Warning! Sensitive content! Proceed with caution!

[Banner]

Which is why I offered the possibility that she entered puberty early, ending up with the body of, say, a thirteen or fourteen year old. Marriage to girls that young was quite common in ye olde days.

I hope you are right. I posted that after reading the first page lol. I'm kind of appalled at the whole "So what, those were the customs" thing. Well it was also legal to sell children on the street in Rome for this purpose...oh well...that was the "custom". If a man had special needs so be it. I mean it was a long time ago and all. :no:

 

[Riverwolf]

I hope you are right. I posted that after reading the first page lol. I'm kind of appalled at the whole "So what, those were the customs" thing. Well it was also legal to sell children on the street in Rome for this purpose...oh well...that was the "custom". If a man had special needs so be it. I mean it was a long time ago and all. :no:

It's more that I don't think we really can judge most of the doings of ancient days, since we have no control over it. It's the idea that, it happened, and all we can do is look at it. We can certainly determine whether or not it would be acceptable now, and act accordingly, but we don't really get to determine what was acceptable or unacceptable in old days; they determined that.

The "those were the customs" argument isn't meant to say "therefore, we should just ignore it", but rather, not to necessarily judge an individual just because he was following the customs of a time.

Perhaps, come to think of it, therefore, while judging customs is fine, judging individuals for following them is just silly. IOW, don't blame Mohammad; blame the customs.

 

[K.Venugopal]

I think it is pertinent to wonder, more than the age of Mohammad's wives, why did he feel the need to marry at all after the death of Khadija, with whom he had a long happy married life and that too when he was over fifty then. It is almost as if he did not dare cast an eye on another women so long as Khadija was alive and the moment she died he was freed from her restrictive yoke and went on to marry a dozen women!

 

[Banner]

It's more that I don't think we really can judge most of the doings of ancient days, since we have no control over it. It's the idea that, it happened, and all we can do is look at it. We can certainly determine whether or not it would be acceptable now, and act accordingly, but we don't really get to determine what was acceptable or unacceptable in old days; they determined that.

The "those were the customs" argument isn't meant to say "therefore, we should just ignore it", but rather, not to necessarily judge an individual just because he was following the customs of a time.

Perhaps, come to think of it, therefore, while judging customs is fine, judging individuals for following them is just silly.

Not in my opinion. I'll gladly judge all the historical figures for the 'customs' of their times. What's judging anyway? We just do it naturally. And I get what you're saying about having no control over it, but...we have very little control over anything we discuss in this place lol. Is it not interesting to think about how we as a society hate Warren Jeffs and recently convicted him, but Muhammed gets a pass because it was the custom?

 

[Riverwolf]

Not in my opinion. I'll gladly judge all the historical figures for the 'customs' of their times. What's judging anyway? We just do it naturally. And I get what you're saying about having no control over it, but...we have very little control over anything we discuss in this place lol. Is it not interesting to think about how we as a society hate Warren Jeffs and recently convicted him, but Muhammed gets a pass because it was the custom?

Who?

Mohammad gets a pass because 1. he didn't know any better (no one told him that it was dangerous and they had no way of knowing it was dangerous, and considering the times, it may have been less dangerous than it is now; I'm a firm believer in the notion that ignorance because the information was literally not available anywhere to be found is an excuse), and 2. he's been dead for 1400 years, so judging him is a complete waste of time.

Just because something is natural doesn't make it okay. We naturally react with anger towards things that don't necessarily deserve it all the time; doesn't make it okay.

 

[Banner]

Who?

Mohammad gets a pass because 1. he didn't know any better (no one told him that it was dangerous and they had no way of knowing it was dangerous, and considering the times, it may have been less dangerous than it is now; I'm a firm believer in the notion that ignorance because the information was literally not available anywhere to be found is an excuse), and 2. he's been dead for 1400 years, so judging him is a complete waste of time.

Just because something is natural doesn't make it okay. We naturally react with anger towards things that don't necessarily deserve it all the time; doesn't make it okay.

Warren Jeffs was the leader of a polygamist ranch. His last bride was 11 I think. Anyway...your last sentence is exactly the point. And what do you mean it's a waste of time? Is discussing any other of the horrific actions in history a huge waste of time? And sex is a little different than 'ignorance'. A person doesn't have to be told who to be attracted to. What if she was an immature nine year old? What then?

 

[Riverwolf]

Warren Jeffs was the leader of a polygamist ranch. His last bride was 11 I think.

Yeesh.

Anyway...your last sentence is exactly the point. And what do you mean it's a waste of time? Is discussing any other of the horrific actions in history a huge waste of time? And sex is a little different than 'ignorance'. A person doesn't have to be told who to be attracted to. What if she was an immature nine year old? What then?

Then EWWWWWW!! Thing is, however, we don't know, and I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt when there's no information either way, and both sides are equally likely. Innocent until proven guilty, if you will.

When I say "a waste of time", I mean to say that we should look at history for exactly what it is: history. It's primary use is so we can know what worked in the past, and what didn't, so we can avoid making the same mistakes multiple times (which we completely FAIL at), and emulate what we recognize as effective.

Since it's in the past, we should not treat it as if these events and people are living now.

 

[Banner]

Yeesh.

Then EWWWWWW!! Thing is, however, we don't know, and I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt when there's no information either way, and both sides are equally likely. Innocent until proven guilty, if you will.

When I say "a waste of time", I mean to say that we should look at history for exactly what it is: history. It's primary use is so we can know what worked in the past, and what didn't, so we can avoid making the same mistakes multiple times (which we completely FAIL at), and emulate what we recognize as effective.

Since it's in the past, we should not treat it as if these events and people are living now.

Fair enough River. I think we are in agreement.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

But I did make sure to point out that, in this special case (and even with some research, teenage marriage, and thus sex, was common in ye olden times, 9 years is still young by those standards), she very well could have been in puberty, and that might have been the most important consideration at the time.

I really don't know enough about Muhammed and his young bride to judge him. Even with knowledge of all the specifics, one would have to be an expert on that culture, I think, in order to form a solid opinion about it. I've heard that the age of consent in colonial America was around 12 or 13. It'd be hard for me to judge all our forefathers as immoral just because their behaviors offend my modern sensibilities.

So I tend to declare a thing 'immoral by our standards' rather than 'absolutely immoral.'

That assumes a meaning for immoral of something like 'doing unnecessary harm to other sentient creatures, especially to our fellow humans.' If immoral actually means 'doing something of which God disapproves,' then I'm swinging in the dark just like the next guy.

It DOES have moral guidelines, and occasionally lays down what the (natural) consequences for not following them are. And, contrary to what popular opinion may say, Hinduism DOES have a hell-concept(it's called "Naraka" or "Narakaloka"); it's just not eternal.

My ignorance of Hinduism runs deep. I'll try to keep an eye out for discussions about it.

 

[krsnaraja]

My ignorance of Hinduism runs deep. I'll try to keep an eye out for discussions about it.

Deciding on what you really want to be in life is Shakespeareanism. Be man. Go out & multiply! Because this what you were made for.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Perhaps because pedophilia victimizes the most innocent and vulnerable and causes lasting emotional and psychological damage? Seems rather obvious to me.

Sure, but I'd suggest there's an added disgust factor with pedophelia... namely sex. Lots of stuff causes lasting emotional and psychological damage, but few of those are so hated as pedophelia.

If given a choice, most people would rather be called a child-slave-master than a pedophile, I think.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Deciding on what you really want to be in life is Shakespeareanism. Be man. Go out & multiply! Because this what you were made for.

I've already multiplied. What do I do next?

 

[krsnaraja]

Sure, but I'd suggest there's an added disgust factor with pedophelia... namely sex. Lots of stuff causes lasting emotional and psychological damage, but few of those are so hated as pedophelia.

If given a choice, most people would rather be called a child-slave-master than a pedophile, I think.

Statutory Rape is the word. This is my advocacy so that a pedophile or whatever ( our daughters under 18 should know if they are attracted to one). That a pedophile can go to jail if his relationship with someone below 18 has been consummated.

 

[England my lionheart]

I think it is pertinent to wonder, more than the age of Mohammad's wives, why did he feel the need to marry at all after the death of Khadija, with whom he had a long happy married life and that too when he was over fifty then. It is almost as if he did not dare cast an eye on another women so long as Khadija was alive and the moment she died he was freed from her restrictive yoke and went on to marry a dozen women!

I agree,some say it was to make alliances but these he already had and why would a Prophet of a God need alliances anyway,some say it was an act of charity to take these extra Wives but it was exclusive to Muhammed,any other Man could only be charitable four times

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Statutory Rape is the word. This is my advocacy so that a pedophile or whatever ( our daughters under 18 should know if they are attracted to one). That a pedophile can go to jail if his relationship with someone below 18 has been consummated.

OK. I think most everyone knows that there are laws against sex between various age groups. It's why we have the word 'jailbait'.

Doing a quick search, I see that 18 is rare for an age of consent, though. In a couple of states it's as low as 14 years.

 

[Father Heathen]

It's more that I don't think we really can judge most of the doings of ancient days, since we have no control over it. It's the idea that, it happened, and all we can do is look at it. We can certainly determine whether or not it would be acceptable now, and act accordingly, but we don't really get to determine what was acceptable or unacceptable in old days; they determined that.

The "those were the customs" argument isn't meant to say "therefore, we should just ignore it", but rather, not to necessarily judge an individual just because he was following the customs of a time.

Perhaps, come to think of it, therefore, while judging customs is fine, judging individuals for following them is just silly. IOW, don't blame Mohammad; blame the customs.

Does that mean other things we see as injustices and atrocities today such as slavery, racial and gender inequality, the holocaust, etc. also get a pass because they were accepted within the culture they occurred and happened in the past?

Also, shouldn't there be a point where personal responsibility, reason and compassion supersedes cultural norms and customs? Also, shouldn't someone be held to a higher standard when they claim to be a moral authority that represents and is guided by god, which, you know, is supposed to transcend time and place?

 

[Father Heathen]

Since it's in the past, we should not treat it as if these events and people are living now.

Who's doing that? Personally I've only called a spade a spade. I think it's those who insist such figures be revered and respected are those treating them if they're still living, or as if they were more than what they were.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Does that mean other things we see as injustices and atrocities today such as slavery, racial and gender inequality, the holocaust, etc. also get a pass because they were accepted within the culture they occurred and happened in the past?

Hi, Father Heathen. I think that as we study the history of human morality, we have to admit that it evolves. I believe that a hundred years from now, the killing of a chimpanzee will be viewed as virtually equal to the murder of another human. I think I read in a NatGeo awhile back about some gorillas which were killed on a preserve in Africa, and there was tremendous outrage. I'm even thinking that some people used the word 'murder' to describe those killings.

All I'm saying is that it would be hard for me to morally despise some African bushmeat hunters, from 500 years ago, who routinely killed and ate gorillas.

I realize that you didn't ask me the following questions, but I thought I'd take a shot at them anyway.

Also, shouldn't there be a point where personal responsibility, reason and compassion supersedes cultural norms and customs?

Sure. I'm appalled at the way most people accept current law as equal to 'morality.' The Abolitionists didn't do that. They argued and fought against what they saw as immorality. Thank goodness for their courage and dedication.

Also, shouldn't someone be held to a higher standard when they claim to be a moral authority that represents and is guided by god, which, you know, is supposed to transcend time and place?

I don't believe in prophets myself -- not in the way most people seem to understand the concept. I'd say that Mohammed was a product of his culture just like everyone else.

Anyway, from what little I know about him, he seems to have conceived of morality as submission to God (the God Whom he was presenting) rather than establishing some kind of moral code as we understand that idea. But I really don't know much about him.

 

[McBell]

Does that mean other things we see as injustices and atrocities today such as slavery, racial and gender inequality, the holocaust, etc. also get a pass because they were accepted within the culture they occurred and happened in the past?

Wait...
Did you just try to compare Mohammeds marriage to a nine year old to the holocaust?

shouldn't someone be held to a higher standard when they claim to be a moral authority that represents and is guided by god, which, you know, is supposed to transcend time and place?

Wow.
Seriously?
Are you going to claim that YOUR emotional ranting and raving in this thread is somehow a better source for morality than God?

Seems you are either grasping at straws, or are merely still working through your emotional rant.

 

[Riverwolf]

Does that mean other things we see as injustices and atrocities today such as slavery, racial and gender inequality, the holocaust, etc. also get a pass because they were accepted within the culture they occurred and happened in the past?

You know, come to think of it, using the phrase "get a pass" doesn't really make much sense in this case, either, since we can't do anything about it; therefore, there's nothing to give them a pass from.

Of course, as Mestemia pointed out, Mohammad's marriage to Aisha is pretty much nothing compared to the things you just listed. Scars from slavery and the holocaust are still around, and racial/gender inequality still does exist, even if not on a political level.

Also, shouldn't there be a point where personal responsibility, reason and compassion supersedes cultural norms and customs? Also, shouldn't someone be held to a higher standard when they claim to be a moral authority that represents and is guided by god, which, you know, is supposed to transcend time and place?

How can we apply personal responsibility to people who are not us, let alone already dead? Reason is the method by which I've been arguing this whole time. Compassion is something I believe should be extended in some form to all (at least in the form of pity).

Of course, the fact that he was supposed to be God's chosen prophet doesn't help, because, whether or not we can take it as it is or judge him for it, the existence of the controversy alone is keeping people from Islam; if I were God, I would have seen this coming and thus told him to just remain celibate and avoid the whole thing.