"Prophet Mohammed was a paedohile": Freedom of speech in UK??

[emad]

Freedom of speech?
By: Channel 4 News

The Telegraph columnist Charles Moore fends off outrage from Muslim groups after saying people should have the right to say the Prophet Mohammed was a paedophile...........

Writing in last Saturday's edition of the paper, Mr Moore speculates on whether the prophet Mohammed could be described as a paedophile -- as one of his wives Aisha, was nine when they married.

Mr Moore writes:

"It seems to me that people are perfectly entitled - rude and mistaken though they may be - to say that Mohammed was a paedophile, but if David Blunkett gets his way, they may not be able to."

Mainstream Muslim scholars believe the marriage was a political alliance, which was not consummated for some years. And Mr Moore's comments have sparked outrage.
More Moore:
http://www.channel4.com/news/2004/12/week_3/14_religious.html

[emad]

1. No official mainstream retraction has ever been published by

either Koranic scholars or Islamic experts about the exact nature of this "political alliance".

Muslim Council of Great Britain has twice now said this marriage may have been a "symbolic" union depicting the purity of the Prophet.

[RUDUing2]

2. only if okay if christians have no objections to St. Joseph being called

the same since best guess is that the Virgin Mary was 13 or 14 when Christ was born..(normal age for Jewish women to marry at that time and place)...

At that time and place this was the norm...you can not apply modern more's and values to other times and places and try to make judgements about that time...

[barbaraann]

3. I disagree.

"Modern" mores are enlightened mores. Slavery, for example, was wrong in the past and it is wrong now. Just because something was commonplace doesn't make it right. Human sacrifice was commonplace and it is also wrong.

In societies where women marry at 13 or 14 they are invariably treated as chattel and we are not chattel.

[emad]

4. A 13/14 year old is an adolescent. A 9 year old is invariably

pre-puperal. Big difference.

Some Farsi texts from around the 15th/16th centuries carry treatises on why pre-adolescent virgins ought to be preferred by high-caste aristos because "they do not yet carry pox" - ie. not yet infected by syphilis etc.

18th and 19th century texts in the British Museum from travellers in Persia have some material on the availability of children in brothels as young as 4 or 5.

Maybe not typical of just Persia/Iran.

But the controvery over the age of the Prophet's daughter is valid and worrying.

[barbaraann]

8. Yes. Marrying a nine year old is just wrong.

In any culture at any time in history. And one of my pet peeves is calling multiple female marriage partners "wives." If there is more than one, they are not wives, but concubines.

King Solomon had about 300 wives and 600 concubines. That's wrong, too.

[emad]

9. Sharing a husband in the name of religion is sex abuse in any

language...

[Ms. Clio]

22. Katherine of Aragon was betrothed to Henry VIII's brother at age 4

Guess that makes the Tudors "paedophiles," too. Child betrothals were common throughout European history, but the marriages would not be consummated until puberty.

[Dorian Gray]

45. There is a difference between

betrothal and marriage, though. With betrothal, even though the woman would often move into the home of the in-laws, they were only promised to be married. They weren't supposed to have an actual pysical relationship until the marriage was completed.

But, betrothal was used, in most cases, as a political or economic tool between families. I'm glad that it is a practice that went by the wayside.

[Ms. Clio]

62. Betrothals during that period were as legally binding as a marriage n/t

[Dorian Gray]

73. Yes, they were...

but they didn't involve sexual relations until marriage actually happened.

[Ms. Clio]

78. Yes, I did say that already

Consummation did not occur until puberty.

[RUDUing2]

12. I know it is tempting to try and view the past from the understanding

of the now...but to do that is unfair both to history and to the present (cause someday this will be the ancient past). You have to look at what the more's and values were for that people and that time and place the behavior in its proper context.

From a late 20th or early 21st century western perspective the idea of a 9 yr old marrying an adult man is disgusting and horrifying...but you have to remember this was the 7th century and this was the East...

Part of the reason for the disaster in Iraq is because bushie boy and his advisors tried to apply western values and understanding to Iraq and its people...instead of looking at it and them as part of the Arab world...it didn't work there and it doesn't work when looking at the history of Islam...or any history of a different culture in a different time..

[TyeDye75]

80. Modern and historical values

I think Im having a flashback to studying Measure for Measure.

[elehhhhna]

14. No, that would make God a pedophiel & Joseph a cuckold.

[RUDUing2]

16. wow wouldn't that cause a firestorm!....but it does give some needed

perspective...kindof a pot meet kettle...

speaking of england...If I remember right Mary of Scotland was wed as a child to the King of France among other princesses who were wed to older royalty as children...was a fairly common practice for nobility to wed their daughters before puberty to older men but to have it written in the contract that there was not to be sexual intercourse until she had her menses..

[muriel_volestrangler]

40. She was betrothed at 6, married at 15

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page134.asp

to the then Dauphin (who became King of France the next year, and died the year after that).

[Johonny]

50. Best guess?

There is no historical account of A) her Birth and B) Jesus birth.
Thus any guess as to her age when Jesus was born is just that a guess.

[JVS]

52. He never fucked her

[cliss]

5. My humble take on this:

We should stop idolizing people who were, after all, people. If they had their shortcomings -- well, that's life.

The issue here is when we turn these people into icons, or larger-than-life myths. That's what I object to. We need to realize that perfection, or the quest for perfection, lies within ourselves.

We don't need flawed humans, in particular abusive humans, to look up to for that.

[emad]

6. Good point especially when seen in the context of the US sex

abuse scandals of minors perpetrated by the Catholic Church.

Wonder what will happen when JP2's security/intelligence file is finally published after his RIP??????

[RUDUing2]

13. just to point out that the RCC is not the only one w/these scandals..

contrary to what has been portrayed in the media...there has been as much problems in the protestant churches, in LDS and JW's, in state ran schools, in the NYC school system, etc...you hear more about the RCC for three reasons...1. the kept better records (including those about why a priest was treated, transferred etc) 2. They are viewed as having larger pockets. and 3. Bigotry against Catholics is alive and well and acceptable in the US (as it has been for most of the US's history).

[Dorian Gray]

47. I believe

that your reasons are correct, but we must remember that they do not forgive the Catholic Church from covering up their scandals. I'm a pretty religious person Catholic person myself, and I was livid at the scandals within my church. While there may be some valid criticisms of the criticism of the RCC, I think that, as a Catholic, it is my job to show outrage at what happened to make sure that this type of scandal doesn't mar the church again in the future.

But, remember, that much like Muhammed and many others with faults, the church is an institution run by humans prone to human error.

[RUDUing2]

69. I completely agree...my response is because so many seem to

believe that it was/is ONLY the RCC in which this occurred or that the RCC had more occurrances then other churches and state institutions etc...plus I am somewhat colored because I knew personally two priest and a school in which I know (without a doubt) that the claims were false ones brought by an ex-student who became an ex-priest out of desire to *get back* at the school for not naming him dean of the school (the reason I say know for a fact is because my son was a student there and he knew all the persons involved and he has said that the one bringing the charges is not someone who has any validity or of whom there is any reason to believe...and no other students have backed up his charges w/any of their own...in fact his *case* was thrown out by the courts for lack of evidence but while the original complaint/claims made headlines and nightly news several times...only one paper carried the notice (on an inside page) that the court had thrown out the case and none of the nightly news teams carried it...)

[Dorian Gray]

74. It's interesting...

I've heard about false reports. I've also heard many reports about abuse. I've actually known one woman who claims to have been abused as a child. Her brother is a great friend of my father. She's been proactive in protesting the higher-ups at the church in NJ who moved those people around, and I commend her highly for doing so. I've talked with many priests about the scandals, and they are just as disgusted as I am. (Which is good to see.)

I, for one, actually have much love for Catholicism. That doesn't mean that I dismiss all allegations against the clergy, though. And I probably get more angry at the wrong-doings in the church than I do at other areas.

[tx_dem41]

7. Your post ...condensed

Muslims should stop worshipping Mohammed. Mohammed was abusive.

[Bridget Burke]

10. Muslims do not worship Mohammed.

He is the greatest of the Prophets.

Molly Ivins offers some local historical perspective: She then reminisced about women's history in Texas, her native state, where earlier this century "Idiots, imbeciles, aliens, the insane, and women" were legally forbidden to vote, raising the age of consent for girls from 7 to 10 was a major change, and men were allowed to kill unfaithful wives and their lovers. "This upset women," Ivins explained. "They wanted equal shooting rights!

www.theharbinger.org/xvii/990330/youngman.html

[tx_dem41]

11. Point taken on the "worship" comment....

....This was the 7th century AD. Where is your evidence that he did marry a 9 yo. If from the Koran, where is your evidence that you are comparing similar time scales (i.e. Noah lived to 900 years according to the Bible).

[Bridget Burke]

18. The only "evidence" I presented is from Molly Ivins.

I didn't start this thread.

[TO Kid]

29. All of the sources are Islamic

The Koran and Hadiths are clear on this- Muhammed married Aisha when she was 6 and the marriage was consummated three years later. Islamic scholars jump through hoops to defend it because even at the time it was considered immoral.

[theboss]

15. Freedom of speech should be absolute

Why are we even debating this?

[RPM]

17. can you say fatwa?

enjoy your long seclusion. #1 on to do list - contact Mr. Rushdie for tips.

[sweetheart]

19. The telegraph is a conservative rag trying to stir up trouble

Just as the bushishtas do similarly, the telegraph is a rag driven
by the hateful conservative sorts who engage in free speech to create
hatred and stir up problems.

THat the rag recently changed hands, seems to have made it bolder,
but none the less filled with ignorance.

Think about it, the editors of the telegraph are responsible for
stirring up this DU thread, and as well, the thread about gun
home protection that raged on DU a day or so ago.... how much do you
like your liberal BBS being screwed with by some bored editors?

[tx_dem41]

21. I don't understand what you are implying....

This issue ultimately is about the Labor Party tyring to limit free speech in the UK. As a general theme (as it translates to the U.S) this is a law that we should unanimously speak against as liberals.

[Ms. Clio]

23. No, it's really about spreading offensive, lying propaganda

Meant to stir up intolerance and hatred.

[tx_dem41]

28. So, should freedom of speech in the US be restricted to speech...

that is NOT "offensive, lying propaganda"? How would one determine what is "offensive, lying propaganda"? Who determines that?

[Ms. Clio]

33. See how far you get in this country putting up a Nazi swastika

in a classroom. A teacher was recently made to remove one--is that a free speech issue?

See what kind of outrage (rightfully so) will be stirred up if you go around talking about the global conspiracy of Jewish bankers.

Any idiot is free to say such a thing--and I will call it lying, offensive propaganda

[TO Kid]

32. Are you saying that Islamic scripture is lying propaganda?

All of the evidence about Mohammed's behaviour is from Islamic texts.

[Ms. Clio]

34. I'm saying the interpretation of the alleged behavior is lying propaganda

And do please name those Islamic texts, since you are so familiar with them.

[DrWeird]

41. Technically, it's in the Quran.

But I always find it funny how Islamophobes like to use the literal interpretation of the Quran when it suits them.

[Ms. Clio]

64. I don't think it's in the Quran--it's in the Hadiths

There is one by Aisha herself, where she says she was betrothed at 6 and married at 9. She does not say if the marriage was actually consummated, however, just says she left her mother's house then.

Yeah, it's funny how those same folks don't seem to be too keen on a literal reading of the Bible when it comes to all the blood and gore and enthusiastic slaying of non-believers and incest and rape of slave girls, etc.

Not to mention the whole rich man/eye of a needle thing. Or "sell all you have and follow Me."

[Quill Pen]

43. Intolerance and hatred seems to be OK...

...when it's pointed in the right direction. I see. Thanks for pointing that out.

"The Da Vinci Code" remained at the top of the bestseller lists for months, despite some rather quaint assertions that Christ and Magdalene had hooked up and had a kid. I bought a copy and read it myself, without offense, despite my faith. If there was some call that went out from church leaders for Dan Brown's execution for heresy at the hands of Christian vigilantes, I must have missed it.

But when stuff's said about Mohammed's lifestyle, hoo boy, them's fightin' words.

How about instead of censoring speech, we just expect British Muslims to exercise the self control and maturity that's expected of every other member of British society when they hear things they don't like?

[sweetheart]

44. How about british editors stick a sock in it

There are some volatile communities in the UK, where surely such
an "open debate" will results in some serious matters, even
potentially death from hate crimes.

Free speech has responsibility, and this is not an issue we need to
hear about. If they never printed it, we'd collectively never miss
it. Its really rich to hear such commentary from the american side
of the pond, considering the incredible list of taboos in media
that will not be aired... yet the brits are held to a standard
that all free speech must be aired.... can you smell hipocrasy?

Reinterpreting past history with an eye towards inciting violence,
is so republican. The british right is dying to start a hate war,
and i'm all for planting their heads in the ground. Rather if 1
single crime is committed by this incitement, the telegraph should
be shut down and their editors sued for all they own.

Free speech may not have responsibility in america, in britain, there
is some attempt to hold the real criminals responsible.

[Quill Pen]

55. So your choice is either violence or the government censors the press?

>>>There are some volatile communities in the UK, where surely such
an "open debate" will results in some serious matters, even
potentially death from hate crimes.<<<

Oh, I agree. And my response to them isn't "so sorry we made you mad, we'll be more circumspect next time;" it's "wake up and smell freedom of speech in a pluralistic society, or go back to the sh*thole from whence you emerged."

I don't care how much someone pisses you off, parking a car bomb in their foyer is an intolerable response. Should be British press be cowed by gang attacks like the Russian press is? Should even the most outspoken right-wing editor be afraid for his life, just because he prints dubious claims about a long-dead prophet? Should a violent minority dictate what's available for others to read?

[sweetheart]

59. And your response is to make glib comments from 5000 miles off

I'd like to see you relocate to bradford in the midlands, or
southall or ealing in london and be so high minded. The telegraph
editors, are as well, hiding away in wealthy communities where the
results of their actions are not felt.

The press is considered, in the UK, to be a genuine mouthpeice of
a segment of people, not a private mouth to spout crap... and the
telegraph has betrayed the interests of its public.

I emigrated away from the United states after major television
stations ran slanderous and liabellous material about my religious
group that permanently destroyed my business reputation and my career
by creating a climate of fear, hatred and paranoia. It broke my
finances, and i could not afford to take legal action to protect my
rights to free religion (and make a living)... so i left the country
because freedom of speech was grossly abused to attack nonchristian
fringe meditation groups.

I've paid dearly for the glib choices of some editors to screw with
my life by printing shit. The telegraph is a crap newsapaper to
chose voluntarily to print inflamatory rhetoric that is not news,
not religous insight, but pure abuse of historical framing to bring
about social unrest so they can carry out their christian-white-mans
britain (ONLY) adgenda. You support them, good for you. It makes
you rather low, in my view, not someone defending anything
noble.

Britain is not america. Free speech has caveats to not create hate
crime, to not be liabellous or inciteful of violence. This poor
choice by the telegraph is the editorial equivalent of arial sharon's
march on the temple mount that brought about the infitada and the
horrible deaths of 1000's of palestineans and israelis. Sure it was
his free right to do that, and he did it to incite and create murder.

The right wing will seek to do such things, and folks like you can
sit about on other continents and be high minded while other people
pay in blood for these bad decisions.

I would issue the telegraph an intense injunction, that they will
lose their license to be a newspaper if they incite violence amongst
the religious communities of britain. This whole tension is brought
about by the bush-alliance and supporting americans (your government)
which many british muslims are totally against. So what is it to be,
? Can we be circumspect in print, to unify rather than create strife?... And can we grow up and see that the british culture is
not america by any means, just because america has licensed the
language.

[Quill Pen]

71. "Pay in blood for these bad decisions..."

>>>This poor choice by the telegraph is the editorial equivalent of arial sharon's march on the temple mount that brought about the infitada and the horrible deaths of 1000's of palestineans and israelis. Sure it was his free right to do that, and he did it to incite and create murder.<<<

Puhleez. LOL. Free speech is in no way "equivalent" to military aggression.

>>>The right wing will seek to do such things, and folks like you can
sit about on other continents and be high minded while other people
pay in blood for these bad decisions.<<<

I shall continue to be high-minded and distant; you're right. I have absolutely no wish to mix it up in the streets with the sociopathic members of the creepy cult you've just described yourself as belonging to. I prefer to spend my time with mature adults who can control themselves and their impulses, and not vaguely threaten with violence an unfawning press.

Psychologists say that one of the telltale signs of a violent abuser, in relationships, is that he (she?) will claim that his lack of control over his own anger is somehow the victim's fault. "You made me angry enough to hit you! Your fault!" Um, no, try again.

If people are "paying in blood" for telling the truth about you and this bizarre (and I suspect, dangerous and violent -- or you would not have had to leave your country to escape your own bad press) cult to which you belong, the blood is on your hands.

[sweetheart]

72. What is the truth

You know, i've no issue with people speaking freely in all reagards.
That is my own view. In this regard, we agree.

You don't know anything about my buddhist religion, and your personal
remarks in that regard, are just rude. You have never, obviously,
endured religious persecution in mainstream media, or perhaps you'd
be more circumspect. It is a very painful experience indeed to be
branded and attacked on primetime television, and when they slander
people wrongly with "swiftboat liars", nobody remembers the
retraction, the mainstream just remembers the slander.

My sharon, temple mount example, shows, that the intent is root to
the act. If you use free speech to cause strife, i've no problem
calling you out on it, and it is right that i should, before it
causes a violent escalation, as was unfortunately not checked with
sharon's maneouver that started a war.

Likewise, after 9/11, people with turbans and beards were lynched
in several cases across the US because of media editors formenting
their free speech imappriately. Had they been more circumspect,
perhaps some folks would still have their right to life intact.

I have endured the sort of prejudice that an unchecked media can
forment, and it is wholly wrong, that editors should be able, at
a whim, to create strife, prejudice and lynchings by inciting
hatred, when they are paid for a public service.

You say: If people are "paying in blood" for telling the truth
about you and this bizarre (and I suspect, dangerous and violent --
or you would not have had to leave your country to escape your own
bad press) cult to which you belong, the blood is on your hands.

Nobody paid in blood for the NBC/Newsweek/washington post et. al.
attack on my religious group, except the group's members, who are
peaceful meditating buddhists. The attack sought to slander "us"
by suggesting that members associated would steal data, subvert
compaies we worked for, and whatnot. It was a very effective attack
on the economics of the religious group, seeking to deny us our
legitimate professional rights. I have never ever committed any
such crime, nor was our "cult" pursuing such actions. The media
slaner on 40 million TV screens was really nasty, and i had to find
work abroad, as the media poisoned the pool.

There are no other "members" of my cult in this discussion, just
myself and the impact it had on me, as my buddhist master took his
own life, not long after, in protest to the abuse, in the spirit
that monks in viet nam immolated themselves in protest.
Here are 2 websites of my buddhist tradition: (both in the
christian name of my enlightened buddhist master "Rama")
http://www.fredericklenz.com/
http://www.fredericklenzfoundation.org/

You misinterpret "paid in blood". I paid in being driven out of
my home... to me, that is blood, not murder or violence. You might
have enough brain cells to recognize that swiftboat liars for truth
was none of the sort, as the case was high profile. Whereas, the
case of my religous group was not, and people bought the swiftboat
lairs misrepresentation, and the presumption, sold by the media
in the US, that all non-christian cults are somehow evil, as you
yourself slander me with in your post.

My point, was, and is, that people are not held responsible for their
own words (as actions), and were they, the editors should face
responsibility for crimes they incite. You, rather feel that there
is no responsibility, and then you start inciting violence against
myself, and rudely defaming me and my religion. I think you need
only look at your own post to see how ignorant people abuse
free speech to create hatred.

[Dorian Gray]

75. Look,

I lived in London for a couple of years, and I spent a further three months in Huntingdon and a further four months in Barrow-in-Furnace. I don't think the problem that you are claiming is brought by America, at all. I think that there is a general anger due to the classist society that still exists in Britain.

And I say that as someone who was living in the lower-middle class economic rung when I lived there. England doesn't love or embrace the foreigners who move there, and they are kept very segregated from the Britains. Whether it is their choice or the "status quo," I do not quite know.

But, I interacted with people of all cultures while living in England, and I was always told that it was the Americans who were more open to their lifestyle than the local British population.

Whether they feel further dislocated because of the closeness of the Blair administration with the Bush administration, I don't know. I guess it's possible. But, it didn't seem like the British population was trying to make the Muslim population fit in and feel welcome when I was there.

But, the biggest problem with Britain is the still existing class system. Sadly, I saw how it affected relatives and friends of mine. People who, despite the low cost of university, wouldn't consider going because it wasn't their "place." Sorry, I guess that I'm still angry that my nieces didn't go to Uni, even after my family promised to pay for their $1500 per year 'tuition.'

There are many things that I love about England. (Especially its neighbour to the north, Scotland!) But, there were also many problems that I saw there, and I really dislike when they are blamed on America.

[sweetheart]

77. indeed

I've seen similarly in my living in the UK. It is a contributing
exogenous factor, the US... and only most recently in the bush
fascist pusch, has this US thing become its own element, IMO.

That said, this iraq war, has had some british muslims going to
iraq to fight against the USA in falluja. There is a small element
that is "them" in the "us or them" idiocy of this war, and religion
is certianly a factor.

Happily, I see many more wise and funny souls in britain than pissed
off ones. How could anyone take bush seriously.... seriously! he's
such a 2 dimensional card... him and his lot are clearly disbelievable
as representatives of the great american colours... thankfully.
:-)

[InvisibleBallots]

79. how is this different than what is said here on DU

regarding Christian fundamentalism, the bible, etc?

[sweetheart]

81. Paid print mainstream journalism vs. private blogging

In terms of the opinions and their inflamatory nature, there is
little difference. Some of the anti-christian rhetoric on DU can
be rather offensive to christians. Fortunately, there is not a war
being waged in new mexico between christians and atheists, for which
the government is paying to kill one and not the other. (One must
recognize the framing of the situation in britain, that the minority
muslim population, is strongly concerned that the US/british war in
iraq is really a war against islam. Hearing professional liars like
tony blair deny this, is really not worth the paper its printed on,
and there are increasing accounts of this war being thought of
as an anti-islam crusade by soldiers and commanders inside iraq.

As well, that the british/US coalition has been torturing muslims
and imprisoning some folks without due process, further sets the
climate for a volatile social situation. Perhaps the closest
situation, would rather be how the race problems in los angeles
prior to the rodney king verdict that sparked the riots.

So given, that there is no pogrom against christians, the ground of
hatred is not quite present, even with some folks rather hateful.

As well, the telegraph is a major distribution nationwide UK
newspaper, a conservative one that generally backs the tory party
line of right wing thinking (republican). This mouthpeice was until
1997 the newspaper of the government in power, and for it to use its
editorial pages to incite such hatred, on every newsstand in britain,
is quite different than someone on a website, ranting about
christianity.

So its the framing of a anbiguous war that is killing the
people in question (or their extended perceived identity), government
support of that war, and a major newspaper printing the slander.
If the washington post and wall street journal start printing similar
slander, that could be seen as the US equivalent, and i'm quite sure
the the muslim community would be up in arms if such rhetoric was
printed. But given the US dynamics, it would be more like rather
if the washington post and the wall street journal published an
article saying that black people were not as smart as white people.
That is the closest i can think of to framing this situation that
a US audience can understand why media censorship has its place.

[Forkboy]

20. People should have the right to say whatever idiotic thing they want

Hell,look at me! :D

[drdon326]

24. Yeah......look.

:eyes:



lol

[Forkboy]

25. Or they could go look at any of your posts in I/P

What's up there,pee wee...hows the proctology biz going?

It's also worth noting that the only time you poke your head out of I/P was in threads about nuking Muslims and this one.Like a moth to a flame you seem drawn to any story that you can use in your endless attempts to smear Arabs,Palestinians and brown people.

Say hi to folks at LGF and CU for us.

[Trajan]

46. Hell yeah ....

You have that right, Fork ....

Even as I believe that Allah is a figment, Yahweh a wisp of smoke, Jesus a collection of dust and mohammed a zephyr : bring out the ANTI/Muslim stuff, and look who emerges from the ugly deserts of the I/P forum ? ....

None other than ....

[seaofcrisis]

27. couple of quick points

1. I think people should have the right to say whatever they want. Even limitations like, "you can't shout 'fire' in a crowded theater" seem unjust to me. You should be able to say whatever you want, but you should be held accountable by society for saying it. In the case of "fire" in a theater, you should be held accountable for causing panic and for causing injury as people rush out of the theater. In the case of hate speech (like calling a religeous leader names) I think that you should be held accountable by being shunned or boycotted.

So to summarize point 1: I think that there should be no prior restraint on speach at all for any reason. I just think that there should conseqences after the speech.

2. This is really a moot point. Isn't it? As far as I know, pedophilia is a mental condition. A person suffering from it is only able to become sexually aroused by a person who is sexually immature. It's a sickness because, if the person acts on it, they necessarily end up hurting the child. a. Mohamid had adult wives, so there is ample evidence that he did not suffer from this - he was apparently able to become aroused by sexually mature individuals. b. there is an alternate explaination as to why he married a 9 year old - it was for political purposes.

Given (a) and (b), it's hard for me to believe that any rational person would still think that he was a pedophile. The people who say he was have, in my humble opinion, some other adgenda.

(for the purposes of full disclosure, I am an atheist)

[Forkboy]

30. The poster who first replied to me would be the best example of this

The people who say he was have, in my humble opinion, some other adgenda.

[muriel_volestrangler]

42. Here's a link to the current American medical definition of paedophilia

Basically, a mature man having sex with a prepubescent girl, for a period of at least 6 months, would count as paedophilia according to this. The fact that he could also be aroused by mature women wouldn't affect the diagnosis.

http://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/apa_statement_jun03.htm

I'm not claiming any idea whether Mohammed does qualify for this.

[TO Kid]

87. Okay, maybe not paedophile

But one doesn't have to fit the definition of "paedophile" to be a child molester, which Muhammed clearly was.

[UdoKier]

26. He was also a warrior who spread his religion through force.

And yet we are expected to refer to Islam as a "religion of peace". It may have a great many peaceful followers, but Mohammed was not a man of peace.

But then again, Jesus most certainly was a man of peace, and many of his supposed followers don't have an inkling about the true meaning of the word.

Anyway, back to the article, it is probably unfair to describe him as a pedophile. The fog of centuries makes that as impossible to determine as whether or not Jesus had relations with Mary Magdalene or the apostles.

[Solon]

56. Jesus? A man of Peace?

Think not that I come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
- Matthew 10:34

[UdoKier]

57. His body count was much lower.

Mohammed personally killed scores of people in battle.

I'm not trying to defend Jesus - I'm not even a christian, just saying...

Notice I did not agree on the "pedophile" accusation...

[Solon]

58. Actually, we don't know...

there is a huge gap in Jesus' life that we have no clue about, as far as we know, he could have been a psychopathic serial killer, just saying...

[DrWeird]

60. He did push a little kid off a building.

Serious. Infancy gospels.

[Solon]

61. Oh yeah, we forgot about all those apocrypha gospels...

especially the new testament ones. There were possibly hundreds that were rejected, I wonder why?

[Malikshah]

63. And we know this how???

Ibn Hisham's Sirat al-nabi?

The 4 gospels.

Oh, now there's definitive proof of events for Muhammad and Jesus' life.

Yup. Totally verified. Would stand up against any vetting process.

Sorry-- when folks start talking about the early lives of...Siddhartha Gautama, Jesus, Muhammad, Abraham, etc. as if they represent some sort of verified fact...run. very fast.

[TO Kid]

90. Look at what they brag about

If you read the Hadiths the one thing that stands out is the fact that they boast about the atrocities- like how Muhammed sat for an entire day and laughed as he watched his followers line up the Jews of Medina in front of an open pit and cut their heads off (death toll 800-900). Or how Allah declares that it is OK to steal their land, kill the men and rape the women. Yep, that's a religion of peace.

[Malikshah]

97. Uh...sorry--don't know where you're getting your information from

but the canonical collections of the hadith in the Sunni Muslim world do not do such a thing.

As in all things-- check the sources first.

[Ms. Clio]

98. He gets his information from trusted news sources like Asia News

Which even has its own Internet patron saint.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ms. Clio]

35. Well what's interesting is that I googled Mohammed Haddiths Aisha

and all I came up with were Islamophobic hate sites.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ms. Clio]

38. Ya sure yourself

You sent me to a hate site with articles like "Jihad wrecks Dutch race harmony" and "If Islam Ruled America" and call it proof.

I could pull all sorts of misogynist quotes from the Bible, and that would prove what, exactly?

By your own fruits we shall know YOU.

[Cleita]

37. Marrying off girls as young as eight or nine isn't that

unusual in the past in Islamic societies. Usually, the girl stayed with her own family after the marriage and went to live with her husband after the onset of menses. Most likely this is what happened with Ayisha whom Mohammed married when she was a child. A friend of mine from Iran told me that her grandmother was married at the age of nine. She went to live with her husband when she was fifteen.

[Ms. Clio]

39. In medieval Europe, the age of consent was seven

When the average life expectancy was 27, childhood was a completely different concept.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

49. its not unusual in any society

western or eastern

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DrWeird]

51. You're implying the west has values to teach.

nt

[Fescue4u]

53. Yes of course

I think the west has the right idea that raping kids is bad.

[DrWeird]

54. Always cracks me up.

Homosexuals. Muslims. Funny how people who accuse other people that they don't like of supporting child molestation always like to pretend they have some moral highground.

[Fescue4u]

68. Who's talking about homosexuals?

Other than yourself of course?

[Ms. Clio]

65. And what makes you think "the east" doesn't?

Something that might have happened 1300 years ago?

So predictable.

[DrWeird]

66. Amazing, isn't it?

Reminds me of Fred Phelps.

[Fescue4u]

67. I certainly don't

Do you?

[TO Kid]

86. Actually, so does the east

Muhammed's marriage to Aisha was scandalous at the time- he went to great pains to come up with "revelations" to tray and justify it (and a few more to justify his marriage to his son's wife).

[emad]

70. Latest update on Charles Moore, ex-Telegraph editor, staunch

Catholic, Opus Dei senior activist and Margaret Thatcher's biographer:

There is a massive paedophile sex abuse scandal brewing in the UK linked directly to Thatcher and the Catholic Church that goes back over 40 years and is, in part, connected to a sex ring featuring former GIs stationed in the UK after WWII at the former USAF bases at High Wycombe (now RAF Strike Command, Dawes Hill, High Wycombe, Bucks), members of the British aristocracy who participated in child sex rings via the West Wycombe-based HellFire Club (Sir Francis Dashwood and family), former UK political scandals linked to the KGB -the hooker Mandy Rice Davis who brought down War Minister John Profumo, Jackie Kennedy's sister Caroline Lee Bouvier canfield Radziwill and her P2 Lodge husband Polish Catholic Prince Stanislaw Radziwill, and various East European PoWs released after at the end of WWII who escaped from detention for childsex crimes in their home countries and made their way to the UK, where they were given shelter and refuge by the Henley-on-Thames Polish priests the Marian Fathers.

This sex scandal keeps popping up and has been supressed by consecutive UK prime ministers because it features newly elevated Polish Archbishop Stanislaw Dziwisz, seen here with JP2 after is promotion last year:



The current debate on incitement to religious hatred in the UK is boiling over after the 9/11 debacle but is being stirred mostly by Catholic fundy members of Opus Dei like Charles Moore who are hell-bent on protecting the Pope's reputation because of amassed UK evidence against Dziwisz and his sex clique of child molestors.

Moore's recent outburst about the Prophet Mohammed's marriage to a 9 year old girl clearly diverts attention away from the raging legal arguments about extraditing Dziwisz back to the UK to face paedophile charges going back 40 years.

There are no real winners in the debate that the article in the Independent started because the Prophet Mohammed has been dead a long time.

But JP2 is going strong and so is his personal secretary Dziwisz.

Edit:

Addendum: Opus Dei also strongly implicated in the misinformation about WMDs in Iraq. Murdered care worked margaret hassan may have been bumped off NOT by Iraqi extremists but by MI6 mercenaries keen to shut her up aout the communications role she played with ex-ory party leader Ian Duncan Smith, a great chum of Donald Rumsfeld and a semi-official MI6 conduit of communications between UK and US military intelligence in the runup to the Iraq war.

[Razorback_Democrat]

82. What's this info from? link? source? it's interesting.

[fujiyama]

76. I'm not very impressed

with the concept of "freedom of speech" in Britain. I don't like the idea of the government being the "speech police". People should have the right to say things that offend people's religious sensitivities. I say the same regarding Catholics, with regard to say the film "Dogma" or Hindus, who were upset by several orgy scenes using various mantras in "Eyes Wide Shut".

Plus, I heard the libel laws are so stifling in Britain, that they can't even get books with the least amount of controversey published. For example, the publisher of "House of Bush, House of Saud" was sued by some Saudi princes and I don't think they published it there...or anyways they had trouble doing so.

This seems to be especially apparent in Islam (and to some extent Christianity), where any criticism is percieved as an "attack". It's time for religious people to get over themselves.

[TO Kid]

83. In Islam, criticism is punishable by torture & death

I would urge everyone to review the Koran and the Hadiths- Islamic scripture is very clear that insulting the prophet is a capital offence. Muhammed ordered the extermination of all Jews because they laughed at them.

[ck4829]

88. I have read the Koran

It does have parts that I would never approve of, but it seems less violent than the Old Testament.

If the Koran is accurate about Mohammed killing people, that would mean Mohammed did kill people, but he killed a 1000 people at most

If Bible is accurate about the Biblical leaders killing people, that would mean Moses, David, etc. killed 10's of 1000's of people.

[TO Kid]

92. 1000 at most?

He had that body count by year 4 of his regime. Read the Hadiths about his treatment of the Jews in Medina- it was remarkably similar to the massacre at Babi Yar. Between 800 and 900 unarmed civilians were lined up, killed and thrown into a pit in a single day.

[ck4829]

93. It is appalling, but both the Bible and Koran may be making things up...

when it comes to killing people.

In the years 500 - 1200 (about that time), a man's masculinity was measured by how much he could destroy, how many villages he could pillage, etc. And, the Koran was written when this seemed to be the 'hip' thing to do. The OT was also written for a people who measured their masculinity in how much destruction they could cause.

So, that is why I think neither are true when it comes to their accounts of genocide.

[sweetheart]

84. The US equivalent, given history and social circumstances would be:

The Washington post printing an article that says that the original
slaves had low IQ's and that is why they were naturally slaves
ruled by the white man. If such a thing were printed in glorious
free speech style, do you not think there would be a call for
censure?

It is an irrelevant mistelling of history, but it would incite real
outrage and potentially even violence. Likely, a wise editor would
self-censor such a comment. Likewise, in britain, wise editors
should have considered similarly.

One must recognize the history of britain in waging crusades against
islam, a history that is not american, that holds deep seated hatred
based on historical war crimes. This is not an individual free
speech person in hyde park speaker's corner. No. It is a major
newsapaper inciting what "could" lead to violence, given that there
have already been riots and hate crimes committed in this regard,
similar to how ameircana today experiences lynchings related to its
ongong race war, the LA riots, and such.

[TO Kid]

85. If you think that such an article could incite violence

Take a look at the Koran and Islam's other holy books. Their prophet declared war against all mankind. He murdered the Arabs for refusing to pay him off. The Jews were massacred for laughing at him. Christians were murdered for refusing to convert to his religion.

[sweetheart]

89. Religious history and war

We don't know if any of that is true. It is, as reliable as
the christian fiction, IMO. Repeating it, to give it credence,
makes it no less reliable.

I guess i'm saying that the history thing is a smaller part of
the equation. The existing culture is repressive towards this
minority group, and has, in britain's case, invaded an occupied
iraq previously, with similarly nasty atrocities being done against
muslims. The crimes are in the current political situation, and by
bringing up history, it allows people to vent hatred through a proxy
to stabbing the muslim next door.

If someone were to print that article with the incitement pointed
towards jews, the establishment would be up in arms. They get away
with it because islam is generally looked down upon by a
judeo-christian culture.

I, frankly, don't understand what somepeople see in islam, or
christianity for that matter, as i find the tales of strife to be
unremarkable entirely, rather a black stain on the tradition... but
it is no my place to ask. I'm willing to not ask, if those involved
are willing to be moderate and live in peace with me.

[TO Kid]

91. They glorify it

Their holy books don't even try to put a spin on it. Read them for yourself- I have. They boast about piracy, murder and rape.

[sweetheart]

95. Who is "they"

This ambiguous stereotype, allows you to talk as if its some
distant far away "other". Try swapping in "we" and then listen
to general boykin, bush, western history of the crusades,
or reading the old testament.

We, as a race of barbaric people, glorify violence and murder when
it suits our causes. When we are self effacing and realize our own
cultural complicity in all this, then there arises some sense that
we can directly heal this wound by opposing any glorification of
such barbarity, be it "they" or "we".

In my buddhist religion, i've heard similar ignorance from christain
missionaries about how "they" are not civilized and whatnot... the
use of pronouns to distance one's self from the incitement may
work in mainstream media, but the truth is not so black and white.

[TO Kid]

96. "They" are the founders of Islam

No need to listen to anyone else's interpretation. The authors of the Hadiths made no effort to sanitize their stories because they saw nothing wrong with piracy, extortion, rape and murder. Therefore we have two possibilities- if the Hadiths are true then Muhammed was all of the above, if the Hadiths were fabricated then they were written for the sole purpose of intimidation, IOW to scare believers into submitting and to make "infidels" fear them. Either way it's pretty ugly. Ask yourself, does your faith compel you to kill those who do not share it? Do the Christian missionaries you've met claim the right to torture those who refuse to convert?

[Ms. Clio]

99. Do you ever read the Old Testament?

Because it's full of very similar stories about Hebrews raping and murdering and pillaging non-believers. Yet you just conveniently ignore all of that, don't you?

You are nothing if not consistent.

[Taxloss]

94. Ah, the Telegraph, longtime home to Muslim-bating.

From earlier this year:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,1295447,00.html

Snip:

"In his four articles, bylined Will Cummins, he compared Muslims to Nazis and argued that Muslim voters have a "global jihadi agenda". One of his articles stated: "All Muslims, like all dogs, share certain characteristics." Another argued: "It is the black heart of Islam, not its black face, to which millions object." "

Ah, the spirit of Der Sturmer!