Was the Prophet Muhammad a pediphile

[david630]

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

[Mangetout]

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

[Kal]

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

[Tamerlane]

Cutting and pasting from The Pit:

*Originally posted by Tamerlane *
Anywho, as to Muhammed and his wives - A contentious and somewhat hazy topic, as these things so often seem to be. Most of the writings on his wives and his relationships with them come from the Hadith, the collected ‘sayings’ of Muhammed and his close companions, and the problem with that is that there are multiple hadith and they don’t always match up perfectly. In fact there is something of a hiearchy of accuracy as regards different hadith, depending on which tradition you follow. Anyway the exact number of wives is in dispute. Some counts go as high as fifteen, but I believe at least five or six of those are considered dubious because they are only referenced in one source. As to the better confirmed wives…

His first and most significant wife is completely uncontested. Muhammed was first married at the age of 25 to the widow of a rich merchant fifteen years his senior, Khadija. They had a previous business relationship and it appears she proposed to him ( via intermediaries ). This marriage lasted 25 years and was apparently monogamous throughout. She bore him six children, two sons ( who both died young ) and four daughters, including the famous ‘favorite’, Fatima, who later married his nephew Ali and through which the modern Shi’a tradition considers the only true succesors of the Prophet to descend. Khadija was the first convert to Islam and if one wants to indulge in a bit of pop psychology, I might imagine that Muhammed’s relatively enlightened ( for his time ) views on female property rights might derive in good part from her influence. She died of natural causes at the age of 65.

Muhammed then married another widow, his own age ( 50 ), Sauda. Shortly thereafter, as attested to by two sources, he supposedly received a revelatory dream that led him to contract a marriage ( purportedly with Sauda’s approval ) with A’isha, the daughter of Abu Bakr, the first adult male convert to Islam ( Ali was the first male convert, period ), his closest companion and ally, and the man who would eventually be his immediate successor as the first Caliph. It’s A’isha that is the controversial one. She was, again purportedly, six years old at the time and went to actually live with Muhammed three years later at the age of nine. By at least one account, that is also the point when the marriage was consummated. But I have seen some dispute over that as well as her age. Regardless, the political significance of this union seems pretty apparent ( Muhammed also apparently married one of the daughters, a widow again I believe, of Umar, who would become Caliph #2 after Abu Bakr died ).

At any rate, the rest of his wives, of whatever confirmed or unconfirmed status, seem to fall into two clumps. The largest group seems to be made up of middle-aged war widows. A couple were manumitted slaves who were teenagers ( 17, I think ).

As to the provision in the Qur’an that allows only four wives ( or a de facto one, if you accept the reasonings of certain theologians ), I have seen at least one source that claims that all these marriages took place before he had that revelation and that this caused him to stop “collecting wives”, as it were. But I can’t really confirm that right this moment. If false, it would of course, make Muhammed’s behavior in this respect a pretty spectacular case of “do what I say, not what I do” :D.

So therein lies the basis for the charge of pedophelia at least.

• Tamerlane

[syncrolecyne]

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.

[Milton_De_La_Warre]

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.

[Mandarax]

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:

“Today, people are saying all religions are the same,” Vines said. “They would have us believe Islam is just as good as Christianity. But I’m here to tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that Islam is not as good as Christianity. Christianity was founded by the virgin-born Lord Jesus Christ. Islam was founded by Muhammad, a demon-possessed pedophile who had 12 wives and his last one was a 9-year-old girl.”

Muslims maintain that they are the descendants of the Judeo-Christian progenitor Abraham and serve the same God as Jews and Christians, even though they call him Allah.

But Vines said: “Allah is not Jehovah. Jehovah is not going to turn you into a terrorist that’ll try to bomb people and take the lives of thousands and thousands of people.”

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.

[Skippman]

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.

IMHO

[Milton_De_La_Warre]

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.

[galen]

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.

[Monty]

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

[Acsenray]

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.

[Acsenray]

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.

[RiverRunner]

Even if this particular instance was not Robertson, this is exactly the kind of belief I’d ascribe to him.

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.
RR

[Acsenray]

http://www.pakistanlink.com/Opinion/2002/March/08/06.html –
Last week, noted television evangelist Pat Robertson raised some eyebrows when he proclaimed during a broadcast of “700 Club” that Islam “is not a peaceful religion that wants to coexist. They want to coexist until they can control, dominate and then if need be, destroy.” He continued by stating: “I have taken issue with our esteemed president in regard to his stand in saying Islam is a peaceful religion. It’s just not. And the Koran makes it very clear, if you see an infidel, you are to kill him.”

http://www.cair-net.org/asp/article.asp?articleid=692&articletype=3 –
As some of the other numerous examples of recent Islamophobic rhetoric, Awad cited televangelist Pat Robertson’s almost daily defamation of Islam,

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/revpat.htmOnly Christians and Jews in Government

Individual Christians are the only ones really – and Jewish people, those who trust God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob – are the only ones that are qualified to have the reign, because hopefully, they will be governed by God and submit to Him.
– Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, January 11, 1985, defending his stance that only Christians and Jews are fit to hold public office

I never said that in my life … I never said only Christians and Jews. I never said that.
– Pat Robertson, Time magazine, after having been confronted regarding his statement on The 700 Club of January 11, 1985

When I said during my presidential bid that I would only bring Christians and Jews into the government, I hit a firestorm. “What do you mean?” the media challenged me. “You’re not going to bring atheists into the government? How dare you maintain that those who believe in the Judeo-Christian values are better qualified to govern America than Hindus and Muslims?” My simple answer is, “Yes, they are.”
– Pat Robertson, The New World Order, p. 218

Why Hundus and Muslims Cannot Govern

If anybody understood what Hindus really believe, there would be no doubt that they have no business administering government policies in a country that favors freedom and equality… Can you imagine having the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini as defense minister, or Mahatma Gandhi as minister of health, education, and welfare? The Hindu and Buddhist idea of karma and the Muslim idea of kismet, or fate condemn the poor and the disabled to their suffering… It’s the will of Allah. These beliefs are nothing but abject fatalism, and they would devastate the social gains this nation has made if they were ever put into practice.
– Pat Robertson, The New World Order, p. 219

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.

[JS_Princeton]

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.

[Bramblerose]

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.

[Acsenray]

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.

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.

[Jeremy_s_Evil_Twin]

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

[JS_Princeton]

*Originally posted by Bramblerose *
**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?
**

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):

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.

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):

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.

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:

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.

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.