Was the Prophet Muhammad a pediphile

I heard Pat Robertson say the the Prophet Muhammad was a pediphile is this true.

I don’t know the answer, but he wouldn’t have any sort of motive for saying that, would he?

How does Pat Robertson know that Muhammad had a foot fetish?

Cutting and pasting from The Pit:

I am not qualified to defend Islam, but I’d hardly call Pat Robertson a reliable source.

I would also say that in different times and cultures it was acceptable to have relationships what we would now call pedophiliac. I suppose if someone in 7th century Arabia had a 12 year old bride, or if Plato had a 13 year old boy ‘tutored’ in the Athens bathhouse - we could scream 'pervert from our 2002 C.E. vantage point. Really, it wasn’t that long ago that middle aged men legally married barely pubescent girls in the USA. (Ever read Loretta Lynn’s life story?)

People did a lot of things in the past that we know know are wrong and see as immoral now.

I hear some very reputable Christian scholars believe Mary (mother of Jesus) was in her early teens at the time she gave brith to Jesus. Some even say she was 12 or 13. If so, we could therefore conclude:

  1. This is a reflection of the custom of earlier times to marry young, give birth early, and do the best one can with the short life expectancies of those days.
    (Anyone know what the estimated life span and infant mortality rates were in Jesus’ and Mohammed’s time?)

  2. Joseph (Jesus’ step-father/foster father andn the husband of Mary) was a pedophile.
    This is of course pejorative, but no more so than what Pat Robertson or others want to believe about Islam being a “religion of pedoplilia” (if I heard the quote right.)

  3. God is a pedophile. This assumes you believe Christian doctorine as in John 3:16, etc., about Jesus being the son of God.
    And of course it is either highly pejorative or perhaps suggests that those of who don’t practice what is considered (in this day and age) pedophilia are going against God’s example.

Before anyone goes ballistic, I don’t believe God or scripture condones pedophilia, nor am I a pedophile.

Correct me if I am wrong here, but I beleive William Shakespeare said in the Merchant of Venice that even the devil can quote scripture to his own ends.

There are a lot of things that occur in the historical settings of the Bible and the Koran, and other sacred writings that we here and now would find bizzare, cruel, and unconcionable: slavery, animal sacrifice, crucifixion, leprosy as divine punishment, marrying a brother’s widow, whipping, etc., etc.

Anyway, it almost goes without saying that any Christian (on non-Christian) with half a lick of sense disassociates themselves from comments such as are attributed to Pat Robertson and his ilk in this thread.

This is the first time I’ve seen the quote attributed to Pat Robertson. The statement causing the controversy was made by a Baptist pastor from Jacksonville, Florida named Jerry Vines:

It wasn’t so much the original comments that caused the furor as the fact that, when called upon to repudiate Vines, the incoming and outgoing presidents of the Southern Baptist Convention supported him instead.

While not a pedophile myself, history is again the teacher. In times past people my age (22) were considered middle age. Kings were often made at 12 and 14 years.

I think a lot of todays problems come from gentlemen like Mr. Vines and his “Christian Right”. It’s kind of Calvinistic in a way. “Do what I say, or you will burn ye heaten.”

While there is no defacto way to know how old Muhammad’s wife was, age is probably the least relevent factor to the union. As was stated earlier the marriage was done more out of political reasons than anything else. In those times a marriage was usually not considered “offical” unless it had been consumated. Based on this evidence there is little doubt in my mind that if the girl was indeed 6-9 years old, and given the religous conotations, copulation did occur.

If this incident did occur it does not nessicaraly make Muhammad a pedophile. There’s no evidence that he was nessicarily attracted to children sexually, the definition of pedophilia. He may very well have done this out of political motovation. If this was indeed isolated, I would hesitate to use the term “pedophile” to describe him.


I stand corrected and apoligize to any Robertson fans/followers. I had heard of the quote on CBS Radio, but not who it was from precisely.

As this site, http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/Table_Marriage.htm#v
shows, If her parents agree, a 12 or 13year old girl can be married in some of these United States. Keep in mind that an unwed sexual relationship between a man and a girl of that age will send the man up the river for a long time.

JCH: Don’t forget the ages of the two main characters in Romeo and Juliet.

Heckler, Pat Robertson has said and done enough outrageous and ignorant things that I hardly think you need to apologise for this kind of error. Even if this particular instance was not Robertson, this is exactly the kind of belief I’d ascribe to him. On one programme I watched while he ridiculed Hinduism for what seemed like an entire half hour.

You might note that in many traditional societies, girls were to be married off before puberty. Historically, they didn’t have the same concept of pedophilia as we do when it came to young people who were physically mature. The rather extended adolescent period between physical maturity and becoming a full member of society is a relatively recent development.

This is the second time within the past week that I have seen this sentiment expressed here on the SDMB, the other one being something along the lines of “Well, you could easily believe so-and-so said such-and-such, so whether he said it or not doesn’t matter.”

The “eradication of ignorance” certainly isn’t getting much help these days.

I’d say it’s eminently reasonable to conclude that even if such a statement hasn’t been recorded by a journalist as coming out of Pat Robertson’s mouth, that Pat Robertson is more than likely to have said something like that more than once in his life and at the very least believe something of the sort.

Snow job! Just because you can quote things that make Pat Robertson out to be equivocal, a bigot, or a religious intolerant doesn’t mean that you can conclude anything about whether or not the man holds the particular opinion ascribed to him in the OP. Just because something seems reasonable DOES NOT MAKE IT THE TRUTH!

To say something is “more than likely” is a complete value judgement on your part, and while you’re entitled you your opinion, please don’t try to pass it off as fact here in GQ.

Let me get this straight, JS.

A person can ascribe direct quotes to someone. Let’s ignore for a moment that those quotes tend to be contradictory; the fact is, someone recorded those quotes. They had to be said somewhere. Barring slander, most journalists strive to be accurate.

So what you’re saying is this: just because Mr. Robertson said it, that doesn’t mean he meant it?

Sounds like a politician to me.

And I hate politics.

As for Islam and the OP, pedophilia was not known in those times as it is now. The fact that people live such long lives now means we work harder to protect the rights of young children. Yes, it is sickening to us now that a 6 to 9 year old child was in a possibly consummated marriage. Consider, however, that in current society, girls sometimes hit puberty as young as 9, and some of those become sexually active. I personally knew a 10-year-old mother whose baby was fathered by a 12-year-old boy. Girls were often married as soon as they began their menses, meaning they were physically mature, so as to have as many children as possible before dying at possibly 25 or 30. Considering that the marriage described was possibly political, and you have all sorts of other ramifications.

Let’s not stray so far from the OP, hmmmm? We were talking about Islam, not whether or not Mr. Robertson spoke of the fitness of Hindus or Muslims to hold public office.

My only point was that Heckler need feel no need to apologise for his mistake. While the statement in question should be ascribed to the correct speaker, Heckler, in erroneously ascribing it to Robertson, did not create any erroneous perceptions about Robertson’s character, opinions, morality, or judgment. Maybe he implied that Robertson was a snake based on a mistaken assumption. That doesn’t change the fact that Robertson is, in fact, a snake.

Didn’t Jesus once say, “Let the little children come on me”?

I’m trying to figure out what exactly you think you’re criticizing about my post, Bramblerose. An en media res play-by-play analysis, if you will:

Poster acsenray is justifiably taken to the doghouse by RiverRunner, wherein the latter states rather admirably (so admirably, it deserves repeating):

To which acsenray responds brazenly with a list of quotes by Pat Robertson on related subjects that are not directly about Muhammad’s pedofile tendencies. Nor are they about Islam being a “religion of pedophilia”. Rather they are a collection of some of the most bigotted things Robertson has said about religions other than his own and one illustration of the preacher bearing false witness about his previosly stated preference for Jewish and Christian federal employees. While I’ll accept that there may be some relevance to the topic of the thread, acsenray then concludes fallaciously (and further reiterates in a later post):

Now, normally, I’m one to let sleeping dogs lie, but acsenray just proves RiverRunner’s point with this statement! All, I’m saying is that it is not “eminently reasonable” in the least to assume that anyone, snake or not, believes something there is no documented proof of them saying. Maybe Pat Robertson did say that the Prophet was a pedophile or that Islam was a religion of pedophilia. If so, proof of such statement would lie in documented evidence of having said such a statement. We’re not talking about wishy-washy what we’d like to believe is true because it’s in the same vein as what the guy has said before proof. No, your honor, we’re talking about cold hard documentation. This could come from any number of places: reliable journalistic sources, a taped interview, a transcribed conversation in semaphore, etc. Unfortunately, acsenray’s grasp for straws to bolster an ultimately straw man criticism of Robertson is just piling on the ignorance. Hey, Robertson has plenty of things to be criticized for (which were adequately pointed out), and apologizing for falsely attributing a quote to someone is decently honest and fair if the truth is what we’re really after.

I leave you with this gem just posted by acsenray:

Apparently, acsenray believes that the perception that Roberston has the opinion that there is an Islamic pedophilia connection is supportable. I simply challenge the poster to present evidence and not a list of other arguments that were made.