• sunzu@kbin.run
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      71
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      According to traditional sources, Aisha was six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad,[94][95][96][97] with the marriage being consummated when she reached the age of nine or ten years old whilst she still played with dolls.[98][b] In the commentary of the Sahih Bukhari it is written that, “Playing with dolls is forbidden in Islam, but it was allowed for Aisha at that time, as she did not yet reach the age of puberty.”[106] Beginning in the early twentieth century, Christian polemicists and orientalists attacked what they deemed to be Muhammad’s deviant sexuality, for having married an underage[c] girl; acute condemnations came from the likes of Harvey Newcomb and David Samuel Margoliouth while others were mild, choosing to explain how the “heat of tropics” made “girls of Arabia” mature at an early age.[108][114] While most Muslims defended the traditionally accepted age of Aisha with vigor emphasizing on cultural relativism, the political dimensions of the marriage, Aisha’s “exceptional qualities” etc., some — Abbas Mahmoud al-Aqqad in Egypt and others[d] — chose to re-calculate the age and fix it at late adolescence as a tool of social reform in their homelands or even, mere pandering to different audiences.[108][115][e]

      In the late-twentieth century and early twenty-first century, opponents of Islam have used Aisha’s age to accuse Muhammad of pedophilia, as well as explain a reported higher prevalence of child marriage in Muslim societies.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Muhammad

      Don’t get me started on the current Muslim practices…

      Before you start spazzing… this aint Islam specific as we can see Catholic church is notorious pedo org too.

      With that being said, I am sorry bad facts hurts your feelz dear.

      • daniyeg@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        19
        ·
        5 months ago

        from your comment it seems like you think they deserved to die, and immediately copy pasted your wall of text when someone accused you of racism. not a good look i must say.

        • sunzu@kbin.run
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          15
          ·
          5 months ago

          I was mocking the religious practice to honor a pedophile that resulted in people dying. I was accused of being wrong, I provided citation to support my position.

          Nice try tho :)

        • geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          20
          ·
          5 months ago

          When people start dropping Anti Semitic comments everyone gets up in arms. Blatant Islamophobia gets unequivocal praise.

          A true Reddit moment.

      • geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        22
        ·
        5 months ago

        The pelgrimage to Mekka where Muslims worship uuuuuhhhhh…

        Mohammed! Their God!

        Which uhhhh

        frantically pastes generic poorly researched Wikipedia article full of contradictions

        Pedophile!

        Don’t look up the history of anyone from before the 20th century when these supposed Christians suddenly reached enlightenment. The inclusion of Christians is especially weird since they always pushed for younger ages of marriage than Muslims in the middle ages. Back then the Muslims were supposedly prudes.

        Wonder why everyone didn’t wait until they were 35 to get married in a time where the average life expectancy was 31 years.

        • el_abuelo@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          Isn’t the average life expectancy caused by infant death? Anyone living through pubity probably had a good chance of living to 70.

              • geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                5 months ago

                The average age going up appears to directly correlate with the heightening of the definition of adulthood.

                If humans could live to 1000 we would call a 600 year old dating a 40 year old a pedo

                • el_abuelo@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  In 1885 the legal age of consent in the UK was raised to 16. The average life expectancy of adults had barely changed.

                  So while this disproves your correlation theory, it’s also important to remind the reader that correlation is not the same as causation. Society, the role of government, the rule of law and its encroachment on personal choice changed hugely from the 13th Century and 17th Century - I would therefore claim that society would not have been accepting of paedophilia in the 13th Century despite the lack of law.

                  Sexual desire of prepubescent children has, as far as I know, never been considered the norm.

                  • geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    5 months ago

                    According to random internet person you are incorrect. Though I have not fact checked this much your comment sounds extremely improbable.

                    https://genealogy.stackexchange.com/questions/1595/what-is-the-earliest-age-a-boy-in-england-could-get-married-in-the-1800s

                    'You will find a lot of confusion in the discussion of this legislation on the web. My understanding is that, while they did introduce an element of parental involvement in approving a marriage, the Acts left the accepted minimum ages where they were in traditional canon (that is church) law. So it was possible for a girl to marry at 12 and a boy at 14. Even if the parents disagreed with the decision, there were perfectly legal ways in which the marriage could take place.

                    And we are still all teaching teenage “kids” about sexuality and “experimenting” is totally fine. Do the sex thing “kids”! As long as they do it with other “kids”…

                    As for the rest of the Euro moral high grounding I don’t know which history books you have been reading but marrying young and the monarchy was a rather popular combo. Plenty of kings with brides even younger than 9.

                    Even now our leading Elites enjoy private Epstein island visits filled with girls not considered legal age.

        • nonailsleft@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          5 months ago

          If my life expectancy drops I don’t think it’s going to suddenlyb make me stick my dong into a 9 year old

          • geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Presentism is the fallacy you are looking for.

            Humans have even changed their bodies since the middle ages. Menstrual periods are later. Maturity goes slower. People don’t die in 30 years.

            Children having their parents die when they are 10 and get married at 20. Or children getting married at 10 and having their parents die at 20. All great choices which we don’t have to make and can moral high ground about.

            I could ask why you think dating an 18 year old is fine but a 17 year old is not. Because modern research suggests the brain only finishes development at 25. But of course our sense of “morals” is solely based on arbitrary laws in < present time > in < present location >.

            • nonailsleft@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              17
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              Ah, the Great Cascade of excusing pedophilia

              It didn’t happen

              Her age was ‘unclear’

              Her 9-year-old body was ‘ready for it’ <-- You are here

              He had to plow her, as her parents could die any day <-- Moving here

              Why would there be a problem with a 50-year old ‘dating’ a 9-year old <-- Nice to see that thrown in

              She loved him

              She was begging for it

              Furthermore, your excuses just confirm Sunzu’s allegation that ‘modern’ Muslims have not ‘moved on’ from these practices - they use them to excuse legalizing and enabling pedophilia today. Muhammad set the bar for them. And he set it very, very low.

              • geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                You striped away points never mentioned and did not answer the question about the age of 25.

                100 years ago the age of consent in Delaware was 7 years old. Your argument has been a non issue for the entire history of humanity until last 100 year until your magic universal definition of a chil turning adult at 18 took place.

                And let’s not forget the age of consent being 12 in many American places up to recently.

                But nonetheless nobody takes this dumb moral highgrounding serious as the secular west is currently committing a Genocide on mostly children in a concentration camp in Gaza. But those are of course not children they are “terrorists” who are allowed to be killed.

            • Anamnesis@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              Muslims do not generally believe in cultural or moral relativism. Allah is the one true God, his moral teachings are objectively correct. Why offer them a way out that they themselves aren’t able to coherently accept?

              Besides, cultural relativism is nonsense. If someone tells me it’s okay to molest children, their perspective is not “just as valid” as mine. They’re a monster.

              Yes, this means a lot of people in the past, and today, are monsters. That’s extremely plausible.

              • sunzu@kbin.run
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                Not sure why in 2024 we still making excuses for pedohiles…

                Christian clergy notorious pedos, nothing is done…

                Other cultures bending out of shape to explain away their own pedophiles as this thread shows…

                I am assume these are adult people and likely men. Are they pathetic or are they just pushing pedophilia?

              • geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                5 months ago

                Society committing Genocide on children and calling them terrorists suddenly are very worried about when a girl of menstrual age willingly gets married.

                • sunzu@kbin.run
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  Bro this melt down… stop.

                  1. Calling 10yo a girl mestrual age is really stretching what that means. Stop digging your own hole. You really need to consider what you are really saying here. The optics are beyond bad. I hope you really don’t think that.

                  2. This has nothing to with the Israel’s ethnic cleansing campaign in Gaza. Pretty sure most people can agree that Mohammed was a pedo and Israel is a committing war crimes.

                  Frankly you mixing the two together is not appreciated.

                  • geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    5 months ago

                    Who is having a meltdown, you?

                    If she had a menstruation she was of menstrual age. And if she then willingly got married that’s her own decision.

                    You were bringing up moral “evolution”.

                    Simply pointing out that a society electing leaders knowing they will commit Genocide on little babies does not appear morally evolved really hits a nerve.

                    Would you suggest I refer to all Americans as “baby murderers”?

        • claudiop@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          the history of anyone before the 20th century

          Does it count when talking about prophets, deities, gods and such? Weren’t they meant to be perfect?

          I don’t recall the possibility of god and his messangers being imperfect, in any century.

          We humans, we are flawed and have societies whose notions are not static because we evolve. God can’t afford the excuse of “errors of the past, I evolved”

          • geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            You are ascribing evolution to a society of warmongers committing Genocide on children in Palestine. A society addicted more to wealth than human suffering trying to lecture people on what correct morals are.

            A society with an abundance of food where people are starving.

            I would reconsider how correct the Wests morals are.

            • claudiop@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              I didn’t even specify any religion. I just said that god, any god, by definition, can’t evolve.

              This ain’t Hercules adventures where gods are just sky humans with perks. Mainstream gods (&co) are all perfect in their “mysterious ways”.

              As such, if a prophet was into pedophilia, then either pedophilia is right (which I personally find odd… but them I’m merely human…) or that prophet wasn’t exactly the most exemplary lad.

              Whatever the case, people’s lives are worth of dignity, be it Palestinians, Israelis, South Africans or Santa. That’s not what I was arguing against at all. We can defend people while, at the same time, pointing the finger out at some bullshit they do.

              The west is also full of bullshit. So what? We can also point the finger at that. Be my guest. I never said that we were perfect.

              • geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                The discussion is so shunned in Western society that it is well understood one should always repeat your opinion in public and never question it.

                I would once again ask why teenagers having sex is regarded as totally normal as long as long as the person they are having sex with is not 18 yet.

                If teenagers truly should not be subject to sexual experiences because they are not ready then surely this would not be normal. Or is it okay if a victim performs the deed?

                • claudiop@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  That’s not the case in my western country but sure, hit that scarecrow. I personally know underage people dating 25-ish people.

                  What is frowned upon is people in completely different levels of maturity creating a tremendous imbalance, and usually abuse. DiCaprio dating teens is not a “we stand on an equal footing and love each other” kind of thing, is a “I’m famous and will use this fact to mess with teenagers”.

                  An elderly hardly has a healthy relationship with a teenager, and this is particularly true for arranged marriages.

                  This western civilization thing of your already had that in the past. We stopped doing that rather recently as we figured it creates more trouble than not. Let’s not pretend that “western” is some sort of axiom that just appeared and not the product of the evolution of some society. Just like eastern societies have such evolutions in some aspects. For example some eastern civilisations figured that clean spaces are better and so they try real hard to try to keep them that way. Of course you’re free to argue that this cleanliness is not needed so it is a purely subjective thing of these societies and not necessarily better, but sociologists night disagree.

                  As for “ok if the victim preforms the deed”, that’s irrelevant. The same criteria applies. Promoting healthier relationships promotes a healthier society. If some 14/yo teenager is obsessed with dating way older men for whatever reason, chances are people are going to judge it, legal or not, no matter the society.

                  • geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    Society had no issues with this for the past millenia. This new social construct of adulthood and finding it weird is far more recent. Mohammed’s first wife was 41 when he was 25. Age differences at the time were far more usual.

                    Granted that our culture now changes so fast that it would mean someone that grew up with Madonna and someone that grows up with Skibidi toilet would get together. The generational cultural gaps are far greater than in the past. But this is overcome when people spend time together.

                    The only real reason that people can use is that a younger person can be easier to manipulate. Which holds an element of truth but the question remains at what age we allow a person full control over their actions. Currently this is 18. Yet research suggests the brain is only fully matured at 25. So will the new age be 25?

                    The Leonardo DiCaprio example is a classic one. Most people that say they would never act similar to Dicaprio will do so once they are actually presented with the option. It is moral highgrounding purely based on never having been presented with the option.