Prophets vs. Pedophiles [Part 2]

<A Moral Compass

In Part 1 we discussed the contemporary scientific understanding of childhood in the past and how it drastically opposes present day objections against the Prophet Muhammad (saws) and his relationship with the young Aisha (ra). We found that in all areas of cognition, biology and social fitness, younger people of the past cannot be portrayed in light of our present day experiences of children. In other words, ‘children’, back then, had to adapt to the given conditions of their natural and social environments, thus not really making them children. Given these facts, moral judgments that are easily applied to today would be fallacious to apply to antiquity. Conclusively then, Klingschor and those who believe that the Prophet Muhammad (saws) had committed an immoral act by marrying Aisha (ra), are simply incorrect.

Though we touched up on their invalid biases, this portion of the presentation will focus more on the philosophical underpinnings that influenced such misinformed judgments. While this philosophical model does not apply to all critics of the accusations against the Prophet (saws), it does appear to apply to most. This model is a form of Enlightenment influenced morality called ‘Moral Progressionism’, or the idea that somehow societies have or are capable of becoming more moral than those before them. Perhaps a widely accepted view in most of the Western world today, it underpins moral judgments towards past societies and cultures. Unlike the utopian constructs of most religions and its followers, which see a better world in the far future as a result of a Transcendent God’s Will and Power, Moral Progressionists attempt to construct such a world in the here and now. This does not mean, however, that religious individuals have not likewise adopted this view, despite what I believe, is in contradiction to their own scriptures and past authorities.

The problem with this view, if we are to look at things from an evolutionary standpoint, is that it is a form of social Lemarkism. While many of the tenets of Lemarkism have been categorically rejected in the field of evolutionary science, it still appears to be popular in the social sciences and among the general population.

This perspective has resulted in very narrow interpretations of past societies and cultures, as well as brought about quick change without concern for deeper issues and a lack of foresight of  long-term consequences. Such a model has been one of the underlying influences behind some of the greatest atrocities of the 20th and 21st centuries, metamorphosing into its more fanatical form known as ‘Social Darwinism’, persisting today in a regressed state as still something by which to force onto so-called, ‘third world nations’. Due to its narrowness, it has also influenced its followers to create a causal link between technological-economic progress and moral virtue. This is characteristic in most contemporary social engineering, where arbitrary notions such as human rights are valued in the same light as economic gain or loss. Things like happiness are primarily based on limited concepts of wealth and freedom, with little to no concern for individual or societal perceptions of either. Just because one society is happy with a model, does not necessitate that others will likewise appreciate it. This entirely escapes most Progressionists mindsets, however, given that they believe their form of ‘progress’ can and should be universally applied at all costs for the sake of some homogeneous objective ideal of humanity. This is also why societies based on Moral Progressionism tend to adopt ‘one-law-for-all’ systems and have no problem imposing said systems onto others. Both the majority of religious and non-religious secularists,  including religious extremists, fit into this mindset.

As Habermas states, this is a

perspective in which the development of the social system seems to be determined by the logic of scientific-technical progress. The imminent law of this ‘progress’ seems to produce objective exigencies, which must be obeyed by any politics oriented towards functional needs. But when this semblance has taken root effectively, then propaganda can refer to the role of technology and science in order to explain and legitimate why in modern societies the process of democratic decision-making about practical problems loses its function and ‘must’ be replaced by plebiscitary decisions about alternative sets of leaders of administrative personnel. [1]

Never mind critiquing the system of democratic rule itself or if said societies have a right to police the world – but the cycle continues without so much a critique of the underlying philosophy that drives its concerns. Heidegger had similar views of how humanity had become a slave to technological progress and absent-mindedly applied the same standards to itself.

The opposite extreme of this perspective, called Moral Relativism, attempted to remedy these problems by suggesting that moral values are sound based on a subject by subject assessment. Rather than merely applying this as a practical methodology on how to interact with individuals and societies external to ones own, it turns these relative values into an objective ideal of how morality really is. So, in the same way, it commits to a form of utopianism, that while not as pro-active, is just as damaging in its complacency.

The alternative perspective that I believe can both be applied universally while considering the various differences in ideals and social practices — and that I believe is the most correct — is what I like to call ‘Normative Circumstantial Morality’. Not only do I think that this form of morality is more evolutionary sound by considering the various cultural, economic, and ideological conditions of societies and how humans adapt to said conditions – or, as the label implies, the “circumstantial” aspects of human options and behaviors – but it appeals to basic normative needs and desires of human beings, while recognizing that one cannot cultivate said standards by forcing their interpretations on to others. This ‘freedom’ aspect of NCM is intrinsically understood through the combination of both what is Normative and Circumstantial, and as such produces a far more nuanced and carefully applied view towards contemporary societies, as well as those in the past. This does not mean, however, that all force can thereby be considered immoral or unnecessary, but it does limit the application of other doctrines on a larger scale, allowing human beings from various contexts to be understood and interacted with appropriately. In a way, its a form of Moral Realism with far more flexible applicability, while still guarding essential standards of various ideologies – of course, those not opposed to this one. This point may appear to be paradoxical or even contradictory, but I think there is room to argue about that.

Moving on, let us tie this perspective in with the current discussion regarding contemporary negative moral judgments placed on Prophet Muhammad (saws) in regards to his relationship with Aisha (ra).

With support from the research noted in Part I of this presentation, let’s apply the NCM model. Both the present and the past will be compared based on their different conditions – all-together known as ‘Circumstances’. They will be labeled respectively C1 and C2:

Figure 1.

 

We will cite one overarching Normative and vaguely call it ‘happiness”’ considering the various sub-normatives, like survival, that would make this possible; the interpretation of which may change in details depending on the meta-narrative supporting it. Each Circumstance has various conditions that make it possible. Circumstance 1, known as ‘600 C.E. Arabia’, is qualified by the following conditions mentioned above in figure 1. Circumstance 2, known as ‘2013 C.E. Global World’, is also qualified.

So here’s a hypothetical. Say you had a time machine and could go back to 7th century Arabia. Based on the overarching universal Normative of ‘happiness’ and the different conditions present, would you pronounce a negative judgement on said societies for attempting to optimally reach the Normative with what options they had available? Would you also attempt to force contemporary standards of law on these societies despite the fact that their conditions would not be able to cater to said rulings? Would it be moral to say that the Prophet Muhammad (saws) was a pedophile or a child molester (astaghfir’Allah), or to force on to these societies that men and women be married and consummate their marriages at the age of 18 or above? Can your understanding of childhood in the contemporary period adequately be applied to the past, or would it destroy those societies by crippling their functionality towards optimizing the overarching Normative?

I think I’ll leave that answer to my readers.

In Part 3 of this presentation we will be focusing on how Islamic Law incorporates the NCM model into its framework.

____________________

FOOTNOTES

____________________

[1] Habermas, Jurgen. “Some conditions for revolutionizing late capitalist societies.” Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory, 15 (1-2), 4

Advertisements

19 thoughts on “Prophets vs. Pedophiles [Part 2]

  1. If you have enough time to continually delete my comments, then you should also have enough time to answer my question. I just want to know WHY you blocked me, that’s all. Any response would suffice.

    • Because, despite what you claim to be objective comments, you seriously have not heeded my warnings regarding insults of the Prophet Muhammad (saws). You forget that this is MY house. Keep those sort of thoughts to yourself. If you wish to express them elsewhere, be my guest, but not on my property.

      • The hadiths I showed were not classified as daif and were very reliable. They detail how Muhammad put kohl (a type of Arabic cosmetic/eye-liner) on his eyes, henna in his hair, cross-dressed in the clothes of Aisha, and flirted with other men. They are much more explicit than my post (which merely stated that Muhammad engaged in actions similar to those of homosexuals/bisexuals) and most Ulema consider those hadiths to be credible. Why am I at fault. You mentioned your disdain for homosexual “acting on their tendencies” and I merely pointed out that Muhammad engaged in actions which resemble those of homosexuals. Why are you perfectly fine with how ArabParrot states that Allah, according to Islam, “is “testing us” by the same manner that an emperor watching a Colosseum: for his own amusement and satisfaction” (basically calling your Rabb al-‘alamin a sadist) or how AdvocateofJustic85 states that Muhammad is a “schizophrenic pedophile.” If you merely found my comments to be annoying, you could have either ignored them or deleted them. However, you blocked me over a comment which wasn’t really offensive in comparison to those of other individuals. If you disagree with something and you feel it is offensive, then it would behoove you to provide a counterargument. Oh and regarding Behnaz’s statements, I’ve seen far worse. For example, the following comment:

        “Our Baloch is being killed by dirty Porki Punjabi for the last 61 yearsIslam is peace, Killing Baloch Muslims Is Kufur & Zulm
        Porki Punjabi are killing, Tochering, Kidnaping, stealing & terorisim. Baloch are Muslims. Pathan are Muslims
        Why the Porki Punjabi killing them?!! I will tell you cause.. Porkistan is Kufur & Nifaq Porki Punjabi are Kafir Long Live Azad Balochistan”

        I find it quite odd that you only recently told this Behnaz lady to stop making such comments. Why didn’t you do so when she was calling me an “inbred cunt”? You also never told time0is0a0myth to stop verbally harassing me previously. Why are you so hypocritical?

  2. Jas, I will not get into this much with you because I’m tired.

    First off, the kohl is still worn today and didn’t become prominent among females ONLY until the recent period. Secondly, the statements that one should not dress or act like a female are based on that time periods interpretation. Third, I just noticed his statements against you and I responded accordingly. Fourth, this is not the first time Ive had to block you or warn you about your comments.

    “Hypocritical” or too much patience with you?

    • So, would you find it completely permissible for a man to put kohl on his eyes, dye his hair with henna, and wear woman’s perfume? Also, I find it quite odd that “Behnaz” keeps trying to insult me by calling me a “daal khor” (Persian for dal eater). I don’t see how it’s shameful to eat dal (lentils). I did a quick Google search, and according to Wikipedia, Afghans use it in a derogatory sense to refer to anyone who is rural because people in rural areas often can’t afford meat. Therefore, the primary source of Protein for people in rural areas is dal. Still, I don’t see how such a term is derogatory. If anything, eating tons of meat sounds barbaric to me; however, that may be because I’m a lacto-vegetarian. It seems that Pashtuns (at least those from Afghanistan) seem to hate Pakistanis even more than the Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Hazaras: goo.gl\GlPRH I find this quite ironic considering it was primarily Afghans who brought their drug culture into Karachi and it was also the Pakistani government that provided shelter for Afghan refugees. 😆
      It’s also funny how even though I feel much more of a cultural connection to Bharat than to Pakistan, people try to call me a terrorist/porki/whatever solely because I live in Pakistan. I’m not even a Muslim, so how can I be an Islamic terrorist? 🙄

      • @Behnaz Since you seem to be so racist, I thought I might inform you of something. Your ancestors were known is Sanskrit as Pakthas. They, along with other mleccha tribes (e.g. the Alinas, which probably referred to the ancestors of the Mycenaean Greeks), got their asses kicked by Raja Sudas and the Tritsus/Bharatas (Vedic Indians). The Pakthas and others were also considered to be “unmanly babblers”. 😉

        धेनुं न तवा सूयवसे दुदुक्षन्नुप बरह्माणि सस्र्जे वसिष्ठः |
        तवामिन मे गोपतिं विश्व आहा न इन्द्रः सुमतिं गन्त्वछ ||
        अर्णांसि चित पप्रथाना सुदास इन्द्रो गाधान्यक्र्णोत सुपारा |
        शर्धन्तं शिम्युमुचथस्य नव्यः शापं सिन्धूनामक्र्णोदशस्तीः ||
        पुरोळा इत तुर्वशो यक्षुरासीद राये मत्स्यासो निशिता अपीव |
        शरुष्टिं चक्रुर्भ्र्गवो दरुह्यवश्च सखा सखायमतरद विषूचोः ||
        आ पक्थासो भलानसो भनन्तालिनासो विषाणिनः शिवासः |
        आ यो.अनयत सधमा आर्यस्य गव्या तर्त्सुभ्यो अजगन युधा नर्न ||
        दुराध्यो अदितिं सरेवयन्तो.अचेतसो वि जग्र्भ्रे परुष्णीम |
        मह्नाविव्यक पर्थिवीं पत्यमानः पशुष कविरशयच्चायमानः ||
        ईयुरर्थं न नयर्थं परुष्णीमाशुश्चनेदभिपित्वं जगाम |
        सुदास इन्द्रः सुतुकानमित्रानरन्धयन मानुषे वध्रिवाचः ||

        English Translation (by Ralph T. Griffith): “Vasiṣṭha hath poured forth his prayers, desiring to milk thee like a cow in goodly pasture. All these my people call thee Lord of cattle: may Indra. come unto the prayer we offer. What though the floods spread widely, Indra made them shallow and easy for Sudās to traverse. He, worthy of our praises, caused the Simyu, foe of our hymn, to curse the rivers’ fury. Eager for spoil was Turvaśa Purodas, fain to win wealth, like fishes urged by hunger. The Bhṛgus and the Druhyus quickly listened: friend rescued friend mid the two distant peoples.Together came the PAKTHAS, the Bhalanas, the Alinas, the Sivas, the Visanins. Yet to the Trtsus came the Ārya’s Comrade, through love of spoil and heroes’ war, to lead them. FOOLS, in their folly fain to waste her waters, they parted inexhaustible Paruṣṇī. Lord of the Earth, he with his might repressed them: still lay the herd and the affrighted herdsman.As to their goal they sped to their destruction: they sought Paruṣṇī; e’en the swift returned not. Indra abandoned, to Sudās the manly, the swiftly flying foes and UNMANLY BABBLERS.” (Rig Veda Samhita Mandala 7 Sukta 18 Mantras 4-9)

      • @Jaksaran Let me get this straight. You’re tying to insult Pashtuns by referring to some obscure verses about some war in some 5,000 year old collection of hymns which stupid Hindu mushriks consider to be sacred. Are you really this desperate?

      • I don’t care if you think I’m “desperate” or not; I just want you to stop annoying me and posting rude comments about Pakistani Punjabis. By the way, you spelled my name wrong.

    • Wow, Behnaz is now trying to make me seem like an insensitive jerk; all over a single comment I posted several week ago! 🙄 She’s certainly highly sensitive. With how many trolls there are on the internet, I wonder how she deals with them. I’m surprised that even after I apologized and even deleted my post on siasat.pk a long time ago, she’s still pissed about it. My post wasn’t even incorrect. I stated that “SOME hazaras are uncivilized” on a post about a hazara killing his daughter when she did not memorize the Koran and threw it on the ground in frustration. To me, that is an act of savagery. I can see why it would be controversial, but I never demeaned hazaras because they are Shia. As far as I know, most Muslims who are doing the ethnic cleansing believe that Shia are kuffar and that they conceal their disbelief under a false love for the Ahl al-Bayt. I personally don’t care whether someone is Sunni or Shia as I don’t care for Islam in general. I just pointed out something and was ignorant of the underlying political implications. Hereupon, I’m just going to ignore her. After all, it’s just my word against hers. I shouldn’t have written it in the first place, but I never said I was perfect. Still, she hasn’t accepted my apology and is creating unnecessary drama for no reason. I’m tired of PM’ing her by now; I don’t even know her in real life. Her obsession with one comment I made is quite awkward.

    • Also, I’ve been quite nice whenever mentioning you to others and I have occasionally defended you.

      On the other hand, Arab Parrot indirectly mocked you and your supporters on Captaindisguise’s page:

      “Asadullah’s friends are so childish, they like to bring the ol ‘Life’s a test’ argument like any other Muslim, I replied to them on Ali’s page regarding their Super Saddam Jong il 3.3’s sadism and his control regarding love, they might bring up a sheep response such as ‘Well if gawd hate dem then I hate dem!'”

  3. Pingback: Prophets vs. Pedophiles [Part 3] | The Andalusian Project

  4. Pingback: Religion vs. Paedophilia [Part 3] | The Muslim Debate Initiative Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s