So Mohammed is not a "pedophile"...?

...because at the time it was a cultural norm to marry girls when young. I completely agree. And I've heard this argument before. BUT. Why make this the exception? Homosexuality was frowned upon in those days. It isn't anymore by most people (non-muslims) since we've found that homosexuality... show more ...because at the time it was a cultural norm to marry girls when young.

I completely agree. And I've heard this argument before.

BUT. Why make this the exception?

Homosexuality was frowned upon in those days. It isn't anymore by most people (non-muslims) since we've found that homosexuality exists in animals and therefore nature too.

I find this to be a huge double standard. You can't argue for cultural relativity on one point and not another.

So, my question is, why argue about "cultural differences" when defending Mohammed from pedophile claims and not do the same for homosexuals (also mentioned in the Quran)? And this doesn't only concern homosexuals. It can be about outlook on women (and a man's right to beat a woman if she displeases him, etc).

I just think that someone who claims to follow the Quran entirely shouldn't have anything against allowing their 9-year old daughter to be married off to an old man. So why do you?
Update: @Xavi: What? People can always claim Catholic child molestors are not following the religion correctly. How do you propose to do the same regarding Mohammed? o.o
Update 2: @Not Afraid 2 Stand Alone: ... You may have noticed that I put "pedophile" in brackets.

But good way of avoiding to answer my question...
Update 3: @Crikey: It makes perfect sense. Maybe that's why you're avoiding it? :) I know homosexuality hasn't been proven to be genetic. But that's not what this topic is about. This is about Mohammed and his wife being perfectly acceptable in HIS TIME. It was a cultural norm back then. Just as... show more @Crikey: It makes perfect sense. Maybe that's why you're avoiding it? :)

I know homosexuality hasn't been proven to be genetic. But that's not what this topic is about. This is about Mohammed and his wife being perfectly acceptable in HIS TIME. It was a cultural norm back then. Just as homosexuality was frowned upon in HIS TIME.
Update 4: @Wazeer the Unity fan: So you can be against homosexuality and not be a hypocrite (which is fair enough, I guess). I personally don't care at all about her age. This question is directed to those who believe she was 9 and have one hell of a double standard. ;)
Update 5: @Natassia: Perhaps. I do tend to mix the terms up. Either way, I see you're not a moral/cultural relativist. But plenty of people are. And I've heard the argument used (regarding Mohammed) several times. And it's to those I am aiming this question. Having sex with a nine-year-old has not always... show more @Natassia: Perhaps. I do tend to mix the terms up.

Either way, I see you're not a moral/cultural relativist. But plenty of people are. And I've heard the argument used (regarding Mohammed) several times. And it's to those I am aiming this question.

Having sex with a nine-year-old has not always been seen as wrong just as human sacrifices have not always been seen as wrong. That you think they're wrong is really something else.

I find it amazing how you can know what people in the past believed. ;) Child marriages were very COMMON and "normal." It was only recently that the concept of childhood was created and the idea of sex and its psychological impact on children. Before it was seen as natural since period = sexual maturity. Quite reasonable, really... And sure, there are complications. But there was for all women in the past giving birth due to bad healthcare.

Now, you didn't really answer my question. :P I'll assume you agree with Wazeer then. ;)
Update 6: @Natassia: A nihilist? I wouldn't define myself as such. I believe that morality exists (outside religion - since I do not follow any organised religion) But I believe values are subject to change/variation based on context. Why? Because our knowledge of certain subjects shifts over time and I believe this... show more @Natassia: A nihilist? I wouldn't define myself as such. I believe that morality exists (outside religion - since I do not follow any organised religion) But I believe values are subject to change/variation based on context. Why? Because our knowledge of certain subjects shifts over time and I believe this should lead a shift in values. To me it is not logical that our knowledge grows whilst our values remain static. This in fact only happens when people are following static sources that preach morality - religion.
Update 7: @Wazeer: Picked your answer since you're at least consistent. Too bad more muslims aren't. ;)
14 answers 14