He was sentenced to death because he did not pay for them or get approval of a religious official before raping them.
And, yet again, that’s marriage.
Bullshit.
What you linked to says nothing about Nafel.
Quote me where it says that Nafel was executed by he failed to get the approval of a religious official.
If you’re going to spout racist claptrap please don’t misrepresent your sources.
Beyond that, your references to Saudi Arabia makes utterly no sense since virtually none of the Muslims in the UK are from Saudi Arabia or even from the Middle East.
Edit: it does occur to me since your claim about your source, that it claimed Nafel was executed for failing to get the approval of a religious official that you might have linked to the wrong source by accident.
Was there another source that claimed Nafel was executed for the reasons you gave?
If he would havepayed for the children and “married” themit would have been considered legal.
There is nothing racist about criticism of bad ideas.
Saudi Arabia has spent a lot of money to influence Pakistan, building mosques and sending sheikhs. And South Asian Deobandi Islam is similar to the strains of Islam spread by Saudi.
It’s quite amusing that so many people draw rather extreme conclusions about Muslims based largely on the way it’s practiced in backward third world shit holes and people from there.
Just recently the Ugandan Minister of Ethics and Integrity, a former Catholic priest who’s been pushing for the death penalty for gays and those who harbor them was interviewed by Stephen Frey. Here was the key moment in their exchange.
So here, we have high level government official in a nation with an epidemic of child rape, far, far outstretching anything in the Middle East or South Asia and his response is that child rape is “the right kind of rape” and that it’s “natural.”
Now, were I to use the logic of the Islamophobes on this thread, I’d start screaming about how this proves that Christians are worse than Muslims when it comes to child rape, homosexuality blah, blah, blah, but doing so would be utterly asinine.
The reason is that Muslims in Uganda are almost certainly just as bad as Ugandan Christians when it comes to their attitude towards gays and women.
Similarly all those railing against the ills of the Islamic world fail to see how those same ills can be found amongst non-Muslims in those same areas.
Do Irish Christians engage in female circumcision to the same extent that Egyptian Muslims do?
No, but Egyptian Christians do clearly engage in female circumcisions to the same extent that their Muslim compatriots do?
Yes.
Similarly, Yazidis in Iraq engaged in honor killings to the same extent that Muslims in Iraq did and Christians in Pakistan also engaged in honor killings as well.
And as has already been demonstrated, anyone who squeals about child brides amongst Muslim Arabs ignores that child brides are far more common in Latin America as well as Sub-Saharran Africa(where it’s practiced by both Muslims and Christians) and women are beaten, raped and murdered in far larger rates amongst the Christian parts of Sub-Saharran Africa than they are amongst the Muslim Arabs.
In short, you could just as easily say Christianity is inherently more sexist than Islam but you’d be just as wrong.
Sadly, I’m not sure it’s even worth putting this up because nothing I’ve posted is terribly original and people who hold such bigoted views of Islam seem to be impervious to logic and reason.
Since none of these so-called rape gangs tried to get the women they were “grooming” to marry them first your argument is stupid and appears to be a complete hijack of the thread.
Or is it supposed to be a shot at the UK since until recently there was no law in the UK against spousal rape?
Granted, the same was true in the US where as late as my senior year in college where in roughly a third of all states there was no law against spousal rape.
Anyway, as noted, this seems like a complete hijack of the thread comparable to your earlier statements about Aisha that you were explicitly told to drop.
If you want to discuss this with me then you’ll need to find a new topic that’s remotely pertinent to the thread.
I was responding to Tom’s claim that nothing in Islam promoted the abuse in question. The story of Mohammed’s rape of Aisha is direct evidence which refutes this claim, regardless of whether every last detail is exactly the same, and regardless of your repeated childish remarks.
What “childish remarks” did I make in this thread.
Were you furious that I pointed out that by the standards you’re setting that well into the 90s rape was perfectly legal in both the US and the UK because in both the US and the UK one could simply “get married” and then it was impossible to be convicted of rape.
May I ask why you’re so obsessed with the supposed rape of Aisha 14 centuries ago(an event that you continue show extreme ignorance about), but you’re completely unconcerned with white Christian in the US and the UK who until recently could rape their wives with impunity?
Did you ever protest against the US and the UK having spousal rape legal at that time.
If we went back in time to the early 90s, did that version of you spend as much time raging against such laws as you do obsessing over what Muhammad supposed did 14 Centuries ago?
If not, why?
Your desperation to racialize the discussion is obvious.
As for the rest, no one has to answer to you when criticizing religion. I don’t know where you get this idea that you are entitled to conduct such an audit, of who and what and when this or that person discussed which religions, to determine if they have earned the right to express the obviously very small amount of critique of Islam that you find acceptable. If you really want to know my thoughts on the issues you list, ask me and I will give you an honest answer. Continue to spout off insults and accusations of racism, and make demands and proclamations that I am “completely unconcerned” about whatever situation you just grabbed on to, without asking me, and I will assume that you are merely introducing them as a diversionary tactic in a campaign of apology for Islam.
Profiling is a process of extrapolating information about a person based on known traits or tendencies. EVERYBODY is screened by the Israeli system. I realize it’s hard for you to acknowledge why they would interrogate Arabs with additional questioning but there is great hatred for Israelis by Arabs and the likelihood of terrorist attack by Arabs is greater.
I’m not attacking him. He was clearly a warlord. History is full of them. But as a PROPHET that title carries with it the weight of authority by his followers who choose to emulate his life.
The Quran is the word of God passed down by the Angel Gabriel to Muhammad. Whether Muhammad physically wrote the book is nothing but semantics.
Translation, you do support racial profiling and when you accused me of lying you were clearly wrong.
Thank you for admitting you were wrong in slurring me.
Much appreciated.
Considering that you knew so little about him that you thought he wrote the Quran you really are in no position to offer compelling analysis.
Once again, and I sincerely am not insulting you, if you want to criticize him, read up on him, you can find many non-Islamophobic sources which can give you the facts to make more informed comments about him.
Having strong opinions about Muhammad while believing he wrote the Quran is really the equivalent of having strong opinions about Sarah Palin but knowing so little about her you thought she was the former Governor of Utah.
And that’s not even counting the silly comments about the Battle of the Trench(which you knew so little about you couldn’t even name it correctly).
Where in the post you quoted did I try to “racialize” the discussion.
Frankly, the discussion was “racialized” when the poster who started this hijack started identifying the victims of these supposed rape gangs by racial categories(white) as opposed to religious or nationalistic categories(British, non-Muslim, etc.).
I didn’t accuse you of racism in the post you just quoted nor did I insult you.
Please don’t accuse me of doing something I didn’t do. It’s extremely rude and quite childish.
Ok, I’ll take you at your word.
As Tom has noted, you’ve been obsessed with Aisha’s marriage to Muhammad and have spilled endless amounts of ink about it. You also cared so much about Saudi Arabia’s marriage laws which don’t ban spousal rape that you decided to ignore Tom’s command and have spilled even more ink discussing them.
Now, not that long ago, both the UK and most states in the US had no laws banning spousal rape and husbands could force themselves on their wives whenever they wanted without being prosecuted.
I believe(apologies if I’m wrong) that you’re British.
So, when, not that long ago in the UK and the US, there were no laws against spousal rape, where you as obsessed and outraged about that fact as you are about Saudi Arabia’s current marriage laws?
Did you speak out about such an outrage as loudly and as longly as you did the current laws in Saudi Arabia(a country thousands of miles from your own) who’s citizens you don’t even know much about(not an insult and not surprising, most westerners have met few Saudis, I’ve never met any in the US)?
Thank you in advance for you time and trouble.
Also, sincerely, if your answer is “I didn’t care or give a shit” I won’t hold it against you. I didn’t know anyone in college who felt the need to rage about the fact that in much of the US it was legal for husbands to rape their wives and knew several people from the UK and none ever expressed the slightest outrage about this subject to me.
Apologies to everyone reading this thread for this continued hijack.
No I think you’re full of it. You don’t have a clue what the process of profiling involves.
Either the Quran is the word of God passed down by Gabriel to Muhammad or it isn’t. You’re attempt to negate this religious construct by saying he didn’t PHYSICALLY write is a disingenuous argument to make.
Once again, I’m not criticizing him. Had he not been successful in his various battles I doubt anyone would know his name. It doesn’t change my premise one millimeter. Whether you like it or not Muhammad was a warlord by any definition of the word. There is no phobia pointing out the obvious. Military Career of Muhammad
I posted a couple of links earlier in the thread about Christians from West Africa torturing and killing literally thousands of children after accusing them of witchcraft. Didn’t get a peep about that either, so don’t hold your breath.
Both sides of the “debate” in this thread are really poor. Looks like you’re all having fun though.
No, it’s not. It’s critical to understanding the early development of Islam, because the Qur’an was not compiled until after Muhammad’s death, and even then there were various competing and differing versions of it possessed by the various Companion factions striving for dominance until the third khalif, 'Uthman, ordered that a definitive text be compiled and produced.
Muhammad was specifically focused on his conflict with the Quraysh of Mecca. Even the massacre of the Banu Qurayza that you keep harping on was done as a direct result of that conflict (the Banu Qurayza, according to the sources, broke their alliance with Muhammad and helped the Meccan force besieging Medina during the Battle of the Trench).
You didn’t even quote the most hysterical line: “Yup, for them there is definitely One Direction: facing Mecca.”
If I were to write that as part of a parody of the kind of nonsense spewed by Islamophobes, I would feel ashamed of myself.
cite? Considering how you mis-characterize my posts you need to show that he was indeed the first one to bring race into the thread.
You constantly use accusations of racism to deflect criticism from Islam.
Just because I am posting about something that you obviously don’t want discussed does not mean I am obsessed. The “endless amounts of ink” pales in comparison to your ever-presence on these boards and your vigilant defense whenever anyone posts anything at all critical of Islamic ideology. The “endless amounts of ink” was a response to your endless attempt to introduce revisionist arguments and advance them as if they were something other than revisionist.
And then, after all of that, essentially spamming any discussion on Islam with accusations against those critical of it, you admit in this thread that Mo did in fact rape Aisha according to mainstream Islamic sources. You try to qualify and minimize it as “statutory”, a term which brings to mind the college age guy with his high school girlfriend, as if this could possibly blunt the horror of a 9 year old child being raped by an adult.
There is is again, this notion of yours that you are somehow entitled to determine how much a given subject should be discussed and by who. That’s not how it works.
American.
Who said I was obsessed? Again, simply because people state facts that trangress Islamic taboos and make you uncomfortable does not make them obsessed.
This is a false equivalency. I have not been alive in a time when the treatment of women and children in the US was anywhere near as horrible as it is in Saudi. Children are bought and sold there, with scriptural justifications, and then raped. No on alive to day was alive when that was happening here in any widespread fashion.
But anyway, yes I have had discussion about this issue. Occasionally some apologist would even behave as you are and try to minimize or revise the truth about what marriage has historically meant and how little legal protection women have had until relatively recently, but very rarely.
Do you spam every discussion critical of non Muslims with falsely equivalent examples of similar sounding, but much less serious or current situations among Muslims?
Which, again, has precisely zip to do with what’s happening in the UK, because you keep bringing up marriage, and what’s happening in the UK doesn’t involve marriage. Even in Saudi Arabia, doing what these “rape gangs” did is illegal - if they were caught in that country, they would be executed.
If Saudi Arabia will execute you for doing something, you can be pretty sure that doing that something is not approved of at all in Islam!
So to you there is some fundamental moral difference between adults who rape children under the guise of “marriage”, and those who do so with whatever other sickening justification they come up with? There is not to me. I don’t see how one could hold this position without believing the marriage ceremony to somehow legitimize the abuse, which I doubt many people do.
You say that what the rape gangs did is illegal in Saudi. My point is that the crime that the gangs committed was rape of children, which is legal in Saudi as long as it state/clergy sanctioned via nikah ceremony. In Saudi Arabia all sex outside of marriage is illegal, even between consenting adults, and all sex inside marriage is legal even when multiple wives and even young children are involved. Saudi Arabian Islamic teachers are very influential in Mosques in many places, including Britain. So if they legitimize sex with children in any way, it is relevant, regardless if these perpetrators in the UK used similar justifications, which, despite what you have posted, we do not know.