Aisha, Mother of the Faithful

[Darkfire]

I've been pondering how to write this post for the last few days and while I've condensed the bulk of it the post is still fairly lengthy. So my apologies about that.

Disclaimer: The controversy about Aisha and her marriage to the Prophet (pbuh) has been around for at least a couple of centuries and this post isn't going to close that debate, but I hope it does provide some insight into Aisha for those who read it. I'm also deliberately staying away from the 'so and so in such and such a place did the same thing' argument as I don't feel it adds to the debate, but I am going to focus on the culture of marriage in the Arabian peninsula at that time as it has direct bearing on the post.

--

Who was Aisha?

Aisha was the daughter of Abu Bakr (one of the prophets strongest supporters) and was the 3rd woman that the Prophet (pbuh) married. From her have come a vast collection of haddith about the Prophet and, apart from the Shia, she is highly honoured by all muslims.

What's the issue?

Aisha is generally regarded to have consumated her marriage to the Prophet at an approximate age of about 9 which by current standards is viewed as pedophilia and as such this charge has been leveled repeated at the Prophet and generally embellished with claims that he use Islam to justify the marriage.

--

What we do know is the following

1) Aisha had already been betrothed to another man Jubayr ibn Mut'im who had backed out of the marriage due to her father's connections to the muslim community
2) At the age of about 6 or 7 she was betrothed to the Prophet with the full consent of all parties involved
3) Once she hit puberty the marriage was consumated, the age for this varies, but is generally accepted to be about 9, though you'll find arguments pushing it both ways
4) During her time of marriage to the Prophet she proved herself to be an acute scholar, able leader of the muslim community and a loving wife
5) When the Prophet died it was with his head on Aisha's lap and in her chambers away from the rest of the community
6) She went on to support the first 3 caliphs against Ali and even lead an army against Ali when he claimed the caliphate (hence the anger from the Shia)
7) Following the battle she entered retirement and died nearly 46 years after the Prophet passed away

(continued in the following post)

[Darkfire]

On Aisha's age

Aisha's age when the marriage was consumated was nothing out of the ordinary in the Arabian peninsula at that time and we have no records of any attacks on the marriage by the hostile Meccan community on the propiety of the marriage so it would seem to been an entirely normal event.

Now obviously this isn't going to change your mind about whether this was proper or not, but it does lead on to the fact that this was not a forced marriage nor do we have any evidence that Aisha was disturbed by her marriage at this. So on this angle it comes soley to rest on the question of whether today's standards apply to the past.

On the claim that the Prophet used his position to marry Aisha for her beauty alone/to satisfy carnal urges

We honestly have no evidence of this and everything actually seems to point to this initially being primarily a politcal marriage (like all of the Prophet's marriage after the 1st one) to solidy his link with Abu Bakr and his clan. This marriage however did deepen and love for Aisha caused no end of problems within his household and community (in that there were a few who saw her having too much of an influence)

I've probably forgotten out points, which inshallah I'll be able to answer as they are raised, but I would like to say in conclusion that the relationship between the Prophet and his wives is well documented (especially between him and Aisha since she narrated a whole bunch of stories about him, including the quarrals that occured in the household) and reading through those accounts that the Prophet and Aisha deeply cared for each other.

[Varaj]

Look at her age compared to every other age.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad's_marriages so it was unique for Mohammad.

Historically child marriage has never been common outside of arranged marriages and then consummation is usually not until much later.
The real question comes down to is it wrong to have sex with a nine year old, as an absolute. If the answer is yes then a prophet of God can not use culture as a defense because of the truth he had access to. If the answer is no then I will be interested to hear the defense of child sex as only a cultural taboo.

[Darkfire]

Look at her age compared to every other age.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad's_marriages so it was unique for Mohammad.

I wasn't just referring to the Prophet's other wifes and you'll note that the others were all widows (well except for Maria) and as such you can't really draw a comparison between them and Aisha. There are records of other's (I don't know if the first was a muslim or not) marrying at a similary young age; Hala, who married to Abdul-Muttalib Also, the Companion `Umar ibn Al-Khattab married the daughter of Ali ibn Abi Talib.


Historically child marriage has never been common outside of arranged marriages and then consummation is usually not until much later.
The real question comes down to is it wrong to have sex with a nine year old, as an absolute. If the answer is yes then a prophet of God can not use culture as a defense because of the truth he had access to. If the answer is no then I will be interested to hear the defense of child sex as only a cultural taboo.

I can't answer this, but you might want to delink child from puberty before it goes any further, cause as one of our members so elegantly put a year or so back 'if it bleeds it breeds' and I kinda doubt Aisha would've been the first woman to marry as soon as she had her first period.

And before Atticus or someone else rips into, I don't condone marrying that young, but then again I'm a product of my culture and generation so I don't know how valid an opinion that is.

[Varaj]

I wasn't just referring to the Prophet's other wifes and you'll note that the others were all widows (well except for Maria) and as such you can't really draw a comparison between them and Aisha. There are records of other's (I don't know if the first was a muslim or not) marrying at a similary young age; Hala, who married to Abdul-Muttalib Also, the Companion `Umar ibn Al-Khattab married the daughter of Ali ibn Abi Talib.



I can't answer this, but you might want to delink child from puberty before it goes any further, cause as one of our members so elegantly put a year or so back 'if it bleeds it breeds' and I kinda doubt Aisha would've been the first woman to marry as soon as she had her first period.

And before Atticus or someone else rips into, I don't condone marrying that young, but then again I'm a product of my culture and generation so I don't know how valid an opinion that is.

It would be unusual for puberty to start at her age but certainly not impossible. (Nutrition is a key factor in determining start of puberty).
So you aren't willing to say it is 100% wrong to fuck a nine year old child and that is just culture taboo issue. That is what it comes down to. Is child sex (puberty or otherwise) just a social taboo or fundamentally wrong?

[Darkfire]

It would be unusual for puberty to start at her age but certainly not impossible. (Nutrition is a key factor in determining start of puberty).

On a side note I read an article a little while ago that said the heat of the climate also brought on puberty more quickly, but I didn't link to it as I'm unsure of it was valid about the causal link between puberty and heat (as opposed to diet/physical factors)


So you aren't willing to say it is 100% wrong to fuck a nine year old child and that is just culture taboo issue. That is what it comes down to. Is child sex (puberty or otherwise) just a social taboo or fundamentally wrong?

(sigh) Have a read through that last paragraph. Hell let me just write it simpler 'Darkfire does not agree that child sex is right or proper'. Can we get beyond my personal viewpoint now?

Actually let me ask a question in return. Do you believe in moral absolutes that apply in all times and places?

[Varaj]

(sigh) Have a read through that last paragraph. Hell let me just write it simpler 'Darkfire does agree that child sex is right or proper'. Can we get beyond my personal viewpoint now?

Did you mean to say Darkfire does not agree that child sex is right or proper?
We are discussing your view points that is why we can't get past them. I'm asking about your view of fucking a nine year old.
Do you think it was right for Mohammad to fuck a nine year old?



Actually let me ask a question in return. Do you believe in moral absolutes that apply in all times and places?

Yes. Don't you?

[Darkfire]

Did you mean to say Darkfire does not agree that child sex is right or proper?
:o
damn thats an embaressing typo


We are discussing your view points that is why we can't get past them. I'm asking about your view of fucking a nine year old.
Do you think it was right for Mohammad to fuck a nine year old?


My personal opinions have no bearing the behavior of the Prophet 800ish years ago Varaj and as such you'll not get me judging the Prophets personal actions


Yes. Don't you?

Actually in the sense that the morals would exist in all times and places I don't. The moral guidance we have has been taught to us and if we ignore that guidance those morals dissapear quite quickly.

[Varaj]

:o
damn thats an embaressing typo



My personal opinions have no bearing the behavior of the Prophet 800ish years ago Varaj and as such you'll not get me judging the Prophets personal actions

Surely you have an opinion one way or another. I have a hard time believing you are 100% neutral on the subject.



Actually in the sense that the morals would exist in all times and places I don't. The moral guidance we have has been taught to us and if we ignore that guidance those morals dissapear quite quickly.

Ok do you believe in universal rights and wrong?. That are certain things are wrong in all times and places?
Possible ex. Torturing babies for no reason other than your personal pleasure. Your personal pleasure in this instance gains nothing else.

[Darkfire]

Surely you have an opinion one way or another. I have a hard time believing you are 100% neutral on the subject.

I believe that the Prophet married Aisha for the best of reasons and that her age is irrelavent. I don't however think that its proper in this day and age, a opinion of most muslims who now set the age of puberty and consent at the minimum age of 15.


Ok do you believe in universal rights and wrong?. That are certain things are wrong in all times and places?
Possible ex. Torturing babies for no reason other than your personal pleasure. Your personal pleasure in this instance gains nothing else.

I believe in the morals taught to us and that we should apply them at all times and places. I don't however believe that all humans will innately follow these rules when left to themselves though.

[Varaj]

I believe that the Prophet married Aisha for the best of reasons and that her age is irrelavent. I don't however think that its proper in this day and age, a opinion of most muslims who now set the age of puberty and consent at the minimum age of 15.



I believe in the morals taught to us and that we should apply them at all times and places. I don't however believe that all humans will innately follow these rules when left to themselves though.

So why aren't you applying the morals on child sex to the Prophet Mohammad?

[Darkfire]

So why aren't you applying the morals on child sex to the Prophet Mohammad?

Because our understanding of what a child is different from what it was back then

[Varaj]

Because I believe that the Prophet was divinely guided so if he married Aisha at 9 then it was for a damn good reason, Guess its one of those times when I wish I had a time machine so I could go back and ask :D

Fair enough answer and what I suspected would be the answer, "Exception per Prophet of God clause."

[Darkfire]

Fair enough answer and what I suspected would be the answer, "Exception per Prophet of God clause."

Actually I changed my answer, realised that the first was an emotive answer and I despise it when I fall back on the 'God told them so' answer and I think the second answer might be closer to the truth than the first.

[Varaj]

Actually I changed my answer, realised that the first was an emotive answer and I despise it when I fall back on the 'God told them so' answer and I think the second answer might be closer to the truth than the first.

Cool. Your revised answer is a reasonable one, not sure it 100% accurate but one that is hard to argue either way.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

Puberty at 9? That'd be low even these days with modern nutrition and all those artificial hormones in the water supply

To be honest, it'd practically be miraculous. And I'm going to stop this line of speculation right here

[Sobek]

Hmm...

Is sex with a 9-year-old wrong?

First, I'll say that if she was too young to menstruate, it was definitely wrong. An argument could certainly be made if she was 25 and hadn't menstruated because she would be well above the expected age and some of the factors below could have come into play. But, no such luck at 9.

Mitigating factors: Was there mutual love there? And by "love", I mean spousal love, not "what a sweet child" love. If so, then I'm okay with it, because they were both of the proper mindset.

But... I don't believe that a 9 year old is capable of entering into such an emotional state. It has been demonstrated that certain emotional and intellectual concepts just can't be handled by the human brain until a certain age. I can't remember all of them, but things like sarcasm aren't grasped until sometime between the 5th and 10th birthday. I don't think it's going out on a limb to say that true spousal love is a few notches above sarcasm.

Was the sex about procreation alone/primarily? If so, fine. Kinda icky, by my thought, but sometimes you just gotta have an heir. I'm not sure I'd totally give a bye on the morality, but I could let it go without prodding too deeply. Since this was his third (?) wife, though, and he was a powerful man in a well populated area, I doubt it was about procreation.

I really don't see any reason to not call a radish a radish, here. Can you tell me why the man wasn't a pervy pedophile?

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I really don't see any reason to not call a radish a radish, here. Can you tell me why the man wasn't a pervy pedophile?

Because he was God's messenger and lead an exemplary life that all good Muslims should strive to emulate. Hence it can't be wrong for me, a 50 year old Iman, to marry this here 12 year old cutie. Can it?

[Brynja]

I am sorry Darkfire my mind is still stalling at 9 year old bride.

No es bueno.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I am sorry Darkfire my mind is still stalling at 9 year old bride.

No es bueno.

[Muslim apologist]"No, you need to get beyond the fact that she was 9..." [/Muslim apologist] :rolleyes:

[Darkfire]

Puberty at 9? That'd be low even these days with modern nutrition and all those artificial hormones in the water supply

To be honest, it'd practically be miraculous. And I'm going to stop this line of speculation right here

We have quotes from Aisha herself stating that she hit puberty before she consumated her marriage and to be honest I can't see why she'd lie about it.

[Darkfire]

Hmm...

Is sex with a 9-year-old wrong?

First, I'll say that if she was too young to menstruate, it was definitely wrong. An argument could certainly be made if she was 25 and hadn't menstruated because she would be well above the expected age and some of the factors below could have come into play. But, no such luck at 9.

Mitigating factors: Was there mutual love there? And by "love", I mean spousal love, not "what a sweet child" love. If so, then I'm okay with it, because they were both of the proper mindset.

But... I don't believe that a 9 year old is capable of entering into such an emotional state. It has been demonstrated that certain emotional and intellectual concepts just can't be handled by the human brain until a certain age. I can't remember all of them, but things like sarcasm aren't grasped until sometime between the 5th and 10th birthday. I don't think it's going out on a limb to say that true spousal love is a few notches above sarcasm.

Was the sex about procreation alone/primarily? If so, fine. Kinda icky, by my thought, but sometimes you just gotta have an heir. I'm not sure I'd totally give a bye on the morality, but I could let it go without prodding too deeply. Since this was his third (?) wife, though, and he was a powerful man in a well populated area, I doubt it was about procreation.

I really don't see any reason to not call a radish a radish, here. Can you tell me why the man wasn't a pervy pedophile?

You missed the point where I said the primary reason for this was politics and bear in mind a marriage was not legal in most ancient societies until it was consumated.

[Darkfire]

I am sorry Darkfire my mind is still stalling at 9 year old bride.

No es bueno.

Join the club. I teach 11 year olds and it shocks when they talk about going out snogging each other (even if some are already along the hormonal curve), let alone 9 year olds.

As I said though I think that has a lot to do with how our society has improved in its regard of what a child is.

[Goblin Girl]

Puberty at 9? That'd be low even these days with modern nutrition and all those artificial hormones in the water supply

To be honest, it'd practically be miraculous. And I'm going to stop this line of speculation right here
Actually, I started menstruating shortly after my 9th birthday. It isn't unusual for Italians. I think it's a mistake to say that it was ok if she was menstruating already. A 9 year old girl is not an adult. Her body is not finished growing. Intellectually and emotionally she is a child, not an adult. A 9 year old *cannot* meaningfully consent to sex.

It makes me want to vomit just thinking about it.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Join the club. I teach 11 year olds and it shocks when they talk about going out snogging each other (even if some are already along the hormonal curve), let alone 9 year olds.

As I said though I think that has a lot to do with how our society has improved in its regard of what a child is.

But the Prophet lead an exemplary life! Anything he did is an example to all good Muslims. Heretic!

[Merganser]

But the Prophet lead an exemplary life! Anything he did is an example to all good Muslims. Heretic!

My god Atticus, just when I thought you couldn't possibly become more boring.

[Sobek]

You missed the point where I said the primary reason for this was politics and bear in mind a marriage was not legal in most ancient societies until it was consumated.

And you missed the point when I was talking about consumating the marriage.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

But the Prophet lead an exemplary life! Anything he did is an example to all good Muslims. Heretic!

My god Atticus, just when I thought you couldn't possibly become more boring.

But isn't that the whole point of this argument - Muslims' belief that the Prophet led an exemplary life? Either he led an exemplary life and it's ok to marry nine year olds; or it's not ok to marry nine year olds and thus he didn't led an exemplary life. The only move that could get a Muslim out of that dilemma is to say that we've learned more and thus what was right then is wrong now. But that move is highly controversial in Islam, because it suggests that the Koran and the Hadith may need to be amended as times change.

[Merganser]

But isn't that the whole point of this argument - Muslims' belief that the Prophet led an exemplary life? Either he led an exemplary life and it's ok to marry nine year olds; or it's not ok to marry nine year olds and thus he didn't led an exemplary life. The only move that could get a Muslim out of that dilemma is to say that we've learned more and thus what was right then is wrong now. But that move is highly controversial in Islam, because it suggests that the Koran and the Hadith may need to be amended as times change.

No, no, you misunderstand. You've become excessively repetitious. Why would anyone discuss with you, when all you do is re-repeat the same thing?

[Darkfire]

And you missed the point when I was talking about consumating the marriage.

No I caught that, but what I was pointing out that the marriage was to seal an alliance, but that pact and the marriage would only become valid when the marriage was consumated.

[Brynja]

No, no, you misunderstand. You've become excessively repetitious. Why would anyone discuss with you, when all you do is re-repeat the same thing?

To be fair to Atticus- Darkfire has yet to really answer the question posed.

Also, if I am understanding correctly Varaj is also posting- albeit in a slightly different way the same question.

[Eliezer]

No, no, you misunderstand. You've become excessively repetitious. Why would anyone discuss with you, when all you do is re-repeat the same thing?

I repeat myself too with Darkfire since he skirts most issues that would require him to justify his Islamic views since he is living off of the cultural and economic product of a world view he opposes. It a fairly standard psychological pathology in people that are living a lie. Adulterers and others who live intense dishonesty engage in the same avoidance strategies to avoid confronting their contradictions of their chosen lifestyle.

Since Darkfire is enjoying the fruits of a cultural and economic product that he reviles and opposes he pretty much has to engage in such behavior to maintain his facade of internal moral consistency.

Atticus' point is valid and Darkfire refuses to address it.

[Brynja]

Mark well this day folks- people have defended Atticus.

Mark it well, tell your grandchildren

;)

[Darkfire]

I repeat myself too with Darkfire since he skirts most issues that would require him to justify his Islamic views since he is living off of the cultural and economic product of a world view he opposes. It a fairly standard psychological pathology in people that are living a lie. Adulterers and others who live intense dishonesty engage in the same avoidance strategies to avoid confronting their contradictions of their chosen lifestyle.

Since Darkfire is enjoying the fruits of a cultural and economic product that he reviles and opposes he pretty much has to engage in such behavior to maintain his facade of internal moral consistency.

Atticus' point is valid and Darkfire refuses to address it.

Eliezer, Eliezer I love the indepth call you're able to make on my psyche based on these conversations, I mean seriously calling me a pathological fibber it really does warm my heart :D and I especially love the bolded section. I mean seriously its nice to see that you've realised that I go out my way to attack the west and its ideals. Truly warming stuff.

If anything I've mentioned in a few threads the confluence of islam and the west (by having muslims living in the west) is one of the better things thats happened for Islam, but please before you read too much into that (as apparently you do a few of my threads) I'd like to state that we will not be you (you in the general sense of the west). We do not believe you have the best model for a society and while we're willing to learn from you we have no desire to become a second rate copy.

As for Atticus' point. If I've seemed to dodge his point I aplogise, it gets confusing keeping track of several different poster's responses. So if he would repost the central point I'd be more than willing to address it.

[Eliezer]

Eliezer, Eliezer I love the indepth call you're able to make on my psyche based on these conversations, I mean seriously calling me a pathological fibber it really does warm my heart :D and I especially love the bolded section. I mean seriously its nice to see that you've realised that I go out my way to attack the west and its ideals. Truly warming stuff.

The pathology I describe is extremely common in people who live under contradictory sets of values. It doesn't take any analysis to conclude that most probably you are living this. Perhaps my language in this is confusing. I tend to refer to living a lie as being in a state where you hold to two different and inherently contradictory values/though patterns.




If anything I've mentioned in a few threads the confluence of islam and the west (by having muslims living in the west) is one of the better things thats happened for Islam, but please before you read too much into that (as apparently you do a few of my threads) I'd like to state that we will not be you (you in the general sense of the west). We do not believe you have the best model for a society and while we're willing to learn from you we have no desire to become a second rate copy.

As for Atticus' point. If I've seemed to dodge his point I aplogise, it gets confusing keeping track of several different poster's responses. So if he would repost the central point I'd be more than willing to address it.

As far as attacking Western ideals it's important to understand ideas, where they come from and what they mean to understand what I mean.

Let me give you an example: you're living in a culture that helped produce and formulate those ideals. Let me clue you in on something about racism. Look around all of the world. Look at any country you care to. There is exactly one culture in the world that has done better than any other with multi-culturalism. And before you go on an Islamic bent on this with their "all equal under Allah" the ideals of your religion mean nothing if they don't translate into action. I've been to Egypt. The racism there is rife, persistent and disgusting. Same thing is true in most "Islamic" countries where such an issue could arise.

But back to racism and tolerance of different races. Guess which culture has succeeded better than any other modern culture? Yep, the English. French, German, Dutch, Italians the rest of Europe can't even come close to touching the tolerance that the British culture has developed. (I'm sorry, rest of Europe, but check the facts, it's simple truth.) It's why Canada and the US are among the least racist countries in the world, because we inherited that English culture. (Many people want to argue US on this, go check facts and compare the US to other countries. You might find yourself surprised.)

So what's the foundation of this tolerance? Why does British culture tolerate so well other races? (And while we're at it let's talk about ideas, religions and cultures.) Many people have asked this very question and it's been a subject of some debate and study, however, most agree whole-heartedly that an enshrined ideal of believing that others can believe what they want, even if we think them to be wrong is critical to this success of the English culture in tolerance.

Now, do you oppose this principle? In practice, yes you do. In doing this are you rejecting the foundation of a cultural tolerance that allows a Muslim community to thrive in Great Britain? Yes you are. Pretty easy conclusion to draw about your "reviling".

You see, Darkfire, ideas are not just abstract concepts. Ideals, values and these things are critically important to creating a culture. Those values that you espouse would undermine and crumble the entirety of the tolerance that allows you to believe as you do. In effect, you're shitting in your own house, reviling your host culture and making a mockery of everything that gives you the freedom to do so.

So is that living a lie? In my book it is. That you can't see that this is what you do pretty much shows an alarming lack of understanding of western thinking or that you choose to remain ignorant so as to keep with your chosen world view and "avoid" the contradiction.

[Darkfire]

Ohhh nooesss..!!! By asking you to be polite to a series of dead people and to mythalogical notion Islam will single handedly destroy the western world!!!

Anyway, in all seriousness I would agree with you about about the defecating in the house thing if I actually went around forcing people in the west to obey 'my' rules, but I don't. Never once have I asked anybody in the west to stop insulting the prophets or God. Never once have I in fact forced any of my rules upon someone living in the western world. All I have tried to do is to show you the thinking that goes into Islamic law and thought.

I don't even expect any of you to agree with it. Because as you so wonderfully described it when I'm in the west I obey the rules of the west (including freedom of speech), but your rules don't always apply outside of the west and I find your presumption that everybody should act like, speak like, think like the west to be equal parts humorous, frustrating and a little scary.

(Desclaimer: Yes some of my brethan are asshats who say the same things that have been said by some posters here, namely 'we're the best and change or be forced to change'. As I said though, they're asshats)

(P.S. I'm glad that both you and I are on the same page about how unIslamic the middle eastern countries are in many regards. You did know that the very first person to say the call to pray was a freed black slave?)

[Varaj]

Ohhh nooesss..!!! By asking you to be polite to a series of dead people and to mythalogical notion Islam will single handedly destroy the western world!!!

Anyway, in all seriousness I would agree with you about about the defecating in the house thing if I actually went around forcing people in the west to obey 'my' rules, but I don't. Never once have I asked anybody in the west to stop insulting the prophets or God. Never once have I in fact forced any of my rules upon someone living in the western world. All I have tried to do is to show you the thinking that goes into Islamic law and thought.

I don't even expect any of you to agree with it. Because as you so wonderfully described it when I'm in the west I obey the rules of the west (including freedom of speech), but your rules don't always apply outside of the west and I find your presumption that everybody should act like, speak like, think like the west to be equal parts humorous, frustrating and a little scary.

(Desclaimer: Yes some of my brethan are asshats who say the same things that have been said by some posters here, namely 'we're the best and change or be forced to change'. As I said though, they're asshats)

(P.S. I'm glad that both you and I are on the same page about how unIslamic the middle eastern countries are in many regards. You did know that the very first person to say the call to pray was a freed black slave?)

So you're ok with oppression in the places it happens, you just don't want it to move to where you live.

[Darkfire]

So you're ok with oppression in the places it happens, you just don't want it to move to where you live.

The middle east is fucked up on a number of levels and I most assuradly don't want that migrating here (see honour killings), but to equate asking for politeness in dealing with God and the prophets with condoning gender based violence, corruption and racism is a little far fetched.

[Varaj]

The middle east is fucked up on a number of levels and I most assuradly don't want that migrating here (see honour killings), but to equate asking for politeness in dealing with God and the prophets with condoning gender based violence, corruption and racism is a little far fetched.


I didn't. You aren't asking for politeness you want to mandate politeness. Too very, very different things. Removing freedom of speech and freedom of religion is oppression. I'm only talking about the things you have said you are in favor of removing.

[Eliezer]

I don't even expect any of you to agree with it. Because as you so wonderfully described it when I'm in the west I obey the rules of the west (including freedom of speech), but your rules don't always apply outside of the west and I find your presumption that everybody should act like, speak like, think like the west to be equal parts humorous, frustrating and a little scary.


No, no, you mistake me in this. I don't expect or think that everyone should act, think like the west. I'm willing to make value judgments on other people's cultures and ideals and values and say whether or not I find them morally objectionable. I actually pull some of my values from very non-western sources. But understanding where ideas come from and their influence is important to me and some ideas I just reject. Others I find dangerous. This particular idea that I've been railing against, I find dangerous.



(P.S. I'm glad that both you and I are on the same page about how unIslamic the middle eastern countries are in many regards. You did know that the very first person to say the call to pray was a freed black slave?)

I had forgotten that until you mentioned it just now. The call to prayer has a fascinating history and as a cultural thing is a powerful binding agent.

[Darkfire]

I didn't. You aren't asking for politeness you want to mandate politeness. Too very, very different things. Removing freedom of speech and freedom of religion is oppression. I'm only talking about the things you have said you are in favor of removing.

Again with the linking of freedom of speech and religion. I have never, ever said that freedom of religion should be removed.

(have we moved to having the same conversation across two different threads, or am I just loosing it in my old age?)

And yes I don't think insulting someone falls under freedom of speech, critising with facts behind you for sure, but not insulting.

[Varaj]

(have we moved to having the same conversation across two different threads, or am I just loosing it in my old age?)

Yes we have. We can go back to discussing diddling 9 year olds in this thread and why that is good for Muslims.

[Darkfire]

Yes we have. We can go back to discussing diddling 9 year olds in this thread and why that is good for Muslims.

If you want to, but I kinda get the feeling that's been played out as much as it'll go.

Prehaps we could start another thread on another topic? I'm even sure I could put together a list of things that are likely to get people insult me again :D

[Varaj]

If you want to, but I kinda get the feeling that's been played out as much as it'll go.

Prehaps we could start another thread on another topic? I'm even sure I could put together a list of things that are likely to get people insult me again :D

I'm tempted to start one on Catholic policy against condoms and how I think that is evil. :D

[Darkfire]

I'm tempted to start one on Catholic policy against condoms and how I think that is evil. :D

Islam likes condoms :D and sex aids (in fact most muslims I've spoke to tend to be more frank about sex than I'm really comfortable with:o )

[Varaj]

Islam likes condoms :D and sex aids (in fact most muslims I've spoke to tend to be more frank about sex than I'm really comfortable with:o )

Sweet. :)

[The Winslow]

But back to racism and tolerance of different races. Guess which culture has succeeded better than any other modern culture? Yep, the English. French, German, Dutch, Italians the rest of Europe can't even come close to touching the tolerance that the British culture has developed. (I'm sorry, rest of Europe, but check the facts, it's simple truth.) It's why Canada and the US are among the least racist countries in the world, because we inherited that English culture. (Many people want to argue US on this, go check facts and compare the US to other countries. You might find yourself surprised.)

So what's the foundation of this tolerance? Why does British culture tolerate so well other races?

:lol:

The British culture can't even tolerate itself, which is why the US inherited from the English the culture that led to NINA signs. The USA have been built on the massacre of the native and the large-scale slavery of Africans. The reason why modern Britain is more sensitive now to the problem of racism is simply because the United Kingdom simply had the largest colonial empire, drawing a lot of formerly-colonized people to the country because they know the language, are familiar with the culture, and the UK has more wealth to offer than their homeland. Even then, racial tensions are still high. And let's not forget the intense jingoism and outright xenophobia of the United Kingdom's bestselling newspapers...

Despite the Enlightenment and all these high ideals that have finally triumphed, no country in the West can really claim that their shit don't stink.

[Varaj]

:lol:

The British culture can't even tolerate itself, which is why the US inherited from the English the culture that led to NINA signs. The USA have been built on the massacre of the native and the large-scale slavery of Africans. The reason why modern Britain is more sensitive now to the problem of racism is simply because the United Kingdom simply had the largest colonial empire, drawing a lot of formerly-colonized people to the country because they know the language, are familiar with the culture, and the UK has more wealth to offer than their homeland. Even then, racial tensions are still high. And let's not forget the intense jingoism and outright xenophobia of the United Kingdom's bestselling newspapers...

Despite the Enlightenment and all these high ideals that have finally triumphed, no country in the West can really claim that their shit don't stink.

I don't think he is claiming they are good, just better than almost everybody else.

[Goblin Girl]

No I caught that, but what I was pointing out that the marriage was to seal an alliance, but that pact and the marriage would only become valid when the marriage was consumated.
Oh, well since it was for political reasons, then I am totally down with him molesting a child.

Darkfire, the more you say about Islam, the more convinced I am that it's a monstrous, backward, barbaric religion.

[Eliezer]

:lol:

The British culture can't even tolerate itself, which is why the US inherited from the English the culture that led to NINA signs. The USA have been built on the massacre of the native and the large-scale slavery of Africans. The reason why modern Britain is more sensitive now to the problem of racism is simply because the United Kingdom simply had the largest colonial empire, drawing a lot of formerly-colonized people to the country because they know the language, are familiar with the culture, and the UK has more wealth to offer than their homeland. Even then, racial tensions are still high. And let's not forget the intense jingoism and outright xenophobia of the United Kingdom's bestselling newspapers...

Despite the Enlightenment and all these high ideals that have finally triumphed, no country in the West can really claim that their shit don't stink.

edit--- scoop on NINA in US (http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=HVbCG6yvKDf1KYgTBb8vP F6zHb33dsp5pr6BhJsyGz8jSq39ZHG5!-651589680?docId=5000671286)

Varaj got the right of it. I'm not saying it don't stink, I'm saying it smells better than anyone else's.

The USA was built upon the slaughter of Indians. Yes, but we did a whole lot better at treating the Indians than the Spaniards or Portuguese did.

We were built upon slave labor... Well, not so true. The south that practiced so much of that slavery was not the economic engine of the US. That's the major reason the South lost in the US civil war. The North won on economics despite having inferior generals, tactics, soldiers and initially weapons.

I've yet to find another culture that has done as well at multi-culturalism and tolerance as the British and some of it's former colonies. It's so bad in other European countries that many are openly calling the ideals of multi-culturalism a failure. Not saying it's perfect, just better than anyone else's.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

So what's the foundation of this tolerance?

It's the fact we can all agree that the French are cunts (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Warren-Ellis-Crecy/dp/1592910408/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196795084&sr=8-1)

Why does British culture tolerate so well other races?

Because we've kicked the shit out of most of them? And the ones who we haven't have kicked the shit out of us?

Even then, racial tensions are still high.

Are they bollocks. You have to remember that what the British call a "race riot", the Americans call "Friday in Detroit".

And let's not forget the intense jingoism and outright xenophobia of the United Kingdom's bestselling newspapers...

To be fair, it is mostly directed at the French. Mostly

[Sobek]

No I caught that, but what I was pointing out that the marriage was to seal an alliance, but that pact and the marriage would only become valid when the marriage was consumated.

So, it's okay to shag little girls -- so long as it's for political gain? Got it.

The other alternative is that it isn't okay, but God's plan requires his Prophet to do things that aren't moral. What did I miss?

[Darkfire]

So, it's okay to shag little girls -- so long as it's for political gain? Got it.

The other alternative is that it isn't okay, but God's plan requires his Prophet to do things that aren't moral. What did I miss?

That by current standards of what a child is this is indeed something which should not happen now, but I would argue that the concept of what childhood was and when it ended was different then.

Since people are also speculating that the Prophet (pbuh) married her for the enjoyment of sex I would like to forward the speculation that perhaps the Prophet didn't enjoy it and was only due to political/social pressure that it was consumated that early.

[Sobek]

That by current standards of what a child is this is indeed something which should not happen now, but I would argue that the concept of what childhood was and when it ended was different then.

So, does that mean that one definition of childhood is correct and the other incorrect, on an absolute level? If so, which? If not, why would it be "something which should not happen now" (which sounds like a morality statement), but fine in that time?

Since people are also speculating that the Prophet (pbuh) married her for the enjoyment of sex I would like to forward the speculation that perhaps the Prophet didn't enjoy it and was only due to political/social pressure that it was consumated that early.

I have made no speculation on his enjoyment. I am questioning the morality of the act itself. Let's say that the Prophet, being an exemplary individual, enjoys that which is right and dislikes that which is wrong, both to the degree to which they are right or wrong. That gets us back to the actual question of whether sex with a nine-year old is right or wrong.


What is the nature of sex? Is it a union of two people in a physical sense? An emotional or spiritual sense? Can it be simply pleasure-based without concern for others? Can it be used as a tool of subjugation and power? I would say all of those are accurate. I would also say some are moral and some are not.

I'm going to go with the union idea as being good, especially the emotional and spiritual aspects. In fact, I would say the difference between a "physical union" and a "tool of subjugation or power" probably hinges on the emotional and spiritual condition of both participants.

A "union" implies a meeting of equals -- or, at the very least, considerable concern for and a cognizance on the part of the "lesser" partner. That would mean that the nine-year-old girl would have to have a maturity and understanding to really "get" the act. I do not believe that is possible. And, that's what it really comes down to, for me: She was unable to participate in sex with the emotional clarity required for it to be a union.

-----

Taking a different tack, let's go with the idea that the Prophet had sex with her at nine to seal the alliance. The implication there is that it would have been inappropriate for another man to have slept with a little girl for pleasure or even because he really, really liked her and planned to take care of her. How does sex for a signature on a deal make it better? Once you have an exchange of sex for goods and/or services, you're just talking about prostitution under the barter system -- and I don't think you want to be insinuating that the Prophet was a gigolo.

To make matters worse, this alliance (I'm assuming) was done to further God's kingdom on earth. Most likely, at God's call -- or close enough, if I'm understanding you to be saying that the Prophet did not "sin" during his life. That would mean that God called the Prophet to commit wicked acts.

No, I think relying on the notion of the consummation of his marriage as only happening to seal an alliance would be a very bad position to take.

[Dr. Cherry Gunn]

Islam likes... sex aids

i.e., women.

[Enk]

I'm going to see if I can recap this thread for my own benefit. Feel free to correct me if I make an incorrect assumption.

Some base assumptions:

- Islam teaches the existence of objective and concrete moral standards.
- The Prophet led a guiltless life.
- Therefore his actions cannot be considered immoral.

Further:

- Aisha was 9 when married to the Prophet.
- She had already begun menstruating.
- The marriage was consummated immediately.
- Per the above, this act must necessarily be righteous.

Why is it righteous? As I see it, it can only be one for one of two reasons:

- It's OK to marry and have sex with 9 year old girls.
- It's OK to marry and have sex with any girl that menstruates.

Objective moral standards handed down from God pretty much require that it be one of the two. For it to be something else (that it used to be OK, but isn't any more because of what we now accept about childhood) means that humanity gets to play a role in the setting morality, elevating its own metaphysical place at the expense of God's.

Am I caught up now?

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I'm going to see if I can recap this thread for my own benefit. Feel free to correct me if I make an incorrect assumption.

Some base assumptions:

- Islam teaches the existence of objective and concrete moral standards.
- The Prophet led a guiltless life.
- Therefore his actions cannot be considered immoral.

Further:

- Aisha was 9 when married to the Prophet.
- She had already begun menstruating.
- The marriage was consummated immediately.
- Per the above, this act must necessarily be righteous.

Why is it righteous? As I see it, it can only be one for one of two reasons:

- It's OK to marry and have sex with 9 year old girls.
- It's OK to marry and have sex with any girl that menstruates.

Objective moral standards handed down from God pretty much require that it be one of the two. For it to be something else (that it used to be OK, but isn't any more because of what we now accept about childhood) means that humanity gets to play a role in the setting morality, elevating its own metaphysical place at the expense of God's.

Am I caught up now?

That's certainly my understanding.

Either it's ok to marry and have sex with any girl who is menstruating, or the Prophet did not lead an exemplary life. In other words, you can't be an orthodox Muslim without in same way condoning what we in the liberal democracies would consider paedophilia.

[Darkfire]

I'm going to see if I can recap this thread for my own benefit. Feel free to correct me if I make an incorrect assumption.

Some base assumptions:

- Islam teaches the existence of objective and concrete moral standards.
- The Prophet led a guiltless life.
- Therefore his actions cannot be considered immoral.


Islam makes a distinction between the Prophets own personal decisions and the commands he obeyed from God. In the first case he was not faultless and we have several examples of where he went wrong, in the second case though I suppose you could consider that we think him guiltless.



Further:

- Aisha was 9 when married to the Prophet.
- She had already begun menstruating.
- The marriage was consummated immediately.
- Per the above, this act must necessarily be righteous.


She was 5 or 6 when she was married to the Prophet (bear in mind she had already been sought by other suiters before this).
We have no evidence either way that consumation happened straight after her first period. It was probably fairly soon though.


Why is it righteous? As I see it, it can only be one for one of two reasons:

- It's OK to marry and have sex with 9 year old girls.
- It's OK to marry and have sex with any girl that menstruates.

Objective moral standards handed down from God pretty much require that it be one of the two. For it to be something else (that it used to be OK, but isn't any more because of what we now accept about childhood) means that humanity gets to play a role in the setting morality, elevating its own metaphysical place at the expense of God's.

Am I caught up now?

Another thing to consider is that the message didn't come down at once, it was revealed in stages (a nice example being the ban on alcohol) and the same thing occured with the Prophet's marriages. Islam does not allow sex or marriage to a child. This ruling though came a while after the Prophet's marriage to Aiysha and even then it's likely that once she started menstrating she was no longer considered a child sexually.

These days marriage or sex with a child is still banned in Islam, but on top of that we have a much better idea of what a child is and the ages at which they grow out of their childhood. So I would say that the morality hasn't changed, but our understanding of it has improved.

[Darkfire]

i.e., women.

And gels, toys, naughty clothing, funny indian sexual positions, etc.

I've seen more sexual accesories on shelves in supermarkets in Islamic countries than I've ever seen in the UK.

[Darkfire]

So, does that mean that one definition of childhood is correct and the other incorrect, on an absolute level? If so, which? If not, why would it be "something which should not happen now" (which sounds like a morality statement), but fine in that time?[/quiote]

Because humanity has an imperfect understanding of the morality and needs to grow into it. So the framework is laid (don't marry/have sex with children) and then we're encouraged to think/grow into that morality.

[quote]
I have made no speculation on his enjoyment. I am questioning the morality of the act itself. Let's say that the Prophet, being an exemplary individual, enjoys that which is right and dislikes that which is wrong, both to the degree to which they are right or wrong. That gets us back to the actual question of whether sex with a nine-year old is right or wrong.


No but others have, this wasn't addressed to you :)


What is the nature of sex? Is it a union of two people in a physical sense? An emotional or spiritual sense? Can it be simply pleasure-based without concern for others? Can it be used as a tool of subjugation and power? I would say all of those are accurate. I would also say some are moral and some are not.

I'm going to go with the union idea as being good, especially the emotional and spiritual aspects. In fact, I would say the difference between a "physical union" and a "tool of subjugation or power" probably hinges on the emotional and spiritual condition of both participants.

A "union" implies a meeting of equals -- or, at the very least, considerable concern for and a cognizance on the part of the "lesser" partner. That would mean that the nine-year-old girl would have to have a maturity and understanding to really "get" the act. I do not believe that is possible. And, that's what it really comes down to, for me: She was unable to participate in sex with the emotional clarity required for it to be a union.

We have no proof that she was unable to and we do have hadith talking about her intelligence and maturity at even that young age. So this might not be as cut and dried as you think it is.


Taking a different tack, let's go with the idea that the Prophet had sex with her at nine to seal the alliance. The implication there is that it would have been inappropriate for another man to have slept with a little girl for pleasure or even because he really, really liked her and planned to take care of her. How does sex for a signature on a deal make it better? Once you have an exchange of sex for goods and/or services, you're just talking about prostitution under the barter system -- and I don't think you want to be insinuating that the Prophet was a gigolo.

To make matters worse, this alliance (I'm assuming) was done to further God's kingdom on earth. Most likely, at God's call -- or close enough, if I'm understanding you to be saying that the Prophet did not "sin" during his life. That would mean that God called the Prophet to commit wicked acts.

No, I think relying on the notion of the consummation of his marriage as only happening to seal an alliance would be a very bad position to take.

The marriage was needed for political reasons, the marriage was not, but there is no way at that time the marriage would have been regarded as valid without that the consumation.

There was a lot of pressure on the early muslim community, both from without and from within their clans. There would've been pressure on Abu Bakr to call off this marriage or to find it illegal so that it could be called void. For all we know this could've been a case of a rock and a hard place (because to void the marriage would've shamed Aisha and potentially left her at the mercy of being married off to someone with a grudge against the Prophet).

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Another thing to consider is that the message didn't come down at once, it was revealed in stages (a nice example being the ban on alcohol) and the same thing occured with the Prophet's marriages. Islam does not allow sex or marriage to a child. This ruling though came a while after the Prophet's marriage to Aiysha and even then it's likely that once she started menstrating she was no longer considered a child sexually.

This "coming down in stages" thing is rather comically commented upon by Salmun Rushdie in The Satanic Verses. You should read it.

[Andreas]

The marriage was needed for political reasons, the marriage was not, but there is no way at that time the marriage would have been regarded as valid without that the consumation.

There was a lot of pressure on the early muslim community, both from without and from within their clans. There would've been pressure on Abu Bakr to call off this marriage or to find it illegal so that it could be called void. For all we know this could've been a case of a rock and a hard place (because to void the marriage would've shamed Aisha and potentially left her at the mercy of being married off to someone with a grudge against the Prophet).

For all we know, they simple could have said the marriage was consumed, just to be on the "safe side". I doubt someone checked if it really was...

[Eliezer]

For all we know, they simple could have said the marriage was consumed, just to be on the "safe side". I doubt someone checked if it really was...

Mostly likely proof of consummation was required in the form of blood.

Hard to know, but there are Greek communities today that take the bloody sheets and put them on display to prove consummation of the marriage. In Palestine today such is not uncommon either.

Traditionally, among the Bedouin people it is not a valid marriage unless it is consummated.

Darkfire's statements that the prophet would have been required to consummate the marriage is not unreasonable given the cultures in question.

[Dr. Cherry Gunn]

we do have hadith talking about her intelligence and maturity at even that young age.

Think about this statement. It's a statement I've seen used MANY times by pedophiles to justify their behavior. It's a disgusting statement.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

No, no, you misunderstand. You've become excessively repetitious. Why would anyone discuss with you, when all you do is re-repeat the same thing?

To be fair to Atticus- Darkfire has yet to really answer the question posed.

Also, if I am understanding correctly Varaj is also posting- albeit in a slightly different way the same question.

And you might notices that most times I get "repetitive", it is because my questions aren't being answered (cough-RichardFannon-cough].

Atticus' point is valid and Darkfire refuses to address it.

Mark well this day folks- people have defended Atticus.

Mark it well, tell your grandchildren

;)

Fuck off. I don't need any of you morons defending me. It's you who need to be defended from me. ;)

[Darkfire]

As for Atticus' point. If I've seemed to dodge his point I aplogise, it gets confusing keeping track of several different poster's responses. So if he would repost the central point I'd be more than willing to address it.

Still waiting for you to post it.

[Eliezer]

Fuck off. I don't need any of you morons defending me. It's you who need to be defended from me. ;)

I wasn't defending you, just pointing out my views on someone else's post.

That's right, you're your own lawyer... ;)

[Brynja]

And you might notices that most times I get "repetitive", it is because my questions aren't being answered (cough-RichardFannon-cough].

Well you never answer his questions so Fannon is in the clear. You caper about shrill and cackling about lack of proof but never actually engage the man. Here you are in poor Richard's postion.



And I am easily one of your more able defenders....but *smirk*

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Well you never answer his questions so Fannon is in the clear. You caper about shrill and cackling about lack of proof but never actually engage the man. Here you are in poor Richard's postion.



And I am easily one of your more able defenders....but *smirk*

I'm afraid I'm going to have to call billshit on that.

Find me a place where I've not answered RF and I'll show you where I've answered it or, if I've somehow missed it, I'll answer it now.

Put up or shut up.

[Brynja]

Oh shut the fuck up Atticus- we all know how you "debate" with people here.

One by one people stop even bothering with your posts. There are plenty of places- and I will go back for them when I am not about to dart out to supper. You discuss the same point over and over and when he asks you something you state why it isnt valid or why you neednt answer it.


Seriously man, sit down and reflect on this.

You know there is at least a whit of validity to what I am saying you do.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Oh shut the fuck up Atticus- we all know how you "debate" with people here.

One by one people stop even bothering with your posts. There are plenty of places- and I will go back for them when I am not about to dart out to supper. You discuss the same point over and over and when he asks you something you state why it isnt valid or why you neednt answer it.


Seriously man, sit down and reflect on this.

You know there is at least a whit of validity to what I am saying you do.

No, Brynja, unless you can point to something, there really isn't. And if you can point to an unanswered question, it'll be from oversight and I'll happily address it.

You're blowing smoke because you don't like my refusal to play nice, and the intellectual dishonesty of your attack is something you should be ashamed of.

[Brynja]

I fail to understand why you keep intellectualism and a sense of decency when dealing with people as seperate entities. Congratulations, you have earned my emnity. I will henceforth dog all of your posts of the debatelike nature. Now if you will excuse me I am going out, then I have your posts to comb through.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I fail to understand why you keep intellectualism and a sense of decency when dealing with people as seperate entities. Congratulations, you have earned my emnity. I will henceforth dog all of your posts of the debatelike nature. Now if you will excuse me I am going out, then I have your posts to comb through.

So I'm the one who's been lacking in decency in this exchange? Projection much?

Please point me to where I've failed to answer RF's questions. If I have done so, I'll thankyou for pointing it out and remedy the oversight. Because that's all it will be, an oversight.

Now why don't you take a few deep breaths and go back to being rational?

[Brynja]

Why not just ask me if I have any midol?

Fuck off man, I am rational. I am just tired of seeing this same one trick pony over and over.


You are a smart man and I cannot understand how you don't see what this is. Well as I said I am going out, and I am belaboring this. I will provide you with proof.

[Freedom Canadian]

10$ on Brynja. :)

[Atticus_of_Amber]

10$ on Brynja. :)

That's a sucker's bet, my friend. The contest is rigged in my favour. If she can't point to a question by RF I've failed to answer, I "win". If she can, I'll thank her (because I've been busy lately and I suspect there are a couple I've overlooked or incompletely answered) and answer it, meaning I "win" again.

I'm actually disappointed in her that she fell into such an obvious trap.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Brynja, let's try to take the heat out of this.

You think I deliberately avoid RF's questions just as you think he and darkfire deliberately avoid mine. I disagree.

Let me try to persuade you that its not deliberate on my part by giving me the chance to address any question by RF that you can find that you think I've avoided (if you can find any).

[Snatch]

Mark well this day folks- people have defended Atticus.

Mark it well, tell your grandchildren

;)

Damn...well I've seen everything now... ;) :)

[Snatch]

10$ on Brynja. :)

$9.99 on Atticus!

[Freedom Canadian]

That's a sucker's bet, my friend. The contest is rigged in my favour. *snip Atticus exposing his false sense of security*

None of that matters, dude. Brynja doesn't fight fair. At some point, you'll think everything is going well and you'll look down to see that she is holding a nail gun to your balls and smiling that big smile of hers (http://www.kaytastrophe.com/vb/showpost.php?p=19164&postcount=261).

I'd surrender now if I were you.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

None of that matters, dude. Brynja doesn't fight fair. At some point, you'll think everything is going well and you'll look down to see that she is holding a nail gun to your balls and smiling that big smile of hers (http://www.kaytastrophe.com/vb/showpost.php?p=19164&postcount=261).

I'd surrender now if I were you.

How is she going to fit that nail gun inside Morbidity's handbag? And why would she choose to do it while I was standing there?

[there_is_no_bob]

Still waiting for you to post it.

But isn't that the whole point of this argument - Muslims' belief that the Prophet led an exemplary life? Either he led an exemplary life and it's ok to marry nine year olds; or it's not ok to marry nine year olds and thus he didn't led an exemplary life.
:popcorn:

Having a wonderful time at this show, by the way. Heaps of fun.:D

[Atticus_of_Amber]

:popcorn:

Having a wonderful time at this show, by the way. Heaps of fun.:D

Thanks Bob.

There are a couple of other questions from me that Darkfire has failed to answer as well, but I just don't care any more. He's proved my point about the morally corrosive nature of Islam so many times already that pursuing him any more really would be beating a dead horse, as far as I'm concerned. If he says anything that could change my view on that in future, then I may bestir myself to chase him up on the other questions.

[Darkfire]

Thanks Bob.

There are a couple of other questions from me that Darkfire has failed to answer as well, but I just don't care any more. He's proved my point about the morally corrosive nature of Islam so many times already that pursuing him any more really would be beating a dead horse, as far as I'm concerned. If he says anything that could change my view on that in future, then I may bestir myself to chase him up on the other questions.

Don't do me any favours :rolleyes:

[Darkfire]

:popcorn:

Having a wonderful time at this show, by the way. Heaps of fun.:D


But isn't that the whole point of this argument - Muslims' belief that the Prophet led an exemplary life? Either he led an exemplary life and it's ok to marry nine year olds; or it's not ok to marry nine year olds and thus he didn't led an exemplary life.

He did indeed lead an exemplary, though not perfect, life and it was okay to marry a nine year old then. It isn't any longer though.

Why isn't allowed anymore, well I'd go with times being different/us having the resources to allow children to be children to be a lot longer and that we have a more advanced understanding of what a child is.

And on a side note I do find it mildy funny that people who say Islam should advance and reform itself then bring up this point, which shows that Islam has advanced, but then nail us for not being consistant.

[Sobek]

I'm actually disappointed in her that she fell into such an obvious trap.

And, only slightly less well know: Never go in against an Australian when dissemblance is on the line.