Special pleading. What are the differences between statements of judgement and of occurrences that break the analogy? Hint: there aren't any. Even if there were, Blinking Spirit made more than one comparison; in no way is "Caesar fought for the good of the people" more of a judgement than "Muhammad treated his bride with love and kindness."
Response: Clutching at straws: There is a big difference. The statements regarding Aisha comes from "Aisha", thus it has more credibility as to how Aisha was treated. So if Aisha is reliable in reporting one statement, judgment or not, then she cannot also be unreliable reporting another. A source cannot be reliable and unreliable at the same time.
Whereas your example statements come from "you", not Caesar or "the people". They do not come from the same source or any credible source, which would be "the people" Your analogy fails.
More special pleading. Whether or not anyone stated anything about books being white and black is not relevant. The comparison was to show that, in the same way that one text can be, in different areas, both black and white - two qualities that might seem mutually exclusive - a text can be reliable in one area and unreliable in the next.
Response: More clutching at straws: The question was never whether two different things can be opposites, such as black or white, but that one thing cannot be two different things, yet still defined as one. Text can be black in one area and white in the other, but text that are both black and white cannot be called, "just black" or "just white", just as something unreliable cannot be reliable at the same time.
You are arguing that Mohammed's marriage is acceptable because the Quran says it is.
,
The Quran was, allegedly, dictated by Mohammed.
Therefore, your sole justification for Mohammed's marriage being acceptable is because Mohammed said his marriage was acceptable.
Response: Yet we still see you fail to quote any post of mine saying that Muhammad's marriage is acceptable because the Qur'an says so, thus debunking yourself as usual.
I don't have to demonstrate any flaw in anyone's character to say that no argument has been made for his being a positive role model, because you, by your own admission, have not done so. You've merely repeated over and over again that he is one, without justifying it.
Response: Nor do I have to justify it, as it is not the topic. The topic is whether the Qur'an or Sunnah shows Muhammad's character as negative. You've shown nothing, thus refuting your own logic.
How's about we start with the definitions of the terms "puberty," "adolescence," and "sexual maturity"? You have no leg to stand on when contradicting biology.
Response: Yet your continuous failure to provide any scientific statement to back your claim shows otherwise.
Response: I fully reject that she was mature, and consider the sources that claims her mature as false. I ask that you provide additional sources to show that she was indeed mature, and why she was mature. IE What actions did she make to indicate her maturity.
Response: Then you must also reject that she was married and was 9 years old at the time, since it derives from the same sources you reject, which makes such a dialogue pointless, as you reject sources with no logical reasoning.
In fact, most historians and archaeologists have to deal with sources of questionable authenticity all the time. For example, Herodotus described the war between the Greek city-states and Persia, but he also cited the Olympian gods as agents meddling in human affairs. Or, more generally, ancient sources might under-report their own casualties and over-report the enemy casualties. That's why historians and archaeologists have to collect many sources and (hopefully) physical evidence to corroborate the stories.
Response: True, but a source still cannot be reliable and unreliable at the same time.
Even though I know I shouldn't, I'm going to jump in here.
So by your logic, if you can't prove someone is a bad person, he is not only a morally good/neutral person, but a morally great person?
On the basis of him being a human being and what he has done for the Middle East (the good things, not the terrorists), I can already accept him as a pretty decent guy. I don't know much about Islam as a religion, but correct me if I'm wrong, he's a Jesus-like figure who preached morals like being good to your neighbors and such.
I can't, however, accept him as a morally great person because I never lived life through his eyes. I think that's also the key to the puzzle of the 9 year old wife.
Forget biology, psychology, etc. How would you feel in her shoes? Marrying a much older, stranger that you don't even know? Sure, by the standards of the time this was fairly common, but I still don't believe for an instant that the women enjoyed it back then more than they do now (which they don't enjoy at all, if I didn't make that clear).
Yes, I realize I'm making a blanket statement and while I'm sure there are some women out there who like older men that they don't know, I'm pretty certain most of them don't. However, we cannot step into Aisha's mind to really understand how she felt. Therefore, neither of us can really make a statement about the marriage from the standpoint of perspective alone.
However, I can make my argument a little bit stronger with the use of logical reasoning. Pulling up charts and research is all good but I'm sure you're immune to that sort of thing by now.
Think about it this way, do you view life the exact same way you did when you were 9 years old? I certainly don't. I've changed a lot over the years. I don't eat the same things I used to. I don't live where I used to. I don't believe the same things I used to. Why have I changed? Experience, of course. Experience that I didn't have as a 9 year old.
Let's take a look at divorce as an example. People grow apart. They get older and realize that they don't love the same person the same way they did before. That's why a lot of young marriages fall apart. The spouses simply didn't have the experience to understand what they truly wanted.
There's a lot of debate over the proper age of consent. But no one can make a blanket statement and say something like "everyone is mature enough to get married at the age of 18." That's simply not true. Some people mature early, some people fast. However, what we can agree on, is that a 9 year old should have more life experience before deciding. It's not backed up by scientific evidence that I have on hand (although I'm sure it's out there). It's just common sense. Damn if I had the experience to decide how my life would turn out at the age of 9. I wouldn't take kindly to anyone who would force that decision on me either, whether I wanted to or not. Sure I might like the arrangement initially, but I'd probably feel terrible a few years down the line. There's very little real communication between 9 year olds and old dudes.
Anyways, the point of that whole spiel was to illustrate the point that not only do we not understand the perspective of Aisha because we don't have information, the logical evidence is stacked against her being wholly happy in the marriage and Mohammed making a morally sound decision by taking even a willing 9 year old into one.
Which brings us back to Mohammed's morality. You're trying to prove that he's not just a good guy, but a truly excellent example of humanity's finest human beings. That's a really, really tall order. Saying he didn't beat his wife doesn't count as evidence towards your argument. I don't know where you come from, but even in the most backwoods areas, people understand that beating their spouses is wrong. It's just that in those areas, people do it anyways.
My advice to you is to give up your quest of preaching that Mohammed is #1 on top of the world Superman. I view him as a pretty good guy who had his flaws, and I'm pretty sure most people who aren't complete idiots do as well. If that's your goal, then it's already been achieved. What are you arguing for?
Response: There is nothing in the Qur'an or sunnah that says that Aisha was ever harmed in her marriage and that she was loved and treated kindly by Muhammad. Thus all logical evidence shows that she was very happy in her marriage, which is a reflection of great character by Muhammad.
Except, again, was not the Quran recited by Mohammed?
You have demonstrated nothing that depicts Mohammed as having great moral character. If you truly believe that he is a great role model, demonstrate that he is. Otherwise there is no basis for thinking that he is.[/QUOTE]
Response: Yet your inability to show any flaw in his character demonstrates otherwise.
You have repeatedly stated that Mohammed's marriage was acceptable. Your basis for saying the marriage was acceptable is Mohammed's claim that his marriage is acceptable.
Response: Yet you can't quote a single statement of mine that says that Muhammad's marriage is acceptable because Muhammad says so.
It is neither an implication, nor is it from me, but rather it was directly stated by you:
You say that Mohammed is of great morals and decency. Demonstrate this.
Response: It's been demonstrated repeatedly, as there is nothing in the Qur'an or Sunnah that shows Muhammad's character as indecent, supported by your own inability to show otherwise.
If not harming your spouse is a great characteristic, then most of humanity is as great as Muhammad in this respect. Which sort of defeats the purpose of calling something "great", I think.
Response: Not at all. More than one person can be great and have great characteristics.
Please do not make me look for all the crap that details how the child's mind develops. I would be incredibly happy if you took the time to look it up yourself. Because you are flat-out ****ing wrong on this.
Obviously there could be children who are surprisingly mature for a 9 year old. However, they are still not mature on the level that the average teens or proper adults are.
Response: In other words, you have absolutely no evidence that a 9 year old cannot be mature, thus debunking your own claim. Thanks for the clarification.
I say that Barack Obama is the President of the United States.
I also say that I am the King of Siam.
Am I reliable or unreliable?
If you accept that Barack Obama is the President of the United States, then by your reasoning you must think that I am reliable and that, therefore, I must be the King of Siam. And if you think that I am unreliable, then by your reasoning Barack Obama must not be the President of the United States.
Obviously, your reasoning is flawed. In fact a source can be reliable in some respects but unreliable in others. If I claim that I am the King of Siam, that is a self-serving statement, and any historian would take it skeptically. But they would be much more accepting of statements I make that do not reflect on me, or reflect on me poorly.
For a real-life example, take Julius Caesar's De Bello Civili, his firsthand account of the civil war he fought with Pompey over control of Rome. Now, Caesar claims that all his bloody battles were fought for the good of the people of Rome, that he was just and fair and universally loved. As a self-serving statement, we should not judge it reliable. Caesar also mentions that in these battles, his legions fought with javelins and swords. This is not something it would occur to Caesar to make up, for it would not benefit his cause to do so, so we can conclude reliably that Roman legions in fact did use these weapons.
It is with a similar method of analysis that we look at Islamic sources and draw conclusions about cultural incidentals (like child marriage) while remaining skeptical of the praise heaped upon Muhammad (like his kind conduct within said child marriage).
Response: You are comparing a statement of judgment with a statement of an actual act or occurance. So clearly, your analogy is severely flawed, as the statements in the hadiths are statements of two occurances. And as I stated, if two occurances reliability is based on the same source and one statement is unreliable, the source cannot be reliable and unreliable at the same time. Your logic fails.
There is nothing in this post that shows that I am not the greatest and most moral person in history. And, in fact, there is an explicit statement that I am, right here:
Blinking Spirit is the greatest and most moral person in history.
Should you conclude that I am the greatest and most moral person in history? If not, why not? And why does that same reasoning why not fail to apply to the Qur'an and the sunnah?
Response: The judgment of Muhammad's charcater is based on statements reflecting actual acts and behavior, not a simple statement saying that he is great. Again, your example fails.
Again your reasoning is flawed. "Black" and "white" are not synonymous terms in any dictionary - in fact, they are antonyms. And yet the pages of the Qur'an are both black in some places and white in others.
Response: And yet no one stated that they were not, so your analogy is again flawed.
And isn't it supposed to be that Mohammed is the one who recited the Quran? So why exactly should I accept that Mohammed declaring his marriage as acceptable makes it acceptable?
Response: No one stated you had to accept anything.
[QUOTE=Highroller;/comments/11767545]
It's certainly preferable to the alternative, but you're acting as though this is some great moral achievement that he waited until the girl was pubescent to have sex with her, as opposed to having sex with a prepubescent girl, and it really isn't.
Response: I never acted as it was a great moral achievement. I simply stated what the scripture says, so you implication is a result of your own perception.
Of course it can. That she was nine when their marriage was consummated and that this is morally acceptable are two separate statements, and one can be correct without the other.
Similarly, if I say that I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die, and that this is morally correct, these are two separate claims. One is a claim of that a particular event took place. The other is a claim that this event was morally justified. It is entirely possible to believe that it took place but was not morally justified.
We are not beholden to accept every source at face value.
Response: Yet the word "reliable" and "unreliable" are not synonymous terms in any dictionary, clearly showing that they cannot be the same.
Science demonstrates as such. A girl who is nine is either prepubescent, or only just started puberty and therefore an adolescent. Both of these are by definition not mature.
Similarly, understanding of mental development indicates that mental maturity does not occur at age 9.
So demonstrate why we should regard a girl at age 9 as being mature.
Response: And I repeat, you still cannot provide one source from any science that a 9 year old is incapable of being mature, thus refuting your own logic.
Were the authors of the Qur'an or sunnah unbiased.
Response: Yes. They themselves are the ones who state his wife was 9. If they wanted to, they could easily say this is not the case. Are the authors of writings against Muhammad unbias?
Can you demonstrate that it did with her? Can you demonstrate that this was not a prepubescent relationship?
Response: As for Aisha reching the age of puberty, verse 4:6 clearly mentions that there is an age appropriate for marriage. Verse 24:31clearly states that children are not to be exposed of nakedness of women without knowledge of a woman's private parts. Lastly, taking a wife back or divorcing them takes place after their menstruation. Therefore, such a law cannot apply to prepubescent girls, thus proving that marriage and sex takes place at the age of puberty.
Response: Clutching at straws: There is a big difference. The statements regarding Aisha comes from "Aisha", thus it has more credibility as to how Aisha was treated. So if Aisha is reliable in reporting one statement, judgment or not, then she cannot also be unreliable reporting another. A source cannot be reliable and unreliable at the same time.
Whereas your example statements come from "you", not Caesar or "the people". They do not come from the same source or any credible source, which would be "the people" Your analogy fails.
Response: More clutching at straws: The question was never whether two different things can be opposites, such as black or white, but that one thing cannot be two different things, yet still defined as one. Text can be black in one area and white in the other, but text that are both black and white cannot be called, "just black" or "just white", just as something unreliable cannot be reliable at the same time.
Response: Yet we still see you fail to quote any post of mine saying that Muhammad's marriage is acceptable because the Qur'an says so, thus debunking yourself as usual.
Response: Nor do I have to justify it, as it is not the topic. The topic is whether the Qur'an or Sunnah shows Muhammad's character as negative. You've shown nothing, thus refuting your own logic.
Response: Yet your continuous failure to provide any scientific statement to back your claim shows otherwise.
Response: Then you must also reject that she was married and was 9 years old at the time, since it derives from the same sources you reject, which makes such a dialogue pointless, as you reject sources with no logical reasoning.
Response: True, but a source still cannot be reliable and unreliable at the same time.
Response: Treating someone kindly is an actual act or occurance as well.
Response: There is nothing in the Qur'an or sunnah that says that Aisha was ever harmed in her marriage and that she was loved and treated kindly by Muhammad. Thus all logical evidence shows that she was very happy in her marriage, which is a reflection of great character by Muhammad.
Of course I can. You have stated that the marriage was acceptable by the Quran. Was not the Quran recited by Mohammed?[/QUOTE]
Response: Which is not a quote of me saying that Muhammad's marriage is acceptable because Muhammad says so, thus proving my point.
Except, again, was not the Quran recited by Mohammed?
You have demonstrated nothing that depicts Mohammed as having great moral character. If you truly believe that he is a great role model, demonstrate that he is. Otherwise there is no basis for thinking that he is.[/QUOTE]
Response: Yet your inability to show any flaw in his character demonstrates otherwise.
Both biology and psychology demonstrate this to be true. Your argument holds no water.[/QUOTE]
Response: And we still see no evidence from any science saying so, thus refuting yourself as usual.
Response: Yet you can't quote a single statement of mine that says that Muhammad's marriage is acceptable because Muhammad says so.
Response: It's been demonstrated repeatedly, as there is nothing in the Qur'an or Sunnah that shows Muhammad's character as indecent, supported by your own inability to show otherwise.
Response: Not at all. More than one person can be great and have great characteristics.
Response: In other words, you have absolutely no evidence that a 9 year old cannot be mature, thus debunking your own claim. Thanks for the clarification.
Response: You are comparing a statement of judgment with a statement of an actual act or occurance. So clearly, your analogy is severely flawed, as the statements in the hadiths are statements of two occurances. And as I stated, if two occurances reliability is based on the same source and one statement is unreliable, the source cannot be reliable and unreliable at the same time. Your logic fails.
Response: The judgment of Muhammad's charcater is based on statements reflecting actual acts and behavior, not a simple statement saying that he is great. Again, your example fails.
Response: And yet no one stated that they were not, so your analogy is again flawed.
Response: No one stated you had to accept anything.
Response: I never acted as it was a great moral achievement. I simply stated what the scripture says, so you implication is a result of your own perception.
Response: Yet the word "reliable" and "unreliable" are not synonymous terms in any dictionary, clearly showing that they cannot be the same.
Response: And I repeat, you still cannot provide one source from any science that a 9 year old is incapable of being mature, thus refuting your own logic.
Response: For you it is. Not for everyone.
Response: Yes. They themselves are the ones who state his wife was 9. If they wanted to, they could easily say this is not the case. Are the authors of writings against Muhammad unbias?
Response: As for Aisha reching the age of puberty, verse 4:6 clearly mentions that there is an age appropriate for marriage. Verse 24:31clearly states that children are not to be exposed of nakedness of women without knowledge of a woman's private parts. Lastly, taking a wife back or divorcing them takes place after their menstruation. Therefore, such a law cannot apply to prepubescent girls, thus proving that marriage and sex takes place at the age of puberty.
Response: Because not harming your spouse is a great charcateristic.