Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

If Mohammed had sex with his 9 year old wife does that make him a pedophile?

1…457910…13

Comments

  • #182
    gbee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,388 ✭✭✭gbee


    Strange Loop wrote: »
    I thought this was a good answer to those parts of the Koran, from Hivizman, in a current thread in the Islam forum...

    So, is it as simple as sending Bin Laden to Specsavers?


  • #183
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Sure we all know of bible thumpers in the US. We tend to laugh at them.

    What gets forgotten with Obama is, The reason Bush won 2 terms was these bible thumpers.

    Karl Rove and his spin doctors actively engaged them to get their votes. This section of voters were never entertained before that, laughed and scoffed at. The couple of percent of votes they got by entertaining these nut jobs, won both elections. (Forgetting Florida!)

    They are still there you know. The reason Palin was picked and why you have the Tea Party.

    Anyway, random Blazing Saddles videos that may or may not have some relevance:






    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JN99jshaQbY



    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHJbSvidohg

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #184
    hitbit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 205 ✭✭hitbit


    They are dirty inhuman bastards who simply use their religion as an excuse to abuse young children. There are millions of Muslems who do not do such despicable things yet manage to follow their faith.

    hitbit


  • #185
    Terry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,061 ✭✭✭✭Terry


    gbee wrote: »
    911 / Spain Train Bombings ....
    Look, we know that the vast majority of Muslims disagreed with those acts.
    I don't see a need to bring that up in this thread.

    Strange Loop wrote: »
    I thought this was a good answer to those parts of the Koran, from Hivizman, in a current thread in the Islam forum...
    For example, some Muslims (such as Osama bin Laden) have appealed to Surat at-Tawbah (9:5), which contains the words (in Pickthall's translation of the Qur'an) "slay the idolators wherever you find them", and have claimed that this verse abrogates (that is, cancels) the 200 or so verses in the Qur'an that call for peace, particularly between Muslims and those of other religions.
    Ok. However, one would assume that Bin Laden would be able to read it in the original Arabic. Where are the translation flaws here?
    We have been told time and again that the English translations are misleading, and that it can only be interpreted in the original Arabic.

    If this is the case, then why can so many non-Arabic speaking Muslims see it as a religion of peace, while Bin Laden, a native Arab, sees it as a reason to slaughter the non-believers?

    Are we now going to be told that Bin Laden has misinterpreted the divine word of Allah because he read it the wrong way?
    If so, then this just points out more flaws.
    However, the scholarly consensus is that these words relate only to certain tribes in Arabia who had broken treaties with the Muslims, and scholars point out that any former idolator who accepted Islam was to be allowed to go free.
    Isn't that nice of them?

    Also, the original Arabic word that is translated here as "idolators" - mushrikeen - is almost always used in the Qur'an to refer to the polytheist idol-worshippers of pre-Islamic Arabia, not to ahl al-kitab, People of the Book such as Jews and Christians.
    So what happens to those who are not of the book, or those former idolators who do not accept Islam?


  • #186
    Terry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,061 ✭✭✭✭Terry


    K-9 wrote: »
    Sure we all know of bible thumpers in the US. We tend to laugh at them.

    What gets forgotten with Obama is, The reason Bush won 2 terms was these bible thumpers.

    Karl Rove and his spin doctors actively engaged them to get their votes. This section of voters were never entertained before that, laughed and scoffed at. The couple of percent of votes they got by entertaining these nut jobs, won both elections. (Forgetting Florida!)

    They are still there you know. The reason Palin was picked and why you have the Tea Party.

    Anyway, random Blazing Saddles videos that may or may not have some relevance:
    Quick. Divert everyone's attention by blaming America for something.


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,322 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    wes wrote: »
    Again, if those faith completely ejected all that came before you would have a point, but they didn't and hence why that stuff still matters.
    Eh Buddha came pretty much out of blue and rejected/changed most of the pre existing Hindu(and others) faith. The Sikh masters also came out of the blue and had a radically different faith to the surrounding culture. Jesus while Jewish was so radical, that his fellow Jews to this day consider him a deluded nutter and not the one promised by their scripture. So that argument really doesnt hold much water.
    You have come up with a cop out to present one Religion as being uniquely violent.
    It's more a cop out on your part to ignore the clear differences, which are pretty plain in the conduct and culture of the different main players. It's called Buddhism for a reason. Its called Christianity for a reason and until quite recently Islam in the west was called(erroneously) Muhammadism for a reason.
    Yes, and so did Moses, and Joshua etc, to the Bible, and yet apparently we are to ignore certain parts, as you don't consider them "faith founders", which is a cop out, that is being used solely to present one Religion as more violent than the others, which is nonsense.
    Nope Ive already stated that the the Torah/Old testament contains well dodgy characters. I would also agree with Terry that the modern Jewish state is well out of order. Indeed I think you should read some of my posts on the matter on the recent shipboard murders and long term attempted genocide and expulsion of non believers by the agents of that rogue state. Much of which is predicated on the religious background. You are defo not gonna find some beardy apologist for Zionism here I'm afraid. I also condemn the (largely "chirstian")US led coalition against various Muslim states in this world for their own fiscal ends too. I also condemn the Chinese treatment of places like Tibet, while also have seriousissues with the Dali Lama's fight to reinstate a Buddhist feudal theocracy that was anything but an equal society. In all cases ordinary people of all faiths are getting fcuked up the arse over the religious BS.
    Seriously, you entire argument make no sense anymore. If I went to a Church, I would be told to read the Bible to learn about Christianity, and if I wanted to learn about Mormonism, they would say read the Book of Mormon, and I know there are violent passages contained within both of those texts, but apparently those books aren't the intended message of the various prophets of those Religions........ How exactly does that make sense??!?? Either they don't have any violence in them, or don't contain the message of there respective Religions, which make no sense, as why would they consider them authoritative holy texts then?
    Compare the best examples of the various main players in the various religious faiths. Buddha: Non violent, possession light(he gave up high level earthly power and shunned attachment), wandering preacher, seeking enlightenment, ends his days as an enlightened being as far as he was concerned, whose last words were "strive earnestly". Jesus: Non violent, possession light(my kingdom is not of this earth), wandering preacher who spoke of forgiveness, putting down the sword and loving your enemies/turning the other cheek, whose last words nailed to a tree were of forgiveness so that his death would take all the sins of mankind forever. Of the rest Moses as you've pointed out was the most martial(actually David was a right bloodthirsty git and worse than Moses ever was). Compared to Muhammad? Eh no. Preacher, general, gaining possessions, both fiscal and human, making war, overseeing killings of enemies in war and otherwise and ending up at the head of a growing empire at the end of his life.
    Also, I never compared Muhammad to Jesus or Bhudda, but I was comparing Religions, and there texts. You are the one making such comparisons.
    Yes because the comparisons are interesting and say much of the culture behind the various faiths.
    Anyway, this has gotten silly at this point, as I have not made such comparisons, and I see no reason to continue this.
    I can see why it may be uncomfortable for some.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • #188
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,322 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Terry wrote: »
    Ok. However, one would assume that Bin Laden would be able to read it in the original Arabic. Where are the translation flaws here?
    We have been told time and again that the English translations are misleading, and that it can only be interpreted in the original Arabic.

    If this is the case, then why can so many non-Arabic speaking Muslims see it as a religion of peace, while Bin Laden, a native Arab, sees it as a reason to slaughter the non-believers?

    Are we now going to be told that Bin Laden has misinterpreted the divine word of Allah because he read it the wrong way?
    If so, then this just points out more flaws.
    Yep. Its funny that among the most radical nutters out there are the ones who are fluent Arabic speakers, yet among the least are those for which classical Arabic is a second or third or unknown language.

    So what happens to those who are not of the book, or those former idolators who do not accept Islam?
    Lets have a look at those "idolaters" for a second. We are told that the main religious focal point for Mecca, now the Kaaba contained an area where different gods and faiths were represented. Any traveler of any faith who showed up could worship in his or her own way to whatever gods they followed. Muhammad himself lived there and preached and they left him alone, even though he was preaching damnation for them. Not exactly religious persecution going on. Indeed typical of the Arab culture of welcome for strangers that exists to this very day. There were Christians and Jews and Arabs and Pagans in Mecca. Seems a pretty liberal, equal and multifaith environment. One of the earliest in fact and a pretty good example to us today as far as tolerance goes. What happens next? Well that's changed radically and it's an all Allah club overnight. And those that disagreed with that? Well they were expelled or killed. To this very day no Pagan, Jew or Christian can even approach Mecca. If someone of those faiths had shown up to Mecca before Muhammad they could go in and worship in their own way. Bit of a diff there too. Plus all of that history comes entirely from the Islamic point of view, so given they're going to be naturally biased, it speaks volumes.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • #189
    wes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,749 ✭✭✭✭wes


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Eh Buddha came pretty much out of blue and rejected/changed most of the pre existing Hindu(and others) faith. The Sikh masters also came out of the blue and had a radically different faith to the surrounding culture. Jesus while Jewish was so radical, that his fellow Jews to this day consider him a deluded nutter and not the one promised by their scripture. So that argument really doesnt hold much water.
    It's more a cop out on your part to ignore the clear differences, which are pretty plain in the conduct and culture of the different main players. It's called Buddhism for a reason. Its called Christianity for a reason and until quite recently Islam in the west was called(erroneously) Muhammadism for a reason.

    Nope Ive already stated that the the Torah/Old testament contains well dodgy characters. I would also agree with Terry that the modern Jewish state is well out of order. Indeed I think you should read some of my posts on the matter on the recent shipboard murders and long term attempted genocide and expulsion of non believers by the agents of that rogue state. Much of which is predicated on the religious background. You are defo not gonna find some beardy apologist for Zionism here I'm afraid. I also condemn the (largely "chirstian")US led coalition against various Muslim states in this world for their own fiscal ends too. I also condemn the Chinese treatment of places like Tibet, while also have seriousissues with the Dali Lama's fight to reinstate a Buddhist feudal theocracy that was anything but an equal society. In all cases ordinary people of all faiths are getting fcuked up the arse over the religious BS.

    Compare the best examples of the various main players in the various religious faiths. Buddha: Non violent, possession light(he gave up high level earthly power and shunned attachment), wandering preacher, seeking enlightenment, ends his days as an enlightened being as far as he was concerned, whose last words were "strive earnestly". Jesus: Non violent, possession light(my kingdom is not of this earth), wandering preacher who spoke of forgiveness, putting down the sword and loving your enemies/turning the other cheek, whose last words nailed to a tree were of forgiveness so that his death would take all the sins of mankind forever. Of the rest Moses as you've pointed out was the most martial. Compared to Muhammad? Eh no. Preacher, general, gaining possessions, both fiscal and human, making war, overseeing killings of enemies in war and otherwise and ending up at the head of a growing empire at the end of his life.

    Yes because the comparisons are interesting and say much of the culture behind the various faiths.

    I can see why it may be uncomfortable for some.

    Once again, my point was very simple. Islam is not uniquely violent, and that is the only point I have constantly made, and hence why this whole thing has gotten beyond silly at this point.

    Btw, I never once mentioned Buddhism or Sikhism, so how exactly can I ignore the differences in those Religions to others, when I didn't mention them at all, due to my lack of knowledge on them. I know very little about either faith, and hence why I have avoided saying a thing about them.

    Lastly, regarding Jesus, well you see the Christian Bible still contains the Old testament. It is not rejected, and is very much a part of the faith. Your right Jesus is far more peaceful than the rest of the Bibles prophets, but every thing they preached is still a part of the Christian Bible, and as such can't be ignored or consider irrelevant, otherwise they would have been removed. Sorry, but the Christian Bible includes the old testament, and as such is a part of the Religion, and what it says can't be ignored imho. Again ignoring the old testament is a cop out, as it is still a part of the Christian Bible and Jesus did not reject it, nor have main stream Christian rejected it either.

    Oh and I think the following is an interesting answer to Jesus's view on the old testament:
    Q. How did Jesus view the Old Testament?


    A. We could cite many reasons for the Old Testament being God’s Word, but the strongest argument comes from the Lord Jesus himself. As God in human flesh, Jesus speaks with final authority. And his testimony regarding the Old Testament is loud and clear.

    Jesus believed that the Old Testament was divinely inspired, the veritable Word of God. He said, ‘The Scripture cannot be broken’ (John 10:35). He referred to Scripture as ‘the commandment of God’ (Matthew 15:3) and as the ‘Word of God’ (Matthew 15:6). He also indicated that it was indestructible: ‘Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished’ (Matthew 5:18).

    When dealing with the people of his day, whether it was with the disciples or religious rulers, Jesus constantly referred to the Old Testament: ‘Have you not read that which was spoken to you by God?’ (Matthew 22:31); ‘Yea; and have you never read, “Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babes thou has prepared praise for thyself”?’ (Matthew 21:16, citing Psalm 8:2); and ‘Have you not read what David did?’ (Matthew 12:3). Examples could be multiplied to demonstrate that Jesus was conversant with the Old Testament and its content. He quoted from it often and he trusted it totally.

    Throughout the Gospels, we find Jesus confirming many of the accounts in the Old Testament, such as the destruction of Sodom and the death of Lot’s wife (Luke 17:29, 32) the murder of Abel by his brother Cain (Luke 11:51), the calling of Moses (Mark 12:26), and the manna given in the wilderness (John 6:31–51).

    The list of examples goes on, and the evidence is clear: Jesus saw the Old Testament as being God’s Word, and his attitude toward it was nothing less than total trust. Many people want to accept Jesus, yet they reject a large portion of the Old Testament. Either Jesus knew what he was talking about, or he didn’t. If a person believes in Jesus Christ, he should be consistent and believe that the Old Testament and its accounts are correct.

    Now, it seem Jesus himself did not reject the Old testament.


  • #190
    gbee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,388 ✭✭✭gbee


    Terry wrote: »
    Look, we know that the vast majority of Muslims agreed with those acts. I don't see a need to bring that up in this thread.

    I can't say I'm pleased that you confirm this, which only makes it even MORE relevant today.


  • #191
    Terry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,061 ✭✭✭✭Terry


    wes wrote: »
    Once again, my point was very simple. Islam is not uniquely violent, and that is the only point I have constantly made, and hence why this whole thing has gotten beyond silly at this point.

    Btw, I never once mentioned Buddhism or Sikhism, so how exactly can I ignore the differences in those Religions to others, when I didn't mention them at all, due to my lack of knowledge on them. I know very little about either faith, and hence why I have avoided saying a thing about them.

    Lastly, regarding Jesus, well you see the Christian Bible still contains the Old testament. It is not rejected, and is very much a part of the faith. Your right Jesus is far more peaceful than the rest of the Bibles prophets, but every thing they preached is still a part of the Christian Bible, and as such can't be ignored or consider irrelevant, otherwise they would have been removed. Sorry, but the Christian Bible includes the old testament, and as such is a part of the Religion, and what it says can't be ignored imho. Again ignoring the old testament is a cop out, as it is still a part of the Christian Bible and Jesus did not reject it, nor have main stream Christian rejected it either.
    Ah, sure that's grand then.


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,322 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    wes wrote: »
    Lastly, regarding Jesus, well you see the Christian Bible still contains the Old testament. It is not rejected, and is very much a part of the faith. Your right Jesus is far more peaceful than the rest of the Bibles prophets, but every thing they preached is still a part of the Christian Bible, and as such can't be ignored or consider irrelevant, otherwise they would have been removed. Sorry, but the Christian Bible includes the old testament, and as such is a part of the Religion, and what it says can't be ignored imho. Again ignoring the old testament is a cop out, as it is still a part of the Christian Bible and Jesus did not reject it, nor have main stream Christian rejected it either.
    Funny enough I agree with you on much of that. I consider most Christians to be Lapsed Paulian Jews more than Christians. It seems to me from my reading of the new testament, that while he didnt reject the old he considered himself the fulfillment and final abrogator of the old and that his way was "The way" tm. So why Christians insisted on bringing the old(and Paul) into the picture I could never understand theologically. Though logically I could see why they did. Much like Islam, the main book wasn't enough for some, they needed the backstory. The Muslims got the Hadith, the Christians got the OT and Paul. Both would be way better off with just the main text. And so would the world.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • #193
    wes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,749 ✭✭✭✭wes


    Terry wrote: »
    Ah, sure that's grand then.

    Well, you are the on who inspired that particular line of argument from me. As I said earlier, if you don't want other faiths mentioned, you really shouldn't claim one is more violent than all others, as the only line of argument will then be to mention other faiths.

    Just to make it clear, other people being violent etc, does not excuse Muslims doing so. However, if people essentially make statements about one Religion being more violent than others, this will naturally results in other Religion being mentioned for the sake of comparison.


  • #194
    gcgirl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,044 ✭✭✭gcgirl


    This just sceams all Religion is wrong. That is all.


  • #195
    wes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,749 ✭✭✭✭wes


    gbee wrote: »
    Coming from a guy who says most Muslims agree with the NY attacks and the Spain attacks.

    I said no such thing. So either retract your false claim about me, or prove it with a quote. I don't appreciate lies being spread about me.


  • #196
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Terry wrote: »
    Quick. Divert everyone's attention by blaming America for something.

    I referenced bible thumpers. Bible thumpers aren't just American. We have them here too.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #197
    wes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,749 ✭✭✭✭wes


    gbee wrote: »
    You Terry and Wes? Neat.

    In post 194 you quote me......

    And I have attached a screen shot as well btw.

    So I take it you quoted me in error, then?


  • #198
    gbee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,388 ✭✭✭gbee


    wes wrote: »
    In post 194 you quote me......

    And I have attached a screen shot as well btw.

    So I take it you quoted me in error, then?

    Yes, I'll delete and go back and try again.


  • #199
    wes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,749 ✭✭✭✭wes


    gbee wrote: »
    Yes, I'll delete and go back and try again.

    Sure np, happens to the best of us.


  • #200
    vampire of kilmainham
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,048 ✭✭✭vampire of kilmainham


    ALLAH MOKIM EL DA HALLAH IK EIBRIM MUAMIFIM.


  • #201
    humberklog
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 10,841 Mod ✭✭✭✭humberklog


    vampire of kilmainham wrote: »
    ALLAH MOKIM EL DA HALLAH IK EIBRIM MUAMIFIM.

    That's easy for you to say.


    Mohammad? Mucky fecker regardless of social norms of the day.


  • Advertisement
  • #202
    Terry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,061 ✭✭✭✭Terry


    gbee wrote: »
    I can't say I'm pleased that you confirm this, which only makes it even MORE relevant today.

    Typo has been fixed.


  • #203
    irishconvert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,866 ✭✭✭irishconvert


    The Highwayman wrote: »
    Times change as they say but a 53 year old man and a 9 year old girl can't be right in any era can it?

    Aisha was 19 years old when she married the Prophet Muhammed.


  • #204
    Strange Loop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 87 ✭✭Strange Loop


    Terry wrote: »

    Ok. However, one would assume that Bin Laden would be able to read it in the original Arabic. Where are the translation flaws here?
    We have been told time and again that the English translations are misleading, and that it can only be interpreted in the original Arabic.

    If this is the case, then why can so many non-Arabic speaking Muslims see it as a religion of peace, while Bin Laden, a native Arab, sees it as a reason to slaughter the non-believers?

    Are we now going to be told that Bin Laden has misinterpreted the divine word of Allah because he read it the wrong way?
    If so, then this just points out more flaws.

    The book is written in classical Arabic, were most of the words have multiple meanings. Whilst the words and the book may or may not be God's divine word, the interpretation is man's alone.
    However, the scholarly consensus is that these words relate only to certain tribes in Arabia who had broken treaties with the Muslims, and scholars point out that any former idolator who accepted Islam was to be allowed to go free.
    Isn't that nice of them?

    Given the context and time, yes, I suppose it was.

    Also, the original Arabic word that is translated here as "idolators" - mushrikeen - is almost always used in the Qur'an to refer to the polytheist idol-worshippers of pre-Islamic Arabia, not to ahl al-kitab, People of the Book such as Jews and Christians.
    So what happens to those who are not of the book, or those former idolators who do not accept Islam?
    I'd safely say the polytheist idol-worshippers of pre-Islamic Arabia or no longer with us and have nothing to fear at this stage.


  • #205
    Kotek Besar
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,601 ✭✭✭Kotek Besar


    Hence there is not the least doubt that Aisha was at least nine or ten years of age at the time of betrothal, and fourteen or fifteen years at the time of marriage.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha#Age_at_marriage


  • #206
    irishconvert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,866 ✭✭✭irishconvert


    Kotek Besar wrote: »
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha#Age_at_marriage

    Wikipedia. That's a "reference" website that can be edited by anybody on the internet, right?


  • #207
    Kotek Besar
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,601 ✭✭✭Kotek Besar


    irishconvert wrote: »
    Wikipedia. That's a "reference" website that can be edited by anybody on the internet, right?

    Yes, that's right, you got me. I'll go and edit it back..


  • #208
    irishconvert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,866 ✭✭✭irishconvert


    Kotek Besar wrote: »
    Yes, that's right, you got me. I'll go and edit it back..

    Bottom line is Wikipedia articles are not always reliable so shouldn't be used as a definitive source.


  • #209
    Kotek Besar
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,601 ✭✭✭Kotek Besar


    irishconvert wrote: »
    Bottom line is Wikipedia articles are not always reliable so shouldn't be used as a definitive source.

    You're right. I usually prefer to use reliable websites like muslim.org as a source.


  • #210
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Terry wrote: »
    Can you explain (.......)is flawed)?

    You'd have to address that to a muslim theologian - I'm an atheist. As far as I'm concerned its all a load of bollocks that - like most other religions - the believers read what they want to from. All I'm saying is that its no worse than others and is not uniquely violent.

    Once you start going down the socio-economic ladder you'll notice that - regardless of religion - fundamentalism increases, the treatment of women becomes more rough and ready and tolerance is patchy at best.
    Terry wrote: »
    Ok. However, one would assume that Bin Laden would be able to read it in the original Arabic. Where are the translation flaws here?
    We have been told time and again that the English translations are misleading, and that it can only be interpreted in the original Arabic.
    )?

    He reads it from this lots perspective.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi

    There are a small group of Koran only muslims, but they're a newish sect.


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    The Highwayman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,227 ✭✭✭The Highwayman


    irishconvert wrote: »
    Aisha was 19 years old when she married the Prophet Muhammed.

    Wrong!!!

    She was 6 or 7 but he made her a woman at 9, nice of him to wait.

    This is why 9 is the age a girl can be married off in Islamic countrys.

    What Hadith are you using to get the age of Aisha to be 19?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement