Saadia,Monkeytrousers and Peacedove...looking forward greatly to your comments on Abu Hamza's conviction.o

[moondog]

As I am a catholic I forgive you all!

Thanks Rhubarb

I am nice to my dog, you know

I'm leaving now as there really isn't anything more to say. I find it odd that a religion (like the JWs and so forth) cannot find any single thing to criticise in their religion, they question nothing. Religion is made by men, infallible men at that, and prophets were men foremost you know (as well as women!) so were not without sin.

I enjoyed the light-hearted debating, but hate all the other stuff. And now that I seem to have made an enemy out of tatt, whom I don't think I've had a conversation with, I can happily forgive her too! (that'd piss her off!)

The best religion I know is where you love your neighbour as yourself and where killing is against Gods law and where you are told to turn the other cheek. Oh hang on a sec, that's MY religion!

Have a nice day y'all!

You've obviously studied Oscar Wilde, Rhubarb. "Always forgive your enemies. Nothing annoys them more".

nanneh I missed that offensive bit about the prophet that Rhubarb had used, and she has repeated it often enough for me to realise that she also menas to be offensive, despite her superior Catholic upbringing.

Obviously not much use me continuing a talk with her.

Religion is made by men, infallible men at that, and prophets were men foremost you know (as well as women!) so were not without sin.

As you say yourself, Rhubarb, the home lives of most prophets and great thinkers would not bear much scrutiny. Gandhi, for instance, was a terrible father and husband, but I don't believe that takes away from the greatness of his message. What should concern us is how Prophet Muhammad's message is applied today, not whom he married, or we could be here for years.

pappada religion was not made by men, but revealed by God, and the prophets (peace be uopn them) had been protected from sin.

You have a right not to believe that? It is fine with us. Only let us leave it as a difference of opinion or faith or whatever, and stay decent.

sorry pappadum, keyboard playing tricks again.

greensleeves and rhubarb,
the point i am trying to make is that aisha WAS NOT A CHILD when the marriage was consummated.

yes stitch, but some people just like to believe whatever fits in with their own theories and prejudices. If they truly questioned with an open mind, they would come to better conclusions.
As it is they blindly follow conjecture.
Alhamdulillah we are muslims.

Did you look at the second link? I guess not. When is a child not a child? Even if she was 13 she is still a child. But the second link specifically states that she was 9 when the marriage was consummated and it says that to believe anything else, given the evidence in the Koran, is foolish and stupid (their words not mine).

Religion is made by men, faith by God.

I cannot be credited with the original insult to Muhammed, I just provided the evidence!

That really is it from me now! I still forgive you all for disagreeing with me btw!

Peace!

Rhubarb Perhaps you do not understand, this is not about winning points. You may believe the second link only, but we think a complete picture better gives us what the prophet was.

You don't have to accept Islam; you have the right to disagree with us, but you do not have to use language that is insulting.

The difference between "religion", and "faith", would be interesting if the prophet's name were not brought in for abuse. Otherwise, goodbye and God bless!

I do not insult your prophet, I criticise people, from whatever culture or country you like, who think that marrying and then consummating that marriage with a child (regardless of whether they are 9 or 14). That is unacceptable to me and if I know about anyone who does that, then I feel that I do have the right to express my disgust over that, no matter who that person happens to be.

What you do not seem to understand, well not you so much but nanneh, is that by criticising a religion one is not being racist or a bigot or a facist. I could, for example, criticise the Protestants, a religion started by King Henry VIII simply so that he could divorce his first wife and marry his lover, he also wanted to tone down the bits of religion he wasn't entirely happy with, no doubt the Protestants would have something to say about that, but they would not accuse me of racism or facism or bigotism (and you could count Henry VIII as their major prophet I suppose as he founded the religion). What they would do is come back with facts for me and probably criticisms of the catholic church, which is what I would expect. This is called a healthy debate. They could call the Pope a kiddly fiddler if they liked, if they provided the evidence for this I would have to consider their arguments (the present Pope has been accused of facism, but so far no evidence has been provided).

Instead, when we criticise your prophet, who is only a prophet after all and not God, you seem to silence those critics by casting judgements. You do not address the facts, you simply ignore valid points raised and find something you can twist into being sinister.

A great many people involved in this debate have been accused of being racist, facist and bigoted. Their crime? They insulted the prophet by questioning his marriage, by raising valid questions and points that were not addressed.

I respect your right to belong to any religion you like, to worship whatever you like, but you must also respect our right of freedom of speech, our right to criticise and to question. If you have been offended then I apologise. But I stand by the points that I have made and I reserve the right to criticise who I like for entering into marriage with a child.

I really must learn to leave this now mustn't I?

but rhubarb, you are insulting muhammed. in a way i find totally unacceptable. a charge of paedophilia should never ever be made lightly as it could ruin the life of an innocent man and his family. yet you persist in making this charge, and do so incredibly flippantly.
it is your decision to be so inflexible about the age when someone becomes an adult. but most societies before so called 'western' civilisation have deemed puberty to be the age at which adulthood is reached. it's pretty arrogant of you to assume that every one else in history is wrong and you are right.

debate, argue etc about religion all you want. its your prerogative.

just a very small comment to say that Protestantism was a movement way before Henry VIII, it was a movement away from a lot of what it saw as wrong with the Roman Catholic church. right, away again.

Dear ol' Martin Luther and nailing his 'faeces' (sic) to the door of the church

And henry never considered himself a protestant. He was head of the catholic church in England

Hey PD,isn't there a big demo in London today?
Why aren't you there?

I was listening to a Muslim cleric yesterday saying that although Christianity and Islam are regularly lampooned in the 'West' (the latter most of all I would argue),Judaism rarely is.

Sensitivities run so high with constant accusations of anti Semitism that can't help but agree....

Stitch, I'm sorry but what I have read on the Muslim websites, particularly the second link that I gave, seem to state that Aisha was 9 when the marriage was consummated. Even if she were a little older, I still find it slightly perverted that an old man could have sex with such a young girl.

Why is it so unacceptable for me to criticise an aspect of the Muslim religion when it is fair game for most people to make fun of and accuse Jesus of so many things? I do not make accusations lightly, I read what is written and make my mind up from there. It seems to be one rule for one religion and another rule for another.

Muhammed was a man, he was not God, just as the other prophets, Moses et all were men too. I could criticise them to my hearts content and no-one would bat an eyelid. Why should I be gagged on this one? Please tell me why you think that it is acceptable that Mohammed married and had sex with a child just years before his death? And why is it that it is perverted for anyone else to have sex with a child but not Mohammed? He is not God, he is not above the law, he is not without sin.

These are valid points that I would like you to address.

What you are asking sounds entirely reasonable to me,Rhubarb.

Um, not in any way justifying it, but wasn't child marriage much more common back then? Reasons being I guess along the lines of A0 short lifespan, and B) when singledom could lead to your death through starvation, you're best off getting hitched at your first available opportunity.

I'm not certain it's relevant to criticise this by current norms, although you are absolutely right to find the idea disturbing.

Child marriage isn't currently something that is common in all Muslim countries: case in point Egypt where the minimum ages are 17 for girls and 18 for boys. Admittedly exemptions for slightly younger girls can be obtained, but then our minimum age is lower anyway, 16 with parental consent I believe.

From what I have read, Muhammud and his contemporaries took extra wives as there was s urplus of widows / fatherless girls at the time due to the wars of the time.

I've been reading a lot on Islam, and I find that although there are lots of things that upset me as a non-believer(eg, shari'ah law and some of its applications), there are things we can learn from too- eg zakat.

Hmmmmm,the Telegraph today has some topless shots of the newly discovered Kate Moss at 15.
This struck me as a little odd.
I mean,don't they gaol people who have sex with under age girls?
Haven't teachers' careers been ruined for having relationships with people of the same age?

I don't think it's possible to judge another age by modern standards.

In that case MT,you seem to be implying that there is little point in discussing anything.....

Moreover what is 'another age'??

Were the following of another age?

Apartheid
Suffrage for men only
Slavery
Reformation

Where do you draw the line???

I guess I'm just having a hard time understanding this. God has been called all names under the sun here on Mumsnet, just go through the archives if you have time, there are enough insults there about God to start a dozen Holy Wars, but none are started. Where are our friends then? But if you question the name of Mohammed, if you take the piss, then you are in deep shit my friend. Why? Is he above God? Did God not say, thou shalt worship none but the one God? So why then did the people who are so vocal on this thread not defend God on the other threads? Why is it that whenever the Media have one of those documentaries trying to prove the non-existence of God, that slander the name of Jesus, why are there no demonstrations outside the BBC or ITV?

Why is it that I am being told that I am a racist and facist and people say that I am going too far when far worse have been said about God? Who is the important one here?

And why is it that there is this big dispute against the Muslims and Jews? Why, when the cartoons had nothing to do with Jews, are certain Muslims now threatening to do similar cartoons about the Holocaust? What has that to do with anything?

Answers on a postcard please.