She espouses my thoughts.
We are fools.


"IF we conducted an audit of civil liberties, the result would go something like this. If you are an alleged terrorist detained at Guantanamo Bay, suspected of waging murderous jihad against the West, you can count on a certain class of vocal Westerners defending your right to a fair trial. Fair enough. But if you’re a right-wing commentator who publishes views that may offend the feelings of a minority group, don’t count on much support for your rights: your right to free speech or your right to a fair trial. Go figure.
Before we nut out that grotesque hypocrisy, it’s worth considering whether the US Supreme Court’s decision last week is the terrific win it appears to be for terrorism suspects. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that foreign terrorism suspects detained at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba have constitutional rights to challenge their detention in US courts. In balancing the principles of civil liberties and national security, not all judges agreed the rights of Gitmo detainees should prevail. Justice Antonin Scalia said: “The nation will live to regret what the court has done today.”
As The Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto noted, for all the wailing about the evils of Gitmo, “perhaps decades from now we will learn that detainees ended up being abused in some far-off place because the Government closed Guantanamo in response to judicial meddling. Even those who support what the court did today may live to regret it.”
And as Chief Justice John Roberts concluded, the majority’s decision was no win for democracy. Stripping Congress of power, the American people lost “a bit more control over the conduct of this nation’s foreign policy to unelected, politically unaccountable judges”.
For now, though, supporters of the Supreme Court decision have celebrated it as a grand victory for civil liberties. In triumphant tones they cite the words of Justice Anthony Kennedy. “The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.” Perhaps the champions of the civil liberties of detained terrorism suspects could cast their eyes over another trial involving a different civil liberty. It’s too bad that “in extraordinary times”, the right to free speech has been on one heck of a speedy downward trajectory.
In Canada, columnist Mark Steyn and Maclean’s magazine have been hauled in front of British Columbia’s Human Rights Tribunal. They have been accused of “flagrant Islamaphobia” after the magazine ran extracts from Steyn’s best-selling book American Alone. The book explores the West’s demographic challenges arising from different birthrates of Muslims and non-Muslims. Some Muslims were outraged by such talk and by Steyn’s reference to a Norwegian imam who said that Muslims bred “like mosquitoes”.
You could not make this stuff up if you tried. It’s a show trial. Canadian human rights tribunals have a 100 per cent conviction rate on so-called “hate speech” cases. BC’s tribunal can order Maclean’s to stop publishing Steyn’s articles and, indeed, any other articles likely to expose Muslims to hatred or contempt.
Think about that. Pre-emptive state censorship means that opinions about Islam’s relationship with the West have effectively been banned because they offend some Muslims.
Pumped-up activists are wasting no time in exploiting Canada’s feeble appeasement. Khurrum Awan, one of the main witnesses against Maclean’s, told the Canadian Arab Federation last week that the Canadian press needed more Muslim voices instead. Muslims had to “demand that right to participate” in the national media, Awan said. “And you know what, if you’re not going to allow us to do that, there will be consequences. You will be taken to the human rights commission, you will be taken to the press council, and you know what? If you manage to get rid of the human rights code provisions (on hate speech), we will then take you to the civil courts system. And you know what? Some judge out there might just think that perhaps it’s time to have a tort of group defamation, and you might be liable for a few million dollars.”
And you know what? Don’t count on this being a wacky ambit claim. The West is falling over itself to accommodate even the most precious and perverse sensibilities of minorities. As Steyn said, “The problem with so-called hate speech laws is that they’re not about facts. They’re about feelings.” The result is a chilling restriction of free speech.
Here in Australia, NSW Bar Association president Anna Katzmann SC has been quick to defend Australia’s hate speech laws as a justifiable limitation on free speech. But remember where hate speech laws take us. A few years ago, two Christian pastors were taken to court under the Victorian Racial and Religious Vilification Act for vilifying Muslims for criticising aspects of Islam. While the case was tossed out on appeal, why were these two men hauled over the legal coals in the first place for simply voicing concerns about Islam? "

To be continued ....

"And you know what? Don’t count on this being a wacky ambit claim. The West is falling over itself to accommodate even the most precious and perverse sensibilities of minorities. As Steyn said, “The problem with so-called hate speech laws is that they’re not about facts. They’re about feelings.” The result is a chilling restriction of free speech.
Here in Australia, NSW Bar Association president Anna Katzmann SC has been quick to defend Australia’s hate speech laws as a justifiable limitation on free speech. But remember where hate speech laws take us. A few years ago, two Christian pastors were taken to court under the Victorian Racial and Religious Vilification Act for vilifying Muslims for criticising aspects of Islam. While the case was tossed out on appeal, why were these two men hauled over the legal coals in the first place for simply voicing concerns about Islam?
Stephen Boissoin was not so lucky. In another example of the state’s powers of coercion, last month the Human Rights Panel of Alberta in Canada imposed a lifetime ban preventing this Christian preacher from voicing his views about homosexuality “in newspapers, by email, onthe radio, in public speeches or on the internet”.
When human rights are stretched to include the right not to be offended, the result is a deadly bullet to free speech. As The New York Times explored last week, there is a growing trend in many Western countries, Australia included, to curtail free speech in the name of social cohesion.
But as Harvey Silverglate, a civil liberties lawyer from Massachusetts, told the Times, “Free speech matters because it works.” Free debate, not censorship, is the key to combating hate speech, particularly after September 11, he said. “The world didn’t suffer because too many people read Mein Kampf. Sending Hitler on a speaking tour of the US would have been quite a good idea.”
Like a nervous parent too afraid to say no to a pushy child, the West’s readiness to slay free speech on the altar of minority sensibilities only encourages more demands to limit open debate. According to Pakistan’s Daily Times, Pakistan is sending a high-level six-member delegation to the European Union headquarters in Brussels. It will be asking EU countries to amend free-speech laws to stop the printing of blasphemous caricatures of the Muslim prophet Mohammed and anti-Islam films such as the one recently produced by Dutch MP Geert Wilders. Let’s watch which way the EU goes.
The balance sheet on the West’s commitment to free speech could do with a positive entry. But don’t count on it. Unless, that is, those who so vocally defend the rights of suspected terrorists start defending, with equal enthusiasm, the rights of those with whom they disagree. "


http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/janetalbrechtsen/index.php/theaustralian/comments/unhealthy_balance_sheet/

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 18^th, 2008 at 12:34pm:

" As Steyn said, “The problem with so-called hate speech laws is that they’re not about facts. They’re about feelings.” The result is a chilling restriction of free speech.

The problem with hate speech is that they are often not about facts but feelings. With hate speeches facts are considered an irrelevant and pesty obstruction to their message. Often, generalisations replace reality and spewed as facts - "all muslims are terrorists sympathisers", "all crimes in city ghettos are caused by African youths", "all refugees are economic refugees", "all left-wingers drink latte", all academics drink chardonay" etc.

The result is a chilling misreprestation of facts with the aim of ostracising minority groups.

A few years ago, two Christian pastors were taken to court under the Victorian Racial and Religious Vilification Act for vilifying Muslims for criticising aspects of Islam. While the case was tossed out on appeal, why were these two men hauled over the legal coals in the first place for simply voicing concerns about Islam?

Some similar cases here, including Boisson:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1213597779

Furthermore, I have no problem with hate speeches. After all, they have the right to say it. However, if they misrepresent the facts then they should expect opposers to exercise their right of free speech to correct the injustice they are espousing.

:)

freediver wrote on Jun 18^th, 2008 at 1:00pm:

A few years ago, two Christian pastors were taken to court under the Victorian Racial and Religious Vilification Act for vilifying Muslims for criticising aspects of Islam. While the case was tossed out on appeal, why were these two men hauled over the legal coals in the first place for simply voicing concerns about Islam?

Good point. Why indeed? What did they say that was deemed racial or religious villification in the first place? Were they voicing concern regarding (say) the radicalisation of certain Islamic groups or ISLAM itself? I supposed the distinction is important although I don't know to what degree.

I don't think religion should be included in vilification laws at all, as it is a choice. Otherwise we couldn't even deride the scientologists. Perhaps it is something to do with Judaism, which blurs the distinction between race and religion. People could attack the Jewish race, but claim they were only talking about the religion.

freediver wrote on Jun 18^th, 2008 at 1:15pm:

Perhaps it is something to do with Judaism, which blurs the distinction between race and religion. People could attack the Jewish race, but claim they were only talking about the religion.

My personal and observational experience is that ANY criticism towards Israel (Jews) opens yourself up to attack. As an "outsider" one cannot even comment on their govt's policies without being ridiculed and/or branded anti-Semitic. They are the most hyposensitive race I've come across - perhaps with good cause (holocaust). But geez, they can't seem to keep things in perspective.

Acid Monkey wrote on Jun 18^th, 2008 at 2:17pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 18th, 2008 at 1:15pm: Perhaps it is something to do with Judaism, which blurs the distinction between race and religion. People could attack the Jewish race, but claim they were only talking about the religion. My personal and observational experience is that ANY criticism towards Israel (Jews) opens yourself up to attack. As an "outsider" one cannot even comment on their govt's policies without being ridiculed and/or branded anti-Semitic. They are the most hyposensitive race I've come across - perhaps with good cause (holocaust). But geez, they can't seem to keep things in perspective.

That's odd. I've always considered them hypersensitive.  ;)

freediver wrote on Jun 18^th, 2008 at 2:22pm:

Acid Monkey wrote on Jun 18th, 2008 at 2:17pm: freediver wrote on Jun 18th, 2008 at 1:15pm: Perhaps it is something to do with Judaism, which blurs the distinction between race and religion. People could attack the Jewish race, but claim they were only talking about the religion. My personal and observational experience is that ANY criticism towards Israel (Jews) opens yourself up to attack. As an "outsider" one cannot even comment on their govt's policies without being ridiculed and/or branded anti-Semitic. They are the most hyposensitive race I've come across - perhaps with good cause (holocaust). But geez, they can't seem to keep things in perspective. That's odd. I've always considered them hypersensitive.  ;)

Hahaha!

Yeah, my bad.
My brain is a little hyposensitive to neural activity today.
;)

Seems some people are resolute on their freedom of speech.



"Saudi Arabia: USCIRF Confirms Material Inciting Violence, Intolerance Remains in Textbooks Used at Saudi Government's Islamic Saudi Academy
This is the school whose 1999 class valedictorian, Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, won the school’s award “Most Likely to Be a Martyr,” and who was later convicted on charges of terrorism and attempting to assassinate President Bush.

This should not surprise us. 1,400 years of Islamic history and 270 million non-Muslims dead should be ample evidence that the political ideology of jihad, proclaimed throughout the holy books of Islam, is typically followed by the act of jihad."


From a report by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom regarding information contained in textbooks found in the Islamic Saudi Academy (ISA), located in Fairfax County, Virginia.


I don't think a report from any commission will stop them, ever.

"voted most likely to be a martyr"

Great aspirations or what?


If people hate, it is personally negative.
If people deride, it is not.
Deriding Islamists, or even Islam, is not a hate crime, it is common sense. ::)

When and how may require some degree of sensitivity to other peoples feelings, but if their derision is without basis, it really should not be too hard to ignore, if it is not, then perhaps people need to examine why so many would choose to deride them.

I don't hate people.
I do hate some actions of people.

I also hate that kids can be taught in school to aspire to being a 'Martyr', I do not hate the kids that are taught it, or even the people who teach them, but I do hate the ideology which allows them to justify their actions as holy, or being the will of god.

I hate the presumptuousness that encourages people to believe that they have an ability to determine that their actions of violence are the will of god.

That once again we have the most visible hate mongers in the world, Islamists, demanding a treatment different to what they prescribe for themselves, is indicative of the growing divide caused by cultures which separate themselves from the mainstream culture of a community, because of their religious beliefs, and then demand special consideration for themselves, because of their beliefs.

I will put free speech before religion every time.

I know that most Religion is mind bogglingly hypocritical, but Islam really takes the cake.

Muslim prisoners in the UK, were given five thousand pounds compensation each, for having Ham sandwiches on a plate with the cheese sandwiches, because it was an insult to their religion.

Apparently eating Ham is unclean, but teaching kids to aspire to martyrdom is OK.
;D
I know what I would have done, I would have inserted the ham sandwiches into the same orifice that I stuck their spurious claim for compensation in. ;D

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 19^th, 2008 at 12:55pm:

Seems some people are resolute on their freedom of speech. "Saudi Arabia: USCIRF Confirms Material Inciting Violence, Intolerance Remains in Textbooks Used at Saudi Government's Islamic Saudi Academy This is the school whose 1999 class valedictorian, Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, won the school’s award “Most Likely to Be a Martyr,” and who was later convicted on charges of terrorism and attempting to assassinate President Bush. This should not surprise us. 1,400 years of Islamic history and 270 million non-Muslims dead should be ample evidence that the political ideology of jihad, proclaimed throughout the holy books of Islam, is typically followed by the act of jihad." From a report by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom regarding information contained in textbooks found in the Islamic Saudi Academy (ISA), located in Fairfax County, Virginia. I don't think a report from any commission will stop them, ever.

Begs the question why the president of the USA isn't calling the Saudis part of the "axis of evil". Oh! I forgot, they have oil!

This says more about the Wahhabis than Islam itself. Their interpretation of the Quran is far more extreme and fundamental than (say) the Sunnis or Shi'a. Why do people always cite the Wahhabis as an example of Islam or Muslims? This is akin to citing the Mormons as a example of Christianity. It is deliberately misleading.

It is only deliberate if they know what they are talking about.

Acid - I am unaware if what I quote is Wahhabis or not.
I'm of the mind it comes form the koran or hadiths etc.

Thought saudi was THE muslim place in the world ?
Only muslims live there, mecca is there.
Hence a shining example and to be aspired to, by muslims, that is ?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 19^th, 2008 at 11:15pm:

Acid - I am unaware if what I quote is Wahhabis or not. I'm of the mind it comes form the koran or hadiths etc. Thought saudi was THE muslim place in the world ? Only muslims live there, mecca is there. Hence a shining example and to be aspired to, by muslims, that is ?

Again, you judge by inference. Only Wahhabi muslims live there. Mecca being situated in Saudi is merely geopgraphical and irrelevent to your argument. Sure, it is a place of worship that Muslim pilgrims travel to. But, thats like saying that Israel is THE Christian place in the world because Bethlehem or Jerusalem is there.

Wahhabism has already been established as an extreme sect of the Muslim culture. No one disputes that. The West only tolerate and pander to them again, for their geographical circumstance (being on top of a major oil field). They have the Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (Religious Police) to enforce their religious laws and to prevent the practice of non-muslim religions. Their school texts books reflect their extreme views. However, they are not the majority of Muslims.

Whether it comes from the Quran or hadith is again irrelevent - the overwhelming majority of Muslims are moderates and peace-loving. They do not share those views. The text books are from WAHHABI schools. The bible also have questionable passages that are violent. Its funny how you are always quick to point the negative aspects of the Quran and always fail to do the same for the Bible or even the Torah!

Your post was a thinly veiled attempt to again deride Islam and Muslims as a whole by infering that they practice the same form of religion as the Wahhabis.

I've concluded, based on your many posts and threads on the subject of Islam, Muslims, and the Quran that you are blinkered and blind to facts regarding them. Your comments are driven by your emotions and that you WILL quote out of context, and from unknown sources. Your aim in your threads and posts do not stimulate conversation, debate or discussion with query or questions but by inciting mistrust with sensational headlines and carefully selected news passages and always with the same view; Islam - BAD, Muslim - BAD. You have no credibility on these subjects.

Saudi is indicitive to muslims beliefsas the vatican is to christians.
Post me when adulterors are beheaded at the vatican

It is not a christian must to do a pilgrimmage to bethleham.

Show me the violent directives in the NEW testament  (christian), show me Jesus murderous actions.



While people like you are around, muslims don't need to do any of their renown violent demonatrations, jihad or death threats.
You have already rolled over.
Have a good weekend my fellow infidel.
(though I have my doubts on that.)

Saudi is not a spiritual head of Islam any more than Mussolini was the head of Christianity. If you take a dump in the vatican toilet, that doesn't make it holy sprint.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 20^th, 2008 at 12:49pm:

Show me the violent directives in the NEW testament  (christian), show me Jesus murderous actions. While people like you are around, muslims don't need to do any of their renown violent demonatrations, jihad or death threats. You have already rolled over. Have a good weekend my fellow infidel. (though I have my doubts on that.)

;D ;D

So now you're saying the Bible is only the NT? Last I've heard the big book is both the OT and the NT. On another thread, you even quoted the names of the OT books and their authors as being part of the Bible. The OT is more than half the contents of the Bible. Christians quote from the OT as well to justify their beliefs and actions (good and bad). So, I hardly think that its fair of you to selectively ask me to pick from the NT only.

This is a classic christian tactic when challenged about the Bible. You ask me to find one bad aspect BUT, only from the narrow selection you've given me. Are you an evangellist? Are you one of those people that doorknock and quote your bible out of context? The last time I had this very same urging was from a door knocker.

Infidel? Rolled over? LOL. Now, I've both sides calling me an infidel  ;D

I don't defend Christians nor Muslims as I am neither. I have my views on both religions. Both Christianity and Islam have good and bad aspects. Initially, you've come across (to me) as someone who is interested in inter-faith dialogue - to understand different aspects of both religions etc. It's obvious now that your true intention is to preach your world view of Islam. Without knowledge and wisdom to back you up your posts and threads are nothing but emotional ranting and hate speech. You are entitled to your views of course. But expect to be corrected on any factual errors or misconceptions you espouse.

You are a Christian fundamentalist - you believe that Christian are GOOD (warts and all). And yet you accuse Muslims of the same.

To paraphrase you, "How can Muslims claim to be peace-loving when their own Quran says... blah blah blah."

Well, I say to you how can you claim that Christians are good when your own Bible also say blah blah blah.

Are you responsible for the KKK and the apatheid regime of South Africa? They justifiy their acts by stating that God and Jesus were white. Of course, you're not. And, I don't blame you for them either. However, you (my Christian friend) denigrate the entire Muslims society on the account of a few fundamentalist and radical elements.

Perhaps, you see yorself as an opposing force to radical Islam. Perhaps, you may even be as bad as they are - fundamentally and radically.

;)

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 20^th, 2008 at 12:49pm:

Saudi is indicitive to muslims beliefsas the vatican is to christians. Post me when adulterors are beheaded at the vatican

I do recall men women being burnt at the stake as heretics. Correct me if I'm wrong.

You don't seem to get it, do you? You claim to be Mensa but it clea you don't use your analytical skills. At the very least, you hear but don't listen to what is being said. Or, you choose not to.

Saudi = Wahhabi.
Wahhabi = extreme minority Muslim sect.
Majority of Muslims = Sunni.
Sunni = moderate Muslim sect.

So how is Wahhabism an indication of Muslims?

But Acid, if you pretend we are in a historical vaccuum then you can ignore the KKK, apartheid, inquisition etc and pretend Christians always were and always will be represented by the progressive attitude currently prevalent in most western countries. Which of course justifies regressive positions attacking other religions as inferior.

freediver wrote on Jun 20^th, 2008 at 1:46pm:

But Acid, if you pretend we are in a historical vaccuum then you can ignore the KKK, apartheid, inquisition etc and pretend Christians always were and always will be represented by the progressive attitude currently prevalent in most western countries. Which of course justifies regressive positions attacking other religions as inferior.

LOL. Yes, historical vacuum indeed.  ;D ;D

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 20^th, 2008 at 12:49pm:

.... as the vatican is to christians.

Not true. It should be ....as the Vatican is to Roman Catholics.

There are other denominations/sects of Christianity:

Eastern Orthodox
Oriental Orthodox
Anglican
Protestant
Lutheran
Assyrian
Adventists
Anabaptists
Baptists
Congregationalist
Methodist
Pentecostal
Presbytarian
Reformed Church
Restorationist

The Vatican has no meaning to them whereas Jerusalem and Bethlehem does.

acid - the bible consists of the new and olt testaments.
jews are beholden to and follow The old testament .
christians are beholden to and follow the new testament.

For us, the old testament is a background.

Every nonmusli is an infidel,  acidmonkey. hence my phrase "My fellow infidel."

Since when is direct quoting the koran and hadiths hate speech ?
Since when is agreeing with many clerics and significant muslim countries hate speech ?


yes, many christians over the past 2000 years have done really bad things.


"....denigrate the entire Muslims society on the account of a few fundamentalist and radical elements. "
hahhahah - a few hundred million !!!!!!!!!
islam is a belief of extremism.
The more extreme, the better a muslim you are.
Read the koran/hadiths, see what you think.
There is no moral code there.
The more extreme a muslim is there, the better.



if saudi has misunderstood the koran and hadiths so badly, I'ld like to see a few muslims go over there and show them where they have erred.
Weird, cause they are like a few other muslim countries who have thought that way for many many decades.

acid  :-

"Not true. It should be ....as the Vatican is to Roman Catholics.

There are other denominations/sects of Christianity:

Eastern Orthodox
Oriental Orthodox
Anglican
Protestant
Lutheran
Assyrian
Adventists
Anabaptists
Baptists
Congregationalist
Methodist
Pentecostal
Presbytarian
Reformed Church
Restorationist

The Vatican has no meaning to them whereas Jerusalem and Bethlehem does."


What is believed in the vatican is in the main believed by ALL of the denominations you have put down.
In that way the vatican is indicative of all christians.

In the same way, saudi is indicative of ALL muslims

In the same way, saudi is indicative of ALL muslims

No sprint, Saudi is different. You cannot compare it to the vatican at all. If you were fair, you would compare Saudi to Israel, as the only justification you have is that they rule over the holy cities in a political sense. But then, the whole comparison concept is pure gibberish.

Wahabi, wasabe, they both leave a bad taste in your mouth.

To declare that deriding Islam is unfair, because apart from the wahhabi extremists, the rest are pretty tame, is like saying it is OK to be mauled by a bear because a tiger is worse.

Islam of all varieties teaches many beliefs unacceptable to western culture.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 20^th, 2008 at 2:53pm:

acid - the bible consists of the new and olt testaments. jews are beholden to and follow The old testament . christians are beholden to and follow the new testament. For us, the old testament is a background.

Genesis 1:27 & 28: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and  multiply, ..." King James Version.

Often used as justification for discrimination against homosexuals. So much for "background".




Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 20^th, 2008 at 2:53pm:

Since when is direct quoting the koran and hadiths hate speech ? Since when is agreeing with many clerics and significant muslim countries hate speech ?

Yes, quoting from the Quran and hadiths is not hate speech. However, deliberately miscontruing and quoting out of context so as to influence the audience to a wrong assumption or playing to their fears is hate speech. I give one example (from another thread), you cited text about a trench dug in a market place to catch the blood of those being beheaded as the reason for the "trench" in the Battle of the Trench. You took the word "trench" and "beheading" from one text and somehow connected that to the Battle of the Trench to justify your rubbish. Malik has debunked your quote as unrelated to the topic at hand. I can only assume that that was your "secret" source since you haven't come up with anything beyond your repetitions and attempts to divert the topic conversation. I've noticed that you've kept away from that thread since then and you still refuse to admit either a) you are wrong or b) you are right (but you must produce the evidence to why).


Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 20^th, 2008 at 2:53pm:

yes, many christians over the past 2000 years have done really bad things.

I'm glad that we agree on something.  :)


Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 20^th, 2008 at 2:53pm:

"....denigrate the entire Muslims society on the account of a few fundamentalist and radical elements. " hahhahah - a few hundred million !!!!!!!!!

We were talking about Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia weren't we? At least that's what I thought we were talking about - reading back on our posts. Wahhabi is ONE group. Overwhelmingly the population of Wahhabis reside in Saudi with pockets in Yemen, Kuwait, and Nigeria and elsewhere. 90% of Saudis are Wahhabis. The population of Saudi is just over 27.5 milllion. You do the maths... not exact "hundreds of millions". Once again, sensationalism and exaggeration on your part.

To declare that deriding Islam is unfair, because apart from the wahhabi extremists, the rest are pretty tame, is like saying it is OK to be mauled by a bear because a tiger is worse.

You are confusing your metaphors Mozz. We are saying that showing that tigers are dangerous is not evidence that koala bears are dangerous. We are not saying it is unfair to deried Islam, just that a case has not been made.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 20^th, 2008 at 2:57pm:

What is believed in the vatican is in the main believed by ALL of the denominations you have put down. In that way the vatican is indicative of all christians. In the same way, saudi is indicative of ALL muslims

Now, you see - you're twisting your own words around. Previously, you were justifying that Saudi is THE Muslim place in the world because a) it is a Muslim country, b) Mecca resides there and "thus a shining example of and to be aspired to by Muslims".

You said "that Saudi is indicative of Muslim belief as the Vatican is to Christians."

By your words and your context Saudi (Muslim country) and Mecca = Muslim world. I countered that the Holy See (Roman Catholic), Vatican (Roman Catholic) = Roman Catholic world. Other Christian denominations do not pay reverance to the Vatican.

Now you're saying that because they share the same teaching... blah blah blah.... hence Vatican = Christians.

Getting back to my point (and I am repeating myself).....

Saudi = Wahhabi.
Wahhabi = minority extremist Muslim sect.
Sunni = majority moderate Muslim sect.

So how is Saudi an indication of Muslims?

Let me ask you.... have you ever been to the following countries? Israel, Jordan, Dubai, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Indonesia (not Bali!) What is the general level of your exposure to Muslims. I ask because you seem to be heavilly influenced by Fox News, western newspaper newspapers (pre-Iraq war) and war movies and not actually by directly interacting with Muslims. And, don't tell me that "some of my friends are Muslims" because I really would doubt that.

mozzaok wrote on Jun 20^th, 2008 at 5:14pm:

To declare that deriding Islam is unfair, because apart from the wahhabi extremists, the rest are pretty tame, is like saying it is OK to be mauled by a bear because a tiger is worse.

Huh?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 20^th, 2008 at 2:53pm:

Every nonmusli is an infidel,  acidmonkey. hence my phrase "My fellow infidel."

LOL. My bad. I thought that you were calling me an infidel as oppose to me being an infidel such as yourself.

However, I am an infidel to the Muslim as I am a pagan (heretic?) to the Christians.

:)

Hi acid - I have a few things to do. so will do this posting, then disappear for tonight.

Here is my quotes for the trench war you asked for again.


"Tabari VIII:38 "The Messenger of Allah commanded that all of the Jewish men and boys who had reached puberty should be beheaded. Then the Prophet divided the wealth, wives, and children of the Banu Qurayza Jews among the Muslims."

Ishaq:464 "The Jews were made to come down, and Allah's Messenger imprisoned them. Then the Prophet went out into the marketplace of Medina, and he had trenches dug in it. He sent for the Jewish men and had them beheaded in those trenches. They were brought out to him in batches. They numbered 800 to 900 boys and men."

Tabari VIII:40 "The Messenger commanded that furrows should be dug in the ground for the Qurayza. Then he sat down. Ali and Zubayr began cutting off their heads in his presence."

Showing the trenches were dug to contain the blood AFTER the treachery by mohammad. Not before any war.



27.5 million is a MASSIVE % more than your previously stated " the account of a few fundamentalist and radical elements"
We have not considered other muslim countries.


yes, I'm an infidel also.
pagan means having either one or many Gods.
No warring against pagans directed in the new testament.

See you all tomorrow

Take care

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 20^th, 2008 at 6:56pm:

27.5 million is a MASSIVE % more than your previously stated " the account of a few fundamentalist and radical elements" We have not considered other muslim countries. .... pagan means having either one or many Gods.

I agree, 27 million is a lot of people and I want to make light of such a significant number. However, within context the conservative population of Muslims worldwide is 1.2 billion. (source: http://www.islamicpopulation.com). Therefore, to paint 1/6 of the world's population with the same brush as 27 million people is a little hyterical.

Pagan also means heathen; not acknowledging the God of Christianity and Judaism and Islam.

:)

** edit ** ....and I want to make light of such a significant number. should be "don't want".

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 20^th, 2008 at 6:56pm:

Hi acid - I have a few things to do. so will do this posting, then disappear for tonight. Here is my quotes for the trench war you asked for again. "Tabari VIII:38 "The Messenger of Allah commanded that all of the Jewish men and boys who had reached puberty should be beheaded. Then the Prophet divided the wealth, wives, and children of the Banu Qurayza Jews among the Muslims." Ishaq:464 "The Jews were made to come down, and Allah's Messenger imprisoned them. Then the Prophet went out into the marketplace of Medina, and he had trenches dug in it. He sent for the Jewish men and had them beheaded in those trenches. They were brought out to him in batches. They numbered 800 to 900 boys and men." Tabari VIII:40 "The Messenger commanded that furrows should be dug in the ground for the Qurayza. Then he sat down. Ali and Zubayr began cutting off their heads in his presence." Showing the trenches were dug to contain the blood AFTER the treachery by mohammad. Not before any war. 27.5 million is a MASSIVE % more than your previously stated " the account of a few fundamentalist and radical elements" We have not considered other muslim countries. yes, I'm an infidel also. pagan means having either one or many Gods. No warring against pagans directed in the new testament. See you all tomorrow Take care

Sprint have you read Tabari and can verify those quotes are in there?

Secondly the trench that you are referring to was in the market place inside Medina, where the people were executed according to JEWISH LAW and NOT according to Islamic Law, due to their choice in Judge which Muhammad pbuh had to honour. The treachery was NOT on the part of Muhammad pbuh but instead was on the part of the Banu Qurayza as they broke the pact which they had made by conspiring with the Pagan Quraysh to invade Medina.

It was called the War of the Trench because the Pagans had brought an army of 10,000 to attack Medina, the inhabitants of Medina had no real way of defending themselves when Salman Al-Farsi suggested to make a big trench in front of Medina to prevent the army of 10,000 from entering the city, which resulted in a stale mate lasting 2 weeks.

Why would they have dug the trenches in the marketplace before the war? The marketplace was in the center of the city, there's no tactical advantage of digging a trench for the war there because it'd give the Pagans the run of half of the city.

Why do you keep speaking without knowing the facts? Your really only making yourself look ignorant.

acid - 27 million people is a pretty significant number.
In the world, they can make a BIG difference.
Add to that, others likeminded.

Why DON'T "moderate" muslims easily show them where they have it entirely wrong??
they are happy to tell me where I am wrong, only they can't.
Go there, tell them.



malik - you have not refuted those quotes.
I have a completely different (much more logically correct) history to the war of trenches than you have.
According you to, mohammad a complete man of peace and love travelled around (with his accompanying army of thugs) spreading the word of allah.
(With a message incorrectly borrowed friom the jews in the main).
Some people unjustly attacked him !
(Whyever for ?)

Whyever would the jews agree to a peace agreement with a newcomer (who had an army behind him ?)

BECAUSE THEY FEARED FOR THEIR LIVES.
It's a common move in war. Agree to your enemies on a peace treaty.
Then attack.
Hitler used it.
Countries only agree to a peace agreement when they fear war.


Jews agreed to a peace treaty because they feared war.
Mohammad used it to seperate the 2 jewish tribes.
Make a treaty with one, then attack the other.
Use the treaty as a cause to not be attacked by the first.
When you have won over the 2nd tribe, you can rewrite history.
Connnive a way to murder the 1st tribe.
Ah, good idea, claim they broke the initial peace treaty !!!!!!!!




Questions for you malik.
Why did the jews NOT accept him as their leader and remain alive?
Why would they rather be beheaded like the 100's before them ?
What message were they leaving for the remaining inhabitants of the free world?

Answer it.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 21^st, 2008 at 11:49pm:

malik - you have not refuted those quotes.

I certainly didn't refute those quotes you put in which are allegedly from Tabari, do you know why Sprint? It's because I haven't read Tabari, have you read Tabari Sprint? If you haven't read it, do you really think it's a geat idea to be quoting it?


Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 21^st, 2008 at 11:49pm:

I have a completely different (much more logically correct) history to the war of trenches than you have.

First of all.. That whole load of garbage which you posted as a 'logical' view of history is utter rubbish. I refuted it already and you have yet to respond on that.

Sprint, have you ever actually studied Islam or the Middle East from an academic perspective? Like from a university? My MAJOR at a WESTERN university is Middle Eastern Studies and from what I have studied there all respected Muslim and non Muslim historians agree with the view I have shown of the Battle of the Trench, in that it was called the 'Battle of the Trench' due to the trenches built BEORE the war to prevent the Pagan army from overrunning Medina and also agree that the Banu Qurayza had conspired with the Meccans against Medinah.

You really are making yourself look stupid here because the fact is that you don't actually know enough about pre-Islamic Arabia, Islam nor the Middle East to actually be considered educated on the subject. Instead you get rubbish from websites which are obviously biased and who's only intention is to defame Islam.

How about you show us the sources for your big post on the Battle of the Trench Sprint?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 21^st, 2008 at 11:49pm:

According you to, mohammad a complete man of peace and love travelled around (with his accompanying army of thugs) spreading the word of allah. (With a message incorrectly borrowed friom the jews in the main). Some people unjustly attacked him ! (Whyever for ?)

Borrowed from the Jews? Are you insane? If that was the case, why would we say that Jesus pbuh was from a miracle birth of a pious virgin named mary pbuh when it is the Jews who claim that Mary pbuh was a whore and Jesus pbuh a liar.. Islam's view is very similar to that of the Christian view regarding Jesus' pbuh miracle birth and virgin mother pbuh.


Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 21^st, 2008 at 11:49pm:

Whyever would the jews agree to a peace agreement with a newcomer (who had an army behind him ?) BECAUSE THEY FEARED FOR THEIR LIVES. It's a common move in war. Agree to your enemies on a peace treaty. Then attack. Hitler used it. Countries only agree to a peace agreement when they fear war. Jews agreed to a peace treaty because they feared war. Mohammad used it to seperate the 2 jewish tribes. Make a treaty with one, then attack the other. Use the treaty as a cause to not be attacked by the first. When you have won over the 2nd tribe, you can rewrite history. Connnive a way to murder the 1st tribe. Ah, good idea, claim they broke the initial peace treaty !!!!!!!!

Sprint, this is where you finally prove how LITTLE you know about what you're commenting on.

First of all, there were NOT two Jewish tribes in Medina, there were THREE, those were the Banu Qaynuqa, the Banu Qurayza, and Banu Nadir. There were also two Pagan tribes, they were the Banu Khazraj and the Banu Aus.

The Banu Aus and the Banu Khazraj were sworn enemies and had been fighting each other for more than 120 years before Muhammad pbuh came. The Banu Aus had the support of the Banu Qurayza and the Banu Nadir against the Banu Khazraj who had the support of the Banu Qaynuqa. They all participated in four wars against each other with the last being only a few years before Muhammad pbuh's coming to Madinah.

To prevent further bloodshed all of the inhabitants, both Jew and Pagan invited Muhammad and the Muslims into their state to arbitrate and create peace between the tribes so that there would be no more bloodshed, in return they agreed that Yathrib (as it was called at the time) would become an Islamic State and the Banu Aws and Khazraj both became Muslim, in addition to some of those from the Jewish tribes. I must stress that at this time, the Muslims from Mecca not only had NO army, but had no wealth either, they came as refugees to Yathrib.



Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 21^st, 2008 at 11:49pm:

Questions for you malik. Why did the jews NOT accept him as their leader and remain alive? Why would they rather be beheaded like the 100's before them ? What message were they leaving for the remaining inhabitants of the free world? Answer it.

Even if they accepted him as their leader after breaking the treaty they would have been killed anyway.

They were sentenced to death for their breaking of the treaty according to JEWISH law, if you have a problem with JEWISH law, go speak to the JEWS about it.. Had they accepted Muhammad pbuh as their judge they would have only been exiled from the city like the other two tribes who broke the treaty.

Sprint, why do you keep repeating this 'alternative history' nonsense in every other thread, when you are unable to provide the source you claimed to have for the alternative history in the thread we started at your request.

Can you not understand how it makes you look?

Acid Monkey wrote on Jun 20^th, 2008 at 6:04pm:

However, I am an infidel to the Muslim as I am a pagan (heretic?) to the Christians. :)

Pagans also have this association of dancing naked around trees. Personally I don't want to go there.

muso wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2008 at 4:40pm:

Pagans also have this association of dancing naked around trees. Personally I don't want to go there.

No? Ok then. And I was going to post pics of me dancing naked at the Burning Man festival. Lol.

;)

Acid Monkey wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2008 at 7:05pm:

muso wrote on Jun 22nd, 2008 at 4:40pm: Pagans also have this association of dancing naked around trees. Personally I don't want to go there. No? Ok then. And I was going to post pics of me dancing naked at the Burning Man festival. Lol. ;)

I saw that festival on malcolm in the middle lol

malik - still you accept those quotes. thanks.

What I have posted is much more probable than a refugee with no army and no money being asked to break up a 100 year war  !!
Pull the other one, it plays jingle bells.

message incorrectly borrowed friom the jews in the main)." - mainly from the jews, partly from christians.
How come he left out the passover, yet repeated the exodus ?
Did gabriel forget that part?


freediver - I have repeadedly posted the info I have.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2008 at 7:20pm:

malik - still you accept those quotes. thanks. What I have posted is much more probable than a refugee with no army and no money being asked to break up a 100 year war  !! Pull the other one, it plays jingle bells. message incorrectly borrowed friom the jews in the main)." - mainly from the jews, partly from christians. How come he left out the passover, yet repeated the exodus ? Did gabriel forget that part? freediver - I have repeadedly posted the info I have.

I don't accept those quotes because I haven't read them for myself in Tabari. Have you read Tabari Sprint?

You have no idea about Middle Eastern history Sprint, you've proven that many times.. What you have posted sounds better to you because you want to view Islam as something dangerous and Muhammad pbuh as a blood thirsty murderer. You'll twist the truth in any direction to get that outcome and that is very obvious to everyone on the forum.

Perhaps you don't even understand the family or tribe that Muhammad Mustafa ibn Abdullah came from, he was of the Banu Hashim or Hashemites, they can trace their lineage back to Ishmael and Abraham pbut and were the most noble of all Arabian tribes. If you were able to intellectually grapple with the complexities of his lineage and his name you'd understand why he was brought in and trusted to bring peace between the tribes in Yathrib.

Check your facts sprint because you are only making yourself look more and more stupid.

You also havent provided the SOURCES from where you got your information Sprint

I copied them from somewhere.
No idea where, can prob search and find it.

What idea is more likely ?
The new kid on the block waged war by whatever means to gain an empire? make no mistakes, he was great at war.
Or those in charge took on a refugee with no arms or money to help them in a 100 year old war ??
Where in the end, most were murdered bar him !!!
Very lucky indeed.

mohammad copied some of the jewish torah. some he missed out.
Think gabriel would err in that?

mohammad was not mentioned in the Bible?
he took on methods unused for over a century, going against what Jesus taught.

What's more likely?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2008 at 12:27am:

I copied them from somewhere. No idea where, can prob search and find it. What idea is more likely ? The new kid on the block waged war by whatever means to gain an empire? make no mistakes, he was great at war. Or those in charge took on a refugee with no arms or money to help them in a 100 year old war ?? Where in the end, most were murdered bar him !!! Very lucky indeed. mohammad copied some of the jewish torah. some he missed out. Think gabriel would err in that? mohammad was not mentioned in the Bible? he took on methods unused for over a century, going against what Jesus taught. What's more likely?

Oh yeah, now you say you'll find it. It's ok, I've already exposed your anti-Islam resource of information.

Sprint Muslims don't believe in the bible, but we do believe that Muhammad pbuh was foretold of by other prophets when they came.

Malik Shakur wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2008 at 6:56am:

Oh yeah, now you say you'll find it. It's ok, I've already exposed your anti-Islam resource of information.

No Malik, he said that he'll PROBABLY search for it.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2008 at 12:27am:

What idea is more likely ? .... What's more likely?

Not very analytical Sprint. Instead of studying the real historical events you are asking what's more likely. Personal opinion can miscontrue what  "likely" is. Once you venture into "what's more likely" it is no longer fact but hypothesis and opinion. However, you espoused "likely" as fact which is wrong.

Based on your many illogical claims and argument.... I'm starting to doubt your other claim of being Mensa. No doubt it was thrown out there to lend a little prestige to your credibility. Then again, as I've said high IQ means nothing if you don't use it properly.

I copied them from somewhere.

Why don't you post your sources sprint? Are you trying to deceive us?

i didn't keep the source when I copied them.

malik - no, muslims don't believe the bible. yet they make many references to it in the koran .

Sonds strange that. Muslims agree the bible was from God ??
Yet think God let it be significantly changed ??
i would not think He would do that .


acid - history is quite slanted. Often "new" data is found of past events.
Look at the probabilities, use logic.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1212726620/195

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2008 at 3:56pm:

acid - history is quite slanted. Often "new" data is found of past events. Look at the probabilities, use logic.

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly Sprint. Evidence is never static. FD and I had a discussion that went around and around about scientific theory vs hypothesis vs observation. I also agree with you re: probabilities, logic, assumption, hypothesis etc. This is fine as long as you disclose that them as such. However, by hiding (or not revealing) your source, then claiming that the source is irrefutable and independent and worst a "fact" is an outright forgery of the truth and an insidious method of preaching false propaganda to those who do not know any better. You may as well compare yourself to the hate clerics and fundamentalist Christians that miscontrue and misquote there respected Books.

I've noticed that you said "new" data. I think it should be more accurately to say new "data". One unproven source (a questionable one, at best) does not invalidate past proven one.




Since FD linked this thread to the other one, I'm not sure where to post this reply (here or over there).
:)

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2008 at 3:56pm:

i didn't keep the source when I copied them. malik - no, muslims don't believe the bible. yet they make many references to it in the koran . Sonds strange that. Muslims agree the bible was from God ?? Yet think God let it be significantly changed ?? i would not think He would do that .

No, The Qur'an doesnt make references to the bible and Muslims certainly do not believe that the bible was from God.

Malik Shakur wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2008 at 8:39pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 23rd, 2008 at 3:56pm: i didn't keep the source when I copied them. malik - no, muslims don't believe the bible. yet they make many references to it in the koran . Sonds strange that. Muslims agree the bible was from God ?? Yet think God let it be significantly changed ?? i would not think He would do that . No, The Qur'an doesnt make references to the bible and Muslims certainly do not believe that the bible was from God.

But then again, nothing was written by god.
Just man.

malik - in the koran - who are the people of the book ?

I assume the book is the torah ?
The koran also mentions the exodus, Mary and Jesus, Abraham, Ishmael.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 24^th, 2008 at 8:44am:

malik - in the koran - who are the people of the book ? I assume the book is the torah ? The koran also mentions the exodus, Mary and Jesus, Abraham, Ishmael.

Haha

You assume too much by thinking that the taurat is the torah of today, or the injeel is the gospel of today, we believe that the books sent down by the prophets had been changed over time.

The Qur'an does mention those events and prophets phut, but that doesn't mean we believe in the Torah or Gospel that is in it's current form.

It was the people who changed the message over time, and though the people of the book are the christians and jews, we only take the books they have currently with a grain of salt because we know they've been corrupted.

Hi Malik, while you, understandably, take the bible with a grain of salt, because it has been corrupted by human interpretation, why would you not apply the same critical analysis to the holy texts of Islam?

Don't all these holy books contain contradictory messages from which you can seek divine validation of any actions you choose?

We see anti-Islamic people deriding mohammed as the "Pervert Prophet", because of the story that he wedded and bedded a nine year old girl, yet I assume there are passages in Islamic holy books which would denounce paedophilia as wrong.

So following that scenario, could not an Islamic paedophile use the example of Mohammed as justification for his acts, instead of listening to other messages which would tell him what he is doing is wrong?

That type of scenario is why I have big problems with people who rely on ancient texts to determine moral choices.

Also, if the thing about mohammed and the nine year old is true, it would need to be examined in the context of what were the accepted norms of his era, and I also would expect people to use similiar judgement on directions for defending their faith etc.

How they may have done things fourteen hundred years ago will often be unjustifiable in today's world.

It may be time for a new prophet to come along and get rid of the anachronistic, and contradictory messages from these holy books, and just espouse the ones of peace, love, and understanding, as so eloquently conveyed by the prophet, Elvis.
Elvis Costello, that is. :)

yet I assume there are passages in Islamic holy books which would denounce paedophilia as wrong

I am not aware of any holy book that denounces pedophilia specifically. It's very hard to put in absolute terms. There are a lot of cultural and health changes underlying the current 16 year age limit for sex, and even that has a lot of loopholes. The only non-arbitrary age to put the limit at would be puberty, but then that would put religion at odds with higher standards that came later. No sex before marriage is probably a better approach.

No sex before marriage??
You must be shitting me, what planet are you from FD?

If we apply that logic then at the start of menstruation we just marry kids off so old pervs can have sex with them?

Great idea, for the old pervs, that is.

Why would parents want their young child to marry a pervert? Wouldn't you run out of perverts, or do you see them becoming really popular with parents who want to get rid of their kids and marrying lots of them?

Oh, so parents, in your view, not only get to choose what their kids have to be taught, and believe, but also who they marry.

I can see you are very big on parents' rights to decide everything for their kids.
Obviously you were a late developer, or you would have developed some recognition of the fact that kids are sentient humans, and many are often capable of making decisions for themselves.

mozzaok wrote on Jun 24^th, 2008 at 10:17am:

We see anti-Islamic people deriding mohammed as the "Pervert Prophet", because of the story that he wedded and bedded a nine year old girl, yet I assume there are passages in Islamic holy books which would denounce paedophilia as wrong.

I think your assumption is wrong. I don't believe that the Bible, Torah, or the Quran made any mention of paedophilia. Paedophillia is a modern invention.

In ancient Jewish culture girls and boys often marry at the onset of puberty. In Islamic culture prepubescent age was historically permissable. In the UK it was 12 years old until 1275 where it was raised to 13 years old. In ancient Rome it was 12 years old. It was nothing new in those days.

Mozz you're the one who said it, not me. You seem very touchy on this issue. If you think an absolute moral guideline on pedophilia could work better, then go ahead and suggest one.

So, if that is the case, then very religious people can justify their paedophila because our societies norms, are less relevant for them, than their outdated religious texts.
Many religious people believe that we need these religious texts to form a moral framework, I would obviously disagree, but I still hoped they would have something to call on to protect kids from sexual predation.

Suffer the little children?
Well let's hope that they don't have to suffer too much in the name of god.

Acid Monkey wrote on Jun 24^th, 2008 at 11:22am:

mozzaok wrote on Jun 24th, 2008 at 10:17am: We see anti-Islamic people deriding mohammed as the "Pervert Prophet", because of the story that he wedded and bedded a nine year old girl, yet I assume there are passages in Islamic holy books which would denounce paedophilia as wrong. I think your assumption is wrong. I don't believe that the Bible, Torah, or the Quran made any mention of paedophilia. Paedophillia is a modern invention. In ancient Jewish culture girls and boys often marry at the onset of puberty. In Islamic culture prepubescent age was historically permissable. In the UK it was 12 years old until 1275 where it was raised to 13 years old. In ancient Rome it was 12 years old. It was nothing new in those days.

What do you mean, when you say paedophelia is a modern invention?

I realise that cultural norms have changed over time, and womens' rights have come a long way since the club and cavemen days, but I don't know if you are implying that it is just the social taboo status has changed, or the proliferation of the behaviour itself.

mozzaok wrote on Jun 24^th, 2008 at 10:17am:

We see anti-Islamic people deriding mohammed as the "Pervert Prophet", because of the story that he wedded and bedded a nine year old girl, yet I assume there are passages in Islamic holy books which would denounce paedophilia as wrong. So following that scenario, could not an Islamic paedophile use the example of Mohammed as justification for his acts, instead of listening to other messages which would tell him what he is doing is wrong? That type of scenario is why I have big problems with people who rely on ancient texts to determine moral choices. Also, if the thing about mohammed and the nine year old is true, it would need to be examined in the context of what were the accepted norms of his era, and I also would expect people to use similiar judgement on directions for defending their faith etc.

A good point Mozzaok..

Historical study tends to allude to the fact that Aisha was older than 9 when consummating her marriage with Muhamad pbuh, evidence leads us to believe she was probably between 15-20 years old.

Either way however, we know for a fact that Aisha had definitely started her period by that stage, thus considered a woman.

Our view of adolescence has changed somewhat over the last few hundred years, the idea that being 18 years old or even 21 makes you an adult in some places is a new thing, people have in the past been considered an adult at much younger ages actually, in some states in the USA u can marry as young as 14 years old with your parents and a courts permission.

Even in places like Yemen, you can get married very early, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the bride and groom will be having sex, in the majority of cases they sleep in separate rooms.. The time for them is to get to know each other better and have an environment around them which is supportive, kind of like an apprenticeship for marriage as they will live in one of their parents houses and see from their example how to be good husbands and wives.

I think today however, the story is somewhat different. People now don't grow up as fast because we've manufactured a world where we keep them young, they have to ignore some of their natural instincts and it builds friction.. we don't teach boys how to be men, but instead try and suppress any feelings they have and expect them to figure it out themselves, that only puts the young men in danger, because they need to be under the guidance of someone wise who can show them the way..

I'm a big believer in coming of age traditions, where certain tribes take their sons out into the wild for a period of time ranging from a few weeks to a few months, and teach them how to fight wars, how to survive, how to wrestle, how to build, kill, how to be good husbands and protect their families, how to control their aggression because that's what real men do..

"Narrated Aisha: The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Allright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's Blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age. Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234


Narrated 'Aisha: I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13) Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151"


Care to tell us how old mohammad was at this stage malik ?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 26^th, 2008 at 10:14am:

"Narrated Aisha: The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Allright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's Blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age. Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234 Narrated 'Aisha: I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13) Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151" Care to tell us how old mohammad was at this stage malik ?

More than 50 years old considering it was after the Hijra..

Although I have read these statements before, I'd be surprised if she was 9 at the time of consummation. As I mentioned, the evidence points to her being 15-20 at the time of consummation.

Sprint tell me, how old was Joseph pbuh when he married Mary pbuh? And how old was Mary pbuh her?

Sprint, you really should at least include a link when you copy and paste like that. It is annoying not to.

freediver wrote on Jun 26^th, 2008 at 10:51am:

Sprint, you really should at least include a link when you copy and paste like that. It is annoying not to.

His sources are prominently Anti Islam websites.. So he doesn't like to paste the links.. Or maybe he'll "forget" where he got it from again.

Malik Shakur wrote on Jun 26^th, 2008 at 10:32am:

Sprint tell me, how old was Joseph pbuh when he married Mary pbuh? And how old was Mary pbuh her?

I don't think it's recorded anywhere, but based on 1st Century Jewish culture, it was normal for a girl to marry on the onset of menstruation. Men would marry on reaching physical maturity. That was pretty well the same regardless of religion. The Ancient Romans, Greeks and Etruscans had the same customs in that regard, except that Greek boys often consorted with older men, and went to to have wives when they grew older, if we believe the ancient writers.

It's common in many non-western cultures even today, for girls in their early teens to marry older men.

We shouldn't judge the past on the basis of relatively modern Western standards. I didn't feel comfortable with the society norms in my time in West Africa, but the Western world is the anomaly if you go back through history, not them.

We also have the advantage of modern medicine nowadays and longer life expectancy. To be really controversial, ask yourself the question - if early man had all waited until 18 to start procreation, would mankind still exist today?  

muso wrote on Jun 26^th, 2008 at 10:58am:

Malik Shakur wrote on Jun 26th, 2008 at 10:32am: Sprint tell me, how old was Joseph pbuh when he married Mary pbuh? And how old was Mary pbuh her? I don't think it's recorded anywhere, but based on 1st Century Jewish culture, it was normal for a girl to marry on the onset of menstruation. Men would marry on reaching physical maturity. That was pretty well the same regardless of religion. The Ancient Romans, Greeks and Etruscans had the same customs in that regard, except that Greek boys often consorted with older men, and went to to have wives when they grew older, if we believe the ancient writers. It's common in many non-western cultures even today, for girls in their early teens to marry older men. We shouldn't judge the past on the basis of relatively modern Western standards. I didn't feel comfortable with the society norms in my time in West Africa, but the Western world is the anomaly if you go back through history, not them. We also have the advantage of modern medicine nowadays and longer life expectancy. To be really controversial, ask yourself the question - if early man had all waited until 18 to start procreation, would mankind still exist today?

Oh no, it's been mentioned Muso..

Joseph pbuh had been married before and had kids from a previous marriage.

It is said that Mary pbuh was 12, and Joseph pbuh was 90 years old when they were married.

"Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin: The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) married me when I was seven or six. When we came to Medina, some women came. according to Bishr's version: Umm Ruman came to me when I was swinging. They took me, made me prepared and decorated me. I was then brought to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him), and he took up cohabitation with me when I was nine. She halted me at the door, and I burst into laughter.  Book 41, Number 4915:"


found it again !!!
http://www.muhammadanism.org/hadith/Topics/Marriage.htm

quotes from the hadiths are not permiited ??



malik -
Quote:

"I'd be surprised if she was 9 at the time of consummation. As I mentioned, the evidence points to her being 15-20 at the time of consummation."

So the hadits are wrong, according to your "evidence" ?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 26^th, 2008 at 11:11am:

"Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin: The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) married me when I was seven or six. When we came to Medina, some women came. according to Bishr's version: Umm Ruman came to me when I was swinging. They took me, made me prepared and decorated me. I was then brought to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him), and he took up cohabitation with me when I was nine. She halted me at the door, and I burst into laughter.  Book 41, Number 4915:" found it again !!! http://www.muhammadanism.org/hadith/Topics/Marriage.htm quotes from the hadiths are not permiited ?? malik - Quote: "I'd be surprised if she was 9 at the time of consummation. As I mentioned, the evidence points to her being 15-20 at the time of consummation." So the hadits are wrong, according to your "evidence" ?

The site is a Christian evangelist site Sprint.

No, I don't trust hadiths by Aisha. Lots of Sunni Muslims do but I don't because I'm a Shia.

So I don't trust the hadiths. The evidence I mentioned based on her sisters ages, the time of hijrah, the fact that she was due to marry another and many other things point towards her age being older than 9 at consummation. We know the fact is in the circumstance and all views agree on is that she had started menstruating before her consummation. Making her old enough for marriage.

uhuh, so this hadith is "wrong."  Thought as much.
Is it cause it says mohammad is a paedophle ? thought as much

OOOhhh, naughty me, quoting a hadith as is on a christian site !!!!!


Weird that allah said mohammad could be a child molesterer, when later on it became a crime to the developed world.
Unless he just made it all up, murdering those who disagreed.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 26^th, 2008 at 11:30am:

uhuh, so this hadith is "wrong."  Thought as much. Is it cause it says mohammad is a paedophle ? thought as much OOOhhh, naughty me, quoting a hadith as is on a christian site !!!!! Weird that allah said mohammad could be a child molesterer, when later on it became a crime to the developed world. Unless he just made it all up, murdering those who disagreed.

haha you always make assumptions, thats not the reason why i don't believe it's correct.

it's because of the evidence you've used around it doesn't correlate to other evidence.. in fact it brings a contradiction to other hadiths which mention the very things i mentioned.

it may have been the case that they consummated their marriage at 9 years old, if that's the case i am not bothered by it, because it was acceptable back then and aisha had started menstruating, thus making her a woman. adolescence is something which is a new invention within the last few hundred years, society didn't run like that in the west either back then.

if you are calling Muhammad pbuh a pedophile then you're accusing Mary pbuh's own husband Joseph of being an even worse one as he was 90 and she was about 12.

Isn't he accusing God of being a pedophile, not Joseph?

freediver wrote on Jun 26^th, 2008 at 11:55am:

Isn't he accusing God of being a pedophile, not Joseph?

Not quite..

Although Mary was at marriageable age when she married Joseph, and obviously had started menstruating if she was able to be pregnant.

If only he judged his own religion and texts by the standards he judges Islam by.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 26^th, 2008 at 11:30am:

Weird that allah said mohammad could be a child molesterer, when later on it became a crime to the developed world. Unless he just made it all up, murdering those who disagreed.

Sprint - Doesn't it bother you that you're insulting somebody else's religion? It bothers me.

They were all pedophiles in those days.

Does it bother you that the Bible says that the Earth was set on pillars?

1 Samuel 2:8
The pillars of the earth are the LORD's, and he hath set the world upon them.

Job 9:6
Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble.


Times and ideas have changed since those days, but there are some good messages:  

1Peter 4:9  Use hospitality one to another without grudging.
(Why can't we all just get along?)

Muso - No, that does no bother me at all.
Seems it is always "open season" on christianity.
Rarely ever see anyone get concerned about that.

What bothers me that a man in his late 40's would bed a girl who was under 10.
And everyone says "Oh, that's ok because ..................."





Malik - feel free to post the evidence of aishas "other" age.
Also about marys and josephs ages.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 26^th, 2008 at 1:49pm:

What bothers me that a man in his late 40's would bed a girl who was under 10. And everyone says "Oh, that's ok because ..................."

Hi Sprint,

In your view, is Malik's assessment that Joseph was possibly 90yo and Mary 12yo correct? If not, then what does your research tell you? If yes, then aren't you bothered by the age gap?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 26^th, 2008 at 1:49pm:

Muso - No, that does no bother me at all. Seems it is always "open season" on christianity. Rarely ever see anyone get concerned about that. What bothers me that a man in his late 40's would bed a girl who was under 10. And everyone says "Oh, that's ok because ..................." Malik - feel free to post the evidence of aishas "other" age. Also about marys and josephs ages.

  * Tabari reports that Abu Bakr wished to spare Aisha the discomforts of a journey to Ethiopia soon after 615 CE, and tried to bring forward her marriage to Mut`am’s son. Mut`am refused because Abu Bakr had converted to Islam, but if Aisha was already of marriageable age in 615 CE, she must have been older than nine in 622 CE.

  * Tabari also reports that Abu Bakr’s four children were all born during the Jahiliyyah, the pre Islamic period, which could be said to have ended in 610 CE, making Aisha at least twelve in 622 CE.

  * According to Ibn Hajar, Fatima was five years older than Aisha. Fatima is reported to have been born when Muhammad was thirty-five years old, meaning Aisha was born when he was forty years old, and thus twelve when Muhammad married at fifty-two.

  *According to almost all the historians, Asma the elder sister of Aisha, was ten years older than Aisha. It is reported in Taqreeb al-Tehzeeb as well as Al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah that Asma died in the 73rd year after migration of Muhammad when she was 100 years old. Now, obviously if Asma was 100 years old in the 73rd year after Migration to Medina, she should have been 27 or 28 years old at the time of migration. If Asma was 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah, Aisha should have been 17 or 18 years old at that time. Thus, Aisha - if she got married in 1 AH (after Migration to Medina) or 2 AH - was between 18 to 20 years old at the time of her marriage.

“A great misconception prevails as to the age at which Aisha was taken in marriage by the Prophet. Ibn Sa‘d has stated in the Tabaqat that when Abu Bakr [father of Aisha] was approached on behalf of the Holy Prophet, he replied that the girl had already been betrothed to Jubair, and that he would have to settle the matter first with him. This shows that Aisha must have been approaching majority at the time. Again, the Isaba, speaking of the Prophet’s daughter Fatima, says that she was born five years before the Call and was about five years older than Aisha. This shows that Aisha must have been about ten years at the time of her betrothal to the Prophet, and not six years as she is generally supposed to be. This is further borne out by the fact that Aisha herself is reported to have stated that when the chapter [of the Holy Quran] entitled The Moon, the fifty-fourth chapter, was revealed, she was a girl playing about and remembered certain verses then revealed. Now the fifty-fourth chapter was undoubtedly revealed before the sixth year of the Call. All these considerations point to but one conclusion, viz., that Aisha could not have been less than ten years of age at the time of her nikah, which was virtually only a betrothal. And there is one report in the Tabaqat that Aisha was nine years of age at the time of nikah. Again it is a fact admitted on all hands that the nikah of Aisha took place in the tenth year of the Call in the month of Shawwal, while there is also preponderance of evidence as to the consummation of her marriage taking place in the second year of Hijra in the same month, which shows that full five years had elapsed between the nikah and the consummation. Hence there is not the least doubt that Aisha was at least nine or ten years of age at the time of betrothal, and fourteen or fifteen years at the time of marriage.” Living Thoughts of the Prophet Muhammad, 1992 U.S.A. edition, p. 30, note 40

There is a site online where it shows alot of the evidence. Please go to http://www.muslim.org/islam/aisha-age.htm for more info.

Now Joseph, in the Catholic Encyclopedia it mentions that in the Apocrypha, Joseph was 90, previously married with children before marrying Mary pbuh when she was either 12-14