Originally Posted by
Colonel Cærdiffi
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?