A challenge about women and marriage in Islam

[Violet]

Alright, we're back.

I know you are trying to call me retarded by posting that youtube video but I feel that I cannot carry on this debate or whatever you want to call it if I have to explain why educating people when they are young is a good idea vs letting them get pregnant and just giving them C sections afterwards. Or explaining how bigger more muscular 16 year olds typically are less vulnerable than 9 year olds. It's more of a waste of my time than all the other things I argue about on here which are pretty much a waste of time too but this is seriously a boring waste of time.

I was telling you to never go full retard. It was cautionary, nothing else. Maybe you shouldn't make statements of knowledge so often... then you wouldn't take insult from where there was but quiet concern over the destination you might be heading for Don't worry, you're making a damn good case of heading that way with every assumption (edit: Okay, I'll admit that I insulted you, as at one point in the video he says "you went full retard". I was focusing more on "never go full retard", and I would like to take this time to half-apologize for the insult Everyone knows you never go full apology.)

Why wouldn't you have to explain why educating people when they are young is a good idea, and why letting them get pregnant and have children is not? These are individual values. For the record: I largely agree with your values, but you never made a logical argument (or even a good case for explaining why your subjective mindset is worth enough to endorse it to everyone, to point of CONDEMNING that of another... you could have done *a lot* better)

Sure, 16 year old humans are often bigger and with bigger muscles than 9 year olds... but what you haven't explained is how that bigger person is more or less vulnerable than someone smaller and with smaller muscles. Given that you never explained to us precisely what vulnerability entails, I am not comfortable making the leap based on my understanding of vulnerability (probably quite more extensive and broad in practice, and simpler in definition), which is essentially 'susceptibility', concerned wholly with harmability... vulnerability is a statement of how harmable a being is. A vulnerable being is one which can be harmed, an invulnerable being is one which cannot be harmed... to state a thing is vulnerable in my understanding is to suggest that it can be acted upon by detriment. Further, vulnerability implies that an outside force has ready ability to apply its influence upon one... such that one's state changes as a result of this (usually intended negatively, but one can be vulnerable to <positive> just as readily).

Now that you've finished that word salad, let's simplify: An equal gunshot to the left shoulder of either a 9 year old human, 15 year old human, or 30 year old human will modify the state of this being similarly... that is to say: each of these is roughly equally harmed (in both quantity of harm and the quality of harm) by a gunshot to a shoulder. Now consider: does equal rape have greater ability to modify the state of a nine year old than it has of a thirty year old or eighty year old? Does equal physical and emotional abuse have greater ability to modify the state of a nine year old than it has of a thirty year old or eighty year old?

If so... then we arrive at the ALL IMPORTANT QUESTION: What has differed between a 9 year old, 30 year old, and 80 year old that allows for an identical abuse they experience to be greater or lesser? What *vulnerabilities* are expressly prevalent in 9 year olds that are not found (to the same extent) in 15 year olds or 30 year olds; why are these vulnerabilities greater or lesser than those of 15 or 30 year olds; and do you possess any data that backs up your analysis?

...

I'm never going to get to have a conversation like that with ANYONE here, am I?

No no... they'll just find it booorrrrrrring, and state that learning something (as apposed to blasting opinion everywhere) is a waste of time. I even try to spice it up with some humor, but nope: they're still bored. Everyone here has ADH-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSUXXzN26zg

Don't think of my wanting to stop this convo as a good thing, don't think that you are actually getting your point across to me, it's simply that I cannot be bothered to even start explaining these things to you in detail, I'm sure you already know these things already but you are in denial about them for whatever reason, maybe you had sex when you were a young boy under some strange circumstances I don't know.

I don't think that you 'wanting to stop' is a good thing. Nor do I think it is a bad thing. About all I can say on the matter is that it is a thing, but really: I don't think that means anything.

I don't think that I'm getting my point across to you, but I also don't think that is my fault How could I hope to teach one that refuses to be taught, barring a bizarre set of circumstances?

You can't be bothered to explain? But you can be bothered to post... am I missing something here? Maybe if I had more details.

I assure you, I know quite a bit about these things already, and it is not denial from which I speak... it is from an open mind, and instead of branding humans in batches and declaring myself just for it (for where there is economics: there is goodness): I seek out the root qualities by which I might know what being is fuckable, which beings I might marry, those beings for may I eat, that being such I might use without regard for whatever it would will. I think you can marry a nine year old if that nine year old has the qualities of marryability; that you might fuck a nine year old what has the qualities of fuckability; that you may eat the nine year old meeting the qualities of eatability... these are MORAL concerns, and closing your ears because someone's moral/value system (or that of an entire CULTURE) does not align perfectly with yours? I cannot say that such affirms your belief that it is I who am in denial. Unless I lie, of course.

I was never a young boy, so having sex as a young boy would indeed involve some strange circumstances. I don't know either, would you like me to insult you in this breath?

---

Every Muslim I've spoke with about this topic does believe Muhammad married a 9 year old, including the poster of this thread.

And that only means that you haven't spoken to Muslims who don't believe that.

Even if he did marry 9-year-old girl, what does that prove exactly?

Also, know that all of Muhammad's and Aisha's family members knew about their marriage with each other and it was arranged by their parents which is a strong indication that such a thing was a cultural phenomenon and that it was not viewed to be immoral by anyone living at that time. There were even people who used to say very offensive things to Muhammad and they used to mock him and ridicule him with extremely harsh words (mainly because they didn't believe what he was preaching, Islam) - and yet - none of them was ever heard to have insulted him nor criticized him about marrying a supposedly 9-year-old girl.

And that is fascinating indeed, suggesting that it was a rather more common practice at the time (as you noted in the post after this, I'd have thought it followed, or that nobody thought he married a 9 year old girl in the first place. Maybe I should look at historical data regarding arranged marriages sometime... seems like a little much to do tonight, but sounds like something fun if I have time sometime. Surely someone has compiled it already for me.. >_> But maybe I get to be a pioneer!)

Lilly has already countered all your arguments and she said it better than I could have said it myself.

Now that's just selling yourself short! I'm a terrible arguer, focus too much on little pedantic things. Makes people angry at me, like they think I missed the point But often, I feel that answering 'em straight just... isn't convincing.