Was Mohammed a paedophile/marital rapist?

[Mott1]

Agreed.

But the problem is, Islam claims that Mohammed is a perfect role model for all Muslims to follow even now. Which is why judging him by modern standards becomes necessary.

And are you willing to extend this "historic understanding" to Hinduism or Christianity? Are you willing to judge Rama and Arjuna and Krishna and Moses and Jesus by the standards of their time?

Thats the esential point, we may identify Muhammad as simply an historical figure, however his teachings and actions sets the ideal bar for his followers.

 

[Truronian]

That's because the controversialists are just that. They have not yet put up a coherent opposition to the argument of the Hadith, nor have they reached internal consensus among themselves.

There is alot of evidence that she was actually in her late teens when the marriage occurred (which can be seen on or via the above wiki page).

To be honest I think the whole issue is redundant, as the modern image of Muhammed is not that of a pedophile, and his image is all that truly matters nowadays.

 

[Mott1]

To be honest I think the whole issue is redundant, as the modern image of Muhammed is not that of a pedophile, and his image is all that truly matters nowadays.

The modern image of Muhammad as a non pedophile is recognized by whom?

 

[Rambuchan]

a) Was Mohammed's marriage to Aisha paedophilic by modern standards?

Let's just say she was 6 or 7 years old....

Was it paedophilia by traditional Hindu standards? No. It was normal. Kids are deemed to be of marriagable age from around the same in Hindu tradition.

Conclusion: Muhammad was no more of a craddle snatcher / paedophile than Hindus always have been and often still are.

As for the OP's plea to not launch into ad hominems: isn't this whole exercise of judging Muhammad by modern value systems exactly a case of that?

 

[Winner]

Let's just say she was 6 or 7 years old....

Was it paedophilia by traditional Hindu standards? No. It was normal. Kids are deemed to be of marriagable age from around the same in Hindu tradition.

Conclusion: Muhammad was no more of a craddle snatcher / paedophile than Hindus always have been and often still are.

As for the OP's plea to not launch into ad hominems: isn't this whole exercise of judging Muhammad by modern value systems exactly a case of that?

One has to love these attempts to justify something wrong by accusing someone else of doing it too

 

[Rambuchan]

One has to love these attempts to justify something wrong by accusing someone else of doing it too

Not trying to justify anything you presumptuous clot.

Moderator Action: Warned for flaming
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[aneeshm]

Let's just say she was 6 or 7 years old....

Was it paedophilia by traditional Hindu standards? No. It was normal. Kids are deemed to be of marriagable age from around the same in Hindu tradition.

Conclusion: Muhammad was no more of a craddle snatcher / paedophile than Hindus always have been and often still are.

Factually incorrect, as I have pointed out earlier. Further discussion of this should be carried out over PMs, because otherwise it will derail the thread.

As for the OP's plea to not launch into ad hominems: isn't this whole exercise of judging Muhammad by modern value systems exactly a case of that?

No. It is not, because Muslims are supposed to follow the role model of Mohammed even today.

 

[Truronian]

The modern image of Muhammad as a non pedophile is recognized by whom?

Muslims. It would be more than just the paranoid who had problems with Islam if they remembered Muhammed as the great pedophilic one.

 

[Rambuchan]

Factually incorrect, as I have pointed out earlier.

What I posted is factually correct aneeshm.

Your earlier comment is intellectual dishonesty and laziness at worst, and being economical with the truth at best, as you've shown us many times on here.

Further discussion of this should be carried out over PMs, because otherwise it will derail the thread.

You mean ~ Derail your mission to show Muslims to be inhumane and Hindus holier than thou? How convenient your dictating of how the thread should develop is.

In India, in the BC years itself, a remarkable code of laws was enunciated by the shrewd Chanakya and his followers. It is called the ArthaShastra. It is not remarkable when it confirms to Hindu dogma, but it is quite notable when it reforms it, as in the case of marriage.

Under those laws, a girl may be married either after the age of thirteen, or after she has completed puberty, whichever is later. A girl has the right to find a husband for herself if her parents do not find one for her by the time she is sixteen. She also has the right to reject a husband chosen for her - no marriage without mutual consent. Also, a marriage to a woman captured in war is one of the "deplorable" and "lower" forms of marriage.

These laws are infinitely more humane than the ones Mohammed preached. How do you respond to that criticism?

I respond: That is what is written. What people do is another matter entirely.

Hindu tradition often sees children being married well before puberty. In the time of Muhammad it happened. Today it happens, especially in rural parts. Your focussing on the text books alone is quite convenient and also misses the point, which happens more often than not in the cases of all religions, that people totally twist their holy texts in favour of a way they wish to lead their lives and shape their traditions.

Judging a religion from some dusty tome is hardly an honest or inclusive way to evaluate it. It is how it is practised also that counts. Hindus fair just as poorly as Muslims in this regard.

No. It is not, because Muslims are supposed to follow the role model of Mohammed even today.

Yeah, and Hindus are supposed to follow the Arthashastra. But do they???

 

[JerichoHill]

No. As other have said, the rules were different then, society was different, and what was acceptable and not acceptable has changed.

To then turn around and say "We are so enlightened, those people 100 years ago were immoral, hitting their children, and that cycles continues on down the historical chain..."

If I designed a research experiment that applied this sort of logic, I would doubt I would get another paper published

I think this is fishing, an inappropriate application of modern-day thought to ancient times. We can't judge others based on what we now know, we have to judge them based on what they knew at the time.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Was Mohammed a paedophile/marital rapist?

Maybe he was, who cares? Theres never been a founder of a worldwide religious movement who could actually live up to his hype. We're all imperfect, or sinners, depending on how you look at it. The sort of charismatic power hungry person who starts a new religion is probably even more flawed than all the rest of us. Its to be expected, and shouldnt prevent anyone from making the most of their religion, whether or not its founder was a complete ass, or a perfect, wonderful person. The message is what counts, not the messenger.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Maybe he was, but wasn't everyone back then? Meh, like Bozo said, most of the dirty laundry of historical figures is understated. What we need is another Kafka history thread on the manner.

And about the brother by oath thing; he still was NOT his brother. It may have bent cultural incest rules, but there were no genetic issues of inbreeding.

And besides, it seems to happen a lot with royal and religious people. Remember in Dune Messiah, when the Bene Gesserit were conspiring to get Paul Atreides to breed with his sister Alia to preserve the genetic line from contamination?

 

[aneeshm]

Maybe he was, who cares? Theres never been a founder of a worldwide religious movement who could actually live up to his hype. We're all imperfect, or sinners, depending on how you look at it. The sort of charismatic power hungry person who starts a new religion is probably even more flawed than all the rest of us. Its to be expected, and shouldnt prevent anyone from making the most of their religion, whether or not its founder was a complete ass, or a perfect, wonderful person. The message is what counts, not the messenger.

What have you to say of the Buddha?

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

What have you to say of the Buddha?

He was probably a chronic user of heavy drugs.

 

[HannibalBarka]

Three questions, for the poll and for the discussion:

a) Was Mohammed's marriage to Aisha paedophilic by modern standards?

Not really, Aisha was not a woman actually but rather a 7 years old persian cat. 7 years in cat's age is the equivalent of 4*7=28 years for a human being. So No, when Mohammed married Aisha she was 28 human-equivalent years old


b) Were his marriages to prisoners of war, consummated on the very day of the war, a form of marital rape?

Again not really. If however it were consummated on next day of the war, it would. War gives the right to the victor to rape all prisoners for a precise and defined period of time: ONE days. That is in chapter 4, 3rd paragraphe of the Geneva Convention. Serbian war criminals broke that convention because they raped bosnian women 3 days after the war

c) Was the marriage to Aisha incestuous by Arabian standards of the time?

Historians almost all agree that Mohammad did not have any feline parent, thus with the evidence we have today, we can't consider the sexual relation he had with Aisha, a persian female cat, to be incestious.

Moderator Action: Warned for spam
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Neomega]

What have you to say of the Buddha?

The Buddha would rather not be used in an argument based on hatred.

 

[Revolutionary]

I don't see the point in aplying modern moral standards to such distant historical events. It happened a thousand years ago, the societal and cultural norms didn't exist then nor did modern moral values with regard to human rights. Muhmmad was indeed a conqueror, killer, rapist, pedophile if you look at him by modern standards.

But I don't look at him by modern standards for it is foolish to do so and serves no purpose when intrepreting and analyzing historical events.

This post pretty much sums up my view.

 

[puglover]

By Arabic standards he probably was OK, but from a modern perspective, Mohammed was quite the disgusting person. Really, any mature society sees pedophila and rape as cruel and wrong.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

What have you to say of the Buddha?

What if somebody produced some ancient texts purportedly proving that the man who would become known as the Buddha was actually a deeply flawed human being? I would say about him the same that I said about Mohammed. To me all of that is completely irrelevant. I begin with the assumption that all human beings are flawed, some more than others, or differently flawed, but all of us: flawed. What interests me most about a person, in this religion founding context, is their attempt to rise above their flaws, and the glimpses of Truth they perceive and pass on to the rest of us. You can be a Moses, looking at a promised land, and yet not be able to enter it. The vision is what counts.

 

[warpus]

I voted Yes, Yes, No, Who the hell cares?