If Mohammed had sex with his 9 year old wife does that make him a pedophile?

Wibbs · 31-07-2010 02:41PM

Strange Loop wrote: »

You seem happy to accept the word of a single source, from 200 years after the fact, but not the evidence of modern historians, evidence which seems, to me, to be on a par with your own (quality-wise). Why not?

Well I cant speak for The Highwayman f course, but my angle is simply that the modern theologians, not historians are arguing the point from an already vague set of sources, equally as old as the 200 yrs after the fact guy and purely internal Islamic sources at that. There are more refernces to the age of this girl at 9 than there are of her at 19. Well there are none of the latter. The theologians are working this out based on what they consider the "historical" timeline.

OK so both positions are equally vague on fact. But my take is that unless something changed with regard to marriage age for girls in the Arab/local culture in those 200 years, then chances are pretty high that older men took very young girls as brides at the time when the Prophet was around. That this was acceptable to the culture for the 200 years and up to now. Otherwise Bukhari's hadith(and others that agree with it) would have been left out. If it had been written today it would have been as it would have reflected badly on the message. Therefore if Muhammad was a real historical figure, then it would be as likely that he might have had a childbride as not.

Add to this that the quran puts no age limit on girls for marriage. It does say there is an age, but puts no figure on it. The hadith seem to assume first menses as that age and as girls can have their first period at 9/10 that would be ok. Indeed another way one sometimes sees this explained away by some scholars is that back then life was tougher, girls were different, died very young anyway and were physically ready for intercourse and birth. Pretty much poppycock though.

Strange Loop · 31-07-2010 02:47PM

Wibbs wrote: »

There are more refernces to the age of this girl at 9 than there are of her at 19. Well there are none of the latter. The theologians are working this out based on what they consider the "historical" timeline.

All following refernces came from Bukhari, AFAIK.

OK so both positions are equally vague on fact. But my take is that unless something changed with regard to marriage age for girls in the Arab/local culture in those 200 years, then chances are pretty high that older men took very young girls as brides at the time when the Prophet was around. That this was acceptable to the culture for the 200 years and up to now. Otherwise Bukhari's hadith(and others that agree with it) would have been left out. If it had been written today it would have been as it would have reflected badly on the message. Therefore if Muhammad was a real historical figure, then it would be as likely that he might have had a childbride as not.

That may or may not be. One could also argue that since 91% of his wives were over the age of seventeen (according to available evidence) that it's unlikely Mohammad developed a prefernce for paedophilia on this one occasion.

Add to this that the quran puts no age limit on girls for marriage. It does say there is an age, but puts no figure on it. The hadith seem to assume first menses as that age and as girls can have their first period at 9/10 that would be ok. Indeed another way one sometimes sees this explained away by some scholars is that back then life was tougher, girls were different, died very young anyway and were physically ready for intercourse and birth. Pretty much poppycock though.

As is recognised in many Muslim countries today and which I would hope is recognised in all Muslim countries in the future with the tradition of taking child-brides stamped out.

Wibbs · 31-07-2010 02:48PM

Strange Loop wrote: »

MRead Christian scholar Karen Armstrong's history of Mohammad, 'Prophet of our time', for a different history (including the assertion that Aisha was around 18 at the time of her marriage).

TBH I found Ms Armstrongs book all over the place on the revisionist history score. She blatantly avoided most of the difficult issues in the recorded timeline and actions of Muhammad's life. Made little reference to the slavery aspect, nor the gender inequality, nor the martial aspects. Just another left wing orientalist, equally guilty as the right wing orientalists of pushing her own agenda.

Strange Loop · 31-07-2010 02:53PM

Wibbs wrote: »

..another left wing orientalist, equally guilty as the right wing orientalists of pushing her own agenda.

Aren't we all?

kilburn · 31-07-2010 02:57PM

The Highwayman wrote: »

Times change as they say but a 53 year old man and a 9 year old girl can't be right in any era can it?

Dont know what to say

Storminateacup · 31-07-2010 02:59PM

Islam is a disgusting religion.
Paedophilia, incest, cavemen attitudes.

Its more of a cult, if you ask me.

Wibbs · 31-07-2010 03:00PM

Strange Loop wrote: »

All following refernces came from Bukhari, AFAIK.

Nope, Sahih Muslim as well http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muslim/008.smt.html#008.3309
And here:
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muslim/008.smt.html#008.3311
She was clearly very young as she is described as playing with dolls. A major no no for an adult woman.
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/073.sbt.html#008.073.151
In this one she is playing on swings with her friends.
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/058.sbt.html#005.058.234

That may or may not be.

Actually no. With the utmost respect, that's a cop out answer in a way. It either is or it isn't. If it was considered a no no for a 50 year old man to marry and have intercourse with a 9 year old girl when this was first laid down, then Burkari and Sahih Muslim would not have reported this in connection with their most esteemed leader. When this was first recorded it was not thought of as abhorrent. This at least can't be logically disputed.

CrazyRabbit · 31-07-2010 03:05PM

Arguing over this is pointless. Historians can't even agree about events that happened 10-15 years ago.

tommyboy2222 · 31-07-2010 03:05PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLMugygOhOY

steddyeddy · 31-07-2010 03:07PM

What do you think muslim extremists ill agree with you

(please dont hurt me)

Pittens · 31-07-2010 03:09PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually TBH I do as too often his historicity is taken as read. Objectively it's anything but. There are no Non Muslim sources for him or his life. None at all. Even those sources are not until 130 years after the date given as his death. Around the time some external sources come to light. They're not that helpful in pinning down the reality of him as they either make no mention of a religious mission and refer to him as a general in a localised Arab war or get his message wrong.

Well the Arabs were not very literate until Islam. And books can be lost. I tend to follow that wise priest Occam on this one; if he didnt exist who did? How did Islam evolve. How did people lie about the founder. Why did people lie? If the religions was set up by someone else why did he feel the need to make up someone named Mohammed? Why not take the credit?

With mohammed, regardless of how old the latest surviving Koran is , it is the clear historical record which surrounds him about when Arabs converted to Islam and invaded North Africa , at pretty much that time, which is the convincing evidence. With Christ it is the historical accuracy of the canoconical gospels ( pilate, herod etc.), and the clear architectural and historical evidence of Christian communities around the Levant in AD 40-50 on which pins stuff down.

Strange Loop · 31-07-2010 03:09PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Nope, Sahih Muslim as well http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muslim/008.smt.html#008.3309
And here:
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muslim/008.smt.html#008.3311
She was clearly very young as she is described as playing with dolls. A major no no for an adult woman.
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/073.sbt.html#008.073.151
In this one she is playing on swings with her friends.
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/058.sbt.html#005.058.234

Which he took from Bukhari.

Actually no. With the utmost respect, that's a cop out answer in a way. It either is or it isn't. If it was considered a no no for a 50 year old man to marry and have intercourse with a 9 year old girl when this was first laid down, then Burkari and Sahih Muslim would not have reported this in connection with their most esteemed leader. When this was first recorded it was not thought of as abhorrent. This at least can't be logically disputed.

It either is or isn't if you want to stick with Aristotolean logic, it either is, isn't or might be if you wish to apply Von Neumann's maybe logic and it either is, isn't, might be or meaningless if you apply Rappaport's 4-valued logic, and so on, logically speaking.

Pittens · 31-07-2010 03:16PM

Strange Loop wrote: »

Mmm. All the usual anti-muslim points included.

Read Christian scholar Karen Armstrong's history of Mohammad, 'Prophet of our time', for a different history (including the assertion that Aisha was around 18 at the time of her marriage).

Again, choose which history you choose to believe according to your prejudices.

Karen Armstrong is a total apologist. Aisha says she was 9 in the Hadith ( which is what counts for Islamic scholars).

It is what it is. Samuel Pepys married a 14 year old in the 16th century ( by which time marriage ages ahd increased).

I would judge this,by it's era, as non-problematic. He wasnt a pedophile by the standards then. The problem is that Mohammed's life informs the Hadith and therefore Islamic laws to this day.

gbee · 31-07-2010 03:20PM

kilburn wrote: »

Dont know what to say

We know that it was not uncommon in probably all societies around this time.

We know there was no difference made between any of the sex acts, ie, child/boy/girl/woman/man, whatever was you're fancy on that particular night.

Paedophilia came about from the slaughtering of the children by a Roman Emperor whose name I cannot recall.

His nightly routine included an orgy with young boys and girls. But that's not what brought the outrage, what did was he took to throwing these children off the parapets of his castle and killing them.

So our current outrage at paedophilia stems from a transference of horror from the deaths of the children to the acts with them.

Not uncommonly in our history this would have taken from about 300 to 600 years to have ingrained into society at large.

Pittens · 31-07-2010 03:24PM

gbee wrote: »

We know that it was not uncommon in probably all societies around this time.

We know there was no difference made between any of the sex acts, ie, child/boy/girl/woman/man, whatever was you're fancy on that particular night.

Paedophilia came about from the slaughtering of the children by a Roman Emperor whose name I cannot recall. His nightly routine included an orgy with young boys and girls.

But that's not what brought the outrage, what did was he took to throwing these children off the parapets of his castle and killing them.

So our current outrage at paedophilia stems from a transference of horror from the deaths of the children to the acts with them.

Not uncommonly in our history this would have taken from about 300 to 600 years to have ingrained into society at large.

Are you saying that the horror towards Paedophilia came about then? just because of the killings? And that otherwise we would be ok with, were it not for this obscure Roman emperor whose name you forget, but nevertheless informed our views in 2010?

( As for the last sentence - makes no sense. The Roman Empire was thousands of years ago, and people married young 300-600 years ago).

Wibbs · 31-07-2010 03:35PM

Strange Loop wrote: »

Aren't we all?

Well speaking for myself anyway, I got interested many many moons ago in the various world faiths and their origins. That post adolescent Quo vadis? kinda thing

So I read up a fair bit on all of them. Islam being the 2nd largest peaked my interest, not least because it was similar to the Christian tradition I grew up in but didnt follow, so there were existing points of reference. Certainly when I started looking at this stuff 20 years ago, the Islamaphobia thing was a lot less on the radar. My first recollection of it was the salman rushdie fatwa etc, but at the time that was more "those iranian mad mullahs" rather than Islam. Indeed at the same time the west was full of praise for the afghani mujahaddin and watched their exploits against the "nasty" USSR on the daily news. The same mujahaddin that are now villified. Funny how things pan out.... Humans eh?:rolleyes:

So I read the Quran(or Koran as it was then). TBH I found it quite a dense read(in the sense of complexity and confusion not stupidity).It reminded me of a rejig of the Christian vibe, though from an old testament fire and brimstone god(from my perspective of course). I found it quite a bit more martial. When I read the two main hadith I found it very much more martial and political. As much a political thing and way of life as a faith. It's attitude and references to war and slavery certainly jarred with me. The faith founder also jarred with me.

deravarra · 31-07-2010 03:40PM

Pittens wrote: »

Aisha says she was 9 in the Hadith ( which is what counts for Islamic scholars).

I'm not altogether sure you understand what the Hadith are.

Your statement there gives the impression that you dont.

The Hadith are collections of narratives. the authenticity of the hadith refers to how authentic the collection is - not the authenticity of the "facts" within.

The story of Aisha's age was given by an elderly Iraqi - I dont have the direct link for this right now .. and his account of her age has been disputed - not just in recent times, but over a long period of time.

It's just a pity that people who are blatant Islamophobes will take this one piece from a Hadith and be inclined to believe it - so they can label Muhammed as a paedophile, and thus disgard the whole of Islam as being tolerant of paedophilia.

Just a little thought to leave you with then ... If, as some here suggest, Muhammed was a paedophile, and we muslims are supposed to be following Muhammed as an example for how we live our lives, why isnt there a lot more paedophilia within Islam?

I'd be interested in hearing genuine and considered thoughts, and not the throwaway and ill thought comments I have seen so far.

gbee · 31-07-2010 03:45PM

Pittens wrote: »

Are you saying that the horror towards Paedophilia came about then? just because of the killings? And that otherwise we would be ok with, were it not for this obscure Roman emperor whose name you forget, but nevertheless informed our views in 2010?

( As for the last sentence - makes no sense. The Roman Empire was thousands of years ago, and people married young 300-600 years ago).

The point is people were NOT horrified by what we call paedophilia [today]. They were horrified over the children's deaths. The children were killed by a paedophile. Over time people became horrified about paedophilia.

You can't draw any other references. After all, if the Catholic Church had not gone corrupt in the early years, we might not have Islam today and this particular discussion about Mohammed.

As for that last sentence, say the offence occurred in 69BC then it would have been increasingly objectionable from then on and probably accepted as the norm [for it to be objectionable] from around the sixth seventh century.

As recently as the 1960 in Western USA it was still legal to marry a 12 year old girl.

Strange Loop · 31-07-2010 03:55PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Well speaking for myself anyway, I got interested many many moons ago in the various world faiths and their origins. That post adolescent Quo vadis? kinda thing So I read up a fair bit on all of them. Islam being the 2nd largest peaked my interest, not least because it was similar to the Christian tradition I grew up in but didnt follow, so there were existing points of reference. Certainly when I started looking at this stuff 20 years ago, the Islamaphobia thing was a lot less on the radar. My first recollection of it was the salman rushdie fatwa etc, but at the time that was more "those iranian mad mullahs" rather than Islam. Indeed at the same time the west was full of praise for the afghani mujahaddin and watched their exploits against the "nasty" USSR on the daily news. The same mujahaddin that are now villified. Funny how things pan out.... Humans eh?:rolleyes:

So I read the Quran(or Koran as it was then). TBH I found it quite a dense read(in the sense of complexity and confusion not stupidity).It reminded me of a rejig of the Christian vibe, though from an old testament fire and brimstone god(from my perspective of course). I found it quite a bit more martial. When I read the two main hadith I found it very much more martial and political. As much a political thing and way of life as a faith. It's attitude and references to war and slavery certainly jarred with me. The faith founder also jarred with me.

Fair enough. There is as much, in my eyes, wrong with Islam as there is with the other Abrahamic religions, and most religions for that matter.

My agenda, which may be a familiar one, is trying to ensure that not all Muslims are tarred with the same brush, either by the actions of the extremists, traditionalists or from the 'facts' of history.

Iran in 2002 raised the age of consent from 9 to 13 for girls and whilst still a little low for my taste, it's a step in the right direction and I hope other countries such as Yemen can be persuaded to follow suit.

gbee · 31-07-2010 03:57PM

deravarra wrote: »

I'd be interested in hearing genuine and considered thoughts, and not the throwaway and ill thought comments I have seen so far.

I don't know how we'd go about that. You do raise a good question and you are probably familiar with the revelations about the Roman Catholic Church on this very issue, within the Church itself.

It's a point, but then the RCC denied vehemently any wrongdoing: It has not to occurred to me to reference religion and crime, it would be well beyond me to do so anyway.

Wibbs · 31-07-2010 03:58PM

Pittens wrote: »

Well the Arabs were not very literate until Islam. And books can be lost. I tend to follow that wise priest Occam on this one; if he didnt exist who did? How did Islam evolve. How did people lie about the founder. Why did people lie? If the religions was set up by someone else why did he feel the need to make up someone named Mohammed? Why not take the credit?

It could well have happened thus: A new take on the Christian faith becomes locally popular. Possibly one of the earlier sects who considered the holy trinity/jesus was god thing bogus and there were plenty of them in that area of the world. War for resources kicks of, a general by that name makes a name for himself in prosecuting that war and the new faith is attached to him. There could have been two "Muhammads".The religious and the martial. That might explain why there is a gear shift in attitude after Mecca. And might explain why the first non Islamic source mentions him as a warrior and makes no mention of his religion, or the book of his religion.

The existing writings of various religious types in the sect is codified and becomes the Quran as the new faiths empire starts to build. Many cultures have their epic that in some way defines them and bonds them together. It can be a fable or it can be religious in nature or both. The greeks had the Iliad, the romans, the Aeneid, the Jews the Torah etc. The above is conjecture, but it also fits quite well.

With mohammed, regardless of how old the latest surviving Koran is , it is the clear historical record which surrounds him about when Arabs converted to Islam and invaded North Africa , at pretty much that time, which is the convincing evidence.

I would disagree, as the record is niether clear nor particularly historical. It's separated by at least 100 years from the time of his recorded death, when no one alive when he was was around. The oral tradition would certainly have drifted significantly by then(though I would have more faith in oral transmission than most).

With Christ it is the historical accuracy of the canoconical gospels ( pilate, herod etc.), and the clear architectural and historical evidence of Christian communities around the Levant in AD 40-50 on which pins stuff down.

Again the accuracy is very easily argued against. The early christians and their writings do tie it down much more, especially as they knew people who actually new the primary character.

Strange Loop wrote: »

Wibbs wrote: »

It either is or isn't if you want to stick with Aristotolean logic, it either is, isn't or might be if you wish to apply Von Neumann's maybe logic and it either is, isn't, might be or meaningless if you apply Rappaport's 4-valued logic, and so on, logically speaking.

Nope, sorry that's just getting into unnecessary navel gazing on the nature of what is or isnt. We could all do that and just say "meh it could be anything" which doesnt get us very far. I'll stick with the Greek lad with a side order of the Hungarian lad on this one thanks.

Muhammad = Best example of a Muslim. Bukhari = learned Muslim 200 years later. It's logical to assume that he was a learned and respected transmitter of the faith and its founder, or it's likely his thinking and sayings would have been ignored or attacked by his Muslim audience. Hardly written down anyway. Bukhari and by association his audience saw nothing wrong with his assertion that Muhammad married a young girl. Therefore for him and his audience this was accepted and an accepted practice. At the time anyway. Of Muhammads thoughts on this we can't know.

Wibbs · 31-07-2010 04:03PM

deravarra wrote: »

Just a little thought to leave you with then ... If, as some here suggest, Muhammed was a paedophile, and we muslims are supposed to be following Muhammed as an example for how we live our lives, why isnt there a lot more paedophilia within Islam?

I agree. I always separate the individuals from their faith. Of any kind. Both in good ways as well as bad. Indeed one can look at another area of Islam and Muhammad. Slavery. The vast vast majority of Muslims would consider the practice immoral and plainly wrong, yet Muhammad had slaves and so did his followers. Like I said in the other recent thread, it's a pity too few Christians and Buddhists follow their faith founders words and deeds, but in a few areas it's a blessing that fewer Muslims follow theirs.

Strange Loop · 31-07-2010 04:06PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Nope, sorry that's just getting into unnecessary navel gazing on the nature of what is or isnt. We could all do that and just say "meh it could be anything" which doesnt get us very far. I'll stick with the Greek lad with a side order of the Hungarian lad on this one thanks.

Why not, if it suits.

Muhammad = Best example of a Muslim. Bukhari = learned Muslim 200 years later. It's logical to assume that he was a learned and respected transmitter of the faith and its founder, or it's likely his thinking and sayings would have been ignored or attacked by his Muslim audience. Hardly written down anyway. Bukhari and by association his audience saw nothing wrong with his assertion that Muhammad married a young girl. Therefore for him and his audience this was accepted and an accepted practice. At the time anyway. Of Muhammads thoughts on this we can't know.

Ok, if you want to go at it logically.
Mohammad had 11 wives, whose ages ranged from 17 upwards, with the exception of Aisha.

So, 91% of wives over 17, 9% of wives pre-pubescent, a factor of 10 to 1.

If Mohammad was a paedophile and if it was an acceptable cultural practice at the time, why didn't he indulge in it more often?

The Highwayman · 31-07-2010 04:30PM

deravarra wrote: »

I'm not altogether sure you understand what the Hadith are.

Your statement there gives the impression that you dont.

The Hadith are collections of narratives. the authenticity of the hadith refers to how authentic the collection is - not the authenticity of the "facts" within.

The story of Aisha's age was given by an elderly Iraqi - I dont have the direct link for this right now .. and his account of her age has been disputed - not just in recent times, but over a long period of time.

It's just a pity that people who are blatant Islamophobes will take this one piece from a Hadith and be inclined to believe it - so they can label Muhammed as a paedophile, and thus disgard the whole of Islam as being tolerant of paedophilia.

Just a little thought to leave you with then ... If, as some here suggest, Muhammed was a paedophile, and we muslims are supposed to be following Muhammed as an example for how we live our lives, why isnt there a lot more paedophilia within Islam?

I'd be interested in hearing genuine and considered thoughts, and not the throwaway and ill thought comments I have seen so far.

If the Hadith's are to be discounted as you say why do Iman's and Islam in general use them when it suits them?
Many more, dare I say learnered men than I and I would guess you also use the Hadith's to explain the Quran

gbee · 31-07-2010 04:34PM

Wibbs wrote: »

It could well have happened thus: A new take on the Christian faith becomes locally popular. ,,, There could have been two "Muhammads".The religious and the martial.

I've often been shot down for this same conjecture, but it does fit well. Another element was the disillusionment with the RCC, which many pre-Muslims had joined.

Pittens · 31-07-2010 04:35PM

deravarra wrote: »

I'm not altogether sure you understand what the Hadith are.

Your statement there gives the impression that you dont.

I do. It doesn't

The Hadith are collections of narratives. the authenticity of the hadith refers to how authentic the collection is - not the authenticity of the "facts" within.

Quite.

The story of Aisha's age was given by an elderly Iraqi - I dont have the direct link for this right now .. and his account of her age has been disputed - not just in recent times, but over a long period of time.

It is in a Hadith. She says she was 9 years of age. If there are disputes as to the authenticity of that particular hadith in Islamic circles that is up to them, it is clearly not up to westerners.

i particularly said he wasn't - by the standard of the day - a pedophile. So my answer to the thread title is :no, he wasn't. ( Historically if you wait until menses you aren't anyway).

By modern standards he is though, and regardless of what you or Karen Armstrong think, plenty of Islamic Scholars based on that Hadith believe that marriage at 9 is ok.

The funny thing here is that you "anti-Islamophobes" want to make her 18 precisely because it suits your particular modern western world view of what is right. Yet, I am pretty sure I would not be accused of Islamophobia ( yawn) in Islamic countries, or talking to Islamic scholars who accept that verse. The conversation would be

me: Aisha was 9.
them: Yes she was.

You want to embrace islam by denying that there are any difference between it and western modernity. Which is nonsense. The verse exists, in dispute or not, and plenty of Islamic scholars accept both it's veracity and its application to modern morals. Thats the issue.

Wibbs · 31-07-2010 04:39PM

Strange Loop wrote: »

Ok, if you want to go at it logically.
Mohammad had 11 wives, whose ages ranged from 17 upwards, with the exception of Aisha.

So, 91% of wives over 17, 9% under 17, a factor of 10 to 1.

If Mohammad was a paedophile and if it was an acceptable cultural practice at the time, why didn't he indulge in it more often?

With respect your logic is faulty and aimed at the wrong thing. For a start we're assuming the records of their ages is correct, but we'll leave that one alone. Lets say he was one(which I dont by the way), Whether he was married or not to anyone else has little or no bearing on the issue. There are many examples of priests who are unmarried who were/are paedophiles. Anyway if we use your argument with a crime like murder. EG Joe knows 200 people and has never lifted a finger in aggression to any of them, he murders someone else. Just one. By your logic he's not a murderer. Ok he's not a mass murderer but he is still a murderer.

In any case it still goes nowhere near negating my case. IE that the culture of the Islamic world 200 years after its foundation didnt see anything out of sorts with the idea that the founder of that faith married a 9 year old girl(whether in actuality he did or not). Better luck next time Im afraid.

deravarra · 31-07-2010 04:39PM

The Highwayman wrote: »

Many more, dare I say learnered men than I and I would guess you also use the Hadith's to explain the Quran

Again, you have shown you dont understand the Hadith

Hadith are not used to explain the Qur'an. The Qur'an stands by itself and alone. It is the word of God as handed to Muhammed.

The Hadith are a collection of narratives on the life and works of Muhammed.

gbee · 31-07-2010 04:41PM

Strange Loop wrote: »

, why didn't he indulge in it more often?

A very strange question, IMO. Maybe he did not like children, wasn't he technically married to her even earlier and waited until she was 9 [according to the story].

Wasn't she some sort of gift, rejection of same would be insulting. We do have some African cultures who's Chief would give one of his wives to visiting men, if nothing happened between the visitor and the Chief's wife, she would be lashed to death and fed to the dogs.

The visitor might end up as dinner.

Wibbs · 31-07-2010 04:45PM

gbee wrote: »

A very strange question, IMO. Maybe he did not like children, wasn't he technically married to her even earlier and waited until she was 9 [according to the story].

Exactly. He wasnt a paedophile. By our cultural notions(and that of most modern educated Muslims) he was sailing way too close to the wind, but in many earlier cultures including our own, a woman's childhood ended when she started to menstruate. She was not a child to their eyes. As you say if he was into children he wouldnt have waited.

If Mohammed had sex with his 9 year old wife does that make him a pedophile?

Comments