Mohammad's marriage to Aisha only comes into focus when the flag of insaan al-kamil is run up.
It causes a profound problem because of the literalist preponderance and the death / violence taboo that is default on any criticism or less than perfect reverence made to Mohammad.
Either he was a man of his time, in which case all he did was time and place specific, and everything can be relativised. Fine, stuff like that happened back then, he was a historical figure like anyone else. So Mohammad was not the perfect man for all eternity, therefore he was nothing special, move on. Islam loses its self-defined 'uniqueness' and special privelige.
On the other hand, Mohammad is virtually idol-worshipped by Muslims. He was the greatest, most perfect man who ever lived. His sunnah must be followed by all Muslims and Muslims must endeavour to convert kuffars to his path. He is the emobodiment of perfection, the eternal, immutable figure of reverence and example until the end of time. He is so perfect that anyone mocking or criticising him should be killed. He cannot be relativised, because that would mean Islam itself would be relativised, and Islam is not just for Mohammad's era, it is for all time, eternally, unchangeable and immutable.
This is perhaps Islam's biggest Achilles Heel, Mohammad's life and conduct. When the death taboo is circumvented, a proper appraisal can be made of his life and character, and the reverence and elevation Muslims make of him looks, quite simply, perverse and sinister.
The trouble is, Muslims have made Mohammad central to their argument and propagation. When so much dawah, both formal and casual, focuses on such hagiography, a truthful appraisal of his actions is not just inevitable, it is required.
So yeah, its best not to go around saying Mohammad was a paedophile in your opening gambit of a conversation with Muslims. Personally, I would word things differently, as I have in this post. But as part of the tapestry of the life of the central figure of Islam, just like the Banu Qurayza massacre and other things, his relationship with Aisha is an important component that makes risible in the light of our modern understanding the ridiculous claims that are made about the man, and about Islam in general.
Great post billy.
Muhammd either is insaan al-kamil or he isn't.
Apparently he had sex with Aisha when she was nine meaning that he got sexually aroused by a nine year old - which pretty much does make him a paedophile.
Even if you did put a nine year old into my bed I simply wouldn’t be able to have sex with her. I coudn't get aroused by a nine year old. Because I am not a paedophile.
Similarly you could put a guy into my bed and I wouldn't be able to have sex with him either (Linetrap excluded ofc) - I simply do not find men sexually attractive.
Besides having sex with (or more accurately - raping) a nine year old is simply wrong because there can be no consensus at that age. Doesn't matter if it happened 1300 years ago or yesterday.
Event though children do physically mature faster nowadays because of better living conditions. But a nine year old? NFW!
Alleged prophet of Allah should have know better. Why didn't Allah "reveal" to Mo that raping a 9 year old is wrong and that it will scar her for life. But then Allah is a psychopath and a complete wanker so it kinda makes sense. But he really should get some psychiatric help.
3 sunnat items, smh....
The bizarre juxtaposition of extreme confidence and overbearing sense of superiority with mind-numbing ignorance and stupidity in individual posts in this thread is dizzying. I'm not sure whether to
or
How about a third option. You could always do an hero.
Topic: Sunniforum bloodbath.