European Court of Human Rights: Prophet Muhammad not a pedophile

[Lord Halifax]

Funny how people like to solely portray Aisha as a victim rather than emphasizing her as an extremely powerful woman of her era, right down to being a woman general personally leading an army into battle in the First Fitna against the forces of Ali (her son-in-law).  I very much doubt that Aisha's army at the Battle of the Camel regarded her as a pitiful victim, especially because her claim to power was her status as the Prophet's widow.

So, you try to divert from the issue of possible pedophelia by Mohammed with her - the 6-year old child - to saying she became a chauvinist later on ? That doesn't improve your portrayal of Mohammed or Islam or her (but I agree that it's not about her, because she's the victim and he's the likely perpetrator).

Also, it shows that Islam (like Catholicism) has a deep problem with (possible) and actual pedophiles and a backwards, violent past (and present). Religion is dangerous and it would be better if people got rid of it.

I'm not "diverting" from the issue. I'm pointing out that Aisha is a figure of major historical importance and a powerful general and political leader in her own right, but the story of Aisha as one of the major political leaders of early Islam and massively involved in the struggles of the early caliphate and one of the main conduits of the legacy of the Prophet get conveniently ignored by people with a vested interest in pushing the idea that Islam is inherently sexist and denies women power and authority in society. Aisha's name wasn't even mentioned in this thread prior to my post, let alone her career, so you end up with this skewed story that erases the life and career of a woman who might well have been the most politically powerful woman alive on Earth during her heyday to a nameless footnote in Muhammad's career, as Muhammad's child bride.

Her later career is completely irrelevant when discussing whether or not Muhammed was a pedophile, so it is a diversion to bring that up. It simply hasn't got any relevance to the ECHR case.  

[dead0man]

It's great that she was a female hero later in life, thank you for the background....but what does that have to do with the issue at hand?


(and why has her story been forgotten by the people that follow her husband so devotedly?)

[The Mikado]

It's great that she was a female hero later in life, thank you for the background....but what does that have to do with the issue at hand?


(and why has her story been forgotten by the people that follow her husband so devotedly?)

Regarding the issue at hand, it's that Aisha is constantly portrayed solely as "the child bride of Muhammad" in the West and ignoring the rest of her role is very unfortunate to an appreciation of her very large role in Islamic history in the decades after her husband's death (due to the huge age gap, she was most active two decades after Muhammad's death in 632).

As for the last part, the pithy answer is "her forces lost to Ali's in the Battle of the Camel." The less pithy answer is that she hasn't been forgotten, in that wearing a face-covering veil was originally supposed to be a symbol of status for Muhammad's widows, like Aisha (whereas the rest of Muslim women were merely supposed to cover their hair), but the popularity of Muhammad's widows and their distinction led the veil to become a popular practice for Muslim women generally.

[DC Al Fine]

What I find kind of amusing is that this ruling is coming out as Ireland is reapealing its blasphemy law. Heh.

Stupid decision.  People should have the right to insult any religious sensibilities. 

Agreed

I could invent my own religion, and say I worship a watermelon, and claim that anyone who insults that watermelon is religiously persecuting me.

Well you could claim it but whether you get anywhere is a different story. How committed to watermelonism are you?

[Tender Branson]

It's great that she was a female hero later in life, thank you for the background....but what does that have to do with the issue at hand?


(and why has her story been forgotten by the people that follow her husband so devotedly?)

Regarding the issue at hand, it's that Aisha is constantly portrayed solely as "the child bride of Muhammad" in the West and ignoring the rest of her role is very unfortunate to an appreciation of her very large role in Islamic history in the decades after her husband's death (due to the huge age gap, she was most active two decades after Muhammad's death in 632).

That may be interesting on a feminist note and "good" for her, but it still has nothing to do with the fact that Mohammed likely married her between the ages of 6 and 9 (depending on the source and translation) and that likely was a form of pedophelia ...

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

It's great that she was a female hero later in life, thank you for the background....but what does that have to do with the issue at hand?


(and why has her story been forgotten by the people that follow her husband so devotedly?)

Regarding the issue at hand, it's that Aisha is constantly portrayed solely as "the child bride of Muhammad" in the West and ignoring the rest of her role is very unfortunate to an appreciation of her very large role in Islamic history in the decades after her husband's death (due to the huge age gap, she was most active two decades after Muhammad's death in 632).

That may be interesting on a feminist note and "good" for her, but it still has nothing to do with the fact that Mohammed likely married her between the ages of 6 and 9 (depending on the source and translation) and that likely was a form of pedophelia ...

While I'm far from condoning this, we need to take a moment to realize that in the "old days" hundreds of influential and revered historical figures of all major religious denominations and trades fitted this category due to marrying well-underaged girls. So I consider trying to tie this specifically to Islam as intellectually dishonest. We're talking about a wider problem of societal nature.

It should be mentioned not all underage marriages were consummed outright. A number of such unions were made out of political considerations, that did not require an immediate consummation (Joan of Naples was married to Andrew of Hungary when she was 5, and he was 6). Once a girl hit puberty, she was ready to go as far as the world was concerned... which of course would be too soon by our modern standards as well.

Going back to Muhammad, there are Muslim scholars that argue the consummation might've took place as later date as cited by some other sources (we know for a fact it didn't take place immediately). But it's hard to deny that in the contemporary court of law Muhammad would be found guilty of pedophilia (a term that didn't appear until much later, not that it makes it "OK". Historical relativism has it's boundaries as well). It certainly should be legal to voice this opinion.


On a side note, I'm glad The Mikado pointed out Aisha deserves to be remembered for so much more than just a very young bride.

[Mopsus]

(and why has her story been forgotten by the people that follow her husband so devotedly?)

It hasn't. If it had been, we would never have gotten this, one of the most hilarious pieces of television ever:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIqu5Dim-jU

[All Along The Watchtower]

Lot of dumb posts in this thread from people who just want to s**t on Islam and Europe. You ignorant historical and cultural illiterates.

And the US is no more "free" than many European countries - in fact, it's considerably less free in many ways.

[All Along The Watchtower]

It's amazing how much Europe sucks sometimes.

"glass houses" and so on

[thumb21]

Nice to see freedom of speech is being protected  

..

Regardless of how you see these comments, freedom of speech should be respected. It is essential.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Bad decision. What was the actual "offence" the Austrians charged with btw - one of those long defunct blasphemy codes or a more modern law?

[Omega21]

Lot of dumb posts in this thread from people who just want to s**t on Islam and Europe. You ignorant historical and cultural illiterates.

And the US is no more "free" than many European countries - in fact, it's considerably less free in many ways.

Um, so what would you call a man who f's a child?

I am not saying it happened, but what would the right label be if it did happen?