Society/Culture Why I blame Islam for the fact it's raining today.... part 2

[Chief]

Reminder: This isn't the Israel/Hamas thread. Go to the Israel/Hamas thread if you want to talk about that. Thanks.

Mid East - Israel declare war after Hamas attack II

Part I: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/israel-declare-war-after-hamas-attack.1371828/page-47#post-81443295 Thread Rules: Alright. I recognise that this is a fraught topic for any number of you posting here. Some of you will have family in Israel or Palestine. Some of you will have...

www.bigfooty.com

Thread rules update:

From this point if you're going to make a connection between Islam and the crime rate, you need to demonstrate causation in your post. If you do not, I'm going to infract you for the inherent racism in the position you're taking.

 

[Jazny]

I just posted a list of literally hundreds of European noble children married from the ages 5 to 15.

While the history books are silent as to when they first had sex after getting married, it's safe to assume that for a significant number the age of consummation is identical to their age at marriage.

What makes you think they waited?

You seriously think it was the custom for 5 year olds to consummate marriage?? It wasn't. The history books aren't silent on this. What an awful thought.

I posted above that Northwestern Europe (which includes England and Scotland) were outliers in that they actually criminalized sex with a person under 12 in the 12th century or so and tended to marry later (mid-teens or around 13-18).

They were the outlier.

It would be very rare to find a girl over 15 years of age, who was unmarried pretty much everywhere else,

Not true. Being unmarried at 15+ would be pretty common in most cultures I have read about. Certainly not rare.

No-ones trying to justify it. We're just making the point that Mohammed wasn't exactly doing anything out of the ordinary by agreeing to an arranged marriage with a child.

Yes it is WAY out of the ordinary in most cultures for a 50 year old to consummate marriage with a 9 year old. I am struggling to find a single close comparison in any Western country in any time in history (that was considered acceptable - obviously sexual predators have always existed).

And of course it's wrong. And it's doubly s**t in this context because a lot of Muslims use Mo's example as religious justification for child marriage and arranged marriages.

I was told I was being a cultural supremacist for saying it is wrong. I am glad you can at least judge him for allegedly doing it.

 

[Malifice]

You seriously think it was the custom for 5 year olds to consummate marriage??

No, and I didnt ****ing say that.

I said I posted a hundred or so examples of European nobility marrying between the ages of 5 and 15. Most of those would have consummated the marriage not long after marrying, although there is no record of when exactly it happened.

Thats a picture of Richard II the King of England (aged 29), and his 6-year-old bride Isabella.

You keep saying child marriage was rare, and I've literally given you a hundred or so examples of it from European nobility alone.

Not true. Being unmarried at 15+ would be pretty common in most cultures I have read about.

No, it was uncommon to be unmarried after 15. Particularly in Eastern Europe and in the Roman Empire (which Jesus was born into)

In medieval Eastern Europe, the Slavic traditions of patrilocality of early and universal marriage (usually of a bride aged 13–15 years, with menarche occurring on average at age 14) lingered... in Ancient Rome, the appropriate minimum age for marriage was regarded as 14 for males and 12 for females.

43% of Pagan females married as young as 12-15 years and 42% of Christian females married as young as 15-18 years.

Marriageable age - Wikipedia

Western Europe was the outlier (with brides tending to be in their late teens or even in some cases early 20's), aside from the Noble classes who had a long history of marrying kids off to other families.

If you're walking around Bethlehem in the time of Jesus, or ancient Rome then it would not be uncommon to see married 15-year-old girls carrying around kids of their own.

 

[faible]

There is no reason to think he had wife at all

Except that for a male living at that time it would be unusual not to be married.

The bible isn’t a historical source.

 

[Jazny]

You keep saying child marriage was rare, and I've literally given you a hundred or so examples of it from European nobility alone.

Read what I said. I haven't said child marriages were rare. But consummation of such marriages at that age of around 9 would be extremely rare.

No, it was uncommon to be unmarried after 15. Particularly in Eastern Europe and in the Roman Empire (which Jesus was born into)

The stats you linked I have seen and show it was common for girls over 15 to be unmarried. "42% of Christian females married as young as 15-18 years". So the vast majority would be over 15. That's not uncommon. We have been through the stats for Jewish girls at the time of Christ and the minimum age of marriage (not child birth) was 13. Like Joseph and Mary, it was typical not to immediately consummate marriage until the woman could bear children. Marriage over 15 would be typical too, the latter range is said to be late teens for Jewish girls.

The Roman physician Soranus who lived 100 years AD put the typical child birthing age at 15+.

Obviously those standards are still bad. They aren't standards Christians use now or have any reason to defend.

So Muhammad and Aisha, if true, would be massive outliers in Judea, or greater Rome, or 1000s years of Brittish royalty, and would be a breach of even their customs. I have seen absolutely nothing to think 50 & 9 was common anywhere in Europe. Such a horrible age range is just self evidently bad to most humans.

 

[Jazny]

Except that for a male living at that time it would be unusual not to be married.

The bible isn’t a historical source.

I wouldn't call that evidence. It's more like a flimsy argument.

 

[sr36]

I wouldn't call that evidence. It's more like a flimsy argument.

There's nothing to support the theory of him being celibate other than much more recent dogma

Considering that marriage was the norm and he preached in favour it, why would you assume that he wasn't.

 

[Jazny]

There's nothing to support the theory of him being celibate other than much more recent dogma

Believe what you like. We don't believe he had a wife and there is zero reason to change that belief.

 

[faible]

I wouldn't call that evidence. It's more like a flimsy argument.

Less flimsy than relying on bible stories.

 

[Malifice]

Read what I said. I haven't said child marriages were rare. But consummation of such marriages at that age of around 9 would be extremely rare.

What makes you think that?

1 in 10 girls in Australia currently report being sexually assaulted by an adult before the age of 15:

https://www.aihw.gov.au/family-domestic-and-sexual-violence/types-of-violence/child-sexual-abuse

That's around 1.2 million girls in Australia alone.

And that's now, in contemporary times, when it's a crime. What makes you think it would be different 1000 years ago, when the girl was married, it was socially acceptable, and it was not a crime?

 

[Jazny]

What makes you think that?

1 in 10 girls in Australia currently report being sexually assaulted by an adult before the age of 15:

Child sexual abuse

That's around 1.2 million girls in Australia alone.

And that's now, in contemporary times, when it's a crime. What makes you think it would be different 1000 years ago, when the girl was married, it was socially acceptable, and it was not a crime?

It wasn't socially acceptable, we have been through statistics and documents that show that it was absolutely not the custom for girls as young as 9 to consummate marriage with a 50 year old in the western world. The age of first pregnancy of royals throughout Europe doesn't seem to support this idea that it was just a common and accepted thing as well as other evidence listed previously in the thread.

The argument that Muhammad was just "a man of his times" as though that defends the allegations against him doesn't even stack up if you're inclined to accept it. Maybe of "his time and place" it was normal. Very unfortunate if so, especially if people to do THIS DAY use that example to further this terrible practice. But the argument that "everybody else was doing it" doesn't actually make it okay anyway even if it were true. I believe most people can see that such behaviour is absolutely wrong.

If I were Muslim instead of Christian, I would be thinking that the allegations against him were made up by people at the time trying to justify their own perversions or something. Or the clerics who have her age higher are correct. Nobody should take the position that it was somehow justified. And absolutely nobody should take his example as though that's the correct way to live. Nor if it is true, should we be afraid to criticise him. What other historical figure that did something similar would people be apologising for??

 

[Malifice]

It wasn't socially acceptable,

Child marriage was socially acceptable. It was not uncommon for girls in their early teens (13-15) to get married.

That's a significantly different context than in the modern world isn't it? Surely you can see that.

Now take into account that 1 in 10 girls in Australia in contemporary times, under the age of 15 report being sexually assaulted by an older bloke. That adds up to 1.2 million odd girls under the age of 15 being molested, in Australia alone.

Thats in the modern context. Where it's a crime to have sex with a person under the age of 16, and where marriage is limited to 18.

Are you saying that those rates of child abuse which are prevalent now, were not also prevalent in times where child marriage was common (and lawful) and there were no ages of consent laws?

we have been through statistics and documents that show that it was absolutely not the custom for girls as young as 9 to consummate marriage with a 50 year old in the western world.

No, I've literally provided you with dozens of examples of people in the 'Western World' (nobles mainly) marrying girls as young as 9 (or younger).

I literally even provided you with a picture of a 6-year-old marrying the King of England.

And they're just the nobles. Commoner child marriages were not recorded, but I'm sure they happened as well.

The history books don't record the age of consummation of the marriage, but it's safe to assume it wasn't very long after the marriage took effect.

Even if we're just working on the modern rates of sexual abuse of girls under 15 (1 in 10) then you can safely assume a fair few of those child brides 'consummated the marriage' not long after the wedding.

Unless men are only raping young girls in by the millions now, and didnt back then. For some reason.

The argument that Muhammad was just "a man of his times"

I didnt say that. I said it wasn't unusual.

If you were a man of importance in Arabia (or anywhere else) expect other noble families to try and marry their kids off to you. It's so common as to be a cliche (the local lord or chief offering up his daughter to solidify an alliance).

It wasn't an uncommon practice.

Maybe of "his time and place" it was normal.

That's my point. It wasn't unusual for it to happen in his time and place (and indeed all through Europe, Asia, the Americas, Polynesia and other places).

Im not defending it. I'm just saying that it was relatively common practice, not just in Arabia but also elsewhere. As was slavery, torture, the death penalty and a whole lot of shit that I find equally repugnant.

If I were Muslim instead of Christian, I would be thinking that the allegations against him were made up by people at the time trying to justify their own perversions or something.

Some Muslim scholars have already attempted to 'reinterpret' the age of Aisha to try and calculate her as being older.

Which is common practice amongst scholars of religious texts. Interpret away stuff you don't like, including slavery, murder, genocide and all sorts of shit that doesnt make sense or you have a problem with, or try and claim 'one week' really means 'one billion years' for the creation myth etc.

Nice try but I reckon Mohammed was offered Aisha by a powerful family he needed (or desired) an alliance with. In the mold of nearly all cult leaders, he then sexually abused her.

Im not defending the campaigner here. Im just saying it wasnt a crazy outlier for its time and place.

 

[mcnulty]

No, and I didnt ******* say that.

I said I posted a hundred or so examples of European nobility marrying between the ages of 5 and 15. Most of those would have consummated the marriage not long after marrying, although there is no record of when exactly it happened.

Thats a picture of Richard II the King of England (aged 29), and his 6-year-old bride Isabella.

You keep saying child marriage was rare, and I've literally given you a hundred or so examples of it from European nobility alone.



No, it was uncommon to be unmarried after 15. Particularly in Eastern Europe and in the Roman Empire (which Jesus was born into)

In medieval Eastern Europe, the Slavic traditions of patrilocality of early and universal marriage (usually of a bride aged 13–15 years, with menarche occurring on average at age 14) lingered... in Ancient Rome, the appropriate minimum age for marriage was regarded as 14 for males and 12 for females.

43% of Pagan females married as young as 12-15 years and 42% of Christian females married as young as 15-18 years.

Marriageable age - Wikipedia

Western Europe was the outlier (with brides tending to be in their late teens or even in some cases early 20's), aside from the Noble classes who had a long history of marrying kids off to other families.

If you're walking around Bethlehem in the time of Jesus, or ancient Rome then it would not be uncommon to see married 15-year-old girls carrying around kids of their own.

And that painting would have been commissioned. As creepy as it looks today, they would have seen nothing wrong with it.

 

[sr36]

It wasn't socially acceptable, we have been through statistics and documents that show that it was absolutely not the custom for girls as young as 9 to consummate marriage with a 50 year old in the western world. The age of first pregnancy of royals throughout Europe doesn't seem to support this idea that it was just a common and accepted thing as well as other evidence listed previously in the thread.

The argument that Muhammad was just "a man of his times" as though that defends the allegations against him doesn't even stack up if you're inclined to accept it. Maybe of "his time and place" it was normal. Very unfortunate if so, especially if people to do THIS DAY use that example to further this terrible practice. But the argument that "everybody else was doing it" doesn't actually make it okay anyway even if it were true. I believe most people can see that such behaviour is absolutely wrong.

If I were Muslim instead of Christian, I would be thinking that the allegations against him were made up by people at the time trying to justify their own perversions or something. Or the clerics who have her age higher are correct. Nobody should take the position that it was somehow justified. And absolutely nobody should take his example as though that's the correct way to live. Nor if it is true, should we be afraid to criticise him. What other historical figure that did something similar would people be apologising for??

Here's an article that brings up some of the issues and agrees that she was probably older.

However it points out that there doesn't appear to have been criticism at the time.

 

[evolved2]

You are free to believe whatever you like. But McFaulty was trying to draw a comparison to the Christian concept of immaculate conception with what was said itt about Muhammad and Aisha, which is a false comparison in multiple ways.

We have already been through this. Averages say nothing about an individual. There is no record of Mary being pregnant at 12-14. She could have just as easily been 18-19 and that is how she has been depicted in every way that I have seen. It wouldn't be unusual. I don't know what is with the obsession with trying to make her be in the lowest possible age bracket... very weird.

There's a massive power imbalance between a 19yr old (or even a 45yr old) human and a deity. What would happen if she said 'no'? Irrespective of whether sexual intercourse occurred, biblegod allegedly entered Mary's womb. Does that make it more palatable and less intimate?

Many believers in Abrahamic deities follow simply because they don't want to be tortured in the afterlife. We may as well throw the notion of consent out the window when it comes to some forms of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

What would happen if she said 'no'?

In general, her opinion was not asked for or listened to. She would be told it was for the good of the family, and very likely secure her future. Women needed the security of marriage as they couldn’t own property.

It was not unknown for girls to commit suicide to avoid a repugnant marriage.

 

[Jazny]

Child marriage was socially acceptable. It was not uncommon for girls in their early teens (13-15) to get married.

That's a significantly different context than in the modern world isn't it? Surely you can see that.

Now take into account that 1 in 10 girls in Australia in contemporary times, under the age of 15 report being sexually assaulted by an older bloke. That adds up to 1.2 million odd girls under the age of 15 being molested, in Australia alone.

Thats in the modern context. Where it's a crime to have sex with a person under the age of 16, and where marriage is limited to 18.

Are you saying that those rates of child abuse which are prevalent now, were not also prevalent in times where child marriage was common (and lawful) and there were no ages of consent laws?



No, I've literally provided you with dozens of examples of people in the 'Western World' (nobles mainly) marrying girls as young as 9 (or younger).

I literally even provided you with a picture of a 6-year-old marrying the King of England.

And they're just the nobles. Commoner child marriages were not recorded, but I'm sure they happened as well.

The history books don't record the age of consummation of the marriage, but it's safe to assume it wasn't very long after the marriage took effect.

Even if we're just working on the modern rates of sexual abuse of girls under 15 (1 in 10) then you can safely assume a fair few of those child brides 'consummated the marriage' not long after the wedding.

Unless men are only raping young girls in by the millions now, and didnt back then. For some reason.



I didnt say that. I said it wasn't unusual.

If you were a man of importance in Arabia (or anywhere else) expect other noble families to try and marry their kids off to you. It's so common as to be a cliche (the local lord or chief offering up his daughter to solidify an alliance).

It wasn't an uncommon practice.



That's my point. It wasn't unusual for it to happen in his time and place (and indeed all through Europe, Asia, the Americas, Polynesia and other places).

Im not defending it. I'm just saying that it was relatively common practice, not just in Arabia but also elsewhere. As was slavery, torture, the death penalty and a whole lot of s**t that I find equally repugnant.



Some Muslim scholars have already attempted to 'reinterpret' the age of Aisha to try and calculate her as being older.

Which is common practice amongst scholars of religious texts. Interpret away stuff you don't like, including slavery, murder, genocide and all sorts of s**t that doesnt make sense or you have a problem with, or try and claim 'one week' really means 'one billion years' for the creation myth etc.

Nice try but I reckon Mohammed was offered Aisha by a powerful family he needed (or desired) an alliance with. In the mold of nearly all cult leaders, he then sexually abused her.

Im not defending the campaigner here. Im just saying it wasnt a crazy outlier for its time and place.

I think we need to take a step back because we are slightly arguing past each other maybe, because I have been arguing with different people who have had vastly different views to you, and I mostly agree with your views.

You seem to not even want to defend the morality of what Muhamad allegedly did. So on that we agree. I think we both agree that it doesn't matter if it was a common practice in his time and place, it is still obviously bad and we can judge him negatively for it. Right? I have been arguing against people who disagree with us on this.

We do disagree how common the consummation of marriages so young were. But honestly if we both agree that any such relation is bad regardless of how common, then this whole point is mute anyway. We agree that almost all customs prior to our better modern standards were not good, although I believe some were certainly worse than others.

 

[Jazny]

There's a massive power imbalance between a 19yr old (or even a 45yr old) human and a deity. What would happen if she said 'no'? Irrespective of whether sexual intercourse occurred, biblegod allegedly entered Mary's womb. Does that make it more palatable and less intimate?

If she was going to say no, she wouldn't have been chosen.

 

[evolved2]

If she was going to say no, she wouldn't have been chosen.

Checkmate! Damn.

 

[sr36]

We do disagree how common the consummation of marriages so young were. But honestly if we both agree that any such relation is bad regardless of how common, then this whole point is mute anyway. We agree that almost all customs prior to our better modern standards were not good, although I believe some were certainly worse than others.

If we're getting down to the concept of moral progress of cultures. I can get on board. Eg. Our modern take on the morality of sex with recently pubescent girls being culturally superior to the views of previous societies morality on the subject - including biblical and Quaranic morality, where it doesn't appear to have been considered an issue - despite almost certainly being common place.

But to me thats morality changing over time - unless we want to portray these great prophets and philosophers as morally inferior to modern man, which I'm sure you don't want to do.

 

[mcnulty]

So on that we agree. I think we both agree that it doesn't matter if it was a common practice in his time and place, it is still obviously bad and we can judge him negatively for it

lol no, have you learnt nothing over the last few pages?

 

[mcnulty]

If we're getting down to the concept of moral progress of cultures. I can get on board. Eg. Our modern take on the morality of sex with recently pubescent girls being culturally superior to the views of previous societies morality on the subject - including biblical and Quaranic morality, where it doesn't appear to have been considered an issue - despite almost certainly being common place.

But to me thats morality changing over time - unless we want to portray these great prophets and philosophers as morally inferior to modern man, which I'm sure you don't want to do.

And again from a historical perspective it’s only relatively recent. Up until the late 19th century the age of consent was still 12, and even younger in some Christian jurisdictions.

 

[Jazny]

lol no, have you learnt nothing over the last few pages?

What do you think I should have learned, McFaulty?

 

[mcnulty]

What do you think I should have learned, McFaulty?

That relationships between grown men and young girls were common place throughout much of Christian history. They were condoned by the early church so were obviously consistent with their teachings .

Your argument now seems to rest on the laughably stupid assumption that these relationships weren’t consummated. It’s pathetic.

 

[Jazny]

That relationships between grown men and young girls were common place throughout much of Christian history. They were condoned by the early church so were obviously consistent with their teachings .

Your argument now seems to rest on the laughably stupid assumption that these relationships weren’t consummated. It’s pathetic.

Find me some examples then.

 

[mcnulty]

Find me some examples then.

Lol. You’ve been provided with heaps. Your argument is that although they were married and allowed to have sex, they didn’t have sex. Is that what it boils down to?