cenks comment on the prophet Muhammad | 116 comments (116 topical, 0 hidden)
You're wrong (none / 0)

Saying it's inappropriate to judge based based upon their societal 'norms' is absurd.

 

Let's explore a hypothetical situation:

 

You're sitting in a bar and strike up a conversation with an attractive young woman who's been eying you for a while.  Chatting into the night,  you learn she's a smart, liberal arts major who grew up in Texas.  She then mentions that 'blacks are a human cancer.'

You're shocked and appalled that such a wondrous nymph could be both so bigoted yet still be an educated person.  After a moment, you think: "Get a hold of yourself, think rationally, you're a liberal after all.  If she grew up in Texas then she's simply a product of a poor environment."  Yet, though this is a liberal approach it's not an honest one.  The honest truth is that lots of Texans aren't bigots, that most universities have enough of a campus library that she must have read something more than Mein Kamf, and that any legitimately inquiring person would have acknowledged that such intense cultural prejudice is completely untenable.  This woman was at a disadvantage because of her birthplace, sure, but she was by no means stopped from stepping out of her cave and seeing the elucidating light of modern society.

 

Muhammad is no different.  Assuming the truth of the Qu'ran, other contemporary sources, and the basic facts of underage sexual intercourse, we can conclude some things:

- Not everyone back then married women before they reached puberty.  Even many men Roman men (pre-Islam), often married only when the woman was enough of an adult that she could be called a matrona: a mature mother, wife, and lady.  Even when Roman men did marry the pre-pubescent, it was quite rare to have sex with the child until after multiple menstrual cycles had passed.

-- What did Muhammad do?  Contrary to what alfarooq88 stated I've only found sources (including a Wikipedia article with seven sources) stating Muhammad had sex with Aisha before her first menstrual cycle.  Why?  Political/religious motivations.  He had opportunity and authority enough to say 'No, I don't need to do this, she's obviously not going to enjoy it, and it'll obviously be quite damaging to her body.'  But no, instead he had sex with a child.

 

History must be approached with an open mind but never, ever, with an amoral attitude.  One of the most valuable tokens of studying history is it's moral lessons through contrast.  The ancient Athenians kept slaves and thought women were inherently less rational than men, that's terrible.  They also wrote some of the most sublime poetry I've ever read, that's wonderful.  Cenk was right:  Never withhold judgment, but only judge harshly those specific things which deserve our contempt.

by Tashi Freeman on 02/04/2010 10:24:55 PM EST

Muhammad (none / 0)
did not have sex with aisha before puberty, alot of valid sources and schoalrs supprt that. wikipedia is not a valid site

by alfarooq88 on 02/05/2010 11:01:16 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Wikipedia is a conglomorate of other sources (none / 0)

The entire page is cited and, as I already mentioned, his sexual relationship with Aisha has seven sources.  If you're going to be lazy about it, I'll copy the sources here for you:

 -Watt, W. Montgomery (1961). Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman. Oxford University Press. p. 229

- D. A. Spellberg, Politics, Gender, and the Islamic Past: the Legacy of A'isha bint Abi Bakr, Columbia University Press, 1994, p. 40

- Karen Armstrong, Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet, Harper San Francisco, 1992, p. 157.

- Barlas (2002), p.125-126

- Sahih al-Bukhari 5:58:234, 5:58:236, 7:62:64, 7:62:65, 7:62:88, Sahih Muslim 8:3309, 8:3310, 8:3311, Sunnan Abu Dawud 41:4915, 41:4917 (these are all specific quotations, pay particular Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88 and Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65)

- Tabari, Volume 9, Page 131; Tabari, Volume 7, Page 7

 

You also failed to address any of the relevant points I brought forward pertaining to amoral historical readings.  So far all you've don, alfarooq88, is assert and condemn.  I've sourced, argued, and explained myself.

 

Another example of Muhammad being a poor rolemodel is the fact he bought, sold, and captured slaves.  Yeah, absolute paragon he was.

by Tashi Freeman on 02/05/2010 11:36:39 AM EST

[ Parent ]
give (none / 0)
me the source where you found that he bought,sold and captured slave. there is one man who says that, but he is biased.he did buy slaves, but then he freed them. i want to see the source where you got that from.

by alfarooq88 on 02/05/2010 03:04:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]
What a joke. (none / 0)
there is one man who says that, but he is biased

What a coincidence. A source that portrays Muhammad in a negative light and of course it must be biased. Just admit that you won't accept any source that is critical of Islam because they must have an anti-Islamic bias. So, I think I also cannot accept any source that says anything positive about Islam because it has a pro-Islamist bias.

by eborujion on 02/05/2010 03:42:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]
im not (none / 0)
saying hes biased because he against islam, hes bias because hes inconsistent, and alot of scholars have proved that he is biased.

by alfarooq88 on 02/05/2010 03:46:20 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ok, sorry, (none / 0)
I've had discussions with Muslims who don't acknowledge any sources critical of Muhammad simply because they can't be true if they are critical.

by eborujion on 02/05/2010 04:28:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]
the source that you gave is backed up with atleast (none / 0)
one valid source.the source said she was 9 when the marriage was official. again, in areas warmer climates girls reach puberty earlier. its not impossible for a girl at the age of nine to hit puberty. back then when children reached puberty they were considered adults. also, you assume, they had sex. yea, they were married, and she didnt start living with him, until she hit puberty.

by alfarooq88 on 02/05/2010 03:01:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]
a (none / 0)
few valid sources*

by alfarooq88 on 02/05/2010 03:06:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Dirty old men... (none / 0)
Many girls even today reach puberty as early as 9 (average might be somewhere around 12). Puberty is not a date, you know, it is a process that takes a few years.

For many societies in the past it made sense that they started reproducing as early as possible. That is not when they enter puberty, though, but when they are well into it. The risk of impregnating a girl too early and thereby endangering her life way outweighs the advantage of a few children born earlier. That is why many societies have coming of age rituals after which girls are considered to be ready for bonding and childbearing at about 12-14 years old. And it is beneficial to get people of similar biological age to procreate (that means the boys would be about 2-5 years older). Before that age, there is no biological or societal excuse to have intercourse with those children other than the pedophile tendencies of perverted old men.

So basically you say it would be acceptable to have intercourse with girls who have just entered puberty? One pubic hair is enough? Or one menstrual cycle? If someone finds girls at that developmental stage desireable, there is something seriously wrong.

Why do you make excuses for a 1400 year dead pedophile fraud about things noone can know for sure? That is so weird... I would not even cover for my uncle if he was a pedophile.

by eborujion on 02/05/2010 04:18:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
assumptions (none / 0)
how do you know he had sex with her. what we know is that she moved in with him after puberty. you assume he had sex with her.

by alfarooq88 on 02/05/2010 04:30:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
How (none / 0)
do you know he did not? What would be the purpose of marrying her and letting her move in?

by eborujion on 02/05/2010 05:15:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
the reason (none / 0)
why she moved in was so she could know hadiths (his sayings) and teach those hadiths to muslims. because she moved in at a young age, she remembered alot of what he said. shes the reason why we have a lot of hadiths. she was also very well educated and a scholar.

by alfarooq88 on 02/05/2010 07:00:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I am sure, (none / 0)
he taught her all his hadiths, if you know what I mean, wink wink... I denounce and reject myself for making a joke in that context. Pedophilia is not funny.

But, re the argument that she had to be this young to "remember a lot of what he said". That is nonsense.

First of all, children do not have the mnemonic capabilities of young adults, they often confuse fantasies with reality and need numerous repetitions. And many abstract concepts they simply cannot comprehend until after period of psychological development (That is the mechanism of religious brain-washing of children: the ideas/dogmas are absorbed by the kids' minds without the possibility to really comprehend them).

Secondly, he could have simply dictated it! There were literate people around at that time, you know. Someone also wrote the Qu'ran down for him! And what is more: how many years he lived with her before he died? 10 years maybe? So, at 16 or 19 she would have been too old? Again, take your own advice and use logic and reason and try to understand that this is a bullshit excuse for a dirty old man.

How about one of his own sons that he could brain-wash at an even younger age? That would be much more plausible that a virgin girl (a woman! how much does their testimony count again according to Sharia law?).

by eborujion on 02/06/2010 06:10:09 AM EST

[ Parent ]
his (none / 0)
sons died during infancy.

by alfarooq88 on 02/06/2010 01:06:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You're being blinded by dogmatism (none / 0)

1. You're subjectively judging the validity of sources without even providing citations

2. You're assuming she had reached puberty without providing sources

3. You're saying it's okay to have sex with nine year olds

4. You're assuming that because of a "warmer climate" she reached puberty earlier than most children today.  In the past 200 years the average age for the first menstrual cycle has gone down significantly.  Most critics agree it has to do with the kind of food manufacturing/hybridization we've developed.  So unless you can substantiate that a) warmer climates necessarily lead to faster sexual development b) the prophet had sex AFTER her first couple cycles, rather than just assume or option c) they had more processed food back then than today.

 

You also state I "assume" they had sex when I already provided you with NEARLY A DOZEN FINE SOURCES including many provided by the center for Muslim-Jewish engagement which use direct translations.  Here's some examples:

 

Translated of Sahih Bukhari, Book 58:

 "Volume 5, Number 236:

Narrated Hisham's father:

Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married 'Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she was nine years old."

 

"Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65:

Narrated 'Aisha:

that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that 'Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death)." what you know of the Quran (by heart)'"

 

Denise Spellberg, a professor of Middle Eastern studies and Islamic history at the UofTexas stated that the multiple mentions of their marital consummation when she was nine re-enforce the implicit idea that Aisha was pre-pubescent at the time.

 

 It disgusts me that anyone can be "okay" with an older man having sex with a nine year old girl, regardless of her sexual development.  What's worse is the complete blindness to it too.  The absolute dogmatism when people try to justify such a hideous because "it was normal" or "she may have had her period before then."  SHE WAS NINE YEARS OLD WHEN MUHAMMAD HAD SEX WITH HER.  THAT IS IN NO WAY MORALLY PERMISSIBLE AND SHOULD BE CONDEMNED BY ANY RIGHT-THINKING PERSON.

 

 

As for the slavery, if you make any attempt at research you'll find stuff on it.  One example is the enslavement of many women and children from the Banu Qurayza.

by Tashi Freeman on 02/06/2010 11:35:37 AM EST

[ Parent ]
the marriage (none / 0)
was official when she was nine.consummated also means to make official. your also assuming that im blinded by dogma. you dont know the reason why i am muslim, so stop assuming. there are other historians and scholars who have refuted al these allegations. i suggest you read the biography of Muhammad, by Karen Armstrong.

by alfarooq88 on 02/06/2010 01:16:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Lets look at what I've brought forward (none / 0)

Consummation is an English word which, when applied to marriage, almost universally means the first act of sexual intercourse.  Even the etymology of the word has the exact same connotations.  And this isn't one mention whereas every other mention says "then they filed the paperwork before a judge," it's obvious that they lived together for a few years before consummating the marriage at what you called a "normal" time.  You're completely contradicting yourself:  First you said it was fine and that we shouldn't judge because it was normal at the time, then that it wasn't before puberty (which you still haven't supported), then you claim the repeated uses of the word "consummated" are happenstantial and that English translators are using an common word to repeatedly imply an obscure meaning where many other words would be far clearer.

 

I don't "assume you're blinded by dogmatism," I argue it - the exact opposite of what you're doing.  You're making bland, unsupported statements from an extremely subjective viewpoint while I'm articulating premises, citing sources, and drawing logical conclusions from my research.

I have no idea why you're Muslim.  It could be for any number of things.  What I'm concerned with is why you stay Muslim, why you continue to follow the moral teachings of a man who did immoral things.

And no, these "allegations" have not been refuted.  Not when they're in the primary sources.  Not when it's repeatedly stated that Muhammad had people put to death, enslaved, and had sex with a nine year old girl.  This is precisely why I called you dogmatic.  If you really want to justify your beliefs, get sources from primary texts and substantiate yourself.

by Tashi Freeman on 02/06/2010 04:09:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
have (none / 0)
you even researched this thoroughly, or you just believe what some people say. i look at both sides. i look at what people like Daniel pipes say and what other people say.btw, alot of these statements that you use are translated from arabic.  the word aisha uses can be translated as validation. in islam there is no making a marriage valid by sexual intercourse. if you read some biographies of muhammad written by valid authors such as karen armstrong, and if you are reasonable, you would understand this subject a little better. i dont provide citations because i dont have anything to prove. you go ahead believe what you want to believe. you already have in your head that he was immoral. i too have said bad things about him,which i now regret. i changed my mind after a lot of research. have you even read what other historians and scholars on the other side have wrote?

by alfarooq88 on 02/06/2010 04:45:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Adjourned, for now (none / 0)

I don't "already have it in my mind" that he is immoral; for years he was described to me as a paragon of virtue.  Back in highschool a Muslim friend of mine was asked who his rolemodels are in life and he said "First Muhammad, then my dad."  It was only after I started reading up on him that I became skeptical of his reputation. 

 But this time I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, I'll give your suggested Karen Armstrong book a try.  I'll write a blog about it when I'm done.

And yes, you do have something to prove.  I'd like to make this very clear before I proceed to read Karen Armstrong's book.  If others present sources contradicting information you're presenting and if you wish to maintain your position then you're obliged to present evidence to back up your claims.  Whether they be reasoned scholarly opinion, a citation of primary sources, or something I can't even think of there is still an onus on you.  This is not a debate about theism or cultural relativity, it's simply a discussion of whether or not there is strong evidence to suggest Muhammad had sex with a child.

by Tashi Freeman on 02/06/2010 07:36:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
theres really (none / 0)
no point in arguing with you. when you look at history, you have to put aside your bias, and look at the context of the time. she came to live with him after puberty. at that time, when children reached puberty they were considered adults. at that time kids that age also did other mature things. boys would go to war at a young age. so if you already researched about this, you should know all the arguments of the side. you are judging things that happened at that time, with your own modern day way of thinking. also, have you read on what Islamic scholars say about this, and what other historians who are on the other side say? or when you "read" up on him did you only read what people who have something negative to say about him have to say, or did you read what the other side had to say. I also suggest reading the biography of Muhammad by martin lings.

by alfarooq88 on 02/06/2010 08:08:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Your position changes, (none / 0)
in case you don't notice. Earlier in the thread you wrote she entered puberty at 9, now she was already through puberty at 9? You know what that would make her? Sick, as in: she has had a condition that led to this premature puberty! If you have to adapt your story all the time, it tells a lot about whether your story is true or not. We are still waiting for sources btw. If you want to cite your books by Armstrong or Lings, go ahead, do that.

no point in arguing with you. when you look at history, you have to put aside your bias

Dude, Tashi provided primary sources for his claims, you only alluded to popular science books, without even citing secondary sources. What you call bias btw, arose probably only after having heard about critical sources, so it is neither bias nor prejudice but a critical opinion based on (more or less disputed, I think less) facts.

boys would go to war at a young age.

So, after pedophilia, child soldiers are also OK. Child soldiers were an anomaly when all other options were exhausted. It does not make sense to regularly send your children into battle.

This has nothing to do with modern sensibilities but with natural, innate human behaviour. Murder is, though, much more natural than pedophilia.

by eborujion on 02/07/2010 07:08:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]

cenks comment on the prophet Muhammad | 116 comments (116 topical, 0 hidden)