Continued:-
Now should all those unions of the ancient times be judged on today's standards? And should we hasten to pass judgements without grasping the facts and evaluating the actions in the then prevalent conditions, first? Obviously not, for it would be rash and extremely misleading to do so.
I see a strange impatience in you. You want a clear cut answer in yes or no terms; more like a prosecutor than historian. Prosecutor is always in haste to win the " guilty verdict". Historian, on the other hand, has to proceed with patience and without out any preconceived biases. Study of history does not present black a white, clear cut answers. Nor does it provide easy to digest regurgitated information. One must have the ability to mine all the information first and then patience to separate the nuggets of facts from the mass of dirt of untruth that they come with. And without the capacity of contextualization, the study of history is useless and can be quiet misleading.

The marriage of Aisha is one such issue. Her age is reported to be 9 years in one tradition. But is that the only tradition on her age? Are we certain about that age? Do we have all the data about the ages of brides in that era in that area? Do we have injunctions in scriptures at variance with this marriage. Mind you, the dismissal of Old Testament, as applicable to Jews only, is invalid the and intellectually dishonest as the Old Testament is part of the Christian Bible. Then the marriage of three years old Rebecca to 40 years old Isaac, as per Jewish tradition, also becomes relevant. Holy Marry is reported to have become mother at age fifteen or there about, it also becomes relevant.

Continues....

Continued:-

Insistence that people of today should judge the marriage of Aisha without having the irrefutable facts, first and without taking into account the prevalent conditions at the time, is of zero academic value. And engaging in such a discussion is utter waste of time, particularly when the discussion on the topic has since advanced and people from both sides agree that the current violence is rooted more in geo political reasons than in religion. And it has been clearly shown that about 2% of the terror attacks are conducted by Muslims and the fatalities suffered through the terror attacks are about 95% by Muslims. Putting Islam and Muslims on the spot for this reason is without any valid reason.

And the primary point of our discussion must always be kept in mind, in order to remain focussed. We are discussing that a criminal act of an individual should not be used as a license to harass all individuals of the community.

Finally, if the kind of language you use has to be continued with, then kindly reconsider the use of word "civilized" for the people resorting to this language.

Regards

Concludes

McAdam,

Rebecca and Isaac, okay, so the practice of child marriage in early Islam was only 2,500 years behind the Hebrews, who, like the Arabs, came out of the desert to overwhelm the cities, where they gradually learnt more civilized practices.

We all come out of savage and barbarian societies, traditional societies to give them a more acceptable title, but most of us have put those barbaric practices behind us long ago. And surely Muslims have put 1400-year-old desert practices behind them too ?

End of. Let's move on.

Joe

Mc Adam,

Do you think that it is OK to kill homosexuals and serial fornicators??

JKJ, (1 of 2 ; 2 Feb)

The risk with engaging a small mind like yours is the exposure to your foul language. After all, your mouth must convey your mind.

You continue to miss the point despite clear hints.

No wonder – another cast of engaging with a small mind!

But I will continue a little further to see if you can see the point.

On your current tirade:

Your words (27 Jan 7:48 PM): <<Do I think it was okay from their point of view? Yes.>>

Also your words (31 Jan 10:51 PM): <<3- But you also think that it was ok from their point of view (about 2000 years ago) to kill sons and daughter who curse their parents. Yes>>

In my post of 1 Feb 13:36 PM I repeat your words
<<Are you asking why I think they thought it was okay?>>

And ask you
<<Go ahead with your why do you think it was okay for them to “kill sons and daughter who curse their parents.”>>

You could have answered the question “why you think they thought it was ok” for them to kill sons and daughter who curse their parents.

YOU CAN STILL ANSWER THE ABOVE QUESTION.

More important is the question about your <<comment on THEIR RIGHT TO DO WHAT THEY THOUGHT OKAY FOR THEM IN THEIR TIME centuries before the present time, even though it is not okay to do the same in the current time>>

YOU HAVE AVOIDED THIS QUESTION ON A FLIMSY EXCUSE.

Nice try, but it will not work. Even your foul language will not distract the discussion.

Continued …

JKJ, (2 of 2; 2 Feb)

You must answer the above two questions to enable this discussion to proceed.

Now McAdams has tried to enlighten your childish mind by showing you that customs of human societies are not ‘fixed articles” in time.
Human customs have changed and will continue to change.

I showed you earlier that Roman Law recognised authority of a father to kill his son - Unimaginable today.

I also showed you that Bible (MATTHEW 15:4) permits sons and daughter who curse their parents to be put to death- unimaginable today (again).

These are two out of numerous similar examples. But your mind must be stuck to one case ONLY because it differs from your CURRENT criterion.

Aisha had the acceptable age for marriage, according to the standards of the time. Her age was NOT 9 years when the marriage was consummated and this is based on the consensus of most of the resources of the time.

You can find no surprise recorded on this marriage in its time – And this conclusively proves that the acceptable condition of the age limit (of the time) was met, apart from a complete endorsement of the marriage that the earliest records show.

GROW UP JKJ!

Attempt the above two questions. You may see it more clearly.

Know that you must answer the questions for this discussion to proceed.

And yes, I notice messages addressed to me from your friend, apparently in your support. I don’t read Loudmouth’s messages and will not read until I get answer to my many weeks old questions.