Friday, June 22, 2007

Did Muhammad Copy from Earlier Sources?

In the "comments" section of a previous post, Bassam said that just because two texts contain the same stories, it doesn't mean that one writer copied from other sources. Bassam is correct that similarity doesn't absolutely prove copying. However, the evidence may certainly point in that direction. For instance, if a teenager hands in a paper to a teacher that is remarkably similar to that of another student, the teacher will infer copying based on the extent of the similarity.

If Muhammad were truly a prophet, then the angel Gabriel may indeed have revealed stories that are found in earlier sources. But a problem arises when some of the sources contain apparently fictional material. That is, if we have good reasons for thinking that a story was invented by a creative writer in the second or fifth century, and then we find the same story in the Qur'an, this strongly implies that Muhammad incorporated a fictional tale into the Qur'an.

Muslims, of course, will say that the story is true, and that the earlier source reporting the same story is correct. While this is possible, it requires a tremendous leap of faith on the part of Muslims. As the following video shows, the problem for Muslims who want to defend Muhammad is quite severe:

17 comments:

B said...

Dear David

All of these arguments have been refuted at http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/ and please don't bother posting answering islam's pathetic responses. because islamic-awareness within their same articles counter refuted the arguments.

David, you don't get the point do you? It is possible that those true revelations found their way into some corrupted books. The Qur'an is confirming the truth of the past. You have to prove that those old stories are false in order to prove Islam is false.

Plus dont' let me start with your bible and how your famous John 1:1 is taken from Philo of Alexandria and how apocryphal verses from books like the assumption of Moses and others are also found in the Bible.

So stop arguing with ignorance.

David Wood said...

Bassam said: "All of these arguments have been refuted at . . ."

Given the quality of the other articles you considered to be "refutations," I'm skeptical that there will be anything of value at Islamic Awareness on this issue. But I'll check it out anyway.

Bassam said: "David, you don't get the point do you? It is possible that those true revelations found their way into some corrupted books."

I already said that it's possible. My claim was that it's improbable. For instance, imagine a teenager who hands in a paper that is practically identical to the paper of another student. "You copied!" cries the teacher. "Well," replies the student, "It's possible that we both wrote the same thing." Is it possible? Of course! It's just very, very improbable.

Bassam said: "Plus dont' let me start with your bible . . ."

First, attacking the Bible wouldn't change the fact that the Qur'an appears to be filled with fictitious stories, but I see why you would try to divert attention to the Bible.

Second, Christians acknowledge that the Bible had human authors, who were free to quote sources other than the Old Testament. Paul, for instance, quoted stoic philosophers. The difference is that the Qur'an is supposed to be a book that was eternal in heaven. Hence, it doesn't make sense for Muhammad to be drawing on fictions, since Muhammad isn't even supposed to be the author! But since Muhammad is clearly drawing on sources he was familiar with, it should be equally clear that Muhammad was not getting this from an angel. He was getting it from human beings!

B said...

Dear David

Now I am really getting unimpressed with your weak answers. You argue that it is 'improbable', yet you don't prove that those stories are fictitious. You call them fictitious, yet you don't prove it.

You said that the other links I posted were weak, show me the weakness in them besides saying it without evidence.

As for me diverting to the Bible, lol how did I divert. I already stated that you didn't prove anything against Islam anyways.

And look at your reply 'Second, Christians acknowledge that the Bible had human authors, who were free to quote sources other than the Old Testament. The difference is that the Qur'an is supposed to be a book that was eternal in heaven."

Look how you conveniently brush aside how the Bible authors borrowed things. I thought they were inspired and got their stuff from the Holy Spirit? How can you take the word of man as holy?

As for the Qur'an being the eternal speech of God, you have proven absolutely nothing by saying that. God could have planned to have sent revelations and allow them to get mixed up with falsehood (like the Bible) and then the Qur'an came to confirm the truth and expose the falsehood and all of this was planned from eternity.

You have really weak logic.

Why don't you start proving some facts for your case besides biased and weak circumstantial "evidence".

GeneMBridges said...


Look how you conveniently brush aside how the Bible authors borrowed things. I thought they were inspired and got their stuff from the Holy Spirit? How can you take the word of man as holy?


Bassam you do not seem to understand how to mount a counterargument or critique.

You can mount an internal critique or an external critique.

Internal critiques work from the actual position held by your opponent and then proceed to show how the position is, within its own boundaries, tenents, assumptions, etc. inconsistent or self-refuting.

An external critique is mounted from you from your own assumptions, etc. as an attack on the other.

Typically, it is easier to mount an internal critique, since an external critique involves the justification of your epistemic warrant as a supporting argument lying behind your external critique.

So, are you here arguing internally or not?

You seem to be arguing that if the Holy Spirit inspired Scripture that the text cannot be inspired. If this is an internal critique, then you have to show how it is incorrect or inconsistent with the Christian doctrine of inspiration of Scripture. The Gospels themselves tell us are drawn on sources. Luke's prologue is a prime example. Likewise, we can find creedal statements, songs, sermons, etc. in the other books of the NT. In the OT, we find genealogies, numbers, etc., so the use of source material cannot, on internal grounds, be argued as incorrect or inconsistent.

So, all you have left is an external critique. If you are going to say what you say above as an external critique, then you have to argue the point and not assert it. We can take the "word of man" as holy, because Scripture itself warrants the use of source material and yet attests to inspiration. The Scriptures are analogus to Christ, the Incarnate God in flesh...fully God and yet fully man in one person. There is nothing inconsistent in our theology or the Bible itself with these notions.

So, what is your non-arbitrary epistemic warrant for your assertion and the justification for that warrant.

What David has done is an internal critique, which takes your own ideas about the Quran and shows their inconsistency. If the text is fictional, then how does fiction function, if at all, in the Quran, which is supposed to be the word of God in heaven itself handed down to your prophet?

As to your claims about revelation and falsehood, this shouldn't have to be pointed out to you, but the claims about the Bible that your own book makes contradict your own statements.

For one thing, the Quran draws on the Bible. So, if there is falsehood in it, how exactly do you determine which parts are false and aren't with regard to the source material? That's a problem for you, not for us.

What proof do you have of this? And, an embarrassing sura for the Muslim is sura 10:94.. In this sura we read:

"But if you are in doubt as to what We have revealed to you, ask those who read the Book before you; certainly the truth has come to you from your Lord, therefore you should not be of the disputers.”

What we have here, then, is Muhammad telling people who doubted the veracity of his teachings to ask those who had the book before him (Jews and Christians) if what he was teaching was true. The problem here is that since the texts we have today are substantially the same as the manuscripts circulating in Muhammad's day, we would have Muhammad directing questioners to a corrupted text! If the Bible had been corrupted then why would Muhammad send his followers to verify his teachings from a corrupted text? This sura, then, testifies to an uncorrupted Bible.

In arguing that the Bible is corrupt and false, you are contradicting your own book, Bassam.

Even if we forget sura 10:94, there are plenty of other passages which support the reliability of the Bible in Muhammad's day, which is what we have today.

Sura 5:43 "But how do they come to you for decision while they have the Taurat (Torah), in which IS the (plain) Decision of Allah; yet even after that, they turn away. For they are not (really) believers." The Bible is reported as reliable enough for the Christians and Jews to look to the Torah for guidance, rather than needing to come to Muhammad.

Or look at sura 5:46-47:

"And We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps, confirming that which was (revealed) before him in the Torah, and We bestowed on him the Gospel wherein IS guidance and a light, confirming that which was (revealed) before it in the Torah - a guidance and an admonition unto those who ward off (evil). Let the People of the Gospel judge by that which Allah hath revealed therein. Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed: such are evil-livers." Here "Allah" says that the people of the gospel should check their own Bible's in order to see if what Allah says is true! Why would Allah direct them to a corrupted text?

Or, why would "Allah" tell Christians and Jews to check the Bible they have WITH THEM in sura 2:40-41

"O children of Israel! call to mind My favor which I bestowed on you and be faithful to (your) covenant with Me, I will fulfill (My) covenant with you; and of Me, Me alone, should you be afraid. And believe in what I have revealed, VERIFYING THAT WHICH IS WITH YOU, and be not the first to deny it, neither take a mean price in exchange for My communications; and Me, Me alone should you fear." See, that which is WITH THEM can be used to "verify" what Muhammad is saying.


This is not some isolated text, either. The Qur'an claims "Before thee, also, the apostles We sent were but men, to whom We granted inspiration: If ye realize this not, ask of those who posses the message” (sura 21:7). But those who “possessed the message” back then just happened “to posses” the same “message” that we posses today. There is simply not one shred of evidence testifying that a Bible completely foreign to the Bible we posses today was the Bible used by Christians in Muhammad’s day.

David Wood said...

Bassam said: "You said that the other links I posted were weak, show me the weakness in them besides saying it without evidence."

If the Qur'an clearly says that men must beat their wives in certain situations, and I provide numerous translations proving that this is what the Qur'an says, and you give me a link in which a Muslim author creatively reinterprets every other word in order to make the passage say that it's not okay to beat women, then I start to lose respect for the material you link to.

If I go to your next link, and I find a response to a passage that clearly says that Muhammad beat Aisha, and another creative Muslim author reinterprets it to mean that he only pushed her, then I really start doubting your sources.

When I do this over, and over, and over, I start to think that you're not really linking to solid, well-researched refutations of what we say here. Instead, you're giving links to any response whatsoever, no matter how flimsy the argument is.

I confess, Bassam, that this is something that bothers me about Muslim methodology. Muslims will make an utterly unconvincing, flawed, illogical argument, then go around proclaiming it as if it were a decisive proof. That's a problem, my friend.

B said...

Dear David

Do you know that many alleged contradictions in the Bible were refuted after showing people the wrong or misleading English translations of the Bible and by appealing to the Hebrew or Greek, the contradiction was resolved?

The same thing was done in those verses. The Arabic word describing what the Prophet did to Aisha mean't push with an open palm.

The Prophet (peace be upon him) explains the Quran (16:44) and explained in his farewell sermon that the beating is not to be injurious. That article that you read did not say you can't beat your wives at all. It gave the conditions under which it was permissible (if it can prevent a divorce and not be harmful). When the author said you can't beat your wife, he intended to say that you can't abuse them.

If anyone is desperate in their methodology its the Christians. For example, when Muslims pose an argument against Jesus' divinity they give the story about the man that called Jesus good master and then Jesus said 'why do you call me good. Only God alone is good'. It is so clear Jesus is denying to be God.

But Christians reply back saying 'nooo nooo!! Jesus was trying to make the man understand why he was calling him good and it was because he is God!!"

Give me a break man! And you have the nerve to criticize Muslim methodology and say that we will make an utterly unconvincing, flawed, illogical argument. Its clearly the Christians.

Stop acting like your objective and start being objective. You keep using your personal western logic (that was probably why you were an atheist) and try to impose it on others. I even listened to your debate with Nadir and Nadir trapped you on the Aisha issue. All you can say is (not in exact words) 'well do I have to prove that marrying a nine year old is immoral. Cmoon!"

Purely subjective. Thats why I aint Christian.

And David, I highly anticipate a future article by you in which you put forth evidence for Christianity, since you said that you have it.

Kind Regards,

Bassam

David Wood said...

Bassam said: "The Arabic word describing what the Prophet did to Aisha mean't push with an open palm."

It's odd that everyone who translates Sahih Muslim disagrees with you. Plus there's the fact that, according to the Qur'an, it was completely acceptable for Muhammad to hit Aisha, so I'm not sure why you're trying so hard to deny that he did. And, of course, the passage also says that he caused her pain, which would be hard to do if he simply pushed her lightly.

Bassam said: "When the author said you can't beat your wife, he intended to say that you can't abuse them."

So it's okay to beat your wife, but not to abuse her. Okay. Then why are you responding to me and Nabeel? All I did was quote some passages of the Qur'an, which give the situation where a husband can beat his wife. Nabeel said that beating wives is permissible in Islam, and he allowed the interpretation that the beating was not to be too severe. Where is your disagreement with us? It sounds like we're in full agreement.

Bassam said: "I even listened to your debate with Nadir and Nadir trapped you on the Aisha issue. All you can say is (not in exact words) 'well do I have to prove that marrying a nine year old is immoral. Cmoon!"

I don't think you understood my point. My point is that moral claims can't be proven in the same way we prove other claims. So if you say, for instance, "Prove to me that rape is wrong," there's no sort of scientific evidence one can give for such a claim. We have to rely on our moral sense to some extent, Bassam. Since Muhammad had sex with a nine-year-old girl, Muslims are forced to say that it's okay to have sex with young girls. But such a practice is repulsive to non-Muslims. I'll simply say this. If you want people to believe that having sex with young girls is okay (as you and Nadir clearly do), I would say that the burden of proof is on you to prove that it is indeed okay. To simply say, "Well, you can't prove that it's wrong!" doesn't help you much. Again, I could say the same thing about rape. If you'd like to persue the Aisha issue further, I'd be happy to do a series of posts on the topic. Let me know.

Bassam said: "Purely subjective. Thats why I aint Christian."

Notice what you just said. I said that having sex with nine-year-old girls is wrong. You then said that I'm being subjective and that this is why you're not a Christian. Really? You're not a Christian because I believe that certain things are morally wrong? (And let's face the facts. The reason that you're not a Christian is that you were raised to believe in a religion that was designed to keep people from understanding the Gospel.)

Bassam said: "You keep using your personal western logic."

Now you're complaining that I'm being logical! First you complain about my belief that some things are morally wrong, and now you're complaining that I use logical principles in my arguments! Amazing!

(Note: If you'd like evidence, we can still do a written debate, or two, or three. I'm busy at the moment, but we can do one in the fall. We need to narrow things down somewhat, though. How about we do a debate on the Apostle Paul. If all goes well, we can then do one on Muhammad. If everything is still going smoothly, we can do one on Jesus or the Bible as well.)

B said...

Dear David

You and Nabeel are trying to portray the islamic understanding of wife beating as if it is negative and some thing immoral and therefore use that as proof that Islam is false. While, what I am doing is clarifying it and showing that the islamic understanding and teaching regarding the issue has nothing wrong with it.

Your analogy of using rape is fallacious. Because there are no examples in history in which rape was justified (except in your Bible of course http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/terrorism__rape_and_other_cruel_acts_in_the_bible) but marrying at different ages varies from culture to culture even today. It is a known fact in history that women in the past used to get married at puberty. The burden of proof is on you to show evidence as to what age qualifies being morally fit for marriage. There is nothing in your scripture that talks about that. So you have no divine guidance on the issue, just your personal subjective logic which you would like to impose on others. You commit the fallacy of projection and assume that the times back then are like now.

My dear friend David, there is no way on earth I acknowledged that you have logic in a positive sense. I said 'your personal western logic'. Meaning, your subjective way of thinking. 'David's principles of logic'. And that is no compliment, trust me. (i am also not intending to insult you. I don't think your stupid but I believe that you appeal to emotion and follow what appeals to you)

I was thinking of debating whether the Bible is the word of God and then we can debate "Is There Evidence for Islam?". Or we can have it the other way around. As you like.

Kind Regards,

Bassam

David Wood said...

Bassasm said: "You and Nabeel are trying to portray the islamic understanding of wife beating as if it is negative."

Shame on us for thinking that beating women is negative! Is this what Islam does for people? Does it make men think that beating a woman is something positive?

Bassam said: "Your analogy of using rape is fallacious. Because there are no examples in history in which rape was justified."

No, your reasoning is circular. My point was that, if I say, "Rape is wrong," and you say, "Well, prove it," there's really no way for me to do so. Similarly, when I say that having sex with a little girl is immoral, and you and Nadir say, "Well, prove it," there is again no way for me to do so.

Your reasoning is circular because you're assuming that having sex with little girls is justified, while rape isn't. You're argument, in effect, is this: "Sex with a little girl isn't analagous to rape, since the former is justified while the latter is never justified." But who says that sex with a nine-year-old is ever justified? Your only reasoning is that some cultures have allowed sex with little girls. Well, some cultures have allowed rape too.

But again, the only point was that moral values can always be challenged. If your only argument against sex with children is "Prove to me that it's wrong," then you have to allow a lot of other things as well.

But let me go ahead and ask you a question. I don't know whether you are married, but supposing for argument that you aren't married, and supposing you are looking for a bride, and a man offers you his nine-year-old daughter, would you marry her and have sex with her?

I'd like to have your answer on record.

B said...

David, your becoming annoying how you selectively choose my comments and then respond back to them.

I am telling you again and again that the Islamic rules and conditions laid down for light wife beating do not make the rule immoral.

Secondly, how do we know that rape is wrong? Well as a Muslim we know because God says so and as a Christian you know because your Bible says so (even though God in the old testament condoned it at times) and because God inspired this natural feeling against rape in our hearts. Now, I wasn't asking you for scientific proof. I just asked for any proof. If you quoted your Bible, then we might have questioned the Bible's authenticity on the issue. But since your Bible does not lay down an objective standard for the age of marriage then you are only relying on your subjective opinion.

Let me ask you something. Will you ever contemplate having sex with your sister? Answer is no obviously. Well the first human beings did. Was it immoral back then? No.

You are asking me if someone brought his nine year old daugther to me and so on, well the answer to that is no David. Because I have grown up in a society and culture where you can't marry little immature girls and it feels odd now. But that wasn't the case back then. Back then, 15 year old boys were grown up mature men (unlike the majority of the teens today) and some 9 year old women were fully mature and they developed more quickly in the desert and were considered adults.

I was talking to my Hindu co worker last month and she said that her grandmother got married when she was 11. is that immoral to you? some people say that mary mother of jesus got pregnant between the age of 12 to 14. lets say she is 15. will you marry a 15 year old girl David? How about 14 or 12? Which age is the age that makes it okay? What objective proof are you using?

Marrying girls at the age of nine was even widely practised by Christians in the past. The people back then were different.

Rape is a crime. Rape is attacking someone and harming them. How are you comparing a man who proposes to a mature and intelligent girl with the consent of her parents rape and acceptance of society and even no objections from the enemies of the prophet?

David, you are being subjective. David you are only using your biased weak logic, which you grew up with and inherited from your western culture. David you only follow what appeals to you.

I advise you stop that.

Kind Regards,

Bassam

David Wood said...

Bassam said: "You are asking me if someone brought his nine year old daugther to me and so on, well the answer to that is no David. Because I have grown up in a society and culture where you can't marry little immature girls and it feels odd now."

You say that "it feels odd now." But as a Muslim, you must conclude that your feeling is simply wrong. In fact, your feeling here is at odds with the moral principles exhibited by Muhammad himself!

So let me modify the situation. Suppose you were in a Muslim country where marriage to nine-year-old girls is perfectly acceptable, and you needed a wife, and a man offered you his beautiful nine-year-old daughter, who was a suitable match in every way. And let's assume that there were no other potential partners around. Would you marry her and have sex with her? If so, then say it. If not, I would say that your moral "feelings" are better than Muhammad's.

P.S. The Bible doesn't condone rape, so quit saying it. You know, however, what Muhammad allowed his followers to do to the women of Banu al-Mustaliq. Would you like me to do a post on that?

B said...

Dear David

Read Deuteronomy 28: 15-68 and explain to me what verse 30 is saying.

Thanks

David Wood said...

Bassam said: "Read Deuteronomy 28: 15-68 and explain to me what verse 30 is saying."

I think it's pretty obvious. If the Israelites turn away from God, he will withdraw his protection as punishment. The result will be all sorts of awful things happening.

Now explain to me why Muhammad allowed his men to have sex with women who's families had just been slaughtered by Muslims and who were about to be sold into slavery by Muslims. And please actually answer the question instead of providing a link to a poorly argued article.

And please answer my question about sex with a little girl.

B said...

David said: I think it's pretty obvious. If the Israelites turn away from God, he will withdraw his protection as punishment. The result will be all sorts of awful things happening.

You don’t get the argument do you? Look at verse 30…

30 You will be pledged to be married to a woman, but another will take her and ravish her. You will build a house, but you will not live in it. You will plant a vineyard, but you will not even begin to enjoy its fruit.



God will punish the person by having someone rape his wife. Some might claim that the man will gain the consent of the woman and then lie with her. However, we see that adultery is being applied as an emotional punishment to the man. This is immoral.

However, a more clearer verse in which we can see God condoning rape is in

Zechariah 14:2
I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it; the city will be captured, the houses ransacked, and the women raped (shakab). Half of the city will go into exile, but the rest of the people will not be taken from the city.


David said: Now explain to me why Muhammad allowed his men to have sex with women who's families had just been slaughtered by Muslims and who were about to be sold into slavery by Muslims. And please actually answer the question instead of providing a link to a poorly argued article.

In Islam, having sexual intercourse with slave girls is permissible, just as it was permissible in the Old Testament. Now, the difference is that in Islam raping the women is prohibited. This is God’s law and I can’t question it. If it was possible for God to allow it in the past then it is possible for Him to uphold it. I can’t question that law.

Now before you accuse me of the fallacy tu quoque, please note that I don’t need to appeal to your Bible for justifying anything in Islam. I am just pointing out your inconsistent methodology in argumentation because you basically attack stuff that are found in your Bible.



David said: And please answer my question about sex with a little girl.

David, I said that I will not have sex with a little girl. Yes I did. But what I said was that back in those times, adulthood in men and women was achieved earlier. A nine year old could be considered a fully developed woman and adult. The problem with you is that you think that adulthood is bound by age. Adulthood is related to the maturity of the person, not by the age. Younger people could be much more mature than those older than them.

A little girl is not mature. But a nine-year-old girl such as Aisha was an adult if we look at the context of the situation. She was clever and intelligent and conscious of her decision. No one (even the enemies of the prophet) frowned upon it.

Let me ask you something. Lets say you were the first child born to Adam. And you had a sister. Would you have had sex with her? Of course you would. Because our ancestors did and it was not wrong at that time. Later God set a law prohibiting this.

History shows that people (not only Muslims, even Christians and Hindus) married women once they hit puberty. This came around the age of 9. We see no condemnation of this in any scripture and we see no prohibition of this in any holy scripture later on at some point in time. Therefore, you are simply having a cultural clash and not a religious morality.

Your analogy to rape is fallacious because rape is objectively proven to be immoral. (you should know this when you listen to William Lane Craig’s debates with atheists). However, marrying women once they hit adultery was practiced by millions and is not a black or white issue.

Therefore, if I was living at a time and place in which I never grew up brainwashed thinking it was immoral or wrong to marry a nine year old fully matured woman and the whole context of the situation is perfect and the nine year old girl is like Aisha and her father is like Abu Bakr then I probably would say yes to the marriage.

Its something that I can’t imagine happening now, but if that situation was there then I can’t see any intellectual (you can find an emotional) reason why I would find it wrong. Culture, has made us think otherwise.

God’s laws don’t’ have to adapt to changing cultures. The changing cultures of people have to adapt to God’s laws.

Now you didn’t answer my question. What is the appropriate age for marriage? What objective standard are you using? What age qualifies as moral and immoral? How do you prove that the standard that you are using is correct?

Sorry to say, but your argument is more an emotional one rather than an intellectual one. I see no reason to doubt Islam for such an argument. Plus if you can submit your intellect and not condemn God in the Old Testament ordered women and children to be killed, babies heads to be dashed against rocks, etc.. then I don’t see why you should have any problem with Islam since your false allegations don’t in any way nearly amount up to the indecency found in some of the passages in the Bible.

As for you wanting to post about Bani Al Mustaliq, this is your blog and you are free to post what you want. But do me a favor before you post something. Always ask your self “What am I trying to prove by posting this argument? Is my argument providing objective evidence or is it only an emotional argument expressing something that doesn’t appeal to me?”

Note: I want to express much gratitude to you for not resulting to insults and mockery when it comes to this subject. You probably most likely do so in the privacy of your friends but you have shown me respect as a Muslim when discussing this issue and have remained as an objective critique and not an ill mannered mocker as many Christians unfortunatley are.

Kind Regards,

Bassam

Sophie said...

Very late response here given that ths video was posted years ago, but David, you said there is no way you can prove sex with little girls is wrong; it just is. I'd have to suggest that there is proof for your position: the high risk of fistula (really, really horrible internal problem involving double incontinence, common when a young girl gives birth). death in childbirth. and that's only if the girl has passed puberty, which the usual 9-year-old hasn't.

also, it is absolutely sick and rotten to the core to believe that 'light wife beating' is OK. I am disgusted to read those words from an educated american. how deluded and degraded islam can make a man.

plus, 'a fully matured nine year old woman'? there is no such thing and never has been. sorry to be crude but even if aisha was mentally 20, she was vaginally 9. that is, she was most likely internally damaged by the prophet of islam. a prophet of god who is the perfect example to follow through all ages would know the damage done to children this way, and not encourage it with his own example. it's true that people used to see children as mini-adults and didn't recognise childhood as a developmental stage in the same way we do today, but that doesn't make it right for them to have slept with young girls, and it certainly wasn't right for the best man ever to have slept with a 9 year old.

women hit puberty around 12-14 a thousand years ago, and much later (15+) in areas where they weren't very well nourished. aisha was 9. i very much doubt she was pubescent.

David Wood said...

The point is that moral claims proven in the same way scientific claims can be proven.

Your response is that it's immoral to have sex with a young girl because it can be physically harmful to her. I agree completely. But if someone disagrees, how do we prove him wrong? That is, suppose a Muslim responds, "And why is it wrong to physically hurt a little girl? Why is it wrong to do something that might lead to her death?" What can we say in response? All we can do is look to the source of such an abominable view, and challenge the source (here, the teachings of Muhammad).

Sophie said...

Hmm, yeah I guess you're right.

If there is no moral compass but the actions of Muhammad, then there is no moral compass.

I just felt sick reading Bassam's arguments in favour of crimes against women and little girls. I get the feeling that he is a decent person yet he argues for the most indecent things. Like so many Muslims I think he he is too goood for Islam yet he is utterly convinced, deluded, mentally ravaged by it. I feel sorry for him.