All based on the lies (or lunatic ravings) of a pedophile. (I notice no one’s disputed that point.)
BTW, my issue with Islam is not just about “helping” Muslims. I would like to be able to talk shit about that religion IRL, under my real name, just like I do about Christianity and Judaism. But instead, thanks to the thuggishness of Islam’s adherents, I have to do it pseudonomously, because of the genuine danger of being known to ridicule Islam or Muhammad. So that really fucking pisses me off.
That’s because it’s not a “point”, it’s just an offensive and ignorant slur.
If you really cared about Islam in the way you claim, you would bother to learn something about it. The pedophile nonsense makes it clear that this is about recreational outrage to you–not any sincere concern for the putative consequences of Islamic theology.
So Wikipedia is inaccurate in saying he had sex with Aisha when she was nine or ten years old? Better go fix it!
Before you point it out, yes: the Hebrews of Deuteronomy were similarly barbaric, absolutely. But as I say, I can talk about this openly without really all that much concern it will get me beheaded.
So when you say you are “with” the Bangladeshi bloggers, what you mean is you would have told them to leave Bangladesh, not that you actually support their efforts to reform Bangladeshi society or anything like that.
You’d presumably be surprised to know that Hirsi Ali repudiated her former views this year, and is now calling for support for moderate reform movements in Islam.
I took a history seminar on Islam from a preeminent scholar on the subject (who is a Muslim himself). He, learning of my atheism, lent me the book *Muhammad *by the French Marxist (and atheist) historian Maxime Rodinson. Very illuminating indeed.
Unfortunately, yes: gotta know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em. But what I also mean is that we in the West should be treating these nations–Saudi Arabia most of all–as pariahs as we rightly did to South Africa in the 1980s (and which we should have done earlier, but at least Democrats got on that bandwagon unlike the asshole Ronald Reagan). I have been a fairly stalwart supporter of President Obama, but it was sickening to see him go to Saudi Arabia and make nice with them, right in the wake of the Badawi case. :mad:
I can’t believe I let it slide initially: you used “pedophile nonsense” in the same post where you lectured me that I should “learn something about” Islam? 
Srsly? Is it actually news to you that Muhammad repeatedly fucked a nine or ten year old girl? Looks to me like you are proceeding from your conclusion, bad form on the SDMB.
It also points out that child marriage was not uncommon at the time (though most of Muhammad’s wives were middle aged when he married them - ‘Ā’isha is the only one described as being under 17 at the time of marriage). It doesn’t mention the extent of the historical debate over ‘Ā’isha’s age, nor the modern debate, however. Nor that Shias reject those Sunni ahadith about her age and consider her to have been a lot older (Shias generally don’t like ‘Ā’isha due to her opposing Ali after Muhammad’s death).
That’s what you get for relying on Wikipedia. I’d be happy to recommend you some books on the subject of my namesake, if you like.
You certainly seem to be able to talk about Muhammad being a “pedophile” openly without being concerned that it will get you beheaded.
One history seminar and one book about Muhammad written from a Marxist historical materialism perspective?
Is that it?
It’s evidence of your ignorance on several levels.
First, it’s a common slur against Islam that has nothing to do with present-day Islamic society. Even if it were true, it’s good evidence of someone who is just looking for shit to throw.
Second, as A’isha notes, your reliance on Wikipedia for this one is sorely misplaced. There is both historical and contemporary debate about A’isha’s age at consummation. I’m no expert, though it seems I’ve read more than you. I believe that hadith about biographical details like that were less thoroughly vetted than hadith about the teachings of Islam.
But my main point was the first one. Your seizing on this as somehow relevant to present-day Islamic society just shows how shallow your thinking about the subject is.
You missed his point, which is that it didn’t happen.
The Cordoban Caliphate was indeed pretty open-minded, but then that’s true of many (most ?) of the 8th-12th century Muslim states - because non-Muslims were subjected to a special tax, which in many places represented a significant cash influx for the state due to the demographics ; and because Muslims were actively dispensed from other taxes notably when it comes to land ownership ; the top-down pressure to convert often wasn’t there at all, quite the opposite (although obviously the tax on not being Muslim inherently acted as a soft pressure to do so). Some local amirs even plumb refused demands of conversion, which typically had them deposed down the line by the religious crowd for being shit at Musliming. That’s how the Umayyads got reduced to ruling over just Spain, too.
It’s of course the Catholics who forced the Jews and Muslims of Spain to convert with fire and sword. Also ingenious and creative new ideas involving thumb-crushers.
Well so does Alabama, and yet…
I had my tongue firmly in my cheek on that, Monty; I am quite aware that the country remained predominately Christian during the time of Muslim rule.
It’s also rather ironic that among the first actions of the restored Christian monarchs was to kick all the Jews out of Spain, where they have flourished under Muslim rule.
If you’re looking for me to defend Alabama, guess again. (Now, that was in GQ, so I had to hold back a bit in terms of what I *really *think about that state.) People like me, who look upon both Muslims and Southern rednecks with great disdain, are surprisingly rare (Bill Maher is the only prominent such person I can think of), when it really is the most intellectually consistent position imaginable. Or maybe there’s a group of silent Maherian sympathizers out there who just don’t speak out because they don’t want to take all the incoming fire they know they’ll get (I guess I’m a glutton for punishment :D).
And white enslavers raping enslaved women was not uncommon 200 years ago. Yet just last week, the New York Times apologized (and rightly so) for using the term “slave mistress” in the obituary of Julian Bond. The parallel here being that both Aisha and Bond’s great-grandmother cannot be said to have consented in any meaningful sense. But we sail along and call Aisha Muhammad’s “wife” rather than his child sex slave (yet when the leader of ISIS/ISIL does the same thing, taking inspiration from He Who Must Not Be Drawn, we do call them child sex slaves).
Only under a pseudonym (and even then, somewhat nervously). When it comes to snarking about the other Abrahamaic religions, I feel free to do so openly on sites where they use my Facebook account to show my real name.
Along with all the Qu’uran and other texts we read for the class, it is more than enough for me. Life is too short for any more of that nonsense.
Basically, this argument boils down to “Hundreds of millions of people adore him, so he’s prima facie innocent”. And people wonder why Bill Cosby got away with it for so long…
What? No, how would you possible get that from what I wrote?
The point was that your accusation of pedophilia is about as relevant to the contemporary human rights abuses you decry as an allegation that George Washington raped his slaves is relevant to Guantanamo Bay. Whatever the truth of it (and, again, things are substantially more complicated than you seem to understand), we know your concern about the contemporary problems is fake and superficial by your resort to such argument.
I seem to note a dearth of people calling for the Jefferson Memorial to be torn down because he was a rapist. And yet, people like you love the whole “Muhammad was a pedophile” thing.
I also don’t recall anyone shouting about how Joseph was a pedophile despite Mary traditionally being considered 12 when she married him and was impregnated by the Holy Ghost.
It seems to be just Muhammad that gets singled out for this special treatment.
Again, Shias don’t believe ‘Ā’isha was a child. Nor do a lot of other Muslims.
Uh huh.
If you have a superficial level of knowledge about a subject, and actively refuse to learn any more, perhaps you might want to refrain from shooting your mouth off about said subject.
I reckon I know more than 99% of non-Muslims, which is more than enough to opine. Also, please look up the tu quoque fallacy, which you are committing in spades.
You’ve caught me. I’m not actually at all outraged by the imprisoned and flogged Saudi blogger, nor the murdered Bangladeshi bloggers. I don’t get tears welling up in my eyes when I read about ten year old schoolgirls getting acid thrown in their faces. I didn’t watch the Saudi movie *Wadjda *and burn with frustration on behalf of that wonderful, spunky, soon to be ground-down eponymous girl. I don’t give a shit about any of them–you’ve found me out! :rolleyes:
The outrage part of recreational outrage is real. But so is the recreational part.
Whatever that means. Did you read this “wisdom” on a fortune cookie? And please, enlighten me: was it also “recreational outrage” when liberals like my parents marched to insist on divestment with South Africa in the 1980s? Or when they went down South to join sit-ins in the 1960s? I mean, they were white and lived in the North, so I guess they should have just backed off and let Southern blacks handle it themselves. Right, A’isha?
You think anonymously posting on a message board that Muhammad was a pedophile is the equivalent of a sit-in?
That’s bizarre.