Author Topic: HRH Prince Andrew.  (Read 1645 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Ken B

  • Guest
Re: HRH Prince Andrew.
« Reply #60 on: November 23, 2019, 07:44:03 PM »
We have the testimony of Mohammed's child bride that getting married to him meant nothing more than playing in front of Mohammed's tent instead of her father's tent.

And you might want to acquaint yourself with bridal ages in the medieval era and earlier. Child brides among the elite were not unusual, even at times were the norm.

No, we have no witness accounts at all. The Hadith are all later fabrications, there are no biographies within almost 200 years after the traditional time of his death. All we really know is that the Koran appeared, mostly in its final form, a bit after 600 CE, and so presumably there was a “prophet” of some sort, whom we call Mohammed. Even its origin in central Saudi Arabia is uncertain and unlikely. Mecca for instance was demonstrably not a major trading center at that time, and the belief it was is central to the Islamic origin myth.

A place to start is The Quest For the Historical Mohammed by ibn Warraq.

Offline JBS

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 2764
  • If music be the food of love, play on!
  • Location: USA
Re: HRH Prince Andrew.
« Reply #61 on: November 23, 2019, 08:13:18 PM »
No, we have no witness accounts at all. The Hadith are all later fabrications, there are no biographies within almost 200 years after the traditional time of his death. All we really know is that the Koran appeared, mostly in its final form, a bit after 600 CE, and so presumably there was a “prophet” of some sort, whom we call Mohammed. Even its origin in central Saudi Arabia is uncertain and unlikely. Mecca for instance was demonstrably not a major trading center at that time, and the belief it was is central to the Islamic origin myth.

A place to start is The Quest For the Historical Mohammed by ibn Warraq.
I am familiar with the theory.  It's woefully lacking in any real evidence to support it, and its basic premise that there is no real evidence from that era is based mostly on wishful thinking.

Hollywood Beach Broadwalk

Ken B

  • Guest
Re: HRH Prince Andrew.
« Reply #62 on: November 23, 2019, 08:43:55 PM »
I am familiar with the theory.  It's woefully lacking in any real evidence to support it, and its basic premise that there is no real evidence from that era is based mostly on wishful thinking.

“The” theory?

You mean the fact that there are no, as in none, written Muslim sources within 180 years of the traditional date of his death?

There is evidence from that era of course. Non Muslim evidence. That is how we know Mecca was not a trading center. What is unevidenced is the traditional Muslim tale of the life of Mohammed and the birth of Islam.

Offline JBS

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 2764
  • If music be the food of love, play on!
  • Location: USA
Re: HRH Prince Andrew.
« Reply #63 on: November 23, 2019, 08:55:20 PM »
“The” theory?

You mean the fact that there are no, as in none, written Muslim sources within 180 years of the traditional date of his death?

There is evidence from that era of course. Non Muslim evidence. That is how we know Mecca was not a trading center. What is unevidenced is the traditional Muslim tale of the life of Mohammed and the birth of Islam.

The theory assumes that oral history is by definition not credible.   An assumption not in touch with reality, so naturally the theory is not in touch with reality.

Hollywood Beach Broadwalk

Offline dissily Mordentroge

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 637
Re: HRH Prince Andrew.
« Reply #64 on: November 23, 2019, 09:47:56 PM »
We have the testimony of Mohammed's child bride that getting married to him meant nothing more than playing in front of Mohammed's tent instead of her father's tent.

And you might want to acquaint yourself with bridal ages in the medieval era and earlier. Child brides among the elite were not unusual, even at times were the norm.
The significance of these myths, or whatever they are, is in their widespread use as justification for the abuse of the young. Historically true or not is if no importance if they’re accepted by a culture. I’m impressed at your faith in swallowing the supposed testimony of Mohammed’s child bride. Must be very comforting. I wonder how you manage to defuse the meaning of Sura 3. V  7-11?
I am well acquainted with medieval and earlier history but thanks ever so for the recommendation I require further study.
And to think Prince Andrew’s little escapades triggered this discussion.

Ken B

  • Guest
Re: HRH Prince Andrew.
« Reply #65 on: November 24, 2019, 12:10:13 AM »
The theory assumes that oral history is by definition not credible.   An assumption not in touch with reality, so naturally the theory is not in touch with reality.
So you accept the resurrection of Jesus then?  ::)

Ken B

  • Guest
Re: HRH Prince Andrew.
« Reply #66 on: November 24, 2019, 12:29:54 AM »
The significance of these myths, or whatever they are, is in their widespread use as justification for the abuse of the young. Historically true or not is if no importance if they’re accepted by a culture. I’m impressed at your faith in swallowing the supposed testimony of Mohammed’s child bride. Must be very comforting. I wonder how you manage to defuse the meaning of Sura 3. V  7-11?
I am well acquainted with medieval and earlier history but thanks ever so for the recommendation I require further study.
And to think Prince Andrew’s little escapades triggered this discussion.

Didn’t you tell me to acquaint myself with Mohammed's brides? 

What has that passage from Surah 3 go to do with kids or brides?

You are right though that the historicity of tales of humping 9 year olds is less important in the belief that it represents right conduct and has been used to justify kid humping for centuries.

Offline dissily Mordentroge

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 637
Re: HRH Prince Andrew.
« Reply #67 on: November 24, 2019, 02:56:01 AM »
What has that passage from Surah 3 go to do with kids or brides?
Nothing.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2019, 02:57:51 AM by dissily Mordentroge »

Ken B

  • Guest
Re: HRH Prince Andrew.
« Reply #68 on: November 24, 2019, 06:25:45 AM »
Nothing.
Right. You cited the wrong number and won’t admit it.

Offline JBS

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 2764
  • If music be the food of love, play on!
  • Location: USA
Re: HRH Prince Andrew.
« Reply #69 on: November 24, 2019, 08:03:57 AM »

I am well acquainted with medieval and earlier history but thanks ever so for the recommendation I require further study.


You obviously do require further study, since you seem to have entirely missed the point I was making: child brides were fairly common,  and not only in the Middle East, up until early modern times.

Hollywood Beach Broadwalk

Ken B

  • Guest
Re: HRH Prince Andrew.
« Reply #70 on: November 24, 2019, 08:50:42 AM »
You obviously do require further study, since you seem to have entirely missed the point I was making: child brides were fairly common,  and not only in the Middle East, up until early modern times.
And interestingly it was the medieval church which insisted on female consent in marriage (and by extension sex in general).  Obviously fathers often had ways to get formal consent from unwilling daughters, but that this was even necessary was due to the church.

Offline JBS

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 2764
  • If music be the food of love, play on!
  • Location: USA
Re: HRH Prince Andrew.
« Reply #71 on: November 24, 2019, 01:25:56 PM »
And interestingly it was the medieval church which insisted on female consent in marriage (and by extension sex in general).  Obviously fathers often had ways to get formal consent from unwilling daughters, but that this was even necessary was due to the church.

Which would show Europe was regressive. In the first marriage negotiation recorded in detail in Genesis, that of Isaac and Rebecca, the bride's consent is a decisive step both in agreeing to the marriage and agreeing that the bride should travel immediately to meet the groom instead of waiting a year or so.  Consent of the bride was essential in biblical law if she had reached puberty. Before then, the father could marry her off, by biblical law. Which means biblical law allowed child marriages.

Tangential but relevant, the Midrash, followed by the medieval rabbis, claimed that Rebecca was three years at the time of her marriage. Which is not to say I think she was that age...but to say the rabbis of circa 100-1200 CE thought such a young age was plausible.

Hollywood Beach Broadwalk

Offline greg

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 423
  • Location: San Antonio, TX
Re: HRH Prince Andrew.
« Reply #72 on: November 24, 2019, 07:49:44 PM »
Teachers have far more regular contact with children than priests yet feature far less in juvenile sexual abuse statistics.
That's surprising... maybe it's the second most common then?

My only male elementary school teacher was busted for trying to meet a minor once (wasn't a student).  :-X

Regardless, seems like it would be more about being able to isolate the kid, which would require both contact and secrecy. Picking a profession which has no contact with kids would make it harder for them- straight up kidnapping, I'd imagine, would be a hard thing to pull off.
Wagie wagie get back in the cagie

Offline dissily Mordentroge

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 637
Re: HRH Prince Andrew.
« Reply #73 on: November 24, 2019, 08:19:22 PM »
You obviously do require further study, since you seem to have entirely missed the point I was making: child brides were fairly common,  and not only in the Middle East, up until early modern times.
Up until modern times? They still happen all too frequently.

Ken B

  • Guest
Re: HRH Prince Andrew.
« Reply #74 on: November 24, 2019, 08:28:49 PM »
Which would show Europe was regressive. In the first marriage negotiation recorded in detail in Genesis, that of Isaac and Rebecca, the bride's consent is a decisive step both in agreeing to the marriage and agreeing that the bride should travel immediately to meet the groom instead of waiting a year or so.  Consent of the bride was essential in biblical law if she had reached puberty. Before then, the father could marry her off, by biblical law. Which means biblical law allowed child marriages.

Tangential but relevant, the Midrash, followed by the medieval rabbis, claimed that Rebecca was three years at the time of her marriage. Which is not to say I think she was that age...but to say the rabbis of circa 100-1200 CE thought such a young age was plausible.
Well, for the topic at hand it is age at consummation that is the relevant age. There are cases of royal marriages at  absurd ages, but they never even met until many years later.
The traditional tales of Mohammed differ. Some say married at 6 screwed at 9, some married at 9 screwed at 12. All have him somewhere north of 40.