Have you read the Old Testament or Torah?
Lots and lots of stories revolving around incest or child brides. Even references of taking the defeated enemy making slaves of their conquered women.
Islam is not alone in this, Judaism and Christianity are equally culpable.
What abut of precocious puberty (Precocious puberty - Wikipedia)?
That would make Lina Medina and others sexually mature at age 2.
When I said menstruation or early historical sexual maturity I was referring to early teens as is typical concerning the female biological average.
I got enough pedophile apologist blaming in this thread, but let’s write this for those who do not understand (or pretend that do not understand) my position:
Today, the standards for sexual misconduct with minors are well placed in western societies. Adults having sex with kids is disgusting, the former should be criminally charged. Discussion on pre- and post- puberty sex is anachronistic, no serious judicial system can operate using laws with approximate age of sexual misconduct, so what we have now (the fixed age) is fine.
Epstein was rightfully punished for his actions. Whoever participated in his parties with minors should face similar charges.
That is for the present. For the past, judging ancient people with modern moral standards is presentism (to use the term of @Nausamedu).
Exactly, but the thing is to judge all without regarding moral standards. It’s not a matter of morality, but of ethics. It’s misguided to think that pedophilia is a problem based on standards. It’s not. It’s a problem of ethics, which is independent from epoch and place, and all.
You seem to be confusing ethics for morality. Morality mostly doesn’t matter, precisely because it depends on ‘standards’ - I don’t know of anyone that cares much for it. To see if something is ethical is not presentism at all - that would be like the USA government trying to get the historical land taxes for the indigenous people that lived there. It’s not like that at all. You seem to be confusing that time and again
Now, if you don’t know about ethics (or you do think they are just morals), just don’t confuse it with morality, and you can simply say: “I don’t know about the subject”. That’d be completely fine
In my language, ethics and morality are translated exactly the same, without any difference. So I do not understand the distinction you are making. What you are describing seems too “objective” to me, and I have said time and time again that I do not recognize objective statements.
By the way, I still wait a response on my question about the newspaper announcement.
I agree! You read it as the same, but it’s not. No problem, you can refer to morality without any problem, but then you seem to be misreading the topic all along, according to yourself. This is an ethics problem, at most - tho it is a question of fact (if it happened or not), not a problem of morality or standards.
When you are reminded that it doesn’t depend on standards, if you misread that too, makes sense for you to continue reading that what you wrote doesn’t apply to the topic at hand.
In fact, most morality-based questions or standards-based mostly don’t matter. Maybe in trials? Something like that. Be sure it is not a problem of morality but of ethics.
Oh! I thought I answered you. Yeah, for sure you can if you know! It is a question. You can try the same with yourself since you already know your name. Anyhow, you are confusing the right to sue with being insulted. They’re different things. You can have a right to sue someone when someone didn’t insult you. The possibility of application of law and the reality of insulting are completely different.
Ok, if we are going to play word games, let’s change insult with defamation.
Is it defamation of Muhammad what you are doing on this thread? If Muhammad was alive, wouldn’t have been his right to ask this post being removed?
pedoai thinks he / she is being clever by citing an example of precocious puberty. In fact that is the idiot’s downfall.
Precocious puberty is a medical condition, technically an ailment. It is defined as puberty at 8 or below.
Let’s not forget that it is the father that sets up the marriage, the married couple give ultimate assent.
are you playing word games? I don’t get it. Is it defamation to ask something? It is not. Now, fame or status doesn’t matter anyway.
Muhammad wouldn’t have the right, since it is a question. Why would it be logical to ask to get a question removed? You can make a post asking the same about me, no problem, as it shouldn’t be. Now, if you state it, that may be defamation. But, the question in the end is if it is true, not if it is defamation. Suppose you make that post about me, stating that I did have sex with a 9 year old, and it happened to be the case - that wouldn’t be defamation, since it would not be a false statement.
@LampAndNightingale Certainly, the character you have in your imagination has that intentions and thinks that things, for sure!! I completely agree there. Now, wouldn’t the definition of puberty at 8 not be something arbitrary then? So, if Muhammad had sex with a 8 year old, it’d be equally alright as with what has been said about Aisha?
If questioning potential pedophilia of someone without any proof is not defamation, then I do not even know what defamation means to you. Do that in any country and see what will be the judges’ ruling.
Defamation does not require to be untrue statement. As long as you cannot prove the claim, it is defamation.
Is defamation ethical?
pedoai 's stupidity deserves its own entry in the medical corpus.
Pedoai is literally posing his own argument against Islam, to now be in defence of his stance.
About arbitarily calling out a fixed age as being alright.
And in any case, precocious puberty at 4 or 5 will always be seen as an illness.
Well, how much information have you ever checked for yourself? Know to be true because you first hand verified it? I’d say way over 99% of the information we hold is second hand at best, but it depends on the person of course.
As far as what muslims believe: Its the second largest religion of the planet.
Wanna bet that there are WILD differences between what muslims believe depending on region to region, country to country, wealth, individual, etc?
Who knows? Can you be certain that concepts and information attributed to Plato (in part or as a whole) are not just attributed to an identity?
Its a bit of a reversal. You hear the sound, but you have not seen the tree.
You have Plato’s teachings, but you cant ever be completely sure about their source.
Could it have been a tree? Sure.
Everything is context dependent.
The entire LGBT alphabet was hunted and considered amoral in more than just one culture, and now they are a protected class.
Similarly there have been tribes where eating human flesh was considered acceptable.
Pillaging, raping and free looting was almost a religion to the norse as well as long as a good fight had to be had in the process.
You cant name a single moral or ethical concept that would not be relativistic to the time, place, situation and context it was in.
The holodomor was not even that long ago. Would you condemn the people who fed human meat to their children in order to keep them alive?
Case and point: considering any culture with child marriages, to them its normal.
And to you and me who did not grew up in such a culture, its abhorrent and unthinkable.
Its exactly the same thing as religions.
Your religion and belief will depend on the time and place you grew up in. Not more. Not less.
How would this not be context dependent?
We can question the pedo-status of historical figures here all we like, but please don’t devolve to calling each other such things.
You seem to be confusing things again: law and what judges rule as something is not the same as that something being the case. What defamation means to me makes no difference, the point is what defamation is. As far as I’ve seen, defamation means stating something false about another person. Anyhow, a question is not a statement.
Well, in the case of Muhammad, we have those writings that have been cited as proof. For the evidence of not being the case, we don’t have much. So, even stating that as fact (not as a question), may not be defamation at all.
That’s a good question! Kudos to you! I’d say that stating something that is not the case knowing is not the case is not ethical… unless it is a joke, or theatre or something like that. What do you think?
Thank you for being clear about telling us all what your imagined person does. I don’t know what that has to do with the topic at hand anyhow.
For the purpose of this thread, let’s say it’s just the link I gave first. Sorry I didn’t understand your “Know to be true” sentence. Can you rephrase it? Yeah, a lot of information is second-hand at best. I totally agree.
For sure Muslims beliefs vary a lot. Maybe what most believe?
I don’t know about if Plato exists. I’d say it’s the same for Plato, Muhammad or Newton.
I agree, what you point out is a reversal of it. I’m asking: do people from which we know nothing at all ever exist?
Not at all. If that is the case, then that sentence is context dependent, and that means there is a context where that isn’t the case, so not everything is context dependent. I assume you knew that beforehand, but just to make it clear.
Yes, what people find acceptable and normal is subjective, that’s why it’s not a question about that. You just put examples of the first, not about if it is ethical.
You seem to be confusing that you live in a time and place with what you think or say being dependent on that. For example, the universe having some life is better than not. That doesn’t depend on time and space or anything. It’s not context dependent. Anyhow: if everything is context dependent, then not everything is context dependent. It may be that we cannot know if we know something not context dependent, but that doesn’t make those not to exist - lack of evidence is not evidence of lack
Which guy called who what? Anyhow, if a rabbit is called a rabbit, that’s not defamation.
Can we get back to the topic, if Muhammad did or did not do that?
50% of the internet is about relaying that the Prophet married Aisha. You seem to be new to the internet and think this is somehow news.
What do you mean by that? What I know or not makes no difference to the topic. The people in the internet can be saying false things.