Yeah isn't it now common knowledge that their prophet was sleeping with an 8 year old?
But I guess when you talk about things in islam that are uncomfortable to most 21st century westerners, you're being islamophobic?
PC and cancel culture, what are the pros and cons?
- Thread starter Reality|Bites
- Start date
But I guess when you talk about things in islam that are uncomfortable to most 21st century westerners, you're being islamophobic?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 23 Apr 2014
- Posts
- 23,552
- Location
- Hertfordshire
That seems fairly unlikely. Even so, the cancelling ragers are all righties.
Sleeping with? I believe the terminology is raping.
Well coming from a Muslim background I have my own thoughts on Aisha's but in this example it's pointing out, as you say, a common knowledge issue and not an attack.
Either people should respond with an explanation or simply stay quiet. Shutting down the conversation doesn't help.
How, the world isn't black or white. If you listened to people switching from both sides you would have known.
Even people who are centre ground hate this so called cancel culture but you seem to be another one of those people who like to put others in boxes.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 23 Apr 2014
- Posts
- 23,552
- Location
- Hertfordshire
Dunno what point you are attempting to make.
Was it uncommon for children aged around 8 to be married at the time that Mohammad walked the earth? I can't find any information for that particular time period, but it was legal for children to get married as soon as they hit puberty in the middle ages so it isn't unreasonable to think children could be married hundreds of years prior to that.
Sounds like Burchill is applying modern societal norms to something extremely historical and using it as some kind of sick burn.
Sounds like Burchill is applying modern societal norms to something extremely historical and using it as some kind of sick burn.
Was it uncommon for children aged around 8 to be married at the time that Mohammad walked the earth? I can't find any information for that particular time period, but it was legal for children to get married as soon as they hit puberty in the middle ages so it isn't unreasonable to think children could be married hundreds of years prior to that.
Sounds like Burchill is applying modern societal norms to something extremely historical and using it as some kind of sick burn.
Muhammed is literally seen as being the perfect man by Muslims. He also spoke directly with God and was advised by him. Therefore God, being all-knowing would know whether his actions would be deemed to be morally acceptable or not. By allowing Muhammed to do what he did it is therefore seen as being acceptable in God's eyes.
Therefore because it was acceptable to the all knowing and eternal God at that point, it is now too. Hence kiddy fiddling being particularly prevalent in Muslims.
But that's exactly what I'm saying, it isn't acceptable now, so it's a bit of a weird thing for her to bring up as some kind of 'gotcha' to a Muslim. She's basically saying 'because you're a Muslim you support paedophilia,' which is absurd.
Was it uncommon for children aged around 8 to be married at the time that Mohammad walked the earth? I can't find any information for that particular time period, but it was legal for children to get married as soon as they hit puberty in the middle ages so it isn't unreasonable to think children could be married hundreds of years prior to that.
Sounds like Burchill is applying modern societal norms to something extremely historical and using it as some kind of sick burn.
Not really, none of the sources (afaik) that detail the criticism of the prophet and Islam at that time highlight his marriage to Aisha as an issue.
Aisha's also a very controversial figure in Islam, not just because of her apparent age. It would have worked for some groups to play down her age to imply that as she pretty much grew up in the prophet's house as a 'pure soul' that her detractors were nothing more than troublemakers working against Islam.
Another factor often overlooked is that those who are paedophiles and act on it rarely stop at one if there is opportunity for many. I'm fairly certain that a man who was a paedophile while being a warlord and a religious figure would have said nope, just one is good for me.
^ That's looking at other things and to possibly start a discussion. But hey ho...
Last edited:
But it's not. Because they believe Muhammed to be the perfect man they must believe that what he did was acceptable. Therefore they must support it.
If they don't then they must concede that what he did was wrong. In which case the whole foundation of their faith is in question.
Going to have to put a hard disagree on that one dude. You can think that the actions of a person over a thousand years ago are not appropriate today without your entire worldview collapsing. This is like the opposite side of the 'tearing down statues of historic figures because their actions would not be acceptable today' coin people were losing their minds over months ago.
I don't think you're quite grasping how his actions are seen as always being correct and perfect to a Muslim. He could do no wrong. Therefore you cannot, as a Muslim, disagree with what he did.
But what if it wasn't wrong at the time?
God would have known it would be wrong and told him.
It wasn't wrong as such at that time but the point I think is that since it's an action that's never been banned/forbidden then from a Sharia perspective it's still allowed.
There is a thing however that if the law of the land states it's illegal to marry e.g. a 12 year old then technically Muslims can't marry a girl at that age. It's an allowed act, not an recommended or obligatory thing. Not marrying a 12 year old isn't the same as e.g. not fasting or praying.
Why if he wasn't doing anything that would be considered wrong at the time? What about all the other stuff that God conveniently forgot to future-proof like stoning or homosexuality?
Why if he wasn't doing anything that would be considered wrong at the time? What about all the other stuff that God conveniently forgot to future-proof like stoning or homosexuality?
Exactly. So either...
God did tell him and he didn't include it. Tut tut Muhammed.
God didn't tell him even though he should have cos all knowing. Tut tut God.
Or
Its all made up.
Cool, what's any of this tangent got to do with:
Because...as I've stated multiple times they view Muhammed as perfect and God as infallible and omnipotent. Therefore Muhammed wouldn't lie about what God told him and God wouldn't neglect to tell him something as fundamental as shagging kids ain't good.