AhmadSyahir
Active Member
The english wikipedia about Aisha never stated the dispute about the age of Aisha when he married to Muhammad S.A.W. I personally think that it's incomplete.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Warning! Sensitive content! Proceed with caution!
- Thread starter IsmailaGodHasHeard
- Start date
The english wikipedia about Aisha never stated the dispute about the age of Aisha when he married to Muhammad S.A.W. I personally think that it's incomplete.
Photonic
Ad astra!
I've never seen a complete Wiki article.
That's because it can't be completed!
Knowledge must continue to be accumulated.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
This is obvious.
Because you perceive some "need" that isn't there? I already told you: I have no personal connection to Mohammad.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Congratulations.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
For what?
Exactly.
So, instead of actually addressing your contradictory statement, you congratulated thin air for no reason?
It appears that most religious people have a need to believe in a supernatural God, just as most scientists have a need to believe in the laws of nature. In that context could we not agree that most Muslims would have a need to believe in the Koran, and by extension would also have a need for Mohammad having sex with his nine year old wife to be right, just and explainable?
Maybe that is why a humanist would write: Then again, I have no personal need for sex with children to be okay?
Then why is a non-Muslim (in fact, a HINDU) defending him? I'm not even trying to play devil's advocate, here.
I'm not one of those Hindus who believes all religious Scripture to be equally revealed, either.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Brain being used in progress.
It would be accurate if it were only Muslims defending him.
Don't forget that I criticized the fictional story of Kunti who, when she was a child, had sex with Surya and got a child, and the god subsequently restored her virginity.
In fact, upon further research on the story, it's even worse, since it seems to be that she was raped. She was given a mantra that would summon any god down to her to give her a child (why a sage felt this would be good to give a child, I don't know), and told that it would be useful later in life. But she didn't believe in its power, so she tried it out. Surya came down and said that he was there to fulfill the purpose of the mantra. She tried to send him back, but he said that he had no choice but to fulfill it.
Sure, this could be seen as a lesson not to play around with mantras, but then why was she given it in the first place?
Either way I look at it, this story is icky. (Plus, the child turns out to be one of the bad guys.)
So, I ask, why am I criticizing this story from my own religion, which features rape by a prominent Vedic God (the god of the sun) essentially raping a little girl because he was "compelled to from the mantra", yet am defending the historical marriage of Mohammad and Aisha, two figures who aren't even related to my religion?
Last edited:
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
You have nothing to do with my lack of need for sex with children to be okay.
You know what? Enough of this "need" nonsense. None of us have this need.
Instead, let's just go back to the main point of this tangent: why the contradictory statements?
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Because of your misunderstanding of what I'm saying.
You said:
Then, you said:
These are contradictory, since generalities do not apply to every single situation, unless you're arguing that they somehow do.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
By speaking in general, I meant that I'm not discussing the specific instance of Mohammed, since people seemed to keep thinking I was talking about that. I never brought him up or his child-bride. I'm not arguing about that instance at all. I'm arguing that all instances of adult men having sex with little girls signifies a psychological problem with the adult man. Sorry if there was any confusion.
Bismillah
Submit
Hey man, don't be so defensive. The dishonest nature of your post, your backtracking and moving the goal posts is what I expected. Like I said, I suppose all women need white-knights to speak for themselves. Silly women thinking they have a voice, they obviously need a big strong man to protect them even if they died hundreds of years ago.
edit: Wow do you ever read what you type?
By the way, even if you aren't discussing the specific relationship between the Prophet and Aisha then stop posting. You are derailing the thread with apparently unrelated tangents and generalities.
Last edited:
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Your complete lack of understanding of what my arguments even are makes me neither defensive nor dishonest. However, it does make you look silly.