Also, the text says "consummated" the marriage when he was in his 50s and she was 9. No excuses.
EDIT: Also, "between adults" goalposts moved in a speeding boat all the way to :epstein: 's island in this comment chain. Everything that happened in the past is cool and good because it was socially acceptable in the past, even when it has centuries of controversy and apologia to try to justify it generation after generation. :galaxy-brain:
That's also a historical thing that needs to be looked at in it's cultural and historical context, which is the historical materialist way to analyze it tbh. We can't use "presentism" when looking at things in the past:
Again, a 50 year old violated a single-digit-aged child.
If you're going to wave around the "materialist" totem word like some sort of :expert-shapiro: to justify that with sophistry, I'm done talking to you.
So, the Prophet’s marriage to Ayesha was nothing out of the ordinary for the time in which this marriage took place. Insisting on 21st century (Western) ideas on morality and marriage, which evolved in their own right, for a very different time and place is an ahistorical approach.
So to summarize you're fine with (CW: sexual violence
spoiler
a 50+ year old violating a 9 year old child bride
and are passionately defending that happening because it was accepted at its time. Fuck your "modern standards" sophistry. Even the excuses and apologia for that event go back centuries and you're continuing that apologia. What's wrong with you?
The child bride after that first wife's death was conveniently omitted. (CW: disturbing SV)
https://islamfyi.princeton.edu/is-it-true-that-muhammad-married-a-child-bride-by-the-name-of-ayesha-when-he-was-53-and-she-was-9-years-old-if-so-how-do-muslims-justify-this-from-their-exemplary-prophet/
spoiler
Also, the text says "consummated" the marriage when he was in his 50s and she was 9. No excuses.
EDIT: Also, "between adults" goalposts moved in a speeding boat all the way to :epstein: 's island in this comment chain. Everything that happened in the past is cool and good because it was socially acceptable in the past, even when it has centuries of controversy and apologia to try to justify it generation after generation. :galaxy-brain:
That's also a historical thing that needs to be looked at in it's cultural and historical context, which is the historical materialist way to analyze it tbh. We can't use "presentism" when looking at things in the past:
https://yaqeeninstitute.org/read/paper/understanding-aishas-age-an-interdisciplinary-approach
(CW: SV)
spoiler
Again, a 50 year old violated a single-digit-aged child.
If you're going to wave around the "materialist" totem word like some sort of :expert-shapiro: to justify that with sophistry, I'm done talking to you.
Ok
Your own source says this:
https://islamfyi.princeton.edu/is-it-true-that-muhammad-married-a-child-bride-by-the-name-of-ayesha-when-he-was-53-and-she-was-9-years-old-if-so-how-do-muslims-justify-this-from-their-exemplary-prophet/
Removed by mod
I didn't deny it, I just pointed out that even in that case it's still ahistorical to apply our modern standards to it, which even your source admits.
So to summarize you're fine with (CW: sexual violence
spoiler
a 50+ year old violating a 9 year old child bride
and are passionately defending that happening because it was accepted at its time. Fuck your "modern standards" sophistry. Even the excuses and apologia for that event go back centuries and you're continuing that apologia. What's wrong with you?
I thought you wanted to disengage?
I said I was done with you but you made a parallel post, so I had to address that.
Sure ok, let's just leave it that then I guess.
deleted by creator