Warning! Sensitive content! Proceed with caution!

[TashaN]

If he married her at nine, and had sex with her, that would bother me. It would bother me because whether or not that society was okay with this he would've known its not okay, since he's a prophet of god. At least i would expect so, considering how serious the consequences could be for the child.

The question is simply regarding whether or not she was ready for this at that age. If he did marry her and have sex with her at nine, that leaves a lot of questions to be addressed, and makes the incredibly more likely conclusion that he did something that at least could have hurt her pretty badly, but apparently, luckily didn't.

But Badran, remember when Musa met with alkhidir?

The story in the Quran. Alkhidir did what appeared to Musa to be outrageous but then it appeared to be for the greater good.

There were alot of men around the Prophet who passed on the knowledge to other men, but how about women? women could not have been around the prophet like men are.

Aisha was a treasure for women to know about what they need of knowledge for so many years after Prophet Mohammed passed away.

You say Prophet should know better than to do such a thing?

Only God knows how old she was but if she was nine, it was so obvious that the marraige got the blessing and agreement of the entire society and it was deemed to be more than natural, so i really don't know why it would bother you Badran.

Or do you mean Prophet Mohamed should have known later on people would come and creticize what he have done?! You mean our society or Western society is far suprior than the Prophet?

I don't give a damn what people in 2011 say about what happened 1400 years a go when it comes to marraiges norms and it wouldn't bother me at all.

 

[YmirGF]

Sorry, i lost interest.

You failed to challenge what been presented by myself and others and you merely dismissed it as irrational without making any effort to discuss it. You keep repeating the same argument all over and over without considering what others are trying to say, so, good luck with that.

I think what gets me about this thread is the love story between Aisha and Muhammad that is ignored. That love story's merit is not sullied in any way, in my view, regardless of the age of Aisha. It was a different time. A different culture with different cultural norms. The love however, is something, that we all can, hopefully, relate to. If only we were all so lucky.

I guess what gets me is that if that love story is so apparent to me, one who purportedly, is a "hater of Islam", I am puzzled why those who are so much more open-minded cannot see it.

Riddle me that and I'll give the person a cookie.

 

[krsnaraja]

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.

18 is when your daughter makes a debut.

 

[Skeptisch]

A sexual relationship between a child and adult, apart from the sexual perversity, already embodies too much of an imbalance in power. The exertion of this power over the child is inherent in these types of relationships, and is unhealthy for both parties.

There is never anything healthy about pedophilia, for either the children or the adult.

TashaN: According to the experts in the field, you are wrong.

What experts?

 

[Badran]

But Badran, remember when Musa met with alkhidir?

The story in the Quran. Alkhidir did what appeared to Musa to be outrageous but then it appeared to be for the greater good.

There were alot of men around the Prophet who passed on the knowledge to other men, but how about women? women could not have been around the prophet like men are.

Aisha was a treasure for women to know about what they need of knowledge for so many years after Prophet Mohammed passed away.

You say Prophet should know better than to do such a thing?

Only God knows how old she was but if she was nine, it was so obvious that the marraige got the blessing and agreement of the entire society and it was deemed to be more than natural, so i really don't know why it would bother you Badran.

Or do you mean Prophet Mohamed should have known later on people would come and creticize what he have done?! You mean our society or Western society is far suprior than the Prophet?

I don't give a damn what people in 2011 say about what happened 1400 years a go when it comes to marraiges norms and it wouldn't bother me at all.

I agree with most of what you said, and no its not about what people think today. A lot of things are considered differently today or are deemed as bad by western society, but that in itself has no value for me regarding these subjects. Its simply this, whether or not she was physically and psychologically ready to be married and have sex. Based on what i know, she wouldn't have been ready.

I understand the possibilities that are brought up here in the thread and in general however, but i can't rely on them as explanations since i can't verify them. I can only put them in mind as possible explanations for the situation if it happened the way its recorded to have happened. I can't accept it as okay without addressing it properly. That is, verify those explanations.

To clarify something else too, my insistence about clarifying that its possible for the accounts to be inaccurate is simply because of everybody talking as if we know for sure that this is what happened, thats all. Not because i can't imagine the possibility of there being an explanation to this that i can agree to.

 

[Riverwolf]

Yes, I understand your attempt to rationalize an adult man having sex with a nine year old. Yes, I disagree a psychologically healthy man would ever be sexually attracted to a nine year old girl. Yes, I see the mental gymnastics you're attempting, to get me to agree that a healthy adult man would ever want to have sex with a nine year old.

IOW, you really don't have anything except your own ick factor.

 

[Riverwolf]

That's really wise, but only few will admit it's the truth. Those who don't realize what you are saying are hiding behind masks of stubbornness and ignorance.

That's really wise, but only few will admit it's the truth. Those who don't realize what you are saying are hiding behind masks of stubbornness and ignorance.

IOW, none of us will see the truth, and all of us are hiding behind masks of stubbornness and ignorance.

 

[Riverwolf]

Any way you try to slice it up, I'm talking about that it's never healthy for an adult man to have sex with, or want to have sex with, a nine year old girl. I'm just amused by the lengths people will go to to attempt to rationalize such a situation when if it was their daughter, they'd never think twice about it being obviously wrong.

What if we were living 1400 years ago?

TBH, I don't know how I would act in ANY given situation if I were born 1400 years ago.

 

[Riverwolf]

No. I was however applying Riverwolf's logic regarding ethics, assuming that it's consistent, to the holocaust.

Which you can't do, since they're not the same thing at all; one only affects a single person, and the other an entire group of people. Different ethics apply to different situations.

 

[YmirGF]

Different ethics apply to different situations.

Maybe is you said it s--l--o--w--e--r, it might have more impact.

 

[Riverwolf]

Maybe is you said it s--l--o--w--e--r, it might have more impact.

I'm Californian and a fan of Sonic the Hedgehog. Icanthelpbuttalkfast! ^_^

 

[Badran]

TashaN: According to the experts in the field, you are wrong.

What experts?

He was referring to the Wikipedia article in which he highlighted that having sex with a child doesn't mean the person is a pedophile.

 

[YmirGF]

He was referring to the Wikipedia article in which he highlighted that having sex with a child doesn't mean the person is a pedophile.

I think the point is that a single incident does not a pedophile make. Again, for the umpteenth time, this discussion might have some traction if Muhammad had a stable of younger girls. The fact that ALL of his other wives were of a more (currently) socially acceptable age tends to blow the whole moralistic outrage out of the water... imo, at least.

 

[Badran]

I think the point is that a single incident does not a pedophile make. Again, for the umpteenth time, this discussion might have some traction if Muhammad had a stable of younger girls. The fact that ALL of his other wives were of a more (currently) socially acceptable age tends to blow the whole moralistic outrage out of the water... imo, at least.

I certainly agree that pretty much most of the accusations "rape, pedophile" etc.. are unfounded as far as the information suggest. Both like you and others outlined repeatedly based on the definition of both things, and the accounts or stories surrounding this incident, and Muhammad (pbuh) in general.

For me the only part that is questionable is whether or not, at that time, the marriage and sexual intercourse would have caused damage towards a nine year old girl. If it was not likely based on those circumstances and conditions at that time, for a girl at that age to endure either a physical or psychological damage from marriage and sex, i would obviously have absolutely no problem with it if it actually happened as suggested by those accounts. Since those are the things based on which we've judged such acts to be unhealthy, wrong etc..

In other words, if these conditions made the situation different to the point that it wouldn't actually have the effect that it has today (since it clearly was different, the question is how much does that difference make).

 

[Father Heathen]

Maybe is you said it s--l--o--w--e--r, it might have more impact.

No, see, it was implied that if something happened in the past and was accepted within the culture it occurred in then we cannot pass judgement. The point I was trying to make was that there would have be more to it than just that because there are many things that happened in the past, and at the time were accepted by the societies that they occurred within, but we still consider shameful. Nothing in the thread prior to that post had answered that, and saying something slower doesn't fill in its gaps. But really I don't care anymore. I hope Aisha was a tiger in the sack and made Mohammad happy and satisfied.

 

[Riverwolf]

No, see, it was implied that if something happened in the past and was accepted within the culture it occurred in then we cannot pass judgement. The point I was trying to make was that there would have be more to it than just that because there are many things that happened in the past, and at the time were accepted by the societies that they occurred within, but we still consider shameful.

You are right in that it is a bit more complicated than that, which is why I made the distinction between a single incident that didn't really affect humanity overall, and several incidents that still have ripples even 300 - 500 years later (and in one case I know of, 1000 years later.)

 

[Skeptisch]

IOW, none of us will see the truth, and all of us are hiding behind masks of stubbornness and ignorance.

Since ignorance simply means a lack of knowledge, learning, information, etc. you are of course right. A person of faith has the handicap of a need to believe while a scientist has the handicap of always needing evidence.

What has this got do with morality? According to neuroscientist Sam Harris, plenty. In his “The Moral Landscape” he shows us how science can determine human values.
“… even the most bizarre and unproductive behaviors—female genital excision, blood feuds, infanticide, the torture of animals, scarification, foot binding, cannibalism, ceremonial rape, human sacrifice, dangerous male initiations, restricting the diet of pregnant and lactating mothers, slavery, potlatch, the killing of the elderly, sati, irrational dietary and agricultural taboos attended by chronic hunger and malnourishment, the use of heavy metals to treat illness, etc.—have been rationalized, or even idealized, in the fire-lit scribblings of one or another dazzled ethnographer. But the mere endurance of a belief system or custom does not suggest that it is adaptive, much less wise. It merely suggests that it hasn’t led directly to a society’s collapse or killed its practitioners outright”.

 

[Riverwolf]

Since ignorance simply means a lack of knowledge, learning, information, etc. you are of course right. A person of faith has the handicap of a need to believe while a scientist has the handicap of always needing evidence.

What has this got do with morality? According to neuroscientist Sam Harris, plenty. In his “The Moral Landscape” he shows us how science can determine human values.
“… even the most bizarre and unproductive behaviors—female genital excision, blood feuds, infanticide, the torture of animals, scarification, foot binding, cannibalism, ceremonial rape, human sacrifice, dangerous male initiations, restricting the diet of pregnant and lactating mothers, slavery, potlatch, the killing of the elderly, sati, irrational dietary and agricultural taboos attended by chronic hunger and malnourishment, the use of heavy metals to treat illness, etc.—have been rationalized, or even idealized, in the fire-lit scribblings of one or another dazzled ethnographer. But the mere endurance of a belief system or custom does not suggest that it is adaptive, much less wise. It merely suggests that it hasn’t led directly to a society’s collapse or killed its practitioners outright”.

...how did science determine those? Or do you mean to say that science can figure it out?

 

[Skeptisch]

...how did science determine those? Or do you mean to say that science can figure it out?

Some of us are great debaters, others think we are, that’s why we have no problems with a good exchange or even a circle argument. Others think, or know we are bad and we rather post the original source:

[youtube]aLzC2pmB42Y[/youtube]
Sam Harris: Can Science Determine Human Values? 2-7 - YouTube

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

18 is when your daughter makes a debut.

I'm sorry, but I really can't understand what you are saying.

Because some social clubs fix the age of debut at 18, you believe that 18 should be the sexual age of consent for all the world?

Is there a chance that you could write more than a single, cryptic line of text when trying to describe your outlook on this issue?