| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
The predictable reaction to Charles Moore's superb Telegraph piece. Never mind that they're just proving his point. From The Independent, with thanks to Nicolei:
Charles Moore, former editor of The Daily Telegraph, provoked a storm of criticism from British Muslims yesterday for an article in which he championed the right to call the Prophet Mohamed a paedophile.Mr Moore, who opposes new legislation banning incitement to religious hatred, chose the sensitive issue of the Prophet's marriage to a nine-year-old to illustrate his case. "It seems to me that people are perfectly entitled - rude and mistaken as they may be - to say that Mohamed was a paedophile, but if David Blunkett gets his way, they may not be able to," he wrote in his weekly column.
Responding with a mixture of astonishment and fury, Muslims yesterday described the remarks as inflammatory and deliberately provocative. Iqbal Sacranie, secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, the main voice of British Islam, said he was astonished that "a journalist and former editor with such wide experience could stoop so low".
In what way exactly is it stooping low? Is it not true? Note that Sacranie doesn't say that, because he no doubt is well aware that the incident is well-attested in the Hadith collection considered most reliable by Muslims, Sahih Bukhari:
Narrated Hisham's father:Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married 'Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she was nine years old. (Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236)
That "consumed" is a typo for "consummated."
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. (Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234)
If it is true, why is it "stooping low" to say it? After all, Moore says in the piece that Muhammad can't be judged by contemporary standards. He doesn't even mention the scandalously high rate of child marriages in the Islamic world, which are sanctified by the example of Muhammad.
Posted by Robert at December 12, 2004 7:50 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Let's see just how westernized British Muslims are as compared to those from the Netherlands in accepting critical debate about of their faith.
I'm certain his life is in danger now for daring to comment on certain truthful aspects of Islam. Consider how stupid it is to continue allowing practicioners of a primitive belief system, who have shown time and again that they have a greater propensity for violence than other immigrant groups, into London en masse
Those politicians how don't get it should be removed and a revolution started to correct this at once before it is too late.
P.S. The Union Jack is offensive. The overlay of three crosses surely is discrimatory against non-Christians. Ever wonder why the "Great" was quietly dropped from the former title of "Great Britain"? Anyone care to speculate?
Posted by: Andrew![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at December 12, 2004 8:23 AM
Nice one, Independent!
Now your readers too know that Muhammed was a paedophile.
British Muslims, that's right, keep on complaining and hopefully the rest of the UK papers will carry the same valuable piece of information.
I can't wait for it to appear in 'The Sun'.
The only thing is, long, polysyllabic, quasi-scientific terms are not their style. They prefer to use good old traditional Anglo-Saxon-style English.
'The Sun' is going to refer to Muhammed as either a nonce, a beast, or a fiend.
Posted by: Elephant at December 12, 2004 8:59 AM
I read somewhere the other day there are 2 million non British in London alone.. I can't remember if that was the Muslim count or immigrants in general and that there are 900 plus people to every square mile in England, that figure dropped to 600 plus throughout the UK. I think we might be a teeny weeny bit overcrowded, don't you ?
I don't see how we can start a revolution because every town and village has been so straight jacketed by PC from it's local councils and press that no-one dares to utter a word in objection.
Divide and conquer seems to be the tactic, and they've done a pretty good job of dividing, by stealth might I add.
If the "problem" and the PC was isolated in London, the rest of the country could galvanise, but like the poxy rash it is, it's throughout every major town and city and now it's spreading to the edges of suburbia.
The countryside alliance will be less worried about the ban on hunting before too long. On a lighter note, one never knows they might find a quarry to hunt !! ROFL
The whole system is corrupt and rotten to the core.
I despair .. surely it can't continue...
If and when the sh** hit's the fan, I'll bet Blair and Blunkett will be on the fastest jet out of here they can get, and most of their stupid MPs with them.
Like the RATS THAT THEY ARE abandoning ship !!!
to the tune of Rule Britannia.. sing along now !
RULE BRITANNIA,
WE'LL BE ALL LONG GONE,
LEAVING YOU TO PICK THE SHIT UP,
BYE! .. SO LONG !!
at December 12, 2004 9:39 AM
The complaint doesn't address the act but its characterization as "paedophilia". According to the true believers, anything the Prophet did was aces with them and worthy of being emulated. No questions asked because, well, because he was the Prophet, the paragon of perfection whom we, as lesser mortals, cannot even begin to comprehend. Mohammed married a nine-year-old? Must be okay, because Mohammed did it. Just don't label it for what it is, because it's likely to land you in a heap of trouble.
Posted by: scaramouoche at December 12, 2004 9:54 AM
It is not merely that Muhammad married Aisha when she was six, and had sexual intercourse with her when she was nine.
The main point is tht Muhammad is a model for all times and all places. And that is why that learned and truth-telling (about Islam) theologian, the Ayatollah Khomeini, whom some Iranians treat as a sport when he is far more rooted in Iranian Islam than Shah Reza Pahlavi ever was (see, e.g., Azar Nafisi's "Reading Lolita in Tehran"), when he first came to power, had enacted by his government a law which reduced the marriageable age of girls in Iran to -- nine.
If it was good enough for Muhammad, it is good enough for everyone.
at December 12, 2004 9:57 AM
Robert -- on an orthographic note, are you following Moore's spelling, or is "paedophile" spelled thus for our aedification? A distinctly Werner Jaegerish note (all three volumes), in any case.
Posted by: Hugh at December 12, 2004 10:01 AM
To the poster immediately above, en attendant Robert's reply:
What matters is not what is "true" but what Muslims take to be true, and therefore a model, as everything Muhammad did is worthy of emulation and respect. What else was the lowering of the marrriageable age of girls to nine if not based on the presumed act of Muhammad?
It doesn't matter what Muhammad did or did not do -- what matters is what Muslims believe he did or did not do.
If you think the sira is made up out of whole cloth, or parts of it are, or if you choose to question a la Patricia Crone the existence of Mecca as even existing in the early 7th century, or question the received version of the origins of the Qur'an and wish to inquire further into some thorny philological questions and possible solutions in the manner of Christoph Luxenberg, go ahead. But keep in mind that Infidels have to act not on the basis of what they believe to be true about the originis of Islam, or about whether Muhammad existed, or did thus and so, but what Muslims believe. That is how Infidels have to, at a minimum, sensibly defend their own civilization and freedoms. Don't you agree? Isn't that what you would do, were you an Infidel, knowing what you know about Islam?
Posted by: Hugh at December 12, 2004 10:31 AM
OT
I would like to direct everyones attention here for a moment:
AN OPEN REPLY TO ROBERT SPENCER.
Dear Mr. Spencer
First of all, thanks so much for titling a piece you did about me "Noam Chomsky as Rock Star":
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/004259.php#comments
Located around comment 19-20. I commented on this already, but on looking back, Mr. LeVine with a capital "V" sneers the following:
'Muslims have as little ability to "destroy the west" as Hamas has to destroy Israel. In fact, the Asian avian flu that Sec. of Health and Human Services Thompson is suddenly worried about after resigning could easily kill exponentially more people in the next year than Muslims could kill westerners in a hundred years of jihad. Sorry, i know that the threat of jihad to what you call "the West" is your big thing...'.
Notice his sneering tone, "What you call the west...", and what does he call it? What about the facts relating to imperial islam and its stunning record of conquests? Is that fantasy in the mind of mr. DeVine?
Posted by: Andrew at December 12, 2004 10:56 AM
Mr. LeVine with a capital "V", sorry.
Posted by: Andrew at December 12, 2004 10:59 AM
ugh:
Paedophile is the Limey spelling for pedophile.
Incidentally we pronounce it Pea Dough File
whereas you Yanks say Ped Oh File.
'You say tomato and I say tomato' and all that.
Posted by: Elephant at December 12, 2004 11:15 AM
I meant Hugh not ugh
Posted by: Elephant at December 12, 2004 11:16 AM
Spelling paedophile with a 'a' adds a touch of colour; in fact it's my favourite way of spellling it. I like to practise spelling it correctly.
Interested has three e's in British English. It's only on Jihad Watch that it's spelt without the third e - some glitch.
Posted by: Interestd at December 12, 2004 11:40 AM
There are MANY strong ahadith conforming Aisha's age:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/ayesha.htm
However, it is important to notice than EVEN THE KORAN ITSELF allows sex with pre-puberty children:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=239
Posted by: Ali Dashti at December 12, 2004 11:58 AM
Not to belabor the point, but the Etymology of the word "pedophilia" spelling is New Latin that is dated from 1906. The word pedophile did not come into use until 1951.--Webster.
at December 12, 2004 12:00 PM
In fact there is reason to believe that Aisha was younger than nine.
The account of her being led to the house of the prophet for the consummation of the marriage describes her as being out of breath when she got there. A child getting puffed out when walking with an adult is something that you would expect from a child younger than nine.
Posted by: Elephant at December 12, 2004 12:24 PM
Mackie,
"Paedos" is the Greek noun for a child, hence paedophile. "Pedophilia" derives as "foot fetishist" (as in pedestrian). But who cares - as long as we know which one to avoid!
Posted by: Sam Roony at December 12, 2004 12:28 PM
It is terrible that Aisha is one of the commonest girls' names amongst black people in Britain.
Even amongst those who haven't out and out converted to Islam, there is a belief that black culture is intertwined with Islamic culture, hence a Muslim name for their daughters.
It shows that they have allowed themselves to be misled without bothering to do their homework.
I don't believe that all those people would knowingly give their child a name that justifies paedophilia.
Posted by: Elephant at December 12, 2004 12:29 PM
Charles Moore is simply stating THE TRUTH as we who are NOT followers of ISLAM ought! The more[not intended as a pun] this truth of Mo being a Paedophile is exposed together with other unpleasant truths - such as Muslims being allowed to f*** camels,donkeys, goats and sheep [and eat them afterwards],bugger little boys etc with impunity might make your average Muslim THINK!!
No wonder Muslims are brainwashed from Birth : the horrific character of their Prophet would be condemned by any sane Person with a Brain.
TRUE BRIT If the Anglo Saxons of Britain are confused and demoralised, you must look for leaders among the New English. Brave Sikhs and Hindus [who know the Muslim Menace] will lead what is left of Britain out of the mire. As for Blair & Blunkett, they won't be any loss although
they deserve to have their asses kicked...
at December 12, 2004 12:45 PM
"In fact there is reason to believe that Aisha was younger than nine."
Yes, there is. For a good thread about why Aisha must have been pre-pubescent when Muhammad married and had sex with her, try this one:
http://www.apostatesofislam.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=357
at December 12, 2004 12:51 PM
Has anybody found a way to email Charles Moore and/or how to send a letter to the editor at the Telegraph?
if so, please send me an email: rebecca@halbynum.com
Thanks,
rebecca
at December 12, 2004 12:52 PM
This Charles Moore is a brave man, but it´s a secret truth
Posted by: Franze at December 12, 2004 3:59 PM
Well, then let's correct our language to reflect exactly what we mean:
"According to the Sahih Bukhari, that is considered by most Muslims to accurately portray the 'saying and deeds' of Mohammad, Mohammad married a girl when she was six, and had sexual intercourse with her when she was nine. Having sexual intercourse with a nine year old girl is a sufficient condition for pedophilia. Therefore, according to the Sahih Bukhari, which most Muslims believe, Mohammad was a pedophile."
Or how about, "Mohammad is a pedophile. That's what Islamic scriptural traditions say. Most Muslims accept those traditions. And that's the context of the discourse."
Or, how about: "Mohammad was a pedophile. That's what the Sahih Bukhari says, it you don't accept that, or thinks its false, prove it." (And one does not have to accept the Sahih Bukhari as an infallible source to accept this as a factual presumption: when it comes to detailed historical facts like this that do not included fanatistic, heavenly imaginings, it is rationally defensible to presume it true until proven false. For example, atheist bible scholars tend to presume Jesus lived in Nazareth, while viewing all the God talk as subjective, religious speech. What's wrong with that? But do we really know Jesus lived in Nazareth? He probably did, but there are some scholars who argue Jesus did not exist.
So, "Mohammad was a pedophile." Let's say it again, "Mohammad was a pedophile." Just as acceptable an utterance as "Jesus lived in Nazareth.".
Posted by: JTF at December 12, 2004 4:36 PM
The ayatollah said: "I'm not having sex with this chicken. It's too old."
I said: "Whaddaya mean?"
He said: "Look. It has breasts."
Posted by: sonofwalker at December 12, 2004 4:38 PM
What we need are anti-Islamic comedians. They'd have to give their material in an underground club, at least in Britain, but it would be great to have.
Posted by: Voltaire at December 12, 2004 5:30 PM
JTF:
No respectable scholar debates the existence of the historical Jesus. Even the LLL at the Jesus Seminar could not deny his existence. The only places where you'll see "scholars" deny his existence are on atheist websites, who usually have no background in the history of the Bible and Quran.
The only way we can prove that Muhammad is a pedophile is if we can demonstrate that the passages in the Hadith were an embarrasment to the community but were only included because they were deemed authentic. That was one of the criteria the Historical Jesus scholars employed. But with Muhammad, we can take that a step further. Any action that he does must be included no matter how innocuous or distasteful to our Western sensibilities because not only is he a moral role model, he is a practical role model. That is why we get stories about Muhammad telling us how to wipe our ass and have stories of infants peeing on him. They are included for the sake of completion. So that makes our task a little harder to prove that historically, Muhammad was indeed a pedophile because all of his actions will be included and it is difficult to guage which actions might be embarassing. I think the instance of the infant peeing on him is embarrassing and I think we can ascertain that it did indeed happen. The pedophilia is a little more trickier, it's mentioned dozens of times and the transmitters don't seem to be embarrassed about mentioning it. I think they do try to qualify it by saying Muhammad had a vision fortelling this event, but I don't think they are trying to cover his actions. Ali Dashti points out that it was already an Arab custom to marry girls that young so there would be no need to do so.
So we are left with the "marriage" as being an innocuous event in 7th Century Arab eyes. It can still be true, but if it was an embarrasment it had a greater chance of being true. It's interesting that you should mention Jesus being a Nazarene and why biblical minimalists (athiest scholars) believe that to be a fact. It would have been an embarrasment for the Christian community that Jesus was born in Nazareth because the messiah is supposed to be born in the city of David, Bethelehem. Also, no prophets have ever come from Nazareth, nor would any come from that region either. And the fact that in the infant narratives, they have Jesus born in Bethelehem, hints that the early authors wanted to shy away from Jesus being a de facto Nazarene. So it gives weight to the arugment that he was born in Nazareth. It doesn't necessarily make them right, but it does give the biblical minimalists an edge during the debate.
But Mohammad's supposed pedophilia is a red herring, I think his acts of genocide are much worse and we know for a fact that they happened despite what the Muslims believe.
Posted by: igor at December 12, 2004 5:41 PM
"According to the Sahih Bukhari, that is considered by most Muslims to accurately portray the 'saying and deeds' of Mohammad, Mohammad married a girl when she was six, and had sexual intercourse with her when she was nine. Having sexual intercourse with a nine year old girl is a sufficient condition for pedophilia. "
Allow me to disagree with that. A pedophile is a person who is attracted to young children. Mohammad had nine (or eleven by some accounts) wives who ranged in age between 9 (Aisha) to 60 when he married them. A moderate number for political leaders of his time. There is no historical record that he was attracted to young children, whom he could marry a dozen a day if he intended, and the people of his time, including his enemies, did not consider his marriages out of norm of that day.
The problem is not that Mohammad was sex crazy or pedophile, which he wasn't, but that muslims kept copying this 7th century leader way into the 21st century. This remains as the heart of the problem.
Mohammad's wives had different ages and looks, but all had one thing in common: they were all related to important political figures. Aisha was the daughter of his most prominent liutenant who succeeded him, his other wives were often related to tribal leaders or widows of prominent individuals. His marriages were absolutely political in nature, and a common way of establishing political relaionship at that time.
at December 12, 2004 6:13 PM
By the way, that said, I think if moore or anybody else wats to call prophet Mohammad a pedophile, that's their right. I may think it is stupid, but nobody has teh right to silence them under a phony hat speech law. Jesus is being called gay and I don't see Christians revolting.
My 2 cents.
at December 12, 2004 6:15 PM
o.t.
Slain Ont. teacher was trying to end marriage
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1102788147646_117/?hub=CTVNewsAt11
According to the Toronto Sun, Aysegul Candir, 47, decided to end her 18-year marriage to Erhun Candir, 62, just over a week ago. She had moved out while he was on vacation in their native Turkey.
Posted by: Sheik Canuck (swt) at December 12, 2004 6:27 PM
Thanks Seenathepersian. If one accepts that sexual intercourse presupposes sexual attraction, and sexual attraction and intercourse with a child is sufficient for pedophilia, then Mohammad was a pedophile. Or should we just say he had sex with a child and had no moral problems with that? Does it really matter? In any case, it is absurd to dispute that these are reasonable, defensible factual statements. The problems created in Islamic traditions constitute another set of issues, of course; and they are quite troubling.
Posted by: JTF at December 12, 2004 6:29 PM
Seena:
Was not Aisha, Mohammad's favourite wife? Doesn't that refute that argument that the marriage was strictly of political nature? Another argument from apologists is that he was doing it to "save" her from something. Don't know from what exactly, but her parents were still alive and could not have Muhammad adopted her instead?
If he was not sex crazy then why is he described as having the libido of 30 men? And on top of his 11 wives, he had concubines. Is that still modest number for a ruler who isn't sex crazy?
Sahih Bukhari
Narrated Qatada: Anas bin Malik said, "The Prophet used to visit all his wives in a round, during the day and night and they were eleven in number." I asked Anas, "Had the Prophet the strength for it?" Anas replied, "We used to say that the Prophet was given the strength of thirty (men)." And Sa'id said on the authority of Qatada that Anas had told him about nine wives only (not eleven). Volume 1, Book 5, Number 268.
And as far as we know he could have had a whole harem full of girls. We do not have a complete list of all of Muhammad's concubines. We can only infer what the Quran, Sira and Hadith tell us. We do not have to prove it to be historically accurate to Muslims, they assume it is accurate if it comes from a reputable source.
Posted by: igor at December 12, 2004 6:45 PM
One more time: one does not have to offer historical proof that "Mohammad was a pedophile" to rationally and defensibly assert it. The burden of proof falls to the one who would deny it. Those are the rules of discourse, given what most Muslims believe, what the Sahih Bukhari says, the meaning of pedophilia, and because the statement concerns a simple factual issue that seems well supported with documentation. So, "Mohammad was a pedophile". I can say it. It is reasonable, and presumed true, just as "Jesus lived in Nazareth" is presumed true, until someone proves it is false. That's the point. If folks want to do some historical research and debate, let them go ahead; and until some proof is offered (that abides by the rules and principles of empirical and historical research) that the statement is false, we may presume it is true.
So, Charles Moore is not only vindicated, reasonable people are obliged to agree with him, in the absence of proof to the contrary.
Mohammad's pedophilia is not a red herring in this debate, i.e. whether or not it is acceptable to assert that Mohammad is a pedophile. I think what you want to say is that there are more important moral questions when it comes to his life and teachings. I entirely agree.
I am not up really current on bible scholarship but there is a tradition going back to folks like Bauer, Drews, Kahlthof who play with arguments that deny the existence of Jesus (and I have read such arguments more recently as well and not from folks like American Atheist...just can't recall where). My point, of course, is not that such arguments are strong, but there are rules of discourse about how to talk about historical people despite controversy that may even concern the very existence of that person. One should be able to walk into a college course and assert "Jesus lived in Nazareth" and we should all accept that as true, unless someone has a proof against it like someone in this tradition who wants to try to prove Jesus did not exist. That person would have the burden of proof. Likewise, I should be able to walk into a course in Islamic studies and say, "Mohammad was a pedophile." and that should stand, unless someone wants to advance proof against it. That's the point.
And if someone makes points like Seenathepersian above, and wants to challenge the definition of 'pedophile' vis-a-vis the evidence we presume true, maybe we will just agree to the factual assumption that Mohammad had sex with a child. No matter. It is presumed true.
These statements are reasonable according to norms of rational discourse, so, there should be no outrage against Charles Moore. On the contrary, rational people should raise the question: 'what in the world is wrong with saying that?'
at December 12, 2004 7:37 PM
JTF,
Clearly, I think it is a historical fact that Mohammad did have sex with his 9-year old wife, and that would be considered a sex crime if it happend today, and it was not a sex crime or pedophilia when it happened in 7th century, but rather an accepted normal tradition. Thomas Jefferson used to have black slaves, and it is considered a crime today, and it was not at that time, and his action was not morally wrong.
The problem is that the majority of muslims believe today that it should be legal to marry a 9 year old if Mohammad did so in 7th century. that's wrong.
By the way, the Iranian Shia top ayatollahs have recently changes the law to increase the minimum age to 13 years on the logic that Mohammad's marriage was based on the norms of that time, not a mandatory part of Islamic law. So as you see, it can be changed.
In fact as muslims start to attribute Mohammad's life actions to the norms of his age rather than divine orders, there is a better chance for reforming islam.
igor: At the same as Mohammad, Khosrow the king of Persia had 400 wives! As far as I know, monogamy was introduced in Roman empire. Am I correct that the ancient Jews were polygamous?
Thanks
at December 12, 2004 7:50 PM
Being Canadian I have yet to see any Islamic Tv shows or Clerics deny that Muhammed married a 6 year old and then forced sex on her at 9,I only heard a defense that we must understand the context and that this was normal in that period of history.
The Toronto Star newspaper ran a article about the Van Gogh short "submission" and posted a 3x4
photo as a sidebar item,the photo showed the female with Quranic verses over her welts from the lashing allowed in Sharia-Law.
The abuse should have outraged Muslims that Islam was hijacked and being smeared by extremists,but not so,a threatening "letter to the editor" indicated outrage from the paper insulting Islam and the Quran by showing the photo.
The feature article that took up almost two pages about the Van Gogh murder and violence to females within Islam didn't appear to evoke sadness or sympathy for the victims of Islamists,it's no real wonder why the media is finding it hard to get a journalist or radio host to opine on the beheadings in Iraq or terrorism by Muslims.
If Muslims are this powerful now while being a small minority,just think of the power they'll have when their a large minorty or become the majority. I wouldn't want to be a Christian or Jew in North America once Ibrahim Hooper and his thugs at CAIR get into power and demand Sharia-Law as the rule of law for the USA.
at December 12, 2004 8:18 PM
I would like to know the source that says that in pre-islamic society it was normal and traditional for 53 year old men to marry 6 year old girls and have sex with them at age 9.
Posted by: kentim at December 12, 2004 8:37 PM
Seena: It depends on your idea of "ancient Jew". How ancient are we talking? Nobility aside, most Jews after the Babylonian Exile were monogamous. And not all Jewish kings had more than one wife. I think you need to look further than just the example of Solomon and a few others.
Notice how in the Torah, whenever polygamy is represented, it is done so in a negative light. It usually tends to arouse jealousy amongst the wives or scandal amongst the neighbours. There's a reason for that and there's a reason why Jews have remained monogamous far longer than the Romans.
JTF: Yes, after re-reading your posts, I see your point now. I just wanted to bring your attention to the fact that if an embarassing event is recorded in a religious text, the theory is that it is most likely true since the editors were reluctant to omit it (especially when writing a biography of a famous religious figure). That's all. I saw a similarity between your example but clearly, that is not what you meant.
Posted by: igor at December 12, 2004 8:57 PM
Kentim, according to the following link, the marriage age in Roman empire was 12. It also has tons of other info on marriage in ancient times:
http://www.buddybuddy.com/mar-trad.html
I'll see if I can find more information on the web.
Posted by: SeenathePersian at December 12, 2004 9:53 PM
This page mentions about ancient Jewish practices, though I cannot verify its accuracy. It is a secular site:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/guido_deimel/judaism.html
at December 12, 2004 10:10 PM
"It may be of further interest to note that roughly two millennia after the conditions of this contract were put down to form this document, a German Jewish Rabbi, Rabbi Gershom, first decreed divorces without the woman's consent illegal in Jewish societies, the same Rabbi who put a ban on polygamy in the tenth century."
(from Seena's site)
"The Jewish Sephardic communities living in Muslim countries continued the practice till as late as 1950, until an Act of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel extended the ban on marrying more than one wife. "
http://www.themodernreligion.com/women/w_poly-znaik.html
Gee...I wonder where they got that idea from? Jews living in non-Muslim countries generally did not practice it. Coincidence? And the Sephardic Jews seemed to have ignored that edict?
You might want to read this Seena. I found it helpful
http://www.polyamory.org/Howard/je2.html
at December 12, 2004 10:43 PM
The concern Westerners have regarding Mohammad's sex life is that we see Muslims coming from abroad with the belief that they may, and should be able, to continue a practice that the great majority of us find to be deviant and abhorrent. Should we be forced to be silent on that point just because Muslims are offended? Should we be forced to accept the practice of sex with children just because Muslims believe that it's an accommodation that allows them the freedom to practice their religion? In fact, should we be forced to accept any Muslim religious or cultural practice that flies in the face of accepted cultural tradition and social mores simply because Muslims wish to transfer those practices here. Certainly no Muslim country would offer us such an accommodation so that we could "practice our religion"!
Well, I tell you-- I am offended by their disrespectful cavalier attitudes and their arrogance, believing that we have to swallow such behaviors. And to add insult to injury, we must be silent and humble while doing so! I don't think so.
Posted by: epg at December 12, 2004 11:11 PM
Ala-sux:
I don't think that this country will need more than 5% Muslims before there is a civil war here. People in Holland or the Netherlands can leave to Australia, Canada, or New Zealand if things get too unbearable. But, if there are such problems in the U.S., the citizens there know that there is no place to run to, so they *have* to stay and fight. It's not only the Wahhabis and others that are going to be deported or killed, but also the nihilists on the left.
The people in the U.S. strike me as too proud, too ideological and strong-willed to allow their country to be ruined by Islamosavages. They won't complain and whine in private while their country is being destroyed like Europeans or the British.
People in government and academia would roll over and die, since they are mostly on the payroll of the Saudis or have been intellectually disarmed in Ivy League schools, but honest citizens of the US are not so corrupt. I don't think that they'll buy the BS that "Islam is just like any other religion."
Posted by: MetalMuncher at December 12, 2004 11:18 PM
The Ayatollah Kohmeini married a ten year old girl when he was 28. His views on the status of women, female children, bestiality, and non-muslims are well known and this demonic creature is revered to this day in Iran. And a recent article on JihadWatch mentioned American muslims marching in Michigan with posters bearing his picture. He rivals Muhammad in perversity, savagery, and diabolical evil.
The ayatollahs in Iran execute young girls for having "sharp tongues" and for being the victims of incest and rape. Where is the liberal outrage, or do these barbaric atrocities fall into the realm of moral relativism?
Islam is based on sex, violence, and male supremacy. Muslims will NEVER integrate or assimilate in Western societies because if they lose their control over women, Islam will collapse.
at December 13, 2004 12:21 AM
Islam is based on sex, violence and male supremacy. Muslims will NEVER integrate or assimilate in Western societies because if they lose their control over women, islam will collapse..... writes Susanp.
It sounds so stupid in its simplicity, but its true.
Brave man, that Charles Moore.
We must continue his good work.
To enact laws that protect islam ...nuts.
Are our politicos so scared that they will aid muslims in their takeover over our societies ?
To tell the truth about islam or mo, is dangerous, with islam wanting to kill you and the state wanting to arrest you for upsetting the citizens they value more than you, muslims.
Of course, muslims can say it is their right to kill me, and do so on their web sites, tv channels and newspapers; if i say that muslims consider it their right to kill me, i will be charged with 'inciting religious hatred'.
at December 13, 2004 2:06 AM
Islam is based on sex, violence and male supremacy. Muslims will NEVER integrate or assimilate in Western societies because if they lose their control over women, islam will collapse..... writes Susanp.
It sounds so stupid in its simplicity, but its true.
Brave man, that Charles Moore.
We must continue his good work.
To enact laws that protect islam ...nuts.
Are our politicos so scared that they will aid muslims in their takeover over our societies ?
To tell the truth about islam or mo, is dangerous, with islam wanting to kill you and the state wanting to arrest you for upsetting the citizens they value more than you, muslims.
Of course, muslims can say it is their right to kill me, and do so on their web sites, tv channels and newspapers; if i say that muslims consider it their right to kill me, i will be charged with 'inciting religious hatred'.
at December 13, 2004 2:06 AM
Sean the Persian: The only reason that some of us Christians don't revolt at the suggestion that Jesus was gay is that we know that the proponents of such idiocies don't have a shred of evidence, and are just pathetic cases who've never had a real friend of the same sex in their entire lives--and thus they think anyone who's single, or who has close friends of the same sex "has to be" homosexual.
Also, as both God Incarnate and sinless man, and at the same time in our world to work atonement for the sins of his people, Jesus could not have married. Because of his mission, he would have been very derelict to take a wife and leave her and the children to go to the cross for the rest of us; and he would have had to have left them in his resurrection and ascension as he went to "prepare a place" for his church. Note Jesus is not alone in this. The prophet Jeremiah was also forbidden to take a wife, since God told him he would behold the conquest of Judah in 586 BC.
This leads to an observation about the "historical Jesus" scholars: a century ago, Albert Schweitaer, in his book _Vom Reimarus zu Wrede_ (translated into English as _The Quest for the Historical Jesus_) observed that the whole quest ended up looking down the wellshaft of 19 centuries and saw its own reflection in the bottom. It seems the Jesus Seminar is setting itself up for the same sort of thing, and is by no means universally accepted by serious scholars of the Bible and religion.
Re the British Brouhaha: the aim of the PC Left is to use their "incitement" laws to prosecute Christians who believe that there is a Hell and people on the road thither have to be warned off of it (NOT hastened along it, the way Theo van Gogh was). Maybe the immoderate left is in alliance with Islamofascism today because it sees that the grand goal of destroying Western civilization is finally within reach.
Posted by: Kepha1 at December 13, 2004 3:07 AM
Muhammed just acting according to customs?
Yes, there is hardly anything new or original in Islam, it is regurgitated paganism and plagiarised Bible stories which Muhammed got twisted up and wrong.
Even Islam's deity, Allah was the pagan moon god, hence the crescent. This fits in with the archaeological evidence of pre-Islamic societies in the Middle East.
Muhammed was attracted to Aisha several years before they married before they married when she would have first been about four.
There are accounts in Islamic scripture of Muhammed washing the semen off his clothes after being with his wives before he went to pray at the mosque.
Whether or not Muhammed had sex with a nine-year-old girl is relevant. He is considered by Muslims to be the most perfect man ever and they take him as a role model.
Posted by: Elephant at December 13, 2004 4:16 AM
We just need to compare the different attitudes towards girls shown by Mohamed and Christ.
Jesus was approached by Jairus whose daughter was near death. Here we have loving parents, the mother stays with the sick child while her father runs for the man he knows can save her. Jesus goes to thier home and raises her from the dead. The story is in three gospels but Mark (Chap5)is quite clear, the girl is 12 years old. Jesus raises her, he says “Talitha cum” which I have seen translated both as “Get up, my child” and “Damsel arise”. Then, knowing that teenagers are constantly eating their parents out of house and home, he suggests that she be given something to eat. So we have a girl, three years older than Aisha, (and those three years make such a difference at that stage) living at home, beloved by both parents, saved from death by Jesus whose loving concern is such a striking contrast.
I cannot find a post I read on JW archive some weeks ago quoting a hadith describing when Mohamed watched a baby girl crawl across the floor and he then announced that if she lived he would marry her, but dies himself shortly after. I think the baby was called Um something? Do the regular contributors with more experience of the archive remember where to find this piece? I believe it to be relevant to this argument.
at December 13, 2004 5:32 AM
Reader's letters on Charles Moore's piece can be seen at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;sessionid=USFM0LHDNSKBDQFIQMGCNAGAVCBQUJVC?menuId=1588&menuItemId=-1&view=DISPLAYCONTENT&grid=P8&targetRule=0. They are unsurprising if, mainly, disappointing.
Posted by: philiph at December 13, 2004 6:47 AM
Seena,
I don't think that a society/culture having low age of consent or marriage neccessarily means that society considered 50+ year old men marrying a 6 year old child and having sex with her at age 9 as normal, good and beneficial to society.
The life span of people was much shorter back then, so it made sense to marry young, but it makes less sense to marry below child-bearing age. And even less sense for a 53 year old man to marry a 6 year old because there was a good chance that man would not live to see the girl reach child-bearing age.
Posted by: kentim at December 13, 2004 9:55 AM
Charles Moore is my hero, is a brave man in a coward world, he is defending democracy like I see in my country and my continent, people who speaks about the Catholic or other churches are supported and received awards, he speaks about islam is menaced like Fallucci, Houldebecq, Moore and others and murdered like Van Gogh or others, greetings
Posted by: Franze at December 13, 2004 9:59 AM
Too bad...Mohammad was a paedophile. Muslims are being exposed for praising and following the words of a sexual predator, and they don't like it......What will they do? Kill this writer like they did Van Gogh?
Posted by: DCWatson
at December 13, 2004 3:33 PM
Rebecca
Here are some instructions from the DT
If you have sent it as plain text, we will have received it. If,
however, it was sent as an attachment, please send it again in plain text to
dtletter@telegraph.co.uk
This address is for letters submitted for publication only. All other queries, complaints and comments should be emailed to:
readrel@telegraph.co.uk
If you haven't included your address and telephone number your letter will not be considered for publication.
Publication of all letters is subject to our terms for submission of works to us (past and present), namely that, if your letter is used:
1.You will retain your copyright.
2. During the copyright period and afterwards, The Daily Telegraph and those authorised by it have the world-wide assignable right to use your work in any publication or service in whatever media (e.g. CD Rom, newspapers, online etc).
3. The Daily Telegraph may further allow others to authorise
scanning/photocopying of cuttings that include your letter.
4. The Daily Telegraph may shorten or edit your letter for publication.
5.Letters for publications should be no more then 100 words.
------------------------------------
I urge you to write to write the DT supporting their brave and truthful stance, as I'm sure that their INBOX is being inundated with letters from muslims and their apologists. We really need to support such such articles by the MSM. The DT like any major public organisation, cannot continue in the face of what it believes a hostile public reaction to its view of the situation.
at December 13, 2004 6:44 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)