Warning! Sensitive content! Proceed with caution!

[Falvlun]

The only thing I can ask, Father Heathen is have you read any of the early accounts regarding Muhammad and A'ishah? Overall, they speak of a genuine love story - of genuine reciprocated love bordering on adoration. It's hard to imagine a term like "rape" applying to such a situation. In effect, you are (and others) are screaming against a straw man.

That's what it sounded like to me, too-- Aisha and Muhammed are shown to love and respect each other quite deeply.

A book I am reading about the origins of Islam point out that Muhammed was actually very liberal with his wives, giving them liberties and freedoms not granted to females at the time period. He even advocated equality between the sexes, but this riled up many of his traditionalist male members, so he had to backtrack a bit to soothe them.

 

[YmirGF]

Then it's not rape.

Any time someone is forced to have sex against their will, that is rape. And I'd be willing to bet a whole lot of money, that any time that happens, it is traumatizing, regardless of culture.

Am I the only one looking at this and thinking, "Well, obviously." That said, I highly doubt that anyone here would say anything that is supportive of child abuse.

 

[Riverwolf]

I wasn't addressing the muhammad + A'ishah thing. I was addressing Seyroni's assertion that rape victims (today, here and now) only feel traumatized because that's how society tells them to feel, and he insinuated that Ismaila's abuse as a child at the hands of her own father wasn't really an assault.

Uh, no he isn't.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That's what it sounded like to me, too-- Aisha and Muhammed are shown to love and respect each other quite deeply.

A book I am reading about the origins of Islam point out that Muhammed was actually very liberal with his wives, giving them liberties and freedoms not granted to females at the time period. He even advocated equality between the sexes, but this riled up many of his traditionalist male members, so he had to backtrack a bit to soothe them.

I'm extremely claims like this.

You realize that the same is said of the apostle Paul - by both feminists, liberals, and conservative biblical interpreters. That Galatians 3:28 and some other verses demonstrate that Paul was some kind of feminist visionary. But when one carefully looks at Paul within his time, he does absolutely nothing for the advancement of women - everything is perfectly within the cultural context, even in light of laws and ideals that seemingly forbid the practice. Even in Christianity, this argument says that the earliest Pauline Christians were "feminists" and later Christians backtracked.

I think that the glorification of ancient men as liberators of women is either an attempt to make these men acceptable to us, give them more credit than they deserve, or it's just downright false.

In any case, it is definately a pattern in history for people to make up myths about their great leaders, attributing to them some positive ideals concerning women, children, and slaves.

 

[Badran]

Badran, I don't care IF he had sex with a 9 year old girl or not. It is irrelevant to me, given cultural norms all over the world in the past. All opinions I have read that suggest she was not the age given in Sahih al-Bukhari are from recent writers. If YOU can provide opinions from hundreds of years ago that explored the theme, I would be interested to see them.

To clarify, note that I am saying, "opinions I have read". I am not saying other opinions may not exist, however the preponderance of opinion would seem to indicate no problem whatsoever with the young ages given by Sahih al-Bukhari.

It doesn't actually matter to me (and i don't know) whether or not there are such opinions from older scholars (but as i know Shias don't accept the Sunni hadiths which makes it possible such accounts were disputed long ago). Mainly because hadiths in themselves were not accounts made in the prophets life or directly afterwards, but in themselves they are later accounts and it is known that there are inaccurate and flat out dishonest false accounts amongst them.

Again, current opinions tend to raise the age of A'ishah and the need to do so is interesting given "modern" sensibilities on the topic of adults and children. The practice is so deeply frowned on that it is little surprise that Muslim "scholars" would want to make the old stories more palatable to "modern" readers.

If you wish to disprove my OPINION, knock yourself out. What I am trying to say is that I don't personally see why it matters. I understand why Muslim writers might want to cleanse the image of this affair, but I don't think that it is actually necessary to do so.

My main objection was aimed at both you stating that he did this (which you clarified now to be an opinion) and aimed at the fact that i felt your words were a misrepresentation of the position of those who question or dismiss the story. I'm not saying that what you said does not happen though.

 

[Photonic]

What about when young children are raped? They experience a lot of psychological harm that extends into their distant future. Why would a five year old, for example, who knows nothing of sex, have such a negative response to rape if it is apparently a learned response?

That's not the point he was making. Yes, it may have been terrifying and horrible. But in the context we are speaking of, in a different society, there is a VERY high chance she would have married her rapist.

Yea it's sick to us, but that's where the revulsion comes from. Societal values we are given as children.

I'm not sure where Ismaila got the whole "we're minimizing and condoning child molestation and rape" from.

 

[Father Heathen]

Uh, no he isn't.

I recommend actually reading the thread before posting in it, son:

It messed you up because you were enculturated to feel it was an assault, Ismaila. Your revulsion was a learned response. No-one's born with any sense of modesty or propriety.

 

[Photonic]

I recommend actually reading the thread before posting in it, son:

Makes perfect sense to me...not sure where the problem is here?

 

[Riverwolf]

I recommend actually reading the thread before posting in it, son:

I fail to see how that's insinuating that she wasn't assaulted.

 

[Father Heathen]

I'm not sure where Ismaila got the whole "we're minimizing and condoning child molestation and rape" from.

Okay, I want you and the rest of RF to explain to me how the following statements don't try to trivialize, downplay and dismiss rape and it's traumatic impact:

As un-PC as this may sound, SW, I think a lot of what psychologically traumatizes us is what society teaches us and expects us to be traumatized by. Why are we less traumatized by an assault or robbery than a sexual assault that leaves us neither physically nor economically harmed?

What traumatizes us is largely what we're taught to be traumatized by.

You'll say, of course, that "rape" causes harm and suffering, but rape is a cultural and legal construct.

It messed you up because you were enculturated to feel it was an assault, Ismaila. Your revulsion was a learned response.

 

[Father Heathen]

I fail to see how that's insinuating that she wasn't assaulted.

He was suggesting that the only reason she felt traumatized by the abuse was because society taught her to feel that way. Come on, you're smarter than this.

 

[Father Heathen]

Makes perfect sense to me...not sure where the problem is here?

The problem is that it conflicts with Seyorni's claims? You've been reading the thread, right?

 

[Riverwolf]

He was suggesting that the only reason she felt traumatized by the abuse was because society taught her to feel that way. Come on, you're smarter than this.

I fail to see the link between "we are taught to be traumatized by certain things" and "we aren't ever really assaulted."

 

[Father Heathen]

I fail to see the link between "we are taught to be traumatized by certain things" and "we aren't ever really assaulted."

Because it suggest that the experience in and of itself isn't traumatizing, and that the reaction to it is purely based on social consensus. Do you honestly believe rape victims feel violated only because they were taught to? Does that really make sense? Without this supposed social conditioning, would they just shrug their shoulders and laugh it off?

 

[England my lionheart]

Ladies and gentlemen, I am going to address a rumor about Islam. This rumor is very nasty, and it needs to be put to rest. If at any time the Muslim community get offended, I will have the deleted. Okay, it is time to address the rumor. The rumor is that the Muslim Prophet Muhammad married Aisha when she was six years old and consummated that marriage when Aisha was nine years old. By modern definitions, this would make him a pedophile. Wait! Before you attack, please read the rest of the story. I want you to know that I have found this to be untrue. The rumor is spread by misinformation from both Christians, and some Muslims, thus feeding anti-muslim, and anti-arab hate. It is time for people to know the truth and put an end to the hate. Evidence for what I am saying can be found by clicking on the link. I really encourage you to reazd this article and know the truth, and again, if any Muslims get offended by this, say the word and I will have it taken down. I only seek to put and end to the hate. Thank you for listening. God bless.
Did Prophet Muhammad really marry a 9 year old? This is a lie spread about Our Beloved Prophet!

This has been debated many times here,there are cultures today where child Marriage and sex are the norm,it was also quite the norm in Muhammeds time and not just in Islam,however,the thought of sex with a 9 year old child whether she has reached puberty or not makes me feel disgust and perhaps one would expect more of a Gods messenger IMO.

 

[Riverwolf]

Because it suggest that the experience in and of itself isn't traumatizing, and that the reaction to it is purely based on social consensus. Do you honestly believe rape victims feel violated only because they were taught to? Does that really make sense? Without this supposed social conditioning, would they just shrug their shoulders and laugh it off?

When it comes to rape, the amount of trauma felt varies from individual to individual. Therefore, it stands to reason that there's some kind of conditioning involved which heightens or lowers the trauma.

Now, I will fully admit that rape of any kind (as in, non-consensual) will always have some sort of trauma associated with it; if Seyorni is suggesting otherwise (and I don't think he is), then I will disagree. However, let's not forget that certain things may be traumatizing in one culture but aren't in another.

For example, let's say I go to France, and someone comes up and kisses me on the cheek. If I were unprepared for this, I might think this is sexual assault because, in America, that's a VERY intimate thing; thus, I would experience some level of trauma. However, over there, it's perfectly normal.

 

[Photonic]

The problem is that it conflicts with Seyorni's claims? You've been reading the thread, right?

Of course I have, I believe we have gone through this before. Have we not?

Are we going to have a repeat of an earlier conversation? If so I'm just going to copy and paste it in a post to prevent from having this again.

If you refuse to approach this conversation at the level of rationality expected of those that are debating the subject, instead of holding to a close minded point of view, then simply move away from the thread and allow those who wish to exchange their ideas do so. If you have a point to make. Make it.

If anyone were to see the trivialization of rape in a conversation it would be me, and I would rather not bring that up. I do not see this trivialization in this conversation, nor so I see anyone condoning it under any condition, social or otherwise. It is not fair to them to be called out on something they have no reason to say.

I understand this is rather pointed but I am started to feel like I'm the one being insulted here.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I am not in a good mood right now. I oppose the touching of children's genitals for any reason because it messes that child up. Maybe if you would just listen to me, you would realize that it is wrong to do that.

But there is much evidence to say it doesn't. Anything deemed good and evil depends on the culture you live in. In America if you give a money gift it doesn't matter what the appearance of the money. But in Japan a money gift during a wedding or funeral that isn't a fresh and crisp bill is considered very bad taste. Also here we fight over the front passenger seat in a car, but in Japan the seat behind the drivers seat is considered a seat of honor. Our natural disasters also show that in our culture it is the norm to riot, steal, and watch out for yourself, while in Japan we see in their culture they help each other out.
I don't know how else to explain it. Any social science will say society programs us to see the world as we do. It's even reflected in our language. One culture has over 200 words for a potato, and another has over 400 words for cattle. It is because they are very important to them socially. We have only a few words for snow, while the Incas have many different words for snow. Our own society (American) has a very large vocabulary that is related to fighting and war. Here in America we glorify war and shun nudity at every angle, while in many European nations violence is seen as bad and nudity won't cause a stir because they see it as the human body and nothing more. Actually in America nudity will make a movie receive a higher rating than violence will, while in other places violence will give the higher rating. It's all in one's culture.

What about when young children are raped? They experience a lot of psychological harm that extends into their distant future. Why would a five year old, for example, who knows nothing of sex, have such a negative response to rape if it is apparently a learned response?

There are some studies that suggest children of that age often make full recoveries and aren't maladjusted because of it. I'm not saying it makes it right, as in that situation the child is being taken advantage of, but some suggest it be called child-sexual-relationships because the child seems to recover. I can try and find the references for it.

 

[Marble]

She was probably nine.

"By modern definitions", there's the problem. It isn't modern. Our great great grandparents probably married about 14 years old, still. One must also remember that the life expectancy in the world at that time was still quite low. Living past 40 was an achievement until very recently [Wiki link here].

I have seen some discussions that interpret her age not to be her physical age, but her "years as a Muslim", though, and that her age was probably closer to 18.

In European middle ages girl were also married of before their menustration (by the upper classes).

 

[Falvlun]

There are some studies that suggest children of that age often make full recoveries and aren't maladjusted because of it. I'm not saying it makes it right, as in that situation the child is being taken advantage of, but some suggest it be called child-sexual-relationships because the child seems to recover. I can try and find the references for it.

I don't doubt that kids can recover. The point is that they have something from which they need to recover.

How is sexual abuse different from physical abuse, by the way? I mean, does anyone doubt that unwarranted beating is traumatizing to people regardless of culture? Are we acclimated to be traumatized by being beaten, or is there not something inherently traumatizing about being beaten?