Montreal imam ordered detained as flight risk until deportation

"A flight risk until deportation", now that is ironic.

Maybe the imam will just be more expeditious in his own banishment, the key to deportation being an absolute mandate that he never return, with that mandate being enforced.

Strange (and hilarious) how they aren't just content to get somewhere, but somehow feel so compelled to make a scene at an airport...then wonder why when they draw attention to themselves, they actually GET it.

Beyond absurd...but hey, it's an imam.
'nuf sed

Re: the recent crop of GOOD NEWS against global Jihadism; Canada stepping up; Maldives cracking down; Al Qaida in Iraq getting their asses handed to them...what gives? Is it too early to celebrate...at least a little? At least to crack a beer in honor of small battles being won against this all too often formidable scourge?

Yeah. It seems like a crop of good news, FINALLY!

I sure look forward to the effect of the Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week to start on Oct 22 in US campuses.

The article says he claims that he'll be tortured in Tunisia, blah blah. He looks pretty young, and has a native Quebecois wife (crazy Western female alert). I hope he never returns to N. America, but I'll bet he turns up in Dearborn within a year.

Just your average, everyday pastor, right?

He isn't being deported because he's an extremist; that's just a coincidence. He's being deported because he lied to get into the country, got caught and the judge doesn't believe he'll be tortured if returned to his home country.

The "I'll be tortured if you send me back" defense usually works quite well in Canada. That's why the lawyer said in the article, "Mr. Jaziri has no confidence left [in the system]. He's discouraged and doesn't want to continue the process."

All illegals know how to work the system and it "failed" poor, discouraged Mr. Jaziri this time.

He even found himself a nice anchor wife. Too bad their anchor baby isn't born yet; that usually helps an illegal get citizenship.

"The "I'll be tortured if you send me back" defense usually works quite well in Canada."

...tell him , "You will tortured if you stay."

///opps....should be " you will be...."

Quebecers, and Canadians in general are making their dismay over multiculturalism more prominent. The Toronto Star, the country's largest paper and the most looney lib left paper, surprised me by publishing the following article yesterday about Quebec and "reasonable accommodation", critical about the results of 30 years of muticulturalism. There may be hope for Canada yet. A must read:

http://www.thestar.com:80/comment/article/267619

Multiculturalism under the microscope in Quebec

FRED CHARTRAND/THE CANADIAN PRESS

Oct 17, 2007 04:30 AM
George Abraham

OTTAWA – Think of Canada as a huge social experiment with 32 million people. New people are being introduced every year – at the highest rate in the world – and predictably, there is concern about how the new and old get along.

Thirty-five years after defining multiculturalism for the world, Canada is having second thoughts. It's no longer about what Canadians can do for new immigrants; it's about what new immigrants should do to fit in. The new mantra might well be "reasonable accommodation."

The cradle for this shift is in Quebec where a government-appointed commission on the obligations of society toward new immigrants is changing the terms of the debate. Headed by a renowned sociologist-philosopher duo, the Bouchard-Taylor Consultation Commission on Accommodation Practices Related to Cultural Differences is travelling across the province tapping public opinion.

In one of its first hearings, the commission heard from a public servant who was clearly tired of what she saw as the Canadian tendency to bend over backward. "We took Catholicism out of our lives, but left all this room for all the other religions ... apparently, it's not going both ways. People are expecting to arrive here and still live like they are in Baghdad," she lamented.

More recently, a 67-year-old retired engineer in Saguenay said, "I fear that foreigners will impose their values on us, so we'll lose our place. It's like I invite someone into my home and he slowly shows me the door."

They seemed to echo Quebec Premier Jean Charest, who framed the issue with the following words: "Our charters have always aimed to protect minorities against abuses by the majority. They were never designed to allow the contrary."

The leader of the separatist Parti Québécois went even further. "Let's stop being afraid ... Afraid to seem intolerant," Pauline Marois told her party.

Similar thoughts are being expressed elsewhere, particularly in much of Western Europe, the U.S. and Australia. But besides being a prelude to a wider, national debate across Canada, it is happening in a country that gave the world the concept of multiculturalism and itself stands as a poster child for its merits. Canadians rarely thump their chests, but when they do they like to crow about their invention of the policy of multiculturalism.

The word itself is open to interpretation and means different things to different people. It can mean tolerance, a "mosaic" model for assimilation, pluralism, but above all, the equality of all cultures. According to Janice Gross Stein, director of the Munk Centre for International Studies at the University of Toronto and a contributor to the recently published Uneasy Partners: Multiculturalism and Rights in Canada, "Canadians of all backgrounds and cultures are free to be themselves."

That is what the author of the policy, then-prime minister Pierre Trudeau, probably had in mind when he legislated it in 1971. But the world has changed since then. With Chinese and Indian nationals dominating new arrivals that constitute the highest rate of immigration in the world, making a fifth of the population now foreign-born, newcomers have become a more visible presence in Canada. Importantly, the majority of them are not of English or French stock, and few see the need to "fit in," that is, narrow the differences between themselves and the native-born.

In Uneasy Partners, Stein sees a natural evolutionary process unfolding. "Now, I would argue, we are in a second stage, where a deeply embedded culture of individual rights is challenging cultural and religious practices that infringe on our concept of equality. Our perpetual dialogue on these issues has shifted direction."

And shifted it has, most dramatically in Quebec, which has been quite literally on the rough edge of tensions between old and new Canadians. As one of the commissioners, Gerard Bouchard, said before the show hit the road, "It's clear that there's a minority, maybe a tiny minority, here in Quebec that has reached a point of exasperation."

Bouchard has said that Quebecers themselves may be a tad insecure about their future as a secular, French-speaking nation. Unlike the people of other provinces, the people of Quebec "were not raised with a vision of plurality," he surmised.

While there is no general angst over the number of immigrants Quebec receives – 59 per cent of Quebecers said in a recent survey that they are happy taking in 45,000 of the 250,000 arrivals to Canada every year – there is clearly an attitudinal shift underway.

If Quebec chooses to change its terms of endearment, it cannot be long before the rest of Canada begins posing exactly the same questions that Quebec is confronted with today.

Flight risk. Risk to flight.

"It's like I invite someone into my home and he slowly shows me the door."

...yep....ban Muslim Immigration....

A promising start.

The CBC still funds an idiot fantasy program called "Little Mosque On the Prairie" which has no muslim actors in it,

which is more like the United Church's rendition of how we should all act towards one another (the fantasy of the soft left),

which is well and good unless your neighbour is trying to kill you.

which are fine sentiments unless you are being set up to being anaethetized to your own
destruction.

way to go CBC. This political correctness will kill your citizenry in first making them stupid.

Funded by the public and national Canadian Broadcasting Corporation means that all the citizens of Canada pay for this foolish program about an imaginary mosque - as against the real Saudi funded mosques.

Canadians rarely crow about how great multiculturalism is? What planet am I living on? I could have sworn that I've lived in Canada for the past 25 years? They must be talking about a different 'Canada'.

I like how this article spends almost all of it's time focusing on Quebec. I'd like to point out to all of you who are not Canadian that is is what passes for discourse in this country. They are a people, a culture, worthy of protecting and we are not. We do not matter one bit. This is hardly shocking coming from the Red Star (the unofficial rag of the Liberal Party of Canada). According to them millions of Canadians live in poverty and Israel uses disproportionate responses when dealing with Palestinian activists. In other words, "a complete load of bollocks". I wouldn't touch their view of 'man-made global warming" with a ten foot pole, and luckily in this forum I don't have to.

Cultural relativism is still entrenched in this article and through-out the country as a whole, so don't expect anything to change. Canadians are going to learn the hard way when their country begins to break down in front of them as it's beginning to now. Government-funded nihilism in the guise of tolerance towards foreigners has already started to wear thin very fast. As far as change is concerned, in a country which has never really grown up from being a colony, the right conditions do not exist in the North (Canada) as they do in the South (the States). The States were founded on protest, Canada came into being AGAINST those who protested. Essentially, Canada is a nation of lethargic finks.

People are free to be themselves? I hate to break the news to these sociologists and anthropologists, but Canada was a free place long before the advent of multiculturalism. In their eyes (and in the eyes of the federal and provincial governments) Canadians would slip back into their natural racist and imperialistic ways the second 'official' multiculturalism is done away with. Politicians in Canada have zero respect for their own citizens so why are you expecting a change? A recent decision in British Columbia has given Muslims the right to smoke in public, but regular folk will be arrested for breaking the law if they try to. Foreigners who just arrived in our country are respected enough by our elite to make choices based in the realm of their 'cultural traditions', but a Canadian is not smart enough to do the same or at least that's the logic coming from this law and the view of our elite.

They strip our culture bare in an Orwellian fashion by rewriting history (this version is the past) and suddenly Canada doesn't have a past (unless it's a First Nations or Quebecois past we're talking about, then by all means go ahead). Canada is a weird place. Official high school textbooks like to refer to the country as being a hotel (if you can imagine that). You can be a French Canadian, a Nigerian Canadian, a Ukrainian Canadian, a Filipino Canadian, but if you're a WASP you're just an "Anglophone" and "white" (whatever that's suppose to mean). They give a majority of Canadians the most simplistic and superficial of cultural designations; you're an Anglophone because that's the language you speak (as if language was the be-all-and-end-all of a culture) and you're white cause that's the colour of your skin (but I thought a person is more than just the colour of their skin?).

"All cultures are equal" means that in the end, Canadian culture has no place in Canada.

dgene,

By the way, in relation to "Little Mosque On The Prairie" you're right in saying that they don't actually have any Muslim actors on that show, but did you know that the Imam on that show, the actor himself, is on another show called 'Metropia' which is on CFMT every night at eleven? He plays a gay man and if memory serves he's originally from India (he has an affair with another Indian man, both of whom are not Muslim). Metropia is funny in that it's like the old Cosby Show in that every white guy that ends up on there is just plain dumb (the black chick even ends up at one point torturing a white man who apparently did something to her friend, I don't honestly watch the show enough to know what's going on in any great detail mind you). But there you go, in Canada you can be a Hindu playing a gay man one second and a deceptively 'progressive' imam the next. I wonder if our Muslim neighbours are watching Metropia at all? Some how I doubt it.

"By the way, in relation to "Little Mosque On The Prairie" you're right in saying that they don't actually have any Muslim actors on that show.."
--- from a posting above

Of course they don't. Any more than they have Muslims playing Muslims in such movies as "My Son the Fanatic." Hindu and Sikh actors, including some well-known ones, are getting employment thanks to the need for "Muslim" roles to be filled.

Ask yourself two questions.

Why could the character of Apu (the Indian owner of a seven-elevenish store), on The Simpsons, never ever have been made a Muslim?

And why, on The Office (American edition), could the character played by Mindy Chokalingam (reduced for obvious reasons to "Kaling") never be a Muslim, because if that character had any verisimilitude, she would not, could not, be funny, and would leach all the possible humor out of the entire "Office" situation?

In other words, those who produce, those who direct, those who write these shows -- without saying a word -- know perfectly well what the introduction of a real Muslim character, as opopsed to a fake Muslim of Bushian or Karen-Hughesian fantasies and espositoish propaganda, would do to their shows.

That says a lot. That speaks volumes. We merely need to turn the volume, on those volumes, up.

Toronto Sun (considered "right wing" by many)Multiculturalism has a down side By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN (posted earlier but for those who didn't see it - it's not that OT)
http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Goldstein_Lorrie/2007/10/11/4567013.php

Politicians like to pretend they lead public opinion, but they don't. They follow it.

In the case of the legitimate reservations ordinary Canadians have long had about whether government-driven "official multiculturalism" is uniting Canadians or, in fact, dividing them along cultural, religious and ethnic lines, mainstream politicians have finally come to the party -- more than 30 years too late.

Throughout the 1970s, '80s and '90s, average Canadians who expressed any doubts about whether government-imposed multiculturalism and its many offshoots were working in Canada's best interests, were likely to be labelled as bigots and racists by mainstream politicians of all stripes -- Liberals, of course, but also New Democrats and Progressive Conservatives -- and by much of the Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal intelligentsia.

But today, more than three decades later, concerns about the potential downsides of state-sanctioned multiculturalism have finally reached the long-deaf ears, and are now being given a voice by, Canada's elite chattering classes. . . .

. . .In the Ontario election, Conservative Leader John Tory snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, despite facing a promise-breaking Liberal premier, by proposing public funding for the faith-based schools of other religious minorities, similar to how Ontario already funds Catholic schools.

Premier Dalton McGuinty, . . ., successfully seized on Tory's proposal and accused him of wanting to "segregate"children by religion, thus attacking, McGuinty claimed, Ontario's "social cohesion."

On CBC's Rick Mercer Report -- perhaps the most reliable indicator of what Canada's elites consider safe, politically correct humour these days, Mercer ridiculed Tory's idea by showing a mock video of Osama bin Laden endorsing his faith-based school funding plan, acknowledging through humour what the premier had only suggested in code -- that it was the public funding of Muslim schools, more than Jewish, Sikh, Hindu or Christian ones, that was driving public concerns about the policy. . . .

Many opposed it because they believe in one, strong, secular, publicly funded school system and would prefer to achieve this by melding the Catholic system fully into the public one, rather than by funding more faith-based schools.

Moderate organizations such as the Muslim Canadian Congress, also criticized Tory's policy as socially divisive. Ironic, isn't it?

What I am pointing out, however, is the breathtaking irony that in the two provinces that like to think of themselves as the most "liberal" and "progressive" in Canada, Quebec and Ontario, the debate over the reasonable accommodation of minorities is raging and, ironically, is being led by the very political elites who for more than 30 years, were preaching a far different message to Canadians.

That was that any questioning of official multiculturalism and its offshoots was likely indicative not of genuine concerns about the impacts of the policy on the cohesiveness of Canadian society, but of darker motives such as bigotry and racism. (excerpted - end of article)

Of course this shows hypocrisy and opportunism on the pols' part, but this editorial is another indicator how many Canadians are fed up with forced multiculturalism and the tide might just be turning.

...at least APU has personality...

This is not good news.

If the purp has Canadian citizen wife, she can sponsor his immigration any time now, even if he's been deported.
And because he is a husband, he will be given a priority over, let's say, my parents who worked every day of their lives in civil engineering and are going to retire soon.
Even if he has a record in France and now a record in Canada, he is still eligible for family class immigration. It's a big question if the bureaucrats at Citizenship and Immigration Canada will exercize good judgment and throw her/his application away, but there is no guarantee.

Bottom line, he anchored himself in Canada using that stupid broad and he may roach back thru a crack in the floor.

Jaziri is indeed an interesting case. Apparently he's been evading the immigration authorities since they started trying to deport him in 2005.

But in 2006 he was apparently attacked by a knife-wielding islamophobe. Funny, nothing else about this attack appeared in the media later. I wonder if it was staged to try to change the momentum of the case against him -- perhaps to reinforce the case that he fears persecution (though I'm not sure how an attack in Canada would reinforce his case against deportation because of a fear of reprisals back in Tunisia; there's no accounting for some people's thoughts, though) -- and when the truth came out the press said "move along, nothing to see here".

Another example, apparently, of attempting to use victim status to gain sympathy and privileges and as a defensive measure.

He was also involved in the anti-cartoon protests in Montreal. Apparently some of the more moderate mosques told their people not to attend because with the rhetoric being whipped up they were afraid some folks (Jaziri, maybe?) were agitating for things to get violent.

To add to Hugh Fitzgerald's list, there is also the Muslim character on "Lost", played by a British man of Indian descent. I'm pretty sure the actor is not a Muslim.

This character, "Sayid" (sp?), had a sexual relationship, outside of marriage, with a non-Muslim woman but he is also shown praying and saying "Allahu Akbar", etc.

Tens of thousands of Christians are being forced to sell their homes in southern Lebanon’s Christian, and Christian and Muslim mixed towns. These Christians inhabited the same land from the beginning of time; they are the natives of the Middle East. There is a cleansing of Lebanese Christians in southern Lebanon that no one is paying attention to. Not even one Christian home is being allowed to remain; every Christian is being harassed daily and nightly until they break and sell out. (If you ever watched one of the many movies where some rich company terrorizes homeowners in an attempt to force them to sell, it is the same thing that is happening in southern Lebanon. Except this time, there is no happy ending. Horses, chickens, and other livestock are being locked into barns and burned alive. Bombs are being thrown on the roofs of Christian homes. Muslim kids are constantly ambushing Christian homes with rocks. Southern Lebanese Christians are getting no peace.)

One can’t help but wonder what the hell future are we making for ourselves if we allow the people evicting us over there to come here and setup the same model they used over there.

"One can’t help but wonder what the hell future are we making for ourselves if we allow the people evicting us over there to come here and setup the same model they used over there.

Posted by: ofcourse"

....you do not want these people in your neighborhood...Ban Muslim Immigration...

Bingo wrote:
"The article says he claims that he'll be tortured in Tunisia, blah blah."
=========================================

That's the dilemma with Guantanamo Bay. The Dhimmis would never let the Gitmo prisoners be repatriated to there native countries, where they could be tortured or summarily beheaded!

If John Edwards were president, the Gitmo prisoners would be released to the US Justice system, where they would sue for damages. They would be released on bail unless deemed a flight risk (or risk to airline flights)?

Interestingly enough, the "lack of respect for laws of " is a carbon-copy of the reason that Ayaan Hirsi Ali had her problems in the Netherlands and is currently living in the United States. Odd, when Ali does it, it is defending the West. When it's a Muslim, it's a blanket disregard for Western laws.

From dictionary.com:
islamophobia (noun): prejudice against Muslims

Spencer, to answer your rhetorical question that every day you seem to do some more whining about: Yes. You are.

Just doing some thinking....

By the way, ArabNews did a realatively great sum-up on the Aisha issue with those Tabari discussions that you have been looking for (and it's in English too, so you don't have to worry). Probably just a minority opinion, but you quote the source on occasion.

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=5§ion=0&article=99257&d=3&m=8&y=2007

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=5§ion=0&article=98423&d=13&m=7&y=2007

...flight risk?....what kind of shoes does he wear?...

@american

Asalam Aleykum, brother.

here are the sources from our holy books. please don't make up lies for the infidels. Muhammad (PBUH)married a little pre-pubescent child. Yes he did! And verily Allah Tallah knows best. So, do you have a problem with that? Maybe you spend too much time around the filthy kuffar?

Aisha — 9 year-old bride

Sahih Bukhari

Narrated Aisha: The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Allright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's Blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age. Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234

Narrated 'Aisha: I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13) Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151

Sahih Muslim

Chapter 10: IT IS PERMISSIBLE FOR THE FATHER TO GIVE THE HAND OF HIS DAUGHTER IN MARRIAGE EVEN WHEN SHE IS NOT FULLY GROWN UP.

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house at the age of nine. She further said: We went to Medina and I had an attack of fever for a month, and my hair had come down to the earlobes. Umm Ruman (my mother) came to me and I was at that time on a swing along with my playmates. She called me loudly and I went to her and I did not know what she had wanted of me. She took hold of my hand and took me to the door, and I was saying: Ha, ha (as if I was gasping), until the agitation of my heart was over. She took me to a house, where had gathered the women of the Ansar. They all blessed me and wished me good luck and said: May you have share in good. She (my mother) entrusted me to them. They washed my head and embellished me and nothing frightened me. Allah's Messenger (, may peace be upon him) came there in the morning, and I was entrusted to him. Book 8, Number 3309.

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old. Book 8, Number 3310

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and he was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old. Book 8, Number 3311

...flight risk?....what kind of shoes does he wear?...
Posted by: exsgtbrown

Ummm...PF Flyers?
(/sarc)
(remember those old things)
LOL

TheDiggler-

A very compelling post. Things are Orwellian up in Canada with regards to PC and multiculturalism. Are there ANY conservative voices up there?

Not so Orwellian anymore, under comrage Chretien the flight risk imam would have stayed, but he is getting detained and deported under Harper.

comrage = comrade

"By the way, in relation to "Little Mosque On The Prairie" you're right in saying that they don't actually have any Muslim actors on that show.."

To add to Hugh's list the main Muslim terrorist in Season 4 of 24 was played by a South African. The main Muslim terrorist in Season 6 of 24 was played by a Greek.

As a dissenting POV, I'm Canadian by birth, am almost 40, and have NEVER heard a single person outside of a flakey ex-girlfriend extol the virtues of multiculturalism. Granted, I live in a rural area, but one right outside of Ottawa in the midst of a couple million people, so it's not like I'm in the boonies.

The average person here hates the whole multicult philosophy. It represents nothing more than the hijacking of Canada by the supposedly intellectual elite that came into vogue with Trudeau in the 1970s. This made the Liberals so popular in the cities that nobody could really stand against them, so we wound up with decades of silent majorities sitting back and waiting for the tide to turn.

And it has. The old Trudeau elite are all dead, and those who seem to want to carry on his legacy, like Dion and the fools that got him elected leader of the federal Liberals, have no legitimacy here anymore. As always, the papers are last to the party in picking up on how people really feel. Look at what just happened in Ontario. You might think this was another lefty win in Canada, but the Liberal win in Ontario was a win for sanity, as the Conservatives were the ones planning to fund faith-based schools (ie. madrassas) and basically usher in a whole new era of multiculturalism. An election that the lying Liberals seemed doom to lose turned into a huge win, solely because of outrage all over the province against faith-based schools.

But I do wish people would scrap the labels. Bush is a supposed conservative, but he's spewing the most dangerous, ridiculous nonsense about Islam and is allowing the US to be swamped with illegal immigration. How is that conservative? Or sane, for that matter? And here, we've got a Conservative party in Ontario pledging to fund madrassas with public money and a Liberal party fighting against this.

The old labels aren't valid anymore. If they ever were, IMHO.

OutOfAqaba-
Very astute comments.

Ya may have a point on the Bush factor, OutOfAqaba...

Bush sounds naive with uttering naive ridiculous nonsense, allowing illegals etc...old news.

Problem is, his counterparts are mostly the exact opposite, in some cases, almost as if an anti-matter opposite-claiming to criticize islam (especially while campaigning, often contradicting previous positions, and at times the wind changes upon momentary convenience, or camera shot) and/or feigns toughness on the same, while covertly aiding and abetting them, illegals, etc...
http://www.discoverthenetwork.org
Pretty frightening.

It's not "old labels" that aren't valid anymore, but you're on the right track...it's old lexicons that have been *ahem* "redefined" by the PC BS.
...it's called political correctness, which has replaced its age-old implacable foe in realityland: common sense-and it's killing us.

That's 90% of the battle right there...once purged, and we revert back to common sense (they two are not compatible in any way) everything else will come a LOT easier.

"Ummm...PF Flyers?
(/sarc)
(remember those old things)
LOL

Posted by: jcom972 "

...with PF Flyers, you can jump higher and run faster....I wore them...but I discovered I could not jump higher or run faster, but my wallet was lighter...

Ynke,

Unfortunately, there is something called thought, which I am afraid to say that there are many in this world who don't bother with it, Muslim or Spencer's famed Methodists. In a society over 1000 years before hospitals/birth records and a society that valued the association of spoken rather than written word (until roughly 50 years after Mohamed's time) dates get screwed up.

As you should probably know, there is no set year for Mohamed's birth. Yes, the Year of the Elephant, however we are not sure when that was. Assumably, it was 1428 + 53 years ago, although with the Islamic reliance on lunar calendars and the fact that the maturity of mathematics didn't develop until the middle of the Ummayid period we cannot be sure of the dates. If there are aspects of the founder of Islam (one of the most well-documented persons who ever existed) such as his birth contain significant amounts of question and debate then definitely that of one of those around him could be brought into the same question, even though there is a hadith with her literally saying otherwise.

The validity of the hadith (sahih to whatever degree) is irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether the sourcing is correct or whether she actually said it which it is rather apparent that she did, but rather was what was said correct. Aisha was not given "wahi" in this sense and hadiths on what she said carry a much different degree of analysis than those of Mohamed, as I am sure that you are aware. Aisha was extremely intellegent and a very powerful woman, by far one of the greatest of the first batch of Islamic scholars, who had a significant impact and was one of the primary sources regarding the first collection of the Quran. Regardless of that, we must understand that in terms of dates the system was different back then, and far less accurate for scholars as well as the general population. There are those from the Sahaba who have different ages reported in the hadiths that don't match up.

Your response is unfortunately that of someone who is very close to Spencer and his types: one of a lack of education in Islam. What education you do possess you cling to violently in the fear that someone might have a legitimate challenge to it. Islam requires thought and demands it of its followers. One must constantly strive to increase his knowledge, even if it is knowledge of non-Islamic aspects. There were members of the Sahaba who went to learn Hebrew among the Jews of Yathrib/Medina and who dealt with them on a very close basis. This was and is not wrong in Islam. I hope that this discussion will bring some light to the issue.

Just doing some thinking...

Ynke,

I have digressed from the main point and this discussion is for another time. Please stick to the point at hand: the double-talk of this website. When a non-Muslim does something, it is simply a murderer, law-breaker, nothing more. However, when a Muslim does something, it is the unabashed ignorance of Western laws, or a part of the Jihad.

Just doing some thinking....

The validity of the hadith (sahih to whatever degree) is irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether the sourcing is correct or whether she actually said it which it is rather apparent that she did, but rather was what was said correct.
--posted by an American

Let me see if I understand. The validity of the sacred texts DOES NOT MATTER.

It's whatever I feel like believing?

Cool, I'm ready to be a good Muslim!

I'll cancel out any part of the religion I feel like because it may or may not be correct. I'll think about it; think about it some more because in the end the validity of the source is irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether the sourcing is correct or whether anything which was said to have happened actually happened but rather whether or not it was correct and I'll never know. So I can pick and choose whatever I want to believe as long as I'm thinking. Always thinking. Very unlike the Jews and Christians who actually believe that their Holy Texts are sacred and flawless.
--posted by an American

“The validity of the hadith (sahih to whatever degree) is irrelevant.” An Imaginary American

Yet the majority of Muslims everywhere base the minimum age of marriage on that.

“Your response is unfortunately that of someone who is very close to Spencer and his types: one of a lack of education in Islam.” An Imaginary American

Why? Because they do not parrot the propaganda of Islam?

“Islam requires thought and demands it of its followers. One must constantly strive to increase his knowledge, even if it is knowledge of non-Islamic aspects.” An Imaginary American

Yeah, like memorizing the Quran and nothing but the Quran. Keeping your females uneducated. And contributing nothing to humanity in 1400 years, except looting non-Muslims, destroying non-Muslim communities and cultures, erasing history, etc. Reality check buddy!

Muslims respect Western laws?

http://wnyt.com/article/stories/S229191.shtml?cat=300

Members of Albany’s Muslim Solidarity Committee say they will do everything in their power to ensure Glenn Suddaby doesn’t receive the nomination. The activists formed their group after the arrest and conviction of Mohammad Hossain, an Albany pizza shop owner, and Yassin Aref, an Albany imam.

...

“We consider this was a great injustice, really, against Muslims and against the principles on which the U.S. stands, really” Shamshad Ahmad said at the mosque.

Aref used to be the imam at the mosque. But he and Hossain, a fellow mosque member, will spend the next 15 years in prison.

Many in the Islamic community believe it was the work of Suddaby that put them there.

“To hear that this person was nominated based on the entrapment case, I was appalled. Angry and appalled,” said May Saffar of the Muslim Solidarity Committee.

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/LAW/08/10/mosque.hearing/index.html

ALBANY, New York (CNN) — A Muslim cleric and a founder of his mosque pleaded not guilty at a detention hearing Tuesday to charges of conspiring to launder money and promote terrorism.

Federal magistrate David Homer denied bail for Yassin Aref, 34, and Mohammed Hossain, 49, and remanded them to custody, saying the government had proved the two were flight risks.

Gerry sez: I sure look forward to the effect of the Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week to start on Oct 22 in US campuses.

Gerry, did you hear that the IslamoFacists were honored and commended in the U.S. Congress on October 2? Right: the House unanimously passed H.Res. 635 (check it on the web), honoring the IslamoFascist "holiday of Ramadan, and commending Muslims nationally and workdwide for their faith." Please remember, Gerry, this is the same religion that forced two airliners to smash into the World Trade Center in New York City on September 11, 2001, and kill over 3,000 innocent civilians, including those who lost their lives in the Pentagon plane crash, and those also, who lost their lives in the Pennsylvania country-side. This is the SAME religion that swears to kill every non-believer in the world (that includes you and me). Think of it: the U.S. Congress unanimously passed that resolution.

While we're on the subject of Congress and religion: Since when does the U.S. Congress recognize ANY religion? Does the U.S. Constitution recognize any religion? I think NOT!! The Constituton merely guarantees each and everyone of us born under it, the FREEDOM of religion! That was one of the main purposes of creating the Constitution; seeing to it that we were free from having to serve ANY State religion.

I've written to my congressional representatives regarding both of the issues I just mentioned, and I hope that everyone reading this does the same.

"Islam is associated with Islamic terrorism because that is the association that the terrorists themselves choose to make.

Muslims who compare crime committed by people who happen to be nominal members of other religions to religious terror committed explicitly in the name of Islam are comparing apples to oranges."

Ynke,

I appreciate your analysis. As Mr. Spencer has suggested to many others before as well as to myself I woud now suggest it to you: take a reading comprehension class. You quoted the hadith and made sure to say SAHIH BUKHARI (also in caps I believe) because you as well as Mr. Spencer use it to say "if it's sahih, then it must be true, totally." Yeah. Sahih is a rating of its sourcing, not the context of its content. I assumed that you understood this, but apparently my previous statement is showing to be even more true than before: you don't know much about Islam.

Also, I am not cancelling out any part of the religion, nor changing it. In Aqeeda, you are taught that certain things are requirements, or "pillars" if you will of the religion. Not simply the five pillars of acts as are commonly understood, but the additional pillars of belief. This statement does not alter nor remove any of the pillars.

In addition, I am not changing anything about Aisha as well. This doesn't change the fact that she married Mohamed in the first year after the Hijra. This doesn't change the fact that she is known as the Mother of the Believers. This doesn't change the fact that she was largely responsible for the first gathering of the Quran. This changes nothing about who she was nor any aspect about her life, much less noting that according to Islamic belief her existence is irrelevant to the preservation of Islam because that is God's responsibility.

Just doing some thinking...

Ofcourse,

Please provide evidence to the last paragraph. It is quite a bit of "parroting anti-Islamic propaganda" if I do say so myself. With this discussion of Aisha, this removes your lack of female education argument. As for the memorization of the Quran and the Quran only, I would call your attention to the many other scientific aspects that are carried out by Muslims independent of Quranic memorization. As for the lack of worldly contribution, see the second quote that you took from me, about "lack of education" but you can remove the Islam part and it will make sense a lot more in this matter.

When it comes to the fact that a majority of Muslims look to this as the verification of her age this is no doubt true. However, those among that majority who are educated in any degree of Islamic sciences (of which there are quite a few despite what your response might contain) understand that there are different points of view and also understand the time-oriented problems faced. As I have said before, I live in Egypt and have had many discussions with Muslims, some on this matter. Most of them, "educated" or not, do go first for the 9 figure. However, I have never met somebody who stops there; they continue and explain to me that there are other points of view and that, interestingly enough despite the hopes and prayers of you and Mr. Spencer, nothing in Islam rests on one hadith alone, regardless of its strength.

Ynke,

I apologize and I missed something that you mentioned and I need to clarify it before we continue:

Hadith are not sacred texts, period. Not Hadith al-Qudsi either. The story of Mohamed is not sacred. The life of Aisha is not sacred. The Quran is sacred. The issue at hand is as you have put it so well is hadith, and not Quran. Again, I would please ask you to stick to the issue at hand.

Also, I have to clear out another point. Most Jews and Christians living in the world today to not believe that their texts are literal, with the exception of a minority of Christians and religious Jews (although my knowledge of Judaism is lacking slightly). I have never heard a Muslim make these accusations as you have, rather the opposite. It goes against quite a bit of the Islamic world's mindset, which I don't believe that you have ever experienced.

In your last little rant (which was incorrectly attributed to me, and I hope that you realize that) you have summed up the most important aspect of Islam, and any other religion for that matter: faith (and the subsequent thought that goes with it):

????? ?????? ?????? --- ??? ??? ?????

forgive me if the Arabic doesn't show up. Again, I would ask you to specify what aspect of the religion that I have changed. The fact that a woman was 9 as opposed to 16 or even 20....I am curious to know how that fundamentally changes Islam or opens the door to any other changes to things. Islam does not restrict discussion on this issue as long as evidence is provided and I believe that the Sheikh in the articles provided good backup.

Just doing some thinking...

"The validity of the hadith (sahih to whatever degree) is irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether the sourcing is correct or whether she actually said it which it is rather apparent that she did, but rather was what was said correct."

American, I could not agree with you more. However, if you were honest you would have to admit that your flawed logic would quite naturally require an extension to the totality and subsequent validity of Islam itself. Thereby rendering it irrelevant also - for you at least.

I seriously doubt that many in this forum really give a rat's wrinkled rectum whether some desert tyrant of olde was a child molester or not. Frankly, historical context and validity aside, the truth is no longer important. Nor is it even remotely the point. It never was. The real issue here - and what is of critical importance - is that the vast majority of 21st century Muslims wholeheartedly accept the veracity of their 7th century foundational texts as they stand. Sacred or not, the very texts which insist that (by progressive Western moral and ethical standards at least) Muhammad was indeed a felonious pedophile. By your own admission - as well as that of the article you linked to - your view is a minority one. If you really were doing some thinking while you were "just doing some thinking..." you might have come to the realization that in this case this renders your opinion most irrelevant of all. That's not an ad hominem, that's just my own irrelevant opinion.

I understand the cognitive dilemma this obviously presents for you, but no amount of revisionism at this point, or feeble attempts at confusing the issue with questions as to the veracity or even the importance of the hadith in the development of Islam as it stands today, can gloss over the fact that well over a billion Muslims accept their prophet as the perfect human being for all time. Represented as is, abhorrent warts and all.

Professional marketers used to have a term for what you are attempting to do. Taking an intolerant, militant, 7th century creed which demonizes non-believers and repackaging it for a progressive 21st century market. It's called selling the sizzle instead of the steak. Luckily though, not everyone is rushing out to buy your new and improved product just yet. Not even your most loyal customers.

"Interestingly enough, the "lack of respect for laws of " is a carbon-copy of the reason that Ayaan Hirsi Ali had her problems in the Netherlands and is currently living in the United States. Odd, when Ali does it, it is defending the West. When it's a Muslim, it's a blanket disregard for Western laws."

.........Ms Ali did what she did to escape the Islamic cesspool she was trapped in....she made great strides in proving herself to be an honorable politician and human being....and yes, she did break some laws....the difference is that when Muslims break some laws, they do it for the ummah...with global domination of Non Muslims and Non Muslim lands in mind....and they do it because the Qur'an instructs it...

@american
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=5§ion=0&article=99257&d=3&m=8&y=2007
In the Arab News source (above), a Muslim expert says:

"What we need to know is that the Prophet’s personality was without blemish. If it was true that Ayesha was 9 at the time of her marriage, we accept that and we look for a reason to explain it."

Mr. American:

How does the preceeding quote jive with your assertion that in Islam we are supposed to think?

What this Muslim ASSUMES and takes as a point of faith is that Muhammad was without blemish. We must accept everything he did as being wonderful and simply rationalize it!

Was Muhammad God? Was Muhammad the Messiah? Was Muhammad conceived by Allah blowing ruch (spirit) directly into the womb of his mother? How can a human being be without blemish? I thought Muhammad was a human being...a man, a normal mortal?

On the contrary, the above Muslim writer takes it as a point of faith that Muhammad was above reproach. If Aisha was nine that's okay, he says. I guess by that line of reasoning: if Muhammad had 11 wives, that's fine. If he stole a wife from his own son-in-law, that's okay too. If he chopped off peoples heads that's okay because "he was without blemish." Anything terrible or disgusting that Muhammad did was fine because he was without blemish. Accept it and shut up and don't think seems to be the motto of Islam.

And yet you say, As a Muslim, I'm encouraged to think for myself. Well then, what I think is that Muhammad comes across as a terrorist, misogynist, and a self-fulfilling warlord. That's what any thinking person would conclude from reading about Muhammad. But as you can see from the above quote, Muslims are not supposed to think.

How can an ordinary man elevate himself above Jesus (His peace be upon me forever!). How can a warlord who stoned an unfaithful woman with his own hands compare to Jesus who said: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Do I want to live with people who worship a cold-hearted killer like Muhammad or people who worhsip the Prince of Peace?

It seems to me that Arabs are in competition with everybody else. Muhammad is their mascot, their rallying point and they use him to assert linguistic, cultural imperialistic claims. They say Muhammad was without blemish. They have to say that becausde Muhammad was an Arab. Muhammad spoke Arabic, so therefore, Arabic is the most Godlike language. Muhammad lived in Arabia, so we have to turn to Arabic when we pray. How is this not worshipping Muhammad. And yet I thought Muhammad was an ordinary man. Heck, even the Jews don't claim Moses was beyond blemish. But the Muslims are forced to worship Muhammad and that is why someone gets killed for drawing a cartoon of Muhammad. Jews don't give a crap if someone draws a picture of Moses.

Even the Christians who worhsip the Messiah don't sweat it if someone draws a cartoon of Jesus.

It seems to me that Islam shuts down thinking. Anyone who thinks for themselves and decides to leave Islam gets killed. How does that jive with your argument that Islam wants us to think for ourselves.

The hadith were important to clarify and explicate the Quran. I've been taught that they are holy books with profound insights into the religion. Yet they spend time describing semen stains on the Prophets garments. Where's the holiness in that? How does learning that Aisha scraped the semen stains off the Prophets garments make one get closer to god. It's disgusting, frankly.

I just don't get. I appreciate your time and efforts but your not helping me get any closer to Islam.

Shukran anyway.

For those of you who believe in the power of prayer, get busy on the Holy Land verdict! It has been sealed and the decision won't be opened and read until Monday. This group of men are as guilty as sin of sending money to Hamas!

Taqia,

Let me just make sure that I have this straight: it doesn't matter whether Aisha was nine but, "Muhammad was indeed a felonious pedophile." I find that interesting that you contradict yourself in the same paragraph. This shows again a complete disregard for Islamic history, the insitution of marriage and its changes over time and its differences between cultural systems. I know that you believe that your system is the best, and for that matter the only system worth using.

What you are trying to do is connect what is Islamic scholarship with modern-day practices. For this purpose, let's assume for a moment that is correct (which I have never heard a Muslim of any educational standing or lack thereof freeze at the fact that she was 9). She was 9, he had sex with her at 9, for the sake of your argument. So what? Let's take a look at the average marriage age for women in majority Muslim countries (because you are stating that all, or at least a vast majority of Muslims, are all carbon-copies of Mohammed's behavior because he was the perfect man--I'll take the top five and then add in a few other key nations that are used for political bashing):

Indonesia: 21.6
Pakistan: 21.6
India: 19.3
Bangladesh: 18.1
Egypt: 22.2
Turkey: 22.0
Saudi Arabia: 21.7
Iran: 21.0
(Source: United Nations World Marriage Patterns 2000)

So since you've dismissed the importance of whether she was 9 or not and said that Muslims all follow Mohammed because he's the perfect person, then we should look at what happens in the modern day. Apparently, you are incorrect here as well, because these numbers should be much lower if what you say is correct.

Your response will no doubt be that these figures don't matter and that the fact that Mohammed did it matters. I would ask you to choose a stance and then settle upon it, but that might be asking too much.

Just doing some thinking...

Ynke,

I don't have any purpose in bringing you closer to Islam. I am a practicing Episcopalean living in Cairo, Egypt.

With the discussion by Islamic scholars that Mohammed was without blemish, that is widely seen to be true. However, I have never met a Muslim in my life who doesn't understand that Mohammed lived in a different time and that things are different today, regardless of their education or religious leanings. Lessons are to be drawn from him, but carbon-copies of his history repeating itself over and over is unheard of.

Mohammed lived in Arabia, was tortured brutally, escaped multiple assassination attempts, and he and his followers had everything they owned taken from them (with a few exceptions) and moved to a land where they were surrounded on all sides (Rome, Quraish, etc.) by those who desired nothing more than his and his followers' death and destruction, all for the purposes of making sure that the Mecca--Damascus route stayed open.

As for the other jabs, let's take a look at the 11 wives. I have never heard this number before and the largest amount that he ever had a one time was 9. However, even the Quran removes that for Muslims, a source over that of Mohammed. Also, I would assume that you understand that marriage was not the same thing as it exists today, whether in Muslim countries or the West. Almost all of those marriages were for political purposes. Even today, most Muslims have a hard time even thinking about 4 because the insitution of marriage has changed drastically since that time and that change is perfectly permissable in the Quran and Islam.

Now, let's look at your wonderful spat at Arab-bashing. Why do Arabs have to say that Mohammed was without blemish because he was Arab? Arabs and Muslims say that all prophets were without blemish, Arab or not because they were prophets chosen by God.

Arabic is not the most Godlike language and I have no idea where that idea comes from. The Quran is in Arabic, and therefore it is used as a common liturgical language for all Muslims, in the same manner that Latin was used for over 1000 years as the common liturgical language of the Catholic Church. If Islam was so demanding of Arabic, why is it that the vast majority of Muslims today do not speak it and never did throughout Islamic history except through the language of international discourse?

Mohammed did live in Arabia, and Muslims do turn to Mecca when praying. However, Abraham and his son (whichever son you believe, regardless Abraham is the father of the three Abrahamic religions) also spent a large portion of ther lives in Arabia. The Kaaba is turned to in prayer because it is believed to have been there from the days of Adam and completed by Abraham. This is something that even the Quraish believed whole-heartedly and that Mohammed made very clear himself so I don't see the worshipping of Mohammed thing in there.

However, there is a point that I should make clear and that you are totally correct upon. When Muslims speak to non-Muslims, many of them place emphasis on Mohammed. That is because they believe that as Christians and Jews, we already know about the other prophets very well, and that the only thing missing is Mohammed. Therefore, why should a Muslim waste my time telling me or any Christian that Jesus was great when we already agree on that?

With the fact that there are Hadiths discussing seamen on his clothes (or whether he urinated standing up or not for that matter) shows how well-documented he was as a person, nothing more. I can assure you that Jesus, Moses, Abraham, and also Adam all urinated in their lives and that they all probably had seamen on their robes at one time in thier lives. It is not documented because these people were not documented well at the time. Even Jesus never had anybody around him perusing the details of his life, much less writing them down. I think that this goes to the argument that Mohammed was a man who lived amongst humans in human times.

Just doing some thinking...
(it's roo7 or rooh, by the way. Rooch is not an accepted variant)

An American

You have some nerve equating Christian concepts with Islamic concepts, not to mention being apologetic to the ugly Islamic ideology.

“Most Jews and Christians living in the world today to not believe that their texts are literal, with the exception of a minority of Christians and religious Jews (although my knowledge of Judaism is lacking slightly).” An Ass

What does this have to do with Islam? They believe the Quran is the literal word of Allah, the devil. A most ridiculous belief considering how it was written, even if it is as you say it was written. It was just recently acknowledged the difficulty this makes communicating with Muslims: "Muslims do not accept that one can discuss the Koran in depth, because they say it was written by dictation from God [Allah]," Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran said. "With such an absolute interpretation, it is difficult to discuss the contents of faith."

“The fact that a woman was 9 as opposed to 16 or even 20.... I am curious to know how that fundamentally changes Islam or opens the door to any other changes to things.” An Ass

Only that their most perfect human married a 6 year old, which makes him a pedophile.

“the most important aspect of Islam, and any other religion for that matter: faith (and the subsequent thought that goes with it):” An Ass

What does faith have to do with anything in Islam? Islam is a way of life for them. I can fill this page with references of Muslims defining it as such. It is an ideology that demands conformity!

I said: “Because they do not parrot the propaganda of Islam?” I forgot something there, like “willfully blind Western multiculti propaganda,” such as the Religion of Peace™. Do you assert Islam is a religion of peace An Ass? HEEEH! HEEEH!

“This shows again a complete disregard for Islamic history” An Ass this shows your complete disregard for thinking. What the hell are you doing in Egypt anyway? Try getting a church built there. Spend time investigating the history of the Copts, instead of wasting time trying to rationalize everything of Islam so the world can seem to you only a loving place.

“I know that you believe that your system is the best, and for that matter the only system worth using.” An Ass that makes this false: “I am a practicing Episcopalean”. You are a Christian apostate, admit it. How many times did Jesus warn us about false prophets?

“However, I have never met a Muslim in my life who doesn't understand that Mohammed lived in a different time and that things are different today, regardless of their education or religious leanings.” An Ass

Yeah, like wait for the right time to rebel against the Christians, as I noted in my first post on this thread, which is happening as we speak today. But don’t let that stop your delusion about Islam.

“Mohammed lived in Arabia, was tortured brutally, escaped multiple assassination attempts, and he and his followers had everything they owned taken from them (with a few exceptions) and moved to a land where they were surrounded on all sides (Rome, Quraish, etc.) by those who desired nothing more than his and his followers' death and destruction, all for the purposes of making sure that the Mecca--Damascus route stayed open.” An Ass

Oh please, you’re breaking my heart for that mass murderer. Mr. Perfect was nothing more than a depraved ugly sick egotistical creep who wanted to control the masses through religion. He wanted to be the master of all, using his epilepsy as a gimmick to convince the people of his self-serving revelations. I’m sure he got the epilepsy from dehydration in the caves.

“At first, Muhammad was only successful with friends and family. After thirteen years, “the street preacher” could boast only about 70 determined followers, called Muslims.
Relations with the Meccans turned particularly sour after an episode known as "the Satanic Verses," in which Muhammad agreed to recognize the local gods in addition to Allah. This delighted the Meccans, who generously extended their welcome. But Muhammad soon changed his mind after seeing his own people begin to lose faith in him. He claimed that Satan had spoken through him, and he rescinded recognition of the Meccan gods.
The locals intensified their mockery of Muslims and made life difficult for them. Although Muslims today often use the word "persecution" to describe this ordeal (justifiably, in some cases), it is important to note that no Meccan ever killed a Muslim during this period.
This fact is a source of embarrassment to Muslims, since Muhammad was the first to use deadly force... and at a later time, when it was unnecessary. As such, sympathetic narratives of the early Meccan years usually exaggerate the struggle of the Muslims with claims that they were "under constant torture."” http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/History.htm

“Almost all of those [11] marriages were for political purposes.” An Ass Do you really believer that?
“Arabic is not the most Godlike language and I have no idea where that idea comes from.” An Ass Satan wants to use Arabic to preach his religion.
“The Kaaba is turned to in prayer because it is believed to have been there from the days of Adam and completed by Abraham.” An Ass Is there no length that you’re willing to take to make justify things? Oh yeah, I forgot you’re a Muslim now.
“Arabs and Muslims say that all prophets were without blemish, Arab or not because they were prophets chosen by God.
….
When Muslims speak to non-Muslims, many of them place emphasis on Mohammed. That is because they believe that as Christians and Jews, we already know about the other prophets very well, and that the only thing missing is Mohammed. Therefore, why should a Muslim waste my time telling me or any Christian that Jesus was great when we already agree on that?” An Ass

You obviously never visited a Muslim forum, or saw what Muslims do to crosses.

“I think that this goes to the argument that Mohammed was a man who lived amongst humans in human times” [and was a pervert of a Muslim prophet.] Fixed it for you An Ass.

Merican,

"Let me just make sure that I have this straight: it doesn't matter whether Aisha was nine but, "Muhammad was indeed a felonious pedophile." I find that interesting that you contradict yourself in the same paragraph."

Regrettably no, American, you do not have it straight. I thought the concept was relatively simple. Apparently not. But rather than accuse you of cherry picking and twisting my words to support your own argument (a strategy you unabashedly employ with the hadith by the way), or even ask that you go back and slowly, carefully, re-read my post - I will attempt to condense it into one simple and unambiguous paragraph for you.

The absolute "truth" about the nature of Muhammad and Aisha's relationship has become irrelevant. Partly because - as is the base of your initial argument - we can no longer know the absolute truth, and partly because absolute truth is at best a transient, contextually dependent philosophical concept anyway. In place of absolute truth however - and what has become of immediate relevance and concern to contemporary Western sensibilities - is what the majority of practicing Muslims now accept as truth. Today. Even if you - a self described Episcopalian - do not.

I did not say that it did not matter if Aisha was nine or not. To the contrary, it was and remains of paramount importance. I clearly said that what really matters is if practicing Muslims believe she was. Which - by your own very carefully worded and qualified admissions - they do. I apologize if this still seems contradictory to you. I am sorry if the concept persists in abstraction. If so, then I must apologize yet again, for this is obviously due to some failing or inability on my part to communicate effectively.

If not, then I'm sure you can appreciate the full implication of this when attempting to square faithful Islamic acceptance at this fundamental level with progressive Western ideals. I suspect that even you would have to agree that - on this critical issue at least - the vast ideological gulf between the two can no longer be squared. Far from it. The breathtaking contrast in mindsets this issue serves to illustrate so effectively (and dare I say dangerously for you) is certainly not the only - but is arguably the single most important - stumbling block to the universal acceptance and validity of Islam in the West. And you obviously know it.

You accuse me of trying to connect Islamic scholarship with modern-day practice. Well, I'm happy you managed to get that part straight at least. Furthermore, are you suggesting that I can not? Are you serious?

"A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate vaginally, but sodomising the child is acceptable. If a man does penetrate and damage the child then, he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl will not count as one of his four permanent wives and the man will not be eligible to marry the girl's sister... It is better for a girl to marry at such a time when she would begin menstruation at her husband's house, rather than her father's home. Any father marrying his daughter so young will have a permanent place in heaven. ["Tahrirolvasyleh", fourth edition, Qom, Iran, 1990]"

If you know a fraction as much of Islam in contemporary practice as you claim, then you will not only know exactly where the telling little snippet of Islamic scholarly wisdom above originated, you will also know how inextricably linked and subjectively relevant to current practice it actually is. You will know too that it is genuine, and from a contemporary so-called spiritual leader of countless millions of Muslims practicing today. You will doubtless also know that it is only one of many, many more equally repugnant fatwahs dealing with everything from culturally significant issues such as how to properly stone an adulteress to the slightly more politically motivated sanctioning of slaughter of tens of millions of infidels at a pop. Am I suggesting that the majority of Muslims behave this way? Absolutely not. Although what you seem to be suggesting is that very few - if any - pay any attention to these scholarly based fatwahs at all. An equally ridiculous assertion. Especially in light of what is undeniably occurring all around us in the world today. What I am suggesting however is that the full weight of Islamic scholarship as well as Islamic practice past and present gives certain groups the moral and intellectual wiggle room required to continue to behave with absolute impunity toward their fellow man, woman, and especially child; and therein lies the rub. I know it's a cheap shot but I can't help myself - how many fellow Episcopalians have you heard of recently strapping suicide belts to their own children? Please disconnect this for me if you can.

You go on to say,

"I know that you believe that your system is the best, and for that matter the only system worth using."

Compared to anything the Islamic intellectual elite have come up with in the past 1400 years, yep, guilty as charged. I throw myself at the mercy of the secular court.

You finish,

"I would ask you to choose a stance and then settle upon it, but that might be asking too much."

I hope that after reading this response you might understand that my alleged vacillation here is actually more apparent to you than real.

Episcopalean...is that an accepted Egyptian variant of Episcopalian?