The Muhammad and Aisha controversy

[Gigantus]

Following several occasions where discussions went off topic in the pit and devolved in slinging matches concerning the above issue this will be the designated discussion thread for this matter to allow an actual on topic discussion. Several posts have been moved from their original threads into this one.

Do keep in mind that ToS rules exist and will be applied.

[Gäiten]

Another round in petty European Islam Appeasement. You can smell the fear.

So from now Mohammend will be known as "the Prophet who is not allowed to be called a pedophile."

[paleologos]

As far as I know the Quran says Aisha was 6 when the marriage happened and stayed in her father's house until she was 9.
Then she moved to Muhammad's house and he consummated the marriage and then she went on to play with her toys.

Maybe the Quran is not truthful about the ability of an old man to consummate a marriage but then this would mean that the claims of Aisha's father to the throne of the Caliphate were not valid.
Or they were valid and Muhammad was a pedophile.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I hope I am not in violation of the ToS.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

That would be extra embarrassing with me being a moderator.

[Infidel144]

As far as I know the Quran says Aisha was 6 when the marriage happened and stayed in her father's house until she was 9.
Then she moved to Muhammad's house and he consummated the marriage and then she went on to play with her toys.

No, not the Quran. Aisha's age comes from the hadith and histories.

Maybe the Quran is not truthful about the ability of an old man to consummate a marriage but then this would mean that the claims of Aisha's father to the throne of the Caliphate were not valid.

Sex with prepubescent girls in the Quran comes from the divorce laws, see Quran 65.

[Knight of Heaven]

If he had paeophilic tendencies, why didn't have more young wives, after all according to the customs of the time, Arab, Persian, Byzantine or Goth he could have acquired an entire harem to form alliances and so forth? No answer? Of course not, because the islamophobia industry hasan't provided you with one. You get around the fact that the practice was unviversal. I have provided two promenent English /Dutch examples , but there are many many more. To suggest that an ethnic group can be singled out or trolled for the marriage practice of an ancient ruler when their own royal houses practiced an identical practice is beyond all boundaries of hypocracy. Those audience members have every right to be insulted, not based on their religion. it is an insult to common sense and reason.

Im well aware that the practice was "universal" Even today in some cultures it still is ( including in some islamic cultures; or you dont want to talk about child marriages today? even in the US this happens).

Also just because he married older women ( he had an harem as i understand) , doesn't exclude him having pedophilic tendencies. Plenty of convicted Pedophiles today are or were married with older women as well, family men etc.

Im aware of the danger of judging History with modern morals btw. I really have no beef here, i have no opinion on the subject matter, i dont know if he had or not such tendencies.

My point is this talk shouldn't be censored, curbed or punished just because it offends people, or because it is taboo of sorts.

It doesn't mean it cant be an academic debate. Which it can be in my opinion. It doesn't stop being so just because you dont agree with it, or because you find it nonsense either.

[Axalon]

Personally, I am appalled. This is NOT the EU I once voted for and supported. This is NOT the Europe and reality I want for it. For my part, I could not care less what Muslims feel about their declared prophet. I take pride in that very fact, that I don't have too care about Islam or its damn prophet! To me that very freedom and the freedom of speech is easily more important then appeasing Islam and its followers. Any day...

To me its real simple. If it looks like pedophilia, acts like pedophilia and smells like pedophilia - then it is pedophilia. There are no damned "prophet-clause" as to make exceptions. The Aisha-case is/was pedophilia or I am a freaking airplane....

- A

[mongrel]

blasphemy

It is not a crime of blasphemy . That has its own meaning. The woman was just another counter jihad con -artist cashing in on Islamophobia when it was at it's height. It's easy money to make.

Personally, I am appalled. This is NOT the EU I once voted for and supported. This is NOT the Europe and reality I want for it. For my part, I could not care less what Muslims feel about their declared prophet. I take pride in that very fact, that I don't have too care about Islam or its damn prophet! To me that very freedom and the freedom of speech is easily more important then appeasing Islam and its followers. Any day...

To me its real simple. If it looks like pedophilia, acts like pedophilia and smells like pedophilia - then it is pedophilia. There are no damned "prophet-clause" as to make exceptions. The Aisha-case is/was pedophilia or I am a freaking airplane....

- A

But you obvious do care about this dead Arab, after all that ranting.

One doesn't see any mention in European history books that kings and dukes are paedos because of their wedding habits.There are no classes slandering Plantegenets Valois and Stuarts. There are no people demanding that we discuss this as a free speech issue or spray painting "Winsa is a paedo" outside Buckingham Palace. It is taken as an historical custom, now extinct. William Shakespeare for example didn't write Richard the 2nd thus; "This royal throne of kings, this sceptered isle, His Majesty's a paedophile."

[mongrel]

In your example of Cleopatra, that sounds like a professor who should be fired simply for being an unprofessional idiot incapable of actually providing context, but I wouldn't stop that person from exercising his/her free speech rights from screaming such nonsense on a busy street corner. People should be allowed to make fools of themselves. Psychologically speaking, it just marginalizes/isolates them and nobody pays serious attention to them, making their position a not very attractive one for others to join. If you make their position seem scary or illegal, then all of the sudden you're inadvertently empowering the "Streisand Effect" in that situation by magnifying the importance of crazies and silly people (like Alex Jones).

Fair comment I suppose.

The trouble with the Allah is a paedo nonsense , however is that it is a meme utilised to radicalise losers, losers who then go on to things other than shout onstreet corners.

Yes, and so are racists and islamophobes too.

Not if they break the law. Yes, it is that simple.And why the burning need to tell a brown person that some long-dead Arab married a 9 year old? He should already know. It could therefore only be for some other purpose than polite discussion. It's like complaining about the need to describe the Earth as round , or Trump's hair as being ridiculously weird.Such needs simply don't exist.

[swabian]

The problem is, that the holy symbol of Muslim manhood did actually copulate with a 9 year old girl (among others i presume).

[PointOfViewGun]

People need to realize that the term pedophilia is not what they're using it for. Pedophilia is a medical condition where it involves a sexual interest in children. Muhammad marrying Aisha at an early age for political reasons doesn't make Muhammad a pedophile even if we accept the claims about it face value. It is an objectively false statement to call him a pedophilia which is specifically done to denigrate Muhammad.

What is defamation?
What was the woman's statement?
What is the truth?
The truth sounds hateful to those who hate the truth.

Is there a particular reason why you ignored many other Hadith stories that puts Aisha's age at something over 17 when she married Muhammad?

As far as I know the Quran says Aisha was 6 when the marriage happened and stayed in her father's house until she was 9.
Then she moved to Muhammad's house and he consummated the marriage and then she went on to play with her toys.

Maybe the Quran is not truthful about the ability of an old man to consummate a marriage but then this would mean that the claims of Aisha's father to the throne of the Caliphate were not valid.
Or they were valid and Muhammad was a pedophile.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I hope I am not in violation of the ToS.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

That would be extra embarrassing with me being a moderator.

Aisha's age only appears in Hadith stories. However, there are also many Hadith stories that puts her age as high as 21. The likelihood case puts her about 15 years old when she married Muhammad and he likely never touched her that way, or any of her wives after Khadija, except the last one Maria, as all her kids except one is from Khadija, and an other one from Maria later on. Apparently, Muhammad had 13 wives, but he has kids from only two of them. We know for a fact that he was not infertile. So, we have to either assume that all of his 11 wives were infertile, as none of them give him any child for years while Muhammad had sex with them, or that he actually didn't have sex with them at all. It is well-know how much he loved Khadija. Aisha was very jealous of her even though she was dead.

No, not the Quran. Aisha's age comes from the hadith and histories.
Sex with prepubescent girls in the Quran comes from the divorce laws, see Quran 65.

Where in 65?

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

...
Is there a particular reason why you ignored many other Hadith stories that puts Aisha's age at something over 17 when she married Muhammad?

The reason is simple, the other Hadith stories doesn´t fit in the worldview of the islamophobic, racistic mob.

Who cares for facts, if you can simply feed your prejudices?

[alhoon]

For whatever reason a 50-years old man consummates the marriage with a 9 years old girl, it is wrong. When kings and queens married young children, it was wrong. When the Borgias married 13-years old Lucrezia for political gain, it was wrong. When rural girls married at 12 years old so there would be one less mouth to feed in their house, it was wrong. Defending kings, queens and religious symbols for that is in my opinion very bad.

[Roma_Victrix]

For whatever reason a 50-years old man consummates the marriage with a 9 years old girl, it is wrong. When kings and queens (including Cleopatra) married young children, it was wrong. When the Borgias married 13-years old Lucrezia for political gain, it was wrong. When rural girls married at 12 years old so there would be one less mouth to feed in their house, it was wrong. Defending kings, queens and religious symbols for that is in my opinion very bad.

I don't think we should defend them so much as understand the historical contexts and environment in which they lived. I don't think we should view things through such an anachronistic lens, passing judgment on people whose circumstances were so radically different from ours. It certainly doesn't help anyone to get emotional about people who've been dead for hundreds of years, or more recently than that, considering how even Edgar Allen Poe, one of America's most treasured poets and authors of the 19th century, married his 13-year-old cousin Virginia Eliza Clemm Poe when he was 27.

In that same token, people should have an honest discussion about the Prophet Muhammad and place his life within the context of 7th century Arabia. He was a brutal warlord and did many things, such as mass executions, that his contemporaries had no problems with given there were no international human rights or rules of war, it was the rules of the jungle (or in this case, the desert). At the same time, it would be wrong of us to judge him for these actions, because in many situations it was kill-or-be-killed and he made executive decisions that were based on ensuring the survival of not only himself but his entirely new religious community of Muslims in a world filled with rival pagans, Christians, and Jews.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Which facts about Islam?

About which islamic confession are you talking?

Sunna, Shia, Wahhabism, Ibadites, Ahmadiyya, Sufism...?

It is better to know something about the stuff you talking...

[mongrel]

I don't think we should defend them so much as understand the historical contexts and environment in which they lived. I don't think we should view things through such an anachronistic lens, passing judgment on people whose circumstances were so radically different from ours. It certainly doesn't help anyone to get emotional about people who've been dead for hundreds of years, or more recently than that, considering how even Edgar Allen Poe, one of America's most treasured poets and authors of the 19th century, married his 13-year-old cousin Virginia Eliza Clemm Poe when he was 27.

In that same token, people should have an honest discussion about the Prophet Muhammad and place his life within the context of 7th century Arabia. He was a brutal warlord and did many things, such as mass executions, that his contemporaries had no problems with given there were no international human rights or rules of war, it was the rules of the jungle (or in this case, the desert). At the same time, it would be wrong of us to judge him for these actions, because in many situations it was kill-or-be-killed and he made executive decisions that were based on ensuring the survival of not only himself but his entirely new religious community of Muslims in a world filled with rival pagans, Christians, and Jews.

Spot on. +rep

[swabian]

In that same token, people should have an honest discussion about the Prophet Muhammad and place his life within the context of 7th century Arabia. He was a brutal warlord and did many things, such as mass executions, that his contemporaries had no problems with given there were no international human right

Like it was a secret or something. I am aware.

One question still remains: Who would declare that absurd monster a HOLY MAN?

[Papay]

While yes, there were historical contexts, if we are to judge him as a 21st century religious figure, we see someone who instead of a visionary ahead of his time like Jesus, we see a ‘man of his time’ who did things when it came to violence and immortality much worse than another figure 600 years before him.

So if we are to say, within a discussion of Islam that Mohammad “liked to do it with children” and “... A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? ... What do we call it, if it is not paedophilia?” it’s ridiculous that does not fall under free expression. It does not infringe on any other individual’s freedoms.

Do you know how many of these things you can find in all religions? Take for example the story of Abraham and Hagar. Hagar was a slave of Abraham and Abraham raped her and when she left the house to escape god emerged in front of her and demanded to go back. There is selective islamophobia here by certain cycles that love to reminds us about how Muhammad was a pedophile but deliberately hide the fact that there are many stories like this in christian bible and jewish Torah. Selective outrage

[swabian]

There is selective islamophobia here by certain cycles that love to reminds us about how Muhammad was a pedophile but deliberately hide the fact that there are many stories like this in christian bible and jewish Torah. Selective outrage

It is not a phobia, it is a justified disgust and aversion. I'm not afraid at all of Muslims, if anything they are afraid of me (which they don't have to be because i loathe prison and love freedom).

[Roma_Victrix]

Look guys, if you're going to criticize Mohammed, you could focus on the pedo thing, even though as we've explained that was pretty rampant in arguably most historical civilized societies until the beginning of modern times. Or you could focus on the thing that really matters, which was his hatred and distaste for dogs. I can't tell if he honestly believed God was telling him this stuff, but he clearly didn't view canines as man's best friend. Sad! Then again, back in 7th century Arabia I'm sure even pet dogs would have been annoying as hell, given the sandy, dusty environment and dogs (who lack our human understanding of manners, even with good training) tracking crap in and out of nomadic tents if they were allowed in. On the other hand Mohammad was obsessed with cats and adored them, to the point where we still have the names of his favorite feline pet Muezza (or Muʿizza).

I guess if you're going to convert to Islam like Sinead O'Connor, you gotta be a committed cat person first.

[Axalon]

One doesn't see any mention in European history books that kings and dukes are paedos because of their wedding habits.There are no classes slandering Plantegenets Valois and Stuarts. There are no people demanding that we discuss this as a free speech issue or spray painting "Winsa is a paedo" outside Buckingham Palace. It is taken as an historical custom, now extinct. William Shakespeare for example didn't write Richard the 2nd thus; "This royal throne of kings, this sceptered isle, His Majesty's a paedophile."

The fact that you are effectively trying to excuse and/or downplay his child-marriage with Aisha - by pointing out that others (like kings and so forth) did such things too - is just vile all over. Two wrongs does not make one right. Pedophilia is disgusting regardless of anything, anyone or anywhere. There are no excuses for it. Period.

Furthermore, in great contrast to all your other such examples he created a supposed "ideal" that was/is clearly encouraged to be emulated among many of his followers - this for well over a 1000 years - and counting... No other individual - in the history of mankind - has ever been as "successful" as this particular dead Arab in promoting (by his actions) the practice of child-marriage and -molestation. It is his very example that makes it still relevant even today all over the place - obviously BECAUSE of him and his actions. And, there are no excuses for that either... Period.

Now, because of this rotten and questionable ruling - we are no longer legally entitled to point that out in Europe. We are supposedly not allowed to openly disapprove of what he did, and call his actions for what they are... Because of some PC-notion that it is more important to appease Muslims, then to have actual freedom of speech and thought. That is an open stance for intellectual oppression and regression, by legal means... It is the virtually the Pandora's box which we are now fooling around with just as to appease incessantly butt-hurt Muslims - whom demand "respect". Personally, I have none... Its truly a sorry day for the EU in general, if there ever was one. Its not the EU that I want to live in nor be a part of. It also lends it self very well to ideas about Islam like...

It is a BS-movement, based on BS-ideas, by a BS-prophet, that ultimately generates and drags down everyone in some BS-reality... And, I for one don't like or want it (accordingly)... And, I think it is important to be able to express that...

This, whenever I feel like it...

- A