"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.."
Yeah well that's Congress. But the people of these divided states of A-merry-ca don't necessarily agree with that portion of the First Amendment of our Constitution which speaks to religious freedoms.
I know folks like William Kristol don't necessarily agree with that troublesome little amendment. Mr. Kristol and others are not too pleased that some folks in New York want to build a mosque within a stones throw of Ground Zero. (I say within a stones throw, because contrary to what some wingnuts would have you believe, the mosque is not actually going to be built at Ground Zero) They consider it an affront to our sensibilities since it was just about nine years ago that a bunch of men who claim to worship this very same religion flew planes into buildings and killed over three thousand people.
"Planting a mosque just two blocks from where Muslims murdered Americans on 9/11 in the name of Islam is a huge slap in the face. Why shouldn't Muslims be sensitive enough to realize that a huge mosque planted right near the horrific wound to the U.S. created at Ground Zero by Muslims is outrageous to us? They claim a right to be insulted by cartoons mocking their prophet, even to the point of beheading people.
The Imam of the Ground Zero Insult, Faisal Abdul Rauf, is not the nice guy he likes to hold himself out to be. At his Friday afternoon khutbah services and in his book What's Right With Islam Rauf states that he wants the mosque to be a place where inter-faith understanding is fostered."
I wonder if there were Muslims murdered on 911 by those religious fanatics? I am sure there was. And aren't Muslims A-merry-cans, too? And who is this "us" that Madeline Brooks is referring to. Oh lord I don't want to be in that number, not with these Saints.
Michael Bloomberg, the Mayor of New York, gets it. He understands the Constitution and what true religious freedom means in this country. It's why a lot of folks came here in the first place; to escape religious persecution. But try telling that to the wingnuts.
"Last Tuesday, standing in front of the Statue of Liberty, New York mayor Michael Bloomberg spoke on the subject of the proposed mosque at Ground Zero. His remarks will be read with curiosity by future generations of Americans, who will look back in astonishment at the self-deluding pieties and self-destructive dogmas that are held onto, at once smugly and desperately, by today’s liberal elites. Our liberation from those dogmas, and from those elites, is underway across the nation. But it’s worth taking a look at Bloomberg’s speech, if only to remind us of what we need to ascend from so our descendants can look back with curiosity at the ethos to which we did not succumb.
As is the way of contemporary liberals, Bloomberg spoke at a very high level of abstraction. He appealed to the principle of religious toleration, while never mentioning the actual imam who is responsible for and would control the planned Ground Zero mosque. To name Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf might invite a consideration of his background, funding, and intentions. Do Rauf and his backers believe in the principles underlying the “inspiring symbol of liberty” that greets immigrants to the United States and before which Bloomberg stood? Bloomberg didn’t say. It apparently doesn’t matter. Toleration means asking nothing, criticizing nothing, saying nothing, about whom or what one is tolerating. This is the Sergeant Schultz standard of toleration: I know nothing."
Yeah well that's Congress. But the people of these divided states of A-merry-ca don't necessarily agree with that portion of the First Amendment of our Constitution which speaks to religious freedoms.
I know folks like William Kristol don't necessarily agree with that troublesome little amendment. Mr. Kristol and others are not too pleased that some folks in New York want to build a mosque within a stones throw of Ground Zero. (I say within a stones throw, because contrary to what some wingnuts would have you believe, the mosque is not actually going to be built at Ground Zero) They consider it an affront to our sensibilities since it was just about nine years ago that a bunch of men who claim to worship this very same religion flew planes into buildings and killed over three thousand people.
"Planting a mosque just two blocks from where Muslims murdered Americans on 9/11 in the name of Islam is a huge slap in the face. Why shouldn't Muslims be sensitive enough to realize that a huge mosque planted right near the horrific wound to the U.S. created at Ground Zero by Muslims is outrageous to us? They claim a right to be insulted by cartoons mocking their prophet, even to the point of beheading people.
The Imam of the Ground Zero Insult, Faisal Abdul Rauf, is not the nice guy he likes to hold himself out to be. At his Friday afternoon khutbah services and in his book What's Right With Islam Rauf states that he wants the mosque to be a place where inter-faith understanding is fostered."
I wonder if there were Muslims murdered on 911 by those religious fanatics? I am sure there was. And aren't Muslims A-merry-cans, too? And who is this "us" that Madeline Brooks is referring to. Oh lord I don't want to be in that number, not with these Saints.
Michael Bloomberg, the Mayor of New York, gets it. He understands the Constitution and what true religious freedom means in this country. It's why a lot of folks came here in the first place; to escape religious persecution. But try telling that to the wingnuts.
"Last Tuesday, standing in front of the Statue of Liberty, New York mayor Michael Bloomberg spoke on the subject of the proposed mosque at Ground Zero. His remarks will be read with curiosity by future generations of Americans, who will look back in astonishment at the self-deluding pieties and self-destructive dogmas that are held onto, at once smugly and desperately, by today’s liberal elites. Our liberation from those dogmas, and from those elites, is underway across the nation. But it’s worth taking a look at Bloomberg’s speech, if only to remind us of what we need to ascend from so our descendants can look back with curiosity at the ethos to which we did not succumb.
As is the way of contemporary liberals, Bloomberg spoke at a very high level of abstraction. He appealed to the principle of religious toleration, while never mentioning the actual imam who is responsible for and would control the planned Ground Zero mosque. To name Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf might invite a consideration of his background, funding, and intentions. Do Rauf and his backers believe in the principles underlying the “inspiring symbol of liberty” that greets immigrants to the United States and before which Bloomberg stood? Bloomberg didn’t say. It apparently doesn’t matter. Toleration means asking nothing, criticizing nothing, saying nothing, about whom or what one is tolerating. This is the Sergeant Schultz standard of toleration: I know nothing."
This is the obvious question, but I will ask it again: If the Catholic church (Or any Christian religion for that matter) wanted to build a cathedral just a few blocks from where the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building stood in Oklahoma City, would we care? Of course we wouldn't. And, yet, Timothy McVeigh was a Christian.
How Ironic that Mr. Kristol would use a quote from Sergeant Schultz-the fictional Sergeant in a German prison camp during World War II- to make his point. Because quite honestly, if we continue down this road, World War II Germany will start to look very familiar.
258 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 258 of 258Anon, "Dara, great point. I always stay anon too, cause one little thing and the comments begin coming. White comments are only welcome if they don't sound ignorant or unknowing, but the bottom line is that htere are many whites (like me) who don't know a lot about racism etc. And if we say something (without knowing it is wrong, or not meaning anything by it) we are then labeled etc."
Anon and Dara, that is why you should join my corporation and not have to worry about jack-offs like Kid, UTS, TSC, no_slappz, Frank D and other racist nuts. There are many benefits to joining Anon, Inc:
First we are recognized all over FN blog as a very diversified powerful group of Blacks and Whites, capable of smacking down anybody anywhere at anytime who fucks with us.
Secondly, you are protected by Anon, Inc. If Dora had been part of Anon Inc when Kid attacked her, the anons in Anon Inc would have been all over his Cleveland black ass. If it had been no_slappz, we would have been all over his white ass in a New York minute. As you might surmise, we are an "Equal Opportunity" ass-kicker. It matters not to us the color, we just enjoy kicking human ass.
Third, we have a very extensive health plan for Whites. You can even put your relatives and friends on it. One Anon even has RT on it cause it is obvious the woman needs it...anybody White who irritates LAA needs some insurance.
Anyway, as President of Anon, Inc. let me offer Dora refuge into the fold and safety of our corporation. BTW, I bet even Field wants to join. Sorry, but we have certain standards to uphold.
I heard that, the White man killing innocent Black men, was after black men only, would that be a shock to black folk?
I saw a sketch of him on Huff Post, and yes, he was Pure White, not a Ethnic trait in sight, pure white man, he was on the rampage, doe's that, remind you of someone? he is roaming around America, out for blood! SARAH where are you?
This man look's nothing like a Muslim! he look's more like Tim, the one that, blew up that Federal Building, with inocent American's in it, remember him, he was WHITE! this young man killed his fellow American's, yes, a White man did this, and he had no regret's! could have cared less! i never saw him with Muslim attire on, he had no shame, he held his head high with pride! he did his deed and White Christian's didn't (SCREAM OUT BLOODY MURDER! and why was that, well, they forgave him, he was one of them!
ISEEISEE
Dear ISEEISEE, please stop yelling. You are causing the pictures on my wall to fall down.
You don't give a shite muslim about America, Not A merry ca.
Your a sorry man with a small mind and a huge inferiority complex.
Your for anything to stick it the country and the white men who built it. Even though blacks in AMERICA live better than blacks anywhere else in the world.
Typical negro behavior. Jealous ungrateful punks always looking to get over and forget deys baby's mamas.
Anonymous 8:41:
If you are well meaning why would you hide behind anonymous to say what you feel in your heart? I don't care for no_slappz's way of thinking, and I don't try to hide that. But at least, I respect the fact that he will speak up and out how he truly feels. So, in that he has my respect, but as a human being he does not. If I had to make a choice between no_slappz and a white person that hides their identity to say what they truly feel, believe it or not I would choose no_slappz, and I know for a fact he does not mean nonwhite people any good. But it's the fact, that he lets you know up front where he is coming from and that's keeping it real!
Yeah, he and I might go back and forth and exchange insults. However, you never know what might become of that in the end because somewhere down the road he might change his way of thinking too. God works in mysterious ways.
I used to live across the street from a white guy who hated black people and talked like no_slappz. He flew the confederate flag and the whole nine yards. He was in a wheel chair living in a neighborhood that was diverse. One day, one of his racist white buddies set his house on fire. I happen to see it while sitting at my kitchen table. I went and dragged him out of his house and that was not an easy task because I'm sure you've heard of dead weight. My neighbors told me I should have let him burn down with his house, but my reply was I just can't do that because he is still another human being. He and I became friends later on and he eventually changed his way of thinking. Yup, he even stopped those other racist so-called buddies of his from coming around him.
Black folks have endured taunts, racial slurs, stereotyping, labeling, institutionalize racism, and racism in every single form that it comes in since this country brought our ancestors over here in ships. Even on this blog, I've been called every name in the book, but that didn't make me hide behind anonymous because I know who I am and what others think of me does not change one hair on my head.
And when whites say "fear of being called a racist" what does that really mean? Does it mean that you do not really want to discuss racial issues or you would rather that we tiptoe around those type of issues,throw a bandage over it, act like it doesn't exist or just plain shut up?
Realist
Stop it okay?
Black folks built this country.
Provided the foundation of wealth that first established America as a superpower.
WE set the table, furnished thehouse and everyone else just sat down to eat.
And the church says amen!
Realist:
So white folks don't look for handouts is that it, but they always seem to be on the receiving end of them. Do you really believe that every law in America was made for ALL the people? And that every benefit/Entitlement/welfare or whatever you want to call it was created for ALL the people?
BTW, Welfare Queen was a myth made up by Ronnie Reagan and that's no secret now. Nevermind, just keep on believing that black folks are the ones destroying this country and begging for handouts.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfarequeen.htm
Granny, you need Anon, Inc insurance!
IseeIsee:
You mentioned something to me one time before my blog was hacked, and I wanted to let you know that I am beginning to see exactly what you were talking about.
Anonymous 9:59:
Make that a triple policy! :)
I want to be covered, I am going anon now too. Yes, some say it may be a cult, but I feel that Anon Inc will meet my needs. It makes me feel safe, welcome and a part of a community. Kind of like a gang I guess. Without guns, just virtual ones.
All for Anon and Anon for all other Anons.
UTS, you are so funny. Why don't you post of pic of your belly.
GRANNY SAID:
"Life is too precious and black men's lives are included in that too whether others may think so or not."
----------------------------------
Hey Granny:
NEWS FLASH!
EVERY LIFE IS PRECIOUS !!
Stop making *everything* about color!
RACIST!
You're scaring me!
SMH! FBHO!
Agent 7-11
la coincidental, you wrote:
By your logic, every Catholic should be suspect because the Vatican is a sovereign city-state.
By now it is more than obvious that the Catholic Church is an organziation that attracts and harbors homosexuals who sexually exploit and abuse boys.
If the Catholic Church were subjected to an investigation similar to Enron's we would see the Pope facing sexual abuse charges for engaging in sexual abuse and/or aiding and abetting sexual criminals. He, the College of Cardinals and a list of priests a mile long would get jail time for their predations and tolerance of rampant sexual abuse.
The point is that those theocracies exists because, until recently, they supported our geopolitical interests. So long as the Taliban were shooting Russians, we were all good.
Yeah, islam has been around and growing for 1,400 years but recently muslim tribes become the hapless tools of mercenary capitalists. Look, get out a history book and review the section on the Ottoman Empire.
And, there are plenty of examples of theocratic nonsense in American history -- or did you just skip over the Salem Witch Trials
Salem Witch Trials? In America? Guess again. That little bit of history pre-dated the Constitution and the founding of the US by about a hundred years.
...or the Mormons in Utah?
Oh. I see. So you think Utah was a state when the Mormons arrived in 1847. Okay. Well, it wasn't. That took another 50 years.
Maybe they went to Salt Lake for the same reason many people landed here. They wanted to get away from a lot of other people.
Or, the history of anti-Semitism within the United States?
On that subject I'd say you know zero. But to that point, as well as some of the other points you think you have raised, the laws and culture of America have evolved over the past two centuries.
It is, as you know, illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, creed, color, religion, ethnicity or country of origin.
But it is NOT illegal to demand that armies and governments slipping into the US by masquerading as religions pack up and get out.
Meanwhile, anti-Semitism is one of those odd forms of discrimination that seems to have hit only Jews and asians.
Where once top colleges were limiting enrollment of Jews because TOO MANY were qualified and jamming freshman classes, now asians are getting that treatment.
Or, the fact that until the 50's, it was legal to force children to pray in school?
I see. You've listed a lot of America's problems from the past. Problems that were solved by changing attitudes and behavior.
Muslims should learn to change. But they don't. They won't, as they show every day in the repressive regimes which account for about 20% of the world's population.
Islam wants to take humanity back to the 7th century.
la coincidental you wrote:
Man, you are one ignorant scared white dude. The Koran boring?
Yeah, it's boring and so is the Bible.
Wow, you don't appreciate culture or history much -- as its one of the most influential books in the world, as well as having beautiful poetry.
The Koran and the Bible -- both tedious works of fiction -- are frighteningly influential books.
Meanwhile, your claim about the poetry of the Koran is about as phony as claims get. When the ridiculous verses of the Koran were finally written, they were written in Arabic, but the business of getting it written is one of those hazy aspects of islam.
Anyway, translating the Koran was not permitted. Meanwhile, the core of islamic scholarship boiled down to memorizing the Koran. Give it a try and tell me if you think it's even possible to memorize the 6,000+ verses.
Whatever you've read in English is considered false by muslims. Not that any of them know which version of the Koran is the "official" version -- because there is none.
Anyway, poetry in translation is always a disaster.
And BTW, it helps to have taken comparative religion in college --
No it doesn't. Clearly you see islam from the Ivory Tower and ignore the reality. There's nothing beautiful or good about a religion/government/military that supports female genital mutiliation, female chattel slavery and opposes and outlaws anything outside the confines of the Koran and Haditha.
There's a reason muslim countries are backwards sewers. The reason is islam.
i.e., yes I've read scholarly works on Islam. And they don't support the ignorance you spout.
Okay. In your mind, islam embraces freedom of speech, freedom of religion, equality, democracy, plurality and capitalism.
Can you give me ONE example of a muslim nation that expressly guarantees the standard American rights I mentioned to all people in that sovereign nation?
Just one muslim nation. Give it your best shot.
Also, should every Synagogue under construction be suspects since Jews are rightfully dual citizens on one of the biggest military powers on Earth -- a military power that is suspected of attacking a relief boat for refugees?
Wow. You're getting desperate. Are you familiar with the case of Jonathan Pollard? He's doing a life sentence for spying for Israel. In other words, the US takes a dim view of people in America doing the wrong kind of favors for foreign governments.
As far as your dopey argument about dual citizenship goes, the US has nothing to say about the rules of citizenship established by other countries. Ireland has citzenship rules much like Israel's and friends of mine have exploited the rules which enabled them to move to England and avoid many headaches.
Meanwhile, you should wake up to the fact that it may be easy for American born Jews to establish citizenship in Israel, but Jews born in the US are NOT citizens of Israel unless they seek citizenship. It is not a birthright.
GrannyStandingforTruth said...
Notice to any blacks that live in Virginia, that serial killer is on the loose there now. Be on the lookout for a white male driving a dark green Chevy S-10 Blazer with tan trim, with a model year ranging from 1995 to about 2000.
no_slappz, you or your offsprings wouldn't happen to own a vehicle like that would you?
7:50 PM
-------
He try it in Richmond, he'll get shot. Saw our new law?...lol
UTS Said:
""Not all, UTS would not do it cause his gated suburb of magic negroes would not like it."
You keep thinking my community is full of soft poindexter negroes.
Just shows your incredible ingorance.
This ain't Project 21.
Most of us grew up in the streets of the inner city.
Our community is safe and tight because the men protect it.
We're just laying for the Flint serial killer.
8:51 PM"
---------------------------------
Uh-huh.
And this would be the wonderland of unicorns and rainbows aka "Prince George's County, MD"?
141 murders in 2007
117 murders, 167 forcible rape in 2008
avg stats of 1:16 residents.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2010/01/07/LI2010010702950.html
Seems to me like PG isn't needing no Flint serial killer to be hacking and slicing. They seem to be doin a purty good job of it all by demselves.
Those ain't per-tick-u-larly good stats thar Sheriff Steve.
Seems someone's slipping up on the "community security" thing there.
I'd work on getting the murder stats down to the low single digits before I starting crowin'.
Just sayin'
Agent 7-11
Agent 7-11 may I have a meeting with you and the leaders of Anon Inc. to discuss one of your brothers. He/she is getting way over the top with the cursing and vulgar insults.
Thanks. :)
Never signed up or commented on your website, Always enjoyed it though like the pink folks do...Being the black woman I am.....I'm feelin' like a kid in a Candy store
"Seems to me like PG isn't needing no Flint serial killer to be hacking and slicing. They seem to be doin a purty good job of it all by demselves."
And that makes the Flint serial killer's murders okay?
One Anon even has RT on it cause it is obvious the woman needs it...anybody White who irritates LAA needs some insurance. Anon Incker
yeah boss ure rite just had to let race traitor know that she alrite shit eye dont like anybody giving ppl shit cuz they color or opinion is different unless they outrite racist fucks which they deserve to get asses kicked in that case ;)
eye truly hope that the rest of the anons have gotten rid of the buceta cuz Lord forbid sombody comes around saying they believe in traditional families!!!
Retired Agent 456
and anon u know u rite eye got way too soft on folks thats why eye needed to retire;)
Agent 7-11
Jethro, show me a major metropolitan center that doesn't have it's share of violent crime.
There's 800,000 people in PG County buffoon.
What are you, stupid?
As a muslim it doesn't surprise me how much ignorant mess was written because I see and hear it all the time even before 9/11 but I'm at least glad that in this case it is mainly just 2 people. With regard to the mosque that is two blocks from ground zero it's no-issue that people will use to get people riled up, there is already a mosque 4 or 5 blocks away and if there are no zoning issues there is nothing that should prevent private citizens from building a community center and place of worship, while denying them that right would set an ugly precedent. Also the argument about this being a symbol of victory terrorists, the reality is they probably don't care and would shutter at the suggestion of interfaith activities there. Besides you can't make decisions based on what crazy people think, even if they felt good about it what difference would it make, the equivalent would be for black people to refuse to to go to black colleges because the Klan would be happy about us not attending predominantly white colleges and mingling with white students, this line of reasoning just leads to absurdity.
Someone said that Islam is also a government and a military. I don't know if they think this muslim military is hiding in caves with bin laden but both claims are false. The idea of an Islamic government comes from a circumstance where people had to put together a system to govern themselves and they used their beliefs and values to inform their decisions much like any other group of people. There are muslims who have put together governments and armies but there is nothing in the Quran that makes this a requirement. The reality is in the muslim world there have arguably only been 4 truly religious leaders, the first 4 caliphs, after that the people in power in general were just people who wanted to obtain or keep power and wealth. Ironically even though there have been muslim monarchs there is nothing in Islam that is consistent with having a monarchy especially for Sunnis. The funny thing is a number of the authoritarian governments in the middle east can trace their history back to imperialism or western interference; the British were the ones who put the Saudi royal family in power, then they just decided top name the country after themselves.
It is also hypocritical make broad statements about people based on the actions of their government when they have little to no say or input into what the government does. Also burkas, vaginal mutilation and honor killings are not islamic and actually are cultural issues that predate islam but there are ignorant people out there who will take everything a muslim does and claim that it is Islamic which is ridiculous.
As a muslim it doesn't surprise me how much ignorant mess was written because I see and hear it all the time even before 9/11 but I'm at least glad that in this case it is mainly just 2 people. With regard to the mosque that is two blocks from ground zero it's no-issue that people will use to get people riled up, there is already a mosque 4 or 5 blocks away and if there are no zoning issues there is nothing that should prevent private citizens from building a community center and place of worship, while denying them that right would set an ugly precedent. Also the argument about this being a symbol of victory terrorists, the reality is they probably don't care and would shutter at the suggestion of interfaith activities there. Besides you can't make decisions based on what crazy people think, even if they felt good about it what difference would it make, the equivalent would be for black people to refuse to to go to black colleges because the Klan would be happy about us not attending predominantly white colleges and mingling with white students, this line of reasoning just leads to absurdity.
Someone said that Islam is also a government and a military. I don't know if they think this muslim military is hiding in caves with bin laden but both claims are false. The idea of an Islamic government comes from a circumstance where people had to put together a system to govern themselves and they used their beliefs and values to inform their decisions much like any other group of people. There are muslims who have put together governments and armies but there is nothing in the Quran that makes this a requirement. The reality is in the muslim world there have arguably only been 4 truly religious leaders, the first 4 caliphs, after that the people in power in general were just people who wanted to obtain or keep power and wealth. Ironically even though there have been muslim monarchs there is nothing in Islam that is consistent with having a monarchy especially for Sunnis. The funny thing is a number of the authoritarian governments in the middle east can trace their history back to imperialism or western interference; the British were the ones who put the Saudi royal family in power, then they just decided to name the country after themselves.
Then about there being many versions of the Quran the truth is that there are only 2 (Hafs and Warsh) which have minor differences mostly in punctuation which doesn't really change the meanings given the fluidity if Arabic Grammer. Also the Quran in the beginning was both written down and memorized but it was written in pieces and later compiled, the fact that there were people who memorized the entire book only lends to its credit since they are another source of verification. Unlike the New Testament (No offense) whose earliest versions came over a hundred years after Jesus and aren't in a language that Jesus would have spoken. I could go on but there is too much misinformation to respond to it all. The main problem with all of these bigoted conspiracy theories is that they assume that we are all the same person which is why people are asking American muslims in New York to be responsible for the actions of the Saudi government. The assumption that we all think alike and want the same thing becomes even more absurd when you look at how disorganized and conflicted the middle east is at times. Also for all the conspiracies of what would or could happen with muslims being in this country they should realize that muslims have been here since before the country started, the first muslims here were West African muslims that arrived here on slave ships.
omar, you wrote:
Someone said that Islam is also a government and a military.
I stated it. Because it's true.
I don't know if they think this muslim military is hiding in caves with bin laden but both claims are false.
Like every nation and/or religion, there is a division of labor. As we know -- and you know -- the military forces of every islamic nation are armed in the name of islam and muhammad. As are the fighters in al-Qaeda and the hundreds of muslim fundamentalist factions. The fact that plenty of muslims are not part of actual fighting forces is irrelevant.
The idea of an Islamic government comes from a circumstance where people had to put together a system to govern themselves and they used their beliefs and values to inform their decisions much like any other group of people.
Yeah, just as muhammad said. Sharia law, a legal system based on the nuttiness of the Koran and muhammad's schizophrenic rantings.
As you stated in hazy terms -- the governments of islamic countries are islamic theocracies.
There are muslims who have put together governments and armies but there is nothing in the Quran that makes this a requirement.
I see. Inasmuch as the Koran is a book of fiction, it makes no difference what is written in it. But it is nevertheless true that islam has spread to about 205 of the world's population largely by conquest. Muslims built the Ottoman Empire through military force. And today Iran wants to increase its military capabilities by acquiring nuclear weapons, which it will use to strike Israel.
In other words, islam is a violent religion/government/military that relies on each of its three parts to expand its reach. There are 1,400 years of muslim history to support this obvious fact.
"I stated it. Because it's true."
It's false and you either made it up or got it from someone who made it up.
"Like every nation and/or religion, there is a division of labor."
This doesn't account for them fighting one another and many of them having vastly different motives, a muslim country having an army in no way proves the concept of there being one islamic army or that it is inherently islamic in it's aims any more than the armies of christian nations.
"Yeah, just as muhammad said. Sharia law, a legal system based on the nuttiness of the Koran"
Wrong again he didn't say that, Sharia itself isn't the legal system fiqh is, and creating a system based on what you believe doesn't mean that what you believe requires you to have or live under what a system based on religion.
"As you stated in hazy terms -- the governments of islamic countries are islamic theocracies. "
No I didn't and many of them are actually western backed dictatorships and the fact remains the people running them are a small minority of people that don't adequately represent all muslims or even the muslims in their respective countries.
"Inasmuch as the Koran is a book of fiction, it makes no difference what is written in it."
This is one of the most ignorant statements you have made.
" But it is nevertheless true that islam has spread to about 205 of the world's population largely by conquest. "
False, the notion that people were forced to become muslim in conquered areas for the most part is a myth, most of the area that was conquered was the result conflicts with Romans and Persians that the muslims didn't start, there are still christians in a number of these areas Egypt i particular and lastly the bulk of the spread of Islam came during the decline of the empires when it spread to central and west Africa and south Asia by trade and communication and not by force.
"Muslims built the Ottoman Empire through military force."
Which empires aren't?]
"There are 1,400 years of muslim history to support this obvious fact."
None of the history supports this and no one has done more conquering than Christian Europeans and their descendants.
"islam is a violent religion"
No it isn't and the only proof you have is a handful of muslims committing violent acts and you just ignore the violence of other groups to support your bigotry. You have shown yourself to know nothing of the Quran or muslims, all you have is false propaganda taken from other bigots like yourself.
"As you stated in hazy terms -- the governments of islamic countries are islamic theocracies."
Also Turkey,Malaysia and a few others aren't theocracies.
omar, you wrote:
Wrong again he didn't say that, Sharia itself isn't the legal system fiqh is, and creating a system based on what you believe doesn't mean that what you believe requires you to have or live under what a system based on religion.
Oh. Gee. I say sharia. You say fiqh. So we agree that muslim nations impose repressive restrictive laws based on the mad rantings of muhammad.
Islamic nations impose a set of laws derived from the Koran.
Meanwhile, there is only ONE muslim nation -- you're a little slow, so you didn't mention its name -- that embraces some of the principles of free nations.
Anyway, FREE NATIONS confer the RIGHT of FREE SPEECH, Freedom of Religion, Equality, Plurality
and a number of other freedoms on citizens. Those RIGHTS found in FREE NATIONS are expressly FORBIDDEN in muslim nations.
NO freedom of religion. NO free speech. NO democracy. NO equality. NO plurality. Extreme discrimination based on religion, gender and sexual orientation.
omar, I wrote:
"Inasmuch as the Koran is a book of fiction, it makes no difference what is written in it."
You responded:
This is one of the most ignorant statements you have made.
Which parts of the Koran are not fiction?
By the way, the Bible is also fiction.
Muhammad was a schizophrenic pedophile.
omar, you spout all the standard lunacy that muslims spout when they try to hide the obvious.
Islam is a backward force that ruins societies and reduces them to uselessness.
In islamic nations there is NO innovation or invention. There are no advanced industries. No leading makers of anything. There are no scholars -- other than those who memorize verses of the Koran, which is good for nothing.
In islamic nations there is no art, no music and no literature. It is all forbidden by the lunatics who believe in the Koran.
Muslims NEVER win Nobel Prizes. Why? Because there is no Nobel Prize for memorizing the Koran. And muslims do nothing else in muslim schools.
When a muslim writer -- Salman Rushdie -- writes a book that appeals to a wide audience of non-muslims, he's marked for death.
Theo van Gogh was murdered by a muslim for making a movie depicting the slave-lives of muslim women. Benazir Bhutto was assassinated because she was a woman leading a muslim nation.
Among muslims, honor killings and female genital mutilation are accepted.
But I know you will spout your silly lies like Baghdad Bob who said Saddam's forces were shredding the US military as it entered Baghdad. He repeated his claims that Iraqi forces were whipping the American military right up to the moment -- three weeks after the invasion began -- that Saddam's regime and military collapsed and surrendered.
omar u do come off as apologetic and almost fervant like ure trying to prosletyze us or something with that said we all know noballsack is a fucking bigot but what eye want to know is how the hadiths justify the Honorable Prophets relationship with Aisha eye still aint heard anything remotely close to reasonable on this issue and inquiring minds want to know
First of all the two nutcases refuse top see the hypocrisy in applying a judgement of a people based on the actions of rulers that they haven't chosen, and second you know nothing about the details of sharia or fiqh and can't spot when muslims break the rules of it. You know nothing about Islam basically claim that anything you see on the news is Islamically acceptable. Also I said your statement was ignorant because you assumed that what the Quran says has nothing to do with the religion which is stupid.
You named two people Theo Van Gogh and Salman Rushdie, that doesn't nearly compare say the near extermination of Native American and aboriginal Australians, both World Wars, the Holocaust, the transatlantic slave trade and all of the brutality reaped on other nations during colonialism by so called advanced Free Nations. the only difference is the government is more representative of the mass of people and therefore a more adequate depiction of them.
In muslim countries there is music and art you assume that everything you don't know doesn't exist, which is idiotic.
The state of innovation in muslim countries is mostly relevant to economic factors the reality is the colonial era of the 'Free nations' had a lot to do with their current economic status. this has nothing to do with religion.
Umm there have been muslim nobel prize winners including Mohammed Abdus Salaam, Ahmed Zewali, Muhammad Yunus and others, here's more:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/14200105/Muslim-Nobel-Prize-Winners
Also if you want to know more about Aisha's age truth be told there are a lot of discrepancies with that.
http://www.understanding-islam.com/ri/mi-004.htm
You probably don't understand hadith classification or how it was compiled so you probably don't understand why we do not view it as infallible divine scripture.
You also called me an apologist just because I don't share your bigotted views, I never said that muslims don't have any problems but the both of you implying that all muslims are inherently evil is absurd and shows you know very little of history middle eastern, european or otherwise.
[QuoteNo_Slappzz]Is it news to you that muslims did partner with the nazis in WWII?[/quote]
Total bollocks.
400,000 North African Muslims fought for the Free French from 1943 to 1945. In particular they fought to free Eastern France and Italy fro fascism.
No less an authority than U.S.Army 4 Star General, Mark Clark described their efforts as "Magnificent."
omar, unfortunately, you are like most muslims -- a bonehead.
You wrote:
First of all the two nutcases refuse top see the hypocrisy in applying a judgement of a people based on the actions of rulers that they haven't chosen
The only people in muslim theocracies interested in overthrowing the existing governments are muslims who want to impose more islamic fundamentalism on the populations.
There's no evidence of a desire within muslim nations for democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, plurality or equality. Though the US hopes these concepts will bloom in Iraq.
However, Iraqis themselves are wavering.
The only muslim nation to incorporate the concepts I mentioned into its constitution is Iraq.
Meanwhile, it's obvious you oppose freedom of speech, freedom of religion, democracy and all the factors that make muslim life miserable.
...and second you know nothing about the details of sharia or fiqh and can't spot when muslims break the rules of it.
True. In other words, the reason I do not recognize the breaking of these ridiculous religious laws is this: The laws would be judged unconstitutional in the US, which means the laws deprive people of basic American freedom.
You know nothing about Islam basically claim that anything you see on the news is Islamically acceptable.
Muslim nations are backward cesspools because they are islamic. With only a couple of exceptions, muslim nations are poor, and their poverty is a direct result of practicing islam.
Meanwhile, in Riyadh, on Tuesdays, you can watch the justice system at work. You can watch when the guilty are punished. You know, cutting off the hand of a thief. That sort of thing.
Also I said your statement was ignorant because you assumed that what the Quran says has nothing to do with the religion which is stupid.
I have no idea what your preceding statement means. However, I probably said that when muslims govern by the Koran, the words of the Koran are twisted whatever way the governors feel is useful to them.
Hence, there are honor killings, female genital mutiliation, virtual enslavement of women, things like that.
omar, you wrote:
You named two people Theo Van Gogh and Salman Rushdie, that doesn't nearly compare say the near extermination of Native American and aboriginal Australians, both World Wars, the Holocaust, the transatlantic slave trade and all of the brutality reaped on other nations during colonialism by so called advanced Free Nations.
The 1,400-year history is crammed with violent conquests and bloody seizures of territory. As I said, the Ottoman Empire was built by conquest. The conquered populations were given a choice of becoming islamic or dying. The choice was obvious.
Meanwhile, slavery is a thing of the past -- except in muslim countries where women are still chattel slaves.
Moreover, Iran wants an atomic bomb which it plans to use against Israel. Furthermore, Iran and Iraq fought an 8-year war that killed about a million people and Islamic terrorism is part of daily life on Planet Earth.
It's clear how little regard muslims have for human life. Not to mention the fact that muslim terrorists love to remind the world they love death more than we non-muslims love life.
It's always the same old story with you muslim clowns. First there's a little trade. Then a small muslim community emerges, which leads to the construction of a mosque, and after a while the de facto army begins to position itself.
That strategy is still working in Africa. But it won't succeed here.
omar, you wrote:
Umm there have been muslim nobel prize winners including Mohammed Abdus Salaam, Ahmed Zewali, Muhammad Yunus and others, here's more: http://www.scribd.com/doc/14200105/Muslim-Nobel-Prize-Winners
I'm always amused by the muslim attempt to pretend that muslims are actual Nobel Prize winners.
Yes, 9 Nobels have gone to muslims. Five got the Peace Prize. You are ignorant of the fact that the Peace Prize is the booby prize. If not for the Peace Prize, virtually no muslims and no blacks would have gotten a single Nobel.
Meanwhile, the Peace Prize is awarded by a separate group of Nobel judges. The people responsible for awarding the true prizes would rather keep their distance from those who get the Peace Prize -- like yassar arafat, a muslim who committed his life to killing Jews. Or Obama, who was chosen to win his Peace Prize a mere week after his inauguration.
One week's work and he gets a Nobel Peace Prize? Wow. Must be an easy one? Yes?
Oh yeah. It was really something how Anwar Sadat was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for developing peaceful relations with Israel followed by his assassination by the muslim brotherhood. Yeah, aming you idiots there's a real desire for peace.
Yes, one Nobel went to a muslim for physics and one in chemistry. Two in literature. But the Literature prize is a wild card. It often goes to obscure writers known to almost no one except the Nobel committee. Mark Twain and James Joyce were both overlooked. Bad sign.
Anyway, the Nobel awards have been around for over 100 years and over that time about 600 Nobel prizes have been awarded. Inasmuch as muslims account for about 20% of the world's population, you might estimate they would have gotten 20% of the Nobel prizes. Nope.
By the way, the muslims who won the physics and chemistry awards got their educations in England and the US. In other words, the colleges in muslim countries are worthless unless you want to memorize the Koran.
omar u r defensive and trippin fa real mane noballsack really is a douchebag he makes up facts to suit his arguments and is a fucking liar u ought to ignore him like most of us do unless we tryin to argue with someone
now eye meant what eye said when eye asked about aisha eyeve read that she was anywhere from six to eight when they were married and eyeve also read the opinion of the hadiths on the matter and it still bothers me
as a muslim do u think it was appropriate for the honorable prophet to take such a young wife?
next, eye can point to many instances in the bible where people did foul things like Lot committing incest with his daughters and yet God smiled upon him for some fucked up reason so eye aint into comparing religions or saying that chritianity is better cuz eye dont believe that what eye want to know is how do U feel on a personal level about the marriage of the honorable prophet to such a young girl
eyeve asked many muslims about this but nobody wants to touch the issue with a ten foot pole
What was Ayesha’s (ra) Age at the Time of Her Marriage?
What was Ayesha’s (ra) age at the time of her marriage?
It is normally believed that she was nine years old at the time of her marriage with Mohammad (sws) was consummated. I do think it was according to the traditions of the Arab culture, as otherwise people would have objected to this marriage. But unfortunately, the modern day man is not satisfied with an answer as simple as that. omars link on understanding islam
um omar if u honestly accept this answer that she was fucking nine years old and her marriage was consummated then that is foul why r u guys so willing to accept pedophilia in this context? eyve known girls who menstruate at nine or ten but mentally and emotionally they werent ready to MARRY much less lose their virginity to a fucking pervert
dude if u want to explain ur religion to others dont blow them off and give them such dismissive bullshit when they ask legitimate questions because eye would never want my daughter or son to be in a pedophilic relationship and eye daresay u feel the same so why was it okay for the honorable prophet to do that then?
seems like he was af ucking pedophile!
Field, I really love your insight on this subject and I wish it could be spread around so much more, because it is perhaps the most logical and well-explained stance I've yet to read on this whole "dilemma" -- dilemma in quotes because it really shouldn't be a dilemma at all. Also, major props on noting the Murrah bombing. As someone who grew up in Oklahoma City, I am annoyed to no end by the amount people choose to entirely ignore that such an act of terrorism happened and instead say the only "true" terrorists are Muslims. It's atrocious. And as a further note on that, having visited the memorial and been around the surrounding area a lot, there are several churches there. Some were there before the bombing, for example the Catholic Cathedral I occasionally go to Mass at, but there are also many new churches that sprouted around the site after the bombing. On top of that, there's a statue of a mourning Jesus on the corner of the Catholic Cathedral's lot, right across the street from the bombing memorial and well in view of anyone passing the West side of the memorial. The memorial has become a sort of Christian rallying point of unity for many in Oklahoma City, using the idea that all Christians (notably no other religion) can unite and act together in times of great tragedy like the aftermath of the bombing. It is both kind of uplifting, in the general idea of unity, and depressing, in the exclusion of who can by united.
ai ly,
You mentioned the Oklahoma City bombing by Tim McVeigh as though he committed his murderous act in the name of Jesus.
He didn't. Unlike the thousands of muslim terrorists who have blown themselves up shouting "allahu akbar", McVeigh never said a word and an investigation of his life showed he had drifted away from the Catholic Church years and years before he bombed the Murrah Building.
Therefore, no ties exist between Christianity and the OK City bombimg.
Timothy McVeigh's Political and religious views
McVeigh's only known political affiliations were his voter registration with the Republican Party of New York when he lived in Buffalo, New York, and a membership in the National Rifle Association while in the military.
In a recorded interview with Time magazine McVeigh professed his belief in "a god", although he said he had "sort of lost touch with" Catholicism and "I never really picked it up, however I do maintain core beliefs."
Throughout his childhood, he and his father were Roman Catholic and attended Mass at Good Shepherd Church in Pendleton, New York.
The Guardian reported that McVeigh wrote a letter to them claiming to be an agnostic and that he did not believe in a hell.
McVeigh once said that he believed the universe was guided by natural law, energized by some universal higher power that showed each person right from wrong if they paid attention to what was going on inside them. He had also said, "Science is my religion."
Motivations for the bombing
McVeigh claimed that the bombing was revenge for "what the U.S. government did at Waco and Ruby Ridge." McVeigh visited Waco during the standoff, where he spoke to a news reporter about his anger over what was happening there.
McVeigh frequently quoted and alluded to the white supremacist novel The Turner Diaries. It described acts of terrorism similar to the one he carried out.
While McVeigh openly rejected the book's racism (a roommate said that McVeigh was not a racist and was basically indifferent to racist matters), he claimed to appreciate its interest in firearms.
Photocopies of pages sixty-one and sixty-two of The Turner Diaries were found in an envelope inside McVeigh's car. These pages depicted a fictitious mortar attack upon the U.S. Capitol in Washington.
no slapzz, firstly you seriously need to get a life.
This anti-Muslim bigotry of yours is edging towards being a seriously weird obsession. I'm guessing you're the sort of guy who harangues people at bus stops, whilst dressed in a greasy over-coat and two odd shoes.
Secondly, do you have a PhD in being wrong?
Because you are just plain wrong about everything - it's incredible. All these alleged facts of yours are just wrong. Now most people are wrong some of the time, some are wrong most of the time. But you take wrongness to a new dimension.
I know your type, I've come across weirdos like you before. You hang around on extremist anti-Islamic hate sites like jihadwatch, and pick up little bits of miss-information, lies and propaganda which you pass on to any other morons dumb enough to believe it on sites like this.
I'm guessing your religious bigotry is now your only reason for living. It's the only thing that gives your sad little life meaning, isn't it?
Why don;t you develop some outside interests? Take up a sport, join a book club. Anything to get you out of this tail-spin your life has become.
pc eye agree with ur assessment of noballsack but can u answer the question eye posed about the honorable prophets' relationship with Aisha?
eye still aint got a strate answer and it seems wrong to me eye dont want to apply personal bigotry to the analysis but it seems like the prophet was a pedophile for having sex with a nine year old!
eyve read about their relationship in the Koran and am baffled because the Hadiths have not condemned pedophilia of this type and that IS WRONG!
oh pc and lest u think eyem joking eyve read the parts of the Talmud where they talk about 'throwing guilt' when it cmes to molesting boys under the age of nine the book is sanhedrin section 54 and honestly that seems like it endorses pedophilia too
thoughts?
Oh I see, you are a 'concern troll' - I should have worked that out earlier.
As I'm sure you know, Mohammad became betrothed to Aisha because he wanted to strengthen his ties with Abu Bakr. This was fairly common practice in medievil times.
Mohammad's daughter Fatima says that she was born five years before The Call and that she was five years older than Aisha. So this means that Aisha must have been about 10 years old at the time of the betrothal. This is further backed up by Aisha herself who says that she remembers the 54th chapter of the Qu'ran (entitled 'The Moon') being revealed when she was a young girl. Now we know that this chapter was revealed at least six years before 'The Call' - which again suggests she was about 10 at the time of the betrothal. We know that the consumation of the marriage took place in the second year of the Hijra, in the tenth year of The Call. All of this suggests that Aisha was about 15 years old when she lost her virginity.
Now, I know what you are going to say before you say it. But you have to be very careful imposing 21st century American values on the behavior of middle-eastern sheep rustlers some 1500 years ago. Everything happened earlier in those days because for the simple reason that people didn't live very long.
Aisha would have been very lucky to live to see her fortieth birthday, and the child mortality rate of the day would ensure that every family would have lost some children to disease and hunger. So there was a real importance in beginning the process of procreating earlier than today.
Now sitting here in a modern industrialized state, we can say that sex with 15 year old girls is wrong, but these were different times and a very different place.
As for religions supporting paedophilia I wouldn't know. I'm an atheist myself so I haven't studied the subject to any degree. But given that all religions are fundamentally evil, it wouldn't surprise me.
Ahhh, Anonny, you are a ‘concern-troll’ I should have guessed earlier.
Aisha was ten at the age of her betrothal, at that age she had already been engaged to somebody else so she must have beeen approaching majority.. We know that she must have been about ten because Mohammad’s daughter Fatima said that she was born five years before the call and she was five years older than Aisha. Aisha also says that she was a young girl when the 54th chapter of the Qu’ran was revealed, which we know was revealed at least six years before the call, so she could not have been less than ten years old. We know from contemporary records that the marriage was consummated some five years after the betrothal in the second year of Hijra. So she was a minimum of fourteen year old when she lost her virginity and more likely fifteen.
Back in the day, this wasn’t particularly unusual. Life expectancy for Aisha would have been to her mid-30’s and child mortality rates were exceptionally high. So it was necessary to have lots of kids and to start early. It’s important not to be tempted to impose 21st Century American cultural values on a bunch of sheep rustlers living 1500 years ago.
As far as your point about various religions encouraging paedophilia goes, I’m afraid being an atheist I wouldn’t know. Though from what I‘ve heard it’s the Catholic church that has the hold on that tendency.
uptownsteve said...
"Black folks built this country.
Provided the foundation of wealth that first established America as a superpower.
WE set the table, furnished thehouse and everyone else just sat down to eat."
HA HA HA! You sho' is a funny negro, uptown.
@ no_slappz
"There's no evidence of a desire within muslim nations for democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, plurality or equality."
First of all you wouldn't know and second if it was that easy to change a government there would've never been any dictatorships anywhere.
"Muslim nations are backward cesspools because they are islamic. With only a couple of exceptions, muslim nations are poor, and their poverty is a direct result of practicing islam."
This doesn't account for the non-muslim countries that are backward and completely doesn't account for the period of time when the middle east was more prosperous than Europe. This has much less to do with religion and more to do with economic factors but you can continue to believe whatever supports your bigotry.
"The 1,400-year history is crammed with violent conquests and bloody seizures of territory. As I said, the Ottoman Empire was built by conquest."
Nothing within that time is anywhere near as bloody as what Europeans have done, muslims didn't nearly wipeout a continent of people.
"The conquered populations were given a choice of becoming islamic or dying."
Like I said this was largely a myth there were more christians converted by force whch is why none of the old religions are still in Europe but there are still christians in the middle east and why muslims were successful against the romans because they didn't have to deal with local revolts if they converted people by force there would've been many local revolts.
"Iran and Iraq fought an 8-year war that killed about a million people"
How many people died in Vietnam here is a hint it was more than a million.
"That strategy is still working in Africa."
Africa is more religiously diverse than Europe or the middle east because the types of things you are talking about are largely fictitious.
"Anyway, the Nobel awards have been around for over 100 years and over that time about 600 Nobel prizes have been awarded. Inasmuch as muslims account for about 20% of the world's population, you might estimate they would have gotten 20% of the Nobel prizes. Nope."
First of all the first half of that 100 years most of the world lived under European colonial occupation and second of all the most prizes tend to go to the richest countries because they have resources to support the most research. That is just common sense. Hindu's have 15% of the world's population they don't have 15% of the prizes and it isn't because of religion. the same goes for China.
@ no_slappz
"There's no evidence of a desire within muslim nations for democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, plurality or equality."
First of all you wouldn't know and second if it was that easy to change a government there would've never been any dictatorships anywhere.
"Muslim nations are backward cesspools because they are islamic. With only a couple of exceptions, muslim nations are poor, and their poverty is a direct result of practicing islam."
This doesn't account for the non-muslim countries that are backward and completely doesn't account for the period of time when the middle east was more prosperous than Europe. This has much less to do with religion and more to do with economic factors but you can continue to believe whatever supports your bigotry.
"The 1,400-year history is crammed with violent conquests and bloody seizures of territory. As I said, the Ottoman Empire was built by conquest."
Nothing within that time is anywhere near as bloody as what Europeans have done, muslims didn't nearly wipeout a continent of people.
"The conquered populations were given a choice of becoming islamic or dying."
Like I said this was largely a myth there were more christians converted by force whch is why none of the old religions are still in Europe but there are still christians in the middle east and why muslims were successful against the romans because they didn't have to deal with local revolts if they converted people by force there would've been many local revolts.
"Iran and Iraq fought an 8-year war that killed about a million people"
How many people died in Vietnam here is a hint it was more than a million.
"That strategy is still working in Africa."
Africa is more religiously diverse than Europe or the middle east because the types of things you are talking about are largely fictitious.
"Anyway, the Nobel awards have been around for over 100 years and over that time about 600 Nobel prizes have been awarded. Inasmuch as muslims account for about 20% of the world's population, you might estimate they would have gotten 20% of the Nobel prizes. Nope."
First of all the first half of that 100 years most of the world lived under European colonial occupation and second of all the most prizes tend to go to the richest countries because they have resources to support the most research. That is just common sense. Hindu's have 15% of the world's population they don't have 15% of the prizes and it isn't because of religion. the same goes for China.
@Anonymous,
You apparently only read the first paragraph the rest goes on to show the inconsistencies in the source of information that says she was nine. She was likely older but a relatively young woman. But an exact age may not be knowable.
Here is the rest:
To begin with, I think it is the responsibility of all those who believe that marrying a girl as young as nine years old was an accepted norm of the Arab culture, to provide at least a few examples to substantiate their point of view. I have not yet been able to find a single dependable instance in the books of Arab history where a girl as young as nine years old was given away in marriage. Unless such examples are given, we do not have any reasonable grounds to believe that it really was an accepted norm.
In my opinion, the age of Ayesha (ra) has been grossly mis-reported in the ahadith. Not only that, I think that the narratives reporting this event are not only highly unreliable but also that on the basis of other historical data, the event reported, is quite an unlikely happening. Let us look at the issue from an objective stand point. My reservations in accepting the narratives, on the basis of which, Ayeshas (ra) age at the time of her marriage with the Prophet (pbuh) is held to be nine years are:
Most of these narratives are reported only by Hisham ibn `urwah reporting on the authority of his father. An event as well known as the one being reported, should logically have been reported by more people than just one, two or three.
It is quite strange that no one from Medinah, where Hisham ibn `urwah lived the first seventy one years of his life has narrated the event, even though in Medinah his pupils included people as well known as Malik ibn Anas. All the narratives of this event have been reported by narrators from Iraq, where Hisham is reported to have had shifted after living in Medinah for seventy one years.
Tehzibu'l-tehzib, one of the most well known books on the life and reliability of the narrators of the traditions of the Prophet (pbuh) reports that according to Yaqub ibn Shaibah: "narratives reported by Hisham are reliable except those that are reported through the people of Iraq". It further states that Malik ibn Anas objected on those narratives of Hisham which were reported through people of Iraq. (vol 11, pg 48 - 51)
Mizanu'l-ai`tidal, another book on the narrators of the traditions of the Prophet (pbuh) reports that when he was old, Hisham's memory suffered quite badly. (vol 4, pg 301 - 302)
According to the generally accepted tradition, Ayesha (ra) was born about eight years before Hijrah. But according to another narrative in Bukhari (kitabu'l-tafseer) Ayesha (ra) is reported to have said that at the time Surah Al-Qamar, the 54th chapter of the Qur'an, was revealed, "I was a young girl". The 54th surah of the Qur'an was revealed nine years before Hijrah. According to this tradition, Ayesha (ra) had not only been born before the revelation of the referred surah, but was actually a young girl (jariyah), not an infant (sibyah) at that time. Obviously, if this narrative is held to be true, it is in clear contradiction with the narratives reported by Hisham ibn `urwah. I see absolutely no reason that after the comments of the experts on the narratives of Hisham ibn `urwah, why we should not accept this narrative to be more accurate.
@Anonymous,
You apparently only read the first paragraph the rest goes on to show the inconsistencies in the source of information that says she was nine. She was likely older but a relatively young woman. But an exact age may not be knowable.
Here is the rest:
To begin with, I think it is the responsibility of all those who believe that marrying a girl as young as nine years old was an accepted norm of the Arab culture, to provide at least a few examples to substantiate their point of view. I have not yet been able to find a single dependable instance in the books of Arab history where a girl as young as nine years old was given away in marriage. Unless such examples are given, we do not have any reasonable grounds to believe that it really was an accepted norm.
In my opinion, the age of Ayesha (ra) has been grossly mis-reported in the ahadith. Not only that, I think that the narratives reporting this event are not only highly unreliable but also that on the basis of other historical data, the event reported, is quite an unlikely happening. Let us look at the issue from an objective stand point. My reservations in accepting the narratives, on the basis of which, Ayeshas (ra) age at the time of her marriage with the Prophet (pbuh) is held to be nine years are:
Most of these narratives are reported only by Hisham ibn `urwah reporting on the authority of his father. An event as well known as the one being reported, should logically have been reported by more people than just one, two or three.
It is quite strange that no one from Medinah, where Hisham ibn `urwah lived the first seventy one years of his life has narrated the event, even though in Medinah his pupils included people as well known as Malik ibn Anas. All the narratives of this event have been reported by narrators from Iraq, where Hisham is reported to have had shifted after living in Medinah for seventy one years.
Tehzibu'l-tehzib, one of the most well known books on the life and reliability of the narrators of the traditions of the Prophet (pbuh) reports that according to Yaqub ibn Shaibah: "narratives reported by Hisham are reliable except those that are reported through the people of Iraq". It further states that Malik ibn Anas objected on those narratives of Hisham which were reported through people of Iraq. (vol 11, pg 48 - 51)
Mizanu'l-ai`tidal, another book on the narrators of the traditions of the Prophet (pbuh) reports that when he was old, Hisham's memory suffered quite badly. (vol 4, pg 301 - 302)
According to the generally accepted tradition, Ayesha (ra) was born about eight years before Hijrah. But according to another narrative in Bukhari (kitabu'l-tafseer) Ayesha (ra) is reported to have said that at the time Surah Al-Qamar, the 54th chapter of the Qur'an, was revealed, "I was a young girl". The 54th surah of the Qur'an was revealed nine years before Hijrah. According to this tradition, Ayesha (ra) had not only been born before the revelation of the referred surah, but was actually a young girl (jariyah), not an infant (sibyah) at that time. Obviously, if this narrative is held to be true, it is in clear contradiction with the narratives reported by Hisham ibn `urwah. I see absolutely no reason that after the comments of the experts on the narratives of Hisham ibn `urwah, why we should not accept this narrative to be more accurate.
@Anonymous,
You apparently only read the first paragraph the rest goes on to show the inconsistencies in the source of information that says she was nine. She was likely older but a relatively young woman. But an exact age may not be knowable.
Here is the rest:
To begin with, I think it is the responsibility of all those who believe that marrying a girl as young as nine years old was an accepted norm of the Arab culture, to provide at least a few examples to substantiate their point of view. I have not yet been able to find a single dependable instance in the books of Arab history where a girl as young as nine years old was given away in marriage. Unless such examples are given, we do not have any reasonable grounds to believe that it really was an accepted norm.
In my opinion, the age of Ayesha (ra) has been grossly mis-reported in the ahadith. Not only that, I think that the narratives reporting this event are not only highly unreliable but also that on the basis of other historical data, the event reported, is quite an unlikely happening. Let us look at the issue from an objective stand point. My reservations in accepting the narratives, on the basis of which, Ayeshas (ra) age at the time of her marriage with the Prophet (pbuh) is held to be nine years are:
Most of these narratives are reported only by Hisham ibn `urwah reporting on the authority of his father. An event as well known as the one being reported, should logically have been reported by more people than just one, two or three.
It is quite strange that no one from Medinah, where Hisham ibn `urwah lived the first seventy one years of his life has narrated the event, even though in Medinah his pupils included people as well known as Malik ibn Anas. All the narratives of this event have been reported by narrators from Iraq, where Hisham is reported to have had shifted after living in Medinah for seventy one years.
@Anonymous
Here's more of it:
According to almost all the historians Asma (ra), the elder sister of Ayesha (ra) was ten years older than Ayesha (ra). It is reported in Taqri'bu'l-tehzi'b as well as Al-bidayah wa'l-nihayah that Asma (ra) died in 73 hijrah when she was 100 years old. Now, obviously if Asma (ra) was 100 years old in 73 hijrah she should have been 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah. If Asma (ra) was 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah, Ayesha (ra) should have been 17 or 18 years old at that time. Thus, Ayesha (ra), if she got married in 1 AH (after hijrah) or 2 AH, was between 18 to 20 years old at the time of her marriage.
Tabari in his treatise on Islamic history, while mentioning Abu Bakr (ra) reports that Abu Bakr had four children and all four were born during the Jahiliyyah -- the pre Islamic period. Obviously, if Ayesha (ra) was born in the period of jahiliyyah, she could not have been less than 14 years in 1 AH -- the time she most likely got married.
According to Ibn Hisham, the historian, Ayesha (ra) accepted Islam quite some time before Umar ibn Khattab (ra). This shows that Ayesha (ra) accepted Islam during the first year of Islam. While, if the narrative of Ayesha's (ra) marriage at seven years of age is held to be true, Ayesha (ra) should not have been born during the first year of Islam.
Tabari has also reported that at the time Abu Bakr planned on migrating to Habshah (8 years before Hijrah), he went to Mut`am -- with whose son Ayesha (ra) was engaged -- and asked him to take Ayesha (ra) in his house as his son's wife. Mut`am refused, because Abu Bakr had embraced Islam, and subsequently his son divorced Ayesha (ra). Now, if Ayesha (ra) was only seven years old at the time of her marriage, she could not have been born at the time Abu Bakr decided on migrating to Habshah. On the basis of this report it seems only reasonable to assume that Ayesha (ra) had not only been born 8 years before hijrah, but was also a young lady, quite prepared for marriage.
@Anonymous then here is the last of it:
According to Ibn Hisham, the historian, Ayesha (ra) accepted Islam quite some time before Umar ibn Khattab (ra). This shows that Ayesha (ra) accepted Islam during the first year of Islam. While, if the narrative of Ayesha's (ra) marriage at seven years of age is held to be true, Ayesha (ra) should not have been born during the first year of Islam.
Tabari has also reported that at the time Abu Bakr planned on migrating to Habshah (8 years before Hijrah), he went to Mut`am -- with whose son Ayesha (ra) was engaged -- and asked him to take Ayesha (ra) in his house as his son's wife. Mut`am refused, because Abu Bakr had embraced Islam, and subsequently his son divorced Ayesha (ra). Now, if Ayesha (ra) was only seven years old at the time of her marriage, she could not have been born at the time Abu Bakr decided on migrating to Habshah. On the basis of this report it seems only reasonable to assume that Ayesha (ra) had not only been born 8 years before hijrah, but was also a young lady, quite prepared for marriage.
According to a narrative reported by Ahmad ibn Hanbal, after the death of Khadijah (ra), when Khaulah (ra) came to the Prophet (pbuh) advising him to marry again, the Prophet (pbuh) asked her regarding the choices she had in her mind. Khaulah said: "You can marry a virgin (bikr) or a woman who has already been married (thayyib)". When the Prophet (pbuh) asked about who the virgin was, Khaulah proposed Ayesha's (ra) name. All those who know the Arabic language, are aware that the word "bikr" in the Arabic language is not used for an immature nine year old girl. The correct word for a young playful girl, as stated earlier is "Jariyah". "Bikr" on the other hand, is used for an unmarried lady, and obviously a nine year old is not a "lady".
According to Ibn Hajar, Fatimah (ra) was five years older than Ayesha (ra). Fatimah (ra) is reported to have been born when the Prophet (pbuh) was 35 years old. Thus, even if this information is taken to be correct, Ayesha (ra) could by no means be less than 14 years old at the time of hijrah, and 15 or 16 years old at the time of her marriage.
These are some of the major points that go against accepting the commonly known narrative regarding Ayesha's (ra) age at the time of her marriage.
@No_slappz
"You mentioned the Oklahoma City bombing by Tim McVeigh as though he committed his murderous act in the name of Jesus."
Maybe you thinks that matters to the dead people. Christians kill people, muslims kill people, basically people kill people.
Omar thanks for explaining that to me in ur long winded but informative way and pc that is interesting too although eye dont think that most think sex with a fifteen year old is morally reprehensible to the degree that they think sex with a NINE or TEN year old is morally outrageous what eye want to know is how much of a problem this causes in the interpretations of the scriptures
[quote:anony]hat eye want to know is how much of a problem this causes in the interpretations of the scriptures[/quote]
Who gives a kipper's dick?
It's just religion.
Post a Comment