Is it okay to have sex with a nine-year-old? Has the age of puberty changed throughout history? You know where this is going in /r/islam (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
257 ups - 0 downs = 257 votes
205 comments submitted at 01:32:51 on Oct 26, 2014 by ModestMoussorgsky
Not a great day for /r/islam.
Why can’t Islam be like Bitcoin?
needs more investors.
There are definitely islamic groups that are trying to increase membership, though.
http://andwelcometothejam.ytmnd.com/
ISIS is /r/Bitcoin
Is isis good for bitcoin? Should I buy or kill my self?
bitcoin just needs to convince ISIS that their fake currency should be a cornerstone of their real faith in order to attract more people. Think about it; Bitcoin ATMs from Casablanca to Kabul. Beautiful, right?
And then the dream of the libertarians will be fulfilled: A rampanging muslim army conquering big chunks of the middle east in order to force more people into using bitcoins so that their own capital investments in the imaginary currency will increase their bitcoin wealth dramatically.
It'd be a brilliant plan, if the god-fearing paper money-loving citizens of America weren't so willing to die in order to protect their physical wallets against the threats of the anarcho-communist agnostic-muslimists.
>Why can’t Islam be like Magic Beans?
I always forget I have this one.
As someone who has been creepin /r/islam for some time now...
None of this is anything new. You are seeing more of it because people are making a concerted effort to post it to SRD.
Speaking of which, where did all of the LGBT drama go? Oh right, david-me got banned so it stopped getting repeated on here. Yet, the drama still exists there and on many other subs that have since fallen out of favor or gone stale.
Remember when we all hated Laurelai or whatever her name was? God I've been on here for too long. I must kill myself and transcend to a higher plane of existence. It is. Its the only way.
ALL HAIL THE DARK LORD OF THE TWIN MOONS!
ALL HAIL THE DARK LORD OF THE TWIN MOONS!
It's not really a concerted effort on my part, I just saw the other post about /r/islam, went to the subreddit, and found this.
This sort of thing needs exposing and it's encouraging to see that SRD isn't being cowered into silence by the usual "Islamophobia" accusations.
Oh good, the topminds of stromfront are here.
Wait, you don't think that:
>Many times I've suspected that SJWs are the current incarnation of the US government's COINTELPRO operation.
>They've done more damage to Leftism than any Rightist attacks in recent times have accomplished.
This man clearly knows what's up and is trying to save us from the SJW and the US GOVERNMENT!
The SJWnazis are so strong that they:
>All this reddit and tumblr bullshit is relatively inconsequential in the big scheme, but they killed Occupy and I'll never forgive that. We won't get another chance like that for a very long time.
>They've almost effectively doomed the West to many more years of unregulated capitalism because they thought personal pronouns were a more important priority than accountability from the financial sector.
>First against the wall is my recommendation for the SJWs.
>Wait, you don't think that:
With the CIA having spent millions trying to overthrow Castro by smuggling salts that would make him go bald in his shoes and putting a radio in a cat funding feminism to destroy social movements would be a step down the stupid ladder.
But by the same token stormfront has discredited a lot more conspiracy theories than tumblr has, so it might be that they are a CIA front. Since even my trusty hat might be a government trickI just don't know what to think anymore. I'll just wait for the mind control rays to tell me.
>stromfront
I grew up in South Carolina where Strom Thurmond was a demigod, and this little typo has so much resonance and truth.
...This comment borders on /r/SubredditDramaDrama
Larelai is instant /r/subredditdramadrama
>Laurelai
SRD history.
ALL ANIMALS CAN SCREEAAAAMM
The entire "old enough to bleed, old enough to breed" argument makes me want to vomit.
Biotruth! Can't argue with that.
vomits
Vomit! Can't argue with vomit!
Vomit > Biotruths.
And the only way to debate the undebatable is using something undebatable.
Eg: vomit & biotruth
Menstruation doesn't necessarily indicate ovulation.
Most menstrual events in the first 2-3 years after the first event are non-ovulatory. Regular and predictable menstruation is an indicator of regular ovulation, which might take awhile.
Do you have a source on this. I'm genuinely curious. In health class it was "if you have your period you can get pregnant so don't have sex!".
Well you don't really know which periods would be ovulatory or not, so safer to assume they all are than that they aren't. But when your periods first start, they're usually irregular as all get out.
Also childbirth is extremely dangerous for those who haven't gone through puberty. Even when they have, they should wait until they are roughly 20 for their hips to be fully developed.
I had my first period at 7,became regular at 8. I sure as hell was not ready for sex. I only started to get interested in men at 12. I can't even imagine who could think menstruating children are ready for sex.
I know you are in no way advocating kiddie sex, I just needed to vent. Also, your post was very interesting, TIL.
Huh. I didn't know that. I started at 12, and I haven't missed a month ever. Most girls do report that their first few periods are "different" though, which was true for me as well. The blood was brown instead of red.
"old enough to breed" would basically justify fucking four year olds in some cases
Oh god why
And it's stupid because even fucking dog breeders know that it's better for their bitches to not be bred during the first and second heats. And even sometimes even the third heats. So fucking dog breeders can have this shit figured out for centuries, but the STEMlord internet scientists on reddit can't figure out why barely pubescent girls are not actually suited for getting married and having babies.
Oh no, they can figure it out. They just don't care because they're fucking pedophiles, so of course they don't.
Or they're teenagers who have just read the wikipedia page on nihilism and are currently in the midst of their "nothing matters morality don't real" phase. Hopefully it's that.
> They just don't care because they're fucking pedophiles,
Or totally and completely apathetic to anything that doesn't personally affect them.
More likely, in my opinion, given the prevalence of total apathy to most every other kind of social issue except the ones most likely to affect reddit's core demographic.
Like fucking children? Given how often it pops up in meta subs there are a lot of awful people on this site.
Yes, like fucking children.
Because the main demographic of reddit is not children, and as I said the core demographic tends to not care about anything that won't personally and directly affect them.
Reddit, or, How to Philosophize as a Spanner.
They're not pedophiles! They epheebiejeebiophiles! How dare you oppress male sexuality!
In this case they are Muslim apologists.
There's a difference between can't and shouldn't though.
Yes there is, and the mouthbreathers that say "old enough to bleed, old enough to breed, it's biology" don't understand it.
its all that irrelevant though? when you argue with biotruths all you're doing is making it seem is that if that it were true, that it'd be ok, as if the argument gives them a ground to stand on. don't really care what X society did, they're not living in X society, they live in mordern society and we don't condone that shit. their efforts would be more fruitful if they banded together and spent their days trying to build time machines instead of trying to convince society they should be able to fuck 12 year olds
It's just frustrating when perverts can't even understand why people think they're fucked in the head.
Muslims. Not Stemlords. Fucking Muslims.
Also phrased as, "If there's grass on the field, play ball."
I thought it was old enough to bleed, old enough to die.
Or am I confusing /r/Islam for Predator?
The Predator quote is" If it bleeds we can kill it."
So just confused then.
This will help you keep it straight
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qlicWUDf5MM
Only if the child bride committed adultery...
It's not even biologically sound, women are most fertile and most likely to have a healthy pregnancy from ages 20-25. Having the first child at a younger age (especially like 12) makes it much likely for the mother NOT to be able to have a second pregnancy.
Before we even get into psychology and morals, biology already debunks it.
EDIT: I forgot a word. I'm dumb.
I think you accidentally a word.
Oops, thanks.
Wait...I thought people only used that line as a joke?
Wouldn't that be nice!
That's your morals talking, biologically its the norm throughout the animal kingdom, and a large portion of humanity through the ages.
Is biology > than morals... That's the question here
Well how's about the new age version: "Old enough to go to the store, old enough to get bred." Suit you?
wat
That's kind of skeevy. Can't they accept that it was gross and stop harping on about it? Yes, social norms were different, which is why no one tries to justify a 50 year old man marrying a 9 year old girl as normal now. Too many people way too interested as to when a exactly girl hits puberty. How does that help their argument, that shit's still gross. Periods means ready for marriage, is that what they're going for?
I think the problem they face is that according to many religious beliefs, morals are unchanging and aren't relative to culture.
True. Both sides use the "It was a social norm back then, not anymore!" and "We cannot dilute The Quoran!" argument in a way that suits them.
I fail to see any mention of Qur'an, the hadith etc. or anybody saying marrying 9 year olds are okay in the modern world.
Also /u/zeeginganinja is a girl.
Why is her gender relevant in this matter?
No one said anything about the modern world. Trying to justify an old practice as anything other than a disgusting outdated custom is the issue here. One oft cited argument is about how morality is unchanging,regardless of social situation, as /u/lvysaur said. This can be applied to say that marrying a 9 year old was wrong, by today's standards, and hence The Qur'an had something in it that was wrong. This is where things get sketchy, about where do you draw the line between change in morality and keeping the exact wordings of the religious scripture.
We also know that at the very least Aisha agreed to the marriage, as in another hadith, she asked what would happen to a virgin who has not stated her consent. If she had not stated her consent, she wouldn't need to ask.
We also know the following about Arab culture at the time:
-Early Marriage was considered acceptable
-Not having sex with a wife was considered an insult not only to the wife but to her family
-Marriage was sometimes political, to unite tribes
Knowing all of this, we can imagine the implications of not having sexual relations. We also know that even her mother was also expecting her to have sex.
Lastly, the marriage was a commandment from God.
However, why would God command this?
We know God does not command us to do something without a reason. So let's examine the situation:
-Youth have very good memory
-Aisha had an above average memory, being able to memorize poems of hundreds of stanzas
-Spouses know the other spouse best, due to the amount of time spent with them
-Aisha was considered his favorite wife and Mohammed would spend much time with her, be it running races, or talking.
-Aisha has delivered more hadiths than anyone else of the prophet, numbering over 2000.
-Aisha became almost a religious leader, with several people asking her questions.
It should be clear. Due to the fact that she was able to be very close to Mohammed and she would outlive him by around fifty years, she would be entrusted with keeping information intact. There is literally no other better way for this to have happened, being able to tell the next generation all about Mohammed. We can now see the wisdom in this marriage.
=======================================
TL;DR: The Marriage of Aisha (as) was a one-time commandment of Allah so Islam wouldn't wouldn't have been lost after the death of prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as she would outlive him by at least 50 years. Did she consent? Yes. Was she a child? She was considered a "young adult" - Europeans(Romans) did the same thing too. Kids grew up much faster before the 20th century cultural revolution - Oliver Twain for example, worked in a sweatshop as a 9 year old and treated as a young adult(lad) throughout the novel.
Implying 9 year olds can consent.
If you think that it's okay because "kids grew up faster back then" does that mean it's okay to fuck kids who have had to grow up fast in say modern day Afghanistan or Sudan?
> Implying 9 year olds can consent.
9-year olds now obviously can't, but we can't extend that to 9-year olds hundreds of years ago without any research.
I don't think he's saying it's okay, he's just explaining the Qur'an.
Youth have good memory.
Or you know, could have just written shit down.
I think the oral passing down of epics was big back then. But yeah, marrying and having sex with a small girl because there were literally no other such "gifted and blessed" women with whom to procreate with is eyeroll inducing. Not a good enough reason to justify child rape, because, 9 year olds can't consent.
Or Allah could have commanded them to be literate.
Not like you're moving mountains here...
> Not like you're moving mountains here...
Not sure if deliberately invoking Christian theology...
More Comments - Click Here
> We also know that at the very least Aisha agreed to the marriage
She probably also would agree that the tooth fairy exists if you could ask her. Because she was NINE.
> Not having sex with a wife was considered an insult not only to the wife but to her family
Remember, fellas, you need to actually fuck the nine year old that your neighbors sold to you in marriage. It's the polite thing to do!
> TL;DR: The Marriage of Aisha (as) was a one-time commandment of Allah so Islam wouldn't wouldn't have been lost after the death of prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as she would outlive him by at least 50 years.
Wait... so the "eternal truths" of Islam would have been lost for eternity if not for this particular union? How is that even possible from a believer's perspective?
It doesn't commend their teachings very highly if such a minor circumstance could have threatened the endurance of the religion so easily.
> Wait... so the "eternal truths" of Islam would have been lost for eternity if not for this particular union?
Shittiest excuse ever. Come on Mohammed, try a little harder.
...and they hold the Prophet of Islam as a model for life, as the best man.
They hold their Prophet as a model of life because they have no choice. Their book that they believe came down from the creator of the universe himself states in no uncertain terms that the Prophet Muhammad is the best human there is. A good example for every single generation of people to follow. To even accept that, no, what Muhammad did was seen as OK back then but is totally unacceptable now, is to go against that.
Marrying 9 year-olds even at the time would have been odd if it weren't for political reasons. Consumating the marriage would be even worse.
Source?
They are right in that it wasn't the norm as far as I'm aware (I have no sources to back this up other than I can only think of a few major marriages where one person was very young), however it was not taboo. The whole "Muhammad is a paedophile" is actually a fairly new criticism, you won't find it in many writings, even from critics, from a few hundred years ago.
Did find this briefly in a very good /r/badhistory post on this subject (amongst other Islam stuff)
http://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/2enj7m/letstalkabout_islam/ck1xse3
There's a comment slightly further up about the marriage with Aisha being mainly political and some discussion about whether the Hadith specifying her age was stretching the truth somewhat although that seems unlikely.
That's a "very good" post? Look at this snippet:
>A failure of critical thinking in calling Muhammad a pedophile is that it involves presentism in its projection of modern beliefs onto a historical figure.
Mohammed fits the definition of a pedophile. Pointing this out isn't a "projecting of presentism."
Mohammed isn't just a historical figure; he's also the final prophet of God and lauded by Islam as the best man, a man to be emulated.
If Jesus was a pedophile, it'd be a problem for Christianity. As Mohammed was a pedophile, it's a problem for Islam. There are ways to try and dissolve this tension, but rather than be a pedophilia apologist like /u/curseofkintave and this guy, smart Muslims simply acknowledge that Mohammed, as a fallible man, was sinful like everyone else. He should be lauded on the whole but he should not be treated as some infallible divinity (which is blasphemy in Islam anyway!).
Wow, downvoted for asking for a source on a claim on norms in early Islamic society....
SRD has no room for even seeming like a devils advocate. Apostasy shall be punished (I shouldn't have to but I will say that I am completely against the rape of children in all contexts).
The guy who explained the Qur'an's stance to give the argument context is down to -40. Yay hivemind voting.
Except that zahrul3 is not explaining the Qur'an's stance. They're, instead, themselves using the story of Aisha as a justification which is why they're getting downvoted.
>I fail to see any mention of Qur'an, the hadith etc. or anybody saying marrying 9 year olds are okay in the modern world.
He said this earlier in the comment chain, so no he isn't justifying it.
They have 13 points, yo. Doesn't look like downvotes to me.
I remember reading it but I cannot find a source about it.This coukd mean I read it in a reddir comment or something and am misremembering the source, or that the paper is hard to find. The difficulty arises because many of the works on the subject define child marriage as <18 years, which is a lot more broad than <12 years. From a cursory look, it seems like at least in the medieval era and Renaissance there were laws saying > 12 was bad, but in practice these might ne more fuzzy. From a cursory look on google, my conclusion is that most people found that marrying young was okay, but they did follow the puberty rule as well. I am sure that marriage to a 6 year old would have turned some heads, and seeing someone with a 9 year old bride probably would have as well, considering how most girls don't go through puberty until later in life, especially in a situation where people didn't have nearly as much access to food since early-onset puberty is connected to body fat. All in all, from a cursory googling I have found that I might have been wrong and that the Wikipedia page on the subject doesn't seem reliable.
He actually married her earlier, when she was 6 - but didn't consummate for a few years.
Hitting puberty isn't the same as getting you period.
Most girls start puberty around 9-10. That's when the first breast buds appear (for most girls they don't grow significantly until much later), first body hair, first growth spurts (most girls either grow tall or get kinda chubby before growing hips). Typically 2 years after the breast bud growth, the period starts.
Now how it goes from there can vary from person to person, some women grow in short but severe growth spurts, some grow slowly and continuously, over time, some have a combination of all of those.
Puberty can sometimes continue in the 20s, a lot of women have experienced menstrual and hormonal changes after 20, as well as sudden height or breast size growth spurt.
Their argument was that it was fine to do because it was culturally acceptable back then.
That's like saying slavery was fine to do because it was culturally acceptable. Or torture was fine to do because it was culturally acceptable. But the thing is it isn't - and the majority of us agree with that.
What makes Muhammed, a 50 year old man, having sex with a 9 year old girl any different?
Is fine to do vs. was fine to do, those are two different things. Judging the morality of people in the distant past through the lens of 21st century American values is problematic.
Its not that problematic - there have always been people who saw through the cultural bs and called it out - be it abolitionists in the era of slavery or Wallensteins in the Middle Ages. Its never been okay to keep slaves or rape nine year olds - we just listened to the group that said it was at one point.
e.g. in america we idolize thomas jefferson and george washington, both well-documented slaveholders, but we don't hold it against the two of them because it was a cultural norm
Plenty of people hold it against them. I hold it against them. They should not have done that.
Western values*
Not sure if sarcasm...
Because there weren't good counter examples and access to the knowledge we've accumulated about the effects of those sorts of power dynamics etc. On sex back then
If it turns out in 100 years it was a huge mistake to drink out of plastic cups, permanently impairing entire societies in a certain way, that doesn't make us negligent parents to do it now. You don't judge history with presentist biases because it's a circle jerk of painting a bulleye around an arrow to justify his great we are now, and a hollow concern
"Child abuse" has only existed for about one hundred years, for philosophical perspective
The problem is that the prophet is without sin(all of his sin was cut away by an angel when he became the prophet) and so anything he did cannot be wrong. That's the reasoning that is being employed I believe. Everything he did must be good because he is gods messenger.
I think it is more trying to show that because the norm was different, he wasn't a sleaze for following it, and therefore it doesn't invalidate the Quran. If a modern prophet were to marry a 9 year old, i think few would see that religion as anything but fucking weird. But an ancient prophet doing ancient things shouldn't have that effect.
If they'd just leave it at the social custom of the time argument, it still sounds way better than trying to link it to biology and puberty using today's data. They're trying to justify an old custom using the puberty argument. What I'm trying to say is, justifying it is what makes it creepy. Accept it was a thing back then, condemn it in a present situation, be done with it.
An ancient prophet doing that would only have that effect if hundreds of millions of people today thought he provided a perfect life example.
>Can't they accept that it was gross and stop harping on about it?
No, because how could a prophet, a man who has had direct conversations with Allah, do something wrong?
oh my god i thought "old enough to bleed" meant like getting cut literally. ewwwwwwww
The thing is mohammed is their prophet, he was the perfect man, sent by god. So if they can't justify him fucking a child then they can't justify anything else he's ever done. Cause god should've told him that fucking little girls is not okay.
Oh boy /r/islam has gone off the rails today hasn't it? I wonder how long until brigades will flip the vote totals, like what happened earlier with stoning women.
Assholes pissing in the popcorn like assholes.
Fun fact: you had to have parental consent to get married in Rome until you were 25.
Also, nobody was historically fucking 9-year-olds because they can't carry to term and it's a great way to maim them so badly they won't be able to carry to term ever. The idea that history is full of prepubescent pregnant children is a myth that pedophiles and religious literalists tell themselves to justify their respective ideologies. It has no basis in history.
Child marriages for political reasons did happen. But that's not the same as consumption it at that age which is a big fucking difference they gloss over.
Margaret Beaufort is the only example of a young (12) girl getting pregnant that I can think of. But their marriage was supposed to be unconsummated until she was older and people where horrified when they realised she was pregnant she came extremely close to dying in childbirth and as a consequence could not get pregnant again. So kind of disproves the 'if she can bleed she can breed' theory which is so disgusting.
>consumption
Huh
Yes, the consumption of 9 year olds. Isn't that what we're talking about here?
To be fair, they are delicious with a bearnaise and a nice vinaigrette.
Honestly, this thread has been a decent, levelheaded discussion of a pretty frigging repugnant concept.
The word we were looking for was "consummation." But yeah, pretty much correct.
Another less known fun fact: the parental consent was only needed from the oldest living male in the house, the paterfamilias. He could also kill anyone else at any point for any reason because he was the paterfamilias.
So yeah. The Romans might not have fucked anyone but slaves when they were 9, but they did kill a whole lot of newborn babies and embarrassments to the family.
This feels like one of those posts that will turn into a /r/subredditdramadrama post. I'll keep an eye out.
You reap that meta karma on your cakeday.
You bravely show the people how decadent srd has become, sir knight, and for that you deserve every florin, ducat or pfennigs of karma ye reapeth this day
Well, /r/islam seems to think slavery is ok and that stoning is a perfectly reasonable punishment for adultery, but pedo apologia? Up your fucking game, /r/islam.
I don't know if pedo apologia on its own is any worse than the other two.
Its the combination that makes it so peculiarly abhorrent. Like a religiously minded TRP.
Put them together, and someone could stone their adulterous child brides.
I really hope this has never actually happened.
They could make their slaves stone their adulterous child brides.
> I really hope this has never actually happened.
Never say never.... how about five days ago?
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/syrian-dad-stones-daughter-death-adultery-video-article-1.1981791
WTF the current top post in SRD as of now is stoning adulterers in /r/islam. Did the crazies come out in full force or something?
/r/islam has good reason for paedo apologia - Muhammed married a 9 year old.
I feel I have to throw my two cents in here on this subject because it is something I've been interested in as a history major and looked up. First of all, modern women do have their periods earlier for a number of reasons but primarily because they have the body fat to support menstration and pregnancy. In most of the Old World civilizations, farming culture went through a yearly cycle of feast and famine. The summers were the working and starving months in which people tended crops and waited for harvest to have a surplus for storage. Even during winter, food was rationed to last the entire time. If you are a Bedouin or an arid climate dweller, you also face a period of feast and famine, but your diet is limited to what you can carry or what you have access to. Either way, you're not going to find very many well fed folks around. With their bodies going through feast and famine times, young women's bodies were not as prepared as they were today for pregnancy, hence menstration did not often occur at 8,9,10 years old like it does now. Even the women of my grandma's era began their periods at 15, 16 years old (before hormone injected cows might I add).
It is incredibly difficult to find sources on these types of issues from the past because it wasn't something people usually recorded about the average person. Usually when you read about a girl being married off at 9, it's a wealthier girl who was married as part of an alliance. Wealthy women, sadly, had but one purpose: produce several healthy heirs. Now, just because there are records of a girl being married at 9 doesn't mean she was having sex or pregnant shortly afterwards. The same revulsion some of the people in here are expressing is the same revulsion most 50 year old men in the 1100's felt about fucking a 9 year old. Plus, and this is huge, the younger the girl during her pregnancy, the more like she and the baby are to die OR more likely she will develop complications that will hinder future pregnancies, like fistuals or prolapse. As a guy who just gave away quite a bit of wealth for his bride to secure something from her family, most men aren't going to risk potentially killing a 10 year old girl. Did some men have sex with their child brides? Yes, definitely but it's not as common as everyone is making out to be. In the 1600's, the average age peasant women married in England and France was 18. Their families had to pay their lord a taxes for the loss of her labor when she married and left the household plus she would no longer produce goods for the household. The lives of most country dwellers (the vast majority of the population) hadn't changed much from late antiquity through the late medieval period, so the same motives a person in 1600 would have about marriage were pretty much the same concerns they had 1000 years earlier.
I would be curious to see if there was a spike in child brides after the Prophet married Aisha though- that would be interesting to look at.
Edit: clarified something
Dude, nobody's reading that wall of text. Line breaks are your friend.
There are two thoughts and two paragraphs, which is standard for writing. You're not obligated to read it.
I did. There's good learns in there.
It's good info, you could easily just throw it in word and edit it yourself.
Is your 'Enter' key broken?
Nope, works fine.
This is the famine period of the year before the enter harvest comes in.
My issue with the "norms change"argument is that we're not discussing a normal man. According to Islam we're discussing someone who is the perfect man and has a direct channel to Allah. He was the Prophet, surely claiming ignorance is no defense for the Prophet.
Does "perfect man" mean a perfect man given the limitations of his time and culture, or a perfect man in a transcendent sense? The former is very defensible, the latter isn't. Also I don't see how being a prophet means he can't be ignorant about some things that God didn't bother to touch on for whatever reason.
If he was limited by time or culture then he wouldn't be the last prophet.
Allah: "Hey, did you just bang that nine year old?"
Mohammed: "What's the problem? You didn't tell me I couldn't."
Allah: I didn't think I had to!"
Here's my thing:
No one, and I mean no one, holds the Romans up as paragons of virtue much less as the literal patron of their entire religion. They did some godawful things, but Mohammed is supposed to be their prophet, the voice of god on earth. And the morality he lived by and preached is supposed to be (pardon the pun) the god's honest truth about how you're supposed to live while being a good person and get into heaven.
Admitting that his morality was antediluvian should cause some amount of soul-searching. Instead this guy is trying to pawn it off like Mohammed is just some guy and a product of his times.
We get to say that about President Wilson or Rudyard Kipling because no one is claiming their morality was any more enduring or right than their time period.
If your prophet isn't held to a higher standard, what the hell are you claiming as your religion's moral authority?
/r/islam seems like it sucks.
Bigot.
Yes he is bigoted against an internet forum.
I seem to recall reading that, yes people got married much younger then but these marriages were not usually consummated.
Damn. And this is what happens when you have religious discussion on the Internet.
I'll stick to my Mosque, than you very much.
Jesus. Are we sure this entire sub doesn't exist just to troll SRD?
If I created a sub to troll SRD I would hit all the points
Trans* people don't real
Acting is a viable career option
/r/relationships isn't actually that bad.
Taytay swift is acceptable nickname for taylor swift
You made me spit my beer
Please make this sub
> Taytay swift is acceptable nickname for taylor swift
Truly it will be a wretched hive of scum and villainy.
>Taytay swift
I'm keeping that one for later.
>Taytay swift is acceptable nickname for taylor swift
You son of a bitch
may i ask what does SRD stands for?
SnapShots: 1, 2, 3 ^[?]
^^Anyone ^^know ^^an ^^alternative ^^to ^^Readability? ^^Send ^^me ^^a ^^PM!
I hate it when people say stuff like, "I hit puberty at 10 so it's common". Anyone who says because it happened to them it's common is being stupid.
Wait a second, there's a difference between menarche and the onset of puberty, right? I started growing breasts when I was nine (too small for anyone else to notice) but I didn't get my period until I was eleven. Which one is the start of puberty?
Puberty in women typically starts with breast growth, and development of pubic hair, not their menarche. Menarche is just used as an easy way to measure puberty onset.
"And what else? Water. Yep. Our tap water. It's fairly common knowledge that a glass of tap water typically contains trace amounts of hundreds of different man made medications (hormone meds, insulin, BP meds, etc) from all the years of ppl just flushing old meds. Filtration cannot remove every trace, especially considering how long society has contributed to it."
wat
Here's some fun reading
You'd think that having conversations with the creator of the universe would cause a man to be a bit more morally developed than those around him, wouldn't you? Or is having sex with a 12 year old okay in the eyes of Allah, and therefore, should it still be allowed today?
So according to this guy, it is ok that the Syrians are killing their own people because Stalin did it.
The title of the thread alone made me sick to my stomach.
I hate these people these days.
We need a new tag "/r/islam".
>Back then when it was culturally acceptable, and they were married, its fine. Today? Not so much.
Ah, so something was acceptable in ancient times, but not today. Interesting...
Ok I'm sorry SRD but I'm not even trying to feign tolerance anymore, I fucking hate islam. There, I said it. I fucking hate islam, and it has no place in the 21st century.
Alright, I don't usually do this because it usually causes a shit show, but what do you actually know about Islam? I hear stuff like "I hate Islam" so much, but it seems that people don't know much about it. It's religion of 1.7 billion people, it's gonna change from person to person.
I'm so tired of hearing this fucking predictable cop-out. I love how you guys laugh at people who do the "notallmen" thing, and rightfully so, and then turn around and unironically do "notallmuslims" all the time.
Islam has more radicals than any other religion. It's certainly dangerous.
All religion is tiresome. The best course of action is simply agnosticism. Like legit, I don't understand why people don't realise that.
If there is a God of some sort, he'd probably think you were an idiot for following one of the religions. They probably didn't get anything correct at all. And to believe something just because, or because you were born into it? Fucking lol. Let's just believe all objects come to a stop eventually and inertia isn't a thing. Just because. Oh and because I was born intuitively believing that.
I'm so tired of this liberal exegetical relativism.
I loathe Sam Harris, but he's absolutely right to point out that the nonreligious and the religiously noncommittal cannot understand what it's like to treat a book as the divinely inspired (or, in the case of Islam, divinely decreed) word of God. Especially for Muslims but true of all Abrahamic faiths, picking-and-choosing doesn't work. And the Quran- never mind the Hadiths- promotes some very illiberal beliefs, including:
-traditional gender roles
-explicit patriarchy and the ability for men (and only men) to take multiple partners
-death for apostates
-condemnation of homosexuality
-harsh punitive action for things like stealing and adultery
People need to get to grips with the fact that while not all 1.7 billion Muslims agree with these things- some are culturally Muslim, some are religiously noncommittal- those who take the faith seriously do. It's the inerrant word of God, after all. Why wouldn't they?
Post to adviceanimals about it.
the only positive thing from this is that redditors are more likely to oppose pedophilia if pedophilia-apology is coming from r/islam. if this were a non-religious sub arguing it, there would be more people talking about how it's ok to have sex with a 12 year old.
Nope, regardless of the sub. It's not OKAY.
religion of peace
They are finally being called out on their bullshit
I just want to point out that the age of consent in saudi arabia is 9 (on the prerequisite of marriage of course). So yes it is okay in many parts of the world
Saudi Arabia having fucked up extremist social policies? Say it ain't so!
In the Bedouin culture, while not normal, it is considered A-OK for 9 year olds to get married, so long as the parents consent and both sides of the marriage are past puberty(early puberty is the norm in Arab, and you're an adult past menarche/ejaculation). In many Islamic cultures, the marital consent is not you, but your parents. If you want a novel about it, Sitti Nurbaya is a good novel that talks about that culture. Indonesia has since got rid of that culture.
EDIT: Aisha (as) was orphaned. But if you do read the thread, she did in fact consent to the marriage, as she would have been considered to be an adult and not a child.
That's disgusting
I find pre-marital sex that your type of people practice to be even more disgusting.
You find pre-marital sex more disgusting than fucking a 9 year old?
OK. HAHAH.
You might not like what I do with another adult, but at least I'm not condoning the rape of children.
Edit: I accidentally a word
Yeah, because two consenting adults having sex is more disgusting than an older man buying a nine-year old girl to be a brood mare and general chattel.
because that never happens elsewhere where it is unacceptable.
Please catch the first available flight to Syria. It''ll be easier to exterminate you when you're all in the same place.
More Comments - Click Here
More Comments - Click Here
I'm pretty sure Aisha was not orphaned. I've read references to the role her father played after Muhammad's death.
Viewing history through modern eyes makes as much sense as a belief in moral absolutes.
But when you raise someone to be the God-chosen paragon of humanity that you base your entire morality on, it's not too much to ask that he's not a slave owning child rapist, is it?
I'm not even going to go into Mohammed as the paragon of Islam. I don't know enough about Islam to get into that. I'm just talking about viewing historical figures and events through modern eyes.
Yes but this isn't just some random guy, it's a person that a very significant amount of modern people base their own morals on, so we need to view him in modern eyes.
How do we decide how to progress as a society if we don't condemn historic acts?
By understanding them. It makes much more sense to look at the story off Mohammed and his nine year old wife and say "society has moved on and we now understand the practice is damaging to children, but at the time they were either not aware of that or their societal values were different." We don't have to condemn a historical figure to understand that their actions are wrong in a modern context.
I never suggested condemning any figure. I understand Muhammad's life quite well.
>We don't have to condemn a historical figure to understand that their actions are wrong in a modern context.
Okay, but why shouldn't we? How is it any more sensible to blindly excuse any actions that are 'normal' for their time?
Historical figures live in different societies and different times. To condemn them you are required to view them through the lens of your time and your society. That is both unfair to the historical figure and shows a huge inability to realize you view history through a lens, which is intellectually dishonest.
All figures and events should be viewed in context, aka through the lens of their time. As much as we like to believe, especially here in America, that there are moral absolutes, there just aren't. Judging people in our own time based off this belief is dodgy at best. Judging a historical figure that way is just silly.
> To condemn them you are required to view them through the lens of your time and your society.
As we are required to do when we communicate or think in any way, yes.
>That is both unfair to the historical figure and shows a huge inability to realize you view history through a lens, which is intellectually dishonest.
It doesn't do that in any way, you're assuming for some reason that I'd like to refer to Muhammad in a vacuum as an evil being when that isn't the case at all. By giving context to a comment, we are able to acknowledge the issues that accompany intercourse with a minor while not necessarily viewing Muhammad as an evil or bad person.
>especially here in America
Wouldn't know, not American.
>Judging people in our own time based off this belief is dodgy at best.
lol wat. have you never commented that you thought a person or action was positive or negative?
Being fair, in terms of history people lived for a lot shorter than they do now. So a nine year old back then was more equivalent to a 20 year old now.
That's some grade A uneducated bullshit there. Or sarcasm. I'm hoping for the latter.
Logic, everyone.
The much lower average life span was mostly attributed to the incredibly high infant mortality rate. People lived just as long back than as they do now.
lol wut?