# Converting to Islam - the white Britons becoming Muslims



## Black Wraith (Jan 4, 2011)

> As 22-year-old Aisha Uddin recites Surah Al-Fatiha - the first chapter of the Koran - at home with close friend Sameeah Karim, she may stumble over one word but otherwise the text is perfectly recounted.
> 
> Click to play
> 
> ...


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12075931


----------



## Mael (Jan 4, 2011)

Just wait until she sees the wonders of sharia.


----------



## Hi Im God (Jan 4, 2011)

Slow news day.


----------



## Juno (Jan 4, 2011)

Getting to dress like a ninja all the time is a pretty tempting offer.


----------



## zuul (Jan 4, 2011)

LOL followers. 

As if one needed religion to be a good person (the empathy normal people possesses is sufficient enough), and see that capitalism and materialism suck ass.


----------



## N120 (Jan 4, 2011)

It's always good to see more brother and sisters enter the deen, but that's been happening for a while now so im not sure why this has made it into the news. There's a huge number of reverts especially in london and around where i live.


----------



## Ƶero (Jan 4, 2011)

Unsurprising but still awesome.


----------



## impersonal (Jan 4, 2011)

Converts are often the most hardcore and intolerant muslims. They're more likely to become terrorists than people who grew up within a culture that moderates the strict interpretation of the qur'an. So I wouldn't insist about how converts are going to be a bridge between cultures. 

Anyway, if it suits her, why not. I just hope she is not turning into a woman-slave of some sort. Sorry for the clichés - I'm just not as enthusiastic as the author of the article.


----------



## Garfield (Jan 4, 2011)

impersonal said:


> Converts are often the most hardcore and intolerant muslims. They're more likely to become terrorists than people who grew up within a culture that moderates the strict interpretation of the qur'an.


They are apparently often the most stupid and inconsequential terrorists


----------



## Mael (Jan 4, 2011)

impersonal said:


> Converts are often the most hardcore and intolerant muslims. They're more likely to become terrorists than people who grew up within a culture that moderates the strict interpretation of the qur'an.



I remember during my stint with the DIA working on an investigative case with the German Polizei on five suspected individuals garnering materials, particularly Hydrogen Peroxide, for explosives to use on US military installations.  Guess what?  Three of the five were recent converts to Islam.  When I left the DIA in 2007, they were arrested and made headlines only two months afterwards.  Other cases worked on also involved recent European converts.

This shouldn't be taken as a blanketing statement, but impersonal is certainly not in the wrong here.  Recent converts typically mean fresh meat for those chaps people read about in Lutton.


----------



## Valtieri (Jan 4, 2011)

Personally I think all religion is rubbish, but if other people want to convert to another religion it's up to them. 
That girls family giving her a hard time was sad, although I kind of understand their confusion.


----------



## Zaru (Jan 4, 2011)

"Aisha"? What's with the "renaming yourself to generic names" crap all the converts are pulling?


----------



## Ƶero (Jan 4, 2011)

impersonal said:


> Converts are often the most hardcore and intolerant muslims. They're more likely to become terrorists than people who grew up within a culture that moderates the strict interpretation of the qur'an.



Do you have anything to back up such a claim ?
I have seen plenty of converts who are anything but 'terrorists'.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Jan 4, 2011)

Zaru said:


> "Aisha"? What's with the "renaming yourself to generic names" crap all the converts are pulling?



Being a white muslim is bad enough?

Also I find it a bit silly that when advertising Islam and explaining why they converted to Islam it's always "Well I find it sort of spiritual and fulfilling" and never "I was convinced that Allah exists as described by the Koran so converting was the only logical way forward." It seems like a stupid way to answer the question "Where did we all come from and where are we going?"


----------



## Coteaz (Jan 4, 2011)

More meat for the grinder.


----------



## sadated_peon (Jan 4, 2011)

Converting for your spouse is pretty common, I know a few people who became Jewish, and one who became catholic. 

We just see it mainly in women for Muslim conversion because of the sexist xenophobic attitude that Muslims have toward Muslim women dating non-muslim men.


----------



## N120 (Jan 4, 2011)

Some of these responces are just... :rofl


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Jan 4, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> Converting for your spouse is pretty common, I now a few people who became Jewish, and one who became catholic.
> 
> We just see it mainly in women for Muslim conversion because of the sexist xenophobic attitude that Muslims have toward Muslims women dating non-muslim men.



This is pretty accurate.

I've seen shortage of US sitcoms where a dude is getting his junk cut up to please a Jewish fianc?e.


----------



## Mael (Jan 4, 2011)

The Pink Ninja said:


> This is pretty accurate.
> 
> I've seen shortage of US sitcoms where a dude is getting his junk cut up to please a Jewish fianc?e.



I've seen similar situations of non-Catholics "converting" just to marry in the church...which is still silly if you ask me (the ruling).


----------



## zuul (Jan 4, 2011)

If the person cannot stand my godlessness, then I wouldn't waste my time with him/her.

I would never do such a thing as a conversion just to please my significant other. Those guenuine converts are actually a lot more respectable even if I have been raised into looking down on religiosity.

They do their own thing instead of being like a good submissive obedient dog to their BF/GF.


----------



## mister_manji (Jan 4, 2011)

I will watch with glee as the British nanny-state collapses under the conversion of its people to Islam.


----------



## Dionysus (Jan 4, 2011)

Nice troll thread


----------



## Al-Yasa (Jan 4, 2011)

*Masha'Allah

but why is this news?
*


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Jan 4, 2011)

Doesn't surprise me. The pressure put on women... glad I'm not one.  Eating like a bird, makeup, hair, moisturizers, mud masks or whatever, etc. No wonder some are drawn to a system where they don't have to worry about it.


----------



## Mael (Jan 4, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> Doesn't surprise me. The pressure put on women... glad I'm not one.  Eating like a bird, makeup, hair, moisturizers, mud masks or whatever, etc. No wonder some are drawn to a system where they don't have to worry about it.



They'd have bigger things to worry about, like maintaining honor lest they face death.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Jan 4, 2011)

Mael said:


> They'd have bigger things to worry about, like maintaining honor lest they face death.



I read a separate article about women in Britain converting to Islam. They tend to be somewhat liberal from the way the article portrayed it. 

I don't imagine honor killings portray most Muslims anymore than exorcisms on children with mental disorders portrays most Christians.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Jan 4, 2011)

mister_manji said:


> I will watch with glee as the British nanny-state collapses under the conversion of its people to Islam.



Muslims tend to be pro-nanny state.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Jan 4, 2011)

Rob said:


> Being a white muslim is bad enough?
> 
> Also I find it a bit silly that when advertising Islam and explaining why they converted to Islam it's always "Well I find it sort of spiritual and fulfilling" and never "I was convinced that Allah exists as described by the Koran so converting was the only logical way forward." It seems like a stupid way to answer the question "Where did we all come from and where are we going?"



Haha very true. Its always the "I feel happier and more spiritual". A sort of psychological placebo.

*"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one"*
-Bertrand Russel 

Anyways, I find that women who are unaware of the realities of Islamic Sharia find "Western Islam" appealing. Islam in the Western countries that is unable to take its political form becomes appealing to women who feel that the Western lifestyle infringes upon their worth. Western Islam is of course the backdrop to this and of course there are many many other factors such as converting for a spouse as someone mentioned. 

As long as Islam does not take its political form (it is a political ideology as much as a religious one in essence) I do not mind it. I think that we are all making positive steps as even MUSLIMS are starting to believe that WESTERN Islam is the real Islam, that peaceful Islam is the real Islam and this is a step forward.


----------



## Mintaka (Jan 4, 2011)

AHHHHH THE NUMBAH OF HOME GROWN TERRORISTS IZ GROWN.  SOON SHARIA LAW WILL BE THE ONLY LAW IN TEH BVRITONZ TEH FOREIGNERZ BE CONVERTIN PEEPLE TO STEEL R JOBZ!111


----------



## Vom Osten (Jan 4, 2011)

The error of their ways will become apparent once they discover the true nature of Islam.


----------



## Ennoea (Jan 4, 2011)

> I will watch with glee as the British nanny-state collapses under the conversion of its people to Islam.



You sir win for the dumbest response so far.

She converted to get married to a guy. No big deal here.


----------



## Fancy (Jan 4, 2011)

i've been dating a muslim for 5 years now
i don't plan on becoming muslim anytime soon and he doesn't mind that the least bit


----------



## sadated_peon (Jan 4, 2011)

crazy_wicked said:


> i've been dating a muslim for 5 years now
> i don't plan on becoming muslim anytime soon and he doesn't mind that the least bit



Generally I find that the partner doesn't care, but the parents(family) of the partner give a huge shit about it. 
~at least that is my personal experience. 

The phrase, "when are you going to dump that whore you have been dating and marry a nice <insert religion or ethnicity> girl" is not that uncommon.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Jan 4, 2011)

Vom Osten said:


> The error of their ways will become apparent once they discover the true nature of Islam.



Maybe they left Christianity when they discovered the wafer is made of people!


----------



## Ennoea (Jan 4, 2011)

> i've been dating a muslim for 5 years now
> i don't plan on becoming muslim anytime soon and he doesn't mind that the least bit



Don't expect his parents to accept you.


----------



## Fancy (Jan 4, 2011)

Ennoea said:


> Don't expect his parents to accept you.



but his parents are in love with me, they take my side over him haha
and my parents are kind of the same with him but this is YEARS after getting used to it

although my grandparents are pretty old school and have dropped that line before, asking me why i couldn't fall in love with a greek boy lol

it's understandable though, since greeks traditionally are not supposed to marry any other


----------



## BassGS (Jan 4, 2011)

Easier for a girl to get a Muslim guy then a guy to get a Muslim girl.


----------



## impersonal (Jan 4, 2011)

Zero™ said:


> Do you have anything to back up such a claim ?
> I have seen plenty of converts who are anything but 'terrorists'.



Oh, sure. I'm just saying they're more vulnerable to extremist interpretations of the qur'an. They're making a radical change in their life, so it's easy to manipulate them into salafism for example.

Of course in the vast majority of cases they end up being normal. It's just that when it comes to religious extremism a small minority can be a big problem.

Anyways, terrorists or not, they're often more hard liners than others, for obvious reasons. So, overall, I prefer someone who grew up with a religious tradition than a convert, and this holds for any religion.


----------



## Jin-E (Jan 4, 2011)

Zaru said:


> "Aisha"? What's with the "renaming yourself to generic names" crap all the converts are pulling?



Probably got something to do with that many Westerners have names that's linked to Christianity (such as John, Paul, Peter, Mary, Sara etc) 

And yes, in religion such symbolism matter.


----------



## T4R0K (Jan 4, 2011)

In France, there're cases of women ("strangely", not men) that converted to Islam that then counvert "out" and either became atheists or back to christianity after seeing and hearing stuff that made them "not so happy about that change"

I'm born in a muslim family, and believe me, it doesn't bring me any "light", nor does it bring any darkness. It's just a part of my life's decorum.

And I've seen many cases of muslims converting to christianity (and in one case, even judaism !!!)

As for me... well, no religion satisfies me that much... Even Buddhism, that I take more as sane philosophy than a cult, when you take out any mention of deities.


----------



## maj1n (Jan 4, 2011)

> *"Life's changed dramatically, I was a rebel before, I was always getting into trouble at home, going out and staying out - not trying hard enough at school.*
> Regents Park Mosque Conversions at Regent's Park Mosque in London happen on a weekly basis
> 
> "Then when I became Muslim, I sort of calmed down. I wanted to stay at home studying on the internet or reading books. And I'm more happy than I was - I'm proud of who I am, *I've got a certain identity."*
> ...


Sounds like a classic case of troubled teenager trying to find a group that makes her feel better.

Hope it turns out well for her and her Muslim community is nice and liberal as women are treated badly in Islam.



> "Many people are looking for a spiritual and fulfilling lifestyle rather than the hedonistic, materially-driven one that we have around us," says Imam Masroor.


Spoke too soon i guess, classic case of western-lifestyle hating Islamic perspective.

The fact she now dresses in a Hijab for 'spiritual bueaty' is troubling.

Sad to see she joined a female-oppressing hate-filled ideology, hope she doesn't turn hateful in turn.


----------



## WT (Jan 4, 2011)

Mael said:


> They'd have bigger things to worry about, like maintaining honor lest they face death.



Just shows how much you know ...


----------



## Zaru (Jan 4, 2011)

Jin-E said:


> Probably got something to do with that many Westerners have names that's linked to Christianity (such as John, Paul, Peter, Mary, Sara etc)
> 
> And yes, in religion such symbolism matter.



I'm named after an apostle myself, but how the fuck is a society with 50% of the males being called a variant of Mohammed going to work?


----------



## Pilaf (Jan 4, 2011)

Zaru said:


> "Aisha"? What's with the "renaming yourself to generic names" crap all the converts are pulling?



She secretly dreams of becoming the prophet's 12 year old bride and being sodomized on a nightly basis.


----------



## WT (Jan 4, 2011)

Zaru said:


> I'm named after an apostle myself, but how the fuck is a society with 50% of the males being called a variant of Mohammed going to work?



Clash of cultures. Name structures don't work in the same way. For example, 2 people can be called Muhammad, however, this exists before their first name followed by their surname.

So an example would be:

Muhammad Hamza Yusuf

where the person would be commonly referred to as Hamza.


----------



## Punpun (Jan 4, 2011)

Kind of creepy tough that you would give the name of the Prophet to everyone.....


----------



## Zaru (Jan 4, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> Clash of cultures. Name structures don't work in the same way. For example, 2 people can be called Muhammad, however, this exists before their first name followed by their surname.
> 
> So an example would be:
> 
> ...



Alright, that makes it more bearable. Though it kinda reminds me of Vietnam where like 2/3 of the people are called Ngyuen by their last name.


----------



## WT (Jan 4, 2011)

Mandom said:


> Kind of creepy tough that you would give the name of the Prophet to everyone.....



I guess its done out of respect.


----------



## Punpun (Jan 4, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> I guess its done out of respect.



Probably. It's just that such amount devotion for a person comes to me as kind of creepy in a way.


----------



## sadated_peon (Jan 4, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> I guess its done out of respect.



Opposite in western countries, calling someone by a name of someone important is consider arrogant and disresepect. 

Like the idea that you think that your son/daughter will be comperable to the figure in question. That you believe that your son or daughter are their equal. 

If there is only one of something it makes is more special, than if EVERYONE has one. (like there is only 1 jesus, but 1 billion muhammads)


----------



## Fran (Jan 4, 2011)

Zaru said:


> "Aisha"? What's with the "renaming yourself to generic names" crap all the converts are pulling?



it's like an islamic equivalent of a weeaboo


----------



## N120 (Jan 4, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> Opposite in western countries, calling someone by a name of someone important is consider arrogant and disresepect.
> 
> Like the idea that you think that your son/daughter will be comperable to the figure in question. That you believe that your son or daughter are their equal.
> 
> If there is only one of something it makes is more special, than if EVERYONE has one. (like there is only 1 jesus, but 1 billion muhammads)




No, it's actually no different from an arsenal,man U or chelsea fan wearing their team shirt with the name of their favourite player printed on the back.

There are also many people (regardless of wether they be in the west or east) who have through-out time named their kids after someone or something they hold dear to them, it's actually more common than your trying to make out. 

I'm sure if you look around you'd find many people named jesus and moses in the west and none of them muslims.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Jan 4, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> Opposite in western countries, calling someone by a name of someone important is consider arrogant and disresepect.
> 
> Like the idea that you think that your son/daughter will be comperable to the figure in question. That you believe that your son or daughter are their equal.
> 
> If there is only one of something it makes is more special, than if EVERYONE has one. (like there is only 1 jesus, but 1 billion muhammads)



You sure about that? Spanish-speaking people named their kids Jesus all the time. Ditto on famous figures like Alexander or William. Most children's names I've seen come from the Bible or from famous rulers.


----------



## Pilaf (Jan 4, 2011)

What's more despicable? Fucking little girls or calling other people out for doing it on an internet forum 700 years later?


----------



## Al-Yasa (Jan 4, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> You sure about that? Spanish-speaking people named their kids Jesus all the time. Ditto on famous figures like Alexander or William. Most children's names I've seen come from the Bible or from famous rulers.



Yep in South America there are many children with biblical name like jesus and jose (joseph)


----------



## Keile (Jan 4, 2011)

impersonal said:


> Converts are often the most hardcore and intolerant muslims. They're more likely to become terrorists than people who grew up within a culture that moderates the strict interpretation of the qur'an.




Do you have any proof?


----------



## Pilaf (Jan 4, 2011)

In this thread - scumbag apologists for evil and pedophilia.

edit: OH wait..we're on NF. I could be talking about half the members HERE, especially the moderation.



LONG LIVE THE RU.


----------



## WT (Jan 4, 2011)

Pilaf said:


> In this thread - scumbag apologists for evil and pedophilia.



There are many posts regarding this in the Islam Debate/Discussion thread. Its been discussed to irritating levels. I'm not going to start here.


----------



## N120 (Jan 4, 2011)

^good luck in trying to have a debate with trolls in any thread. My advice to you would be to ignore them and only pick up convo with people interested in having a debate.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Jan 4, 2011)

Women and Islam should never mix.


----------



## Spanish Hoffkage (Jan 4, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> Opposite in western countries, calling someone by a name of someone important is consider arrogant and disresepect.
> 
> Like the idea that you think that your son/daughter will be comperable to the figure in question. That you believe that your son or daughter are their equal.
> 
> If there is only one of something it makes is more special, than if EVERYONE has one. (like there is only 1 jesus, but 1 billion muhammads)



In Spain Jes?s is a tremendously common name. Not sure about south american spanish speaking countries but in here its very common.


----------



## piccun? (Jan 4, 2011)

Spanish Hoffkage said:


> In Spain Jes?s is a tremendously common name. Not sure about south american spanish speaking countries but in here its very common.



Most of Spain was under islam for some centuries. 
This could be a cultural inheritance from that period.


----------



## Al-Yasa (Jan 4, 2011)

piccun? said:


> Most of Spain was under islam for some centuries.
> This could be a cultural inheritance from that period.



jesus is a christian name

you would have see names like  Isa if it was cultural inheritance


----------



## Punpun (Jan 4, 2011)

Isabella is (was) a common name there.


----------



## piccun? (Jan 4, 2011)

Al-Yasa said:


> jesus is a christian name
> 
> you would have see names like  Isa if it was cultural inheritance



the inheritance of giving the name of the founder of the  religion they follow to children.


----------



## Mintaka (Jan 4, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> There are many posts regarding this in the Islam Debate/Discussion thread. Its been discussed to irritating levels. I'm not going to start here.


To bad it's almost all of it was apologetics.

I don't give a goddamn about what time period this occurred in it's wrong, and your prophet did it anyway.  You expect me to think this is a book of morals when the prophet of it does immoral things!?

The reason I don't care about the time period or whether it was acceptable or not at that time?  THE MAN WAS SUPPOSEDLY A PROPHET.  If he could speak to some all powerful, all knowing god then that god should have easily been able to tell him that diddling little kids was wrong and that he and his followers shouldn't do it.


----------



## Spanish Hoffkage (Jan 4, 2011)

piccun? said:


> Most of Spain was under islam for some centuries.
> This could be a cultural inheritance from that period.





Al-Yasa said:


> jesus is a christian name
> 
> you would have see names like  Isa if it was cultural inheritance





piccun? said:


> the inheritance of giving the name of the founder of the  religion they follow to children.



He's referring that if it was islamic inheritance the name should be Isa (Jesus in arabic) when the nowadays Jes?s comes from hebrew Yeshua.

What I dont really know is since when its a common thing to name people that way. Im not sure if it was a common practice in the past.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 4, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> There are many posts regarding this in the Islam Debate/Discussion thread. Its been discussed to irritating levels. I'm not going to start here.



You guys didn't refute it at all, some of you even said it was OK because it was Mohammed! Some of you guys made up some truly deplorable defenses for it.

_"SHE WANTED IT"_...WTF?


----------



## Jin-E (Jan 4, 2011)

Mandom said:


> Kind of creepy tough that you would give the name of the Prophet to everyone.....



More like suprised. 

Throwing a book with the text "Mohammed" on the floor can be seen as a huge insult, but naming potential thieves, terrorists, murderers and rapists with that name is not a problem? Wouldn't that sully the Prophets name?

F.example, the planner and lead attacker of 9/11(Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Mohammed Atta) share that name with him.


----------



## Al-Yasa (Jan 5, 2011)

Spanish Hoffkage said:


> He's referring that if it was islamic inheritance the name should be Isa (Jesus in arabic) when the nowadays Jes?s comes from hebrew Yeshua.
> 
> What I dont really know is since when its a common thing to name people that way. Im not sure if it was a common practice in the past.



Names have meanings you want your children to have a name with good meaning

its always been common

ex: Muhammed means praiseworthy

Benjamin son of the right hand


----------



## sadated_peon (Jan 5, 2011)

N120 said:
			
		

> No, it's actually no different from an arsenal,man U or chelsea fan wearing their team shirt with the name of their favourite player printed on the back.


What? You are comparing someone’s name to wearing a shirt with their favorite sports star on it?

Do you really put so little importance of your name?



			
				N120 said:
			
		

> There are also many people (regardless of wether they be in the west or east) who have through-out time named their kids after someone or something they hold dear to them, it's actually more common than your trying to make out.
> 
> I'm sure if you look around you'd find many people named jesus and moses in the west and none of them muslims.


In English speaking western countries it is not done, it is a sign of disrespect if the person you are naming them after is incredible important, and is so for the reasons I mentioned. 

Here is a quick question, I heard there were 99 names of allah, would name you kid after one of the names of god?



			
				Shinigami Perv said:
			
		

> You sure about that? Spanish-speaking people named their kids Jesus all the time. Ditto on famous figures like Alexander or William. Most children's names I've seen come from the Bible or from famous rulers.


I should have put the caveat of English speaking westerners. 
Alexander and William are not of great respect, they are just famous. 

Show me the huge number of Americans named “jesus”. 
If you saw a kid with the name Jesus you would think his parents were insane. 



			
				Spanish hoffkage said:
			
		

> In Spain Jesús is a tremendously common name. Not sure about south american spanish speaking countries but in here its very common.


Add in English speaking to westerners then.


----------



## Cromer (Jan 5, 2011)

I'm completely unmoved by this news article, and I'm a Muslim!

People convert to Islam everyday, this hasn't been news for ages. The more pertinent question is, who is doing the proselytizing? I mean, when some of these funky dudes who think Islam = KILL ALL KAFIROON  come calling, I often wonder whether we're reading the same Qur'an, studying the same Sunnah?

Meh.


----------



## WT (Jan 5, 2011)

Tokoyami said:


> The reason I don't care about the time period or whether it was acceptable or not at that time?  THE MAN WAS SUPPOSEDLY A PROPHET.  If he could speak to some all powerful, all knowing god then that god should have easily been able to tell him that diddling little kids was wrong and that he and his followers shouldn't do it.



Even in the most modern anthropological methodologies, before studying traditional cultures, it is advised for one to remove their social frames of reference as without doing so, it evidently leads them to unfairly superimpose their own set of ideals, acceptability, tackle the issue with prejudice which eventually leads to injustice. 

Marriage to younger women isn't exclusive to Islam, its a culture which was and is widely adopted in the whole world from Indian, Chinese, all the way up to the Greek Civilizations.  Concept of childhood itself is an invention of the European renaissance period where children become adults at the ages of 7 or 8, proof being the crusades where 9 to 10 year old crusaders fought against the Islamic empire. Even in Britain, 7 year old children were hung (adult punishment) for theft.

Why it might not be acceptable in today's society? 

Because socialization and expectations have changed.

Note: It isn't an Islamic duty for a man to marry younger women. The Quran only provides explanation on how to deal with it if it does exist (which it did in that time period and still does today in parts of the world).


----------



## Zaru (Jan 5, 2011)

Dog Rapist said:


> I often wonder whether we're reading the same Qur'an, studying the same Sunnah?



And who says your interpretation is the right one?


----------



## sadated_peon (Jan 5, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> Even in the most modern anthropological methodologies, before studying traditional cultures, it is advised for one to remove their social frames of reference as without doing so, it evidently leads them to unfairly superimpose their own set of ideals, acceptability, tackle the issue with prejudice which eventually leads to injustice.
> 
> Marriage to younger women isn't exclusive to Islam, its a culture which was and is widely adopted in the whole world from Indian, Chinese, all the way up to the Greek Civilizations.  Concept of childhood itself is an invention of the European renaissance period where children become adults at the ages of 7 or 8, proof being the crusades where 9 to 10 year old crusaders fought against the Islamic empire. Even in Britain, 7 year old children were hung (adult punishment) for theft.
> 
> ...



How can I put this simply to you. 

We put past figure in their culture because they are just regular people. People who lived in their time, and died in their time. 

You don't claim that of Muhammad, you claim he is perfect for all time. 

If you want to consider Muhammad in his cultural context only, then you must through out the hadiths because they no longer apply. Because his action are only to be emulated in his time. 

If you want to hold his actions true TODAY, then they are under the scrutiny of TODAY!

Can you grasp this concept? do you understand the different way YOU as muslims treat the actions of Muhammad verse how we treat other historical figures.


----------



## WT (Jan 5, 2011)

Zaru said:


> And who says your interpretation is the right one?



It may not be about interpretation, however about the situation. 

For example, the Quran orders Muslim to defend themselves (obvious right for human beings).

Suppose secular country X attacks Islamic country Y. Muslims in Y respond to those attacks by defending themselves, would you consider that a wrong interpretation of the Quran? What would be the duty of Muslims who living peacefully in secular X, does the Quran permit them to kill innocent civilians? Of course not. 

All in all, its a very complicated issue.


----------



## WT (Jan 5, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> How can I put this simply to you.
> 
> We put past figure in their culture because they are just regular people. People who lived in their time, and died in their time.
> 
> ...



You need to explain your reference point today, where today? 

Most countries dispute the legal age of children getting married. If we are talking about tribal African Societies, societies in Islamic, Chinese, Indian countries, you'll get a different answer than referencing to western modern societies.

You also have to accept the fact that expectation from younger women is different in these societies. For example, younger women are treated like children in modern western societies, whereas can be treated as adults in others. 

All in all, your question is unfair as your completely changing the norms and the way things operate and superimpose that on the way things worked in traditional societies. Thought patterns of women are different and morality consistently changes over time.

There are certain laws which are kept constant, oneness of God, Establishing prayers, giving charity, thou shall not steal/kill , be kind to your neighbors, parents etc However, when a prophet is sent to a specific culture, there are norms and things in those cultures which must be tackled. Different cultures have different problems.

An obvious example to this is the marriage between Brothers and Sisters:

Interpretations of the Quran by the best interpreters (Ibn Abbas) relate the story of the Adam/Eve:

Each birth consisted of a pair of twins, a boy and a girl. It is related that there were 20 such births. What used to happen was that the girl of one twin married the boy of another twin. 

This is i*c*st, forbidden to Muslims (as Allah mentions in the Quran). However, the time period and situation was different and thus it was permissible in the time of Adam. 

If you really want a fair question, you should pose "If Muhammad was alive today, in a western society, would he marry someone as young as Aisha now".

The answer to that is obvious: We don't know.


----------



## Zaru (Jan 5, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> The answer to that is obvious: We don't know.



No, it's "he can't because the law forbids him, and openly stating he wants to marry a girl under the age of 10 will get him a top spot on p*d*p**** watchlists"


----------



## sadated_peon (Jan 5, 2011)

White Tiger said:
			
		

> You need to explain your reference point today, where today?
> 
> Most countries dispute the legal age of children getting married. If we are talking about tribal African Societies, societies in Islamic, Chinese, Indian countries, you'll get a different answer than referencing to western modern societies.
> 
> You also have to accept the fact that expectation from younger women is different in these societies. For example, younger women are treated like children in modern western societies, whereas can be treated as adults in others.


Civilized countries, high literacy, high living standards, low poverty, etc. 



			
				White Tiger said:
			
		

> All in all, your question is unfair as your completely changing the norms and the way things operate and superimpose that on the way things worked in traditional societies. Thought patterns of women are different and morality consistently changes over time.


It is not unreasonable because Muhammad was a standard that was supposed to last FOREVER in ALL NORMS. 

Unless you are saying that we are wrong in today?s world to not allow 55 year old men to have sex with 9 year olds. In which case this is NOT a discussion of the Muhammad being a man of his times, but instead our times being wrong. 

I will not accept you attempting to argue from TWO different positions on this. 

Pick on and stick with it!



			
				White Tiger said:
			
		

> There are certain laws which are kept constant, oneness of God, Establishing prayers, giving charity, thou shall not steal/kill , be kind to your neighbors, parents etc However, when a prophet is sent to a specific culture, there are norms and things in those cultures which must be tackled. Different cultures have different problems.


We are not talking about specific laws, we are talking about the emulation of a man who action are considered inspired by god and should be emulated for all time. 

I am not going to let you change the topic because you don?t want to deal with the issue. 



			
				White Tiger said:
			
		

> If you really want a fair question, you should pose "If Muhammad was alive today, in a western society, would he marry someone as young as Aisha now".
> 
> The answer to that is obvious: We don't know.


Once again, Muhammads actions are supposedly correct then, now, and forever. Not only of the time. If Muhammad?s action were ONLY valid at the time, then NO emulation of them is needed today because they are ONLY for the time.


----------



## WT (Jan 5, 2011)

Sedated, your under the false dichotomy that with contrasting cultures in different time periods, one has to be wrong and the other has to be right. 

Both of us are speaking from a different perspective and thus we cannot reach an agreement. 

I am under the position that both norms are correct and are not contradictory, i.e in 

1)Modern Western Society cannot marry girls under the age of 16 (fine). 

2)Traditional Islamic Societies (as well as others), permissible to marry women who have reached puberty and have mentally matured (again fine).   

*Differences between 1 and 2 which allow for both to be acceptable:*

in (1), expectation of younger women are different. 



> Socialization is the primary means by which human infants begin to acquire the skills necessary to perform as a functioning member of their society, and is the most influential learning processes one can experience[9]. Although cultural variability is manifest in the actions, customs, and behaviors of whole social groups (societies), the most fundamental expression of culture is found at the individual level. This expression can only occur after an individual has been socialized by its parents, family, extended family and extended social networks.



Today girls are treated like children for a longer periods of time. Their thought patterns are determined by their parents and the media and thus treat themselves like children.

in (2), become adults earlier and treated like adults at a younger age. For example, it is related that the Prophet only took Aisha into her home after she threw away her dolls. She was ready to become a woman. In essence, the life of Aisha is proof that a woman can be far more learned than men and that she can be the teacher of scholars and experts. Her life is also proof that a woman can exert influence over men and women and provide them with inspiration and leadership. Her life is also proof that the same woman can be totally feminine and be a source of pleasure, joy and comfort to her husband. 

This is the problem you are having. If you want to keep a fair argument, you must set the same standards. You can't change the variables and expect the same outcome. Its a fallacy.


----------



## sadated_peon (Jan 5, 2011)

White Tiger said:
			
		

> Sedated, your under the false dichotomy that with contrasting cultures in different time periods, one has to be wrong and the other has to be right.
> 
> Both of us are speaking from a different perspective and thus we cannot reach an agreement.
> 
> ...




I do not reject that the moral standard of today is different to the moral standard of ancient Islamic societies. 
This was not in question!

What is in question is the fact that a man named Muhammad?s actions are PERFECT and correct in both Today(1) and past(2) times. 

You have the actions of a man, which are supposedly correct in 1 and in 2. 

In 1 the expectation of *MEN* and women are different to how they are in 2. The fact that you claim that the actions of a man in 2 are STILL to be emulated TODAY, is the problem. 

You establish an absolute morality in the man Muhammad, and then try to establish a relative morality of the times. 
It is a direct contradiction!



			
				White Tiger said:
			
		

> Today girls are treated like children for a longer periods of time. Their thought patterns are determined by their parents and the media and thus treat themselves like children.
> 
> in (2), become adults earlier and treated like adults at a younger age. For example, it is related that the Prophet only took Aisha into her home after she threw away her dolls. She was ready to become a woman. In essence, the life of Aisha is proof that a woman can be far more learned than men and that she can be the teacher of scholars and experts. Her life is also proof that a woman can exert influence over men and women and provide them with inspiration and leadership. Her life is also proof that the same woman can be totally feminine and be a source of pleasure, joy and comfort to her husband.
> 
> This is the problem you are having. If you want to keep a fair argument, you must set the same standards. You can't change the variables and expect the same outcome. Its a fallacy.


Today a 50 year old man who has sex with a 9 year old is a child molester. This is nothing to do with the 9 year old girl, solely with the perversion of the man. The ability to find a 9 year old sexually attractive is a issue of perversion in todays society. 

To claim, that Muhammad who did this should be emulated TODAY! Because his action last past, present and future is to promote child molestation!

Where is your mental block here? If Muhammad found a 9 year old sexually attractive then he is a MAN OF HIS TIMES, because such sexual attraction is accepted as wrong today. 

The standard for what Muhammad did is NOT UNIVERSAL and therefore you cannot claim that his actions are UNIVERSAL!


----------



## Spirit (Jan 5, 2011)

He married a 9 year old to point out a principle that's applicable throughout time: a Muslim man can marry a female the soonest the female is considered a woman in his (the Muslim, not the prophet) norm.

Whatever the prophet did needs to be looked at the principle level, in which his culture is a relevant factor to be considered. If you strip off his culture from his actions, you'll just be comparing preferences between 2 colors, which achieves nothing.

Even today, some countries define a 15 years old, maybe some even younger, as old enough to get married, while others maintain that a 17 years old as a child.

If you come from a culture where it's ok to marry babies, I bet marrying a 9 years old will be the last thing you look at as faulty, and yet you'll still be missing the point why he did what he did.

If you want to talk preferences disregarding cultural differences relevance, I'm not hearing you lot complain that it's wrong for someone to prefer chocolate over vanilla, vise versa.

Come on, not one of you is even trying to be consistent here, how come?


----------



## Black Wraith (Jan 5, 2011)




----------



## Spirit (Jan 5, 2011)

Also, for Muslims, the name Muhammad and its variance is like, in the States, Mike.

Ask any Muslim, everyone knows a Muhammad.


----------



## sadated_peon (Jan 5, 2011)

Tokyo Jihen said:
			
		

> He married a 9 year old to point out a principle that's applicable throughout time: a Muslim man can marry a female the soonest the female is considered a woman in his (the Muslim, not the prophet) norm.
> 
> Whatever the prophet did needs to be looked at the principle level, in which his culture is a relevant factor to be considered. If you strip off his culture from his actions, you'll just be comparing preferences between 2 colors, which achieves nothing.
> 
> ...


On the principle level Muhammad had sex with a 9 year old. 

The principle level, the universal level is WITHOUT cultural context. Muhammad cannot be a objective example of what to do, if the actions are taken in a cultural context. 

To take ?culture? into account for his actions is to remove him as an example for all time. 



			
				Tokyo Jihen said:
			
		

> If you want to talk preferences disregarding cultural differences relevance, I'm not hearing you lot complain that it's wrong for someone to prefer chocolate over vanilla, vise versa.
> 
> Come on, not one of you is even trying to be consistent here, how come?


Because ?someone? is not an objective moral standard from which everyone should emulate their actions. 

I am trying to be consistent, I am identifying the difference between every day people, and a person you want emulate for all time. 

When you take the actions of someone off the street the same way you take the actions Muhammad, we can talk about being consistent.


----------



## Mathias124 (Jan 5, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> On the principle level Muhammad had sex with a 9 year old.
> 
> The principle level, the universal level is WITHOUT cultural context. Muhammad cannot be a objective example of what to do, if the actions are taken in a cultural context.
> 
> ...



Sooo, by that logic, if having a pet becomes immoral and is considered evil in 200 years, am i evil for having a cat now?

Answer: of course not, im merely doing something society doesnt feel is immoral


----------



## sadated_peon (Jan 5, 2011)

Mathias124 said:


> Sooo, by that logic, if having a pet becomes immoral and is considered evil in 200 years, am i evil for having a cat now?
> 
> Answer: of course not, im merely doing something society doesnt feel is immoral


Are you a person whose moral choice should hold through time, or just someone posting on the internet?

Are you an objective moral entity that exist throughout time? 

No?

Then obviously the logic that applies to such a person doesn't apply to you now does it?

Right?


----------



## Mathias124 (Jan 5, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> Are you a person whose moral choice should hold through time, or just someone posting on the internet?



Can Muhammed predict the changes in society over 1400 years?


----------



## sadated_peon (Jan 5, 2011)

Mathias124 said:


> Can Muhammed predict the changes in society over 1400 years?


YES, that's the fucking point of him being considered an objective standard for all fucking time!

his action's were influenced BY GOD! Divine commands from the angel Gabriell


----------



## Mathias124 (Jan 5, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> YES, that's the fucking point of him being considered an objective standard for all fucking time!
> 
> his action's were influenced BY GOD! Divine commands from the angel gaberial



If you believe in God and he says something is okay, the ethics in todays society doesnt matter since the word of god is the truth, so in that sense its okay to marry a 9 year old (if you believe that firmly).

Second, it is impossible to predict the changes in society, you can only be held accountable for actions which were immoral in the period of time you existed, demanding anything else is stupid, very very stupid.

Edit: Sadated i'm not a muslim but not all muslims consider Mohammed to be emulated in all aspect of his life(that's only the salafists) most islamic thought schools consider Mohammed to be emulated just in matters of prayer and relgious rituals .

Had to add that, good argument xenopyre


----------



## xenopyre (Jan 5, 2011)

Sadated i'm not a muslim but not all muslims consider Mohammed to be emulated in all aspect of his life(that's only the salafists) most islamic thought schools consider Mohammed  to be emulated  just in matters of  prayer and relgious rituals .


----------



## sadated_peon (Jan 5, 2011)

Mathias124 said:


> If you believe in God and he says something is okay, the ethics in todays society doesnt matter since the word of god is the truth, so in that sense its okay to marry a 9 year old (if you believe that firmly).


Which is exactly why I am complaining here, because then Muslims hold now and forever that child molestation is fine. 



Mathias124 said:


> Second, it is impossible to predict the changes in society, you can only be held accountable for actions which were immoral in the period of time you existed, demanding anything else is stupid, very very stupid.


There are many things impossible things in religion, it has never stopped anyone before. 

But if you want to argue that Muhammad is NOT an objective moral standard which can be held today, I AGREE. 

It is stupid to hold Muhammad as a moral standard, very very stupid.


----------



## impersonal (Jan 5, 2011)

Tokyo Jihen said:


> He married a 9 year old to point out a principle that's applicable throughout time: a Muslim man can marry a female the soonest the female is considered a woman in his (the Muslim, not the prophet) norm.
> 
> Whatever the prophet did needs to be looked at the principle level, in which his culture is a relevant factor to be considered. If you strip off his culture from his actions, you'll just be comparing preferences between 2 colors, which achieves nothing.
> 
> ...


Regardless of your culture, doing something to someone against this person's consent is immoral. Regardless of your culture, when you're 9 years old you cannot consent. Raping a little girl is thus immoral.

This has nothing to do with preferring vanilla or chocolate. Culinary taste is a matter of personal preference. Morality, despite its subjective basis, aims at universality (and in religion, morality has a pseudo-objective basis _anyway_).

To put things in a different way: even when it was widespread, slavery was immoral. Slavery didn't become immoral after it had been stopped; it was stopped (forcefully) because it was immoral.


----------



## Mathias124 (Jan 5, 2011)

impersonal said:


> Regardless of your culture, doing something to someone against this person's consent is immoral. Regardless of your culture, when you're 9 years old you cannot consent.
> 
> This has nothing to do with vanilla or chocolate.



Back then a woman/girls consent wasnt worth anything.

So it wasnt immoral of muhammed not to care, but simply the norm.

/facepalm


----------



## Punpun (Jan 5, 2011)

You didn't refute him like at all.


----------



## impersonal (Jan 5, 2011)

Mathias124 said:


> Back then a woman/girls consent wasnt worth anything.
> 
> So it wasnt immoral of muhammed not to care, but simply the norm.
> 
> /facepalm



The norm was immoral. Consider the slavery example. Would you say that slavery was moral in the 18th century, despite being immoral now?

Closer to us in time, would you say that Martin Luther King, or feminist movements, were immoral? After all they were opposing _the norm_.

That something was the norm in the dark ages can be used as _an excuse_ for not noticing how wrong it was. An alleviating circumstance. But in no way can you say that it was right back then, despite being wrong nowadays.


----------



## Mathias124 (Jan 5, 2011)

impersonal said:


> The norm was immoral. Consider the slavery example. Would you say that slavery was moral in the 18th century, despite being immoral now?
> 
> Closer to us in time, would you say that Martin Luther King, or feminist movements, were immoral? After all they were opposing _the norm_.



Our culture in todays society tells us that marrying and banging a 9 year old is immoral, however it was not immoral of him to do so at his time and therefore we cant judge him.

And yes, im saying that people who had a plantation worked by slaves did not do anything immoral, however somebody holding slaves now would be doing something immoral. 

Martin Luther king fought for the end of segregation, a black man doing what he did was considered immoral by a majority of Americans back then again, but he also had many supporters, cant really decide on this one

However back when Muhammed married that young girl a womans consent was worth nothing and it wasn't wrong to marry a 9 year old, therefore what he did was not immoral


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Jan 5, 2011)

If we accept Mathias's argument then morality becomes irrelevant to deciding whether something is right or wrong.


----------



## Punpun (Jan 5, 2011)

I think you are mistaking Law and reality. Sort of the Nuremberg process. Law are retro-active thus you can't be punished for a crime you did who wasn't illegal.

Doing an illegal act (as of today) back then such as having a slave, banging a little girl was legal yes. Doesn't mean it was moral.

Tough if intent was proved, Mahomet could be tried as a pedo. And apparently there was.


----------



## N120 (Jan 5, 2011)

impersonal said:


> The norm was immoral. Consider the slavery example. Would you say that slavery was moral in the 18th century, despite being immoral now?
> 
> Closer to us in time, would you say that Martin Luther King, or feminist movements, were immoral? After all they were opposing _the norm_.



1. The norm cannot be immoral if society at that point in time accepted it as an acceptable practice.

2. No one will say MLK or Malcolm X were immoral as they were seeking the rights of a free man which also existed at that time. The problem was injustice and discrimination which was recognised at that time as being wrong.

MLK and that society didnt apply our standards of today, they fought for their rights within their own society...but did their actions have affect on us here and now? yes.


----------



## Punpun (Jan 5, 2011)

Now I have another angle of attack. 

If there was intent you can be tried even if you did it when it was legal. There was intent, mahomet is right now immortal banging women on paradise according to Islam.

Thus he can be tried as a pedo. 

I rest my case your honor.


----------



## Mathias124 (Jan 5, 2011)

Rob said:


> If we accept Mathias's argument then morality becomes irrelevant to deciding whether something is right or wrong.



Uhm... are you stupid?

Morality is very important when deciding whether something is right or wrong, but you have to ask a very important questions first

Is said act wrong according to the society said person lived in?

Ill go back to my original post, *Am i evil for having two cats as a pet now, if PETA has won in the future and holding pets is considered as wrong as holding slaves?*

Answer me that, tell me whether or not i should consider the possibility of me being evil


----------



## Punpun (Jan 5, 2011)

Well do you mistreat them ? If yes you can be tried right now for Bad treatment.


----------



## Mathias124 (Jan 5, 2011)

Mandom said:


> Now I have another angle of attack.
> 
> If there was intent you can be tried even if you did it when it was legal. There was intent, mahomet is right now immortal banging women on paradise according to Islam.
> 
> ...



If he was allowed into heaven by god it must mean that god doesnt believe it to be immoral.

Thus he cant be tried as a pedo since the highest authority (if he exists), has deemed him innocent.

You should read my posts thoroughly so i wont have to repeat myself


----------



## Mathias124 (Jan 5, 2011)

Mandom said:


> Well do you mistreat them ? If yes you can be tried right now for Bad treatment.



No, im holding pets.

But 200 years in the future holding pets is the most evil thing a person can do.

*So right now im evil?*


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Jan 5, 2011)

It would be more interesting if they were not converting to a hyper-proselytising religion, where virtually everyone is actively encouraged to convert as many people as they can. 

Regarding the other debate: what it comes down to is that many people (including some Muslims) do not think it's acceptable for a middle-aged man to marry a 6-year old child, and to have sexual intercourse with her when she turns 9, whereas Muslims are actually obliged to defend it. 

That last statement is what some of the apologists aren't recognising. You can't merely absolve Muhammad of moral blame by saying he was conforming to the norms of 7th century Arabia and leave it there, you have to defend the marriage at 6 years old and the intercourse at 9 years old as being morally acceptable, otherwise you have to admit he did immoral things (the admission of which would be blasphemous) even if you refuse to admit he can be blamed for his immoral acts.


----------



## Punpun (Jan 5, 2011)

Allah never said it was alright to be a pedo. As of now, god showed us that pedophilia is wrong. 

So ? so ?

Yeah Allah just forgave him. Doesn't mean that we have to forgive him, justice has to be done.

---

Are you evil, well pilaf would say yes. You are responsible for killing 2000 animals during your life in the worse condition ever. So yes, you are evil. 

That is if you believe that moral is relative.


----------



## Dionysus (Jan 5, 2011)

Interesting tangent. Lonely white girl (I'll be mean here and predict that she is also ugly [peeked at the BBC; she's not a looker]) in the UK yearns to feel accepted somewhere, opportunistic (I'll add my colourful biased commentary) community snatches her up. Now we have an argument on the existence of fundamental (and universal) moral bases.

Natural evolution of religious threads.


----------



## Mathias124 (Jan 5, 2011)

Mandom said:


> Allah never said it was alright to be a pedo. As of now, god showed us that pedophilia is wrong.
> 
> So ? so ?
> 
> Yeah Allah just forgave him. Doesn't mean that we have to forgive him, justice has to be done.



If god chose him as a prophet he was obviously a perfectly pious and good man... the brain is for thinking.

B*y your logic i could be evil right now, right now i could be equal to a child molester because in the future holding pets is just as immoral*

Edit: at above poster, just what i thought when i entered this thread


----------



## Punpun (Jan 5, 2011)

No that's only by your logic good sir. I was just applying it. 

Why would he need to be ? And it's not as if he did that after being a prophet or that Mahomet activly preeched to follow the Coran, not his act.

Your point ?


----------



## Mathias124 (Jan 5, 2011)

Mandom said:


> No that's only by your logic good sir. I was just applying it.
> 
> Why would he need to be ? And it's not as if he did that after being a prophet or that Mahomet activly preeched to follow the Coran, not his act.
> 
> Your point ?



He was indeed gods prophet god wouldnt have allowed him to marry a girl, IF such an act was immoral in the eyes of a divine judge.

... im not even going to bother with you, cant handle retards


----------



## Punpun (Jan 5, 2011)

And you know nothing about Islam. 

Mahomet never claimed exempt of sin. Heck he even was polygam while the Coran say that it is better not to have more than two wife.


----------



## impersonal (Jan 5, 2011)

N120 said:


> 1. The norm cannot be immoral if society at that point in time accepted it as an acceptable practice.


 What society accepts is irrelevant. Lots of practices are acceptable to at least some people, in some place, at some time. These practices are immoral regardless.



N120 said:


> 2. No one will say MLK or Malcolm X were immoral as they were seeking the rights of a free man which also existed at that time. The problem was injustice and discrimination which was recognised at that time as being wrong.


When MLK or Malcolm X were born, it wasn't recognized that there was something unjust about discriminating against black people. Same goes for feminist movements & women's rights.


----------



## Mathias124 (Jan 5, 2011)

Mandom said:


> And you know nothing about Islam.
> 
> Mahomet never claimed exempt of sin. Heck he even was polygam while the Coran say that it is better not to have more than two wife.



Said i wouldnt bother...

to answer the above poster.

You cant expect a person to act according to what a future society is immoral, i once again want someone to tell me whether i not i might be evil for holding pets, since it might be evil to do so in the future.

The MLK and Malcolm X argument you just posted has already been answered, i suggest you read back a page someone actually had a really good answer as to why they are exempt from the time argumentation


----------



## soulnova (Jan 5, 2011)

Well, she can do whatever she wants.

Still...

I have yet to find a 9 year old who is delighted to have sexual intercourse with a full grown adult man.  

Most of the time, even if you never told the kids about sex, they certainly feel something is very very wrong. *has too many abused friends*


----------



## N120 (Jan 5, 2011)

erictheking said:


> That last statement is what some of the apologists aren't recognising. You can't merely absolve Muhammad of moral blame by saying he was conforming to the norms of 7th century Arabia and leave it there, you have to defend the marriage at 6 years old and the intercourse at 9 years old as being morally acceptable, otherwise you have to admit he did immoral things (the admission of which would be blasphemous) even if you refuse to admit he can be blamed for his immoral acts.



This type of questioning of the messenger is nothing new and people have questioned his character through-out time, and it's valid so theres nothing wrong with doing it. 

The difference of attitude between the muslim responce vs the questioner is due to the fact that muslims believe he truly is the messenger of God who was commanded to carry out x,y and z, whereas to others he may have been a man who claims to be a prophet, couldve been a schizo and did x,y,z for personal gain but used the name of god.

for most muslim(as far as i know) we go through this line of questioning at an early age as we learn the seerah, we dont simply judge an action in isolation and leave it at that, we work our way down towards the most fundamental question/s: is he truly a messenger and is there really a god?


----------



## Punpun (Jan 5, 2011)

"Better not to" is the polite way to say "don't do it". 

Any thing to add ?


----------



## DaDarkDude (Jan 5, 2011)

Mandom said:


> And you know nothing about Islam.
> 
> Mahomet never claimed exempt of sin. Heck he even was polygam while the Coran say that it is better not to have more than two wife.



Actually, it doesn't necessarily say 'it is better not to have more than *INSERT NUMBER HERE*, it just says if you do decide to enter a polygamous way of life, than you should be able to provide for all of your spouses fairly, and equally.
IE: Don't give one spouse a Lamborghini and a run down Honda to the other.


----------



## Punpun (Jan 5, 2011)

Hence why mere mortal should only have one wife cause they aren't able to act totally fairly.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Jan 5, 2011)

Mathias124 said:


> Uhm... are you stupid?



Not sure, am I? 



> Morality is very important when deciding whether something is right or wrong, but you have to ask a very important questions first
> 
> Is said act wrong according to the society said person lived in?
> 
> ...



If we accept that owning pets is wrong (obviously I don't but that's besides the point) then I wouldn't call you evil for owning pets, merely unenlightened compared to our PETA ruled descendants. 

My objection to you saying that morality is essentially what the society judges to be acceptable is that it ignores the evaluations of harm caused, good caused etc. And in my opinion those should be the primary things considered when judging the morality of an action, or a state of affairs. Otherwise how will a society ever advance? After all their current state is by definition moral and therefore there is never a need to advance. 

If you want to judge a 6th century man marrying a nine year old girl then yes it does become relevant to consider the times they were in. After all in those unenlightened times it would have been much harder to see how obviously (to us) immoral marrying a nine year old girl is. But a man on talking terms with an archangel writing a book inspired by the creator of everything having the same clouded view of morality as the rest of his society? This doesn't seem quite right.


----------



## Punpun (Jan 5, 2011)

But activily seeking to marry little girl/boy is pedophilia. (generall case)

So even if it wasn't deemed at illegal, it was obviously immoral and also illegal. (intent and all)


----------



## Mathias124 (Jan 5, 2011)

Rob said:


> Not sure, am I?
> 
> If we accept that owning pets is wrong (obviously I don't but that's besides the point) then I wouldn't call you evil for owning pets, merely unenlightened compared to our PETA ruled descendants.
> 
> ...



Good point, really good actually.

However if you judge someone by the harm caused by said action you are once again talking harm according to our standards, which are irrelevant.

You basically say that instead of judging people like some people here do, we should call them unenlightened, which i agree with.
But many people say what he did was evil, which im argueing against.

Unenlightened is the correct word,


----------



## DaDarkDude (Jan 5, 2011)

I think many of the users here are forgetting the prime reason there was such activities in the past. When someone is not accustomed to a life style, or a way of thinking it becomes completely foreign and irrational. Take Hindus for example, many people question why they worship cows. I know many people in my old school who used to insult the religion, but the only reason such insults exist is because of the ignorance.
People married little girls at that time simply because it was a world-wide tradition. It happened in many areas around the world because the general life span was severely shorter than it is now. Today, we have medications and all sorts of methods to prolong a life, but at Muhammad's time, there really wasn't anything except herbs and remedies. To avoid this, they married young and had children at a young age. The parents were in full agreement, and the girl was in full agreement, so why not? 
In Islam, unlike many other religions and beliefs, the female has the complete right of deciding who she wants to marry. If a 6 year old girl married a 30-year-old man, that's because she said "I do". It's as simple as that. It's not pedophelia, it's not insane, it's just a foreign concept.
People needed to around that time, because it was necessary to sustain a family. Islam does not openly encourage pedophilia, you wont see written in the Quran "Take a 6 year old girl and screw her till her brain pops." 
As you can see today, it's just not around anymore.
Besides, if it's about the Prophet Muhammad, his primary wife was around 10-20 years older than him. If anything, that's the complete opposite of pedophilia. So what is the problem with everyone here, exactly?


----------



## sadated_peon (Jan 5, 2011)

xenopyre said:


> Sadated i'm not a muslim but not all muslims consider Mohammed to be emulated in all aspect of his life(that's only the salafists) most islamic thought schools consider Mohammed  to be emulated  just in matters of  prayer and relgious rituals .


By all means have a discussion with the Muslims in the forum who talk about the length of beard to be considered a muslim. 

I would say that the majority of Muslims consider the actions of Muhammad as permitted, not just pray rituals.


----------



## Mathias124 (Jan 5, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> By all means have a discussion with the Muslims in the forum who talk about the length of beard to be considered a muslim.
> 
> I would say that the majority of Muslims consider the actions of Muhammad as permitted, not just pray rituals.



.. to a certain degree, most muslims today wouldnt marry a 9 year old nor accept it (at least none i know, and its quite a few), even very religious muslims.

However they do emulate him, just not the morally wrong acts


----------



## DaDarkDude (Jan 5, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> By all means have a discussion with the Muslims in the forum who talk about the length of beard to be considered a muslim.
> 
> I would say that the majority of Muslims consider the actions of Muhammad as permitted, not just pray rituals.



Length of beard? That's just off. In case you've never seen beyond the media, not every muslim has a beard. Next you'll be saying every Nazi carries a torch and every Christian carries a Bible. 

The majority of his actions are considered permissible, and are encouraged to follow, that you have a point. But even prophets make mistakes. Take a look at the Bible and Quran, both Jesus and Muhammad made mistakes. No human is perfect.



Mathias124 said:


> .. to a certain degree, most muslims today wouldnt marry a 9 year old nor accept it (at least none i know, and its quite a few), even very religious muslims.
> 
> However they do emulate him, just not the morally wrong acts



...
I don't think any person would want to marry a 9-year-old. All these things are just misconceptions about Islam, and many idiotic people turn a blind eye to the same doings their very own ancestors performed. It's sad, really.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 5, 2011)

Wow. People are actually defending it again. I will point out that even for his time, it was highly abnormal to marry a girl so young, even moreso, have sexual intercourse with her. She was not even in her teens at the time.



> Take a look at the Bible and Quran, both Jesus and Muhammad made mistakes. No human is perfect.



Jesus didn't rape a kid and captive women, nor did he take slaves.


----------



## DaDarkDude (Jan 5, 2011)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Wow. People are actually defending it again. I will point out that even for his time, it was highly abnormal to marry a girl so young, even moreso, have sexual intercourse with her. She was not even in her teens at the time.
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus didn't rape a kid and captive women, nor did he take slaves.



You're pretty helpless, aren't you?
Does it not strike you odd that out of all the nations that ruled the world in the past, one of the only nations that tolerated other religions was the Ottoman empire? And what exactly were the Ottomans... Muslim?
You've all been tricked by the media into believing Muhammad married kids. It's just not the truth. As I've already pointed out, he married a women well over his age- nearly 20 years. I fail to see how that's pedophilic. The media has trolled you all into believing that Islam allows kids to be married, when obviously it doesn't. Otherwise we'd continue to see that in Arabia today. 

I honestly can't fathom why at least one of you supporting the cause that Muhammad married 6 year olds doesn't give the slight attempt at researching a little more to realize the false accusations you're all making. I've researched plenty into the matter, and I find it funny that people keep believing the mediocre tales the media feeds.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 5, 2011)

It wasn't the media that informed me of this, it was Islam itself. It's in the texts Muslims revere so much, not only in the accounts of Aisha herself, but Mohammed's followers as well. He married and raped a child. 

Oh God, you're one of those tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists...that's denial man. You're in denial.


----------



## sadated_peon (Jan 5, 2011)

Mathias124 said:
			
		

> .. to a certain degree, most muslims today wouldnt marry a 9 year old nor accept it (at least none i know, and its quite a few), even very religious muslims.
> 
> However they do emulate him, just not the morally wrong acts


In which case the system of emulating Muhammad is arbitrary and basically is just a pick and choose of what they want to follow. 

It makes it meaningless, and it makes Muhammad as an example meaningless. 



			
				DaDarkDude said:
			
		

> Length of beard? That's just off. In case you've never seen beyond the media, not every muslim has a beard. Next you'll be saying every Nazi carries a torch and every Christian carries a Bible.


Go check out the Islam debates thread, you have a long discussion about how it is required for Muslim men to have beards, and if they don?t their not ?true? muslims. 



			
				DaDarkDude said:
			
		

> The majority of his actions are considered permissible, and are encouraged to follow, that you have a point. But even prophets make mistakes. Take a look at the Bible and Quran, both Jesus and Muhammad made mistakes. No human is perfect.


I have no problem with believe that people make mistakes, I have a problem with the following. 



?"It is incorrect to say that it's not permitted to marry off girls who are 15 and younger," Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Sheikh, the kingdom's grand mufti, said in remarks quoted Wednesday in the regional Al-Hayat newspaper. "A girl aged 10 or 12 can be married. Those who think she's too young are wrong and they are being unfair to her."
The issue of child marriage has been a hot-button topic in the deeply conservative kingdom in recent weeks.
Late last month, a Saudi judge refused to annul the marriage of an 8-year-old girl to a 47-year-old man.?


----------



## Eru Lawliet (Jan 5, 2011)

> Many people are looking for a spiritual and fulfilling lifestyle rather than the hedonistic, materially-driven one that we have around us," says Imam Masroor.



If it's spirituality you're after, wouldn't it be better to look into religions like Buddhism for example?



> "Then when I became Muslim, I sort of calmed down. I wanted to stay at home studying on the internet or reading books. And I'm more happy than I was - I'm proud of who I am, I've got a certain identity."



That sounds like she has huge self-worth issues. An easy target for religions and sects (which I think is actually the same). I think if she needs a religion to give her an identity, she'd be better off getting help by a psychiatrist to deal with her self-worth issues. I don't mean that as an insult, but after reading this article, I've got the impression, that those women are trying to run away from their problems.



> "I'd grown up in a model agency and I'd been surrounded my whole life by external beauty, and the hijab was, and very much is, about the search for inner beauty," she says.



You can search for inner beauty without hiding yourself.



I can understand the families for having problems with this. If I had a daughter, I wouldn't be happy either.
But what would trouble me alot more than devoting herself to a religion, is her veiling herself. I think it's sad for a woman to have to hide herself like that.


----------



## DaDarkDude (Jan 5, 2011)

Saudi Arabia is a shithole. They have the most retarded laws and rules ever. I've lived there for 5 years, and have seen other Arabian countries. Trust me, Saudi is just as screwed up as Iran. 
To use Saudi as proof of child marriage is laughable. They're just so intertwined to making the cheapest buck that they don't give a crap about small issues like child marriage. You're going to have to go deeper than that.


Besides, I'm not one of the 'conspiracy theorists'. I've lived first hand in these countries, and I've seen it all as an outside how much the media misinterprets them. Seriously, I've never heard of the evidence you're using as support, Seto. And I'm sure it would have drifted in the wind in an Arabian country. You got to learn that things are forged over time, and notes are made up. It's the harsh reality of life.

Take a look at Christianity. The Bible's like opensource software now. Anyone can change it as they please, provided they reference God. Everything we know is getting screwed up.


----------



## sadated_peon (Jan 5, 2011)

DaDarkDude said:


> Saudi Arabia is a shithole. They have the most retarded laws and rules ever. I've lived there for 5 years, and have seen other Arabian countries. Trust me, Saudi is just as screwed up as Iran.
> To use Saudi as proof of child marriage is laughable. They're just so intertwined to making the cheapest buck that they don't give a crap about small issues like child marriage. You're going to have to go deeper than that.
> 
> 
> ...


If it is such a shit hole then why don't muslims do something about it. If even a fraction of the attention that is given to Israel was directed at SA then it would help your case. 

Also, I am not christian, and the bible and the resulting religion is no better.


----------



## DaDarkDude (Jan 5, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> If it is such a shit hole then why don't muslims do something about it. If even a fraction of the attention that is given to Israel was directed at SA then it would help your case.
> 
> Also, I am not christian, and the bible and the resulting religion is no better.



Are you serious? That's like saying people in Canada should do something about the people in America. They're different countries, bro. Racism is everywhere. I've seen Syrians make fun of Saudis, Jordanians make fun of Egyptians, Egyptians make fun of Libyans, and the likes. There's no unity at all. Even in the schools, the kids bicker and argue and fight occasionally over nationalities. It's no secret that Saudi Arabia is the US's little suck-up, and it's pretty sickening because they just get recognition for their oil. 
Honestly, I think all of Arabia is screwed up and needs help, but that's no reason to hate on the Religion. I've seen what the religion teaches, and its not all terrorism and killing. That's only the radicals, and there're always those factions in every country.


----------



## Bleach (Jan 5, 2011)

Yay 

Haters gonna hate.


----------



## LegendaryBeauty (Jan 5, 2011)

heavy_rasengan said:


> Haha very true. Its always the "I feel happier and more spiritual". A sort of psychological placebo.
> 
> "The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one"
> -Bertrand Russel
> ...



Peaceful Islam always _was_ the real Islam. I don't understand your point. Simply because there are extremists doesn't mean that's the true nature of Islam. There are extremists in any religion. The Crusades ring a bell?


----------



## sadated_peon (Jan 5, 2011)

DaDarkDude said:


> Are you serious? That's like saying people in Canada should do something about the people in America. They're different countries, bro. Racism is everywhere. I've seen Syrians make fun of Saudis, Jordanians make fun of Egyptians, Egyptians make fun of Libyans, and the likes. There's no unity at all. Even in the schools, the kids bicker and argue and fight occasionally over nationalities. It's no secret that Saudi Arabia is the US's little suck-up, and it's pretty sickening because they just get recognition for their oil.
> Honestly, I think all of Arabia is screwed up and needs help, but that's no reason to hate on the Religion. I've seen what the religion teaches, and its not all terrorism and killing. That's only the radicals, and there're always those factions in every country.


Israel is also another country.... bro. Yet this never seems to stop the huge stream of attention showered onto it. 

I hate on all religions equally, but I see more individual Muslims singling themselves out with their opinions for my individual scorn. 

The issue I have is not that Muslism pic and choose what to believe and what not to believe, what to follow and not what to follow, its that they don't accept they are doing this. 

I don't judge Islam on it's radicals, but by the same reasoning I don't judge Islam by it's pacifists. 
I judge it by its texts.


----------



## DaDarkDude (Jan 5, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> I don't judge Islam on it's radicals, but by the same reasoning I don't judge Islam by it's pacifists.
> I judge it by its texts.



So I take it you read the entire Quran, and know every slight detail you're talking about? 'Cause if so, than good for you. At least you got some form of evidence. My slander is mainly aimed at the people dropping by and adding random comments with no personal experience or support.

Besides, the reason they're all hating on Israel is because they all feel threatened. Take a look at who Israel attacked in the past decades. They all feel threatened, then there's the war over the 'Holy Land' that's been going on for ages. There's no point in comparing Saudi to Israel. We both know that no matter what happens, people have just been labeled by religions, unfortunately. So they're not going to bother with people with similar religions, and instead go for the threat.


----------



## Al-Yasa (Jan 5, 2011)

Seto Kaiba said:


> *It wasn't the media that informed me of this, it was Islam itself. It's in the texts Muslims revere so much*, not only in the accounts of Aisha herself, but Mohammed's followers as well. He married and raped a child.
> 
> Oh God, you're one of those tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists...that's denial man. You're in denial.



Its not in the Quran. if you are talking about the hadiths not all muslims accept them.


----------



## impersonal (Jan 5, 2011)

Mathias124 said:


> Good point, really good actually.
> 
> However if you judge someone by the harm caused by said action you are once again talking harm according to our standards, which are irrelevant.


Our standards are the _only ones_ that are relevant.



Mathias124 said:


> You basically say that instead of judging people like some people here do, we should call them unenlightened, which i agree with.
> But many people say what he did was evil, which im argueing against.
> 
> Unenlightened is the correct word,


The difference between unenlightened and evil is extremely thin. Many people commit the worst evils thinking they are in their rights; the most obvious example being the nazis, but there are countless others, including today's terrorists. People who do wrong rarely know they are doing wrong; they make themselves all sorts of excuses.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 5, 2011)

Al-Yasa said:


> Its not in the Quran. if you are talking about the hadiths not all muslims accept them.



There are various hadiths and they are the primary source Muslims use in regards to looking into the lives of Mohammed and his followers. Even Aisha's own accounts as I stated make it clear that she was a child at the time of her marriage and first sexual intercourse with Mohammed.


----------



## dr_shadow (Jan 5, 2011)

Glad to see people can choose to have any lifestyle they want without being limited by their ethnicity.


----------



## Al-Yasa (Jan 5, 2011)

Seto Kaiba said:


> There are various hadiths and they are the primary source Muslims use in regards to looking into the lives of Mohammed and his followers. Even Aisha's own accounts as I stated make it clear that she was a child at the time of her marriage and first sexual intercourse with Mohammed.



unlike the Quran the hadith were collected a 100 years after the death of the prophet and Aisha (R.A) . A 100 YEARS (?_?). Unlike the Quran the hadiths were not memorised by hundreds of people and consisits mostly of " A once heard B say this to C". 

there are numerous hadiths which dont support that she was 9. they claim she was much older.




According to Ibn Hisham's recension of Ibn Ishaq's (d. 768) biography of Prophet Muhammad, the _Sirat Rashul Allah_,  the earliest surviving biography of Muhammad, Aisha accepted Islam  before Umar ibn al-Khattab. If true, then Aisha accepted Islam during  its infancy. She could not have been less than 14 years in 1 A.H.?the time she got married. _Sira, Ibn Hisham, Vol. 1, 227_
 

Tabari reports that when Abu Bakr planned on migrating to ethopia (eight years before Hijrah), he went to Mut`am - with whose son Aisha  was engaged at that time - and asked him to take Aisha as his son's  wife. Mut`am refused because Abu Bakr had converted to Islam. If Aisha  was only six years old at the time of her betrothal to Muhammad, she  could not have been born at the time Abu Bakr decided on migrating to Ethopia. _Tehqiq e umar e Siddiqah e Ka'inat, Habib ur Rahman Kandhalwi, 38_
 

Tabari in his treatise on Islamic history reports that Abu Bakr had  four children and all four were born during the Jahiliyyah - the pre  Islamic period. If Aisha was born in the period of Jahiliyyah, she could  not have been less than 14 years in 1 A.H. _Tarikh al-umam wa al-mamloo'k, Al-Tabari, Vol. 4, 50_
 

According to Ibn Hajar, Fatima was five years older than Aisha.  Fatima is reported to have been born when Muhammad was 35 years old.  Muhammad migrated to Medina when he was 52, making Aisha 14 years old in  1 A.H. _Tamyeez al-Sahaabah, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalaniy, Vol. 4, 377_


----------



## Jagon Fox (Jan 5, 2011)

well as long as it makes them happy and they don't get all fundy about it, (and that goes for any religion) then more power to em.


----------



## maj1n (Jan 5, 2011)

Al-Yasa said:


> unlike the Quran the hadith were collected a 100 years after the death of the prophet and Aisha (R.A) . A 100 YEARS (¬_¬). Unlike the Quran the hadiths were not memorised by hundreds of people and consisits mostly of " A once heard B say this to C".


Everything you claim is not supported by any evidence, it is simply a blind belief that the Quran was definitely collected during Muhammads time or near it.

The earliest quran we have, is also dated at least a hundred years after Muhammad.

Don't try to argue about the historicity of Islam, because your mixing blind beliefs, with statements of fact.



			
				Al-Yasa said:
			
		

> there are numerous hadiths which dont support that she was 9. they claim she was much older.
> 
> 
> According to Ibn Hisham's recension of Ibn Ishaq's (d. 768) biography of Prophet Muhammad, the _Sirat Rashul Allah_,  the earliest surviving biography of Muhammad, Aisha accepted Islam  before Umar ibn al-Khattab. If true, then Aisha accepted Islam during  its infancy. She could not have been less than 14 years in 1 A.H.—the time she got married. _Sira, Ibn Hisham, Vol. 1, 227_
> ...


Try to list where you plagiarised from.



You conveniently left this out.
_
Note: Muslim tradition generally says that Aisha was six years old when married to Muhammad, and that this marriage took place in 1 A.H. *All of the above arguments are based on the hypothesis that —as reported by the original sources —the age at which Aisha was married is wrong,* while the time at which she married (in the same sources) is correct._

Your arguments are copy and pasted,and don't stand up to scrutiny.

1. That Aisha accepted Islam before Umar ibn al-Khattab cannot be used to pinpoint that she was 14 years old in any fashion, this is basic mathematics, simply saying 'before someone' gives no definite age, it could only mean before a certain age.

This is not Hadith, the Sirat Rasullelah is a biography of Muhammad by someone, but thats not hadith.

2.
Not Hadith, nor can you use this to pinpoint Aisha's age, you would need to know the exact time that Aisha was promised to Muhammad

3.
Flatly false, i have read Al Tabari, Al Tabari *explicitly states Aisha was married at 6-7 and consummated at 9*, and only mentions that Abu Bakr married the mothers of the children pre-islam, nothing of their birth

Not Hadith either

4.
Still not Hadith, rather, based on Tafsir, but still not that credible, as '100 years' is a phrase, nor is her sister's difference of age agreed even in the same source, the difference is said to be between 10 to 14 years iirc.

Stop copy and pasting shit and actually do some research.

Btw, pedophilic act is explicitly supported by the Quran, you can have sex with a pre-pubertic girl as an act of consummating the marriage as told by surah 33:49


----------



## WT (Jan 5, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> The fact that you claim that the actions of a man in 2 are STILL to be emulated TODAY, is the problem.
> 
> You establish an absolute morality in the man Muhammad, and then try to establish a relative morality of the times.
> It is a direct contradiction!



You don't seem to be understanding. I guess that's my fault for not clarifying earlier. There are some aspects which are followed and emulated, for example, there is a whole etiquette on how one should eat their food, eat with the right hand, sit down and eat, don't eat too much, rulings on the beard etc

However, there are other aspects which are *exclusive* to Prophets which *cannot* be emulated. One clear example being, the amount of wives he had at one time. Limit for Muslims is 4, whereas the Prophet had 13ish at one time.  

Now, a little bit about the categories of permissibility:

(i) ‘Farz’ i.e compulsory

(ii) ‘Mustahab’ i.e recommended or encouraged

(iii) ‘Mubah’ i.e permissible

(iv) ‘Makruh’ i.e ‘not recommended’ or discouraged

(v) ‘Haram’ i.e prohibited or forbidden 

Marriage itself falls under (ii) however, marriage to specific category or age range falls under (iii). 

In western countries, you have the law of the land. If there are somethings in Islam which fall under (iii) and if the law of the land forbids it, the Muslim is obliged to follow the law of the land since anything under (iii) does in no way effect his religion. Its simply "permissible", not good, not bad, just permissible. Eating a fish for example, wearing a red shirt and so on.   

A Summery:

1) Only certain things are meant to be emulated

2) If the law of the land goes against rules which fall under category (iii) e.g. Marriage to more than 1 wife etc, then it is fully justified and the Muslim can follow the law of the land without any effect on his or her Islam. 

I hope this answers some of your questions.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Jan 5, 2011)

LegendaryBeauty said:


> Peaceful Islam always _was_ the real Islam. I don't understand your point. Simply because there are extremists doesn't mean that's the true nature of Islam. There are extremists in any religion. The Crusades ring a bell?



No, Islam was revealed fairly well after the death of the prophet. You know, the century where the Rashidun Caliphates and the Ummayad Dynasty expanded from Saudi Arabia to the entire Middle-East all the way to Spain and North Africa and to the borders of India. Of course when you ask Muslims about this they will claim it was a defensive war....

Anyways, explaining actions of Muslims to you is futile as we all know actions of followers don't represent the source material, the texts itself does and there is a very clear understanding of the implementation of Shariah as the law for the entire world....You do know that every single Muslim educated in their religion believes that the beginning of the apocalypse entails the Muslims slaughtering the Christians and Jews in a final battle and them taking over the entire world....by force. 

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFAkmsszTD8[/YOUTUBE]

^^^Just take a look at this nut, he even conveniently manages to put in some passages from the hadith

Maybe peaceful is not the right word to use here....because if the disgusting goal of Islam is achieved, there probably will be peace. You know a society where fornicators and adulterers are stoned to death, thats right, if someone cheats on someone else we will all be outside observing and taking a part in bludgeoning another human being to death with stones. People who want to leave Islam will be killed. Have you seen the blasphemy law in Pakistan? Well expect to see that in an ideal Islamic society for any alternative viewpoint on Islam and its prophet will not be tolerated. Freedom of speech itself will not be too much tolerated for that matter. Anyone of other religions will be treated as second class citizens being forced to pay a tax and being forced to keep indoor religious voices.

How bout all that anime, movies, shows, ENTERTAINMENT we enjoy? We won't be seein that no more, at least not what it is now. (who the fuck wants to see Angelina Jolie or Scarlett Johanson in a Hijab anyways?) Slavery is also condoned in Islam, so if anybody wanna bring that back fuck human rights you know, its perfectly permissible to buy and sell other human beings (as long as freeing them is encouraged!) Oh yeah, we won't be watchin Judge Judy anymore either, cuzz you know women cant be judges and all. Don't expect much advancements either considering competition will be eliminated and doubt will be cast away, this is the perfect society. This is the ideal society, this is the Islamic society that the prophet has envisioned for us, lets embrace it and live peacefully!!!


----------



## LegendaryBeauty (Jan 5, 2011)

Not worth reasoning with if you have such a heavily biased opinion against them.


----------



## αce (Jan 5, 2011)

> Peaceful Islam always was the real Islam. I don't understand your point. Simply because there are extremists doesn't mean that's the true nature of Islam. There are extremists in any religion. The Crusades ring a bell?



This argument really never made sense to me.
It's _not_ the extemists. It's the _fundamentals of the texts themselves that are extreme_ and don't correlate with modern culture. If the texts said "be cool bro" and someone wasn't cool, I'd say he wasn't following the religion.


And technically, the destruction and forcible conversion of foreign religions is warranted by the Old Testament. So _in a sense_ the Crusades were justified.


----------



## LegendaryBeauty (Jan 5, 2011)

Right. If it floats your boat, Ace. I'm not here to judge.


----------



## αce (Jan 5, 2011)

THE TRUTH FLOATS MY BOAT
Rouge The Bat


----------



## LegendaryBeauty (Jan 5, 2011)

So be it,
TAKA SASUKE.


----------



## Spirit (Jan 6, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> On the principle level Muhammad had sex with a 9 year old.
> 
> The principle level, the universal level is WITHOUT cultural context. Muhammad cannot be a objective example of what to do, if the actions are taken in a cultural context.
> 
> To take ?culture? into account for his actions is to remove him as an example for all time.



No, her age was just a number. The significance of the number itself varies if not moot. In his days and culture, he didn't marry a 9 years old, he married someone that can be married. And there is the principle: you can marry someone whom your society deems eligible for marriage. That's why the number didn't matter, it's still doesn't matter in this era. What matters is what we deem as legal.

If it's 9, then it's 9.
If it's 16, then it's 16.
If it's none, then it's none.
If it's puberty, then it's puberty.

The numbers just keep being pushed aside, but you just keep pulling it in. It. Doesn't. Matter.



sadated_peon said:


> Because ?someone? is not an objective moral standard from which everyone should emulate their actions.
> 
> I am trying to be consistent, I am identifying the difference between every day people, and a person you want emulate for all time.
> 
> When you take the actions of someone off the street the same way you take the actions Muhammad, we can talk about being consistent.



You're right, "someone" isn't an objective moral standard. But even if it's "someone" it didn't stop you from pushing your own moral standard, did it?

I do look at what people say, what people do, the same way I look at how and what Muhammad did and say things: why did he do it, why did he say it, why, why, why.

If it's unacceptable, I voice it out. If it is acceptable, I'll keep quiet.

If it's good, I'll take it. If it's bad, I'll reject it.

Simple and very consistent.




impersonal said:


> Regardless of your culture, doing something to someone against this person's consent is immoral. Regardless of your culture, when you're 9 years old you cannot consent. Raping a little girl is thus immoral.
> 
> This has nothing to do with preferring vanilla or chocolate. Culinary taste is a matter of personal preference. Morality, despite its subjective basis, aims at universality (and in religion, morality has a pseudo-objective basis _anyway_).
> 
> To put things in a different way: even when it was widespread, slavery was immoral. Slavery didn't become immoral after it had been stopped; it was stopped (forcefully) because it was immoral.



But morality is very much preferential, exactly like culinary taste, or color preferences. We arbitrarily establish a goal, either for ourselves individually, or something we "want" to achieve as a society, _and then_ the rest and all course of actions should now serve toward achieving this goal. Anything that does not contribute towards this goal, is either amoral or outright immoral. We thus invoke other things like ethics and laws to protect this goal. Or else what will stop me from painting your house red?

But you're right, consent is essential. Nonetheless, it _was not_. Although it doesn't work one way. Up until today, in some cultures, daughters relies on their parents for consent. And as mentioned above, age and number has nothing to do with how we determine who can and cannot consent.

In any event, what Muhammad demonstrated was that if it is deemed acceptable for your society to marry someone, then you can marry her, as he did marry Aisha.


@Trias,
Thanks for the neg, but refering to your message through it, there is nothing radical in my stance. I consider myself as a person of value and principle, therefore I was never a liberal, although comparing to the generic Islamic clergies, I can certainly pass as one. If I was a Christian, I will still be challenging the so called authorities. It doesn't make me a liberal, and I don't recall to have claimed myself as one.

Furthermore, if I am claiming myself to be a follower of Muhammad, how could I ever claim to be either a liberal or a conservative in this subject? What was he that I follow? A liberal? A conservative? He taught liberation from "religions", at the same time he conserved the wisdoms of previous prophets. He was neither, and he was both.

But indeed he was a reformer and that is what I shall aim to be and emulate.

Additionally, what I am standing up for here isn't the literal aspect of Muhammad's actions, rather the principle, the fundamentals, the reasons, the wisdoms. As in fact we arguing about whom he and we cannot marry, he certainly showed who he and we could, and age is our moot obsession if you look hard enough.

I do not believe in moderating Islam, as I believe it is the one that moderates me. Which is all the more reason for me to be vocal about what I see as the fundamental aspects of it, rather than sheeping around being moderated by some clerics whose train of thoughts I cannot stomach. I am not trying to backpaddle, nor arguing backwards contesting that Muhammad was claimed to be always right, therefore he must be right regardless. God, no. I'm looking at it differently, and following that, I'm offering my perspective. If it's too hard for you, I'm sorry, but I can not care. I'm standing by what I see is right as you are standing by what you see is right. I hope we can be civil about it.


----------



## Mider T (Jan 6, 2011)

♠Ace♠ said:


> THE TRUTH FLOATS MY BOAT
> Rouge The Bat





LegendaryBeauty said:


> So be it,
> TAKA SASUKE.



It's like I'm playing Halo.


----------



## impersonal (Jan 6, 2011)

Tokyo Jihen said:


> But morality is very much preferential, exactly like culinary taste, or color preferences.
> (...)
> In any event, what Muhammad demonstrated was that if it is deemed acceptable for your society to marry someone, then you can marry her, as he did marry Aisha.


What if it is deemed acceptable for your society to spit on the Qur'an and reject Muhammad and his teachings? Would that still be okay, according to Muhammad? What about adultery? The whole muslim world works like this: when they face a moral question, they dig into the Qur'an to find the answer, rather than trying to observe what is deemed acceptable in today's society.

So, why are blasphemy and adultery moral absolutes, but not pedophilia? Why the different treatment?

There's something highly bizarre for a muslim to be supporting moral relativism. It's incredibly incoherent. Muslims worship a book that supposedly contains the absolute truth, including absolute moral truths. You can not possibly reconcile that with moral relativism.


----------



## zuul (Jan 6, 2011)

Pedo apologists on my anime forum !!!

How unsurprizing !!


----------



## maj1n (Jan 6, 2011)

Tokyo Jihen said:
			
		

> No, her age was just a number. The significance of the number itself varies if not moot. In his days and culture, he didn't marry a 9 years old, he married someone that can be married. And there is the principle: you can marry someone whom your society deems eligible for marriage. That's why the number didn't matter, it's still doesn't matter in this era. What matters is what we deem as legal.
> 
> If it's 9, then it's 9.
> If it's 16, then it's 16.
> ...


Flatly incorrect, it is not 'what we deem legal' it is 'what we deem right'.

You argue as if 'legality' is arbitrary and so is somehow acceptable at any variation, any difference, so long as someone makes it 'legal'.

Try making that a case for 'cold blooded murder' if a 'society' murdered in cold blood, is this ok? how about *we take Islams support of slavery*
For sure slavery for some societies was ok, is this moral?

Now apply that to *pedophilic acts* of your prophet.



			
				Tokyo Jihen said:
			
		

> Additionally, what I am standing up for here isn't the literal aspect of Muhammad's actions, rather the principle, the fundamentals, the reasons, the wisdoms. As in fact we arguing about whom he and we cannot marry, he certainly showed who he and we could, and age is our moot obsession if you look hard enough.


No you don't, you made your rather warped perspective up on the spot just to suit your peculiar belief system.

Case in point? Muhammads pedophilic act of having sex with a 9 year old is wrong, but you still cannot bring yourself to admit this, but instead choose to arbitrarily justify as 'if society thinks its legal, its ok'.

That is actually this type of argument 'if someone thinks its ok, its ok'.

This is your moral system? it is even more bankrupt then Islam's.

The sheer absurdity of your own belief system is evident in the fact you cannot even say a pedophilic act is wrong.


			
				White Tiger said:
			
		

> In western countries, you have the law of the land. If there are somethings in Islam which fall under (iii) and if the law of the land forbids it, the Muslim is obliged to follow the law of the land since anything under (iii) *does in no way effect his religion*


Wrong, even in Islamic texts, your interpretation has no basis.

In fact, according to Islamic texts of Muhammad, essentially you must follow Islam even against the laws of any land, because following Islam is gods laws.


----------



## Deimos (Jan 6, 2011)

impersonal said:


> What if it is deemed acceptable for your society to spit on the Qur'an and reject Muhammad and his teachings? Would that still be okay, according to Muhammad? What about adultery? The whole muslim world works like this: when they face a moral question, they dig into the Qur'an to find the answer, rather than trying to observe what is deemed acceptable in today's society.
> 
> So, why are blasphemy and adultery moral absolutes, but not pedophilia? Why the different treatment?
> 
> There's something highly bizarre for a muslim to be supporting moral relativism. It's incredibly incoherent. Muslims worship a book that supposedly contains the absolute truth, including absolute moral truths. You can not possibly reconcile that with moral relativism.



The Qur'an doesn't hold the answer to all moral questions; that would be a ridiculous claim. It contains some principles from which Muslims are supposed to extract a general policy. Depending on how they are understood, the policy adopted can vary quite a bit. There is no such thing as "the absolute truth" anywhere. Muslims each understand and connect with religion in a personal way and each will be judged according to their understanding or their ability to understand and process available information.

I have no trouble accepting the prophet's actions. Using age as a parameter for consent capacity is arbitrary. You can be 25 and still be an idiot, and you can be 10 and be wiser than an 18 yo. Did this relationship hurt any of the two? Did it hurt anyone else? The prophet had a lot of enemies. Why didn't they call him a p*d*p****? The reason is because there is nothing wrong with what he did. What he did looks wrong to you now because of the arbitrary limits imposed by the state in an attempt to maintain order.

Also, I wouldn't compare that to adultery. Adultery is betrayal, which means someone gets hurt in the process (unless the spouse knows but this case is irrelevant to the point I want to make). The prophet's relationship didn't hurt anyone. He didn't leave her when she grew up, she didn't suffer from any psychological issues, he wasn't known to go after all the little girls and nothing points towards it being a morally wrong action.

Lastly, I fail to see the connection between what TJ said about marriage and your first question. The prophet wanted to teach other Muslims that you can marry a 10 yo if it is okay to marry a 10 yo in your society. The logic you used to try to imply that he was trying to teach them that you can do anything your society accepts is weird at best.

_If red is acceptable, you can use red. => If anything is acceptable, you can use anything._

Care to show me how you managed to go from orange to blue?


----------



## maj1n (Jan 6, 2011)

Deimos said:


> I have no trouble accepting the prophet's actions. Using age as a parameter for consent capacity is arbitrary. You can be 25 and still be an idiot, and you can be 10 and be wiser than an 18 yo. Did this relationship hurt any of the two? Did it hurt anyone else? The prophet had a lot of enemies. Why didn't they call him a p*d*p****? The reason is because there is nothing wrong with what he did. What he did looks wrong to you now because of the arbitrary limits imposed by the state in an attempt to maintain order.


Pedophilia is sex with pre-pubertic children, as such it isn't arbitrary.

Because having sex with a child is dangerous.

Or perhaps you think if a guy fucks a baby, there wouldn't be any physical harm?

Did his relationships hurt anyone? well interesting argument, considering child marriage and pedophilia in many rural Islamic area's is rife.

Are they harmful? i think so.


			
				Deimos said:
			
		

> Also, I wouldn't compare that to adultery. Adultery is betrayal, which means someone gets hurt in the process (unless the spouse knows but this case is irrelevant to the point I want to make). The prophet's relationship didn't hurt anyone. He didn't leave her when she grew up, she didn't suffer from any psychological issues, he wasn't known to go after all the little girls and nothing points towards it being a morally wrong action.


This isn't something you can state as a fact, or you presume knowledge of...a person thousands of years ago with no real credible evidence?


----------



## WT (Jan 6, 2011)

maj1n said:


> Wrong, even in Islamic texts, your interpretation has no basis.
> 
> In fact, according to Islamic texts of Muhammad, essentially you must follow Islam even against the laws of any land, because following Islam is gods laws.



This is the interpretation of the Scholars. Maj1n, if you want to create your own Islam and impose it on others, you are welcome to do so. Your the last person anyone should see for interpretations on the Quran/hadith because you haven't studied them like Scholars have. Before researching sources of Islam, it is your habit to approach the situation with prejudice which has evidently lead to injustice.

I'll clarify once more. There are certain things which do not effect your Islam. I can eat a fish, wear a red shirt or whatever, and that will not be favorable or sinful. Marriage to a particular age is also within this category, however, marriage in general is recommended. 

Secondly, there is no law whereby we must get married to younger women.


----------



## impersonal (Jan 6, 2011)

Deimos said:


> (...) I have no trouble accepting the prophet's actions. *Using age as a parameter for consent capacity is arbitrary.You can be 25 and still be an idiot, and you can be 10 and be wiser than an 18 yo.* (...) What he did looks wrong to you now because of the arbitrary limits imposed by the state in an attempt to maintain order.


So your line of defense is that getting engaged to a 6 years old and having sex with her when she's 9 is just fine, and you have no trouble accepting that. According to you, it is today's society that is wrong in making this illegal.

Frankly, I find your argument extremely weak. Sure, you can be 25 and an idiot, or 15 and very mature. But you *can not* be 6 and mature enough to consent to marriage, or 9 and mature enough to start having sex. I find it unbelievable that someone would argue that pedophilia on such a young kid is okay in any circumstances.

While it is understandable that uncivilized people would do stuff like that a few centuries ago (they also killed, raped and tortured in very barbaric ways, had slaves etc.), that doesn't mean it wasn't wrong.



			
				Deimos said:
			
		

> Lastly, I fail to see the connection between what TJ said about marriage and your first question. The prophet wanted to teach other Muslims that you can marry a 10 yo if it is okay to marry a 10 yo in your society. The logic you used to try to imply that he was trying to teach them that you can do anything your society accepts is weird at best.
> 
> _If red is acceptable, you can use red. => If anything is acceptable, you can use anything._
> 
> Care to show me how you managed to go from orange to blue?





			
				Tokyo Jihen said:
			
		

> *But morality is very much preferential, exactly like culinary taste, or color preferences*.


Other posters, such as Mathias, have also been arguing in favor of generalized moral relativism, so clearly this was not a strawman. I suggest you read their posts again.

This position allows them to avoid taking a stance like yours, ie._ "fucking little kids is perfectly acceptable"_ (which I personally think is barbaric). Instead they say:
a) Pedophilia is wrong now, but it was okay back then, because morality is relative (TJ, Mathias, others).

I'm arguing here that this stance does not make sense, and I believe you agree. The only ways out are thus either:
b) It is indeed morally acceptable to marry and have sex with small kids (your position)
c) Although he does have cultural excuses, the prophet was still wrong in marrying & having sex with Aicha when she was so young (my position).

I believe if Muslims started treating Muhammad like a man instead of like a divinity, they would have it much easier. But they made their prophet into an _idol_, now they have to deal with the logical implications.


----------



## WT (Jan 6, 2011)

impersonal said:


> So your line of defense is that getting engaged to a 6 years old and having sex with her when she's 9 is just fine, and you have no trouble accepting that. According to you, it is today's society that is wrong in making this illegal.
> 
> Frankly, I find your argument extremely weak. Sure, you can be 25 and an idiot, or 15 and very mature. But you *can not* be 6 and mature enough to consent to marriage, or 9 and mature enough to start having sex. I find it unbelievable that someone would argue that pedophilia on such a young kid is okay in any circumstances.



You are under the assumption that *all* 9 year old are prepubescent. In Islam, sexual intercourse can only be done after puberty has been reached. There are many cases across the world where we see 9 year olds giving birth etc.

Also in more weaker hadith, Lady Aisha herself has reported to have said that (to the nearest meaning), Allah has given me features which he has not given any other woman.

In more stronger Hadith, such as Bukhari, if you actually read the pages regarding Mensus, you will find that sexual activity between the Prophet and Lady Aisha only occurred after puberty.


----------



## Mael (Jan 6, 2011)

Wow this got derailed pretty quickly.

This is obviously a pride piece and that's nice and all.  If it's conversion for the sake of marriage, I'm all for it.  That way, the whole worry of extremism seems a lot less likely.  My worry is the uneducated, incarcerated, and immature converts whom, like in the case with the Germans I was assisting in tracking years ago, can lead to some serious plots.



> Frankly, I find your argument extremely weak. Sure, you can be 25 and an idiot, or 15 and very mature. But you can not be 6 and mature enough to consent to marriage, or 9 and mature enough to start having sex. I find it unbelievable that someone would argue that pedophilia on such a young kid is okay in any circumstances.



You and Grrrblt have obviously not seen eye to eye.


----------



## impersonal (Jan 6, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> You are under the assumption that *all* 9 year old are prepubescent. In Islam, sexual intercourse can only be done after puberty has been reached. There are many cases across the world where we see 9 year olds giving birth etc.
> 
> Also in more weaker hadith, Lady Aisha herself has reported to have said that (to the nearest meaning), Allah has given me features which he has not given any other woman.
> 
> In more stronger Hadith, such as Bukhari, if you actually read the pages regarding Mensus, you will find that sexual activity between the Prophet and Lady Aisha only occurred after puberty.


I'm not talking about physical maturity. There have been younger girls who became mothers (the youngest, a peruvian girl, was not even 5 years old at conception; would you say that was okay?).

...Regardless of physical maturity, it's pedophilia, because the girl isn't psychologically ready.

As for marriage, it's a life changing thing, and suggesting that it can be done without the consent of the woman is highly sexist. It was how it was done back then, so you can't _expect_ your average uneducated tribesman to know about it. However, you can still say that were wrong to do things like that.


			
				Mael said:
			
		

> You and Grrrblt have obviously not seen eye to eye.


I know Grrrblt's position, already argued with him about that. I don't blame people who like little girls, lots of people have weird, unrealisable fetishes that they don't really control. Just don't act on them or make it a political program. In some muslim countries, pedophilia is allowed because of that.


----------



## WT (Jan 6, 2011)

impersonal said:


> I'm not talking about physical maturity. There have been younger girls who became mothers. Regardless, it's pedophilia, the girl isn't psychologically ready.
> 
> As for marriage, it's a life changing thing, and suggesting that it can be done without the consent of the woman is highly sexist.



Socialization has changed over the period of time. Perhaps in today's world a younger woman is indoctrinated to be a child for longer periods of time, however, in those days, there were different expectations. 

It is reported that Aisha RA was only taken into the house of the Prophet after she had stopped playing with dolls and was ready to become a wife. Furthermore, we see that Lady Aisha was perhaps one of the most intelligent female scholars of Islam, who would often get jealous of the Prophet. Even in some weak hadith (I am not sure if it is weak since it was related to me by a Scholar directly), lady Aisha compared Prophet Muhammad to Prophet Joseph who was said to be the most beautiful man Allah created. 

As for Pedophilia, its a term/concept that was coined up very recently and did not exist in those time periods. In stead, there was an unsaid rule or perhaps even stated somewhere that marriage between two people can only occur after puberty. 

When looking at that situation, you cannot simply classify it as pedophilia without having researched the whole situation. Like I said earlier, modern anthropological methodologies dictate that its recommended when examining a previous culture to remove your social frame of reference, acceptability and norms.

As for marriage, semi arranged marriages were very frequent in those time periods as it is still now. I am not even sure if the consent of Lady Aisha was taken (I will research) however, her parents allowed it.


----------



## maj1n (Jan 6, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> This is the interpretation of the Scholars. Maj1n, if you want to create your own Islam and impose it on others, you are welcome to do so. Your the last person anyone should see for interpretations on the Quran/hadith because you haven't studied them like Scholars have. Before researching sources of Islam, it is your habit to approach the situation with prejudice which has evidently lead to injustice.
> 
> I'll clarify once more. There are certain things which do not effect your Islam. I can eat a fish, wear a red shirt or whatever, and that will not be favorable or sinful. Marriage to a particular age is also within this category, however, marriage in general is recommended.
> 
> Secondly, there is no law whereby we must get married to younger women.


This is not the opinion of scholars.



			
				White Tiger said:
			
		

> You are under the assumption that all 9 year old are prepubescent. In Islam, sexual intercourse can only be done after puberty has been reached. There are many cases across the world where we see 9 year olds giving birth etc.


Please don't spout this stupid inane argument, nowhere in the world is a 9 year old giving birth the norm, it is always treated as an abnormality.

The fact that such events get into the newspapers, is proof it is considered abnormal.

Don't even try to use abnormal extreme conditions as trying to justify pedophilia.




			
				White Tiger said:
			
		

> In more stronger Hadith, such as Bukhari, if you actually read the pages regarding Mensus, you will find that sexual activity between the Prophet and Lady Aisha only occurred after puberty.


False, Bukhari hadith only specifies that she was pre-pubertic, i challenge you to give me a hadith that clearly states sex after puberty.

Narrated 'Aisha:
*
I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet,* and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (*The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty*.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13) 
-http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/073.sbt.html#008.073.151



			
				White Tiger said:
			
		

> Socialization has changed over the period of time. Perhaps in today's world a younger woman is indoctrinated to be a child for longer periods of time, however, in those days, there were different expectations.
> 
> It is reported that Aisha RA was only taken into the house of the Prophet after she had stopped playing with dolls and was ready to become a wife. Furthermore, we see that Lady Aisha was perhaps one of the most intelligent female scholars of Islam, who would often get jealous of the Prophet. Even in some weak hadith (I am not sure if it is weak since it was related to me by a Scholar directly), lady Aisha compared Prophet Muhammad to Prophet Joseph who was said to be the most beautiful man Allah created.


Pedophilia has nothing to do with someones mind, furthermore, according to the Islamic texts.

Aisha was swinging and playing with dolls right before Muhammad had sex with her.

Don't even try to argue she was some kind of mature woman mentally.

Narrated 'Ursa:

The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death). 
-http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/062.sbt.html#007.062.088

    Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin:

    When we came to Medina, the women came to me when I was playing on the swing, and my hair were up to my ears. They brought me, prepared me, and decorated me. Then they brought me to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and he took up cohabitation with me, when I was nine.
-http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/abudawud/041.sat.html#041.4915


----------



## impersonal (Jan 6, 2011)

White Tiger said:
			
		

> Socialization has changed over the period of time. Perhaps in today's world a younger woman is indoctrinated to be a child for longer periods of time, however, in those days, there were different expectations.
> 
> It is reported that Aisha RA was only taken into the house of the Prophet after she had stopped playing with dolls and was ready to become a wife.


So, as soon as she drops her barbies, bam! Spread her legs and make her a woman. Besides, she was engaged to Muhammad when she still played with dolls. Way to prove my point.


			
				White Tiger said:
			
		

> (...)
> As for Pedophilia, its a term/concept that was coined up very recently and did not exist in those time periods. In stead, there was an unsaid rule or perhaps even stated somewhere that marriage between two people can only occur after puberty.


Whether or not the term/concepts existed, it is clear that using females like property and having sex with immature children is bad. You don't need an erudite philosopher with technical terms to find that out. 

As I said, it is understandable that a man of this time would be ignorant of such things. People back then were savages in many ways. And even a prophet might still conform to the norms of the time, to make life easier. Regardless, it is morally wrong. If muslims ceased their idolatry of Muhammad, they would acknowledge that and move on.

Instead, in many countries, such savage practices are emulated up to this day.


----------



## Black Wraith (Jan 6, 2011)




----------



## sadated_peon (Jan 6, 2011)

DaDarkDude said:
			
		

> So I take it you read the entire Quran, and know every slight detail you're talking about? 'Cause if so, than good for you. At least you got some form of evidence. My slander is mainly aimed at the people dropping by and adding random comments with no personal experience or support.


No, I have not read “the entire Quran, and know every slight detail” and demanding that I must do so to understand parts of the Quran is a fallacy. 

My experience comes from reading the lines, the context of the lines. 



			
				DaDarkDude said:
			
		

> Besides, the reason they're all hating on Israel is because they all feel threatened. Take a look at who Israel attacked in the past decades. They all feel threatened, then there's the war over the 'Holy Land' that's been going on for ages. There's no point in comparing Saudi to Israel. We both know that no matter what happens, people have just been labeled by religions, unfortunately. So they're not going to bother with people with similar religions, and instead go for the threat.


Israel “attacks” have been in response from either invasion or terrorist attacks. 
The ‘Holy Land’ argument is even weaker considering that Mecca is much more important than Jerusalem. 

There is a direct point in comparing Saudi to Israel, it shows the tolerance that Muslims show toward the practices of the Saudi government and its version of Islam that controls the most holy sites. 

It shows the condoning of this form of Islam. It shows that if Muslims really thought that Saudi’s were heretics who have perverted the faith and oppress the people, then they would do something about it. 



			
				White Tiger said:
			
		

> You don't seem to be understanding. I guess that's my fault for not clarifying earlier. There are some aspects which are followed and emulated, for example, there is a whole etiquette on how one should eat their food, eat with the right hand, sit down and eat, don't eat too much, rulings on the beard etc
> 
> However, there are other aspects which are exclusive to Prophets which cannot be emulated. One clear example being, the amount of wives he had at one time. Limit for Muslims is 4, whereas the Prophet had 13ish at one time.
> 
> ...


This doesn’t counter anything I said. You set up Muhammad as the moral standard whose actions were guided by angels, and you accept that having sex with a 9 year old is permissible. 

You have basically just continued to accept that it is morally fine to have sex with children. That your example for moral acceptance that existed in the 5th century still holds today.  



			
				Tokyo Jihen said:
			
		

> No, her age was just a number. The significance of the number itself varies if not moot. In his days and culture, he didn't marry a 9 years old, he married someone that can be married. And there is the principle: you can marry someone whom your society deems eligible for marriage. That's why the number didn't matter, it's still doesn't matter in this era. What matters is what we deem as legal.
> 
> If it's 9, then it's 9.
> If it's 16, then it's 16.
> ...


First he didn’t marry a 9 year old, he married a 6 year old. He had sex with a 9 year old. 

Nor is this just a number, this was an actual child we are talking about. Flesh and blood child that was married off when she was 6, and fucked when she was 9. 

The idea, which you are allowed to marry someone, when you are allowed to marry someone is redundantly pointless. Your entire argument makes absolutely no sense. 

What we are talking about here is not legality, but morality. 
The idea that “it’s moral if it’s legal” means nothing for determining ethical guidelines. 

*Are you actually saying that if Islam existed in a culture where it was fine to have sex with 6 month old girls, that would be MORAL in Islam because it is what is deemed legal!*

-
You cannot push the numbers aside because the number correspond to the age of children, and MATTER for the ethical nature. 



			
				 Tokyo Jihen said:
			
		

> You're right, "someone" isn't an objective moral standard. But even if it's "someone" it didn't stop you from pushing your own moral standard, did it?
> 
> I do look at what people say, what people do, the same way I look at how and what Muhammad did and say things: why did he do it, why did he say it, why, why, why.
> 
> ...


I expect an objective moral standard to have a rational that can be justified against my own. If you can’t argue your objective moral standard verse my relative moral standard then it is useless.

The fact that you find it acceptable for a model 50 year old man to have sex with a child is abhorrent to me.

*An objective moral standard should be above culture!*


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Jan 6, 2011)

LegendaryBeauty said:


> Not worth reasoning with if you have such a heavily biased opinion against them.



Concession accepted.

Also, I am an ex-Muslim btw...go look at my older posts or just ask people like Majin how hardcore I was back in the day...so calling me "biased" is inaccurate as I am as objective as one can be, ive been there and ive done it and ive lived it.


----------



## Deimos (Jan 6, 2011)

impersonal said:


> So your line of defense is that getting engaged to a 6 years old and having sex with her when she's 9 is just fine, and you have no trouble accepting that. According to you, it is today's society that is wrong in making this illegal.
> 
> Frankly, I find your argument extremely weak. Sure, you can be 25 and an idiot, or 15 and very mature. But you *can not* be 6 and mature enough to consent to marriage, or 9 and mature enough to start having sex. I find it unbelievable that someone would argue that pedophilia on such a young kid is okay in any circumstances.
> 
> While it is understandable that uncivilized people would do stuff like that a few centuries ago (they also killed, raped and tortured in very barbaric ways, had slaves etc.), that doesn't mean it wasn't wrong.



Yes, I'm fine with marriage at such a young age under certain circumstances. No, I don't think today's society is wrong in making this illegal. I think it's not possible to manage such relationships in our society because of how complex it has become.

What's with age 9? I know you've used emphasis there, but you can't _seriously_ be claiming that it's impossible for any human that age to handle sex because that would be silly (and pretentious unless you're a god or something), and if you are then this conversation does not interest me one bit.

In short, I don't think it's necessarily barbaric and I think it can be justified in rare (according to _our_ statistics) cases. I'm happy it's illegal in our society.



impersonal said:


> Other posters, such as Mathias, have also been arguing in favor of generalized moral relativism, so clearly this was not a strawman. I suggest you read their posts again.
> 
> This position allows them to avoid taking a stance like yours, ie._ "fucking little kids is perfectly acceptable"_ (which I personally think is barbaric). Instead they say:
> a) Pedophilia is wrong now, but it was okay back then, because morality is relative (TJ, Mathias, others).
> ...



Mohammad is not an idol. He's not a regular human either. He couldn't have made huge mistakes if you believe he was a prophet. If a professor makes an enormous mistake, it's likely that title is going to be stripped away. So either you believe that Mohammad remained a prophet until the end and never did anything bad enough to have his title taken away from him, or you believe he wasn't a prophet, at least not until the end. The posters here are accusing him of pedophilia which is a serious accusation for someone supposed to be a role model in morality. Those posters should not call him a prophet unless they don't care about consistency. Other posters like me believe that what he did was okay under the likely (according to how accurate our history is) circumstances and aren't hardwired to cling to the law. As thinkers, you guys are doing a terrible job; perhaps a much better one as law enforcers though.

Yes, a 9 yo handling sex sounds like an oh so scientifically impossible phenomenon, but none of you guys has been able to show exactly what went wrong with either the prophet or his spouse because of this "mistake".


----------



## Punpun (Jan 6, 2011)

Wonderful, we now have pedo apologist.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Jan 6, 2011)

Deimos said:


> What's with age 9? I know you've used emphasis there, but you can't _seriously_ be claiming that it's impossible for any human that age to handle sex because that would be silly (and pretentious unless you're a god or something), and if you are then this conversation does not interest me one bit.



What the fuck?


----------



## Punpun (Jan 6, 2011)

Deimos is a lolicon.


----------



## sadated_peon (Jan 6, 2011)

Deimos said:


> Yes, I'm fine with marriage at such a young age under certain circumstances. No, I don't think today's society is wrong in making this illegal. I think it's not possible to manage such relationships in our society because of how complex it has become.
> 
> What's with age 9? I know you've used emphasis there, but you can't _seriously_ be claiming that it's impossible for any human that age to handle sex because that would be silly (and pretentious unless you're a god or something), and if you are then this conversation does not interest me one bit.
> 
> In short, I don't think it's necessarily barbaric and I think it can be justified in rare (according to _our_ statistics) cases. I'm happy it's illegal in our society.



Do you not see a difference between a 9 year old marrying and or having sex with a 12 year old. 

And a 9 year old marrying having sex with a 50 year old, having sex with a girl around the age of his grandchildren. 

The idea of love between husband and wife existing on the intellectual level between a man of 50 and a girl of 9 who could be is grand daughter is *ridiculous*.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jan 6, 2011)

Mandom said:


> Deimos is a lolicon.



The next staff member is Deimos then ?


----------



## Punpun (Jan 6, 2011)

Why not.


----------



## Perseverance (Jan 6, 2011)

It's funny how much hate this religion gets yet according to some sources it's the fastest growing in the world and especially in countries like UK/USA lol.

That Aisha marraige had me going bad too, but I think it's just a lack of understanding on our part (the west). Anyways, I was researching it and I recommend people watch the following video (if you just hate the religion like a sheep, then just ignore this whole message);

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEwmfIgSQQU[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4yyx1qDWhQ[/YOUTUBE]

I think some good points are raised. (Can't find part 3 of the video btw)

Also - [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FM4IuDVFL3s&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]

Also, when looking at the medevil critisisms of Islam (From the west), there's alot of hate accusations, yet not a single accussation regarding pedophilia. This is only a modern day accussation (by the west ironically). Furthermore, the people at the time who opposed him never accussed him of "marrying someone too young". 

From what I read about Aisha, this is what she did;
- Teach nations (basically teach the religion of Islam to men/women of all ages during her marraige with the Prophet)
- Go into the battlefield and attend to the injured (one contraversy I saw was, in this battle only  age 15+ were allowed to enter it, yet it was one year after Aisha's marraige, which I didn't quite understand)
- She did used to get Jelous of her husband 

^9 year old can't really do the following, but somehow Aisha could (as the Hadiths suggest). So I'm just wondering, if she can do all those things which people of this day and age can't do (like especially the teaching nations part), then surely she's capable of handling her own marraige isn't she?

I also read that in those days, boys as young as 12-14 were leading Armies into the battlefield. How were they capable of doing all these things? 

It's some food for thought I think.

Everyone has their own opinion I guess, though personally speaking after doing some in-depth resarch I don't see this as anything negative in Islam (like I used to before). It's just a cultural thing.



sadated_peon said:


> The idea of love between husband and wife existing on the intellectual level between a man of 50 and a girl of 9 who could be is grand daughter is *ridiculous*.



So your saying there was no geniune love between the two?

ps. The pedophilia arguement, I just realise that Aisha was the only one who was supposingly 9 years old who he married. Yet the other wives of his were alot older, some even older then he was. Actually, Aisha was his only virgin wife suprisingly... If he was a p*d*p****, wouldn't there be some consistency in marrying someone as young as Aisha?

Baseless accussation imo, people should be a bit more open minded.


----------



## sadated_peon (Jan 6, 2011)

Perseverance said:


> So your saying there was no geniune love between the two?


When he was 50 and she was 9, yes, that is exactly what I am saying. There was no love that exists between a man and a wife. 

To think that 9 year old would be on the same intellectual level as a man of 50 to supplement this love is *ridiculous*. 



Perseverance said:


> ps. The pedophilia arguement, I just realise that Aisha was the only one who was supposingly 9 years old who he married. Yet the other wives of his were alot older, some even older then he was. Actually, Aisha was his only virgin wife suprisingly... If he was a p*d*p****, wouldn't there be some consistency in marrying someone as young as Aisha?
> 
> Baseless accussation imo.


sorry wut? That he had sex with other women older doesn't mean that when he had sex with a child that he wasn't a child molester. 

Just like if you buy 5 cars in your life time, it doesn't mean that when you steal your 6th that you not a thief.


----------



## impersonal (Jan 6, 2011)

I'm glad most people agree with me.


			
				Deimos said:
			
		

> Yes, I'm fine with marriage at such a young age under certain circumstances. No, I don't think today's society is wrong in making this illegal. I think it's not possible to manage such relationships in* our society* because of how complex it has become.
> 
> What's with age 9? I know you've used emphasis there, but you can't seriously be claiming that it's impossible for any human that age to handle sex because that would be silly (and pretentious unless you're a god or something), and if you are then this conversation does not interest me one bit.
> 
> In short, I don't think it's necessarily barbaric and I think it can be justified in rare (according to *our statistics*) cases. I'm happy it's illegal in *our society*.


I don't think 6 years old girls were much different back then compared to now. 

Nowadays, a 15 years old girl is very rarely able to make an informed decision about marriage... and that's despite puberty occurring earlier than before, and the numerous sources of information and help available today. For a 6 years old, it is completely impossible.

I think it is very silly to claim that any 6 years old girl has any say in who she is marrying. It is impossible for her to know what she is getting into. It is impossible for her to be in love with that person. This is true now, and this was true in Muhammad's time (regardless of "how complex it has become"; love was never something simple anyway). And this is why marrying a 6 years old girl is never, absolutely never, a good thing.

Then, there's the problem of sex. Of course no sex should have happened until she had reached puberty, and there's no reason to think she had at the age of 9. Suggesting she did is ridiculous speculation; you might as well claim that she magically aged faster than other kids or similar magical nonsense. But either way, she was not psychologically ready for it. And, once again, she never had a choice. 


			
				Deimos said:
			
		

> Yes, a 9 yo handling sex sounds like an oh so scientifically impossible phenomenon, but none of you guys has been able to show exactly what went wrong with either the prophet or his spouse because of this "mistake".


a) Aicha never got to choose her life. It was decided for her while she was much too young to make an informed decision. Basically, she was treated like a slave rather than like a human being.
b) Sex between her and the prophet was one-sided in terms of pleasure. Not only was she used like a slave, but like a sex slave.

It is wrong to treat human beings, children or otherwise, as slaves or sex slaves. I believe this is true in our society and in any other society.



			
				Perseverance said:
			
		

> So your saying there was no geniune love between the two?


Between a 6 years old a girl and a middle-aged man? What does a 6 years old know about love? It also seems impossible that she fell in love with him in the next 3 years. Girls that age don't fall in love. Everything was decided for her, by others. That's how these things always happen.


			
				Perseverance said:
			
		

> people should be a bit more open minded.


I think what we're witnessing here is the close-mindedness of some people, who are ready to justify _anything_ as long as it preserves their fixed idea that Muhammad never did anything wrong.

In order to preserve this _*single idea*_ that's been engraved into their skulls, they will destroy all of morality, claiming it is all relative, or they will suggest that it is okay to marry and have sex with kids. I think this is close-minded. Why not just question that idea that Muhammad cannot do wrong - why not accept that in this one case, Muhammad should have done better? Supposedly there's only one God, and Muhammad is a mere man.

Pretending Muhammad is some sort of lesser God is idolatry. But this is very widespread idolatry, as was shown with the caricatures scandal etc. Most Muslims do not differentiate much between Allah and Muhammad in terms of the veneration they give them.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Jan 6, 2011)

Perseverance said:


> It's funny how much hate this religion gets yet according to some sources it's the fastest growing in the world and especially in countries like UK/USA lol.
> 
> That Aisha marraige had me going bad too, but I think it's just a lack of understanding on our part (the west). Anyways, I was researching it and I recommend people watch the following video (if you just hate the religion like a sheep, then just ignore this whole message);
> 
> ...



Maybe you should read the thread before attempting to debate because much of what you have posed has already been countered. Also before you read this with the mindframe of me being another hateful sheep, keep in mind that I am an ex-Muslim that was once in your exact position defending the actions of the prophet vigorously. 

@bolded

That is completely irrelevant and a manipulation of information on your part. This debate is about the marriage and consummation between Aisha and the prophet at age 6 and age 9 respectively. It is not specified at what age she was "teaching nations" so that point becomes moot. Her attending to the injuries in battle is also a futile point as the prophet may have easily made an exception, considering she is his WIFE. Yes she did get jealous....but at what age? Not when she was married off to the prophet. You have given examples of her maturity that do not even correlate with the age she was married off to the prophet.

That being said, we actually do have some actions of Aisha that correlate with her age, this being her playing with toys and the Prophet consummating the marriage ONLY AFTER she stopped playing with them. 

You also fail to understand that no one here is attempting to negatively evaluate his morality during HIS time period. Pedophilia is an immoral act but Muhammad as a man or anyone else for that matter may be excused of it considering the time period they lived in. The problem arises as soon as people start to claim that the prophets actions are universally acceptable and Muslims are taught this as the prophet is supposed to be the perfect man and to be emulated. Pedophelia is immoral, his actions may be excused in a 7th century Arabian timeframe but it is absolutely ludicrous for people to claim that pedophelia is an acceptable act NOW BECAUSE the PROPHET did it!

You can blame child marriages in Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia to this action that the prophet took for they justify their actions as an emulation of the prophet...what are you supposed to tell these people?


----------



## maj1n (Jan 6, 2011)

This is the type of girl every muslim defender of Muhammads pedophilic act says is ok to have sex with.


----------



## Perseverance (Jan 6, 2011)

Awesome, knew my reply would start a debate. This should be fun lol, I gtg atm will reply back to all who quoted me, especially the ex-muslim (really interesting people), but if a mod does close this thread before I get a chance, we'll take it to PM's dw pals.



maj1n said:


> This is the type of girl every muslim defender of Muhammads pedophilic act says is ok to have sex with.



She can teach America on what is right and what is wrong and be able to run in the middle of battles helping the wounded - but she can't get married to who she wants? Despite having the choice at any time to divorce them whenever they want to?

I almost forgot, it was America wasn't it, just last century that put a overulling on a 10 year old being able to get married right?

That was so long ago... If only we were born just one or two generation before... then we might not be having this hypocritical debate  



heavy_rasengan said:


> You can blame child marriages in Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia to this action that the prophet took for they justify their actions as an emulation of the prophet...what are you supposed to tell these people?



Before I leave... I just had to - 





Might be a cultural shock, who knows


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Jan 6, 2011)

A modern country is a less backwards than the same country 100 years ago or 200 years ago, how surprising!  If we were born generations ago, it is possible that we would be more backwards, when it comes to issues of child abuse, but thankfully we aren't. The positions that some members have on this issue is simply inexcusable. If we are to play the "time" argument, more so today than the past we have an obligation to condemn such actions. Not because the harm done by such actions is different today than the past, but that today we are supposed to be less ignorant about these facts.


----------



## impersonal (Jan 6, 2011)

Perseverance said:
			
		

> but she can't get married *to who she wants?*


You think a 6 years old girl chooses her husband. This is not how it happens. When a child this young marries, other people choose for her.


----------



## maj1n (Jan 6, 2011)

perseverence said:
			
		

> She can teach America on what is right and what is wrong and be able to run in the middle of battles helping the wounded - but she can't get married to who she wants? Despite having the choice at any time to divorce them whenever they want to?


pedophilia isn't marriage, do you know what sex is? do you understand that sex with a 9 year old is wrong?


----------



## Berserk (Jan 6, 2011)

Perseverance said:


> She can teach America on what is right and what is wrong and be able to run in the middle of battles helping the wounded - *but she can't get married to who she wants?* Despite having the choice at any time to divorce them whenever they want to?



Implying girls under 10 think about marriage.  Why?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 6, 2011)

I have seen it many times before, but I can't get over the shock of how fucked up these arguments some of our Muslim members here are making in defense of Mohammed's actions.


----------



## Spirit (Jan 6, 2011)

impersonal said:


> What if it is deemed acceptable for your society to spit on the Qur'an and reject Muhammad and his teachings? Would that still be okay, according to Muhammad? What about adultery? The whole muslim world works like this: when they face a moral question, they dig into the Qur'an to find the answer, rather than trying to observe what is deemed acceptable in today's society.



Muhammad lived at a time where I'm sure it was ok to spit, burn and kill the Quran and the men who preach Islam. It was acceptable for the Quraysh to insult him, and kill him. Again I'm not hearing you and your colleagues impose freedom of speech _for_ Muhammad, freedom to practice religion _for _his adherence, and all the modern concepts, how come? I am not reading condemnation towards people who tried to assasinate him for establishing what he believe was right, even when he clearly didn't start his cult by marrying a 9 years old. Somehow you're nitpicking what from the modern world to be applied to whatever doesn't suit your fancy in the past. Inconsistency. Are you making a joke out of your effort?

Adultery was wrong in most societies, adultery is still wrong in most socities. The enforcement and punishment varies as how its significance is placed in each society, but it is not unheard of adulterers end up paying the cost for dissolving a marriage. In one form or another, adulterers pay. As a side question to you, I add that the third person walks away unharmed in most cases today. How is that fair to you, when this third person is linked to the death of a family institution?

If anyone had read the Quran, they can count how many prescriptions exactly it laid out what to actually do when it comes to moral dilemma. It prohibits adultery, along with it a prescribed punishment. It doesn't prescribe punishment for alcohol consumption, not for eating pork or non-halal meat, not for blood, not for not praying, not for not going to hajj, not for not doing certain things in rituals you're "supposed" to do as the prophet did, not for not paying your zakat, not for not fasting (and these are fundamentals of Islam, mind you). It doesn't even prescribe punishment for blasphemy or even apostasy. So what does it say? Principles.

But need I mention, the very people who claim to look and believe in the Quran, apparently think it's insufficient. Where it prescribe lashes as punishment for adultery, they want to stone them. So your view as to how Muslims view the world is inaccurate. It is partially right in terms of deeming what is right, but you are onto them just like they are onto you. Islam has very little to do with is in actuality.



impersonal said:


> So, why are blasphemy and adultery moral absolutes, but not pedophilia? Why the different treatment?



Blasphemy is ungodly, nonetheless, it is between you and god. The Quran never outlawed it, even though it is wrong according to itself. Dumbed down, slandering your employer can cost you your job. Slandering your maker, will cost you, you. However, similar to how other employees cannot fire you, no man can take away your God-given life. It is why the Quran never orders the killing of blasphemers and renegade Muslims, even though there are verse about punishment in the hereafter, all pointing out that it is for God to punish, it is for God to punish.

Adultery is absolutely wrong, as mentioned above, because it destroys family institution. We may not share the same sentiment in regards of family institution, and as I share your sentiment that adulterers should not be punished by death in anyway, I do believe they shouldn't go unpunished.

Societies where adultery is A-Ok, is then A-Ok. It is un-Islamic and there is no need for it to be. Do whatever fancies you. Nowhere in the Quran does it say, spy ye and then invade ye other's homes and stop adultery.

And then there is pedophilia. Here it gets semantic. What do you mean by pedophilia. Underage? Prepubescent? In either case, it is believed that Aisha, in her society, was of at an age to marry. So this makes Muhammad married a very young woman in his society. In other cultures indeed he would have been in the wrong, but there is the point isn't it? What did his culture say? What does yours? What culture he lived in? What culture do you live in? Definition is important here.



impersonal said:


> There's something highly bizarre for a muslim to be supporting moral relativism. It's incredibly incoherent. Muslims worship a book that supposedly contains the absolute truth, including absolute moral truths. You can not possibly reconcile that with moral relativism.



It is unusual, I admit. Although, Abraham was unsual to his community. Moses was. Jesus was. Muhammad was. These people stood up against established norms that they saw was going out of hand. If we look at the life of the prophet himself, how could have he claimed to be the continuation of Jesus, if what we're seeing is something so un-Christian, more Jewish. He could have easily discard Jesus and gain the favour of Jews.

The answer is probably because he was teachings based on the same principle that is of Jesus and Moses, though he stressed that the applications of these principles need not be rigid. Even if we didn't believe in God, we can consider this perspective by his utterance of the second sura, The Cattle, where he claimed that the Jews made things too complicated by asking God about details, up to the point where one simple command from God became to complicated to deliver. God commanded to slaughter a cow, they kept asking about the gender, the size, the color, the health, until no cow fit the description, they went without fulfilling God's command; it could have been any cow.

Now similarly this is becoming of Muslims today. Too rigid, too stiff. Unaccepting and unforgivingly zealous. The Quran is a strict, self-righteous book, on principles. But it also contains verses of compassion, which is ironically isn't reflected in most conservative Muslim societies.

As a Muslim, I believe moral relativism was how God made it to be. It is said so in the Quran that had He so wanted, He would have made us all one nation, but He made us different so we learn from one another. Absolutism in the Quran has always been what has been universally accepted. Like adultery, we want our family protected. Theft, we want our property protected. Usury, again, protecting the poor. Zakat, we are paying taxes as a responsible citizen. Prayer, an expression of gratitude, or hope. Pilgrimage, a journey of soul-searching. And we find these in almost every religion, yet they differ in, again, details.


----------



## Spirit (Jan 6, 2011)

maj1n said:


> Flatly incorrect, it is not 'what we deem legal' it is 'what we deem right'.
> 
> You argue as if 'legality' is arbitrary and so is somehow acceptable at any variation, any difference, so long as someone makes it 'legal'.
> 
> ...



I have made it clear, when you are asking "is this moral", whose morality are you using? Mine? Yours? White Tiger's? Now? 1400 years ago?

Your answer is as good as mine.

Slavery made the world go round. Difference is today, what was achieved through slavery is now achieved by "better" means. Islam has been liberating mankind from slavery through various incentives it offers to its adherence. If slavery was ended cold-turkey, do you expect the world can suddenlty become civilised, that suddenly the UN would be established and human rights magically restored? What world do you live in? Phasing out and phasing in has always been the most natural, more acceptable way to get things to change, wouldn't you agree? Just like you don't get to change a Muslim into a non-Muslim overnight. Vise versa.

That said, I don't see what you're getting at. If you're disputing my choice of word, that is an endless game. Be smarter than this, but if you insist, please take your victory award, I concede.



maj1n said:


> No you don't, you made your rather warped perspective up on the spot just to suit your peculiar belief system.
> 
> Case in point? Muhammads pedophilic act of having sex with a 9 year old is wrong, but you still cannot bring yourself to admit this, but instead choose to arbitrarily justify as 'if society thinks its legal, its ok'.
> 
> ...



Not at all. I'm being fair. It is not right for me to insist that fish needs to breathe oxygen from air instead of water, other wise the fish is doing it wrong.

Just as the fish belongs to water, thus it does things fish do and how fish do, Muhammad belongs to his culture and he did things the way his people did. Neither was wrong in what they do. To say otherwise is unjust.

Now you're going to avoid the point I'm making by saying I'm comparing fish to Muhammad, that fish cannot get oxygen from air, but Muhammad can not marry a 9 years old. If that is what you're thinking, think harder before you try to respond, as that is not what I have in mind. Don't play stupid. The point I am making is you cannot over step cultural and obviously time boundaries to impose judgment. You will be out of your jurisdiction, as such your judgment is irrelevant and unfair. Do you know the word "jurisdiction"?

Do you think Muhammad married Aisha in ceremonies you see in "Muslim" ceremonies today? I highly doubt it.

Do you hear couples who revert to Islam need to remarry? I highly doubt it.

Why the hell not? Because you _can_ do things how it was done, however, permissibility does not imply necessity.

Can you handle this?



maj1n said:


> Wrong, even in Islamic texts, your interpretation has no basis.



What Islamic text? You mean there are texts that go to Islamic hell for being un-Islamic texts? Source please. 



maj1n said:


> In fact, according to Islamic texts of Muhammad, essentially you must follow Islam even against the laws of any land, because following Islam is gods laws.



1. Where does it say that? Let us see what it actually says.
2. What was meant by Muhammad when he used the word "islam". Is it like a brand?


----------



## maj1n (Jan 7, 2011)

Tokyo Jihen said:


> I have made it clear, when you are asking "is this moral", whose morality are you using? Mine? Yours? White Tiger's? Now? 1400 years ago?
> 
> Your answer is as good as mine.
> 
> ...


Your apologetics stance is astounding, you actually believe Islam 'liberated' slavery, by actually enslaving people.

Here is a basic part of logic, when Muhammad and the early Muslims *enslave people* that is promoting the practice of slavery, it is not 'liberating' people from slavery.

How exactly do you 'free' society from slavery, by enslaving people?

"O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and *those slaves whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee*
-33:50

The sheer ridiculousness of your argument, is that you explicitly justify slavery as a moral practice.



			
				Tokyo Jihen said:
			
		

> Not at all. I'm being fair. It is not right for me to insist that fish needs to breathe oxygen from air instead of water, other wise the fish is doing it wrong.
> 
> Just as the fish belongs to water, thus it does things fish do and how fish do, Muhammad belongs to his culture and he did things the way his people did. Neither was wrong in what they do. To say otherwise is unjust.
> 
> ...


Your using some stupid analogy of 'fish belonging to water' as some kind of justification that evil and immoral cultural practices are just because 'it belongs to their culture like fish to water'?

Really?

Btw, Muhammad having sex with a 9 year old, a pedophilic act, is an abnormality, and it is not normal as a human condition.

We humans evolved such that we desire sex with females that show signs of good fertility, wide hips, breasts, mature female form.

*we did not evolve so that we would have sex with children*

To argue that an immoral act, is just if a culture accepts it as just, is a totally bankrupt way of thinking, because essentially what your saying is

'if a group of people believe doing a bad thing is right, if they do it, it is right'.


			
				Tokyo Jihen said:
			
		

> What Islamic text? You mean there are texts that go to Islamic hell for being un-Islamic texts? Source please.
> 
> 1. Where does it say that? Let us see what it actually says.
> 2. What was meant by Muhammad when he used the word "islam". Is it like a brand?


Sure i'll give you an example, on Surah 9 of the Quran, the command to launch offensive Jihad and subjugate everyone.

*Tafsir Ibn Kathir*
_(I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establish the prayer and pay the Zakah.) This honorable Ayah (9:5) was called the* Ayah of the Sword*, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said,* "It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term*.'' Al-`Awfi said that Ibn `Abbas commented: "No idolator had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara'ah was revealed. The four months, in addition to, all peace treaties conducted before Bara'ah was revealed and announced had ended by the tenth of the month of Rabi` Al-Akhir.''_


This is just one of many many examples i can give, that Muhammad broke laws, treaties and deals through convenient verses given to him by Allah.

Allah's laws, in Islam, are greater then any other law, as such, if there is a situation whereby a Muslim either breaks an Islamic law or a social law, under Islam, it would be a sin to break the Islamic law.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Jan 7, 2011)

Perseverance said:


> She can teach America on what is right and what is wrong and be able to run in the middle of battles helping the wounded - but she can't get married to who she wants? Despite having the choice at any time to divorce them whenever they want to?



I think most people are generally opposed to children running around battlefields. Perhaps that's just me and my close minded ways though.


----------



## Bleach (Jan 7, 2011)

I like how the thread went from people making choices about their lives to pedophilia.

It always seems to come to this thanks to the same people....


----------



## Deimos (Jan 7, 2011)

I appreciate the serious reply (unlike the other posters).



impersonal said:


> I'm glad most people agree with me.
> 
> I don't think 6 years old girls were much different back then compared to now.
> 
> ...



If it's rare for a 15 yo, it's impossible for a 6 yo? By what logic? In my opinion, upbringing is kind of sloppy. Sure, there are hardware steps we cannot accelerate, but I think there is much time wasted. I think it's possible to get people to mature early (6 sounds like a near impossible challenge), and in rare cases, a child may be ready to take an important decision. The prophet's spouse wasn't faced with a regular choice, one that I think would have been more complicated. Her choice wasn't about wanting this man or not, it was about wanting the prophet or not. It's a radically different choice. She wasn't going to decide based on experience whether the man is pretty enough, likes the same things or not, will be compatible with this or that, etc. She just had to choose whether she wanted to marry the best (prophet, man, ... at least in theory) out there. I could push the language a bit and say that she had to choose whether she wanted to be happy or not, and I think a 6 yo can answer that. I think you need more of a heart than a mind to take such a decision.

She was promised happiness and that was delivered as far as I know. Records show that she was happy with the prophet.



impersonal said:


> Then, there's the problem of sex. Of course no sex should have happened until she had reached puberty, and there's no reason to think she had at the age of 9. Suggesting she did is ridiculous speculation; you might as well claim that she magically aged faster than other kids or similar magical nonsense. But either way, she was not psychologically ready for it. And, once again, she never had a choice.



You believe she wasn't psychologically ready for it. Can you explain the problem? Did she get a trauma because of it? Nothing in her history points towards it affecting her negatively in any way. So again, what exactly is the problem?



impersonal said:


> a) Aicha never got to choose her life. It was decided for her while she was much too young to make an informed decision. Basically, she was treated like a slave rather than like a human being.
> b) Sex between her and the prophet was one-sided in terms of pleasure. Not only was she used like a slave, but like a sex slave.
> 
> It is wrong to treat human beings, children or otherwise, as slaves or sex slaves. I believe this is true in our society and in any other society.



What I wrote above answers in part your first claim. She did choose to have a special life. Saying that she was treated like a slave is ridiculous. In no way was the prophet holding her by force. She could have left at any point. Or are you pretending that she grew into a mindless doll that was no longer able to take intelligent decisions? You better not be because you'd seriously want to check her work then. As for the sex slave thing, it is even more ridiculous. Exactly why was sex one-sided? You know she didn't stay 6 all her life, right?

Yes, it's wrong to treat people like slaves but this was far from being the case. Nothing in history points towards Aisha being humiliated or unhappy with her marriage.


----------



## Mathias124 (Jan 7, 2011)

Rob said:


> I think most people are generally opposed to children running around battlefields. Perhaps that's just me and my close minded ways though.



meh, if i had kids i would send them off to help in war if it was neccesary for the survival of my country


----------



## Moneypulation (Jan 7, 2011)

Morality is relative.

For the Western World, Having sex with an adolescent is immoral, she should be the age of consent- 18.
In most asian countries, sex outside marriage is considered immoral.


In my hometown (London), it is common to have sex - amongst college friends, in acquantence circles, amongst co-workers (sex with co-workers is strongly discouraged) or even just picking women up in the bar.

In India where i currently live, this is considered immoral. Not just amongst the muslims, but also the hindus, sikhs, jains and even christians. You do see random flicks and affairs, but they are considered immoral and are completely hidden in society. I've seen youtube videos where an entire neighbourhood beats up a couple who has brought "disgrace" to the family name.

In the western world it is different. And there is a fairly large number of adolescents who engage in sexual activities amongst other adolescents, but these are not considered illegal, nor are they considered immoral. While growing up, when my friends were caught by their parents, they just got a little yelling, and a little raprimanding. But on the whole, their parents were cool with it. 

Same goes with slavery. 

In the western world, we look down upon slavery, and anything to do with slavery.

In india, there is such a lot of poverty, and an extremely high crime-rate. Courts are overfilled with cases, and some cases are not followed up for 2-3 years. Trials are delayed, judgements are delayed, People break out from prison, cops dont chase fugitives. 
I'm not talking about the developed places, i'm talking about the section of society which is impoverished. In india, more than 70% of the people live in impoverished conditions - worse than the worst in UK.

In countries lesser fortunate than India, some african countries, child labour is common. There, it is a common practise for parents to sell one kid to feed the other, rather than letting them both die of hunger. 

Morality is relative and different depending on the culture and society.


----------



## zuul (Jan 7, 2011)

So according to what I read. Islam approves of children being sent to war and pedophily. 

It's so disgusting I wanna puke. I so hope it's not the stance of actual real Muslim officials. Because if it is, then this religion should be made illegal.

And by using moral relativism, I could make an apology of human sacrifices and infanticide (because Aztecs/Greeks did so).


----------



## Zaru (Jan 7, 2011)

zuul said:


> And by using moral relativism, I could make an apology of human sacrifices and infanticide (because Aztecs/Greeks did so).



Hey, it doesn't work like that. Or are you burning jews because the nazis did so?


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Jan 7, 2011)

Zaru said:


> Hey, it doesn't work like that. Or are you burning jews because the nazis did so?


 I am not sure I get your post. She is saying she would make an apology. That means defend them.

If you are such an extreme example of moral relativist, you won't necessarily do anything evil, but you will defend people who did do. So such an example of a moral relativist would say "We can't judge the Nazis, according to us they were evil, according to them they weren't evil" And do so, with any kind of action which he/she would defend, however despicable.


----------



## DaDarkDude (Jan 7, 2011)

Long story short: people can be who they want to be. Who cares if a couple of girls converted to Islam? They have the right to do what they want, or do you guys think they shouldn't have the right to make their own choices?


----------



## zuul (Jan 7, 2011)

Zaru said:


> Hey, it doesn't work like that. Or are you burning jews because the nazis did so?



That's why the moral relativism argument sucks ass.

Using it you can make apologies for the killing of Jew/Muslims because middle age Europ did so. You can also make apologies for burning slightly insane women to death. And other abominable things.


----------



## Spirit (Jan 7, 2011)

maj1n said:


> Your apologetics stance is astounding, you actually believe Islam 'liberated' slavery, by actually enslaving people.
> 
> Here is a basic part of logic, when Muhammad and the early Muslims *enslave people* that is promoting the practice of slavery, it is not 'liberating' people from slavery.
> 
> ...



Didn't I mention phasing out? Yes I did.

Clearly you have reading comprehension problem.

Or how do you suggest evolution takes place. Sudden eradication of slavery? Wings suddenly sprout out the back so we fly freely?

And you have a knack of reading Quranic verses ahistorically. Didn't I mention slavery was common, enslaving war prisoners was common, and in fact, the fate of any war prisoners in any time has always been the same. Even 1400 years ago, when someone became a slave, he or she was the responsibility of their masters, which was relatively a much better condition to be in than a prisoner. I don't see war prisoners today get that option: to serve the people who won over you instead of being forfeited of any rights whatsoever.

What the Quran state was only an extended permission of an already established norm.

Didn't I mention that permissibility does not imply necessity? Yes I did.

You have a reading comprehension problem indeed.

But of course, who am I talking to? Please, continue your superhuman ability that is to pass a relative judgment as an absolute, crossing the time. I thought being a moral relativist makes one an open-minded, aware that his sense of morality is relative to the society he lives in, similar will apply to others, thus he'll keep his peace. But based on what you're saying and your displayed behaviour, not so. I guess either I'm wrong, or you're an absolutist you so abhor yourself.



maj1n said:


> Your using some stupid analogy of 'fish belonging to water' as some kind of justification that evil and immoral cultural practices are just because 'it belongs to their culture like fish to water'?
> 
> Really?



Yes, and I'm not seeing a refutation with that "stupid" remark. Shall I report for flaming?



maj1n said:


> Btw, Muhammad having sex with a 9 year old, a pedophilic act, is an abnormality, and it is not normal as a human condition.



As mentioned before by someone else, with all his powers as a warlord, he didn't run around chasing after little girls, nor did he order for more of his companions little daughters on his bed. Aisha wasn't the only 9 years old female living, clearly. In fact, all his wives after Aisha were adults. Your "he's a p*d*p****" claim is too weak to be considered. As it stands, he married a young woman, which, according to his culture, was perfectly normal.



maj1n said:


> We humans evolved such that we desire sex with females that show signs of good fertility, wide hips, breasts, mature female form.
> 
> *we did not evolve so that we would have sex with children*



Bullshit. If evolution works as you're suggesting, by right we won't have tonnes of pedophiles today. How long has it been since Darwin discovered evolution, since Muhammad married Aisha, since the first homosapiens? Why are pedophiles still here today if what you claim is true?

Need I suggest to you to relearn what evolution is, and what it says about pedophilia and its moral implications? None. It says nothing about sexual preferences. Pedophilia, like homosexuality, in biology, although can be reproduced artificially, is perfectly natural as it occurs in nature by itself. It is abnormal though, considering it is outside the norm, and not in the majority.

Your attempt to impose morality by using science is pathetic.



maj1n said:


> To argue that an immoral act, is just if a culture accepts it as just, is a totally bankrupt way of thinking, because essentially what your saying is
> 
> 'if a group of people believe doing a bad thing is right, if they do it, it is right'.



Not at all. You're creating your own words here. What I'm saying looks more like this:

If a group of people believe doing something is right, then they have the right to do it among themselves.

Isn't this too what we do today?



maj1n said:


> Sure i'll give you an example, on Surah 9 of the Quran, the command to launch offensive Jihad and subjugate everyone.
> 
> *Tafsir Ibn Kathir*
> _(I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establish the prayer and pay the Zakah.) This honorable Ayah (9:5) was called the* Ayah of the Sword*, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said,* "It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term*.'' Al-`Awfi said that Ibn `Abbas commented: "No idolator had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara'ah was revealed. The four months, in addition to, all peace treaties conducted before Bara'ah was revealed and announced had ended by the tenth of the month of Rabi` Al-Akhir.''_
> ...



Do you know how to read? How's your comprehension doing?

Reconsider what I asked for: a prove that a Muslim does not have to obey the law of the land he's living in. -- *This verse does not address what I asked for. *Even if you were right in your understanding of this tafseer (which, I assure you, you're not), at the time of its revelation, the Muslims already have a land with laws of their own. Remember Medina? Furthermore, as stated by what you quoted, this tafseer claims the verse abrogates treaties, not that Muslims can start to run the non-Muslim town Muslims are living in. Can you differentiate?

I'm sorry, I don't mean to be arrogant, but arguing with someone who pretends to be intellectually challenged (as demonstrated by the poor ability to comprehend) is frustrating. It's why I always leave discussions with you. Come on, do better.


----------



## maj1n (Jan 7, 2011)

Tokyo Jihen said:


> Didn't I mention phasing out? Yes I did.
> 
> Clearly you have reading comprehension problem.
> 
> ...


phasing out implies Muhammad would eventually ban it, he didn't he practiced it, enslaved and bought slaves.

This isn't 'phasing out' anything, it is encouraging the act of slavery.
When you enslave people, this isn't 'phasing out slavery' it is explicit encouragement of...enslaving people.

You may have an argument if Islam said no to enslaving people and merely took on existing slaves, but it didn't, enslavement was valid in Islam.

I don't care if slavery was 'common' back then, just as i don't care that rape is common today, it is wrong.

POW's enjoy far more 'rights' today at least amongst western nations, then actual slaves.

Stop trying to justify slavery, its pathetic.


			
				Tokyo Jihen said:
			
		

> Yes, and I'm not seeing a refutation with that "stupid" remark. Shall I report for flaming?


Your using a physical analogy for a moral one?
The sheer lack of logic  is astounding.



			
				Tokyo Jihen said:
			
		

> As mentioned before by someone else, with all his powers as a warlord, he didn't run around chasing after little girls, nor did he order for more of his companions little daughters on his bed. Aisha wasn't the only 9 years old female living, clearly. In fact, all his wives after Aisha were adults. Your "he's a p*d*p****" claim is too weak to be considered. As it stands, he married a young woman, which, according to his culture, was perfectly normal.


Having sex with a 9 year old, and repeatedly, and she was his favourite sexual partner.

This is a pedophilic act, no amount of apologetics gets around that.



			
				Tokyo Jihen said:
			
		

> Bullshit. If evolution works as you're suggesting, by right we won't have tonnes of pedophiles today. How long has it been since Darwin discovered evolution, since Muhammad married Aisha, since the first homosapiens? Why are pedophiles still here today if what you claim is true?
> 
> Need I suggest to you to relearn what evolution is, and what it says about pedophilia and its moral implications? None. It says nothing about sexual preferences. Pedophilia, like homosexuality, in biology, although can be reproduced artificially, is perfectly natural as it occurs in nature by itself. It is abnormal though, considering it is outside the norm, and not in the majority.
> 
> Your attempt to impose morality by using science is pathetic.


ROFL.

*why do you think were attracted to females?*

Do you have any fucking clue as to evolution? you don't , evolution does not say 'every single organism is the same' evolution says the common and predominant physical characteristics are the most advantageous ones that succeeded the gauntlet of natural selection.

Pedophilia is not normal my friend, it is an abnormality either brought on by some mutation of genes, or some irregularity due to the physical growth of ones brain.

"it is natural" merely means it can happen, my rebuttal to you, is your claim *that it was normal in any society*

It isn't, it never has nor ever will be, heterosexuality will always be the norm, pedophilia will always be an abnormality, never a norm.

This is due to our own physiology, homosexuality will never be a norm in a society either, but it is morally valid, pedophilia isn't, * because having a sex with a 9 year old child is physically dangerous*


			
				Tokyo Jihen said:
			
		

> Not at all. You're creating your own words here. What I'm saying looks more like this:
> 
> If a group of people believe doing something is right, then they have the right to do it among themselves.
> 
> Isn't this too what we do today?


No, because children rarely have a good grasp on complicated moral problems, if 2 parents beat up their child, even if they thought it was ok.

It is not ok.

Nor is slavery ok, it doesn't matter whether you justify slavery, but the one who is enslaved rarely, if ever, actually wants you to do it.

Both acts are great immoral acts, both cause great harm and pain, both violate the necessary rationale of informed consent.



			
				Tokyo Jihen said:
			
		

> Do you know how to read? How's your comprehension doing?
> 
> Reconsider what I asked for: a prove that a Muslim does not have to obey the law of the land he's living in. -- *This verse does not address what I asked for. *Even if you were right in your understanding of this tafseer (which, I assure you, you're not), at the time of its revelation, the Muslims already have a land with laws of their own. Remember Medina? Furthermore, as stated by what you quoted, this tafseer claims the verse abrogates treaties, not that Muslims can start to run the non-Muslim town Muslims are living in. Can you differentiate?
> 
> I'm sorry, I don't mean to be arrogant, but arguing with someone who pretends to be intellectually challenged (as demonstrated by the poor ability to comprehend) is frustrating. It's why I always leave discussions with you. Come on, do better.


Treaties are no different to laws, an agreed upon action by parties to comply with,and breaking it is wrong.

If Muhammad can just bring down Allah's verse to overrule agreed upon treaties, social laws are no different.

edit:



			
				Tokyo Jihen said:
			
		

> If a group of people believe doing something is right, then they have the right to do it among themselves.


Just to bring something to your attention, if this is your attitude, your religion, and your God, is wrong.

If Christians believe Christianity is right, why do they get sentenced to hell? why does your religion tell them their doing the wrong thing?

So i expect you to get back to me and agree, since it is using your logic.


----------



## impersonal (Jan 7, 2011)

Deimos said:
			
		

> If it's rare for a 15 yo, it's impossible for a 6 yo [to make a rational choice for marriage]? By what logic?


By the same logic why a cat weighing more than 15 kg is rare, while a cat weighing 200kg is impossible. The heaviest cat to have ever lived weighed 21kg, and died because of it. It is probably possible to surpass this and reach 25kg, maybe even 30kg or 40kg with heavy medical assistance. But 200kg? It's _impossible_. Biological limitations can be stretched, but not indefinitely.

You're basically telling me that Aicha is a 200kg cat. At 6, she is mature enough to decide about marriage. There are biological limitations that make this impossible: at 6 you're just a little kid. 6 years old is about the age a child becomes able to hold a conversation that makes sense. A kid this age is barely starting to understand what is going on around him/her. Would you say it makes any sense to ask a child who she'd like to marry, for _her very first conversation_?

As for Muhammad not being "any man", but "the prophet", it's the future wife's decision, not her parents. How many kids have been given to _"the prophet"_ (eg. Rael or other gurus) by credulous parents?


			
				Deimos said:
			
		

> You believe she wasn't psychologically ready for [sex at the age of 9]. Can you explain the problem? Did she get a trauma because of it? Nothing in her history points towards it affecting her negatively in any way. *So again, what exactly is the problem?*


Sex without consent?





			
				Deimos said:
			
		

> She did* choose* to have a special life.


Hello? She was 6 years old. Obviously she didn't get a say. How could anyone not see that, I wonder.



			
				Moneypulation said:
			
		

> Morality is relative.


As has been explained, just because some people happen to think that murder and rape is good and right doesn't mean we should accept that they commit murder and rape.



			
				Tokyo Jihen said:
			
		

> If a group of people believe doing something is right, then they have the right to do it among themselves.


Firstly, I'd like your answer on my earlier argument. I asked why would pedophilia/forced child marriage be a _relative_ moral issue according to the Qur'an, whereas blasphemy or adultery are _absolute_ moral issues. I highly doubt the idea that morality is relative is compatible with Islam (or with life in general, but this is more obvious in Islam).

Secondly, I could make a more precise argument against your point, although it is a more technical one and will not convince people who are not rigorous in their thinking. Your statement _[If a group of people believe doing something is right, then they have the right to do it among themselves]_ is actually a moral one. It discusses what people have the right to do. In many ways, it is equivalent to the "golden rule"; the crucial core of this argument is that of liberalism, ie. people can do whatever they want unless it harms someone else. So, basically, what you are claiming isn't moral relativism, just a very liberal form of moral absolutism.

True moral relativism would also accept things like rape and murder, despite them not being consensual among all members of the groups (typically, the victims).


----------



## Punpun (Jan 7, 2011)

From what I gathered on the different ethics/moral existing, Moral relativism is surely one of the laziest there is.

If Moral is relative then whatever people did is okay under their set of moral. If so there is no need to think and discuss on the subject of morals.

So deep.


----------



## Deimos (Jan 7, 2011)

impersonal said:


> By the same logic why a cat weighing more than 15 kg is rare, while a cat weighing 200kg is impossible. The heaviest cat to have ever lived weighed 21kg, and died because of it. It is probably possible to surpass this and reach 25kg, maybe even 30kg or 40kg with heavy medical assistance. But 200kg? It's _impossible_. Biological limitations can be stretched, but not indefinitely.
> 
> You're basically telling me that Aicha is a 200kg cat. At 6, she is mature enough to decide about marriage. There are biological limitations that make this impossible: at 6 you're just a little kid. 6 years old is about the age a child becomes able to hold a conversation that makes sense. A kid this age is barely starting to understand what is going on around him/her. Would you say it makes any sense to ask a child who she'd like to marry, for _her very first conversation_?



That's quite of a stretch, but I get your point. I still think those values don't correspond to the ages we're talking about because a 6 yo can still understand and take simple decisions. Taking one usually complicated decision doesn't seem as much of a stretch to me as you're making it appear to be.



impersonal said:


> As for Muhammad not being "any man", but "the prophet", it's the future wife's decision, not her parents. How many kids have been given to _"the prophet"_ (eg. Rael or other gurus) by credulous parents?



Yes, and perhaps she trusted her heart and took an uninformed decision. If it was a bad decision, why didn't she change her mind later and leave? If it wasn't, what's the deal?



impersonal said:


> Sex without consent?



Which led to what? Yes, you can call it sex without consent if you're pushy (although a 9 yo experimenting with her genitals doesn't sound alien to me), but who was harmed in the process? Sex without consent is bad because someone usually gets hurt. I don't think this was the case. At least nothing points to it having affected the girl in a bad way.

How come you're ignoring the result? The girl turned out _completely_ fine, even great. I don't see how this early relationship screwed her up in any way and since that's the case, I really fail to see what your problem is.


----------



## Moneypulation (Jan 7, 2011)

impersonal said:


> As has been explained, just because some people happen to think that murder and rape is good and right doesn't mean we should accept that they commit murder and rape.



That is an argument... for the sake of argument.

I never tried justifying murder and rape. I was trying to explain that people make laws based on their own moralities. 

Based on the "no sex outside marriage" morality, in India and Islamic countries, they allow adolescents (women between the age of puberty and age of legal adulthood - 18) to get married. In India it is still illegal, but is practiced, and the law enforcement in this regards is lax. 

In western countries, adults are cool with adolescents having sex with other adolescents. If they are responsible adults, max they will do is reprimand them and inform their parents. It doesn't even become a criminal issue. They don't do nearly enough to stop it, just rather discourage it. This shows that by their morality standards it is OK for adolescents to have sex as long it is with other adolescents.

Now move on...... it is because of your kind of mongering that cultures don't co-exist. Recognize different cultures, and accept the people who follow them......doesn't necessarily mean you have to follow it, nor do you have to annihilate it. Just recognize.

A simple example,
If you visit India (not that you would ever want to, it is a shithole), try picking a chick and sleep with her, and then announce it in her neighborhood. You would definitely get your ass kicked, and the woman will be labeled a "whore", even if she is in love with you and if she is engaged with you. Society here doesn't tolerate it.

Same goes for an Indian woman trying to get married at the age of 15 anywhere in Europe. Her parents would face prosecution and the marriage won't be accepted in any court.

Hence, in Rome, do as the Romans do.


----------



## maj1n (Jan 7, 2011)

Moneypulation said:


> Now move on...... it is because of your kind of mongering that cultures don't co-exist. Recognize different cultures, and accept the people who follow them......doesn't necessarily mean you have to follow it, nor do you have to annihilate it. Just recognize.
> 
> A simple example,
> If you visit India (not that you would ever want to, it is a shithole), try picking a chick and sleep with her, and then announce it in her neighborhood. You would definitely get your ass kicked, and the woman will be labeled a "whore", even if she is in love with you and if she is engaged with you. Society here doesn't tolerate it.
> ...


Recognizing the evils in a culture does equate to accepting it as justified or moral.

It is no wrong that someone can say 'the beliefs in that culture is immoral'.

'Co-existence of different cultures' is not a good thing in and of itself, only coexistance of cultures that are not harmful.

To give you a real world example, i am grateful that the Western powers enforced and destroyed slavery as it was practiced by the middle-eastern countries.

I am grateful they destroyed this practice even though their 'culture' accepted it.

With your attitude, you seem to be implying we should have allowed slavery to continue.


----------



## sadated_peon (Jan 7, 2011)

ITT

Muslims: Muhammad is a template for a Muslim that all Muslims should follow, now and into the future. 
Non-Muslims: But he had a child bride and had sex with a child. 
Muslims: You can't judge him by today's standards. 
Non-Muslims: But you just said he should be emulated today.
Muslims: islamaphobe.


----------



## impersonal (Jan 7, 2011)

Moneypulation said:


> That is an argument... for the sake of argument.
> 
> I never tried justifying murder and rape. I was trying to explain that people make laws based on their own moralities.


Yes you did. You just don't understand the implications of what you say. You wrote that morality is relative. This is not as innocent as you pretend it is.


Moneypulation said:


> Hence, in Rome, do as the Romans do.


If the local tradition is to stone to death adulterous women, would you do it? While I disagree with him, I think Deimos is at least coherent.



			
				Deimos said:
			
		

> If it was a bad decision, why didn't she change her mind later and leave?


I think the possibility for a woman to quit her husband is imaginary in the society we're talking about. Nobody would take a non-virgin. And I bet leaving your husband in the first place was probably considered extremely shameful for both, but especially for her. Again, she didn't really have a choice; once she was married, going away would be extremely damaging for her.

And how would she do it? She was raised by her own husband. It puts her in a situation of extremely heavy dependence, not to mention that she is obviously going to be manipulated into accepting her fate.

Regardless of whether people have the inner strength to remain happy despite being deprived of their liberty, it is still wrong.


			
				Deimos said:
			
		

> Which led to what? Yes, you can call it sex without consent if you're pushy (although a 9 yo experimenting with her genitals doesn't sound alien to me), but who was harmed in the process? Sex without consent is bad because someone usually gets hurt. I don't think this was the case. At least nothing points to it having affected the girl in a bad way.


These practices were very widespread back then, and such things as having a healthy sexuality were considered completely unimportant as far as women were concerned.

In addition to all this -- if a woman is raped and manages to get over it, that doesn't mean the sexual assault was justified.


----------



## Eru Lawliet (Jan 7, 2011)

It shocks me to see, how in every thread here, where the topic pedophilia is addressed, there're people who defend and find excuses for the actions of pedophiles.

What disgusts me the most is that some people are arguing, that a child could consent to anything like that.

First, just hypothetically, even if there were children, who were "mature" enough to consent (which in reality is an absolute impossibilty), how do you know if a particular child is mature enough or not? Judging from some posts I've read here, not in this thread in particular, but in this forum in general, some people seem to confuse intelligence with maturity. There are some kids, who are smart and like to read, maybe more than some adults, who seem like they're very mature for their age. That doesn't say anything wether they are ready for sex (just typing the last part made me throw up in my mouth).

Second, there is no way an adult and a child could ever be on an equal level and thus equal partners. For children sexuality is something new, they still have to discover it. But an adult knows all to well, what he's doing and can easily take advantage of the child's inexperience and manipulate it (wittingly or unwittingly). That's one of the big differences between two children "experimenting" with each other and an adult sexually approaching a child.

An adult and a child can't have consenting sex, ever. It's always rape, whether the child is forced to anything or not or whether it says "no" or not. Whether it feels threatened or not or wheather it gets physically hurt or not.
And no cultural customs can change that.

There're also children, I guess mostly neglected ones, that are just longing for (non sexual) affection and love and might even endure things they don't like just to get that.


----------



## WT (Jan 7, 2011)

maj1n said:


> This is not the opinion of scholars.



Erm Yes it is. The Scholar I speak to is a phone call away. 



> Please don't spout this stupid inane argument, nowhere in the world is a 9 year old giving birth the norm, it is always treated as an abnormality.



Most births like this, aren't even documented in the third world country. Since they are considered the norm there. By a small chance they are, only when the story gets in the hand of the western media, anyway, 

Just to elaborate on the situation, I think this quote pretty much sums up the situation:



> "But do you mean to tell me that the man who in the full flush of youthful vigour, a young man of four and twenty (24), married a woman much his senior, and remained faithful to her for six and twenty years (26), at fifty years of age when the passions are dying married for lust and sexual passion? Not thus are men's lives to be judged. And you look at the women whom he married, you will find that by every one of them an alliance was made for his people, or something was gained for his followers, or the woman was in sore need of protection."



or



> "No great religious leader has been so maligned as Prophet Mohammed. Attacked in the past as a heretic, an impostor, or a sensualist, it is still possible to find him referred to as "the false prophet." A modern German writer accuses Prophet Mohammed of sensuality, surrounding himself with young women. This man was not married until he was twenty-five years of age, then he and his wife lived in happiness and fidelity for twenty-four years, until her death when he was fourty-nine. Only between the age of fifty and his death at sixty-two did Prophet Mohammed take other wives, only one of whom was a virgin, and most of them were taken for dynastic and political reasons. Certainly the Prophet's record was better than the head of the Church of England, Henry VIII." Geoffrey Parrinder, Mysticism in the World's Religions (New York: Oxford University Press, 1976, pg. 121)



Anyway, lets have a look at all his wives and the ages he married them at:

Khadija bint khawilad 	*40* 
Sauda Bint Zama 	*50* 
Aisha bint Abu Bakr 	*9* 
Hafsa Bint Umar bin Khattab 	*22* 
Zainab bint Khuzaima 	*30* 
Umm-I-Salma bint Abu Umayia 	*26* 
Zainab Bint Jahash 	*38* 
Juwaeria Bint Harith 	*20* 
Umm-I-Habiba bint Abu Sufyan 	*36* 
Marya Qibtiya bint shamun 	*17* 
Safia bint Hayi bin Akhtab 	*17* 
Raihana bint umru bin hanafa  *?* 
Maimuna bint harith *36*

As you see, even by his own standard (although a norm in that culture), Lady Aisha was the only younger one.

Now, you claimed he was a p*d*p**** (i.e. has a sexual attraction to younger children). Tell me this, with his power, why didn't he marry more younger women? Why only Aisha? 



> False, Bukhari hadith only specifies that she was pre-pubertic, i challenge you to give me a hadith that clearly states sex after puberty.



Perhaps not hadith, but it was stated by Hamza Yusuf. Anyway, I said that if you look at the book of Mensus, you will find sexual activity only happening after Aisha RA had reached puberty. 



> Don't even try to argue she was some kind of mature woman mentally.



Aisha RA at that age was more mature and intelligent than me and you combined. 





impersonal said:


> So, as soon as she drops her barbies, bam! Spread her legs and make her a woman. Besides, she was engaged to Muhammad when she still played with dolls. Way to prove my point.



If you really want to know, Prophet Muhammad wasn't her first suitor. It was actually someone else who recommended the Prophet to marry Lady Aisha. 

Anyway, there is perhaps even a weaker (not sure if its weak, but its not Bukhari/Muslim) hadith reported by An Nasai which states:



> Buraida: Abu Bakr and Umar – RA- asked for Fatimah (prophets daughter) –RA- hand in marriage, so the Messenger of Allah – Sala Allau Alyhi Wa Salaam- said: “She is young”...



Note, he refused them on this basis. It was in fact Ali (RA) who married Lady Fatimah. 




			
				Sedated Peon said:
			
		

> This doesn’t counter anything I said. You set up Muhammad as the moral standard whose actions were guided by angels, and you accept that having sex with a 9 year old is permissible.
> 
> You have basically just continued to accept that it is morally fine to have sex with children. That your example for moral acceptance that existed in the 5th century still holds today



I'm not trying to counter, just educate. Anyway, go read what I said again and this time, try understanding. Don't just post for the sake of arguing.


----------



## Deimos (Jan 7, 2011)

impersonal said:


> I think the possibility for a woman to quit her husband is imaginary in the society we're talking about. Nobody would take a non-virgin. And I bet leaving your husband in the first place was probably considered extremely shameful for both, but especially for her. Again, she didn't really have a choice; once she was married, going away would be extremely damaging for her.
> 
> And how would she do it? She was raised by her own husband. It puts her in a situation of extremely heavy dependence, not to mention that she is obviously going to be manipulated into accepting her fate.
> 
> Regardless of whether people have the inner strength to remain happy despite being deprived of their liberty, it is still wrong.



I don't agree. The prophet would have let her go if she wanted to. There was once a woman that committed adultery and came to the prophet asking to be stoned. He sent her back home many times using various excuses to prevent that from happening. He's not a barbarian. He won't kill a woman because she doesn't want to be with him. There is nothing in his history suggesting that he would.

The girl was smart and could've left if she wanted to. Divorce is lawful in Islam. You thinking that she was manipulated or forced to remain in her situation is inconsistent with the context. Not only did she never try to leave, she praised her husband too. You're going to tell me that it's the result of the oh so evil terrorist brainwashing?



impersonal said:


> These practices were very widespread back then, and such things as having a healthy sexuality were considered completely unimportant as far as women were concerned.
> 
> In addition to all this -- if a woman is raped and manages to get over it, that doesn't mean the sexual assault was justified.



Yes, I agree but that wasn't rape. You're not acknowledging her consent and readiness to it, that's all. She wasn't being forced. She could've asked to stop if she didn't like it. It's not like she was desperately calling for help and begging to stop or something. She said yes and you don't like her yes. What's funny is that according to what you said, if it was an 18 yo idiot who said yes, you'd have acknowledged it; which is completely stupid because you can manipulate an 18 yo idiot just as much as you can manipulate a 9 yo. The difference is that it's less likely. So you accept one just because it's in your rule set and not the other one because it's "horrible", even though it's the exact same thing happening at a different likelihood.

I'm sorry, but you can't convince me that no 10 yo child is able to understand and communicate with others without being taken advantage of. It's possible, just like an 18 yo being taken advantage of is possible. The rules now prevent the former case from happening, which is good. They don't prevent the second case from happening, which sucks. Yet they're the rules. At the time of the prophet, the rules were different and he neither broke any nor did anything bad. Just because something is prohibited by the current rules doesn't mean it's always necessarily bad.

If you think I'm wrong, we'll have to disagree and call it a day. I won't try further to warp your morality and will respect your opinion.


----------



## sadated_peon (Jan 7, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> I'm not trying to counter, just educate. Anyway, go read what I said again and this time, try understanding. Don't just post for the sake of arguing.


You make the assumption that I am posting "for the sake of arguing". This is not the case. 

Saying things like "You don't understand" or "educate yourself" are just ways for you to avoid the argument, avoid reasoning, and avoid justifying your position. 

You prefer to take this line because you don't want to have to deal with the actual point that you can't defend your religion against the criticism, and would prefer to just avoid the criticism and delude yourself into believing there are no problems.


----------



## Perseverance (Jan 7, 2011)

maj1n said:


> pedophilia isn't marriage, do you know what sex is? do you understand that sex with a 9 year old is wrong?



Yes, today it is, a 9 year old is quite imature actually, probably has ambitions to go to school/career, she won't know what responsibility is.

Quite the same for the 12 year old kid, he can't handle being president or prime minister of nations, not like the kids back then who were kings of kingdoms and used to lead armies into war.



impersonal said:


> You think a 6 years old girl chooses her husband. This is not how it happens. When a child this young marries, other people choose for her.



Actually, there's Hadiths that show'd Aisha's understanding of a Marraige even at a young age of 6. Females back in pre-Islamic society did not serve any purpose to the family apart of being married. People felt humiliated when a "Female was born" and some would bury the baby alive. 

From a very early age, they wouldn't be going to School or having a career or anything like females of todays society have, instead these females would be taught from a very young age of cooking, cleaning etc. basically how to be a good house wife.

But hey, you certainly have an arguement atleast. People can argue that 6 isn't old enough to fully understand the contract of marraige (even 1400 years ago). But, the big flaw of the arguement is a) Aisha was contracted to marry someone else before Muhammad, (meaning she knew what marraige is) so she certain wouldn't have been suprised when her father asked her marraige with someone else instead, 2) in fact based on Hadiths which Aisha herself narrated, she was aware of what marraige was at the time, like most girls her age at the time did.

 Furthermore, Aisha's father Abu Bakr was described and accepted by historians as a loyal follower of Muhammad and an "upright man", his nickname at the time was "the truth confirmer". Encyclopedia of Britanicca acknowledges this "based on a mass of early sources". Which brings the question up as to whether someone like that would "force her daughter to marry someone". And finally, she had 3 years to back out if she wanted, after marraige she could divorce at any time she wanted (the word of Quran which Muslims believe if the word of God, which states of the easeness of divorce for any woman, this certainly overrites what the Prophet may say in regards to ever forcing anything on her, this is considering there ever is a contradiction in both), when Muhammad died she didn't have to continue being dedicated in teaching nations about the religion and nor was she "forced" to narrate of 2000 hadiths. Which raises even more issues in regards to her ever being "forced" to do anything against her will.

Here's the next Scenario to think about -

Abu Bakr asks Muhammad to marry his daughter. Muhammad's reply;

a) No - Abu Bakr in this case will think Muhammads is either "weird" or he finds his daughter with too many flaws with marraige, might feel offended.
b) Yes - Normal thing, no one complains except Muhammad himself says he wants to wait 3 more years till she's matured.

Anyways, watch this video, it makes good points and proves girls as young as 7 could "have feelings". 

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEwmfIgSQQU[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4yyx1qDWhQ[/YOUTUBE]



maj1n said:


> pedophilia isn't marriage, do you know what sex is? do you understand that sex with a 9 year old is wrong?



Yes, today it is, a 9 year old is quite imature actually, probably has ambitions to go to school/career, no one ever speaks to her about what marraige is, she's not taught at an early age of how to cook, clean etc, she won't know what responsibility is.

Quite the same for the 12 year old kid, he can't handle being president or prime minister of nations, not like the kids back then who were kings of kingdoms and used to lead armies into war.



Berserk said:


> Implying girls under 10 think about marriage.  Why?



Apart from the thought that "if not for marraige" they'll be someone's slave or forced to "work" aka prostitution, they didn't really have much to look forward to did they?

Or the fact that in the western lands we live in now, at the time of Muhammad, it was the norm for girls as young as 7 to get married off. Oh wait, this was still normal till the late 19th century in the west lol.



Rob said:


> I think most people are generally opposed to children running around battlefields. Perhaps that's just me and my close minded ways though.



I would certainly be, in todays age ofcourse. Was just a few centuries ago when the King of England, a young 13-14 year old went on a Crusade _abroad_ against the likes of Salahudin. He even won a battle I believe lol.


----- Regarding my thoughts on the pedophilia accusation ----

Like historians and scholars, I don't believe or label Muhammad as a p*d*p****. Even if people said "Muhammad liked them young", this arguement is proven false by the accounts of his other marraiges, some were as old as him or even nearly twice his age, most of them were widows, slaves or already had children before. 

Any one with common sense should know that a real p*d*p**** would strike at any given opportunity. However, Muhammad had a million opportunities to do this if he wanted, he was literally the leader of thousands of people, who all admired him and extremely loyal to him. If he wanted, he could at the time had any woman he wanted, yet he chose to marry;

- Widows
- Older women
- Slaves
- Women who already had children before.

If you use some common sense and a tiny bit of logic, maybe what the historians say about Muhammad regarding the "pedophilia accussation" have their points.

You can call Aisha a "young girl" or whatever, but one thing she clearly wasn't (based on a mass of hadiths) was a "child". The things she's said to have done, the role she played, were not the "acts of a child", some of these were acts that very few successful women of today can do. Clearly this should tell you something regarding culture. The people of Arabia at that time had extremely good memory, far better then what humans have of today (unless they are pretty gifted). The arabs was a very oral speaking culture, again the key word is culture here. 

Next, the reason it is hypocracy to call anyone a p*d*p**** (especially if you are living in some of the western countries) is because for all you know, your Ancestors could've been the real pedophiles. It is factually known that Priests used to take the "viginity" of 3 year old girls to "purify" them, when a girl was sent to get married, her father would put his finger in his vigina to make sure she was a virgin, now this in all times is wrong, especially the 3 year olds part. Don't believe me, it's in the Bible, something which heavily once influenced the western society and culture, stuff like this was "the norm" till the recent 19th century.

And finally, does "Muhammad being married to a 9 year old mean Muslims could marry a 9 year old today"?

The answer from what I've read is no. 9 year olds of today aren't like the 9 year olds 14 centuries ago and Muslims above everything follow the Quran, since they believe it is the word of God. I will quote - 

"_The right age of marriage (according to the Qur'an) is after reaching puberty (Adulthood) when one has vitality, vigour, sensibility and sense of responsibility
[4/6, 6/152, 17/34, 22/5, 28/14, 40/67]_

"_In 4:6, the word nikaah (i.e. marriage) has been tied with the word balaghoo (i.e. the age of puberty, adulthood, adolescence). In 6:152 and 17:34, the blooghat is tied with ashadda, which means an age of full manly vigour and maturity.

The context of 4:6, 6:152 and 17:34 indicates that this not only means physical maturity but also the mental maturity when one has sensibility and sense of responsibility. The age of blooghat-e-ashadda has also been clarified in 22:5, 28:14 and 40:67. All this suggests that the right age of marriage is when one is mentally and physically mature and has vitality, vigour, sensibility and sense of responsibility." _"

Todays society is different, girls have more ambitions and less understanding of things such as marraige, responsibility is unknown to them since they are closely cared by their family, the list and reasons goes on. 

So according to the Quran, Muslims can't marry a "child". And had Muhammad "married a child", then surely a religion like Islam would have instantly failed. He had enemies that absolutly hated him, did everything to disapprove him, even called him a witch/satan/magician, yet some of these people ended up becoming his most devout followers. The religion grew more and more, and all they would've had to do is say "your going against your own God's word by marrying a child", yet this never happened, why? Because Aisha wasn't a mere child at the time of her marraige, if she was then she was one heck of a super child at that.

On the flipside,  quite a few Muslims out there believe Aisha was 19 years old not 9, according to  atleast lol.

ps. IF anyone really wants to do some research, I would recommend reading this (I havn't read it myself, just glanced over it and it seems to just add or improve my points and refutes the pedophilia claim 50x better), - .

PEACE OUT GUYS, on a serious tho, argueing over this is stupid imo and now i realise a waste of time. Oh yeah, who saw the latest playboy owners marraige?


----------



## Eru Lawliet (Jan 7, 2011)

Deimos said:


> Yes, I agree but that wasn't rape. You're not acknowledging her consent and readiness to it, that's all. She wasn't being forced. She could've asked to stop if she didn't like it. It's not like she was desperately calling for help and begging to stop or something. She said yes and you don't like her yes. What's funny is that according to what you said, if it was an 18 yo idiot who said yes, you'd have acknowledged it; which is completely stupid because you can manipulate an 18 yo idiot just as much as you can manipulate a 9 yo. The difference is that it's less likely. So you accept one just because it's in your rule set and not the other one because it's "horrible", even though it's the exact same thing happening at a different likelihood.
> 
> I'm sorry, but you can't convince me that no 10 yo child is able to understand and communicate with others without being taken advantage of. It's possible, just like an 18 yo being taken advantage of is possible. The rules now prevent the former case from happening, which is good. They don't prevent the second case from happening, which sucks. Yet they're the rules. At the time of the prophet, the rules were different and he neither broke any nor did anything bad. Just because something is prohibited by the current rules doesn't mean it's always necessarily bad.



I just can't wrap my head around the fact that there are people, who adjudge children the same maturity and autonomy as an adult to consent to these things. Saying yes and not trying to stop the perpetrator doesn't mean anything for the reasons I stated in my previous post, as well as the fact, that there are immature and manipulable 18 year olds.

______________

On a general note, I also don't understand why some people trust the stories written in a book by various people, laws, etc more than their own common sense. In other words, saying something is ok or was, just because the book says it is, some law says it is, because the times where different, etc (like in this case, because Mohammad did it/says it's ok).


----------



## WT (Jan 7, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> You make the assumption that I am posting "for the sake of arguing". This is not the case.
> 
> Saying things like "You don't understand" or "educate yourself" are just ways for you to avoid the argument, avoid reasoning, and avoid justifying your position.
> 
> You prefer to take this line because you don't want to have to deal with the actual point that you can't defend your religion against the criticism, and would prefer to just avoid the criticism and delude yourself into believing there are no problems.



No, I already told you before that there are only certain actions we can emulate. Other actions are exclusive to the Prophet. Two people having sexual relationship after puberty is acceptable in Islam. If the law of the land goes against this and specifies an arbitrary age range, then Muslims are obliged to follow this (as explained earlier).


----------



## Zaru (Jan 7, 2011)

Considering how many things are debateable about islam, it's funny that people always pick the "Muhammad was a p*d*p****" thing.


----------



## WT (Jan 7, 2011)

Zaru said:


> Considering how many things are debateable about islam, it's funny that people always pick the "Muhammad was a p*d*p****" thing.



The cycle will repeat after a while, its almost happening in the Islam Debate Discussion thread (we're seeing things moving to slavery now):

1) Pedophilia issue 
2) Slavery issue
3) Miscellaneous smaller issues
4) Arguments die down a little
5) Back to Pedophillia
6) ...


----------



## Dionysus (Jan 7, 2011)

Zaru said:


> Considering how many things are debateable about islam, it's funny that people always pick the "Muhammad was a p*d*p****" thing.


Someone probably brought up living like Muhammad somewhere. Personal peace or something. That or Pilaf injected the comment.


----------



## maj1n (Jan 7, 2011)

perseverance said:
			
		

> You can call Aisha a "young girl" or whatever, but one thing she clearly wasn't (based on a mass of hadiths) was a "child". The things she's said to have done, the role she played, were not the "acts of a child", some of these were acts that very few successful women of today can do. Clearly this should tell you something regarding culture. The people of Arabia at that time had extremely good memory, far better then what humans have of today (unless they are pretty gifted). The arabs was a very oral speaking culture, again the key word is culture here.


Umm everything Aisha 'did' that you cite, she did later in life, you don't use that to retroactively say she was an 'adult' at 9 years old.

_Narrated 'Aisha:

I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (*The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty*.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13) _
-http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/073.sbt.html#008.073.151

This is her 'mental' state, she was just a child.



			
				Deimos said:
			
		

> I don't agree. The prophet would have let her go if she wanted to. There was once a woman that committed adultery and came to the prophet asking to be stoned. He sent her back home many times using various excuses to prevent that from happening. He's not a barbarian. He won't kill a woman because she doesn't want to be with him. There is nothing in his history suggesting that he would.


Your presuming knowledge of the relationship of figures that existed in stories thousands of years ago?



			
				Deimos said:
			
		

> Yes, I agree but that wasn't rape. You're not acknowledging her consent and readiness to it, that's all. She wasn't being forced. She could've asked to stop if she didn't like it. It's not like she was desperately calling for help and begging to stop or something. She said yes and you don't like her yes. What's funny is that according to what you said, if it was an 18 yo idiot who said yes, you'd have acknowledged it; which is completely stupid because you can manipulate an 18 yo idiot just as much as you can manipulate a 9 yo. The difference is that it's less likely. So you accept one just because it's in your rule set and not the other one because it's "horrible", even though it's the exact same thing happening at a different likelihood.
> 
> I'm sorry, but you can't convince me that no 10 yo child is able to understand and communicate with others without being taken advantage of. It's possible, just like an 18 yo being taken advantage of is possible. The rules now prevent the former case from happening, which is good. They don't prevent the second case from happening, which sucks. Yet they're the rules. At the time of the prophet, the rules were different and he neither broke any nor did anything bad. Just because something is prohibited by the current rules doesn't mean it's always necessarily bad.


a 9 year old does not understand the implications of marriage nor sex.

This seems very common-sense, do you want me to elaborate on it? it seems your having trouble understanding this, although i suspect your just talking bullshit to justify Muhammad committing a pedophilic act with a 9 year old.


----------



## sadated_peon (Jan 7, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> No, I already told you before that there are only certain actions we can emulate. Other actions are exclusive to the Prophet. Two people having sexual relationship after puberty is acceptable in Islam. If the law of the land goes against this and specifies an arbitrary age range, then Muslims are obliged to follow this (as explained earlier).


Once again, this doesn't counter anything I have said. 

It only confirms the Muslims belief that having sex with children is perfectly acceptable, and that the closer you get to Muhammad's example the closer you get to child molestation.


----------



## impersonal (Jan 7, 2011)

Perseverance said:
			
		

> (...)
> 
> But, the big flaw of the arguement is a) Aisha was contracted to marry someone else before Muhammad, (meaning she knew what marraige is) so she certain wouldn't have been suprised when her father asked her marraige with someone else instead, 2) in fact based on Hadiths which Aisha herself narrated, she was aware of what marraige was at the time, like most girls her age at the time did.
> (...)
> ...



So what do you think happened?

Here's the story according to some of the Muslims here:

_Aisha, 6 years old, was walking down the street minding her own business with her gang of girls, when suddenly she saw the handsome, 51 years old, well-dressed Muhammad. They looked at each other and felt irresistibly attracted.

Muhammad walked up to Aisha and told her: "hey, beautiful", looking straight in her eyes, "Do you often come here?" Aisha replied, "And why would you want to know?"

A few minutes later, the 6 years old girl and the 51 years old man are  at the local café, talking about their respective lives, their dreams, and how good looking she is in that little dress. After a few more dates which revealed incredible compatibility, they decide to go see Aisha's father. Aisha explains that she loves Muhammad, and he loves her back, so the young couple is allowed to marry. 

"But", the father says, "only in 3 years! You know the saying, 'Marry in haste, repent at  leisure.'" Three years later, as they are still together, they marry and finally have sex. The end._

Here's what actually happened:
_
Aisha's father Abu Bakr and Muhammad wanted to strenghten their ties. It was decided that marrying the virgin daughter of Abu Bakr would accomplish just that. Aisha had no choice in the matter; she was told she would have to marry some man for the sake of her father. She accepted it, because she was only 6 and not really able to resist her father's decisions, and because since birth she had been conditioned to be the property of the men around her, exchanged as a commodity and used for economical or sexual purposes. 3 years later, as the political situation hasn't changed, they marry and finally have sex. The end._

Perhaps you can't expect a man to never commit a single mistake, especially when living at a time when such horrors were so commonplace. But it would still be good if Muslims could acknowledge that marriage at the age of 6 and sex at the age of 9 is always immoral.

Deimos, I won't argue any further with you about the impossibility for a preteen child to understand marriage (or sex). I think the above explains quite clearly my position and why I think yours is silly. 

I at least want to clarify this:


			
				Deimos said:
			
		

> I don't agree [that divorce back then wasn't so easy]. The prophet would have let her go if she wanted to. There was once a woman that committed adultery and came to the prophet asking to be stoned. He sent her back home many times using various excuses to prevent that from happening. He's not a barbarian. He won't kill a woman because she doesn't want to be with him. There is nothing in his history suggesting that he would.


Im not saying he would have killed her. I'm saying that in that society, divorce was probably not as easy as in ours if a woman wanted to instigate it. Besides, Muhammad specifically prescribed that she couldn't remarry after his death (despite their 45 years age difference; meaning she was a widow with no possibility to remarry, at the age of 18).


----------



## Berserk (Jan 7, 2011)

Perseverance said:


> Or the fact that in the western lands we live in now, at the time of Muhammad, it was the norm for girls as young as 7 to get married off. *Oh wait, this was still normal till the late 19th century in the west lol.*



Silly me, how could I forget today is January 7th 1811?


----------



## Punpun (Jan 7, 2011)

Good evening Guts, I am from 2011. I was sent to bestow you a simple mission : save the human race.

May your might avail.


----------



## Zaru (Jan 7, 2011)

impersonal said:


> Im not saying he would have killed her. I'm saying that in that society, divorce was probably not as easy as in ours if a woman wanted to instigate it. Besides, Muhammad specifically prescribed that she couldn't remarry after his death (despite their 45 years age difference; meaning she was a widow with no possibility to remarry, at the age of 18).



You know what's funny? He had 9 wives at the same time while others were "only" allowed to have 4 (what an arbitrary number, plus there's no logical sense behind that)

He then determined that none of them were allowed to remarry after he bit the dust.

His justification: "God told me so"
He also claimed in the same breath that God told him he can't have more than the 9 he already has.  (as if 9 weren't already enough)

Cool story brophet


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Jan 7, 2011)

Deimos said:
			
		

> I don't agree. The prophet would have let her go if she wanted to. There was once a woman that committed adultery and came to the prophet asking to be stoned. He sent her back home many times using various excuses to prevent that from happening. He's not a barbarian.



Really? I would really like to see the hadith for that one. It seems the prophet can never make his mind, sometimes he makes excuses for people not to get stoned and other times this happens....
*
Narrated Ikrima: Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' " [Sahih Bukhari: Book 52, Hadith 260]*


*Sahih Bukhari (7.63.195):
Narrated Jabir:
A man from the tribe of Bani Aslam came to the Prophet while he was in the mosque and said, "I have committed illegal sexual intercourse." The Prophet turned his face to the other side. The man turned towards the side towards which the Prophet had turned his face, and gave four witnesses against himself. On that the Prophet called him and said, "Are you insane?" (He added), "Are you married?" The man said, 'Yes." On that the Prophet ordered him to be stoned to the death in the Musalla (a praying place). When the stones hit him with their sharp edges and he fled, but he was caught at Al-Harra and then killed*

*Bukhari
Volume 8, Book 82, Number 809: 
Narrated Ibn 'Umar: 

A Jew and a Jewess were brought to Allah's Apostle on a charge of committing an illegal sexual intercourse. The Prophet asked them. "What is the legal punishment (for this sin) in your Book (Torah)?" They replied, "Our priests have innovated the punishment of blackening the faces with charcoal and Tajbiya." 'Abdullah bin Salam said, "O Allah's Apostle, tell them to bring the Torah." The Torah was brought, and then one of the Jews put his hand over the Divine Verse of the Rajam (stoning to death) and started reading what preceded and what followed it. On that, Ibn Salam said to the Jew, "Lift up your hand." Behold! The Divine Verse of the Rajam was under his hand. So Allah's Apostle ordered that the two (sinners) be stoned to death, and so they were stoned. Ibn 'Umar added: So both of them were stoned at the Balat and I saw the Jew sheltering the Jewess.*




			
				Perseverance said:
			
		

> Here's the next Scenario to think about -
> 
> *Abu Bakr asks Muhammad to marry his daughter.* Muhammad's reply;
> 
> ...



A blatant lie that many Muslims often use to defend this. Abu Bakr never asked the prophet, the prophet asked Abu Bakr.....

*Sahih Bukhari 7.18
Narrated 'Ursa:
The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for 'Aisha's hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said "But I am your brother." The Prophet said, "You are my brother in Allah's religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry."*

_Which is funny because:_
*
Sahih Bukhari V.7, B62, N. 37
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:
It was said to the Prophet, "Won't you marry the daughter of Hamza?" He said, "She is my foster niece (brother's daughter). "*




Also, Perseverance and any other person claiming that Aisha was not a "Child" during the marriage but an "adult" based off what we know of her have no evidence to back up their statements. You did not reply to my other rebuttal where I showed you that everything you give her credit of doing (such as teaching nations) does not correlate with the age she was married off.

Here is something that does correlate.

_Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3311
'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and he was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine,* and her dolls were with her*; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old._


----------



## dr_shadow (Jan 7, 2011)

Zaru said:


> You know what's funny? He had 9 wives at the same time while others were "only" allowed to have 4 (what an arbitrary number, plus there's no logical sense behind that)
> 
> He then determined that none of them were allowed to remarry after he bit the dust.
> 
> ...



Setting a number for how many wives you can have was an improvement from pre-Islam Mecca, where you could have an unlimited number as long as you could pay for their expenses.

The Qu'ran also says that you should not keep more wives than you can love equally. If you only love one woman, you should marry only her.

I think most male Muslims have de facto only had one wife, since in a time where women were not expected to work it would be very expensive to pay the expenses of four. It would have been mostly rich guys like the Caliph that could afford a lifestyle like that.

Today a lot of girls will be westernized enogh to also demand a clause in the marriage contract where the guy promises to not take more wives than her.


----------



## Deimos (Jan 8, 2011)

Eru Lawliet said:


> On a general note, I also don't understand why some people trust the stories written in a book by various people, laws, etc more than their own common sense. In other words, saying something is ok or was, just because the book says it is, some law says it is, because the times where different, etc (like in this case, because Mohammad did it/says it's ok).



That's exactly what _I_ am not doing. You insist that a 10 yo having sex is wrong in _any_ case, yet you have no way to prove it. You're saying that based on statistics and mainly because your law book says so; and this is not enough to rule out _every_ possible instance. You think 18 is a magic number?

Oh and this isn't about the prophet. I couldn't care less if it was someone else who did it. If the result was the same, I would have accepted it just as much.



impersonal said:


> Im not saying he would have killed her. I'm saying that in that society, divorce was probably not as easy as in ours if a woman wanted to instigate it. Besides, Muhammad specifically prescribed that she couldn't remarry after his death (despite their 45 years age difference; meaning she was a widow with no possibility to remarry, at the age of 18).



Divorce is lawful in Islam and that's all there is to know. Why she couldn't remarry someone else after the prophet's death is a bit of a different matter which nevertheless eludes me. This implies that I may have very well been wrong when I said that she could have left if she wanted to because I failed to specify that she wouldn't have been able to leave under normal conditions. That still doesn't entirely prevent her from leaving and more importantly, that doesn't change the fact that she neither tried to nor hinted about regretting her decision. Their relationship harmed no one. Everyone was happy with it. He didn't have a problem, she didn't have a problem and nobody else at their time had a problem. Why do _you_ insist on having a problem?


----------



## maj1n (Jan 8, 2011)

Deimos said:


> That's exactly what _I_ am not doing*. You insist that a 10 yo having sex is wrong in any case, yet you have no way to prove it.* You're saying that based on statistics and mainly because your law book says so; and this is not enough to rule out _every_ possible instance. You think 18 is a magic number?
> 
> Oh and this isn't about the prophet. I couldn't care less if it was someone else who did it. If the result was the same, I would have accepted it just as much.


Biology, it is dangerous.
_
Injury

Depending on the age and size of the child, and the degree of force used, child sexual abuse may cause internal lacerations and bleeding. In severe cases, damage to internal organs may occur, which, in some cases, may cause death.[62] Herman-Giddens et al. found six certain and six probable cases of death due to child sexual abuse in North Carolina between 1985 and 1994. The victims ranged in age from 2 months to 10 years. Causes of death included trauma to the genitalia or rectum and sexual mutilation.[63]
Infections

Child sexual abuse may cause infections and sexually transmitted diseases.[64] Depending on the age of the child, due to a lack of sufficient vaginal fluid, chances of infections are higher. Vaginitis has also been reported.[64]
Neurological damage

Research has shown that traumatic stress, including stress caused by sexual abuse, causes notable changes in brain functioning and development.[65][66] Various studies have suggested that severe child sexual abuse may have a deleterious effect on brain development. Ito et al. (1998) found "reversed hemispheric asymmetry and greater left hemisphere coherence in abused subjects;"[67] Teicher et al. (1993) found that an increased likelihood of "ictal temporal lobe epilepsy-like symptoms" in abused subjects;[68] Anderson et al. (2002) recorded abnormal transverse relaxation time in the cerebellar vermis of adults sexually abused in childhood;[69] Teicher et al. (1993) found that child sexual abuse was associated with a reduced corpus callosum area; various studies have found an association of reduced volume of the left hippocampus with child sexual abuse;[70] and Ito et al. (1993) found increased electrophysiological abnormalities in sexually abused children.[71]

Some studies indicate that sexual or physical abuse in children can lead to the overexcitation of an undeveloped limbic system.[70] Teicher et al. (1993)[68] used the "Limbic System Checklist-33" to measure ictal temporal lobe epilepsy-like symptoms in 253 adults. Reports of child sexual abuse were associated with a 49% increase to LSCL-33 scores, 11% higher than the associated increase of self-reported physical abuse. Reports of both physical and sexual abuse were associated with a 113% increase. Male and female victims were similarly affected.[68][72]

Navalta et al. (2006) found that the self-reported math Scholastic Aptitude Test scores of their sample of women with a history of repeated child sexual abuse were significantly lower than the self-reported math SAT scores of their non-abused sample. Because the abused subjects verbal SAT scores were high, they hypothesized that the low math SAT scores could "stem from a defect in hemispheric integration." They also found a strong association between short term memory impairments for all categories tested (verbal, visual, and global) and the duration of the abuse.[73]_
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse#Physical_harm

Is it hard to fathom that a body not yet physically mature, might be damaged by sex?

Do you think forcing a penis into a baby for instance, would not cause any problems?


----------



## Eru Lawliet (Jan 8, 2011)

Deimos said:


> That's exactly what _I_ am not doing. You insist that a 10 yo having sex is wrong in _any_ case, yet you have no way to prove it. You're saying that based on statistics and mainly because your law book says so; and this is not enough to rule out _every_ possible instance. You think 18 is a magic number?
> 
> Oh and this isn't about the prophet. I couldn't care less if it was someone else who did it. If the result was the same, I would have accepted it just as much.



Well for the proof, I think maj1n has provided enough proof.

I don't base my opinion on law books, I form my own opinion and use my own common sense (which of course is influenced by the society I grew up in). Actually I think the law isn't harsh enough on pedophiles.

I don't think 18 is a magic number. It's not like you can say with 18 people are ready. But the state has to draw the line somewhere. It can't protect people forever. I also don't know how this would work, we might need some psychologists to decide, whether someone is ready or not. Some kind of licence for sex, which is of course nonsense.
I think it's more like this, with 18 people aren't considered to be children anymore, they're adults themselves now and have to decide for themselves, whether they're ready or not, without the state protecting them.
The purpose of these laws is to protect children from abuse by adults.


----------



## impersonal (Jan 8, 2011)

Deimos said:


> Divorce is lawful in Islam and that's all there is to know. Why she couldn't remarry someone else after the prophet's death is a bit of a different matter which nevertheless eludes me. This implies that I may have very well been wrong when I said that she could have left if she wanted to because I failed to specify that she wouldn't have been able to leave under normal conditions. That still doesn't entirely prevent her from leaving and more importantly, that doesn't change the fact that she neither tried to nor hinted about regretting her decision. Their relationship harmed no one. Everyone was happy with it. He didn't have a problem, she didn't have a problem and nobody else at their time had a problem. Why do _you_ insist on having a problem?



Similarly, many slaves accept their fate because: _"well, what can you do? That's how things are, and there's no point in spending your life mourning over your lost liberty when you cant do anything about it"_.

In a way, or at least in some cases, this can be a good attitude:
_
    God, grant me the serenity
    To accept the things I cannot change;
    Courage to change the things I can;
    And wisdom to know the difference. _

For a woman of that time, such traditions were probably among the things that they could not change.

Nevertheless, after several centuries had passed, and after several decades of fighting from those who found the courage to change what _they_ could, these barbaric traditions were suppressed in many countries, including most of the western world and Asia.

You pretend there never was a problem; I claim there always was one, it just went unaddressed because the enslavement of women by men was so well established that dissent was impossible. It had become one of the difficulties of life at that time, like disease or famine or death at 45, and people (women) just learnt to accept it.

Note that this is still the case in many countries, even now. This is partially due to the kind of attitude you display, and share with the inhabitants of some of these countries.


----------



## Deimos (Jan 8, 2011)

Eru Lawliet said:


> Well for the proof, I think maj1n has provided enough proof.
> 
> I don't base my opinion on law books, I form my own opinion and use my own common sense (which of course is influenced by the society I grew up in). Actually I think the law isn't harsh enough on pedophiles.
> 
> ...



That's not a proof. "may cause internal lacerations and bleeding" doesn't imply that it happened.

In case you missed it, I already stated that I'm happy that the law prevents such events from happening now. I'm glad a 10 yo can't get married, but I don't dismiss the possibility that one could've gotten married in an acceptable manner.



impersonal said:


> Similarly, many slaves accept their fate because: _"well, what can you do? That's how things are, and there's no point in spending your life mourning over your lost liberty when you cant do anything about it"_.
> 
> In a way, or at least in some cases, this can be a good attitude:
> _
> ...



Islam abolished slavery. I fail to understand your attempt at generalizing this. Not every Muslim girl was married at 9 and Islam does not enslave women. A Muslim girl has every right to choose her husband without interference from her parents or anyone else. Forcing a woman to marry a man is actually unlawful in Islam.

I also fail to understand your accusations. Exactly what are you accusing me of? Being for women enslaving or pedophilia or believing blindly in texts? I lost track of the times I said I am glad our laws prevent such relationships already. Saying that such a relationship could succeed (technically and morally) doesn't mean I want the law changed. If the odds are close to zero, I'd rather not play with fire. I just don't _completely_ rule out the possibility of it working and apparently, that's too hard for you to understand.

The only reason this stuff is still happening in many countries is the absence of proper education and the lack of critical thinking. Saying it is partially due to the kind of attitude I display is laughable. You're the one desperately clinging to your statistics, refusing to accept the possibility that a human could stand out of norm.

I'm saying: perhaps it worked, but let's not take risks and avoid it altogether
You're saying: I refuse that it could have worked even though I cannot formally prove it and anyone who acknowledges the possibility that it could have worked is a barbarian causing misery in many countries

Who do you think is blind?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 8, 2011)

Juno said:


> Getting to dress like a ninja all the time is a pretty tempting offer.



Dressing like a ninja doesn't top eating pork and seeing women's cleavage and legs. (and not having to stone them for it)



Zero? said:


> Unsurprising but still awesome.



How is it unsurprising? I would say its actually pretty surprising and mostly because people typically want more freedom and not less. 



impersonal said:


> Converts are often the most hardcore and intolerant muslims. They're more likely to become terrorists than people who grew up within a culture that moderates the strict interpretation of the qur'an. So I wouldn't insist about how converts are going to be a bridge between cultures.
> 
> Anyway, if it suits her, why not. I just hope she is not turning into a woman-slave of some sort. Sorry for the clich?s - I'm just not as enthusiastic as the author of the article.



Yep, we've seen a lot of them. 



adee said:


> They are apparently often the most stupid and inconsequential terrorists



Which is good for them.


----------



## maj1n (Jan 8, 2011)

Deimos said:


> That's not a proof. "may cause internal lacerations and bleeding" doesn't imply that it happened.
> 
> In case you missed it, I already stated that I'm happy that the law prevents such events from happening now. I'm glad a 10 yo can't get married, but I don't dismiss the possibility that one could've gotten married in an acceptable manner.


The argument is about pedophilia, having sex with children, not child-marriage, although that is also wrong.

What is given to you is scientific evidence that having sex with a child is physically dangerous.
_
Injury

*Depending on the age and size of the child, and the degree of force used, child sexual abuse may cause internal lacerations and bleeding. In severe cases, damage to internal organs may occur, *which, in some cases, may cause death.[62] Herman-Giddens et al. found six certain and six probable cases of death due to child sexual abuse in North Carolina between 1985 and 1994. The victims ranged in age from 2 months to 10 years*. Causes of death included trauma to the genitalia or rectum *and sexual mutilation.[63]
Infections

Child sexual abuse may cause infections and sexually transmitted diseases.[64] *Depending on the age of the child, due to a lack of sufficient vaginal fluid, chances of infections are higher. Vaginitis has also been reported.[64]*
*
Research has shown that traumatic stress, including stress caused by sexual abuse, causes notable changes in brain functioning and development.*[65][66] Various studies have suggested that severe child sexual abuse may have a *deleterious effect on brain development*. Ito et al. (1998) found "reversed hemispheric asymmetry and greater left hemisphere coherence in abused subjects;"[67] Teicher et al. (1993) found that an increased likelihood of "ictal temporal lobe epilepsy-like symptoms" in abused subjects;[68] Anderson et al. (2002) recorded abnormal transverse relaxation time in the cerebellar vermis of adults sexually abused in childhood;[69] Teicher et al. (1993) found that child sexual abuse was associated with a reduced corpus callosum area; various studies have found an association of reduced volume of the left hippocampus with child sexual abuse;[70] and Ito et al. (1993) found increased electrophysiological abnormalities in sexually abused children.[71]

*Some studies indicate that sexual or physical abuse in children can lead to the overexcitation of an undeveloped limbic system*.[70] Teicher et al. (1993)[68] used the "Limbic System Checklist-33" to measure ictal temporal lobe epilepsy-like symptoms in 253 adults. Reports of child sexual abuse were associated with a 49% increase to LSCL-33 scores, 11% higher than the associated increase of self-reported physical abuse. Reports of both physical and sexual abuse were associated with a 113% increase. Male and female victims were similarly affected.[68][72]

Navalta et al. (2006) found that the self-reported math Scholastic Aptitude *Test scores of their sample of women with a history of repeated child sexual abuse were significantly lower than the self-reported math SAT scores of their non-abused sample.* Because the abused subjects verbal SAT scores were high, they hypothesized that the low math SAT scores could "stem from a defect in hemispheric integration." They also found a strong association between short term memory impairments for all categories tested (verbal, visual, and global) and the duration of the abuse.[73]_
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse#Physical_harm


			
				Deimos said:
			
		

> Islam abolished slavery. I fail to understand your attempt at generalizing this. Not every Muslim girl was married at 9 and Islam does not enslave women. A Muslim girl has every right to choose her husband without interference from her parents or anyone else. Forcing a woman to marry a man is actually unlawful in Islam.


No it didn't, it explicitly endorses it.

"O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and *those slaves whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee*
-33:50

Abu Sa'id al-Khudri (Allah her pleased with him) reported that at the Battle of Hanain Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. *Having overcome them and taken them captives*, the Companions of Allah's Messenger (may peace te upon him) seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that:" And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (iv. 24)" (i. e. they were lawful for them when their 'Idda period came to an end).
-http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muslim/008.smt.html#008.3432

Jabir (Allah be pleased with him) reported: There came a slave and pledg- ed allegiance to Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) on migration; he (the Holy Prophet) did not know that he was a slave. Then there came his master and demanded him back, whereupon* Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: Sell him to me. And he bought him for two black slaves,* and he did not afterwards take allegiance from anyone until he had asked him whether he was a slave (or a free man)
-http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muslim/008.smt.html#008.3432

Both the Quran and Muhammad explicitly enslaved people.


----------



## velvet-prosthesis (Jan 8, 2011)

^ You forgot this:



_"The maternal mortality rate can be up to five times higher for girls aged between 10 and 14 than for women of about twenty years of age."_ (in )

Interesting debate here.

I have nothing against religion or the human existential need to believe in something. I do have, however, problems with fundamentalism.


----------



## Pilaf (Jan 8, 2011)

Speaking of slavery and Islam, I always found it a little odd that black people in America flock towards either Christianity or Islam - the two religious groups most directly responsible for the defunct African slave trade.


----------



## T4R0K (Jan 8, 2011)

Pilaf said:


> Speaking of slavery and Islam, I always found it a little odd that black people in America flock towards either Christianity or Islam - the two religious groups most directly responsible for the defunct African slave trade.



Heh, now that I think about it, I've never met a black atheist...


----------



## WT (Jan 8, 2011)

Pilaf said:


> Speaking of slavery and Islam, I always found it a little odd that black people in America flock towards either Christianity or Islam - the two religious groups most directly responsible for the defunct African slave trade.



People like you blame the religions to avoid having the finger pointed at your ancestors. Disgusting.

Maj1n, what's your stance on Anal Sex. Should it also be forbidden because its dangerous for human health?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jan 8, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> Maj1n, what's your stance on Anal Sex. Should it also be forbidden because its dangerous for human health?



It isn't. You keep bringing this up and then abandoning it when asked to provide credible sources.


----------



## WT (Jan 8, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> It isn't. You keep bringing this up and then abandoning it when asked to provide credible sources.



Physical damage

Physical damage to the rectum and anus can manifest as generalized ano-rectal trauma, anal fissures,[12] rectal prolapse, and exacerbating (but not causing) hemorrhoids.[78] An insufficient amount of lubricant can make it especially painful or injurious.[79] Damage is more likely to occur if intercourse is forcible or aggressive or if alcohol or other drugs have dulled sensitivity.

Loss of control over the bowels, though rare according to some, is thought to be a valid concern[80] and is reported to be caused by repeated injury, or by the insertion of large objects,[81] or simply by regular anal sex, which "leads to internal sphincter dilation and soiling."[82]

A 1993 study published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine found that fourteen out of a sample of forty men receiving anal intercourse experienced episodes of frequent anal incontinence.[83] However, a 1997 study published in the American Journal of Gastroenterology found no difference in levels of incontinence between homosexual men who engaged in anal sex and heterosexual men who did not, and criticized the earlier study for its inclusion of flatulence in its definition of incontinence.[84]

Dr. Jack Morin recommended kegel exercises to prevent loss of muscle tone from anal fisting or insertion of large objects in a presentation of clinical aspects of anal sexuality, delivered at the 1998 joint conference of the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality and the American Association of Sex Educators. He added, however, that he had never personally observed "loosening" in any of his patients.[85]



These are only physical damages associated with Anal sex. There are other factors to consider as well.


----------



## Glued (Jan 8, 2011)

1) How is this news?
2) Why is this 13 pages?


----------



## maj1n (Jan 8, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> Maj1n, what's your stance on Anal Sex. Should it also be forbidden because its dangerous for human health?


The reason why pedophilia is forbidden is because not only is it dangerous inherently, but there is no informed consent since a child does not understand the implications of sex.

Anal sex should not be forbidden between consenting adults, irrespective of danger, they take responsibility for that.


----------



## Eru Lawliet (Jan 8, 2011)

Deimos said:


> That's not a proof. "may cause internal lacerations and bleeding" doesn't imply that it happened.
> 
> In case you missed it, I already stated that I'm happy that the law prevents such events from happening now. I'm glad a 10 yo can't get married, but I don't dismiss the possibility that one could've gotten married in an acceptable manner.



I was talking about sex with children, not marriage. But I think the decision to marry is too big for a child that age.




White Tiger said:


> People like you blame the religions to avoid having the finger pointed at your ancestors. Disgusting.
> 
> Maj1n, what's your stance on Anal Sex. Should it also be forbidden because its dangerous for human health?



The questions isn't directed at me, but I'd still like to say something about this.

I don't think anal sex is dangerous for human health if it's done right.
But even if it was, as long as it's two consenting adults doing it, I don't see any problem with this, that's their own business.
But an adult harming a child is something completely different. Having anal sex and child rape has nothing to do with each other.


----------



## Soda (Jan 8, 2011)

How did this become a discussion on anal sex? 

On topic...good for her. If it makes her happy and she's not harming anyone then why not. Live your life how you want to live it.

You can argue about her motivations being stupid (I mean you don't have to be muslim to avoid being a materialistic cunt woman ) and they may be but...it's making her happy.


----------



## Berserk (Jan 8, 2011)

Comparing anal sex to pedophilia.  What?


----------



## Bleach (Jan 8, 2011)

^Haters gonna hate on anything


----------



## shiki-fuujin (Jan 8, 2011)

T4R0K said:


> Heh, now that I think about it, I've never met a black atheist...



You haven't met me!


----------



## Berserk (Jan 9, 2011)

Bleach said:


> ^Haters gonna hate on anything



Not hating on anything.  Just wondering why the comparison was made.


----------



## Bleach (Jan 9, 2011)

Berserk said:


> Not hating on anything.  Just wondering why the comparison was made.



My answer was "Haters gonna hate on everything"

Was not saying that to you


----------



## Berserk (Jan 9, 2011)

Bleach said:


> My answer was "Haters gonna hate on everything"
> 
> Was not saying that to you



Oh, sorry.  Read it wrong.


----------



## T4R0K (Jan 9, 2011)

shiki-fuujin said:


> You haven't met me!



Ah ! Now I know a black atheist ! Hi  !


----------



## Mider T (Jan 9, 2011)

What are you talking about T4R0K, you know Adonis


----------



## T4R0K (Jan 9, 2011)

Mider T said:


> What are you talking about T4R0K, you know Adonis



Yes ! Right, I forgot about him ! Didn't remember he was black... 

Anyway, Mods, I'm stopping off-topicness. 

BTW, I find it weird that some people are trying so hard to justify fucking children...


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Jan 9, 2011)

Shall we have a vote on what has done the most harm:

Anal sex or Religious fundamentalists murdering gays?


----------



## Punpun (Jan 9, 2011)

Religious fundamentalists analy raping gays.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Jan 9, 2011)

Mandom said:


> Religious fundamentalists analy raping gays.



Not to mention you find gays everywhere, including the heart of highly religious organisations, yeah.


----------



## Mist Puppet (Jan 9, 2011)

Mandom said:


> Religious fundamentalists analy raping gays.



Sounds counter-productive


----------



## T4R0K (Jan 9, 2011)

Mist Puppet said:


> Sounds counter-productive



Well, in some countries, cops raped gays. Like, with their own cocks. For being gays.

Supposedly heterosexuals raping gays. For being gays. LOL


----------



## Punpun (Jan 9, 2011)

Mist Puppet said:


> Sounds counter-productive



I was going to make a joke but it wont work in english.


----------



## T4R0K (Jan 9, 2011)

Mandom said:


> I was going to make a joke but it wont work in english.



Say it anyway, je veux entendre ta blague.


----------



## Punpun (Jan 9, 2011)

Mandom said:


> Religious fundamentalists analy raping gays.





Mist Puppet said:


> Sounds counter-productive


Les voies du Seigneur sont impénétrable. 

--

A classic.


----------



## T4R0K (Jan 9, 2011)

Mandom said:


> Les voies du Seigneur sont imp?n?trable.
> 
> --
> 
> A classic.



Mais n'a-t-on pas d?j? entendu "Je sens le saint Esprit me p?n?trer de toute sa grace !!!!"

Je jure que je l'ai entendu. Pleins de foi(s).

... 

Oh, sorry guys, puns that won't work in English...


----------



## Punpun (Jan 9, 2011)

Well, from the fascination of virgin giving birth and "if ya hit me, please hit me again" to downright emasculating young boy The Christian church (and by extension, Islam) always had a SM fetish. 

No wonder some people are so fkin confused by their religion.


----------



## zuul (Jan 9, 2011)

Mary being a virgin was also a way to deny the fact that Joseph was a pedo.


----------



## Zaru (Jan 9, 2011)

zuul said:


> Mary being a virgin was also a way to deny the fact that Joseph was a pedo.



But nobody cares about Joseph. He pulled the ass card of all historical religious figures.

I mean if I raised the son of god for over 10 years I'd want some fucking recognition for it.


----------



## Punpun (Jan 9, 2011)

Well, Joseph never had sex with her. God did tough.


----------



## zuul (Jan 9, 2011)

Mandom said:


> Well, Joseph never had sex with her. God did tough.



I totally buy the fact of a fifty something man may having married a prego 15 years old because he bought her story about being impregnated by God, not because he wanted some young underaged pussy.


----------



## Punpun (Jan 9, 2011)

That's not what I was "implying".


----------



## Zaru (Jan 9, 2011)

Mandom said:


> Well, Joseph never had sex with her.



Debateable. Many signs indicate lil' Jesus ended up with a lot of brothers and sisters younger than him.


----------



## Jay. (Jan 9, 2011)

Zaru is a Jihad.


----------



## Punpun (Jan 9, 2011)

I was only using the biblical story. No doubt in reality Jesus had a lot of lil bro.

Tough the biblical story is more interesting here.


----------

