+ Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
Times were different then weren't they.
You see in Roman Italy men would be partnered with young boys.
The ancient greeks. Those manly Spartans used to be some of the worst for it. Sure I read sodomy was legal so as to keep the youngsters virgins for marriage.
It is easy for us to look back and find it abhorrent but times change.
Boys in Christian & Islamic nations have it ingrained in them from birth that a marriage is between a man and women. Anything else is sinful now.
I guarantee men would have different opinions on the subject if not for that. As much as they'd deny it. It is all about circumstance and up bringing.
This probably needs a different thread.
I don't think anything should be read into it other than modern day muslims should modernise and realise it is no longer acceptable. As many of them do.
Last edited by LordKenwyne; 24-05-17 at 13:37.
Who's defending it I think it's disgusting that there have been that many suicide bombings. What I won't do is blame a whole huge group of people for the actions of very few. Because that is exactly what the people committing the suicide bombings want.
There are 1.8billion muslims. 450 have carried out a suicide bombing. Segregating and castigating people based on their religion will make things worse.
That article is so full of "what about this, though?" it's ridiculous, and such a desperate, wet attempt at deflection and muddying the waters that I can only assume you haven't read it yourself since I know you're a reasonable person.
The complaint is that Mohammed was married to Aisha when she was 6 and he was in his 50's, and the marriage was consummated when she was 9, as written by Aisha herself.
the explanations in that article range from:
"she must have entered puberty early"
"what if the book was wrong and it meant 19 instead of 9?"
"King John of England married a 12 year old anyway"
"some Muslims doubt she was that young"
"she was engaged to someone else before she got married"
"they probably married just to unite tribes and 'caring for widows and orphans'(?)"
"she was no wallflower, to paint her as a victim is at odds with her persona"
Probably the worst thing about that article is how on one hand they say "it was the norm at the time for these marriages to occur" whilst simultaneously sort of saying "no of course it didn't happen, that would be terrible".
It's just plainly dangerous for people to be able to revise history to edit out the unsavoury bits, nobody learns anything and progress becomes stifled.
History was fvcked up, that's why most educated people no longer live their lives by the "truths" in books written back then.
Now other people might be cool about allowing some ambiguity on this topic but for me, this is one where we need to be very clear about what is right and wrong, regardless of whose feelings might get hurt by pointing it out.
From accusations of pedophilia from the prophet who started the religion, right up to the modern day throwing gay people off buildings, stoning people in the street and blowing up children in concerts... can someone tell me why are people so keen to jump to the defence of this stuff?
Who's blaming all Muslims. I'm blaming the ideology. Why is it wrong to say Islam is f**ked up?
Maybe in the past you could control what Muslims in your community learnt from the Quran but those days are long gone with the birth of the internet.
Until islam as a whole declines there will always be extremists. This will go on for centuries. People can bury their head in the sand if they want but this is not going to go away any time soon.
I agree the ideology is ****ed up, as is most religions but you are right that the others don't seem to have the same issue of a minority believing every word of the text.
I did read it before posting, and what I took from it is that the waters are already muddy. I know nothing about Mohammed's life, but I keep seeing ninianclark posting about him marrying a nine year old so I decided to look into it further.
If from this, you think I'm defending paedophilia or something then shit, I'm out of this debate now.
No, I certainly wouldn't think that of you lardy, but it does strike me as odd that more people don't have that sudden moment of wondering what murky stuff they're defending when they stick up for this religion.
People of good morals feel obliged to stand up for the rights of the minorities but sometimes the minorities are into things that aren't as wholesome as we'd like to believe.
I wouldn't say I'm defending the religion. I'm no fan of religion and I'm not in any way religious, and while I do think that religion has inspired some of humankind's most incredible achievements (music, buildings, art) we'd all be better off today without it. But that's unrealistic.
When this one religion is seen as the sole cause of all this tragedy, and I don't think that's the case, then I make my point. It's not meant to be defending a religion I know little about, but defending the people. Islam's been going for centuries but this is a recent problem. So this tells me that looking in the Quran is probably going to be a red herring.
The 9 year old thing is unsettling, but as said above by Kenwyne, that's what used to happen. I'm reading Bernard Cornwell's Saxon series at the moment, set in about 900AD in England. The lords there are marrying pre-pubescent girls and consumating when they become pubescent, and that's our country in the more recent past. Far be it that I'm defending what we now would call underage sex, I just don't see it as being relevant to the shitstorm that's going on.
The bible spurned the crusades, isn't there a theory that since the western world developed differently we got our religious murder out the way a lot earlier when it was a lot more acceptable?
This isn't a defence for any scum bag terrorist but it's not like many religions are all about peace and love.
Who is sticking up for it though? As far as I can see the majority of people who come under that category are just saying that we shouldn't persecute innocent people to catch a few (there has to be a better way). Rash decision's (such as sending people to prison based on profiling and not actually committing a crime) end up exacerbating the problem and furthering the divide. My sister was at the dentist today and claims to have heard someone say 'round them all up and shoot them' which in fairness is at least a strategy (sarcasm). Do you want us to blame the book rather than the people who do these things? It feels like it and is something I disagree with (I am definitely not a religion apologist, I would end it all right now if I could). People are responsible for their actions.
I see what you getting at though, we shouldn't bury our heads in the sand and allow terrorism to become part of everyday life but short of doing things that you specifically don't want them to do (increased surveillance, invading privacy further) I can't really see what 'we' can do to stop 'them'.
My point was that we shouldn't automatically leap to the defence of someone's religion, specifically when it's one of the more bonkers ones (they're all pretty bonkers though)
Having said that, I've spent a fair portion of yesterday and today talking straight out of my barely-informed arse so I really shouldn't be taken all that seriously.
We are all just pretending we know what we are talking about so I wouldn't worry about it. I tend to glance at wiki for 5 minutes and then write/speak about things as if I did a doctoral thesis on it, if people notice I just call them names and try to remember not to go in that thread again.
I see the US are doing their best to undermine the investigation.