbing. If you could comment on this and either confirm or dismiss these claims I would appreciate it.

I'm assuming that they base their oppinions off of the Prophet's marriage. Again what I am stressing is that Aisha was capable of making her own decision at the time of her marriage. That was thousands of years ago and today we live in a much different world. Children are hardly able to make their own decisions until their mid teens. The two situations aren't comparable and the argument isn't substantiated in my eyes.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Comparing a nine year old of today's society with Ancient Arabia is down right illogical. ... It is nonsensical to apply the standard definition of rape in the modern world to ancient Arabia.

It is illogical and nonsensical in your opinion. But, is it libel? If it were illegal to say things I find illogical, I would have many people on RF arrested.

 

[Meow Mix]

that's what you understood? that is not what i am saying. insulting someone else's belief is not something i would teach my kid as a manner. is it clear now?

.

I wasn't saying that about you .lava, that was my take on historical reasons to support censorship evenin the West.

 

[Bismillah]

Mr.Sprinkles

Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image. It is usually a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant).[1]

I think from this definition that these statements are intended to give a specific group a negative image.

kai posted an article earlier which questioned whether statements against the dead could be held as libel. While it stated, in short, no it also included an exception if the statements harmed living people. In my view these statements are targetd against the Prophet intentionally insult Muslims as while and impact them just as greatly.

So yes in my oppinion, indefensible inflammatory remarks made against a particular group can and should be held as libel.

 

[Meow Mix]

Mr.Sprinkles



I think from this definition that these statements are intended to give a specific group a negative image.

kai posted an article earlier which questioned whether statements against the dead could be held as libel. While it stated, in short, no it also included an exception if the statements harmed living people. In my view these statements are targetd against the Prophet intentionally insult Muslims as while and impact them just as greatly.

So yes in my oppinion, indefensible inflammatory remarks made against a particular group can and should be held as libel.

What if someone says something like "So and so is a moron." Do they have to defend that? How would they defend that?

If it's less than black-and-white on how to defend calling someone a "moron," can you see why to many people it's also less than black-and-white on whether calling someone who POSSIBLY had sex with a 9 year old a rapist?

Personally I'm not convinced that even 1,000 years ago someone having sex with a 9 year old isn't rape. I would be comfortable considering a much older person having sex with a 9 year old a rapist in any era. I think it would be insane to be sued for libel for suggesting so.

 

[Bismillah]

If it's less than black-and-white on how to defend calling someone a "moron," can you see why to many people it's also less than black-and-white on whether calling someone who POSSIBLY had sex with a 9 year old a rapist?

Of course I can see that, but aren't libel cases by definition judged case by case? There is no set standard "black and white" precedence which judges follow right?

Personally I'm not convinced that even 1,000 years ago someone having sex with a 9 year old isn't rape.

Ok let's take it step by step. Why do you consider child marriages to be rape?