But if you weren't talking about Mohammad, why'd you bring it up? He and Aisha are the topic of the thread.
-
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
But if you weren't talking about Mohammad, why'd you bring it up? He and Aisha are the topic of the thread.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Your question requires clarification.
You said that all instances of adult men who have sex with little girls have psychological problems. Since this thread is talking about Mohammad and Aisha, it is implied that you are saying that Mohammad had a psychological problem.
But then you say that you weren't talking about the specific instance of Mohammad and his wife, whom we can't really determine if she was a child or not.
Therefore, why'd you bring up the fact that men who have sex with little girls (a term that wasn't adequately defined BTW) have psychological problems?
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Because it's true. Whomever it is. The point is I'm not attacking Islam with my arguments. My agenda here isn't to demonize Islam, but rather to point out the ridiculousness of people twisting their brains in the attempt to normalize adult men having sex with little girls. Clear enough?
Thing is, no one is doing that.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
That's one perspective.
Show me an example of someone in this thread trying to justify adult men having sex with little girls.
Songbird
She rules her life like a bird in flight
That doesn't work here, though. It's not a discussion about women's rights or voices, or even about believing the supposed testimony of an ancient text.
I highly doubt any woman's testimony would be allowed into a text that called into question the sanctity of a religious leader. Among other things, the lack of status women had in all major religions speaks to that.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
How exactly am I supposed to show you something you refuse to see?
Figure it out, because we could otherwise go back and forth forever about whether I'm refusing to see something, or you're seeing something that's not there.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
I don't need to go back and forth on that at all. Nothing personal, but I take my own counsel over yours.
No offense taken, because I do the same. Therefore, we cannot agree on this matter.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Now you're making sense.
Frequently a lawyer knows his client is guilty but he may still agree to representation. There are many reasons for that. But it seems that a true humanist cannot speak in defence of child molestation. However for someone who just wants to hone his debating skills it maybe a good exercise to agree to disagree.
In the end a technicality is often the only way out.
I'm not just honing my debating skills, though. I'm honestly declaring Mohammad not guilty of child molestation, or having sex with a little girl, or whatever, because it's not clear how old she actually was (at least, apparently this is the case), and, since she was 9 (and lest we forget, she and Mohammad were married when she was 6) when the marriage was consecrated, it's a strong likelyhood that she was in puberty at the time, and thus had the physical maturity of a 13 or 14 year old. Since it would seem that the two lived very happily together from then on, we can safely say that there was any psychological damage from the event.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
You do realize there is more to physical and sexual maturity than menstruating, right? Not to mention the wide mental and emotional maturity differences between a nine year old and a 13 or 14 year old. Sorry, whether she's bleeding or not, a nine year old will appear as a child, and thus nonsexual, to any psychologially normal adult male.
Yes, I do. Did they back then?
Again, were those considered important back in the day? Or, I'll take it one step further: did they exist back then?
Nowadays, yes. But was this always the case?
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Yes. There is no normal physiological drive to have sex with children. Those who have sexual desire for children have something abnormal about their psychology. What year it is is irrelevant to biology.