True, and the "most perfect man who ever lived" part is extremely problematic, in my opinion, because if people simply said that Muhammad was a regular man whose life was a collection of "hits and misses," one could make a case that his marriage to A'isha—if we take the account that she was nine or ten years old when the marriage was consummated—couldn't possibly be used to justify child marriages today. But it seems to me that the fact that most Muslims view Muhammad as a perfect example of morality makes it so that things like his marriage to A'isha are just a nail in the coffin for the argument that his actions are meant to be imitated for the rest of the world's existence.
I see it as purely untenable to say that the actions of anyone who lived at any given time period are a divinely inspired instruction manual for the actions of people at all times, much less the actions of someone who lived in a heavily patriarchal, tribalistic culture.
What strikes me as the most dangerous thing about people like Zakir Naik is that their demagoguery and misinformation fit many people's preconceived notions, so they gain traction even with many well-meaning, honest people. When a supposed authority on any given scientific matter such as
Zaghloul el-Naggar claims that this or that scientific fact was "mentioned in the Qur'an 1,400 years ago," can we really blame the average Joe or Jane for believing him? I largely (but not exclusively) see this as an issue of abuse of academic authority on the part of people like el-Naggar. The problem is that it's generally hard for any of their academic peers to call them out on their claims in most Arab countries, for example, for fear of public backlash or even social or legal persecution due to possible charges of "denying the Qur'an."
I definitely don't think it's moral for a middle-aged man to have sex with a child, but we also have to consider whether these exact terms describe Muhammad's marriage to A'isha given the cultural and historical contexts. I'm a moral objectivist as far as applying the same standards of morality to everywhere in the present world, but when we go back in time, things sometimes become so different due to cultural and historical contexts that we can't be accurate while maintaining a rigorous degree of moral objectivism. I would, however, unhesitatingly view such a marriage
in that time period as child sexual abuse if the girl exhibited signs of being traumatized after the marriage, as I've said throughout this thread. Does this take on moral objectivism make sense to you?
About the Western left defending Islam, yes, I have commented before on the tendency of many (but certainly not all) self-identified liberals to engage in Islamic apologetics without knowing many details about the Muslim world or mainstream Islam. If you would like to hear some comments on the issue of what some call the "regressive left," I recommend checking out some of the opinions of Faisal Saeed al-Mutar. Many of his opinions that I have read are to the point, and I find him less prone to engaging in knee-jerk hysterics and hyperbole like, say, Dawkins can be a lot of the time when criticizing religion.
On that note, I've seen many liberals support LGBT rights, for example, while stating with strong confidence that "most Muslims are peaceful." I almost always wonder what they mean by "most Muslims" and "peaceful." Most Muslims where? In the U.S.? In Canada? Or in Middle Eastern countries, in some of which most Muslims are quite staunchly opposed to LGBT rights? And in those liberals' view, does said opposition mean that most Muslims in those countries aren't actually "peaceful"?
It seems to me that if we take the definition of "peaceful" to basically mean "someone who doesn't hold a gun or engage in armed violence" (and yes, I've seen a lot of people define "peaceful" as such), then we have watered down the definition of "peaceful" so much that it has lost a significant portion of its meaning. There are many Muslims who still believe that the legal age of marriage should be as soon as a child reaches puberty. Are those Muslims "peaceful" too, according to the same self-identified liberals who defend mainstream Islam so strongly?
I generally believe that trying to defend mainstream Islam (mainly Sunni Islam as taught by the majority scholarly Sunni view) and stating that most Muslims who practice it are "peaceful" while also defending LGBT rights and sexual freedoms, as two examples, is like trying to have one's cake and eat it too—and that is one gigantic cake to boot.
I would like to note that I'm mainly talking about the version of Islam I'm most familiar with, though, which is mainstream Sunni Islam. I realize that there are many Muslims who practice Islam according to far more moderate views. My critical statements are not aimed at those Muslims.
.
