Why I do not think the marriage of A’isha and Muhammad was not wrong

[Mock Turtle]

Yeah, and some of my ancestors were probably slaves, had slaves, or thought slavery was OK. Does that mean slavery is OK? Your logic is poor. You're arguing that because pedophilia was culturally accepted in Muhammed's time, it wasn't wrong. The same logic could be used to justify slavery of people based on race among many other atrocities.

I'm not sure anyone is arguing that paedophilia was culturally acceptable - ever. Marrying at a young age doesn't necessarily then imply that sexual relationships happened at such young ages. And neither does a very young age for marriage or no such limits. All it seems to say is that children in the past were just seen as the properties of their parents, to do with as they wished, and had little say in such matters. I've quoted elsewhere, when the age of consent was just 12 in the UK, very few (less than 2% of 1000 cases recorded) married at age 16 or younger - this was around 1600, when Shakespeare was alive. I think the early age of marriages, few that they were, can be understood in this context, and it hardly then says anything at all about paedophilia. I doubt we know enough about Muhammed and Aisha to comment much more.

 

[Augustus]

I can't help but be reminded of this quote right now:

That quote might be The Most Wrong Thing On The Internet Ever.

Almost all 'evil' is done by good people, and religion is but one of many potential reasons.

 

[Augustus]

Understanding a thing is not synonymous with being in agreement with it. I'm taking the approach from a more a more socio-anthropological position. My position is thus that one cannot critique a thing of one culture and not the other. Mary the mother of Jesus was said to be 14 but she is often portrayed as a woman in art. Although I think there are some religious biases at play here my position is before we critique something as bad we need to understand why things occur. We can talk about "whatisms" all day, the point is explaining why. Often times people make brash comments about pedophilia (which is an incorrect term today) on Muhammad's marriage, without understanding the Semitic culture behind that in that time period.

It's also worth noting that arguments that focus on individual rights are anachronistic.

As befits our evolutionary heritage, most historical societies practiced a form of collective rights i.e the group was more important than the individual. Enemy tribes certainly don't respect your right to life, freedom and the pursuit of happiness, so anything that weakens your tribe is an existential threat. Anyone in the tribe is can end up dead or enslaved in a heartbeat.

Marriages were a way of cementing intra or inter tribal unity, giving multiple parties mutual self-interest and having something tangible at stake in the alliance. A marriage promised 8 years in the future, is a much less tangible bond than an actual marriage.

In modern, urbanised times where the state, theoretically, protects you then such tribal moralities are clearly wrong and harmful as they serve no beneficial purpose. In pre-modern tribal society, in certain situations it could be viewed as a form of utilitarian ethics, greatest good for greater number of people. The practice certainly had some degree of justification beyond simply being 'evil'.

Understanding of the past is rarely helped though moralistic posturing based on 21st C liberal humanist ethics that would basically require us to condemn every single person in pre-modern history as being an awful person.

 

[Mock Turtle]

That quote might be The Most Wrong Thing On The Internet Ever.

Almost all 'evil' is done by good people, and religion is but one of many potential reasons.

In the context of something being backed by the ultimate authority often (religious doctrines), I doubt it can be seen as being the worst ever. It has some sense to it, if it is not necessarily true.

 

[Augustus]

In the context of something being backed by the ultimate authority often (religious doctrines), I doubt it can be seen as being the worst ever. It has some sense to it, if it is not necessarily true.

I'm being hyperbolic, but I do really, really hate that quote.

It would be just as "correct" if I replaced religion with science (another form of ultimate authority that has caused good people to do great harms in the mistaken belief they are doing good deeds).

Then there is ideology, family, fear, love, poor judgement, etc., etc.

The logic in another form:

"Lego is an affront to human dignity. Without it, good feet would be free from pain, and bad feet would cause pain. But, for good feet to cause pain, that takes Lego."

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm not sure anyone is arguing that paedophilia was culturally acceptable - ever. Marrying at a young age doesn't necessarily then imply that sexual relationships happened at such young ages. And neither does a very young age for marriage or no such limits. All it seems to say is that children in the past were just seen as the properties of their parents, to do with as they wished, and had little say in such matters. I've quoted elsewhere, when the age of consent was just 12 in the UK, very few (less than 2% of 1000 cases recorded) married at age 16 or younger - this was around 1600, when Shakespeare was alive. I think the early age of marriages, few that they were, can be understood in this context, and it hardly then says anything at all about paedophilia. I doubt we know enough about Muhammed and Aisha to comment much more.

I somewhat agree, but all the same some cases of peadophilia that I learned of come to mind, and I find myself thinking that a significant factor may be that back in the day it was not considered polite to criticize other people's paedophilia, perhaps not unlike the current day taboo against criticizing the treatment of other people's spouses.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm being hyperbolic, but I do really, really hate that quote.

It would be just as "correct" if I replaced religion with science (another form of ultimate authority that has caused good people to do great harms in the mistaken belief they are doing good deeds).

Then there is ideology, family, fear, love, poor judgement, etc., etc.

The logic in another form:

"Lego is an affront to human dignity. Without it, good feet would be free from pain, and bad feet would cause pain. But, for good feet to cause pain, that takes Lego."

Uh... are you serious?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

This has nothing to do with slavery apples and oranges.

Yes it does, because the argument you're using to justify marriage to a child uses the logic of "it was culturally accepted at the time, so it wasn't wrong." Slavery was culturally accepted nearly everywhere in the world prior to the late 1800s, so using the same logic, slavery wasn't wrong then. See the problem?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Then why aren't people speaking out about some of the states that allow one to marry at a young age?

Age of marriage in the United States - Wikipedia

I can marry someone in Arizona at 16

16, while probably too young, is much different than 9.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I somewhat agree, but all the same some cases of peadophilia that I learned of come to mind, and I find myself thinking that a significant factor may be that back in the day it was not considered polite to criticize other people's paedophilia, perhaps not unlike the current day taboo against criticizing the treatment of other people's spouses.

Well, there is undoubtedly paedophilia as a factor even today for those underage marriages performed illegally, since children have died as a result of sex too early after being married very young (preteens). I don't think it ever was culturally accepted, apart from the teenage stuff by the Romans and Greeks, to any great extent though. Many paedophiles I have come across would like to make out that paedophilia was quite the norm in the past just based on the low or absent age of consent, which to me is just ridiculous. All it implies is that children were not seen to have any rights, and to be used as seen fit by their parents. Child prostitution was rife in the past but we have hardly got rid of this in many countries all around the world even today. Perhaps that was tolerated more than it is now - just being seen as a perversion, rather than the serious crime and exploitation that we now view it as,

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I never said sex with little kids, I was referring to marriage. Again this is what I meant by projecting.. Here I''m referring to some tribal union via marriage and you're sharing an idea of sex with kids and this is not my attempt..

But marriage leads to sex, yes?

 

[England my lionheart]

I don't see much of a controversy here, people in Europe did the same in those times, what is controversial is a supposed messenger of a supposed god lacked the moral fibre to see marrying a child was absolutely wrong but hey a man made religion you can do whatever of course.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Then why aren't people speaking out about some of the states that allow one to marry at a young age?

I live in an ignorant nation where the only people who know these rules exist are the ones who told politicians to let them have it. We actually did try to raise the age, can't remember if it was a state or federal suit, but it got shot down because "religious freedom" or some such nonsense.

Marrying at a young age doesn't necessarily then imply that sexual relationships happened at such young ages.

I thought sex was how you consummated the ceremony. Sometimes other people watched. That's even sicker.

As befits our evolutionary heritage, most historical societies practiced a form of collective rights i.e the group was more important than the individual.

And lots of societies over time are now extinct. The bible praises this ethic and let's be real: Israel was never a stable nation.

 

[LuisDantas]

But marriage leads to sex, yes?

Often. Just how often it used to lead to sex in the circunstances mentioned is difficult to say.

 

[Augustus]

Uh... are you serious?

Am I being serious that it's a terrible quote because many things can make 'good people do evil things'? Yes, of course.

 

[LuisDantas]

Am I being serious that it's a terrible quote because many things can make 'good people do evil things'? Yes, of course.

I thought better of you.

 

[Augustus]

I thought better of you.

Do you believe that only religion can make good people do evil things?

 

[columbus]

Do you believe that only religion can make good people do evil things?

That's not really what it says.
Yes, it is simplistic. But there is a profound truth there. It's certainly more accurate than "Without God there's no morality"
Tom

 

[Augustus]

That's not really what it says.
Yes, it is simplistic. But there is a profound truth there. It's certainly more accurate than "Without God there's no morality"
Tom

I dislike it as most "evil" things are done by "good" people, and most have nothing to do with religion (even though religion has been a significant factor in "good" people doing "evil" things).

Evil things done for evil reasons are the anomaly, which is why I find it naive even as an aphorism (and many people don't seem treat it as an aphorism).

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Yes it does, because the argument you're using to justify marriage to a child uses the logic of "it was culturally accepted at the time, so it wasn't wrong." Slavery was culturally accepted nearly everywhere in the world prior to the late 1800s, so using the same logic, slavery wasn't wrong then. See the problem?

In actuality slavery was not culturally accepted in the universal sense because all animals have a sense of freedom which is why the indigenous Britain tribe during the Romans waged a guerilla war with the Roman empire. True that slavery was common but that doesn't mean it was culturally accepted which is different when Semitic tribes intermarry because there were multiple reasons why marriage in those times existed such as for dowries, bringing tribes together for mutual benefit etc...This is different than slavery which had more negative implications historically.