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

[Epic Beard Man]

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

What is the difference besides puberty? Again you are projecting what you know now onto what was happening then. I'm sure you cannot cite a difference besides puberty, but even then young girls have been documented to have had their menstrual cycle around the age of 9 years of age.

 

[Augustus]

True that slavery was common but that doesn't mean it was culturally accepted

It certainly was in many societies. it was assumed to be an integral part of the human condition by the likes of Aristotle et al. In Rome it was a sign of status. In Islam it was Divinely mandated, etc.

Enslaved people often didn't like being slaves, but there were practically no people in any society who were against slavery as an institution.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

It certainly was in many societies. it was assumed to be an integral part of the human condition by the likes of Aristotle et al. In Rome it was a sign of status. In Islam it was Divinely mandated, etc.

Enslaved people often didn't like being slaves, but there were practically no people in any society who were against slavery as an institution.

Are you sure? Because there is some documented evidence in the Qin dynasty in China around 221-206 B.C. that abolished slavery and serfdom as well as Wang Mang in 17 C.E. of the Han dynasty (although after his death it was re-established again). Also not to mention the Third Servile War which the movie Spartacus was based off concerning the rebellion of slaves against the Roman republic. Even the British in 1772 thought it was vile and outlawed it.

You gotta brush up on that history sir!

Edit: I missed the Islam part and not sure why you even mentioned Islam, but I think you're wrong concerning that slavery was divinely mandated as the Qur'an is clear on the slaves rights (which was greatly different than it was in the states and elsewhere post-Islamic era) concerning the ethical treatment of the slave. In fact, I believe the Qur'an rarely uses the word "abd" or slave in conjunction with slavery. Rather it uses the arabic term Ma malakat aymanukum or "what the right hand possess." I'm not that much knowledgeable in Arabic so I'm open to correction if the spelling and terms is off. But the prophet in a Hadith said the following:

Narrated Al-Ma'rur: At Ar-Rabadha I met Abu Dhar who was wearing a cloak, and his slave, too, was wearing a similar one. I asked about the reason for it. He replied, "I abused a person by calling his mother with bad names." The Prophet said to me, 'O Abu Dhar! Did you abuse him by calling his mother with bad names You still have some characteristics of ignorance. Your slaves are your brothers and Allah has put them under your command. So whoever has a brother under his command should feed him of what he eats and dress him of what he wears. Do not ask them (slaves) to do things beyond their capacity (power) and if you do so, then help them.

Bukhari, Sahih. "Sahih Bukhari: Book of Belief"
www.sahih-bukhari.com. Retrieved 2017-02-11.

 

[Augustus]

Are you sure? Because there is some documented evidence in the Qin dynasty in China around 221-206 B.C. that abolished slavery and serfdom as well as Wang Mang in 17 C.E. of the Han dynasty (although after his death it was re-established again). Also not to mention the Third Servile War which the movie Spartacus was based off concerning the rebellion of slaves against the Roman republic. Even the British in 1772 thought it was vile and outlawed it.

You gotta brush up on that history sir!

Was really saying 'slavery was culturally acceptable until it wasn't', which was pretty recently in the grand scheme of things.

The earliest specific argument that I have seen which stated slavery was a moral evil was 4th C Gregory of Nyssa. This was obviously not something which caught on quickly among his Christian brethren, but his line of reasoning is the same that was used by later abolitionists.

AFAIK, there were no Chinese arguments that slavery was morally wrong, and it certainly wasn't abolished until the modern era.

The 3 Servile Wars weren't attempts to end the practice of slavery, but were certain people fighting so as they didn't;t have to be slaves.

Edit: I missed the Islam part and not sure why you even mentioned Islam, but I think you're wrong concerning that slavery was divinely mandated as the Qur'an is clear on the slaves rights (which was greatly different than it was in the states and elsewhere post-Islamic era) concerning the ethical treatment of the slave.

Saying you should treat slaves ethically and manumission is a noble act is not an argument against the institution of slavery.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

AFAIK, there were no Chinese arguments that slavery was morally wrong, and it certainly wasn't abolished until the modern era.

I just mentioned two Chinese dynasties that abolished slavery before common era

 

[England my lionheart]

Threads and posts about this marriage always ignore that apparently an omnipresent omnipotent all singing and dancing god authorised and gave extraordinary licence to Muhammed to not only marry a child as soon as she started her courses but also give a shining example to follow in his footsteps by others, really not defensible at all.

 

[Sleeppy]

There is not, and has never been, any 9 year old human being on Earth, developed sufficiently, physically or mentally for marriage. It was/is wrong.

But knowing that ignorance is closer to default, I also know that many of you are not able to comprehend certain truths.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

What is the difference besides puberty? Again you are projecting what you know now onto what was happening then. I'm sure you cannot cite a difference besides puberty, but even then young girls have been documented to have had their menstrual cycle around the age of 9 years of age.

Think back to your maturity level at 16 and compare it to that at 9. There's a reason a 9 year old is not allowed to drive a car, and a 16 year old is. There is a major difference, both physically and mentally between a 16 year old and a 9 year old. This is quite obvious.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

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.

Slavery has been nearly universal throughout history (certainly as culturally accepted as child marriage, if not more so), and it's been culturally accepted almost everywhere prior to the late 1800s. So, by your logic, slavery is OK since it was culturally accepted almost everywhere. And this is just one example. Other atrocious things were culturally accepted in the past as well. For instance, swordfights to the death (just for fun entertainment) were culturally accepted in Europe in the Middle Ages. So, again, by your logic, it must not have been wrong, since the culture accepted it. The basis of your argument is so weak it's almost not worth debating with you anymore.

 

[Augustus]

I just mentioned two Chinese dynasties that abolished slavery before common era

I was talking about it as a moral issue as this ties in with the culture of cultural acceptability.

One abolished slavery for 2 years which seemed to be based around a broader set of land reforms. Have you seen anything that suggests he saw it as a moral issue?

Even assuming it was, that it lasted 2 years seems to suggest slavery was cultural acceptable.

I couldn't find any other reference to slavery being abolished in pre-modern China. Have you got any links?

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Think back to your maturity level at 16 and compare it to that at 9. There's a reason a 9 year old is not allowed to drive a car, and a 16 year old is. There is a major difference, both physically and mentally between a 16 year old and a 9 year old. This is quite obvious.

You're projecting your own contemporary thought. There is a difference and big significant difference between a 16 year old in 1997 and 9-year-old in 1991 than a 9-year-old and 16-year-old in CE.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Slavery has been nearly universal throughout history (certainly as culturally accepted as child marriage, if not more so), and it's been culturally accepted almost everywhere prior to the late 1800s. So, by your logic, slavery is OK since it was culturally accepted almost everywhere. And this is just one example. Other atrocious things were culturally accepted in the past as well. For instance, swordfights to the death (just for fun entertainment) were culturally accepted in Europe in the Middle Ages. So, again, by your logic, it must not have been wrong, since the culture accepted it. The basis of your argument is so weak it's almost not worth debating with you anymore.

Ok dude

 

[Cooky]

You're projecting your own contemporary thought. There is a difference and big significant difference between a 16 year old in 1997 and 9-year-old in 1991 than a 9-year-old and 16-year-old in CE.

Why would any man want to marry a 9 year old, whose thoughts are juvenile, in any time?

...For me, it would be more like adopting a child. How could it be any different for any man in another time? We are no more evolved than Mohammed.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

I was talking about it as a moral issue as this ties in with the culture of cultural acceptability.

One abolished slavery for 2 years which seemed to be based around a broader set of land reforms. Have you seen anything that suggests he saw it as a moral issue?

Even assuming it was, that it lasted 2 years seems to suggest slavery was cultural acceptable.

I couldn't find any other reference to slavery being abolished in pre-modern China. Have you got any links?

Actually, if they abolished something then surely there was a problem but look this is derailing the thread. My argument is that in the reality of those times there were things that were a part of those cultures in those parts of the world. I think several posters here lack the foresight in understanding and making distinctions between cultural behaviors in the past compared to the present. Our society has evolved socially and intellectually and with that being said some of the moral rules and the dynamics thereof have also changed. The thread is about having an understanding from a sociological position whether you gree with those practicrs or not. I think its pointless to discuss trivial matters to deter the focus of discussion.

I even think this is why I think discussing sensitive topics like slavery in the Americas especially if it consists of non-minorities who are culturally open to being wrong, pointless. There is the usual "they sold their own into slavery too" is always at the forefront to deter accountability. I think for any intellectual with some damn sense it is obvious that there are practices that we in today's society disagree with, but that is not the basis of discussion and it becomes an annoyance when people like to sidebar discussion with non-sequitors. The psudeo-intellectualism that exists here on RF is so tiresome and makes discussion not even fun anymore.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Why would any man want to marry a 9 year old, whose thoughts are juvenile, in any time?

...For me, it would be more like adopting a child. How could it be any different for any man in another time? We are no more evolved than Mohammed.

I'm done with this thread because if I continue further I'm going to end up getting a warning. It is so irritating when people like you and other put words in my mouth that I have not said. The basis of this thread was for understanding and apparently it has become a failure so I'm done.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

You're projecting your own contemporary thought. There is a difference and big significant difference between a 16 year old in 1997 and 9-year-old in 1991 than a 9-year-old and 16-year-old in CE.

What is your evidence for that?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Ok dude

Glad to see you've realized how fallacious your logic is.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

You can think what you bloody like, but I want you to think on this first.

six year old girl - Google Search

This is what Google shows when I type in six year old girl (because I'm apparently very out of touch, and need to look such things up). See how sweet and innocent these are?

Now. Look up forty year old man. Now superimpose the two together in your mind. He waited until she was nine, but still.

 

[Cooky]

I'm done with this thread because if I continue further I'm going to end up getting a warning. It is so irritating when people like you and other put words in my mouth that I have not said. The basis of this thread was for understanding and apparently it has become a failure so I'm done.

You were doing a good job. I've never seen other Muslims willingly take on the difficult challenges that you have.

...For that, at least, you've earned my respect. For whatever it's worth.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Glad to see you've realized how fallacious your logic is.

No. Just not even going to go back and forth with an, well, someone with lack of reason. I refuse to derail the thread further.