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

Strange Loop · 31-07-2010 03:54PM

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

Again one's application of logic and one's reading of others logic can be persuaded by their personal outlook.

The whole argument about Mohammads supposed paedophilia is based on the assumption that Aisha's age is correct so why stop assuming for the purpose of this exercise in logic?

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

So, it's illogical to assume that if a man fancies children, and if the culture which surrounds him allows marriage to children, that he won't therefore marry more children?

It's surprising to me that he wouldn't, if it's allowed and that's his thing.

. 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.

Hardly. If one witness (the iraqi source for Bukhari) puts him at the scene of the crime then this evidence would go against him. If another witness (modern-day historians) provided an alibi, I'd start to doubt the case against our Joe, before even taking his predilections into account.

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).

Well, the thing is I'm arguing whether or not Mohammad was a paedophile, while you're arguing according to your own agenda.
We're not actually in conflict as regards that, so if my ideas aren't negating your argument as concerning modern islamic culture, it doesn't come as a surprise to me.

Better luck next time Im afraid

:cool:

baltimore sun · 31-07-2010 03:54PM

Strange Loop wrote: »

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.

ah well that's just fine then isn't it????:eek:

Strange Loop · 31-07-2010 03:58PM

baltimore sun wrote: »

ah well that's just fine then isn't it????:eek:

It's as high as Spain's

/thread against all Christians?

wonton · 31-07-2010 04:00PM

im not sure in anyone mention this but the age of consent in saudi arabia is actually nine

Fart · 31-07-2010 04:18PM

What was the moral defining question in my college 2 years ago?

Oh yeah: Would you fcuk a man or an eleven year old girl?

Jahsus we got some looks.

Fart · 31-07-2010 04:19PM

wonton wrote: »

im not sure in anyone mention this but the age of consent in saudi arabia is actually nine

Or more like: Your age divided by 9.

The Highwayman · 31-07-2010 04:20PM

Fart wrote: »

What was the moral defining question in my college 2 years ago?

Oh yeah: Would you fcuk a man or an eleven year old girl?

Jahsus we got some looks.

Well?

What was your answer?

Fart · 31-07-2010 04:20PM

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

Maybe thats where the saying "If there's hair on the muff, she's old enough" came from.

Fart · 31-07-2010 04:21PM

The Highwayman wrote: »

Well?

:pac:

gbee · 31-07-2010 04:23PM

Fart wrote: »

Maybe thats where the saying "If .

Crude and gross, I'd appreciate removing it please.

Fart · 31-07-2010 04:25PM

gbee wrote: »

Crude and gross, I'd appreciate removing it please.

You obviously never grew up then.

caseyann · 31-07-2010 05:08PM

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

He didnt take his time either :pac:

enfant terrible · 31-07-2010 05:21PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Funny enough not really. Though it seems its more accepted, almost a given that he was a real life figure than say Jesus or Moses, the actual evidence is pretty slim.

I thought is was widely accepted Jesus was a historical figure among virtually all historians.

"While scholars often draw a distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith (and debate what specifics can be known concerning his character and ministry) essentially all historians believe that the existence of Jesus as a historical figure can be established using documentary and other evidence."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#cite_note-0

Terry · 31-07-2010 05:26PM

Strange Loop wrote: »

Convince those people of what?

Are you really suggesting I travel to Yemen to convince the men there to change their customs or is it just your way of asking the lone detractor to fuck off out of the thread?

The latter.
If I wanted you to **** off out of the thread, I'd politely ask you.
not that you would listen to me, but it would be worth a try.

Strange Loop wrote: »

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.

I don't think anyone here (well, not too many people anyway) is tarring all Muslims with the one brush.

Strange Loop wrote: »

Why not, if it suits.

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?

Are the ages of his female slaves mentioned?

wonton wrote: »

im not sure in anyone mention this but the age of consent in saudi arabia is actually nine

Don't worry. We'll get them when the oil runs out, or when Haliburton acquire a conscience. Most likely the former.

alex73 · 31-07-2010 05:26PM

Well the Guy had 9 wifes.. so for sure he was not cold in bed.

Strange Loop · 31-07-2010 05:36PM

Terry wrote: »

The latter.

The latter would be the one where I fuck off out of the thread.

If I wanted you to **** off out of the thread, I'd politely ask you.
not that you would listen to me, but it would be worth a try.

And why would it be worth a try?

I don't think anyone here (well, not too many people anyway) is tarring all Muslims with the one brush.

QFT

Are the ages of his female slaves mentioned?

No idea. How many did he marry? Do you know their ages?

Wibbs · 31-07-2010 06:17PM

Strange Loop wrote: »

Again one's application of logic and one's reading of others logic can be persuaded by their personal outlook.

Well maybe I'm not coming across with my standpoint. My outlook is he wasnt a paedophile and would only be seen as one through modern eyes. That this like slavery the rest of the world(inc most Muslims) have moved beyond and that his example is a bad one and thankfully one not followed by the majority of Muslims.

So, it's illogical to assume that if a man fancies children, and if the culture which surrounds him allows marriage to children, that he won't therefore marry more children?

It's surprising to me that he wouldn't, if it's allowed and that's his thing.

Possibly, but he clearly wasnt into prepubescent children as he didnt do anything until she was nine the point is kinda moot. This is actually a separate issue to the one of child brides.

Hardly. If one witness (the iraqi source for Bukhari) puts him at the scene of the crime then this evidence would go against him. If another witness (modern-day historians) provided an alibi, I'd start to doubt the case against our Joe, before even taking his predilections into account.

Again slightly beside the point. This "one witness" and his opinion of the man and his actions was accepted by his peers and audience enough that it wasnt challenged and further scholars/historians/theologians of the time and after accepted it enough to include it in their own hadith. This means that in that culture at that time(200 years after) the idea of a 50 year old man marrying a 9 year old was acceptable to them. Later scholars may have pinned her age don in another way, but the earliest collectors of the stories of his life were happy with that story. I'm quite sure if she had been 6 it wouldnt have been as in their eyes she would not have been a woman. It's not to our eyes as clearly she would not be.

Well, the thing is I'm arguing whether or not Mohammad was a paedophile, while you're arguing according to your own agenda.

I'm arguing an entirely diifferent thing and have been doing so for the last few pages. IE Islam in its first few hundred years did not have a problem with what we call child brides and that the father of the faith would not be frowned upon for marrying and having sex with a 9 year old. I can't see where your difficulty in seeing this is coming from.

enfant terrible wrote: »

I thought is was widely accepted Jesus was a historical figure among virtually all historians.

"While scholars often draw a distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith (and debate what specifics can be known concerning his character and ministry) essentially all historians believe that the existence of Jesus as a historical figure can be established using documentary and other evidence."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#cite_note-0

It is. Now you still get proponents of the idea that he was a fictitious figure. It was popular in the 1970's and seems to hold some weight even today among some atheists, but yep it's considered to be wrong. What I have found interesting about this theory and its followers is that they rarely apply the same critical analysis to the Muhammad story (or the Quran). Indeed they usually take it as read. Google the christ myth or anything like that and try and find any reference to the lack of independent and even contemporary historical evidence for Muhammad. There isnt any. In both cases. Muhammad is much more a "myth" as far as history is concerned. Every single facet of his life is recorded at least 100 years after the date given of his death. Even many of the places and names he is associated with have no contemporary sources. Mecca the classic example. The wiki page waxes lyrical about the history of the place, but not a single mention of it exists before Islam makes it's presence felt. Ptolemy may have mentioned it but its a big stretch. The first mention is again 100 years after.

Now the chances are high Muhammad existed in some form, but anything more than that and its down to faith.

Strange Loop · 31-07-2010 07:41PM

Wibbs wrote: »

That this like slavery the rest of the world(inc most Muslims) have moved beyond and that his example is a bad one and thankfully one not followed by the majority of Muslims.

Agreed.

This means that in that culture at that time(200 years after) the idea of a 50 year old man marrying a 9 year old was acceptable to them. Later scholars may have pinned her age don in another way, but the earliest collectors of the stories of his life were happy with that story. I'm quite sure if she had been 6 it wouldnt have been as in their eyes she would not have been a woman. It's not to our eyes as clearly she would not be.

Agreed.

I'm arguing an entirely diifferent thing and have been doing so for the last few pages. IE Islam in its first few hundred years did not have a problem with what we call child brides and that the father of the faith would not be frowned upon for marrying and having sex with a 9 year old.

Agreed.

I can't see where your difficulty in seeing this is coming from.

I've no difficulty with your argument at all, so much so I haven't disputed that point once in this thread (if you can point out where I have, I'll stand corrected and apologise).

My argument has been entirely whether or not Muhammad was a paedophile (with a slight tangent on how that reflects on other muslims).

Agent Smith · 31-07-2010 07:43PM

old_aussie wrote: »

Looks like all here(AH) are trying to force western values on islamic countries.
Beware that a jihad will be launched against all and sundry.

In islam it's seems likw it's the thing to do......

The sad case of Elham Assi, a 13-year old Yemeni girl who died from internal hemorrhaging after being raped by her 23-year-old husband, has certainly sparked conversation in Yemen over the longstanding practice of child marriage. But the conversations -- taking place everywhere from Sanaa kitchens to the parliament building -- aren't exactly what you'd expect.

Instead of addressing the question of children's rights in a country where a quarter of all girls are married before they're 15 and half before they're 18, some Yemenis are treating Elham Assi's death as a rallying point against the so-called imposition of a Western agenda. Instead of catalyzing protective legislation for children in Yemen, as the tragic 1911 Triangle Factory fire did for industrial laborers in the United States, her death may actually make it more likely that others will share her fate.

More...

In February 2009, parliament approved a bill to raise the marriage age to 18 years old, causing an immediate furor in the Islamist community, which denounced the legislation as un-Islamic. The September 2009 death of a 12-year-old-girl in childbirth once again drove home the importance of this issue. However, the bill has since languished while a parliamentary subcommittee decides whether or not it's in accordance with sharia law. The subcommittee's decision is scheduled for May.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/04/30/yemens_child_bride_backlash

Yet another reason that place needs to be Nuked back to the stone age

Coriolanus · 31-07-2010 08:05PM

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?

Technically, he was only a pedophile if he found himself sexually attracted to her. For all we know, he was thinking of her more nubile, 18 year old sister to get himself hard.

Just sayin.

bnt · 31-07-2010 08:13PM

The historicity of Jesus is all very well, but what I often see is people confusing two separate questions:

the existence of someone named Jesus about 2000 years ago, someone who became a leader of some sort - or at least had followers
the supernatural miracles that are claimed on behalf of this Jesus

#2 does not automatically follow from #1. If you could prove that Jesus existed, then you'd be proving ... that Jesus existed.

Anyway, if I may get back on topic for a minute: I think it helps to remember that there are two different forms of female maturity involved, when we ask whether it's OK to marry a girl: physical maturity and intellectual maturity. In ye olde days, obviously, the emphasis was on physical maturity i.e. puberty, with only basic requirements for intellectual maturity. It's not just Islam, either: in Judaism, a girl can undergo a Bat Mitzvah at age 12, and is then legally permitted to marry under Judaic law. (Boys get the Bar Mitzvah at 13.) Marriage in the Catholic Church works almost the same way after Confirmation, but with additional rules allowing girls to marry at 14 and boys at 16 (ref).

So why don't we see Jewish girls getting married at 12 and Catholic girls at 14? Because both Judaism and Catholicism are happy to follow the secular rules of the country, which take account of the need for education of both boys and girls. You don't need education to become a mother or a father, or to take care of a baby in a traditional extended family. You do need education to achieve a decent measure of intellectual maturity.

Which makes the idea of sex with a 9-year-old doubly horrific. A 9-year-old has neither the physical nor the intellectual maturity to deal with it properly. Then, just to add insult to injury, some Muslims do not accept the secular rules that bar marriage until the girl is much older and more intellectually mature. It's a blatant refusal to accept the current reality - that times have changed, that now real adulthood starts many years after puberty. If you think that puberty is a sufficient condition for sex and motherhood, you think women are like animals, of interest only for their bodies and not their minds.

Apologies if all this has been said before. No apologies if you find any of it offensive.

gbee · 31-07-2010 08:44PM

bnt wrote: »

If you think that puberty is a sufficient condition for sex and motherhood, you think women are like animals,

How dare you! Your post was fine up to the point that you make assumptions like this, it's like a line from the pornography thread.

I don't think, it's something that happened, and still happens, though no longer considered correct by modern standards.

But, even if I did, there is no way you can tell me I think women are like animals.

You'd want to work on that line. There is legislation.

deravarra · 31-07-2010 08:58PM

Agent Smith wrote: »

Yet another reason that place needs to be Nuked back to the stone age

What a lovely post from a Mod!

The Highwayman · 31-07-2010 09:00PM

gbee wrote: »

How dare you! Your post was fine up to the point that you make assumptions like this, it's like a line from the pornography thread.

I don't think, it's something that happened, and still happens, though no longer considered correct by modern standards.

But, even if I did, there is no way you can tell me I think women are like animals.

You'd want to work on that line. There is legislation.

First, I think you should look at what pornography is your outrage is misplaced and you may need to read the post again.

Second, It did happen, It does happen, if you look at states like Saudi and Yemen brides of 9 years old still happens today.

Third, If you are a man of 53 and you want to marry a 9 year old its not for indepth talk about geopolitics and the credit crunch now is it?

What legislation are you moaning about?

The Highwayman · 31-07-2010 09:12PM

deravarra wrote: »

What a lovely post from a Mod!

I think in the Quran it says the non believer(me) either I convert or I'll be killed
So whats the difference?

Sura 5:51: “O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he among you that turns to them for friendship is of them.” This friendship makes any Muslim a enemy of their own and deserving of the same fate as the unbeliever. This is because God does not guide an unjust people.

9.123 “O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you”

To participate in Jihad in Allah's cause” (Al Bukhari vol. 1:25)

And so on.....

deravarra · 31-07-2010 09:17PM

The Highwayman wrote: »

I think in the Quran it says the non believer(me) either I convert or I'll be killed
So whats the difference?

Sura 5:51: “O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he among you that turns to them for friendship is of them.” This friendship makes any Muslim a enemy of their own and deserving of the same fate as the unbeliever. This is because God does not guide an unjust people.

9.123 “O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you”

To participate in Jihad in Allah's cause” (Al Bukhari vol. 1:25)

And so on.....

Not at all, but you've done a wonderful job in misinforming yourself.

Tell me, where did you find those quotes? And dont say from the Qur'an

enfant terrible · 31-07-2010 09:26PM

bnt wrote: »

The historicity of Jesus is all very well, but what I often see is people confusing two separate questions:

Well we were just discussing the historicity of Jesus not the other one.

The Highwayman · 31-07-2010 09:49PM

deravarra wrote: »

Not at all, but you've done a wonderful job in misinforming yourself.

Tell me, where did you find those quotes? And dont say from the Qur'an

OMG I must have been dreaming about all the Jihad's against the non muslims
Now it all makes sense DOOH stupid me!

So are we all going to get along holding hands and singing songs? I've been looking through some of the threads in Islam. Some of the posters like 'IrishMuzzie' were telling it like it is. You might not be very extreme in your views but there are many who are. The ones who don't let women vote, be in a room with a man who is not a relative alone, drive a car, force them to wear a burka(yes force) and marry 9 year old children.
Am I misinformed about that?

thetonynator · 31-07-2010 09:57PM

I haven't read the whole thread, but isn't it spelt paedo in ireland? Not being a spelling/grammer nazi, but i thought it was paedophile. . .

deravarra · 31-07-2010 09:59PM

The Highwayman wrote: »

OMG I must have been dreaming about all the Jihad's against the non muslims
Now it all makes sense DOOH stupid me!

So are we all going to get along holding hands and singing songs? I've been looking through some of the threads in Islam. Some of the posters like 'IrishMuzzie' were telling it like it is. You might not be very extreme in your views but there are many who are. The ones who don't let women vote, be in a room with a man who is not a relative alone, drive a car, force them to wear a burka(yes force) and marry 9 year old children.
Am I misinformed about that?

I asked if you could tell me where you got the quote ...

Now, getting back to this posting of yours ... I'm quite sure we could sit and chat about how Fred Phelps and his views espouse the christian ideal. Just because he says so, it doesnt make it so.

Rather than feed yourself with misinformation, I would much rather see that you got a good grounding in the basics of Islam, and then you could contribute from an informed perspective.

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

Comments