[AboveAverageJoe]

Muhammad’s Wives mean age at the time he married them:
Khadijah’s Median Age = 26 years and 10 months.
Sawdah’s Approximate Age = 40 years.
Aisha’s Median Age = 9 years and 3 months.
Hafsah’s Median Age = 19 years and 6 months.
Zaynab bint Khuzayma’s Median Age = 28 years and 4 months.
Hind’s Median Age = 28 years and 6 months.
Zaynab bint Jahsh’s Median Age = 37 years and 2 months.
Juwayriyah’s Median Age = 20 years and 0 months.
Safiyah’s Age = 16 years and 6 months.
Ramlah’s Median Age = 34 years and 7 months.
Maymunah’s Median Age = 35 years and 2 months.
Mulaykah’s Approximate Age = 13 years.
Asma’s Maximum Age = 20 years.
Amrah’s Approximate Age = 15 years.



With the exception of the underage wives of course:

[911]

(05-14-2016 01:46 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(05-13-2016 11:46 PM)911 Wrote:  

Muhammad’s Wives mean age at the time he married them:
Khadijah’s Median Age = 26 years and 10 months.
Sawdah’s Approximate Age = 40 years.
Aisha’s Median Age = 9 years and 3 months.
Hafsah’s Median Age = 19 years and 6 months.
Zaynab bint Khuzayma’s Median Age = 28 years and 4 months.
Hind’s Median Age = 28 years and 6 months.
Zaynab bint Jahsh’s Median Age = 37 years and 2 months.
Juwayriyah’s Median Age = 20 years and 0 months.
Safiyah’s Age = 16 years and 6 months.
Ramlah’s Median Age = 34 years and 7 months.
Maymunah’s Median Age = 35 years and 2 months.
Mulaykah’s Approximate Age = 13 years.
Asma’s Maximum Age = 20 years.
Amrah’s Approximate Age = 15 years.

Given that there is some scholarly debate about Asha's actual age and that she is clearly an outlier, I think that the portrayal of Mohamed as a pedophile is a bit tenuous.

But by the same logic, if I met 11 people this month, and I only stabbed one of them, it's "just an outlier". So it need not affect my reputation.

If a guy dated 11 chicks this year, and he only violently raped one of them, "it's just an outlier".

Crossing certain lines automatically tars you. Part of being a decent, socially well-adjusted individual is that you don't cross those lines. There is no such thing as "he only robbed one bank so it's OK", "he only strangled one of his friends so it's OK".

Unless him marrying that girl was literally a matter of life and death, e.g. if he didn't she would die, or it would cause a war where millions would die, there is no justification.

The problem is that muslims must follow it all to the letter. As Alexandrian put it: "I am commanded to...". There is no room for independence in Islam -- you are not an individual you are a Muslim. They're all basically drones of a horrific Borg-like organization. You will be assimilated.

My point was that, given that Aisha's age is disputed (independent western scholars like Karen Armstrong who have formally studied the subject put her marriage age after puberty), you have to look at the pattern of Mohammed's marriages and his entire life to establish if he had pedo leanings. After all the guy ruled his followers in every sense, so if he was into little girls, he would have had his way, or at least married a bunch of little girls.

There was a decent discussion on the subject on the catholic.com forum archive if you want to check it out.

Look, there are some definite problems with Islam and the West, but pedophilia is not one, neither is it enshrined into the religion, like it is for satanism, which incidentally is a far more powerful and negative influence in our societies.

[Prince of Persia]

Fuck Islam. It's nothing but a primitive religion that ATTEMPTED to civilize the most degenerate people on the planet. SJWs love to cry about American/British imperialism, but they fail to mention the bloodiest and most disgusting nation building human history has ever known: the Islamic caliphate.

[AboveAverageJoe]

(05-13-2016 10:39 PM)AboveAverageJoe Wrote:  

Also, Mohammed married a Jewish wife named Rhianna, does that make him pro Jewish? Like many leaders at the time marriages were mostly political and were about building alliances and not about sex or love.

forgive me, her name was Safiyya apparently the 16 and a half year old.

[Leonard D Neubache]

The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worl...n-islamic/

Quote:

Clerics on the council object to minimum age requirements, arguing instead that an individual can marry once reaching puberty, which can be as early as the age of 9.

And who can tell them otherwise? If Mohammed did it then who in their right mind can suggest that Mohammed did something wrong? Such is blasphemy.

This is the core difference between the Koran and the Bible. Although the old Testament had a lot of fire and brimstone, it's very hard to run the full length of the new Testament and come out of it with justifications for aggressive behaviour based on the teachings of Jesus.

Mohammed? Take your pick.

[911]

(05-15-2016 02:25 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worl...n-islamic/

Quote:

"Clerics on the council object to minimum age requirements, arguing instead that an individual can marry once reaching puberty, which can be as early as the age of 9."

And who can tell them otherwise? If Mohammed did it then who in their right mind can suggest that Mohammed did something wrong? Such is blasphemy.

This is the core difference between the Koran and the Bible. Although the old Testament had a lot of fire and brimstone, it's very hard to run the full length of the new Testament and come out of it with justifications for aggressive behaviour based on the teachings of Jesus.

Mohammed? Take your pick.

According to the article you've linked, the clerics blocked the legislators from raising the age of minimum age of marriage from 16 to 18.

"The bill, which proposed raising the marriage age for females from 16 to 18,..."

16 happens to be equal or higher than the age of marriage of nearly all US states.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_mar...ted_States

The article also implies that 80% of married Pakistani women did so as adults, which is surprisingly high given that it's one of the most backwards and conservative muslim country out there. You'd think that will all this hype about one of Mohammed's wives possibly being wed at age 9, you'd have that as some kind of sharia standard enshrining child marriage in countries like Pakistan, but it turns out the legal age of marriage there is actually higher than in many US states. Perhaps sharia law is already there in NH, ID, MO, GA, MI,...? Maybe we need to root out those imams calling the shots from the swamps of Georgia...

[AboveAverageJoe]

Where I grew up the age of consent was 14.

[Kid Twist]

(05-14-2016 01:45 PM)syrianguy Wrote:  

(05-14-2016 11:16 AM)AboveAverageJoe Wrote:  

Anyone here think that all the animosity against Muslims in the West and its inevitable fall out is purely a design by the hidden hand to divide and conquer the Goy and the Mohammedan to make way for Globalism(Zionism)? The hidden hand of rootless cosmopolitans is clearly behind many things: the Muslim refugee crisis, the balkanization of Europe, the divisions in the US over BLM, terrorism, mass shootings, etc. If they were willing to back both Hitler, Stalin, and the US and Britain simultaneously and sacrifice a million of their own people who refused to emmigrate to Palestine in the process, Why would they not pit Muslims against Westerners and finance and arm both sides? Bankers gonna Bank, thats what they do. I think Westerners and Muslims should realize they are being used as pawns in the Globalists game and try to seek common ground to withstand being conquered by a common enemy.

Even if that's the case, and there is certainly precedents for jewish led muslim invasions, what common ground is there and how can you reach a compromise with sharia wanting muslims in the west ?

Muslims are the aggressors and the onus is ultimately on them to change and adapt not the other way around. I appreciate that there are some who don't follow their religion to the letter but when stronger more dedicated muslims enforce sharia there will be no middle ground. Have moderates in Syria intervened to oppose isis slaughtering christians ? Nope, even when prior to the events they were neighbors for decades.

We can dwell into global zionist conspiracy but it doesn't change the fact that the Koran ( and the rest of the books) is an inherently evil book and mohamad is a bad example to follow. There will be no compromise as long as people follow those teachings.

Again, syrianguy, you expose the convoluted by giving a sample of the law of parsimony. What's more likely, that the warring religion of murderous thugs who has been violent throughout its history (whenever it was able to) is causing problems on every border it has, or "The global movement is doing it!" ...

"But I don't know who exactly that movement is ... they're just there behind the scenes, somewhere ..."

Are there globalists? Yes. Are there transnational companies? Yes. Are there big bankers? Yes. Do these people try to keep or gain more money or power? Yes.

What else is new? That's a historical and human fact that has always existed. I don't see any conspiracy other than those talking about it with the sheer stupidity of ignorance as to what reality is.

[HrundiBakshi]

(05-15-2016 04:12 PM)Kid Twist Wrote:  

(05-14-2016 01:45 PM)syrianguy Wrote:  

(05-14-2016 11:16 AM)AboveAverageJoe Wrote:  

Anyone here think that all the animosity against Muslims in the West and its inevitable fall out is purely a design by the hidden hand to divide and conquer the Goy and the Mohammedan to make way for Globalism(Zionism)? The hidden hand of rootless cosmopolitans is clearly behind many things: the Muslim refugee crisis, the balkanization of Europe, the divisions in the US over BLM, terrorism, mass shootings, etc. If they were willing to back both Hitler, Stalin, and the US and Britain simultaneously and sacrifice a million of their own people who refused to emmigrate to Palestine in the process, Why would they not pit Muslims against Westerners and finance and arm both sides? Bankers gonna Bank, thats what they do. I think Westerners and Muslims should realize they are being used as pawns in the Globalists game and try to seek common ground to withstand being conquered by a common enemy.

Even if that's the case, and there is certainly precedents for jewish led muslim invasions, what common ground is there and how can you reach a compromise with sharia wanting muslims in the west ?

Muslims are the aggressors and the onus is ultimately on them to change and adapt not the other way around. I appreciate that there are some who don't follow their religion to the letter but when stronger more dedicated muslims enforce sharia there will be no middle ground. Have moderates in Syria intervened to oppose isis slaughtering christians ? Nope, even when prior to the events they were neighbors for decades.

We can dwell into global zionist conspiracy but it doesn't change the fact that the Koran ( and the rest of the books) is an inherently evil book and mohamad is a bad example to follow. There will be no compromise as long as people follow those teachings.

Again, syrianguy, you expose the convoluted by giving a sample of the law of parsimony. What's more likely, that the warring religion of murderous thugs who has been violent throughout its history (whenever it was able to) is causing problems on every border it has, or "The global movement is doing it!" ...

"But I don't know who exactly that movement is ... they're just there behind the scenes, somewhere ..."

Are there globalists? Yes. Are there transnational companies? Yes. Are there big bankers? Yes. Do these people try to keep or gain more money or power? Yes.

What else is new? That's a historical and human fact that has always existed. I don't see any conspiracy other than those talking about it with the sheer stupidity of ignorance as to what reality is.

I cant remember Islam being a problem before the late 1990's. In fact I remember during the Russian occupation of Afghanistan Muslims were being portrayed in the Australian media as fighters of conscience going off to fight the communists on behalf of their Islamic brothers in Afghanistan.
There seems to be a lot of historical revisionism going on here at-least if you are referring to this period. I am not going to regurgitate the writings of one authors history or another's before this period as I was too young to take any notice before about 1970.
I am not here to push a barrow but of late there has been this line that Islam has been a continual problem for the developed world, whereas in Australia up until about the late 90's it (the religion) did not even get a mention.

[EDantes]

From what I read even in ancient Greece the age of consent was typically around 14-15 years old (though there was no official age of consent and it was decided by the families themselves).

So being engaged to a 6 year old and marrying her at age 9 is abnormal even by past standards.

[Kid Twist]

(05-19-2016 07:53 AM)HrundiBakshi Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 04:12 PM)Kid Twist Wrote:  

(05-14-2016 01:45 PM)syrianguy Wrote:  

(05-14-2016 11:16 AM)AboveAverageJoe Wrote:  

Anyone here think that all the animosity against Muslims in the West and its inevitable fall out is purely a design by the hidden hand to divide and conquer the Goy and the Mohammedan to make way for Globalism(Zionism)? The hidden hand of rootless cosmopolitans is clearly behind many things: the Muslim refugee crisis, the balkanization of Europe, the divisions in the US over BLM, terrorism, mass shootings, etc. If they were willing to back both Hitler, Stalin, and the US and Britain simultaneously and sacrifice a million of their own people who refused to emmigrate to Palestine in the process, Why would they not pit Muslims against Westerners and finance and arm both sides? Bankers gonna Bank, thats what they do. I think Westerners and Muslims should realize they are being used as pawns in the Globalists game and try to seek common ground to withstand being conquered by a common enemy.

Even if that's the case, and there is certainly precedents for jewish led muslim invasions, what common ground is there and how can you reach a compromise with sharia wanting muslims in the west ?

Muslims are the aggressors and the onus is ultimately on them to change and adapt not the other way around. I appreciate that there are some who don't follow their religion to the letter but when stronger more dedicated muslims enforce sharia there will be no middle ground. Have moderates in Syria intervened to oppose isis slaughtering christians ? Nope, even when prior to the events they were neighbors for decades.

We can dwell into global zionist conspiracy but it doesn't change the fact that the Koran ( and the rest of the books) is an inherently evil book and mohamad is a bad example to follow. There will be no compromise as long as people follow those teachings.

Again, syrianguy, you expose the convoluted by giving a sample of the law of parsimony. What's more likely, that the warring religion of murderous thugs who has been violent throughout its history (whenever it was able to) is causing problems on every border it has, or "The global movement is doing it!" ...

"But I don't know who exactly that movement is ... they're just there behind the scenes, somewhere ..."

Are there globalists? Yes. Are there transnational companies? Yes. Are there big bankers? Yes. Do these people try to keep or gain more money or power? Yes.

What else is new? That's a historical and human fact that has always existed. I don't see any conspiracy other than those talking about it with the sheer stupidity of ignorance as to what reality is.

I cant remember Islam being a problem before the late 1990's. In fact I remember during the Russian occupation of Afghanistan Muslims were being portrayed in the Australian media as fighters of conscience going off to fight the communists on behalf of their Islamic brothers in Afghanistan.
There seems to be a lot of historical revisionism going on here at-least if you are referring to this period. I am not going to regurgitate the writings of one authors history or another's before this period as I was too young to take any notice before about 1970.
I am not here to push a barrow but of late there has been this line that Islam has been a continual problem for the developed world, whereas in Australia up until about the late 90's it (the religion) did not even get a mention.

You clearly haven't made an effort to study history or in particular, Islamic history. It was spread always by the sword, never by persuasion of any sort. This includes wiping out Zoroastrianism, as well as invading christian cultures and indian (mughul empire? ever heard of it?) ones.

When you couldn't invade people anymore with horses and swords, of course they took a back seat to more advanced technological cultures who aren't anti-science and reason. They therefore only came back in the post WWII worldly petrol economy when westerners became increasingly globalist and wanted oil, showing them how to get it but allowing them a cut. The money then funded what they always wanted to do, but weren't able to (try to dominate with infidel resources and technology).

Now, weirdly, they are going back to the original way of conquering, through numbers ... and the ignorance of lefty welfare states who have been blinded by cultural marxism and thrown out all distinctions of humans and cultures ...

If that doesn't make sense, there's no hope for you (not trying to be mean, just serious)

[Horus]

[N°6]

Even if we forget modern laws, paedophilia to the ancients was consummation with a girl who had yet to experience "Hera's curse". A pederast was a man who liked boys before they could grow a beard.

I doubt that Aisha was a "woman" in the ancient understanding of the term.

[Marcus187]

Every religion that has a concept of 'burning in Hell if you don't follow the rules' is either fake or corrupted. Islam is highly corrupted in the sense that it limits the free will and development of people. It wants total control over people, so it strips them from their free will, creativity and critical thinking.

It also has heavy punishments for people who don't follow the rules of this so-called prophet Muhammad. You should read about the history of Arabs and you will see that they were highly despised by the Romans, Greeks and Persians. They were the most primitive and savage people known in that time and I think Islam is a mixture of Arab culture and Christianity/Judaism.

I don't think Arabs had a concept of pedophilia. I read stories of bedouins who told that pre-Islamic Arabs buried girls alive, raped them, sold them etc. No ethics, no science, no philosophy etc. Just a bunch of savages who raped if they wanted sex and stole if they wanted wealth.

[Kid Twist]

(09-22-2017 05:05 PM)Marcus187 Wrote:  

Every religion that has a concept of 'burning in Hell if you don't follow the rules' is either fake or corrupted.

Well put, and true.

[Justinian]

(09-22-2017 05:05 PM)Marcus187 Wrote:  

Every religion that has a concept of 'burning in Hell if you don't follow the rules' is either fake or corrupted. Islam is highly corrupted in the sense that it limits the free will and development of people. It wants total control over people, so it strips them from their free will, creativity and critical thinking.
It also has heavy punishments for people who don't follow the rules of this so-called prophet Muhammad.

The very definition of a cult.

As to whether Mo was a pedophile, this is answered thoroughly in the affirmative at Wikiislam
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islam_and_Pedophilia

Just to pile it on a bit, it's quite astounding to read this survey of errors and stupidities in the Koran, and this is just a fraction of the foolishness:
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Err..._the_Quran

I mean how could a mere mortal identify and write copiously on a multiplicity of mistakes, misunderstandings and outright ignorance in a text that was purportedly dictacted by a deity?

If you surf around a bit you'll find an attempted rebuttal from a muslim and then another devastating response from Wikiislam. It's actually pathetic.

The more I learn about islam, the more depressing it is to me that we have to share this planet with millions of people who think they are "commanded" to believe and devote their lives to such utter nonsense.

[Kid Twist]

^ The religious impulse is strong, what can we say but that we should recognize it, and try to better deal with it.

[Marshall D. Teach]

Wait a minute...

Quote:

Sahih al-Bukhari 3894—Narrated Aishah: My marriage (wedding) contract with the Prophet was written when I was a girl of six (years). We came to Al-Madina and we dismounted at the place of Bani Al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on, my hair grew (again) and my mother, Umm 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 normal, 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 good luck.” Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s Messenger 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.

Aisha was penetrated at the age of 9, and not 6, because she became ill and had her hair fall off? Is there a reason she wasn't sent to the house of the Prophet for consummation until 3 years after the contract was signed?