Racist bullshit. There are lots of extremely contradictory hadiths regarding Aisha and how old she is.
I’ll assume that you’re outraged that Shakespeare’s plays are regularly read in schools or you’re a hyprocite, since by your standards he approved of the raping of children.
As for slavery and “sex slavery” that was something either approved of or condoned by the prophets of all the Abrahamic religions, including Issa Al Masih, whom Christians call Jesus the Christ.
So, just because those other people supposedly approved of it, that makes it ok, does it?
In any case, I’d be interested to see your quotations from Shakespeare and Jesus approving of the raping of children and sex slavery.
Please don’t judge others by your own standards.
Apologies. I didn’t know you were so ignorant about western civilization or culture.
You never read either what Christians called The New Testament or Romeo and Juliet?
May I ask where you went to school?
What the fuck are you talking about?
of that we agree
Well theReverend Terry Jones did just that in Dearborn. He got shoes instead of biscuits. The riot police gave him an exit strategy.
You seem to struggle with the concept that a minority of Muslims, those who are the most fundamental of spirit, are violent. And they are violent because Mohammad was violent. There’s a logical corollary between the deeds of a prophet and the desire of his followers to emulate him. It doesn’t matter if the majority of Muslims prefer to land on a runway when they’re on an airplane. Most people are like that regardless of their hopes for an afterlife.
All denominations of all religions will have a congregation that consists of minimal believers, the average believer, and finally the fundamentalist. It’s just common sense that as numbers dwindle toward the fundamentalist side it will be the examples of the respective prophet that are followed.
Yeah to be honest I am certain Magiver either misunderstood, is misremembering, or is misreporting what was said. There is no way in hell a mosque in America trying to explain Islam in the best light possible the day after 9/11 actually endorsed the view, unqualified, that tearing down the Buddha’s was, by Islamic lights, justified and a good thing. Any muslim cleric that would have endorsed that view would not have been holding such a meeting on that particular day.
My guess is that they explained how you could justify it within certain schools of Islam, but that they didn’t endorse it themselves.
Which mosque was this?
You don’t happen to remember the name of the particular cleric, do you?
Piece of advice.
Head over to your local library, pick up some books by respected scholars on Islam and read them.
I recommend this because, amongst other things you don’t seem to understand the difference between “Fundamentalist Muslims” and “Radical Muslims.”
I asked you to provide quotations from them to back your claim that Shakespeare and Jesus approved of the raping of children and sex slavery. I’ll ask again.
Who are the fundamentalist Christians?
How do we distinguish within any group who are evil and those which aren’t? You might as well castigate all men everywhere because some men are rapists.
And I like how you’re cherrypicking data like mad. The pedophile grooming rings are a terrible thing, but they are not representative of all Muslims anywhere, any more than the trafficking of young women to the UK for the sex trade by Eastern European gangs (mostly Russian, Lithuanian and Ukranian) is representative of all Russians or Lithuanians or Ukranians - and that’s been going on for a lot longer than the Pakistani sex gang rings. Good Christian folk are torturing and killing thousands of children in Christ’s name - should we condemn all Christians in case they might support such behavior?
Muslim extremism is a real concern but rather than focusing on the “Muslim” part, law enforcement agencies tend to focus on the “extremism” part. Consider: in the most recent terrorist attack data I can find, less than 10% of terrorist attacks in America and less than 1% of terrorist attacks in Europe were Islam-related, and even among those there is little correlation or connection. You and the EDL (the blokes going around chanting “No More Mosques”) are worrying about the 1% and pretending it’s the 99%.
And of course you’re focusing on the present-day situation and pretending it’s representative of the way things have always been. Islamic terror is a current concern due to the rise of Al-Qaeda and the Wahabbists, but when I first moved to London it was the IRA planting bombs. Today it’s a Pakistani gang grooming children but only a few years ago it was an international ring of pedophiles led from Belgium (those filthy Belgians!) that was the latest outrage. You can let confirmation bias color your conclusions, or you can look at the big picture and realize that bad people do bad things for a variety of reasons, and that tarring other, innocent people with the same brush only makes things worse.
Do you have an example of people in Dearborn rioting over just an act of insult to Mohammed or Islam? Because the Terry Jones incident doesn’t come close. Jones had ranted against Islam and Muslims for a couple of years without causing any sort of riot in Dearborn. It was when he came to Dearborn, itself, and held a rally in their own community on the front lawn of the Muslim Community center for the purpose of condemning Islam that the citizens came out to confront him. (And as riots go, that one was pretty tame.) He has also been back twice, since then, and been pretty much ignored.
Not at all. I actually take the time to look at the evidence and I see that the Muslims who are most religious do not engage in that behavior. The violent ones are nearly always politically motivated or are recent, untutored converts, led by politically motivated people. Your claim that Muslims are violent because Mohammed was violent has been shown to be nothing but wild speculation through numerous historical references. I don’t struggle with the concept; I dismiss it as historically and currently inaccurate.
That sort of posturing is silly. Qur’an, like the bible, sets limits on who may be enslaved within its own community–at a time when slavery was pretty nearly universally practiced in the world. It does not advocate “sexual” slavery. Your own link refers to how non-Muslim women may or may not be selected for marriage, not sexual slavery.
Ahh. Back to your fascination with the marriage of Aisha. I am not going to hijack this thread with an extended refutation of your fixation on that event. That was already handled in a separate thread.
I am confusing neither. You see it as significant that there were Muslims who supported Hitler (or at least chose to ally with him over sectarian interests). I am questioning the significance of that point, given that there were lots of people in your bucolic isle who also supported him.
The overwhelming majority of victims are white because the overwhelming majority of British people are white. You might as well claim that race-based crime is an epidemic in Kenya because the majority of victims are black.
cite?
Yes it does, the Koran specifically allows captives to be raped. The phrase "those who your right hand posseses refers to slaves and captives.
Wrong. It specifically legitimizes sex with captives. Read the tasfirs of the verse, it is irrefutable.
You quite obviously lost that debate and retreated. Don’t try to imply otherwise by stating that you “handled” anything.
I think this bears repeating here:
According to mainstream Islamic sources, Mohamed raped Aisha when he was in his fifties and she was nine. Anyone who denies this either has a very shallow understanding of Islam, or is being dishonest.
History of full of violence, rape, and brutality, much of it inflicted by people that are revered for their ideas and accomplishments. It sounds harsh when you come out and say it plainly, but it’s still true. Thomas Jefferson raped his slaves (according to our best understanding of history). The Prophet Mohamed raped a child (according to traditional and mainstream Islamic sources and belief).
Apologies, I didn’t realize that you were completely ignorant about* Romeo and Juliet*.
Go reread it again.
So, to be clear then, you’re insisting that according to “mainstream Islamic sources” Aisha was born years after Muhammad “heard the call”.
Since you insist, despite all contrary evidence, that you do not have a shallow understanding of Islam, please list me some of the “mainstream Islamic sources” which claim that and quote the appropriate parts.
Thanks in advance for your time and trouble.
If, as you so rightly say, the overwhelming majority of British people are white, then how come the overwhelming majority of perpetrators are NOT white?
Romeo and Juliet is a play. One can write about violence and sexual depravity without approving of it. Indeed, one cannot avoid doing so if one’s intention is to criticise it.
Why are you confusing fiction with endorsement?
I asked for a quotation from Shakespeare approving of sexual slavery, to back up your allegation, and you directed me to a work of fiction. I also asked for a similar quote from Jesus, which you ignored completely.