• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Prophetic Attributes

ibn_leroy

Regular Member
Dec 4, 2004
272
6
43
Atlanta
✟22,942.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Single
I'm back with a new name (I was formerly known as naasir)!:clap: Every few months I visit this site to see the latest debate over Islam. I expected to find more of the same, and by God, here it is!

I'm really awestruck by criticism of the Prophet's, (salallahu 'alayhi wa salam) marriage to 'Aishah (radi Allahu 'anha). It's as if some people are totally oblivious to their own cultural frame of reference.:sigh: Anyone who's familiar with history/anthropology should know that 'Aishah obviously wasn't considered a "child". Anyone who fully appreciates his or her own culture should take time to reflect on it's history, influences, and implications. Man . . . where do I begin?

Let's try some rhetorical questions: for centuries in the West, men married women that by modern standards were "girls". Of course, now it's illegal, but when and from where did this taboo appear? You'll need your critical thinking hats for that one, because the answer is much more sophisticated than the question implies. I'll drop a name clue: Frederick W. Taylor. Ten bonus points for the one who can tell me when the "age of consent" was legislated in the United States.

Another critical question (this one's a lot easier): what is it that actually and objectively (the operative word here) determines readiness for sexual activity - a) physiological attributes, or b) subjective (Freudian slip, please excuse me:blush: ), social elements and attitudes? The fact is, modern taboos are IN SPITE of physiological reality, which kind of brings us back to the first question of "why is that?" Finally, given the fact that in centuries past "girls" were considered women for clearly (undebatable) physiological reasons, what intelligent reason is there for those people to treat sexual activity of capable individuals as socially unacceptable?:confused: Please, PRETTY PLEASE, think hard before trying to answer that.

Another undue criticism that people always tend to employ is the conflict between the Prophet (salallahu 'alayhi wa salam) and his enemies. This is always done without even the slightest attention to the antecedents, implications, reasons, consequences, or what was at stake (namely lives). Just, "Muhammad killed those who didn't accept him"; yeah, and George Washington killed British people . . . and? More on that in a later post, God willing.
 
Upvote 0

Montalban

Well-Known Member
Jan 20, 2004
35,424
1,509
58
Sydney, NSW
✟42,787.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
ibn_leroy said:
I'm back with a new name (I was formerly known as naasir)! Every few months I visit this site to see the latest debate over Islam. I expected to find more of the same, and by God, here it is!
Likewise I expected to find the same cultural relativism argument, and here it is...
ibn_leroy said:
I'm really awestruck by criticism of the Prophet's,... marriage to 'Aishah. It's as if some people are totally oblivious to their own cultural frame of reference. Anyone who's familiar with history/anthropology should know that 'Aishah obviously wasn't considered a "child". Anyone who fully appreciates his or her own culture should take time to reflect on it's history, influences, and implications. Man . . . where do I begin?
Yet you completely miss several points.

a) Muhammad is supposed to be an example for ALL TIME
b) Al-lah is supposed to have been able to look into the future and thus have said "What Muhammad does, is for his own time"
c) what other people did, does not excuse Muhammad
d) what other people did, is not an issue, because we (Christians) don't establish them as the model of behaviour
e) the Muslim sites I cited continue to recommend behaviour towards minors based on Muhammad's actions.

So, do you think, in absolute terms, what Muhammad did was wrong?
Is it wrong, now?

ibn_leroy said:
Let's try some rhetorical questions: for centuries in the West, men married women that by modern standards were "girls". Of course, now it's illegal, but when and from where did this taboo appear? You'll need your critical thinking hats for that one, because the answer is much more sophisticated than the question implies. I'll drop a name clue: Frederick W. Taylor. Ten bonus points for the one who can tell me when the "age of consent" was legislated in the United States.
What has the USA got to do with me?
ibn_leroy said:
Another critical question (this one's a lot easier): what is it that actually and objectively (the operative word here) determines readiness for sexual activity - a) physiological attributes, or b) subjective (Freudian slip, please excuse me ), social elements and attitudes? The fact is, modern taboos are IN SPITE of physiological reality, which kind of brings us back to the first question of "why is that?" Finally, given the fact that in centuries past "girls" were considered women for clearly (undebatable) physiological reasons, what intelligent reason is there for those people to treat sexual activity of capable individuals as socially unacceptable? Please, PRETTY PLEASE, think hard before trying to answer that.
And here's the reason why Muslims pretend that they can continue with child-abuse today. The belief is that three months after a girl menstruates, she's an adult. The United Nations (which I also quoted from) abhors this behaviour.
ibn_leroy said:
Another undue criticism that people always tend to employ is the conflict between the Prophet and his enemies. This is always done without even the slightest attention to the antecedents, implications, reasons, consequences, or what was at stake (namely lives). Just, "Muhammad killed those who didn't accept him";
Ah if only I had made a just-so statement that you now imply (straw-man anyone?). Muhammad, that prime example for ALL TIME celebrated the death of PoWs. I quoted for that claim too.
ibn_leroy said:
yeah, and George Washington killed British people . . . and? More on that in a later post, God willing.
As an Australian I do not hold George Washington to be the prime example to follow for mankind. I take it you have a point?

So what have we got here so far? It's the old double-take. Muhammad, what ever he did, if he did it at all, was right because of culture which changes (not by God who doesn't!). Even though he is set up as an exmaple for all mankind to follow for all time, he's allowed to be more vile than most people (sleeping with a child, and unwilling slaves; killing defenceless PoWs and ordering the assination of people who lampoon him (such as one lady who simply wrote some witty poems about him).)
 
Upvote 0

Montalban

Well-Known Member
Jan 20, 2004
35,424
1,509
58
Sydney, NSW
✟42,787.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
In case you missed it, here is the last half of my original post on the matter. Note it shows what Moslems think about child-marriages TODAY!

E- Expert advice
(i) When is a girl considered in Islam to be a woman?

Muslim experts cite that once a girl menstruates, she's marriageable. This is based on the Koran...
When in Islam is a girl a woman?
Sura At-Talaaq
65:4
"And those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the 'Iddah (prescribed period), if you have doubts (about their periods), is three months, and for those who have no courses [(i.e. they are still immature) their 'Iddah (prescribed period) is three months likewise, except in case of death] . And for those who are pregnant (whether they are divorced or their husbands are dead), their 'Iddah (prescribed period) is until they deliver (their burdens), and whosoever fears Allah and keeps his duty to Him, He will make his matter easy for him."
http://www.quraan.com/index.aspx?ta...tabid=27&bid=65

"Thus, it is part of Islam to acknowledge the coming of puberty as the start of adulthood. It is the time when the person has already matured and is ready the responsibilities of an adult."
http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/Polemics/aishah.htm

"Islam teaches that female puberty begins when the menses is started. From Bukhari, volume 3, Book of Witnesses, chapter 18, page 513: "The boy attaining the age of puberty and the validity of their witness and the Statement of Allah: "And when the children among you attain the age of puberty, then let them also ask for permission (to enter)." Quran 24:59. Al Mughira said, "I attained puberty at the age of twelve." The attaining of puberty by women is with the start of menses, as is referred to by the Statement of Allah: "Such of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them prescribed period if you have any doubts (about their periods) is three months... [65:4] ...Al-Hasan bin Salih said, "I saw a neighbouress of mine who became a grandmother at the age of twenty-one." [1] [1] The note for this reference says, "This women attained puberty at the age of nine and married to give birth to a daughter at ten; the daughter had the same experience." My understanding of the above is that Islam considers that when a child "attains", or begins, "puberty", then he / she is considered an adult. Hence the validity of the witness. Muhammad followed a cultural norm in marrying and having sex with a young girl. After all, she was considered an adult. Not only did he do that, but he taught his followers to do as he did. Therefore is acceptable for Muslim men to marry and have intercourse with girls who have had their menarche. Muhammad established this cultural practice as a precedent in Islam. I add that there are other primitive cultures that allow girls to marry following their menarche. But that does not make it right or in the best interests of the child. Some cultures killed baby daughters for various reasons. Cultural norms do not make an action morally right"
http://www.exmuslim.com/com/puberty.htm
(this is an anti-Muslim site)

E(ii) Actual advice to Muslims by Islamic centres of advice...
"According to the Shari'ah, if a girl is a minor (did not attain puberty), she may be given in marriage by her father. When she attains puberty, she has the right to maintain the marriage or discontinue the marriage. There is no age limit to be intimate with one's wife even if she is a minor.
It is important for you, in your situation, to consider the age difference reservation expressed by your wife.
and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best
Mufti Ebrahim Desai"
http://islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=6737

Here's some more good Islamic advice...
The Appropriate Age for Marriage
Question: What is the appropriate age for men and women to marry? Some of the young ladies of today do not accept to be married to men older than them and also some of the men do not get married from anyone older than them either. We hope for a response, may Allah reward you.
Response: I advise the young ladies not to refuse a man because of his older age. Even if he be ten, twenty or thirty years older, this is not a valid excuse. The Prophet (peace be upon him) married Aisha when he was fifty-three years old and she was nine years old. Older age is not harmful.
http://www.uh.edu/campus/msa/articl...rriage.html#age

"It is the duty of parents to arrange the marriage of their children when they come of age. The Prophet Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam has stressed that it should be taken seriously and with a full sense of responsibility. Abu Saeed Khudri and Abdullah ibn Abbas (R.A.) narrated that the Prophet Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam said "Whoever is blessed by the Creator with children should give them good names, a good training, teach them good manners, and arrange for their marriage when they attain the age of puberty. If he does not pay due heed to it and fails to get them married, on reaching marriageable age (due to negligence) and they take to ways that are forbidden, the father will be held responsible for it."
http://www.islam.tc/social_conduct/social_conduct_of_a_muslim.html

Here's another ruling from another expert site - a site that presents Islamic facts to Moslems...
Q). I have a nine year-old girl who is married to a person at the age of 20. The marriage contract was made a year ago but the girl is refusing to live with her husband or even to look at him. In addition to that she requires him to divorce her. Could you please advise me what to do? Should I separate them or force my daughter to live with him?
(Name and address withheld)
A). It is certainly possible for a father to get his daughter married to someone who he thinks is suitable for her. Whether he should force her into any marriage is something totally different Let me relate this to you: A woman companion of the Prophet came to him and said: "My father has married me away to one of his relatives without asking my opinion. I do not wish to stay with this man as his wife." The Prophet ordered their separation. When she realized that she was free and that she was no longer married to the man, she said to the Prophet: "I now accept what my father has done and I am marrying this man. I only did this so that women may know that it is not up to men to marry them away against their wishes."
Scholars have discussed at length the marriage of a young girl who has not attained puberty and whether her father may marry her away without her permission. If such a marriage takes place it is valid. However, it is perhaps best if the marriage is not allowed to be consummated until the girl attains puberty, when she is given the choice whether to continue with this marriage or not. Moreover her father may not marry her away to someone who is of a lesser status than hers. If he does and she objects, the marriage is not valid. Generally speaking, however. a girl must be asked to express her opinion in any proposed marriage. If she has been married before, then her verbal consent should be requested. If she has not been married previously, then her consent is also to be requested, but if she keeps quiet, her silence is taken as approval.
To say that the marriage is valid is not to say that people should go ahead and make such marriages. There may be certain circumstances, which make it desirable or advisable that a very young girl should be married away in this manner but this must not be taken as the normal situation. In marriage, the normal thing is that people should marry when they are of marriageable age. That does not include girls of nine or ten years of age, although some girls may attain puberty that early. Marriage involves certain responsibilities and a very young girl could not be expected to shoulder these. There are also other problems, which the may face, as she grows older. If things go wrong with her marriage, she will always blame her father for having messed up her life, well intentioned though he may be. If you take the example of your own daughter, and you force her to go and live with her husband despite her protestations, you will never be sure whether the marriage will work out well or not. If it does, then well and good. But there is an equal chance that problems may arise especially with your daughter behaving like the child she is. While her husband expects from her the attitude of a married woman. How could you expect her to overcome the feeling that she has been thrown into this situation without being allowed the slightest say in the whole matter which is to affect the rest of her life?

As we see it, your choice is either to get her divorced now, before the marriage is consummated or to keep her with you until she has attained puberty and she is in a position to express her opinion about this marriage. If she still objects to it, then you divorce her without any compulsion to go through with it. If, on the other hand, if she approves of this marriage, at that time, then you go ahead with it. Perhaps it is better for you to consult with the young man to whom you have already married her. He should be understanding and accommodating. Between the two of you should work out the best solution which ensures that he is not lumbered with marriage which is forced on a young girl who cannot be expected to give an opinion about such a matter.
http://www.islamicvoice.com/august.98/marriage.htm#EAR

This is why there was a dispute about having a mandatory age for consent recently in Nigeria...
"Pegging the Marriageable Age The most contentious issue arising from the contents of the 2003 Child Rights Act is the feasibility, or otherwise, of pegging the marriageable age for the female gender by the Government. This appears to offend the culture that prevails in many communities of Northern Nigeria under which young girls are married off at ages between 9 and 16 years. Upon a careful study of the position in Islamic Law, however, it is clear that this culture is one of the many inconsistencies that abound. There is certainly no categorical statement under the Sharia that a female must be married off even after the attainment of puberty, and the emphasis on the pursuit of education seems to be more pronounced, than marriage (which becomes imperative only in the event that the person is incapable of remaining chaste).'
http://allafrica.com/stories/200407200423.html

F. Is this harmful?
Yes...
"Fact Sheet No.23, Harmful Traditional Practices Affecting the Health of Women and Children
Traditional cultural practices reflect values and beliefs held by members of a community for periods often spanning generations. Every social grouping in the world has specific traditional cultural practices and beliefs, some of which are beneficial to all members, while others are harmful to a specific group, such as women. These harmful traditional practices include female genital mutilation (FGM); forced feeding of women; early marriage; the various taboos or practices which prevent women from controlling their own fertility; nutritional taboos and traditional birth practices; son preference and its implications for the status of the girl child; female infanticide; early pregnancy; and dowry price. Despite their harmful nature and their violation of international human rights laws, such practices persist because they are not questioned and take on an aura of morality in the eyes of those practising them."
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu6/2/fs23.htm
Fact Sheet No.23, Harmful Traditional Practices Affecting the Health of Women and Children
"Child marriage robs a girl of her childhood-time necessary to develop physically, emotionally and psychologically. In fact, early marriage inflicts great emotional stress as the young woman is removed from her parents' home to that of her husband and in-laws. Her husband, who will invariably be many years her senior, will have little in common with a young teenager. It is with this strange man that she has to develop an intimate emotional and physical relationship. She is obliged to have intercourse, although physically she might not be fully developed."
(Ibid)

"Research interest in the long-term effects of sexual contact between female children and adults has increased dramatically in the last two decades. Two sets of issues have driven this enhanced attention. The first concerns the nature and extent of the impact these experiences have on subsequent well-being in adulthood. Empirical research has offered evidence of the severe and wide ranging effects of adult-child sex by documenting its associations with a host of later "symptoms," such as low self-esteem, depression, anxiety, and sexual dysfunction."
"Sexual contact between children and adults: A life course perspective."
Browning, Christopher R; Laumann, Edward O
Citation: American Sociological Review, v62n4, pp.540-560, Aug 1997
Number: 03374356 Features: Table; Illustration; References
Copyright: American Sociological Association 1997
quoted at http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/childbrides.htm

Conclusion:
Not all Muslims will marry young girls. That is not at all the point if this argument of mine. Muhammad had nine (some say eleven wives). Muhammad by his example showed his followers just exactly what type of wives they can have. For instance, Muhammad married a Jewess, and he also married a Christian (Mary, the Copt). He married a widow, and also a woman older than himself. Similarly, consulting an Islamic site for advice, you will find that it is permissible for a Muslim man to marry a Christian woman. Not all Mohammedans will marry Christian women.
 
Upvote 0

Proud Hindu

Veteran
Feb 10, 2004
1,018
41
✟1,394.00
Faith
Hindu
Proud Hindu this is one point we can agree on (other than on Cricket)

Recently in Spain some Muslims have been crying to the media that they aren't able to visit a church to pray. (as detailed in a recent edition of "Annals: The Journal of Catholic Culture")

There intent might seem harmless, excepting that they actually want to re-claim the site, because it was once a mosque. THey are quite happy to tell this point; how it was stolen from Islam, but forget to point out that before it was a mosque, it was a church!

Wow, I didn't know that! :eek: Guess I shouldn't be surprised though...

In fact, that list I posted was only part 1 of 2 lists, and those are only of the known destroyed temples. If you look at the link, there are pages upon pages of the Islamic holocaust on the world.
 
Upvote 0

ibn_leroy

Regular Member
Dec 4, 2004
272
6
43
Atlanta
✟22,942.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Single
You didn't answer any of my questions, nevertheless, I'll try to break the issue down as simply as possible.

1) The primary purpose of sex is procreation.
2) People are capable of functioning as sexual beings relatively early in life.
A. Sexual capacity occurs naturally, the timing of which can vary drastically from person to person.
B. Naturally, this is objective and absolute
3) Throughout history, the age-appropriateness of sexual activity was understood in light of this natural, absolute standard.
A. Only within the last two-hundred years or so (give or take a few decades; I'm referring to post-industrial modernity) did the delay of sexual activity become normative.
B. This relatively new (i.e., in the human experience) delay of sexual activity gradually normalized for reasons that fall outside of the natural occurrence of an individual's capacity for sex.

Now, these points are undebatable. What I'm trying to urge you to reflect on is points 3A and 3B; especially 3B. Why did the delay of sexual activity become normative, and why did sex prior to the newly established norm become taboo; both of these in spite of physiological reality?

You asked me is what the Prophet (salallahu 'alayhi wa salam) did absolutely wrong. This is an absurd question, because it's fallacious to make ABSOLUTE value judgments according to a RELATIVE standard. I'll give a similar example: It's objectively, naturally, absolutely, positively a fact that people of different races can have children together. However, for a time interracial relationships were taboo. Now, from where was this taboo derived? To say, "from the absolute immorality of it", is ludicrous; clearly, the taboo is only relevant to a particular context, with particular assumptions, particular definitions, and particular attitudes concerning "race".

The same holds true to the context, assumptions, definitions, and attitudes concerning "childhood". You're asking if it's wrong, I'm asking is it wrong according to what? Part F of your original post is plain garbage in relation to this discussion, and I'll tell you why. I personally know a ten-year old mother (who's a cousin of mine). You can bet your bottom dollar that I was outraged at the news of her pregnancy and the knowledge that she was sexually active. She has most definitely been robbed of her childhood. However, in ancient times this would not have been a problem because what we conceive of and experience as "childhood" was nonexistent - "childhood" in ancient times was very much shortlived. Due to the primitive status of social factors like education and occupation, it wasn't long before what we would consider "children" were actually adult members in their respective communities. There was no such thing as school (as we know it), no youth culture, no generation gaps, or any other institutions or experiences which modern zeitgeist has come to identify as peculiar to certain age groups. So, all of the potential harm you cited is in light of our zeitgeist; whereas, say, over one thousand years ago the "child" of today would have been an independent, responsible adult. Again, and please answer this time, WHAT INTELLIGENT, ABSOLUTE REASON IS THERE FOR ANCIENT PEOPLES TO HAVE CONSIDERED SEXUAL ACTIVITY OF CAPABLE INDIVIDUALS AS SOCIALLY UNACCEPTABLE?

I'll get to the issue of violence later, God willing. But yes, you utterly missed the point.:cool:
 
Upvote 0

Proud Hindu

Veteran
Feb 10, 2004
1,018
41
✟1,394.00
Faith
Hindu
Forgetting the issue of sexuality (which IMO is irrelevant), how do you defend the violence that Muhammed brought to the world.

And unlike Christianity, it was not just the followers of the religion who misinterpreted their teacher's message and conducted the violence. Muhammed himself led the armies against people of other lands.

Tabari VII:133/Ishaq:387 “When Muhammad saw Hamzah he said, ‘If Allah gives me victory over the Quraysh at any time, I shall mutilate thirty of their men!’ When the Muslims saw the rage of the Prophet they said, ‘By Allah, if we are victorious over them, we shall mutilate them in a way which no Arab has ever mutilated anybody.”
 
Upvote 0
B

Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win

Guest
Proud Hindu said:
Forgetting the issue of sexuality (which IMO is irrelevant), how do you defend the violence that Muhammed brought to the world.

And unlike Christianity, it was not just the followers of the religion who misinterpreted their teacher's message and conducted the violence. Muhammed himself led the armies against people of other lands.

Tabari VII:133/Ishaq:387 “When Muhammad saw Hamzah he said, ‘If Allah gives me victory over the Quraysh at any time, I shall mutilate thirty of their men!’ When the Muslims saw the rage of the Prophet they said, ‘By Allah, if we are victorious over them, we shall mutilate them in a way which no Arab has ever mutilated anybody.”

Invading someone else's country(India) without being prompted and destroying his property(temples) without his permission is punishable under Indian Penal Code Law.
 
Upvote 0
B

Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win

Guest
Proud Hindu said:
Forgetting the issue of sexuality (which IMO is irrelevant), how do you defend the violence that Muhammed brought to the world.

And unlike Christianity, it was not just the followers of the religion who misinterpreted their teacher's message and conducted the violence. Muhammed himself led the armies against people of other lands.

Tabari VII:133/Ishaq:387 “When Muhammad saw Hamzah he said, ‘If Allah gives me victory over the Quraysh at any time, I shall mutilate thirty of their men!’ When the Muslims saw the rage of the Prophet they said, ‘By Allah, if we are victorious over them, we shall mutilate them in a way which no Arab has ever mutilated anybody.”
Question to Muslims:
Should be understood in a literal meaning for what is said there, or is there a hidden meaning behind this? If there is a hidden meaning for this verse, why can't there be an hidden meanings for idol destruction verses?
If there is no hidden meaning, then it proves what we hear on news and see on websites how people are mutilated and beheaded. If I have to believe it and at the same time consider they are revealed by God, i would feel scared and I would be very embarrased to laugh at an idol worshipper for his ignorance. Because, he may be ignorant, but i will be a psycopathic criminal.
 
Upvote 0
B

Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win

Guest
Bookofknowledge said:
If what you are saying is true, then this world would not have had any peace treaty.
If what I am saying is true, this world would not have had a war in the first place!
Which is better? No war? Or Peace Treaty?

Prophet Muhammad (SAW) free the prisoner of war, the penalty set for them was those who know how to read and write (teach the new muslims).

He seems like a Chief of ARMY who sometimes does some noble acts like freeing the Prisoner of War. He don't seem like any PROPHET.


Please read some history when you come outside of speak to the world.

Now you have cleared us about how Mohammed made peace treaties and freed prisoner's of war.

Are these the highest acts of a Prophet?
 
Upvote 0
B

Bevlina

Guest
These are the attributes of a Prophet.


Abbreviations Used: "CT" refers to the beliefs of most conservative Jewish and Christian theologians; "LT" refers to the interpretation of most religious liberals.


This section consists of 5 books.

Prophets were regarded as direct spokesmen for God. They were seen to speak the words of God to the people of Israel. Their main role was to predict future events, and to call upon the public to repent and return to the true faith. The term "major" in this context means that the prophet's message was preserved in a lengthy book and covered a wider variety of subjects than did the minor prophets. There were of course dozens or perhaps hundreds of prophets whose stories were never recorded.
topbul1d.gif
[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Isaiah: Isaiah was a prophet and a court preacher in Jerusalem. He predicted a future disaster for the Southern Kingdom of Judah because of their many sins. The writer(s) of this book cover many themes: fate of foreign nations, Israel's reliance on God instead of alliances with other nations, the special significance of Jerusalem, the establishment of the rule of justice and righteousness, the eventual restoration of Israel, the expansion of God's justice to other nations, a new age of prosperity, etc. Finally, he discussed the future coming of the "servant of the Lord", who would bring an era of great peace and happiness to the people of Israel. [/font]
topbul2d.gif
[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]CT The book was written by Isaiah about 740 BCE. The servant of the Lord refers primarily to Jesus Christ. Isaiah contains many prophecies that will not be fulfilled until the second coming of Christ and the establishment of his kingdom.[/font]
topbul2d.gif
[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]LT Writing of the book extends over a period of 200 or more years. Chapters 1 to 39 were written about 700 to 750 BCE, at the time of Isaiah. They relate to the Syro-Ephraimitic War (circa 733 BCE) and the invasion of Judah by the Assyrian army in 701 BCE. Chapters 40 to 55 were composed in the 6th century, probably by an unknown Jewish exile in Babalonia, often referred to as 2nd Isaiah. They were perhaps written during the reign of the last Babylonian ruler, Nabonidus (about 555 to 539 BCE). Chapters 56 to 66 are identified as the product of a third author 3rd Isaiah who might have composed them circa 540 to 500 BCE. The final editing of the book might have been as late as 200 BCE. The Christian churches have traditionally taken isolated verses from the book of Isaiah and interpreted them as predicting events associated with Jesus' lifetime, execution and second coming. In reality, they relate to Israel's future as seen from the 6th century BCE.

[/font]
topbul1d.gif
[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Jeremiah: Jeremiah was a priest who lived in the city of Anathoth, just north of Jerusalem. He was called the "weeping prophet" because of his dire predictions of the fate of Jerusalem, the Southern Kingdom of Judah and other nations. His ministry data from 626 to 586 BCE. He was persecuted by the religious leaders, and faced a great deal of hostility and resistance, including an attempted execution. He included a description of the attack on Jerusalem by the Babylonians, and Israel's exile in 586 BCE. [/font]
topbul2d.gif
[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]CT: The book was written by Jeremiah during the time of his ministry.[/font]
topbul2d.gif
[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]LT: Chapters 1 to 25:14 were written by Jeremiah over a 20 year period, starting in 626 BCE. Chapters 26 to 45 were authored by his friend Baruch after Jeremiah's death in Egypt. Chapters 46 to 51, plus the remainder of Chapter 25 were written by unknown author(s), primarily during the interval 550 to 500 BCE. The summary found in chapter 52 was added later by an unknown editor.[/font]
topbul1d.gif
[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Lamentations: This was written shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem by the invading Babylonian armies. It describes the horrendous siege of the city, the reduction of its occupants to starvation and cannibalism. The author(s) attributes the cause of the disaster to sinful behavior by the people of Israel. [/font]
topbul2d.gif
[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]CT The book was written by Jeremiah circa 586 BCE.[/font]
topbul2d.gif
[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]LT The book was written by one or more anonymous survivors in the years following the destruction of Jerusalem.[/font]
topbul1d.gif
[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Ezekiel: He was a prophet from the Southern Kingdom of Judah whose ministry lasted from about 593 to 570 BCE. He associated freely with the people and was often referred to as a "son of man". He may have been a disciple of Jeremiah, and seems to have been influenced by the older prophet's teaching. Chapters 1 to 24 describe his prophecies of judgment on Judah. The rest of the book deals with events after the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BCE, and includes prophecies of doom on the surrounding countries and on the eventual restoration of Israel. The book concludes with a description of a new temple for Jerusalem. Inclusion of this book in the Hebrew canon was only achieved with great difficulty. Rabbis were concerned, particularly with chapters 40 to 48. They contradict material found elsewhere in the scriptures. (1) For example Ezekiel 46:6 directly contradicts Numbers 28:11. [/font]
topbul2d.gif
[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]CT The book was written by Ezekiel near the end of his ministry, circa 570 BCE when he was living in exile in Babylonia.[/font]
topbul2d.gif
[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]LT Opinion is divided on the authorship and date of this book. Some theologians believe that Ezekiel spent his entire ministry in Palestine, and that much of the material in the book was inserted by unknown editors long after his death, perhaps about 300 BCE.[/font]
topbul1d.gif
[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Daniel: In 605 BCE, when Daniel was a teenager and a member of the Jewish royalty or nobility, he was captured and taken into captivity by the Babylonian army. He held a senior position in King Nebuchadnezzar's court which lasted the entire life of the Babylonian empire. He interpreted the dreams etc of kings and interpreted his own visions as predictors of the future. This book is one of the most important books of the entire Bible to conservative Christians because most believe that some of the book's extensive prophecy has yet to come to fruition. [/font]
topbul2d.gif
[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]CT: The book was written by Daniel himself, in the 5th century BCE.[/font]

Liberals, have a different comprehension I believe.
 
Upvote 0

ibn_leroy

Regular Member
Dec 4, 2004
272
6
43
Atlanta
✟22,942.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Single
Proud Hindu, let me start by saying someone (I'm assuming) who has never studied the science of hadith should not be citing the works of at Tabari and ibn Ishaq. Most of the sayings found in them are of weak transmission at best, fabricated at worst; that includes the saying you posted. For beginners (and this is for everyone on the forum), I recommend the book al Lu'lu' wal Marjan, which is a collection of sayings that are common to the two Sahihs (Bukhari and Muslim); this book only contains 100% bona fide sayings of the Prophet (salallahu 'alayhi wa salam) and his Companions (radi Allahu 'anhum). You can't go wrong citing it.

Now, to the issue of violence. Unfortunately, violence is an immutable part of the human experience, and will remain so as long as we have conflicting values and interests. However, all of us are the beneficiaries of the violence of our ancestors; whether we like it or not, it has in many instances served as a progressive force. For example, I'm an African American, and the freedom I enjoy today is a consequence of a civil war. How many Confederate soldiers were killed for me to enjoy this status, and would it be morally consistent for me to censure the violence perpetrated by Union soldiers while at the same time enjoying the fruits of that violence?

When pronouncing a value judgment on a particular act of violence, one should be careful to consider the reasons for it, the consequences of it, and what would have been at stake if it was not acted out. Violence never occurs per se; rather it always has a context.

With that said, the Prophet (salallahu 'alayhi wa salam) led a total of 19 battles in his lifetime. The conflict with the Quraysh started in 2 AH, there was a two year armistice from 6-8 AH, which ended when it was violated by the Quraysh. Subsequently, Makkah was taken nonviolently. The Prophet died in 10 AH. So we have 19 battles over the course of five years (2-5, 8 AH). That's approximately 3.8 battles a year, all of which were on a small scale. Not much when compared to other historic conflicts of antiquity. Most tribes which became Muslim did so during the two year armistice, which is what brought the Muslims to critical mass. So, this image of some uber military leader who brought mayhem and massive destruction to Arabia is really just a caricature.

Quickly, because I'm tired of sitting in front of the computer, I'll touch upon some of the antecedents to the full blown Muslim v. Quraysh conflict. For over a decade prior, Muslims were severly persecuted. They were tortured, murdered, and exiled. When fleeing to Medina for asylum, they were forced to abandon their property, which was plundered by the Quraysh. After being in Medina for a year, and increasing their numbers with the conversion of the tribes of Aws and Khazraj, they were given permission to fight. After this, they began to raid Quraysh caravans carrying their property which had been plundered (the Quraysh annually sent caravans north to Syria). It was an episode like this that led to the battle of Badr, and it was Badr that marked all out warfare between them. That's an extremely summarized explanation, but like I said, I'm tired. The details don't matter anyway, I just wanted to provide an overall picture of the climate.
 
Upvote 0

Montalban

Well-Known Member
Jan 20, 2004
35,424
1,509
58
Sydney, NSW
✟42,787.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
ibn_leroy said:
You didn't answer any of my questions, nevertheless, I'll try to break the issue down as simply as possible.
Which post? I apologise in advance for not having done so, but I have missed them completely.
ibn_leroy said:
1) The primary purpose of sex is procreation.
This is false. The primary purpose of sex is to take part in love. Else you would stop having sex the moment you're incapable of having off-spring, such as when your wife is pregnant, or too old to have kids. There are many forms of sex between a husband and wife that don't involve any issue that would lead to procreation, but take part in an environment of love.
ibn_leroy said:
2) People are capable of functioning as sexual beings relatively early in life.
Indeed, we physically mature far earlier than mentally. Here you are going down the logical fallacy of 'capacity' for sex. We'll see why it's illogical as we progress.
ibn_leroy said:
A. Sexual capacity occurs naturally, the timing of which can vary drastically from person to person.
B. Naturally, this is objective and absolute
Here it is then 'the capacity' argument. The idea being, Aisha had the capacity for sex, therefore she was 'ready' for sex.
ibn_leroy said:
3) Throughout history, the age-appropriateness of sexual activity was understood in light of this natural, absolute standard.
False. A child of any age has the capacity for sex; being capable of providing a male or female with oral sex, however his/her ability to do so does not equate with the right of the adult male to do so. This is a universal taboo. The 'capacity' to have sex is thus a fallacy. I'll give more examples a little later.
ibn_leroy said:
A. Only within the last two-hundred years or so (give or take a few decades; I'm referring to post-industrial modernity) did the delay of sexual activity become normative.
False again, refer above to the issue of oral sex. The ability to gratify does not mean that sex is allowed.
ibn_leroy said:
B. This relatively new (i.e., in the human experience) delay of sexual activity gradually normalized for reasons that fall outside of the natural occurrence of an individual's capacity for sex.
Regardless of the illogical argument re: 'capacity' as shown above, the 'relativeness' of this issue is itself irrelevant as
a) Muhammad was set as an example of behaviour for all time
and
b) Muslim sites continue to advise on this basis.
ibn_leroy said:
Now, these points are undebatable.
Really?
ibn_leroy said:
What I'm trying to urge you to reflect on is points 3A and 3B; especially 3B. Why did the delay of sexual activity become normative, and why did sex prior to the newly established norm become taboo; both of these in spite of physiological reality?
You've yet to demonstrate why you think this is so.
ibn_leroy said:
You asked me is what the Prophet did absolutely wrong. This is an absurd question, because it's fallacious to make ABSOLUTE value judgments according to a RELATIVE standard.
More examples
It is not a relative standard, as shown, there is and always has been a widespread ban against having sex with a partner, simply based on the capacity of that partner to provide sexual gratification. There are many other parallels that are taboo too. Sex with a corpse is one of 'capacity (in that the 'parnter' can provide sex) and is equally taboo. As is with anyone in a similar state, such as someone stupefied, grossly mentally deficient, or comatose. Likewise sex with an animal is taboo. The animal has the 'capacity' for sex, but the behaviour is taboo. So why is there a difference in the age of consent? The issue revolves around societies understanding of the capacity for reciprocation in the issue of 'love', rather than mere procreation/sexual gratification. This is why your capacity argument is false, begun as it was from the false premise that sex is solely about procreation.
Sex is about love. Sexual love can only be real if it is equally reciprocated.
ibn_leroy said:
I'll give a similar example: It's objectively, naturally, absolutely, positively a fact that people of different races can have children together. However, for a time interracial relationships were taboo. Now, from where was this taboo derived? To say, "from the absolute immorality of it", is ludicrous; clearly, the taboo is only relevant to a particular context, with particular assumptions, particular definitions, and particular attitudes concerning "race".
What you are doing here is trying to prove 'a' by showing the existence of 'b'.
Next you can argue that murder is justifiable because it is 'relative' to time (honour killings, revenge killings etc have been equally acceptable in some cultures in some eras). In fact you're projecting the thin edge of the wedge here to a whole lot of illogical arguments that lead to the total relativisation of all morals. You can point to any immoral act, show where it is accepted somewhere else in the world, and thus claim it is 'relative'.
So much for the wisdom of Al-lah that he would allow for morals to be not for all time, but to be fit into culture and time .
ibn_leroy said:
The same holds true to the context, assumptions, definitions, and attitudes concerning "childhood".
This is true. But same with many other things can be disagreed with. The mere fact that there is disagreement does not equate to a free-for-all.
ibn_leroy said:
You're asking if it's wrong, I'm asking is it wrong according to what?
According to morality. A girl, who doesn't have the capacity to make a judgment for herself on whom she would like to have relationships with, (not just 'sex'), is given away by her father for political motives. If anyone else did it, it would still be wrong.
ibn_leroy said:
Part F of your original post is plain garbage in relation to this discussion, and I'll tell you why. I personally know a ten-year old mother (who's a cousin of mine). You can bet your bottom dollar that I was outraged at the news of her pregnancy and the knowledge that she was sexually active. She has most definitely been robbed of her childhood.
Then you have just shown a capacity to apply a moral judgement of absolute value to a situation that you make relative to Muhammad.
ibn_leroy said:
However, in ancient times this would not have been a problem because what we conceive of and experience as "childhood" was nonexistent - "childhood" in ancient times was very much short-lived.
Child labour laws did not make child labour immoral, only illegal. It was immoral before and still is. The expression of society may have changed, but the issue of morality is still one of absolutes.
Did not Muhammad end the killing of unwanted baby girls. Did he do so because it was immoral? If it was immoral, then logically you've undercut your own argument, because it was immoral, even when culturally accepted. If it wasn't immoral, why did Muhammad forbid it. Or, are you going to go to the concept that it's only immoral when it's illegal?
ibn_leroy said:
Due to the primitive status of social factors like education and occupation, it wasn't long before what we would consider "children" were actually adult members in their respective communities. There was no such thing as school (as we know it), no youth culture, no generation gaps, or any other institutions or experiences which modern zeitgeist has come to identify as peculiar to certain age groups. So, all of the potential harm you cited is in light of our zeitgeist; whereas, say, over one thousand years ago the "child" of today would have been an independent, responsible adult. Again, and please answer this time, WHAT INTELLIGENT, ABSOLUTE REASON IS THERE FOR ANCIENT PEOPLES TO HAVE CONSIDERED SEXUAL ACTIVITY OF CAPABLE INDIVIDUALS AS SOCIALLY UNACCEPTABLE?
What an interesting question. Perhaps 'god' might have been able to tell Mohamed this! What intelligent reason? God should have known what was moral/
ibn_leroy said:
I'll get to the issue of violence later, God willing. But yes, you utterly missed the point.
I think the fact that you argue against yourself here throughout your post is quite interesting. You ask of a man, who had 'revlations' from an all-powerful god, how he could possibly know what was right (in an absolute sense).
This is the bane of your belief in Al-lah. Your god who revealed laws of behaviour for all time some how made laws that are shaped by the needs of Muhammed. Funny that!
 
Upvote 0

markie

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2004
944
11
kansas
✟1,157.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Muslim said:
What are you getting at?
I think what born to lose live to win meant was HE DIDN'T PROPHECY. A prophet speaks for God whether he foretells the future or not and Mohammed didn't. Fist you rewrite the bible, now you're going to rewrite the history books. You all sure did have a lot of prophets. It says that since Alexander the great was a homosexual the prophet Alexander the great was probably Cyrus the great.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophets_of_Islam
Although only 25 prophets are mentioned by name in the Qur'an, a Hadith mentions that there were 124,000 of them in total throughout history, and the Qur'an says that God has sent a prophet to every people.In general, Muslims regard the stories of the Qur'an as historical. Modern secular historians generally take the skeptical view that no religious story, whether from the Qur'an or Bible, can be assumed to be completely accurate. Some Muslim liberals take a compromise stance by claiming that stories of the prophets are primarily illustrations of Islamic ethics, and as such their historicity is irrelevant.



In general, Muslims regard the stories of the Qur'an as historical. Modern secular historians generally take the skeptical view that no religious story, whether from the Qur'an or Bible, can be assumed to be completely accurate. Some Muslim liberals take a compromise stance by claiming that stories of the prophets are primarily illustrations of Islamic ethics, and as such their historicity is irrelevant.
 
Upvote 0

markie

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2004
944
11
kansas
✟1,157.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Muslim said:
Once again someone comes in with this argument. We are tired of having to respond to this as we've constantly proven why the prophet Muhammad married Aisha was justified. But Christians today do not care, they use this at the forefront of their arguments and attacks against Islam. The point of my post was to see if anyone else recognized the prophetic attributes in the prophet Muhammad. I did not ask for a discussion on the correct age for girls to get married.
I think this is relevant to the discussion, was he a profit or a pervert, or both? You all say that David didn't commit adultery but that sounds kind of perverted to me. Somebody on an Islamic message board suggested that women matured at a younger age over there but even so that is young. If he was 53 years old that's perverted.
 
Upvote 0

markie

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2004
944
11
kansas
✟1,157.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Arthra said:
Montalban:

Another aspect i find rather odd about this interest in the desparate ages of Aisha and Prophet Muhammad is that in the Bible it's pretty clear that the advanced age of Abraham was around eighty five or so when He married Hagar. Any quess how old Hagar was? I'd speculate that she was a young woman anywhere between twelve and twenty years old and yet i have yet to read one article critical of that age desparity between Abraham and Hagar.

Another case also can be made that according to tradition Joseph was a good deal older than Mary who most believe was in her early teens... we really don't know for sure but it wasn't unusual for women to start their families at very early ages in those times.

So with these desparaties in age for Abraham and Hagar and Joseph and Mary, how is it that an arranged marriage between Prophet Muhammad and Aisha receives so much attention from some people?

Another point about this that i find really distasteful even mentioning here on a public forum... is that whose business is it to know when a marriage is consummated anyway?

and what gives people the gall to be critical of that when our marriages in most Western countries are in so much trouble today...

I have some more to share on this but will let it pass for now...

- Art
Why woulld you speculate that Hagar was in her teens or early 20s? And about Mary's age? Just wondering.
 
Upvote 0

markie

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2004
944
11
kansas
✟1,157.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Muslim said:
Your right, Mary is supposed to have married Joseph at the age of 12. But Christians turn a blind eye to these writtings in their religion and instead attack the prophet Muhammad for doing something which was totally normal for his time. No one alive during his time thought it was child molestation or that he was taking advantage of her in anyway.
Where is that? Chapter and verse. If it's not in the bible I wonder why she is supposed to be 12 years and if they have a right to suppose it. Maybe they didn't read the last verses of Revelation about taking from or adding to the words of this prophecy. That just seems kind of young.
 
Upvote 0

markie

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2004
944
11
kansas
✟1,157.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Arthra said:
Let me say that as a Baha'i, I am opposed to war and believe Jihad or Holy War was abrogated by Baha'ullah. But lets consider history:

Scott wrote:

"Muslim's defend Mohammed's violence by saying that it was in self defence. Where's the self defence in his first 20 or so years? He started all the wars because the "infidels" criticised him. The same thing is happening today."

My comment:

If you examine the early history of Islam before the Prophet moved to Medina you will find ample evidence of persecution of Moslems by the Pagans of Mecca ...this was a one sided persecution until the Moslems regrouped and began defending themselves in Medina. It was the Pagans who attempted to eradicate the Moslems ...so Muslim was correct in my view in explaining this as self defence.

In time I believe the concept of Jihad was misused and there were more aggressive ventures into various territories but this was a misuse of the concept of Jihad.

We could also focus on the brutality and massacre of people after Christianity became the State Religion of the Roman Empire and what happened to people if they didn't convert to the True Church in those days on up to the crusades against the Cathars and Albigenses

Proud Hindu wrote:

"If Muhammed was so great, why did he kill so many people?... let me guess, to save them from the all compassionate Allah?..."

It seems to me that Lord Rama engaged in battle and slew his share of "demons" but he is also regarded as pious and worthy of worship.

Moses and Joshua were involved in campaigns and later when the children of Israel campaigned against the Philistines you have battles and yet how many say that because Moses slew the Egyptian taskmaster he could not therefore have been a Prophet?

So it seems to be this argument lacks much merit.

- Art
Another point about this that I find really distasteful even mentioning here on a public forum... is that whose business is it to know when a marriage is consummated anyway?
We are talking about prophetic attributes, whether Mohammed had them or not. Moses slew the Egyptians, David committed adultery and other prophets did what they did. There has only been one perfect man of unblemished character, but they think all their profits were oof unblemished character. They admit that Mohammed was a sinner but they say all their prophets were of unblemished character so how can he be a prophet? I wonder what they think unblemished character is.
 
Upvote 0
B

Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win

Guest
ibn_leroy said:
Proud Hindu, let me start by saying someone (I'm assuming) who has never studied the science of hadith should not be citing the works of at Tabari and ibn Ishaq. Most of the sayings found in them are of weak transmission at best, fabricated at worst; that includes the saying you posted. For beginners (and this is for everyone on the forum), I recommend the book al Lu'lu' wal Marjan, which is a collection of sayings that are common to the two Sahihs (Bukhari and Muslim); this book only contains 100% bona fide sayings of the Prophet (salallahu 'alayhi wa salam) and his Companions (radi Allahu 'anhum). You can't go wrong citing it.

Now, to the issue of violence. Unfortunately, violence is an immutable part of the human experience, and will remain so as long as we have conflicting values and interests. However, all of us are the beneficiaries of the violence of our ancestors; whether we like it or not, it has in many instances served as a progressive force. For example, I'm an African American, and the freedom I enjoy today is a consequence of a civil war. How many Confederate soldiers were killed for me to enjoy this status, and would it be morally consistent for me to censure the violence perpetrated by Union soldiers while at the same time enjoying the fruits of that violence?

When pronouncing a value judgment on a particular act of violence, one should be careful to consider the reasons for it, the consequences of it, and what would have been at stake if it was not acted out. Violence never occurs per se; rather it always has a context.

With that said, the Prophet (salallahu 'alayhi wa salam) led a total of 19 battles in his lifetime. The conflict with the Quraysh started in 2 AH, there was a two year armistice from 6-8 AH, which ended when it was violated by the Quraysh. Subsequently, Makkah was taken nonviolently. The Prophet died in 10 AH. So we have 19 battles over the course of five years (2-5, 8 AH). That's approximately 3.8 battles a year, all of which were on a small scale. Not much when compared to other historic conflicts of antiquity. Most tribes which became Muslim did so during the two year armistice, which is what brought the Muslims to critical mass. So, this image of some uber military leader who brought mayhem and massive destruction to Arabia is really just a caricature.

Quickly, because I'm tired of sitting in front of the computer, I'll touch upon some of the antecedents to the full blown Muslim v. Quraysh conflict. For over a decade prior, Muslims were severly persecuted. They were tortured, murdered, and exiled. When fleeing to Medina for asylum, they were forced to abandon their property, which was plundered by the Quraysh. After being in Medina for a year, and increasing their numbers with the conversion of the tribes of Aws and Khazraj, they were given permission to fight. After this, they began to raid Quraysh caravans carrying their property which had been plundered (the Quraysh annually sent caravans north to Syria). It was an episode like this that led to the battle of Badr, and it was Badr that marked all out warfare between them. That's an extremely summarized explanation, but like I said, I'm tired. The details don't matter anyway, I just wanted to provide an overall picture of the climate.

What is your opinion on people who have never tried to understand Hinduism besmirch their monkey Gods and eagle Gods etc. etc.
Muslims, please don't act like the victims here.
We victims are free now and be ready accept some of your own medicine.
 
Upvote 0

ibn_leroy

Regular Member
Dec 4, 2004
272
6
43
Atlanta
✟22,942.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Single
Montalban said:
This is false. The primary purpose of sex is to take part in love.
Actually, that's false. The concept of love, or more precisely romance, is not prevalent in many cultures. But, if you've never studied other cultures it figures you'd believe that. Hey, what does it matter, they're all savages anyway, right? White man's burden indeed . . .

Montalban said:
Here it is then 'the capacity' argument. The idea being, Aisha had the capacity for sex, therefore she was 'ready' for sex.
Yes, she did have 'the capacity.' But since there seems to be some confusion on your part let me spell it out explicitly - she had the capacity to bear children.

Montalban said:
False. A child of any age has the capacity for sex
Wrong. This is a straw man. You knew very well (or should have known) that when talking about sexual capacity, I was speaking in biological terms about one's ability to reproduce.

Montalban said:
False again, refer above to the issue of oral sex. The ability to gratify does not mean that sex is allowed.
Straw man, straw man, straw man. I simply wasn't talking about sexual gratification, and you know it.

Montalban said:
It is not a relative standard, as shown, there is and always has been a widespread ban against having sex with a partner, simply based on the capacity of that partner to provide sexual gratification.
Str-str-str-straw man . . .

Montalban said:
According to morality. A girl, who doesn't have the capacity to make a judgment for herself on whom she would like to have relationships with, (not just 'sex'), is given away by her father for political motives. If anyone else did it, it would still be wrong..
According to morality? Right, and so is mongrolization^_^ . Arranged marriages are absolutely wrong? PLEASE. Civilize those savages why don't you! By the way, their marriage had nothing to do with politics.

Montalban said:
Child labour laws did not make child labour immoral, only illegal. It was immoral before and still is. The expression of society may have changed, but the issue of morality is still one of absolutes.
What does child labor have to do with anything? Like I said in my first post, you're oblivious to your own frame of reference. What will it take for you to realize, "CHILDHOOD" IS RELATIVE! (Oh yes, it is). In reality, there's no such thing as a "legal age" for adulthood. Actual childhood as defined by biology/physiology is absolute. However, again, "CHILDHOOD" AS DEFINED BY PYSCHOLOGICAL AND PRACTICAL MATURITY IS RELATIVE!. I think I'll say that again: "CHILDHOOD" AS DEFINED BY PSYCHOLOGICAL AND PRACTICAL MATURITY IS RELATIVE!

One more time . . . just kidding. Now, let's break this down with an example, shall we? My grandmother was married at 14, and had all her children before she was 20. So, we have two questions to answer here according to the two absolute and relative definitions of childhood. First, was she a child in the biological sense? Obviously not, she bore children. As for sexual gratification, well, you'd have to ask my grandfather^_^ . Second, was she a child in the psychological/emotional/practical/etc. sense? Again, the answer is no; there wasn't a "childish" bone in her body. I mean, not one. But can the same be said for the 8th or 9th grader wearing glitter lipgloss? Of course not. But why is that, Montalban? Could psychological/practical maturity, and thus, "childhood", be :idea: relative? Yes, sir, it sure can. So don't try me with this, "sleeping with a 'child' is absolutely wrong" garbage, when the 'child' in question is relative.

To wrap it up, human beings do have the capacity (;) ) to function as independent, responsible, and yes, mature wives, mothers, husbands, and fathers at very young ages. There's simply no logical way to argue against that, and there's surely no way to debate biological facts. The only way your point will hold is if you argue that psychological and practical maturity is determined by an absolute standard. But there's no way you can believe something that far fetched.
 
Upvote 0