"Oh right, since there was no law against it, then it is ok?"
There are many things that people do which are not okay, but are regardless not against the law and we do them. The fact remains that marrying a girl of Aisha's age in Muhammad's time was neither against the law nor was it considered wrong. So condemning the man for just being from the 7th century is pretty stupid.
At that time Muhammad had a lot of enemies, either from the Arab or any where area that Islam touched. But why there never been any historical records or literary evidence close to that era, which criticizes Mohammed's behavior of marrying Aisha? Even from the ancient Europe was never any record about it, which at that time Islam was on war with Europe. The slightest ugliness or bad behavior of Muhammad, it will be written, spread, and used as a material against him. But there was nothing.
I also pointed out that none of the sources are clear on when Muhammad actually consummated his marriage. As was the custom of the time in Saudi Arabia, young girls would often remain with their parents even after a marriage and not go live with their husbands until they had matured. We know it wasn't at 9, so it could have been at 14, could have been at 17. Basing one's criticism on a unknown is again, stupid.
"So because murder was the norm back in the day, it'd be stupid to condemn them for killing people because that's just how it went right?"
Yes, that is correct. What is your suggestion? We hop in our time machines, travel back to the 7th century, and teach the "savages" about the virtues of 21st century non-violence? But oh, wait... How do we explain the fact that we are now fighting bloody, unnecessary wars for the oil they haven't discovered yet just to protect the wealth of the richest people on earth? Hmmm. Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.
"What I'm saying is, it seems pretty dumb to say that just because something was okay a long time ago then it means ok in general."
What I said was it is stupid to judge the standards and actions of the past by present standards. Present standards evolved in the wake of knowledge and ethics that were not available to the people of the past.
If you are going to blame the people of the past for being more violent because they didn't have the same ethics as us, you might as well also blame them for letting people die because they didn't have the same level of medicine as us.
I am now communicating with you through the internet, computer, and not quill, ink, and parchment because I am not of the 19th century. Should I accuse a 19th century man of being anti-science because he didn't have a computer?
Saying Muhammad was a pedophile because he married a 9 year old girl in a time and place where there was nothing wrong with it makes no reasonable sense. It is totally irrational. It implies that he was suppose to be psychic enough to understand it would be wrong in the future. You may not be able to marry a 9 year old girl, but then you are not living 1,400 years ago.
I don't know why that distinction would be so hard for you to make. It seems pretty simple to me.
Let's flip the script...
You are currently doing things right now that will likely be considered reprehensible in the future. So we should blame you for them now and consider them crimes here in this time because the future will condemn these acts. And you should have predicted that. In fact, in comparison, you, is just as bad as a pedophile of the past. You are the reprobate of the future and this is how we should judge you. Then your task is simple. All you have to do is prove that the people of Saudi Arabia in the 7th century knew of alternatives and decided not to follow them as a conscious moral course of action. I await your research.
"But doesn't our modern day morals seem like pretty simple things for non-douchebag human beings to follow?"
That's moralistic and naturalistic fallacy, by the way.
The moralistic fallacy is the informal fallacy of assuming that whichever aspect of nature which has socially unpleasant consequences cannot exist. Its typical form is "if X were true, then it would happen that Z!", where Z is a morally, socially or politically undesirable thing. What should be moral is assumed a priori to also be naturally occurring.
As you stated, if our modern day morals are pretty simple things, then it must happen that only douchebag human beings wouldn't follow it. It couldn't possibly be that they did not follow or even know of our modern day morals which are not universal and eternal.
"Paedophilia did exist in Muhammad's time. 'Peado' deriving from Greek for 'child' and 'phile' denoting a fondness for something. Thus irrespective of laws, Muhammad was a paedophile."
Not all Greek terms come from the ancient world. If you check the etymology of the word pedophilia, you will see that this term was first used in the late 19th century, not ancient Greece. The term was used specifically to denote a modern "sexual disorder" and later a crime.
Although it is true that in the ancient world sex with children was common, it is also true that in most cultures, this was not defined as a disorder or crime. It is also true that in most primitive cultures, being a preteen actually marked the inclusion into adulthood and sexual maturity. This is not a standard we still have in the modern world, but in the ancient world it was a norm. Calling Muhammad a pedophile is akin to calling Alexander a terrorist. It makes no sense when yo put it in context.
There are no definitive sources that absolutely determine when Muhammad married Aisha or when that marriage was actually consummated since she remained with her father for a few years after the marriage, signifying more of political union than a traditional marriage of the time. So the fact is, the details of the marriage which vary from scholar to scholar is more legend than fact. I'm sure that if as an atheist you can understand the folly of believing legend to be truth without actual evidence.
I can also see you don't understand what presentism is and why it is a logical fallacy. You may want to look that up before trying to use it in a reasoned argument again. What signifies people's bigotry is their language, attitude, and mostly the inability to remain unbiased and rational on this topic.
I also pointed out that none of the sources are clear on when Muhammad actually consummated his marriage. As was the custom of the time in Saudi Arabia, young girls would often remain with their parents even after a marriage and not go live with their husbands until they had matured. We know it wasn't at 9, so it could have been at 14, could have been at 17. Basing one's criticism on a unknown is again, stupid.
"So because murder was the norm back in the day, it'd be stupid to condemn them for killing people because that's just how it went right?"
Yes, that is correct. What is your suggestion? We hop in our time machines, travel back to the 7th century, and teach the "savages" about the virtues of 21st century non-violence? But oh, wait... How do we explain the fact that we are now fighting bloody, unnecessary wars for the oil they haven't discovered yet just to protect the wealth of the richest people on earth? Hmmm. Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.
"What I'm saying is, it seems pretty dumb to say that just because something was okay a long time ago then it means ok in general."
What I said was it is stupid to judge the standards and actions of the past by present standards. Present standards evolved in the wake of knowledge and ethics that were not available to the people of the past.
If you are going to blame the people of the past for being more violent because they didn't have the same ethics as us, you might as well also blame them for letting people die because they didn't have the same level of medicine as us.
I am now communicating with you through the internet, computer, and not quill, ink, and parchment because I am not of the 19th century. Should I accuse a 19th century man of being anti-science because he didn't have a computer?
Saying Muhammad was a pedophile because he married a 9 year old girl in a time and place where there was nothing wrong with it makes no reasonable sense. It is totally irrational. It implies that he was suppose to be psychic enough to understand it would be wrong in the future. You may not be able to marry a 9 year old girl, but then you are not living 1,400 years ago.
I don't know why that distinction would be so hard for you to make. It seems pretty simple to me.
Let's flip the script...
You are currently doing things right now that will likely be considered reprehensible in the future. So we should blame you for them now and consider them crimes here in this time because the future will condemn these acts. And you should have predicted that. In fact, in comparison, you, is just as bad as a pedophile of the past. You are the reprobate of the future and this is how we should judge you. Then your task is simple. All you have to do is prove that the people of Saudi Arabia in the 7th century knew of alternatives and decided not to follow them as a conscious moral course of action. I await your research.
"But doesn't our modern day morals seem like pretty simple things for non-douchebag human beings to follow?"
That's moralistic and naturalistic fallacy, by the way.
The moralistic fallacy is the informal fallacy of assuming that whichever aspect of nature which has socially unpleasant consequences cannot exist. Its typical form is "if X were true, then it would happen that Z!", where Z is a morally, socially or politically undesirable thing. What should be moral is assumed a priori to also be naturally occurring.
As you stated, if our modern day morals are pretty simple things, then it must happen that only douchebag human beings wouldn't follow it. It couldn't possibly be that they did not follow or even know of our modern day morals which are not universal and eternal.
"Paedophilia did exist in Muhammad's time. 'Peado' deriving from Greek for 'child' and 'phile' denoting a fondness for something. Thus irrespective of laws, Muhammad was a paedophile."
Not all Greek terms come from the ancient world. If you check the etymology of the word pedophilia, you will see that this term was first used in the late 19th century, not ancient Greece. The term was used specifically to denote a modern "sexual disorder" and later a crime.
Although it is true that in the ancient world sex with children was common, it is also true that in most cultures, this was not defined as a disorder or crime. It is also true that in most primitive cultures, being a preteen actually marked the inclusion into adulthood and sexual maturity. This is not a standard we still have in the modern world, but in the ancient world it was a norm. Calling Muhammad a pedophile is akin to calling Alexander a terrorist. It makes no sense when yo put it in context.
There are no definitive sources that absolutely determine when Muhammad married Aisha or when that marriage was actually consummated since she remained with her father for a few years after the marriage, signifying more of political union than a traditional marriage of the time. So the fact is, the details of the marriage which vary from scholar to scholar is more legend than fact. I'm sure that if as an atheist you can understand the folly of believing legend to be truth without actual evidence.
I can also see you don't understand what presentism is and why it is a logical fallacy. You may want to look that up before trying to use it in a reasoned argument again. What signifies people's bigotry is their language, attitude, and mostly the inability to remain unbiased and rational on this topic.
