"Her maturity, knowledge, intelligence, and contributions during the life of the Prophet and afterwards all indicate that she was either an exceptional nine-year-old or must have been older than that."

Aisha may have been intelligent but this man is either an idiot (not related to his religion) or a dissembler of the worst kind (perhaps related to his religion). All of us are usually nine years old for only one year. Maybe he thinks she stopped aging as soon as Mohammed deflowered her (it was THAT good).

Posted by: former liberal WF at April 22, 2005 1:47 PM

Sharia states the legal adulthood of a girl child at age 9. This is expressly because of Aisha's marriage to Mo. It is legal in Iran to stone to death a 9-year-old girl for adultery beause she's an "adult."

If they are going to argue that Aisha was really 19 or 24 etc., shouldn't they change the sharia then?

But no, I see no one trying to change the sharia definition of female adulthood.

So one must extrapolate from that, that they truly believe that her marriage to Mo was consummated at age 9, just as it says in Bukhari.

Posted by: Suzan at April 22, 2005 2:16 PM

An "exceptional" nine-year old.

No, no, our relationship is "special". You don't understand; society wouldn't understand.

Is Siddiqi freaking kidding - wait, of course he's not. Any argument will do (ISNA, hardly surprising). It's confirmed in Buhkari, but somehow it's not so (I dare a troll to post their refutation of that one). And if it is so, well, she was "exceptional". Of course, Siddiqi doesn't tell us what he means by that - maybe she'd hit puberty? Is that the excuse? What's the excuse in Iran? That only "exceptional" nine-year olds can be married?

I've got another one: historically, it is not confirmed that Mohammed was a prophet of any god. How's that one?

Geoff

Posted by: Geoff at April 22, 2005 2:43 PM

Cooee! Mr Shifti, where are you? We need you here, O troll like one, with your source on the subject. Don't Shirk this opportunity to confound us with your knowledge.

Better post the link myself I suppose. Why is there never a creature from under the bridge around when you need one?

http://www.muslim-answers.org/aishah.htm

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at April 22, 2005 2:44 PM

"Do not under any circumstances take the law into your own hands."

Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, know what I mean, know what I mean?

/Monty Python

Posted by: Carolyn2 at April 22, 2005 2:46 PM

"It says she was nine in Bukhari, twice."

Those Muslims who pretend to ignore the "authentic" Hadith of Bukhari, also have to explain what all the hundreds of millions of Muslims who apparently accept those Hadith, think they are doing.

What, for example, was the Ayatollah Khomeini doing, when he reduced the marriageable age of girls to nine? Can you guess how old Ayataollah Khomeini, founder (with a little help from the PLO) and ruler of the Islamic Republic of Iran, thought Aisha was when Muhammad married her? (Hint: He didn't think she was 24 years old, or 19, or 15, or even 10, the age of the girl Khomeini himself married).

Posted by: Hugh at April 22, 2005 2:47 PM

I dont know why the Muslims get so upset about Mohammed screwing his wife at age nine.

It is clear me was molesting her for a couple of years before that.

Posted by: KAOSKTRL at April 22, 2005 2:52 PM

It was clear to me he was molesting her for a couple of years before that.

Posted by: KAOSKTRL at April 22, 2005 2:53 PM

Granny, I'm shocked at you, using low insults on our muslim troll. Deliberately misspelling his name as a weapon is quite a low tactic, really; merely because you expect to elict a response from him on the issue of child molestation, when he has already stipulated to his acceptance via his links, strikes me as a bit cruel.

Shurki, I apologize.

=)

Geoff

Posted by: Geoff at April 22, 2005 2:59 PM

Why isn't anyone taking Muslims to court for hate speech? Why does this only apply to Christians?

Posted by: treehugger at April 22, 2005 4:01 PM

I would think that some of the death threats might just qualify.....or is there a double standard here? I'm shocked, SHOCKED!
Time to fight fire with fire, folks.

Posted by: treehugger at April 22, 2005 4:02 PM

OT, from JW

Geoff:

Spencer doesn't read all the comments. If you have a request/complaint or want to point out an egregious post, contact him at director@jihadwatch.org and either copy the post or tell him which thread it's on and the time it was posted.

CGW

Posted by: CGW at April 22, 2005 4:26 PM

Thanks CGW; will do mate.

G3oFF

Posted by: Geoff at April 22, 2005 6:42 PM

What a weak god this Allah must be if he needs miserable human beings to protect his "prophet" from blasphemy.

Nevertheless, it appears Mr. Hassan Moussa is the muslim of the day in Sweden. What restraint, what an heroic and selfless act he has done by controlling the mad mob of muslims!

Allah and his prophet will be pleased by his sacrifice.

Posted by: Skeet Street at April 22, 2005 7:04 PM

Every time a non-Muslim is dragged into court by an Islamist for "hate speech", that non-Muslim should use his/her day in court as an opportunity to publicly expose the hateful, violent and misogynistic texts of Islam's "holy books"-the Qur'an, the ahadiths, etc. The press should be invited to court to witness and to publish those court transcripts in which verses from the Qur'an like 4:34, and of course the Bukhari quotes which are germaine to the Runar Sogaard case are publicly exposed. Maybe then, Islamists will think twice before suing non-Muslims for so-called anti-Muslim "hate speech".

Posted by: Freedom1 at April 22, 2005 7:05 PM

I hope he is very careful, they will try to kill him no matter how he is guarded.

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1024117.ece

Posted by: Carolyn2 at April 22, 2005 7:22 PM

Islam Online could do a credible job of defending NAMBLA if they were given half a chance. And I suspect they would enjoy doing it.

NAMBLA = North American Man-Boy Love Association

"A top Muslim scholar said the minority would abide by the Swedish law in confronting a Christian preacher who insulted Prophet Muhammad "

telling the truth about the false prophet is insulting?

Those who bow to a pedophile should develop a thicker skin.

Posted by: Sheik Canuck (swt) at April 22, 2005 7:55 PM

I think the problem is with Christians. Why do they NOT take offence when Muslim's holy books say that Jesus was not the son of God and he was not crusified? Why we do not hear about a defamation lawsuit?

Posted by: buddha at April 22, 2005 9:02 PM

If Aisha was 18 when Mohammad died, after having lived with him for 9 years (as the accepted Islamic Hadiths state), then she was 9 when he raped her.

The 'prophet' did marry her three years earlier. (Age 6 according to the accepted Hadiths)

But, even as an apparently unusually under-endowed male, Mohammad still had to wait until she was all of 9 years old before he forced himself on her.

What an "exceptional" girl.

What a mealy-mouthed bunch of lying, sleazy scum.

No sympathy for the poor child.

Just excuse after excuse after excuse after excuse.

Muslims backpedal so much they should enter the goddamned Tour De France.

Or are bicycles "najis" (unclean)?

Posted by: BigSleep at April 22, 2005 9:54 PM

Q: Where can we get a copy of Sogaard's sermon? Let us all decide for ourselves what to think about it, rather than relying on the opinion of others.

Q: Just when does child abuse occur in Islam? If a nine year old girl is a fair and legit target for a dirty old man, does that mean that all children BELOW the age of nine are out of bounds to buggers? Or is the concept of child abuse/rape completely nonexistent in Arabia? Or is all sexual activity with/involving children outside the realm and definition of child abuse/assault in Islam? Gee, I guess "What we have here is a failure to communicate" per The Man in Cool Hand Luke.

Posted by: SCV at April 22, 2005 10:20 PM

"let Swedish law judge between him and us"

For the life of me, I can't understand why this would go anywhere near a court in the first place. It's amazing what pains in the arses these Muslims are. All the extra costs they force us to put up with - policing, security, etc. Now our court systems have to be burdened with their hurt feelings. I'm sure Swedish court is just like anywhere else - already so overburdened with real cases that the last thing they need is this pathetic stupidity. Waste of time they are. No benefit whatsoever to society at all.

"Sogaard's comments "injured millions of Muslims all over the world"

Oh, please! Here we go again, poor injured, villified, oppressed Muslims, whining, whinging, mewling and sooking. Boo hoo hoo.

Yes, I like the backpedaling, shuffling and basic outright lies when it comes to this issue. Oh, it's not confirmed, is it? Yeah, right. Pull the other one. Liars. Like the excuse they give for FGM. Oh it's just a weak hadith. Meanwhile millions of women are butchered because of this "weak" hadith. Now this issue with dirty old perverts with sick ideas towards little girls is excused away.

Out of context.
Not confirmed.
Weak hadith.
Misinterpretation.
Misunderstood.
Tiny minority.

Islam, the Religion of Pathetic Weak Excuses.

Posted by: feralee at April 22, 2005 10:45 PM

WELL THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH THESE INTMIDATION TECHNEQUES BECAUSE OF THE USFUL IDIOTS AND THEIR REPUTATION FOR VIOLENCE .
THEN NEED TO EXCEPT SCRIPTURE OR HAVE A BIG POW WOW AND REWRITE THE ENTIRE THING WE CAN DROP A NUKE TO THAT CONVENTION
AND THEN START CLOSING DOWN THE WEAPON BOMB FACTORIES WHERE THE PLAN THEIR SEDITIOUS ATTACKS.

Posted by: KAOSKTRL at April 22, 2005 11:18 PM

Filadelfiakyrkan Stockholm:

http://www.filadelfia.nu/

I didn't see Runar listed as a staff member. Maybe they will post a copy of his sermon.

Posted by: SCV at April 22, 2005 11:36 PM

Gee WE SHOULD BE SO GRATEFUL that Hassan is urging
moderation instead of DEATH AGAINST ANY WHO INSULT
MURDEROUS MO! As for 'stoning' this is part of Islam not Christianity. YES MUHAMMED WAS A RAPIST AND PEDOPHILE, A MILLION CURSES UPON HIM!!Where are these people coming from - the Dark Ages?? Another thing that takes my breath away is their arrogance. Muslims come uninvited [often illegally] whining about 'persecution'in their own countries into ours and proceed to not only plunder their hosts but to condemn their customs,laws and culture. Deport these violent Muslims from out shores and
we and them will moan no more....

Posted by: Morgane at April 22, 2005 11:52 PM

I don't think Filadelförsamlingen is going to publish a copy of Sögaard's sermon. According to a press release Filadelfiaförsamlingen had nothing to do with it. The name of the church involved is Stockholm Karisma Center.

So far noone has raised his voice and publicly supported Runar. Journalists, professors and religious leaders all agree that Runar was wrong. Why? Because we shouldn't critize Mohammed (and no other muslim. God forbid We could be mistaken for being racists. Spreading hate propaganda, aimed at jews or Israel however is quite ok) for something that is considered immoral today, but was accepted by the public 1400 years ago.

I don't know how much you know about Runar, but he's done some mistakes in the past (hunting deer with a high-velocity rifle from his kitchen and so on), and certain people saw a good here opportunity to attack him. The fact that one of his anatagonists is Jan Hjärpe, known for giving his support to antisemits and "freedom fighters" in Iraq should say a lot.

Posted by: Cosimo at April 23, 2005 12:25 AM

Thanks, Cosimo. I know next to nothing about Runar and nothing at all about Jan Hjarpe. The link for the Stockholm Karisma Center is:

http://www.karismacenter.se

Different address but it appears to be the same building as the Filadelfia church. I guess they share the building.

Is Jan Hjarpe a Swedish Nazi, since they seem to be in bed with the Jihad. If not, he must be on the left in Sweden. Do you know his take on our 9-11 attack? Which side did he favor?

Posted by: SCV at April 23, 2005 1:07 AM

Is quoting the Koran and Bukhari criticizing Islam??? It appears that for a non-Muslim to even know about the contents of the Koran and Bukhari is to forbidden and to quote from these is "hate speech".

Posted by: epg at April 23, 2005 1:24 AM

Yep, epg, seems that's so. According to one of our own "esteemed" judges in the loony state of Victoria, just quoting from the Koran villifies Muslims. It's all about keeping the filthy hate speech from the eyes and ears of the rest of the world. It's all about maintaining the facade. They keep smiling and lying, telling everybody porkies about how wonderful and peaceful and nice and perfect Islam is, la la la, and that's supposed to be good enough. Never mind all this 'inquiring minds need to know' business so annoyingly common amongst infidels. You're not supposed to enquire, question or search for the truth yourself. Just sit back, relax and swallow the taqiyya.

It's so insane to hear supposedly learned people, like judges, come up with lunatic defenses for those people, let alone allow this rot come before the courts in the first place. And even when the truth comes to light, these supposedly learned people will fall over backwards to appease the whining Muslim and find in their favour, doing their utmost to cover up the embarrassing truth. It wouldn't be the same for any other religion, that's the aggravating part.

Posted by: feralee at April 23, 2005 2:16 AM

Norwegian preacher kindles religious strife
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1024117.ece

Posted by: markjames at April 23, 2005 3:15 AM

buddha: "I think the problem is with Christians. Why do they NOT take offence when Muslim's holy books say that Jesus was not the son of God and he was not crusified?"

When government funded artists take a crucifix, put it in jar of urine and call it "Piss Christ", Christians just shrug their shoulders.

I'm waiting for a "controversial" young artist to take a Quran, put it in a bucket of urine and call the work of art "Piss Be Upon Him".

... it could be a long wait.

Posted by: 1630r at April 23, 2005 10:07 AM

Jan Hjärpe, born in 1942, islamologist and a professor at Lund university (located in southern Sweden). Is also a self-proclaimed "expert" on the modern Mmiddle East, appeared as a star Witness in 1989 when Ahmed Rami, founder of Radio Islam was tried (and convicted) from spreading his pro-nazi and antisemite views.

The district attorney asked Hjärpe 16 times if what Rami had said was true, that rabbis
get sexually aroused when they sacrifice animals and if this is typically jewish. Hjärpe responded that it was "a controversial issue" etc.

Here are other quotes by Hjärpe:
"Rami's intentions were not to attack the jews, but merely to support for the palestinian cause."

"In a political debate, it is unfair that one group (the jews), which is also engaged in the conflict, have certain privileges, eg. the right to demand that some topics are not discussed.

"It is undoubtly true, that groups of sionists, including the government of Israel, have exploited the Holocaust

About 9/11...
What Hjärpe did was explaining that the terrorist act was the result of people's frustration, all because Americas hunger for oil and consumer products, and because of Israel's will to dominate the region. He also denied that Al-Qaeda was behind it.

SCV asked for Runar's sermon. Here it is:

"The hip thing about God is the fact that he's the only, true, and genuine God. Buddha isn't. But Runar, Buddha is so fine. No! Buddha is nothing but a metal can with a tan. An obese can. Have you seen Buddha? He's worse than Allah. He's fat, he's round and he's brown. But you know, he's a can and Buddha cannot help Sweden. Buddha cannot help you.

Mohammad, Allah... Mohammad. He is no God. He's a dazed pedophile. It's true. Learn your history, read about what Mohammad was up to, like, marrying nine-year olds. Eleven-year olds. But you know, God says here. Remember what has happened in the past. Because I am God and there is no other God. Noone like me. Because I proclaimed from the beginning what is to come."

Posted by: Cosimo at April 23, 2005 10:46 AM

You're right!!!

They won't get stoned in return!

They'll get their throats slit by an 'extremist.'

Or blown up by a homicide bomber.

What a 'faith'!!!

Posted by: pythagoras at April 23, 2005 2:48 PM

So, if Mahometans can take Christians to court for calling Mahomet names, can Christians take Mahometans to court for calling them "dogs" and "sons of Satan"?

Waiting...

[crickets]

Posted by: Cato the Elder at April 23, 2005 2:52 PM

Cosimo...

Thanks for the response. Gee, Runar's statement compresses down to the idea that he is stating why he is not Buddist or Muslim. Now we are to get murdered because we choose to believe otherwise? Oh, I forgot...we DO GET murdered just because we believe other than Islam.

Silly me...what was I thinking?

Posted by: SCV at April 23, 2005 8:55 PM

There's more dear friends,
Muslim extremists (in my hometown, which also happens to be the same place where the Swedish taliban resides. He lives just across the street and we attended school together.) have contacted al-Zarqawi to see if they can get his support to kill Runar. It doesn't say but it's obvious what they're up to.

Here's a copy of the letter they sent to al-Z. The translation is not perfect, but I did my best.

"In the name of God, the merciful one.
Peace over the Lord of the Profets
To al-Qaeda in the land of the two rivers.
The Prince and the leader, sheikh al-Zarqawi, may God be with you.
An appealing letter about the Profet of the Profets.
Our belowed sheikh, al-Zarqawi, may God save You.

For the first time a great, humiliating event has occured. The infiltrator-vicar by the name Runar Sögaard has smeared our Profet in public and accused him of being a pedophile and homosexual (that is a lie, runar did not say the word homosexual once). The news has been published on the frontpages of the large newspapers.

Sögaard was threatened by the strict men, in accordance to an unanimous fatwa (yet, another lie. A fatwa was issued, but it was not unanimous.) by al-umma. Despite this, Sögaards refuses to apologize. He is now under the protection of the police, and the (Swedish) government defends (all these lies are beginning to irritate me). Everyone is content and glad, and noone has dissociate from this (Sögaard's sermon), except for his church (gee, glad to know you're among friends). The Swedish Muslim alliance has nullified (finaly they got something right) the fatwa of death and thereby, they indirectly defend him.

If the mudslinging continues at this intensity anyone can murder us. In addition to this, our brothers are accused of terrorism. Our great sheikh, we muslims demand and plead for your assistance since you are the people's scholar and their strength. Bring back the honor to our religion and do your duty that is commanded by God.
To support God will bring you victory.

/The oppressed muslims of Sweden"

Posted by: Cosimo at April 25, 2005 9:20 AM

now, a million dollar question is “what was the age of mary magdalene when she delivered jesus pbuh?” the answer from the most knowledgeable amongst the followers of paul has this say “she was 9 years of age when she delivered jesus pbuh”. if a girl of age 9 can be shattered by the act of marriage, why did god select a girl of 9 years to deliver jesus pbuh? the answer is very simple, god did that to show you [pauline flocks] that her age of 9 was good enough [if not fit] to deliver the child. if not then there is a serious problem with the concept of jesus’ birth. according to the priest of saint mary's catholic church: "mary was approximately 9 years old when she got pregnant with jesus. joseph, mary's husband is believed to be around 36. mary was only 13 when she married joseph. when she first was arranged with joseph she was between 7 to 9 years old." and according to the "oxford dictionary bible" commentary, mary magdalene was 9 years old when she became impregnated.

http://www.geocities.com/mewatch99/mary.html

http://www.answering-christianity.com/aisha.htm

Posted by: starstar at April 25, 2005 5:00 PM