Ayesha, wife of prophet Muhammed was 6, had sex at 9.

Why don't you include the part which says "prophet" Muhammed was "thying" with Aishe... You know what thying means? Putting your penis between her legs and playing with her.... Absolutely disgusting, so your prophet was thying with a girl aged 6 until he broke her virginity at 9.

What is morally wrong now, was morally wrong then, vise versa.

 

do you think perhaps the other 2 religious wingnut groups gave muhammad the idea of using the 'prophet' theme?

i mean in the utter religious book, the torah adherants think god burned bush

and jesus healed lepers and died so idiots can keep up the lie

how is that? God per se made man, then screwed mary a few years later, knowing his bastard son would be killed (per the story lines of course)

heck, moses killed 3k men, for a hathor, which is a rendition of their same single god

moses was a prophet, right?

darwin is a prophet of 'god' if the comprehension that the works (writtings/knowledge/material information) is what made them prophets to men, not a 'god'

people created the prophet

Actually it's a real religion with about as many wingnuts as some of the other religions.

Heck, america is supporting israel, a religious state which is against the very laws of america (funding a religious state), because the christians are awaiting the same messiah, the jews had expected before the christians even became a religion.

And for that messiah to come, the zionist believe that they must build a temple, which would require taking down the dome, which will cause ww3 in itself.

basically 3 stupid religions fighting over a stupid hill (tel megiddo means, 'the hill'), that will cause the war of wars (armegeddon)


And all three of the beliefs have a judgment day concerning this very event, as their per se prophets tell them


So which prophet is the one to believe?

Read Dan 7;8

 

so if americans were marrying at 7, and muhammad set an old example, does that means america is of islamic foundations?

 

I googled the word "thying" and came up with "thing".

Where did you hear this word "thying"?

I am sorry, but this is an absolutely STUPID thing to say.

There was a point in time when treating Africans in America like humans was considered wrong, a time when treating Jews in Germany like people was considered morally wrong. There was times when people believed women were witches.

Times change.

And young marriages were not considered morally wrong a thousand years ago.

 

That's an insane statement. First of all there's absolutely no evidence that such a character as Allah exists or ever existed. There's zero evidence that Mohammed actually existed since he conveniently died before the outside world verified his existence. There's zero evidence that the character Allah ever spoke to the character Mohammed and told him anything. The only evidence is that the character Mohammed supposedly told a group of his supposedly BFs what his supposedly god told him to do.
And all of that was written by a committee.

Santa Claus says to be good or he won't give you any Christmas presents. Believe that.

 

Sorry I meant thighing, here's more info

[video=youtube;_RMUyAy9zU0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RMUyAy9zU0[/video]

------------------

And here is a religious fatwah that mentions Muhammad’s physical relations with Aisha:

Praise be to Allah and peace be upon the one after whom there is no [further] prophet.
After the permanent committee for the scientific research and fatwahs (religious decrees) reviewed the question presented to the grand Mufti Abu Abdullah Muhammad Al-Shemary, the question forwarded to the committee by the grand scholar of the committee with reference number 1809 issued on 3/8/1421 (Islamic calendar). The inquirer asked the following:

It has become wide spread these days, and especially during weddings, the habit of mufa’khathat of the children (mufa’khathat literally translated means "placing between the thighs" which means placing the male member between the thighs of a child). What is the opinion of scholars knowing full well that the prophet, the peace and prayer of Allah be upon him, also practiced the "thighing" of Aisha - the mother of believers - may Allah be please with her.

After the committee studied the issue, they gave the following reply:
It has not been the practice of the Muslims throughout the centuries to resort to this unlawful practice that has come to our countries from pornographic movies that the kufar (infidels) and enemies of Islam send. As for the prophet, peace and prayer of Allah be upon him, thighing his fiancée Aisha. She was six years of age and he could not have intercourse with her due to her small age. That is why [the prophet] peace and prayer of Allah be upon him placed HIS [MALE] MEMBER BETWEEN HER THIGHS AND MASSAGED IT SOFTLY, as the apostle of Allah had control of his [male] member not like other believers.. (Source: http://www.sout-al-haqe.com/pal/musical/mofakhaza.ram)

http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/prepubescent.htm

Nothing can change that quote, please do not deny it and claim it was for another context, in simple your own Muslim source says your prophet was thighing with Aishe.

Principles of morality and good are true for all time.

Principles of divine Allah-given morality and truth are especially true for all time, because they are Divine.

Either Muhammed's marriage to Aishe was divinely sanctioned then -and therefore morally right then and now- or it was not divinely sanctioned. therefore wrong then as it must be wrong now...because Allah.s morality is absolute for all time.

You have to decide:
1. Are you moral absolutists, confident in the eternal unchanging good of God, and therefore endorse paedophilia as a permitted good sanctioned by Allah (in which case you are true Muslims that must subscribe to paedophilia)... or

2. Are you modernist secular relativist who use cultural relativist arguments to state that what people did in the past was "good" then but not "good" now -and in effect, that there is no good or bad- and that therefore you do not subscribe to paedophilia, and are therefore not a true Muslim...but you are at least a decent person by today's relative standards.

There is another third alternative.

There is a universal eternal standard of good, about which we are confused, and one that does not endorse paedophilia, and there may even be an Allah to boot: But Muhammed et al have no more to do with authentic goodness and morality- or even with the real Allah- than does the Val-an Gong cult of China. In other words, you can believe in goodness and God without needing to apologise for a rubbish religion called Islam, or any other rubbish religion....with all their moral confusions, including endorsement of paedophilia.

 

Paul said that anyone can be a prophet if he wants to be one. The Mormons have 12. http://mormon.org/faq/present-day-prophet/

Harold Camping is a prophet (zero reliability) = http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...g-world-will-probably-end-quietly-next-friday

 

Death be upon Muhammad.

(statement of fact, since he is already long dead.)

I'd wish death to Allah, but what's the point of wishing death upon a made-up character?

I do wish wisdom upon those still foolish enough to believe in deities and try to reason that what their deities purportedly say is good is automatically good and acceptable, and even something to emulate.

 

I suggest you give some of these a read.


www.discoveringislam.org/aisha_age.htm

http://www.turntoislam.com/forum/showthread.php?t=51260

http://www.muslim.org/islam/aisha-age.htm

http://www.ilaam.net/Articles/Ayesha.html

However, I am curious. Do you consider all Hadith - and for that matter the Quran - as true and legitimate sources?

 

Entering this thread late:

That question is pretty much a complete red herring. The rhetorical value of the Qur'an, the Hadith or the Sira'at does not depend on whether or not westerners consider them as "true and legitimate sources," but whether or not Muslims do.

There is a whole "science of the Hadith" wherein each has been evaluated, tested, and had it's chain of narration validated and valued. Are all Hadith "true?" Certainly not, as even Muslims themselves classify many as Maudu` (fake). But if a hadith has been labeled as Sahih, it is authoritative within Islam (or at least the relevant sect of Islam) and must be accepted by westerners discussing Islam on those terms.

Now, as to the issue of Aisha, it too is merely a red herring. Muhammad had between eleven and thirteen wives (depending on whether or not you count the slaves he kept) and only one of them was a child on marriage and consummation. Not only is it anachronistic to object to a child marriage from 1400 years ago, but even by the modern definition of "pedophile" Muhammad absolutely does not qualify. His primary sexual interest was always in fully adult women. The political value of a marriage with a daughter of Abu Bakr was far more important in making her attractive to Muhammad than her prepubescence.

There is plenty to be critical of Muhammad starting with his use of ethnic cleansing and genocide. By whining about his marriage to Aisha is simply woman's gossip, unleavened by historical perspective.

 

OK, suppose everything you wrote is true. However, Mohammed was supposed to have been the leader of the movement. People followed his examples. So by taking a child bride, for whatever reason, don't you think he legitimized that behavior for his followers? If he was a truly inspired prophet of some deity shouldn't he have elevated his followers' mores instead of appealing to their basest instincts?

The bottom line: he had a chance to make things better and he blew it. Throw his behind into the lake of fire.

 

In Islam two people cannot get married unless they are both capable of agreeing to be married to eachother and capable of understanding that marriage. It is a very important practice in Islam.

Not many children are mature enough to actually understand what marriage is.

Muhammad (peace be upon him) married 11 women, but the maximum set in the Quran is 4 (it is much more complicated than that though, there are some small details when it comes to marrying multiple wives at once).

It doesn't matter if Muhammad (pbuh) married a 6 year old or a 60 year old, child marriages will still happen.

 

You're just digging a deeper hole for yourself. You may want to put down the shovel and have some coffee (or tea).

 

First, it is simply wrong to apply anachronistic standards to somebody living 1400 years ago. George Washington was a slave owner and a racist. He was still a great man.

Secondly, Muhammad was clearly subject to a different set of rules. For example, Islam allows only four wives, while he had as many as thirteen and Allah said it was okay. It was one of the perks or prophet hood.You're not going to make an impression on any Muslim with that argument.

Lastly, child brides have been a common occurrence across much of history, and still can be found in many non-Muslim cultures today.

That first require there to actually be a lake of fire.

 

Maybe because getting married at 9 to 12 to 16 was the custom for many centuries until the late 1800's even in America.

 

"Prophets" only exist in myth; Mohammad, like Joseph Smith, was a real man and the founder of a cult which eventually grew into a religion (that is how religions tend to start, after all), so it would be no surprise if he took a child bride and made all sorts of concessions for himself. Joe Smith wanted multiple wives...

 

wow yeah, the difference being is that it is illegal here to lay with a child, unlike with Mohammed where he did it openly and without punishment.

but yeah, keep trying to say this is the same thing.

 

Mohammed is reported to have been a real man in the fairy tale; there's no independent evidence that he really existed as reported.

I don't think I applied 2012 moral standards to Mohammed. I said that as the alleged leader of a religious movement he had an opportunity to lead people beyond their base natures. He didn't because others copied his behavior of taking a child bride.

When you think about it that's where Judaism and Christianity also fail.

The crazy old coot Abraham got it into his addled brain that he was to sacrifice his son. When you read the story very closely it seems that he actually did do it. Later on the insane Jephthah actually slices and dices his daughter because he made a vow to God. http://www.thebricktestament.com/judges/jephthah_kills_his_virgin_daughter/jg11_34.html

Now suppose Abraham actually didn't gut and roast Issac. That demonstrates a step up from child sacrifice. Yet, generations later, Jephthah reverts to primitive ways and sacrifices his daughter because of a silly vow he made to his deity. That indicates that child sacrifice should be the norm.

Enter Jesus. He's portrayed as the son of God. Yet God demanded of himself that he sacrifice his own son to please himself over the sin issue.

Then there's randy Joseph Smith. He concocted a new religion but he neglected to advance morality. He made women members of harems. He put the bad mouth on dark skinned people.

So all four groups failed. They had golden opportunities to elevate morality out of the gutter. They didn't take it. If anything they set things back which is why we have so many social problems today.

 

There is no serious scholar of any sectarian stripe that does not accept both the historicity of Muhammad and the general outlines of the Sira'at.

Between that first and second sentence you completely (though tacitly) contradicted yourself. The change in Arab moral consensus between its pre-Islamic and Islamic context was profound... just not up the standards of 2012. Where it remained brutal and primitive it was previously also so. But in vast other areas Islam offered a breathtaking moral advance for the Bedouins.

But that said, the entire world has had little problem with child brides until very recently. As late as 1880 the age of consent in most American states was ten years old. And I'm pretty sure that was not because of the example of Muhammad.

"Base nature" is a relative thing. I have almost nothing good to say about Muhammad. I do not believe he was a good man. But he was by any objective measure one of the greatest men who ever lived. What other creator of a great world religion wrote their foundational scripture, created a unitary political nation out of warring tribes, and then led that nation in combat and conquest? It does not matter that (in my opinion) he was a progressive paranoid schizophrenic. It does not matter that his personal character was that of the unrefined and brutal Arab warlord. Almost no other individual in all of human history has been as influential on the rest of the world and its history. Certainly Jesus was not.

You know what I would find miraculous? If Muhammad had not become an exemplar for millions of people, just because of the nature of people.

Religion is not actually about that. Religion is about social order and control not morality. Religion excises morality from rational consideration like a scalpel, and arbitrarily declares that which it finds convenient to enforce. If you want to elevate morality out of the gutter, religion has never been the appropriate tool for the task.

 

Response: The idiocy of such an argument is that your proof that Aisha even had sex with Muhammad to begin with is from a hadith that she herself states. Do you not realize the idiocy? To claim that it is a fact that Muhammad had sex with Aisha based on her own words means that you first have to acknowledge that Aisha speaks truthfully. As such, you must also accept that Muhammad was a true prophet, because Aisha said so as well. Simply put, to accept that Aisha had sex with Muhammad, you must also accept that he was a true prophet who treated her with love and kindness according to her own words as well. Since you don't accept the latter as truth, then you can't accept her having sex with Muhammad at 9 as well. Debunked as usual.

Furthermore, there was no harm done to Aisha as a result of her relationship and she grew to be a leader and scholar. So if the relationship of Muhammad and Aisha was pedophilia or rape, then according to your own logic, pedophilia and rape is actually a great thing, since the marriage of Muhammad and Aisha had nothing but positive effects on Aisha's life. Thus you've done nothing but expose your own perverted ideology for showing that pedophilia and rape is a good thing.Debunked as usual.

 

Horse manure..

 

Nothing in that alleged "debunking" made sense.

That Aisha said Muhammad was a true prophet means only that she believed that he was a true prophet. I don't think anyone in their right mind imagines that Aisha was actually a secret apostate, so such a belief on her part is entirely unremarkable. As such, your use of the word "idiocy" in that context is pure irony.

 

Why don't you elaborate Einstein?

There should be a new rule in this forum, nobody should be allowed to post stupid two word comments with no meaning.

Your two word comment consists the word 'manure' (sh1t), not my five hundred word opinion. In other words you jumped off a wall twice and in both occasions landed on manure twice while I jumped off a wall five hundred times and never landed on manure once so shut the fk up you retired old dog..... To have a degree in history and religion is like having a degree in Star Wars universe , you're just 'informed' and "knowledgeable" about fairy tales, history is his-story while religion is man made so stop trying to justify Muhammed's paedophilia act.

Once a manure, always a manure.

An apple is always an apple

Good is always good

Evil is always evil

In the past they thought eating humans was right, so you justify that yes?

 

Feel free to elaborate on that.

 

And do you know why it was not punished? Because over a 1000 year's ago, this was not considered a punishable act.

There are not any records of any of Muhammad's (pbuh) enemies even using his marriage to insult him.

And Aisha (ra) was about to be married off beforehand. Proving that child marriages were the norm.

You say these are outlawed today. Then explain why ACLU defended NAMBLA (That is, North America Man Boy Love Association) in 2000?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20000831/aponline171914_000.htm

I hate to bring a thread off-topic, but your post was too tempting.