[Mbajuni]

>Mbajuni,
>Read sajtas' reply in that thread, it will show you how he
>conducts such discussions and how he reasons (he's often out
>to mock, not discuss) when the issue is adressed at depth in a
>serious manner.

Thanks for the warning coach. No worries...I don't believe in arguing over ignorance. I did notice that Satjas comments are based on assumptions on what I think. However, I will not post in on the other board because I think this a fruitless and pointless argument and don't wat to start another pot boiling. Instead I would like to state my own personal stance here and clarify this "round the circle" discussion in this board and hopefully never have to return and witness such ignorance.

I believe the hadith about the prophet.
I believe the Quran.

But my point was that, just because Allah does not say something against an act in the Quran, it does not mean he is saying you MUST do it. GET THE DIFFFERENCE????? Passiveness is NOT equal to ADVOCATING...Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh!!!
That my dear satjas is what I was saying.

However, I was not saying that I think the prophet was wrong either. NO...As a matter of fact I have nothing wrong with that act on the basis that it happened hundred of years ago when everyone did that and it was the norm. Pedophilia is a term that only came about when western definitions of psychopathology. If the Prophet lived in today’s world then perhaps it would be a totally different situation.

Pedophilia is a mental disorder. I actually talked to a prof about this just last week when talking about sexually deviant behaviour. In Psychology, Pedophilia is diagnosed only based on cultural contexts and what is the norm. If it is norm in society, then it is not considered pedophilia. So just by definition itself, the Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) was not a pedophile. The same thing to bulimia nervosa. If there hypothetically was a society out there where 99% of the girls poked fingers in their tongues to throw up after eating so that they would be thin, then it is not considered a mental disorder since "statistical" rarity is one of the qualifiers for a mental disorder.

In the 15th/16th century where women didn't go to school/didn't get jobs etc then even I would personally find it normal if one got married at that age...kweni I would have hit puberty, I can get pregnant and the norms in that society then, the only role left for me is to get married and be a mother. However, today I and many of us are blessed with education and know better if someone did the same thing. Today I would be appalled and angry if a 52 yr old married a 9 year old, but at the same time, I would not call him a pedophile or pervert. Calling one a pedophile based on MY construct of womanhood is like calling one who comes from another culture mentally retarded based on my notion of intelligence through the IQ.

According to the layman's rather than medical definition, a pedophile is "an adult who is sexually attracted to children". Even in the west today we can't decide the defnition for girl/woman. Some say up to 16, others 14 etc. So if we can't draw a line today when we are in the same era, how can we draw that thin line to others in a totally different era and culture?? To some cultures young girls of 9/10 are considered as to be women after initiation in...then how can we penalize them for that based on our own definitions??

In countries such as Kenya where in some places isolated from the wider society such as Northern Marsabit where it is norm for girls to get married at 9/10/11 I wouldn't call them pedophiles either...I would just say that their culture is not educated on western definitions of womanhood. Kweni if I were to call them pedophiles the that means 99% of Africans before colonization were pedophiles too i.e. your great great great great great great great... grandfather or mine were perverts too. But to THEM they are not attracted to a child but a woman. To THEM pedophilia would be if the girl was 6/7. If one is educated on this concept today, knows of the broader definition of child/woman, lives in 'modern' society and STILL chooses to marry a 9/10 yr old girl...THEN they are a pedophile.

Basically my point is that culture varies and changes over time and geography as do definitions such as intelligence, mentally retarded, woman/girl etc Based on defitions of intelligence TODAY do you know that over 50% of the population from the 19th century would be considered mentally retarded?? So it is stupid for you to argue about who was a pedophile then, back in the day, whensoever, based on a definition that has not only dynamically changed in the past decade but were also created post-western civilization. Satjas, that is just biased, misinformed, one-sided, indiscriminate, insensible, plain ignorant hogwash. And that is why I think arguing if Joseph or the prophet Mohammed (PBUH) were pedophiles is pointless!!