Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?

[Glaswegian]

Muhammad, the founder of Islam, took Aisha as his bride when she was six or seven years old, and consummated the marriage when she was nine.

Many individuals have felt anger and revulsion at acts of paedophilia committed by Catholic priests against children. Should anger and revulsion also be felt towards Muhammad?

Jerry Falwell, the late Christian evangelical pastor, commented on Muhammad’s sexual relationship with Aisha as follows:

‘In a civilized society when a fifty-four year old man consummates a marriage with a nine year old girl¦to say that’s paedophilia is not taking it beyond the limits of reality.’

YouTube - Falwell: Muhammad a pedophile, Ibish: Falwell an idiot, pt1

Was Falwell correct? Should Muhammad be viewed as a paedophile?

[spot]

Why do people continually try to judge the past in terms of the current moral values of their own society? A hundred years from now people will be doing exactly the same of us. No moral value system remains constant.

[Glaswegian]

Falwell was certainly not alone in regarding Muhammad as a paedophile. Here is the same view expressed by another individual:

YouTube - Wilders - Muhammad was a Paedophile

[spot]

Are you back to copy/pasting your tedious threads across multiple sites, Glaswegian?

Why do people continually try to judge the past in terms of the current moral values of their own society? A hundred years from now people will be doing exactly the same of us. No moral value system remains constant.

[theia]

spot;1331952 wrote: Why do people continually try to judge the past in terms of the current moral values of their own society? A hundred years from now people will be doing exactly the same of us. No moral value system remains constant.


Thank you for saying what I would have said if only I could have assembled my thoughts in the right order

[Oscar Namechange]

And how exactly does this have an affect on the millions who follow the Islamic faith Glas?

[Glaswegian]

spot;1331955 wrote: Are you back to copy/pasting your tedious threads across multiple sites, Glaswegian?

Why do people continually try to judge the past in terms of the current moral values of their own society? A hundred years from now people will be doing exactly the same of us. No moral value system remains constant.
The thread has only just begun, spot. Why are you so nervous?

Take a stress pill, sit back and enjoy.

Who knows? - this could turn out to be an interesting discussion.

And you can help to make it so.

[Bryn Mawr]

Glaswegian;1331959 wrote: The thread has only just begun, spot. Why are you so nervous?

Take a stress pill, sit back and enjoy.

Who knows? - this could turn out to be an interesting discussion.

And you can help to make it so.


Well, so far it has all the signs of trolling - deliberately posted as inflammatory and divisive.

Why, for example, are you not asking whether the whole of renaissance Italy indulged in paedophilia as it was the custom then for girls to be married off at that age (as it was was in the Byzantine court) or whether any of the several Kings and nobles of England who married girls of that age were paedophiles?

[Glaswegian]

oscar;1331958 wrote: And how exactly does this have an affect on the millions who follow the Islamic faith Glas?
Do you think there are Muslim males who regard Muhammad’s sexual relationship with Aisha as providing them with moral justification to have sex with children, oscar?

[spot]

Glaswegian;1331959 wrote: The thread has only just begun, spot. Why are you so nervous?

Take a stress pill, sit back and enjoy.

Who knows? - this could turn out to be an interesting discussion.

And you can help to make it so.


As usual, no response to questions, just innuendo and abuse. I'm neither nervous nor stressed and no, I doubt whether it could.

Are you back to copy/pasting your tedious threads across multiple sites?

Why do people continually try to judge the past in terms of the current moral values of their own society? A hundred years from now people will be doing exactly the same of us. No moral value system remains constant.

[Glaswegian]

The following video raises a number of issues about Islam which should be of serious concern to all civilized human beings, and I intend to address them in this thread.

YouTube - the sexual abuse of childern in Islam

[Bryn Mawr]

Glaswegian;1331974 wrote: The following video raises a number of issues about Islam which should be of serious concern to all civilized human beings, and I intend to address them in this thread.

YouTube - the sexual abuse of childern in Islam


Before you do, hows about answering the questions?

Here's another one - why the deliberate targeting of Muslims instead of addressing the problem wherever it it found?

Under the current thread title it is grossly offensive.

[flopstock]

What creeps me out is the notion of any person finding a child sexually attractive. Right next to that creepy feeling is the creeps that there are folks out there that go researching it on you tube of all places...

Yikes!

[Oscar Namechange]

Bryn Mawr;1331975 wrote: Before you do, hows about answering the questions?

Here's another one - why the deliberate targeting of Muslims instead of addressing the problem wherever it it found?

Under the current thread title it is grossly offensive. Hear Hear

[Glaswegian]

spot wrote: Are you back to copy/pasting your tedious threads across multiple sites, Glaswegian?


No. The Forum Garden alone shall be favoured with this thread.

Don't mention it, mon cher ami. You're welcome.

spot wrote: Why do people continually try to judge the past in terms of the current moral values of their own society?
Because this is what people do, spot. I do it. You do it. And everyone else does it. Why should the fact that we stand at a great distance in time and place from Muhammad’s relationship with Aisha prevent us from forming a moral judgement about it?

spot wrote: A hundred years from now people will be doing exactly the same of us.
I don’t doubt it. As I said, this is what people do. If there are human beings alive on this planet in a thousand years from now, spot, I hope they will feel every bit as entitled as we do to form a moral judgement about, say, the Nazi’s who incinerated children alive during the Holocaust or Christians who did the same to child ‘witches’ a few centuries ago. And I hope that they will feel the same moral revulsion towards these horrors as we do.

spot wrote: No moral value system remains constant.
I know. This is why Jews, for example, no longer stone women to death for adultery.

~o0o~


Regarding the question I asked in the opening post: Should Muhammad be viewed as a paedophile?

[Kathy Ellen]

Glaswegian;1331974 wrote: The following video raises a number of issues about Islam which should be of serious concern to all civilized human beings, and I intend to address them in this thread.

YouTube - the sexual abuse of childern in Islam


Thank you for posting this video amongst others. I'll be watching all of them.

[Glaswegian]

Bryn Mawr;1331975 wrote: why the deliberate targeting of Muslims instead of addressing the problem wherever it it found?
There’s just no pleasing some people!

If this thread dealt with Christian paedophiles then I’m sure I would be accused of targeting them and letting Muslims off the hook.

Okay. Just to keep you happy, Bryn, I’ll try to bring in some Christian paedophiles later in the thread.

[Glaswegian]

Kathy Ellen;1332023 wrote: Thank you for posting this video amongst others. I'll be watching all of them.
You're welcome, Kathy.

[Clodhopper]

I have to say that Glaswegian is doing nothing to Islam that he has not done to Christianity. He is being even handed.

I'm surprised, spot and Bryn. Why are you twitching here when you weren't particularly at his previous threads?

[Glaswegian]

Glaswegian;1331974 wrote: The following video raises a number of issues about Islam which should be of serious concern to all civilized human beings, and I intend to address them in this thread.

YouTube - the sexual abuse of childern in Islam
One of the issues raised in the above video is the cruel and barbaric practice of female genital mutilation which is widespread in the Islamic world. Female genital mutilation is ideologically justified by Islam, and its purpose is to eliminate sexual feeling in the female and thereby make her more virtuous in the eyes of the Muslim male. Here are several accounts of it:

‘During the 19th century it was the custom among the Kababish, one of the most powerful Arab tribes of the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, to cut off the entire clitoris and to carve away the whole of the vulva; the screams of the child, typically between the third and sixth year, were drowned by the rejoicing of the celebrants, after which the girl's legs were tied together for two or three weeks.’

‘During the 20th century, among the Muslim Galla communities of Harai in northern Pakistan, girls of eight to ten years were infibulated in the stitching process, where the inner labia were scraped until raw and bleeding, after which they were sewn together with horse-hair and the feet bound together for several days.’

A French physician, Dr Peney, described parts of this ritual as follows:

‘The matron¦begins by slicing off the tip of the clitoris and the edges of the inner lips. Then the razor shears along the rims of the outer lips¦In order to drown the shrieks of the girl, the assembled guests and kin raise the loudest and shrillest din conceivable until the process is over¦When the flowing blood has been staunched, the girl is laid flat on her back, her legs extended and tied firmly together.’

~o0o~


Here are some videos about this cruel and despicable practice:

Female genital mutilation in Africa¦

YouTube - African Activism Against Female Circumcision is Focus of New Film

Female genital mutilation in Egypt¦

YouTube - Islam - Female Genital Mutilation

In the following video, an Islamic ‘expert’ attempts to justify female genital mutilation. The old woman who confronts him is worth a hundred Forum Garden ‘men’¦

YouTube - Islamic religious experts on female circumcision

[Bryn Mawr]

Clodhopper;1332040 wrote: I have to say that Glaswegian is doing nothing to Islam that he has not done to Christianity. He is being even handed.

I'm surprised, spot and Bryn. Why are you twitching here when you weren't particularly at his previous threads?


Had it just been a discussion of paedophilia or a discussion of FGM within Islam then fine - for it to be done under the current thread title is crass.

Fourteen hundred years ago it was considered normal and acceptable in large parts of the world for girls to be married before puberty - as I mentioned in a previous post it was common throughout the Byzantine Empire at the same period and throughout Europe even more recently including amongst the British and Italian aristocracy. Given this, to pick out one person as "guilty of paedophilia" is disingenuous and to pick our the founder of a major religion in particular is offensive.

By all means, have a discussion on the subject - this is after all a discussion forum, but to do so in a manner deliberately calculated to be inflammatory and divisive is trolling and IMO in breach of the ToS :-

1.2 No "Trolling": Please do not post any topic that disrupts the peace and harmony of this board. Don't create threads with the sole purpose of starting a dispute. This includes messages in profiles and signatures and the creation of duplicate accounts.

[Clodhopper]

Bryn: Hmm. Yes, I see what you mean. Hard to argue with that.

On the other hand, since we know Glaswegian's atheist agenda, pretty much anything he posts on religion could be defined as trolling.

chuckle. Can just see Glaswegian clad only in a fuzz of ginger hair living under a bridge and growling, "Fee fi fo fum, I smell the blood of a religious man."

[Glaswegian]

Bryn Mawr;1331963 wrote: Why, for example, are you not asking whether the whole of renaissance Italy indulged in paedophilia as it was the custom then for girls to be married off at that age (as it was was in the Byzantine court) or whether any of the several Kings and nobles of England who married girls of that age were paedophiles?
You flatter me, Bryn! But even I cannot cover every aspect of paedophilia in a single post.

Perhaps some of the things you mention in your post will be discussed later in the thread.

[Glaswegian]

Bryn Mawr;1332058 wrote: to pick out one person as "guilty of paedophilia" is disingenuous
The only contributor who has said anything about Muhammad being "guilty of paedophilia" so far in this thread has been you, Bryn.

I take it, then, that you go along with Falwell's and Wilders' view of Muhammad. Yes?

[spot]

Glaswegian;1332081 wrote: The only contributor who has said anything about Muhammad being "guilty of paedophilia" so far in this thread has been you, Bryn.


The initial insult is the thread title itself.

Western civilization was practically built on your modern concept of pedophilia, just read relevant passages from the Greek classics. It's nothing to do with religion, it's simply a cultural norm at various times in history.

[gmc]

Glaswegian;1331950 wrote: Muhammad, the founder of Islam, took Aisha as his bride when she was six or seven years old, and consummated the marriage when she was nine.

Many individuals have felt anger and revulsion at acts of paedophilia committed by Catholic priests against children. Should anger and revulsion also be felt towards Muhammad?

Jerry Falwell, the late Christian evangelical pastor, commented on Muhammad’s sexual relationship with Aisha as follows:

‘In a civilized society when a fifty-four year old man consummates a marriage with a nine year old girl¦to say that’s paedophilia is not taking it beyond the limits of reality.’

YouTube - Falwell: Muhammad a pedophile, Ibish: Falwell an idiot, pt1

Was Falwell correct? Should Muhammad be viewed as a paedophile?


He was a man of his times, in an age when people tended not to live much beynd thirty there wasn't time to hang about. Don't judge by today's standard child marraiges were common throughout europe as well as the middle east.

Wapedia - Wiki: Age of consent.

The first recorded age of consent law dates more than 800 years ago: in 1275, in England, as part of the rape law, a statute, Westminster 1, made it a misdemeanor to "ravish" a "maiden within age," whether with or without her consent. The phrase "within age" was interpreted by jurist Sir Edward Coke as meaning the age of marriage, which at the time was 12 years of age. [3]

In the twelfth century Gratian, who was the influential founder of Canon law in medieval Europe, accepted age of puberty for marriage to be between 12 and 14 but acknowledged consent to be meaningful if the children were older than seven. There were authorities that said that consent could take place earlier. Marriage would then be valid as long as neither of the two parties annulled the marital agreement before reaching puberty, or if they had already consummated the marriage. It should be noted that Judges honored marriages based on mutual consent at ages younger than seven, in spite of what Gratian had said; there are recorded marriages of two and three year olds. [2]


Short answer is no he wasn't in the context of the times he lived in.

posted by bryn mawr

Before you do, hows about answering the questions?

Here's another one - why the deliberate targeting of Muslims instead of addressing the problem wherever it it found?

Under the current thread title it is grossly offensive.


In fairness to glaswegian he has been bringng the subject up elsewhere in regard to christians.

By all means, have a discussion on the subject - this is after all a discussion forum, but to do so in a manner deliberately calculated to be inflammatory and divisive is trolling and IMO in breach of the ToS :-

1.2 No "Trolling": Please do not post any topic that disrupts the peace and harmony of this board. Don't create threads with the sole purpose of starting a dispute. This includes messages in profiles and signatures and the creation of duplicate accounts.

and yes his posts are deliberately provocative. If you looked at some of his other threads you would get the impression that he had been abused as a child by a catholic nun wearing stockings and high heels while he was dressed in a rubber suit. The subject of child abuse by religious leaders comes up rather a lot nowadays in threads about the catholic church. Although they have not caused the same kind of outrage. It's almost impossible to talk about religion without annoying somebody, although glaswegian is actually trying to be annoying.

posted by spot

Why do people continually try to judge the past in terms of the current moral values of their own society? A hundred years from now people will be doing exactly the same of us. No moral value system remains constant.


Try telling that to a religious fundamentalist. they adhere to moral standards laid down in bronze age times and claim the bible/koran as their moral compass and want us to also adhere to those same standards. Have you not heard the moral decline of modern society is because we are no longer following those guidelines.

Archbishop strides into moral maze - News - The Independent

In particular, the Enlightenment introduced ideas that struck at the very heart of the biblical world of fixed moral certainties, attacking the moral universe of the dark ages - feudal, deferential, superstitious. The language of rights and democracy sits uncomfortably with ancient beliefs in the virtue of obedience.

Tolerance and understanding are modern, post-Enlightenment virtues that jar with Old Testament moral damnation. So does the idea of an inalienable right to pursue happiness - a word notably missing from the Ten Commandments.


It's not so much judging the past in terms of current moral standards we need to prevent turning back the clock at the behest of a vociferous religious minority

It's no worse than asking was jesus gay.

YouTube - Was Jesus gay?

Or pointing out that adam and eve went in for incest. Fundamentalists are happy with that one and have their own explanations.

[Glaswegian]

spot;1332090 wrote: The initial insult is the thread title itself.
I’m sure you would agree that a pope or a priest is not above the charge of paedophilia, spot, if that charge is warranted.

So why should the founder of a religion be?

[Glaswegian]

spot;1332090 wrote: Western civilization was practically built on your modern concept of pedophilia, just read relevant passages from the Greek classics.
Interesting point. Could you expand on it?

[Glaswegian]

gmc;1332097 wrote: If you looked at some of [Glaswegian's] other threads you would get the impression that he had been abused as a child by a catholic nun wearing stockings and high heels while he was dressed in a rubber suit.
How perceptive you are, gmc.



THE NUN WHO ABUSED GLASWEGIAN




‘No one will hear your screams, Glaswegian’

~o0o~


GLASWEGIAN




Waiting impatiently to be abused

~o0o~

[Glaswegian]

Bryn Mawr;1332058 wrote: Fourteen hundred years ago it was considered normal and acceptable in large parts of the world for girls to be married before puberty - as I mentioned in a previous post it was common throughout the Byzantine Empire at the same period and throughout Europe even more recently including amongst the British and Italian aristocracy.


spot wrote: Western civilization was practically built on your modern concept of pedophilia, just read relevant passages from the Greek classics. It's nothing to do with religion, it's simply a cultural norm at various times in history.


gmc wrote: He was a man of his times, in an age when people tended not to live much beynd thirty there wasn't time to hang about. Don't judge by today's standard child marraiges were common throughout europe as well as the middle east.


Does this mean that paedophilia is not morally wrong in itself? That it’s quite alright for a grown man to have sex with a child because it’s just a matter of cultural norms and social convention?

Bryn?

spot?

gmc?

[spot]

Glaswegian;1332100 wrote: I’m sure you would agree that a pope or a priest is not above the charge of paedophilia, spot, if that charge is warranted.

So why should the founder of a religion be?
Because it's nothing to do with religion, it's simply a cultural norm at various times in history.

[spot]

Glaswegian;1332101 wrote: Interesting point. Could you expand on it?


Pederasty in ancient Greece - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia gives examples.

[spot]

Glaswegian;1332110 wrote: Does this mean that paedophilia is not morally wrong in itself? That it’s quite alright for a grown man to have sex with a child because it’s just a matter of cultural norms and social convention?

Bryn?

spot?

gmc?
Yes. For one thing your culture's understanding of "child" differs markedly from that of other cultures. If the government puts the age of consent in the UK up to 21 at some future date does that make pedophiles of adults now married to teenagers? For most cultures at most times the acid test was an ability to conceive and nothing else. The English nobility is rife with eldest children born to wives that today's law would prevent from marrying.

[Glaswegian]

spot;1332090 wrote: Western civilization was practically built on your modern concept of pedophilia, just read relevant passages from the Greek classics. It's nothing to do with religion, it's simply a cultural norm at various times in history.
Jesus is the role model par excellence for Christians. Christians are enjoined to emulate the life and ways of Jesus as much as they can. No Christian will deny this. Not even you, spot.

Now let me ask you this:

If Jesus had sexual relations with a nine year old child how do you think that would have impacted on the societies of Christendom? Do you think that the example set by Jesus would have been used by men in these societies as a moral justification for their having sex with children?

[Glaswegian]

Glaswegian;1332110 wrote: Does this mean that paedophilia is not morally wrong in itself? That it’s quite alright for a grown man to have sex with a child because it’s just a matter of cultural norms and social convention?


spot wrote: Yes
So for you, spot, paedophilia is not morally wrong in itself, and it's quite alright for a grown man to have sex with a child because it’s just a matter of cultural norms and social convention.

What about the trauma and psychological damage which a child might suffer as a result of having sex with a grown man? Do you take this into account when you morally appraise paedophilia? Is this factor of any concern to you?

[theia]

Glaswegian;1332118 wrote: So for you, spot, paedophilia is not morally wrong in itself, and it's quite alright for a grown man to have sex with a child because it’s just a matter of cultural norms and social convention.What about the trauma and psychological damage which a child might suffer as a result of having sex with a grown man? Do you take this into account when you morally appraise paedophilia? Is this factor of any concern to you?


My understanding of what spot is saying is that paedophilia was considered acceptable in some cultures at some points in history, which clearly it was. I'm confused as to how you can interpret this as spot condoning paedophilia in our culture.

[spot]

Glaswegian;1332118 wrote: So for you, spot, paedophilia is not morally wrong in itself, and it's quite alright for a grown man to have sex with a child because it’s just a matter of cultural norms and social convention.Yes, given the cultural environment of the day.

What about the trauma and psychological damage which a child might suffer as a result of having sex with a grown man? Do you take this into account when you morally appraise paedophilia? Is this factor of any concern to you?


Psychological damage to children comes in many forms, of which that example can be less traumatic than being bombed, shot at, orphaned, maimed, left to grow up surrounded by unexploded munitions and depleted uranium dust, all of which seem to be acceptable "collateral" damage in today's Western military exploits. It can be less traumatic than exposure to thousands of fictionalized deaths on television, to playing Grand Theft Auto and associated carnage computer games, there's a host of causes of mentally traumatic damage in modern society. I'd rather tackle the major causes of delinquent attitudes than play along with your hobby-horse.

You've walked past several questions I've posed in this thread. Par for the course, that. Would you like me to repeat them or would you prefer to go back and pick them up yourself?

[flopstock]

theia;1332120 wrote: My understanding of what spot is saying is that paedophilia was considered acceptable in some cultures at some points in history, which clearly it was. I'm confused as to how you can interpret this as spot condoning paedophilia in our culture.
That's kinda how I interpret his post that follows yours actually. Tons worse stuff as compared to folks raping boys and girls. So it's not that bad?

[Betty Boop]

flopstock;1332126 wrote: That's kinda how I interpret his post that follows yours actually. Tons worse stuff as compared to folks raping boys and girls. So it's not that bad?


I read it more as other things such as todays modern day life norms and people living within war situations are as bad as, if not worse. The point being that children being subjected to the things Spot highlighted are far more potentially dangerous, and far more widespread across the world, but no one takes any notice as they have become 'norms'. I don't see that he is saying it's ok for a 50 year old man to have sex with a nine year old.

[spot]

flopstock;1332126 wrote: That's kinda how I interpret his post that follows yours actually. Tons worse stuff as compared to folks raping boys and girls. So it's not that bad?


The use of "raping" there is equally modern. It's rape in modern times in Western society because the law defines it as such, saying that under-age children are incapable of giving informed consent. To apply that notion back hundreds of years is meaningless.

What I'm saying is that people are the same whether they're living in 500BC Greece, 600AD Arabia, 1200AD Norman England or anywhere in the 21st century. What differs is the culture in which they live. To whatever extent it's meaningful, had I been born in any of those cultures I'd have acted according to the culture, not according to the UK norm of 2010.

[Bryn Mawr]

Glaswegian;1332081 wrote: The only contributor who has said anything about Muhammad being "guilty of paedophilia" so far in this thread has been you, Bryn.

I take it, then, that you go along with Falwell's and Wilders' view of Muhammad. Yes?


So "Re: Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?" does not refer to Muhammad and does not suggest that he could be guilty of paedophilia?

Why not try answering the points raised rather than ascribing to me views I have never held.

Try a simple one - if you genuinely wish to discuss paedophilia or female genital mutilation, why choose a thread title that can only be classed as deliberately offensive?

[Bryn Mawr]

Glaswegian;1332110 wrote: Does this mean that paedophilia is not morally wrong in itself? That it’s quite alright for a grown man to have sex with a child because it’s just a matter of cultural norms and social convention?

Bryn?

spot?

gmc?


There is a world of difference between starting a discussion about whether the cultural norms and social conventions of an age were morally acceptable or not and starting a thread asking whether the founder of a major world religion was a paedophile without even referencing those cultural norms and social conventions.

The first would be an interesting discussion, the second is causing trouble for the sake of causing trouble.

[fuzzywuzzy]

Acceptable in ancient cultures an societies?

Plato was an early critic of sexual intercourse in pederastic relationships, proposing that men's love of boys avoid all carnal expression and instead progress from admiration of the lover's specific virtues to love of virtue itself in abstract form. While copulation with boys was often criticized and seen as shameful and brutish,[34] other aspects of the relationship were considered beneficial, as indicated in proverbs such as A lover is the best friend a boy will ever have.[35]

The pederastic relationship had to be approved by the boy's father. Boys entered into such relationships in their teens, around the same age that Greek girls were given in marriage.[citation needed] The mentor was expected to teach the young man or to see to his education,[citation needed] and to give him certain appropriate ceremonial gifts

The result was that in Roman times, pederasty largely lost its function as a ritual part of education and was instead seen as an activity primarily driven by one's sexual desires and competing with desire for women. The social acceptance of pederastic relations waxed and waned during the centuries. Conservative thinkers condemned it — along with other forms of indulgence. Tacitus attacks the Greek customs of "gymnasia et otia et turpes amores" (palaestrae, idleness, and shameful loves).[40]

Other writers spent no effort censuring pederasty per se, but praised or blamed its various aspects. Martial appears to have favored it, going as far as to essentialize not the sexual use of the catamite but his nature as a boy: upon being discovered by his wife "inside a boy" and offered the "same thing" by her, he retorts with a list of mythological personages who, despite being married, took young male lovers, and concludes by rejecting her offer since "a woman merely has two vaginas."[41]

In England into the 20th century, public boarding schools were limited to boys and all the teachers were male. Some upper class boys were sent to boarding school by age 7 or 8, and they studied there through the adolescent years. Some teachers justified homosexual relationships based on the Classics, both between the older and younger boys, and between teachers and boys. However, there were some scandals around such relationships. In the mid-19th century, William Johnson Cory, a renowned master at Eton from 1845 until his forced resignation in 1872, evolved a style of pedagogic pederasty which influenced a number of his pupils. His Ionica, a work of poetry reflecting his pederastic sensibilities, was read in intellectual circles and “made a stir” at Oxford in 1859.[54] Oscar Browning, another Eton master and former student of Cory, followed in his tutor’s footsteps, only to be likewise dismissed in 1875. Both are thought to have influenced Oxford don Walter Pater, whose aesthetics promoted pederasty as the truest expression of classical culture.[55].


Pederasty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To say that it was a norm or acceptable in ancient cultures is a nonsence. It wasn't a crime because in some cases it was intitutionalised by certain dominant factors of the ancient society itself. Those with no voice or no legal rights were abused.

It was an abuse of power in all societies and it did not reflect the entire society as a whole. You either practiced homosexualality or you didn't . You took advantage of the less fortunete or you didn't, you abused your position of power or you didn't, and it repulsed you or it didn't.

Glaswegian Yes the founder of Islam was a pedophile by society and cultures back then and by our standards today. Children were used as a commodity and asset. To put a blanket , "it was acceptable by all " is abhorrant and there are too many writers throughout history that comdemn the practice to say it was acceptable. For anyone to say it's not as prevalent today, go to an abuse forum and see how many members they have in your country . Teh fact that we have a media is the only difference between now and ancient times.

[spot]

fuzzywuzzy;1332148 wrote: It was an abuse of power in all societies and it did not reflect the entire society as a whole. You either practiced homosexualality or you didn't . You took advantage of the less fortunete or you didn't, you abused your position of power or you didn't, and it repulsed you or it didn't.And how does that differ to the abuses of power in Western society in 2010? Elites still take advantage of the less fortunate and abuse their position of power if they decide it's in their interest. It's still repulsive but it's currently, apparently, legal to invade foreign countries with no excuse of any clear and present danger to the Homeland. Future societies may well look back on this one with as much distaste as you voice regarding pederasty in ancient Greece.

As for what was considered acceptable in earlier societies, we could trade passages if you want to but I don't see any particular need. Some behaviours were considered permissible though obviously not everyone adopted them. Focus on child marriage in 12th century England if you like, that's more relevant to the topic.

[fuzzywuzzy]

Bryn Mawr;1332139 wrote: So "Re: Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?" does not refer to Muhammad and does not suggest that he could be guilty of paedophilia?

Why not try answering the points raised rather than ascribing to me views I have never held.

Try a simple one - if you genuinely wish to discuss paedophilia or female genital mutilation, why choose a thread title that can only be classed as deliberately offensive?


Bryn with all due respect, Did The founder of Islam have sex with a nine year old? Is it offensive to an ancient/historical figure that we mention and is well documented that he consumated a marriage with a nine year old girl?

Pedophilia is a clinical diagnosis usually made by a psychiatrist or psychologist. It is not a criminal or legal term, such as forcible sexual offense, which is a legal term often used in criminal statistics. Technically, individuals who engage in sexual activities with pubescent teenagers under the legal age of consent (ages 13-16 years) are known as hebophiles (attracted to females) or ephebophiles (attracted to males).15-17 The term hebophilia (also spelled as hebephilia) is becoming a generic term to describe sexual interest in either male or female pubescent children.
A Profile of Pedophilia: Definition, Characteristics of Offenders, Recidivism, Treatment Outcomes, and Forensic Issues





This thread interests me not because of the content but the rush to hush it over. It reminds me of something that is happening in my state at the moment.

In the last couple of years there has been the introduction of "White balloon day." A white balloon for every child sexually abused. Whether oportunistic, as a result of incest or contracted.

A judge in all his wisdom Banned the releasing of balloons and any many of the releasing of balloons in a certain town because a sexual abuse case was up at court that day. Now you would think that is an abuse of power on the civil liberties of people in that small town, that have nothing to do with that particular case. But unfortunetly it goes much further. Our national broadcasting system was unable to even mention the white balloon day because it broadcast in that town. So this Judge has basically stopped a whole State from hearing about a day dedicated to survivers of child sexual assault.

[fuzzywuzzy]

spot;1332150 wrote: And how does that differ to the abuses of power in Western society in 2010? Elites still take advantage of the less fortunate and abuse their position of power if they decide it's in their interest. It's still repulsive but it's currently, apparently, legal to invade foreign countries with no excuse of any clear and present danger to the Homeland. Future societies may well look back on this one with as much distaste as you voice regarding pederasty in ancient Greece.

As for what was considered acceptable in earlier societies, we could trade passages if you want to but I don't see any particular need. Some behaviours were considered permissible though obviously not everyone adopted them. Focus on child marriage in 12th century England if you like, that's more relevant to the topic.


As usual it depends on which official writer you want to believe and which power base enforces that writer to document what the 'elites' want to portray their own world as.

To believe that every single mother or father approved of sending their children off into marriages at the age of twelve in the 12th century is ridiculas. . Again what is legal or religiously required (history in this instance being written by monks and scribes of noblemen) does not always reflect the common attitude of the entire society itself. It was not socially unacceptable to be unmarried at the age of 18 or 20 and the birth deaths and marriage records written at any time will show that.

It's like someone mentioned earlier that people died younger . That is a commonly held myth, and a walk around any old cemetary will confirm this myth is seconds.

[gmc]

Glaswegian;1332110 wrote: Does this mean that paedophilia is not morally wrong in itself? That it’s quite alright for a grown man to have sex with a child because it’s just a matter of cultural norms and social convention?

Bryn?

spot?

gmc?


In times when people were lucky to live to be thirty children were sexually active as soon as they reached puberty, is that paedophilia? An older man taking advantage I would say yes, a fourteen and a thirteen year old doing what their nature tells them is not the same imo. It was also morally acceptable to burn witches and to keep slaves, it was morally acceptable to kill apostates and jews were fair game for everybody. In our times it is morally unacceptable, to the mores of the time it was not. He clearly didn't think it was wrong.

Morality depends on your perspective. There are some things we can all agree are wrong paedophilia is one of them, but would I have thought of it as paedophilia had I been alive in medieval times, if the girl had reached puberty and being sexually active was the norm?

What exactly is the point you are trying to make?

Let me put you a question. Had you been alive in 1690, which side would you have fought on in the religious wars of the time and from a 21st century perspective would that decision have been morally right? How can you as an atheist have any concept of morality and who are you to lecture the godly? I'm not convinced anyone possessing a rubber bondage suit is in a position to comment - at least not without getting permission:yh_rotfl

[fuzzywuzzy]

gmc;1332154 wrote: In times when people were lucky to live to be thirty children were sexually active as soon as they reached puberty, is that paedophilia? An older man taking advantage I would say yes, a fourteen and a thirteen year old doing what their nature tells them is not the same imo. It was also morally acceptable to burn witches and to keep slaves, it was morally acceptable to kill apostates and jews were fair game for everybody. In our times it is morally unacceptable, to the mores of the time it was not. He clearly didn't think it was wrong.

Morality depends on your perspective. There are some things we can all agree are wrong paedophilia is one of them, but would I have thought of it as paedophilia had I been alive in medieval times, if the girl had reached puberty and being sexually active was the norm?

What exactly is the point you are trying to make?

Let me put you a question. Had you been alive in 1690, which side would you have fought on in the religious wars of the time and from a 21st century perspective would that decision have been morally right? How can you as an atheist have any concept of morality and who are you to lecture the godly? I'm not convinced anyone possessing a rubber bondage suit is in a position to comment - at least not without getting permission:yh_rotfl


Okay you've said it now...rubber bondage suit? Come on, cough up the goss!!!

There are some things we can all agree are wrong paedophilia is one of them, but would I have thought of it as paedophilia had I been alive in medieval times, if the girl had reached puberty and being sexually active was the norm?


Umm you may not have noticed but it's the norm now. Always has been. Your mother , your grandmothers mother etc.

[Bryn Mawr]

fuzzywuzzy;1332151 wrote: Bryn with all due respect, Did The founder of Islam have sex with a nine year old? Is it offensive to an ancient/historical figure that we mention and is well documented that he consumated a marriage with a nine year old girl?


Yes, in all probability, and yes, definitely when that fact is presented in isolation with the deliberate intent to cause offence.

If Glaswegian has wanted to discuss the issue then he would have presented the issue - he did not.

Consider the original post and the title it went under :-



Re: Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?

Muhammad, the founder of Islam, took Aisha as his bride when she was six or seven years old, and consummated the marriage when she was nine.

Many individuals have felt anger and revulsion at acts of paedophilia committed by Catholic priests against children. Should anger and revulsion also be felt towards Muhammad?

Jerry Falwell, the late Christian evangelical pastor, commented on Muhammad’s sexual relationship with Aisha as follows:

‘In a civilized society when a fifty-four year old man consummates a marriage with a nine year old girl…to say that’s paedophilia is not taking it beyond the limits of reality.’

YouTube - Falwell: Muhammad a pedophile, Ibish: Falwell an idiot, pt1

Was Falwell correct? Should Muhammad be viewed as a paedophile?


The fact of Muhammad's marrage is presented and then linked immediately to current day paedophilia within the Catholic Church with an invitation to "anger and revulsion". Such a one sided presentation is not given to promote discussion so the answer to your question is a definite yes, it does cause offense.



fuzzywuzzy;1332151 wrote:

A Profile of Pedophilia: Definition, Characteristics of Offenders, Recidivism, Treatment Outcomes, and Forensic Issues



This thread interests me not because of the content but the rush to hush it over. It reminds me of something that is happening in my state at the moment.

In the last couple of years there has been the introduction of "White balloon day." A white balloon for every child sexually abused. Whether oportunistic, as a result of incest or contracted.

A judge in all his wisdom Banned the releasing of balloons and any many of the releasing of balloons in a certain town because a sexual abuse case was up at court that day. Now you would think that is an abuse of power on the civil liberties of people in that small town, that have nothing to do with that particular case. But unfortunetly it goes much further. Our national broadcasting system was unable to even mention the white balloon day because it broadcast in that town. So this Judge has basically stopped a whole State from hearing about a day dedicated to survivers of child sexual assault.


There is a huge difference between censorship and balance. I have said, several times, that a discussion of the issues could be interesting. What I am trying to stop is a cheap potshot at an undefended target.

[Bryn Mawr]

fuzzywuzzy;1332156 wrote: Okay you've said it now...rubber bondage suit? Come on, cough up the goss!!!



Umm you may not have noticed but it's the norm now. Always has been. Your mother , your grandmothers mother etc.


Always is a very long time - we're not talking two or three generations back but over fifty and the norms were different then.

Question - do you think that the local population would have accepted him as a Prophet if they felt his marriage to be in any way immoral?