News

Mohammed was a paedophile, but hush, you can’t say that on Australian radio

IT has never been disputed, as far as I am aware, that the lunatic who concocted Islam liked ’em young. Very young. And because the “prophet” laid claim to a girl called Aisha when she was just six, and nailed her when she was nine, a mindset now exists within Islam that, to put it bluntly, kiddy-fiddling is perfectly OK.

Indeed, a couple of weeks ago a prominent Saudi cleric went on the offensive over this very issue. Dr Salih bin Fawzan issued a fatwa asserting that there is no minimum age for girls to marry, “even if they are in the cradle,” and that the only criterion is that:

Dr Salih bin Fawzan airing his view on child brides on TV

They are capable of being placed beneath and bearing the weight of the men.

Fawzan went on to complain that:

Uninformed interference with Sharia rulings by the press and journalists is on the increase, posing dire consequences to society, including their interference with the question of marriage to small girls who have not reached maturity, and their demand that a minimum age be set for girls to marry.

He went on to state that:

The ulema [Islam’s interpreters] have agreed that it is permissible for fathers to marry off their small daughters, even if they are in the cradle.  But it is not permissible for their husbands to have sex with them unless they are capable of being placed beneath and bearing the weight of the men.  And their capability in this regard varies based on their nature and capacity.  Aisha was six when she married the prophet, but he had sex with her when she was nine [ie when she was deemed capable].

This prompted Islam watcher Raymond Ibrahim to comment:

Sharia law is nothing less than a legal system built atop the words and deeds of a 7th century Arab, whose behaviour – from pedophilia and sex-slavery to war mongering and plundering – was very much that of a 7th century Arab.  Having enticed or enslaved his contemporaries into following him, his teachings continue to entice and enslave their descendants; and, now as then, it is always the innocent who suffer.

Given that Muslims don’t dispute that Mo enjoyed diddling young girls – and that some, like Fawzan are actually insistent that Muslim men should be freely allowed to ape his paedophilia, it beggars belief that the Australian Communications and Media Authority should place radio presenter Michael Smith under investigation for simply stating (erroneously, as it happens; he was wrong about Aisha’s various ages) that Mohammed:

Married a nine-year-old and consummated [the marriage] when she was 11.

Australian radio personality Michael Smith

The Australian Communications and Media Authority confirmed its investigation after Adem Cetinay, a Muslim from Bossley Park, complained to the station’s programme director, Peter Brennan, that Smith had incited hatred against Muslims through his July 5 broadcast.

By making this remark he is asserting that God’s messenger is a paedophile. This is racist, it’s stupid and it is not needed on air.

Brennan replied that Smith’s had had been a “throwaway line”.

At no time did he refer to any Prophet’s name, nor did he use the word ‘Prophet’. He did not refer to anybody whatsoever in the broadcast.

Cetinay then took his complaint to ACMA. In a letter, the authority’s Eileen Haley said it would embark on an investigation that could take “several months”.

Hat tip: BarrieJohn

48 responses to “Mohammed was a paedophile, but hush, you can’t say that on Australian radio”

  1. remigius says:

    Why should the investigation take several months? Any Islamic scholar could very quickly confirm that Mad Mo was indeed a kiddy-fiddler, but that it’s OK because child rape is allowed under Sharia law.

    ACMA do need to issue a statement correcting little Aisha’s age though, just for the sake of clarity.

  2. Newspaniard says:

    If you can’t kill critics of islam then destroy them in another manner,in this case with the collusion of the ACMA.

  3. Graham Martin-Royle says:

    This is specifically about one person, mohamed, the founder of islam. It is not about a group of people, however that group is defined. It therefore cannot be racist.
    It’s not stupid, it’s factual. Mohamed did have sex with a 9 year old.
    It is needed on air because the truth about this awful religion and it’s criminal, homophobic, misogynistic peadophile founder need to be clearly stated so that every one can judge for themselves what it is truly about.

  4. David Haslam says:

    Islam is not a race, it is a personal choice. To be Arabic could be defined as a race and a negative comment about arabs could be termed as racist. So to be critical or negative about islam is not racist. Some Islamists, extreme and moderate, have hi-jacked racism to attack its critics and opponents.

  5. gsw says:

    Being bigoted is, however, whatever the law and the MSM says it is.
    Whether you call it racist or something else, until enough other people are willing to sue the mosques for insulting US (females, non muslims) and offending our principles, they will always win.

    What the Australians must now do is:

    THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE IN AUSTRALIA MUST PHONE THE STATION TO CORRECT THE ERROR
    Aisha was 6 when she was sold and 9 when she was raped!

    “A man fighting to hold a stalemate will also loose against a man fighting to win.”
    Unable to remember who said that, but it is Europe, Australia and any other western countries not6 yet fully islamic.

  6. Angela_K says:

    Close down the argument by screaming “racist” how predictable of muslims.

  7. David Anderson says:

    Puffed up barbaric arseholes. If you have the stomach for it, you should read the article in the June edition of National Geographic. It made me sick.

    I see that Michael Smith has already change his name to John. I don´t think he will get away with it.

  8. Broga says:

    Fawzan: Ugly, dirty, sick monster. Just like his so called prophet.

  9. AgentCormac says:

    Mo wasn’t a catholic priest at all, was he?

  10. Broga says:

    AgentCormac: No, he just behaved like one. Difficult to separate their behaviours I agree.

  11. barriejohn says:

    Fawzan: Ugly, dirty, sick monster. Just like his so called prophet. (Broga)

    They aspire to be like Mohammed – their “perfect man” – and they make a bloody good job of it!

  12. Barry Duke says:

    Whoops, David, my mistake. Smith is back to being Michael.

  13. Paul says:

    His arrest seems like it impairs his right of free speech. To speak out against something is a form of passive resistance. Moreover, if he’s essentially telling the truth or quite possibly even sugarcoating what he said about Mohammed, then what the fuck is going on there? I can understand how laws against inciting hatred, might be beneficial for a society, but I’d sure hate to live in the proving grounds for them. To me, it seems like freedom of speech is more important than trying to insure that nobody is ever offended.

  14. Psychodiva says:

    somebody who is good at writing petitions should start a petition about this- it often works well through the internet

  15. DogGone says:

    This is an unfair singling out of Islam.

    Christianity has a long history in Europe of child marriages. There is still a problem with it in places like the U.S. where Warren Jeffs was just sentenced for having group sex with young girls as part of his fundamentalist polygamous mormon cult.

    It is a problem in modern day Israel where fundamentalists believe a girl is marriagable at 3 years and 1 day, and where child marriages still occur illegally.

    Child marriage is a problem with the Hindu religion in India.

    The essence of the problem is largely that religion incorporated the cultural beliefs that previously existed in these areas (except for the mormons in the US) before these religions took hold; the cultural traditions preceeded the religious traditions. If this was just one religion at fault, then the criticism would make more sense. Given how many have the problem, you need to look to the ethnic and economic traditions for the cause; religion is more the symptom.

    The solution is secular education and more economic opportunity, not trying to end (or bash) any particular relgion. Access to contraception so women can control their own child bearing helps as well. Bashing religion is not going to win many converts among people who are superstitiously devout and who have no practical larger world reference for doing things differently. Religion is not so much the problem, as ignorance is.

  16. barriejohn says:

    DogGone: What you say may well be true, but the big problem in this context appears to be Islam’s virtual idolization of Mohammed. As long as he is held up as the perfect example how will these people ever make progress?

  17. john c says:

    I suggest everyone who thinks the truth should not be hidden should send a complaint in support of michael smith to http://www.2ue.com.au/feedback
    select complaints, let them know that they are gutless appologists bowing before a barbarian cult.

  18. john c says:

    The url previous is the station, you should also complain to
    http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=PC_90032
    The body who are investigating the issue,about the degrading of freedom of speech.

  19. Diesel Balaam says:

    DogGone’s point is a good and valid one, but it doesn’t take into account the fact that you usually have to look at the wild extremes of other religions to find a casual acceptance of sex with children. Child marriage was, or remains, a problem in some other religions and cultures, but however reprehensible, in a historical or cultural context, it was/is both sanctioned and perfectly legal.

    Where it goes from being reprehensible to abhorrent, is where it falls outside of prevailing cultural norms and control, as with the Catholic holy orders, or the practice among some Muslim men in northern England to groom and abuse (non-Muslim) children for their own perverted and debased pleasures. There was a particularly good article about this in The Times, earlier this year, detailing how political correctness has led the authorities to turn a blind eye, rather than risk upsetting the phoney multicultualist apple cart that tolerates Muslim depravity.

    The plain fact is, that the Prophet’s behaviour (which, let’s face it, was perfectly normal in his time), is being used by some contemporary Muslim perverts to justify their behaviour, whereas even in the Catholic church no one sees child-sex as anything but seriously wrong, even if they don’t always take it seriously enough.

    The whole point about being a freethinking, humanist/atheist, is to accept that while slavery, child sex, gender inequality and racism may have been deemed unremarkable centuries ago, today they are totally unacceptable and shouldn’t be allowed to hide behind religious sentiment and privilege.

  20. Pete H says:

    @ john c

    I’m not sure why 2ue (Smith’s employers) are the ones people should be complaining to?

    They’ve defended their employee – I can’t see where they have “bowed” to the complaints about him.

    Surely if complaints should be directed anywhere, it should be at the ACMA for bothering to investigate the complaints against him?

  21. DogGone says:

    barriejohn,

    Gee, how do you think Europe moved away from Christian child marriages? It wasn’t by other cultures or religions demonizing anyone, or sanctimoniously telling them how inferior they were. Atheists being holier than thou; there is a paradox, or at least a stark inconsistency, possibly a little hypocrisy.

    And if you think we in the west haven’t demonized anyone who spoke against Christianity in any critical or disbelieving way, I suggest you revist eras like the Inquisition, some of the more brutal aspects of the Reformation in Europe and European dominated areas, like the early Christian settlements in North America. We’ve had periods as bad as some of the Muslim extreme fundamentalists; but not all Muslims are that extreme.

    There are laudable efforts in India to change customs, reflected in changed laws and law enforcement. I suggest reading the National Geo article from June; it is available on line. It details some of those efforts, including what is working.

    In Israel they have made serious efforts to eradicate the practice of Jewish child marriage, as have Christians and secular government in the U.S. Likewise predominantly Muslim countries in the Middle East and Africa are also making serious efforts to eradicate the problems; give credit where credit is due, in balance with fair criticism.

    The efforts are underway by the people who belong to these faiths and by their governments. We can no doubt accomplish more working with them than against them, where we would be encountering resistance to any idea which also had a religious conflict inherent in it. Separating the age of marriage from religion makes the most sense.

    As we see more economic progress, and more secularization – hopefully resulting from revolutions like the Arab Spring – there are opportunities to promote changes for the better.

    If interfaith and ecumenical groups can work together, why not atheists and people of religion? It is simply a matter of focusing on shared humanity, instead of shared deity.

    That would seem to be the opposite of calling religions names like barbarian cults, while missing the similar errors of our own culture, like johnc. There is nothing inherently evil in these people; this is the life they know. Show them another, better one; people are more alike than different. And value women, as equals, everywhere.

    Make contraception available; when women are able to control their reproductive lives, they are empowered to do much more.

    A nice start would be if women in the west all earned equal pay for equal work and all had equal opportunity. We don’t. So, lets stop pointing fingers, and talking down to people who are largely less advantaged, and do the things which are more useful – and ethical.

    DogGone, penigma.blogspot.com

  22. Robster says:

    The fact is the bronze-age desert peasant married a 6 year old. Six! And then got her into the sack at nine! What a sicko. What a fact. It’s true, it’s in the muzzie holly book. There can be no complaint.

  23. DogGone says:

    Robster, there is rampant islamophobia in the U.S.; it is a purity test in the Republican candidate race for the nomination to run on the right for our Presidency.

    The lot are a bunch of backward, bigoted, racist, intolerant Christian fundamentalists, the worst kind of people that you can imagine. Their supporters propose things like requiring all immigrants to convert to Christianity, and denounce the statue of Liberty as idolatry.

    Mohammed lived and founded Islam in the 7th century – which would be around the same time as some of the child marriages in Europe were taking place. I would refer you variously to the 14th C., with Chaucer’s wife of Bath, a fictional character who married for the first time at the age of 12, and the real historical figure, no less than a Queen of England, Isabella of Valois, who married Richard II at the age of six in 1396.

    What a sicko double standard you have for judging history. I think that inconsistenc could be construed as a legitimate complaint.

    Dog Gone, penigma.blogspot.com

  24. barriejohn says:

    DogGone: What a rant! I don’t know quite what I said to be attacked in that vicious manner. This was my point, actually, and I stand by it:

    What you say may well be true, but the big problem in this context appears to be Islam’s virtual idolization of Mohammed. As long as he is held up as the perfect example how will these people ever make progress?

  25. Robert Stovold says:

    I suspect most posters here regard Christian child marriages as being as bad as Islamic ones. If they do, DogGone, there’s no “double standard”. There’s still a difference though; Christians and atheists have been more willing to move on than some Muslims, whos “virtual idolization of Mohammed” (to use barriejohn’s apt phrase) prevents them from moving on.

  26. DogGone says:

    barriejohn,

    I have not attacked you in a vicious manner. I have made polite, respectful arguments that disagreed with your position. Before having the temerity to differ with you on your own website, I made a sincere effort to be both well reasoned and well researched.

    Your first sentence is factually inaccurate; there ARE factions within Islam which dispute the age of Ayesha. The rest of the first paragraph is equally inaccurate on pedophilia, or as you call it ‘kiddyfiddling’.

    I researched this for something I wrote in opposition to the U.S. religious right wing homophobes who wrongly accuse all homosexuals of being child sexual predators – also the basis for the proposed anti-gay laws in Uganda. If you would allow me, there was something on the “facts about homosexuality and child molestation” site of the University of California, Davis that applies here as well (my emphasis added):
    Pedophilia and child molestation are used in different ways, even by professionals. Pedophilia usually refers to an adult psychological disorder characterized by a preference for prepubescent children as sexual partners; this preference may or may not be acted upon. The term hebephilia is sometimes used to describe adult sexual attractions to adolescents or children who have reached puberty.

    Whereas pedophilia and hebephilia refer to psychological propensities, child molestation and child sexual abuse are used to describe actual sexual contact between an adult and someone who has not reached the legal age of consent. In this context, the latter individual is referred to as a child, even though he or she may be a teenager.

    Although the terms are not always applied consistently, it is useful to distinguish between pedophiles/hebephiles and child molesters/abusers. Pedophilia and hebephilia are diagnostic labels that refer to psychological attractions.….Not all incidents of child sexual abuse are perpetrated by pedophiles or hebephiles; in some cases, the perpetrator has other motives for his or her actions and does not manifest an ongoing pattern of sexual attraction to children.

    There is no more evidence that Mohammed was sexually attracted to children and adolescents than there is that Richard II of England was. Or that all those other people across Europe for centuries who engaged in arranged child marriages were – I can expand the list if you like of prominent examples.

    The driving force behind arranged child marriages, then and now, is economic, not deviant sexuality.

    There are plenty of Muslims, Jews, and Hindus who are, as Robert Stovald wrote ‘moving on’, quite aggressively, in changing the laws and customs of their respective countries and cultures. For Christians and Atheists, predominantly in Europe, that change also paralleled educational and economic advances; it was not driven by some innate superiority in either Christianity or Atheism. In that context of evolving changes to custom, you might want to take a look at the relative ages of Christianity and Islam for parallel developments.

    We share the same goal: ending child marriages, because they do terrible harm on many levels to these girls. Religion is an emotional conviction rather than logical. We can oppose a custom on logical evidence, or we can condemn both all of those religion and the custom. The latter is more likely to elicit resistance than the former. This is a matter equally of pragmatism, and factual objectivity, and basic, fundamental fairness.

    With cordial respect,
    DG, penigma.blogspot.com

  27. Newspaniard says:

    @DogGone Haven’t you latched on to the use of “Islamophobia” yet. The death cultists used to shut up any critic of islam by using the term “racist”. When these islamofacists realised that they were being laughed at because their dreadful cult was being adopted by many races. Now the term islamophobia is used as frequently as racist used to be to silence any or all critics. If you accept that it is a “be silent or we’ll beat you up” word invented for the purpose then you can ignore it and continue your measured debate against this hate-filled religion. Don’t try and use it against your everyday atheist or he’ll laugh at you. (As I am).

  28. barriejohn says:

    DogGone: It’s not my website – you seem to be confusing me with Barry Duke!

  29. Laci The Dog says:

    I thought we Athiests were better informed about religions than most people, but this bit of bigotry demonstrates that isn’t true.

    It also isn’t true that we are incredibly intelligent either.

    In logic, the proposition that “all Xs are Y” is usually false since one can point to a member of the class that is not Y.

    In this case, you are trying to paint all Muslims as paedophiles from the Comments of one Imam.

    Islam unlike religions such as Catholocism, Anglicans, or other Churches with a central leadership is not unified. That is individual Imams run their Mosques pretty much the way they want and say what they believe is backed up by the Qur’an.

    The Shahada says: ا إله إلا الله محمد رسول الله

    “There is no god but God, and Muhammad is the messenger of God.”

    This is akin to The Nicene Creed and is the belief that unifies Muslims. For a Muslim to not revere Muhammad would be the same as a Christian not believing in Jesus Christ.

    Additionally, Hindus practise child marriage in modern times.

    I have to admit that you make me ashamed to call myself an Athiest by this demonstration of ignorance.

    Paedophilia is not limited to Islam, but is manifest in other religions as other commenters have noted.

    To try to say that your Eurocentric religious/ethnic bigotry is anything other than the closed mindedness shown by the religious–especially Christians–is rubbish.

    Don’t Single out one faith as being evil when others demonstrate the same beliefs. Otherwise, you show yourself up as being a bigot.

  30. DogGone says:

    I should have said your writing on this website. Thank you for the correction.

    But to the larger point, have I persuaded you at all?

    I hope that my last comment ameliorated any feelings you have of being viciously attacked rather than respectful, thoughtful disagreement, with a shared end goal.

  31. DogGone says:

    Newspaniard, wrote: “Now the term islamophobia is used as frequently as racist used to be to silence any or all critics.” and “Don’t try and use it against your everyday atheist or he’ll laugh at you. (As I am).”

    Laugh away, newspaniard, if you like. It does not change that what I wrote was factually accurate, objective, and well reasoned.

    What attracted me to comment on this particular post, rather than just read and move on, were the number of ways in which the statements in it were identical, and inaccurate, to statements I see made by the lunatic fringe of the U.S. religious right on a daily basis. That was the last thing I expected to see here.

    I am not suggesting any critic of Islam, or Christianity, or any other religion be silenced. Far from it; but I am advocating for a more fair, objective, and accurate criticism, of everything, both religious based positions – and non-religious based ones.

    I would posit Newspaniard, that you are demonstrating here exactly the kind of resistance that results from an attack on a belief.

    What I proposed to barriejohn was that we succeed in ending practices like arranged child marriages, or the oppression of women generally, by correctly defining the cause and source of these customs, in order to better define the problem and in turn, create more effective solutions. If we don’t correctly understand the problem, we can intensify the resistance to change, rather than effect that change we desire. I wish to encourage critical thinking, but not self-defeating positions or rhetoric.

    Which method of change do you think is more successful
    “You are wrong and evil to hold your deeply held religious beliefs, you are wrong and evil to practice centuries old customs, and you are clearly stupid and evil, and should do what we say because we are superior”
    OR
    “Here are the arguments against your version of your faith from within your own religion; and here are the objective and factual reasons why these customs are harmful; and here is how your economic and educational circumstances can change to improve your economic security making those harmful customs obsolete.”

  32. barriejohn says:

    barriejohn,

    I have not attacked you in a vicious manner. I have made polite, respectful arguments that disagreed with your position. Before having the temerity to differ with you on your own website, I made a sincere effort to be both well reasoned and well researched.

    Your first sentence is factually inaccurate; there ARE factions within Islam which dispute the age of Ayesha. The rest of the first paragraph is equally inaccurate on pedophilia, or as you call it ‘kiddyfiddling’.

    None of this refers to any comments that I have made on this thread, but to what Barry Duke wrote. Kindly direct your remarks at him!

  33. DogGone says:

    You are correct again, my bad, and my apologies, sir.

    Barry Duke – please take note.

    However, none of my critics here have addressed the substance of my comments.

    Signalling a conversational turn for a moment, I called this article to the attention of a friend of mine in the UK, who apparently wrote a comment of his own some five hours ago that has yet to be moderated. I am assuming this was an honest simple oversight.

    With your permission, site moderators, I was impressed with that comment sufficiently to post it here so as to add it to the discussion. The comment content that follows was written by my friend Laci the Dog, not me- attempting to head off any confusion:
    I thought we Athiests were better informed about religions than most people, but this bit of bigotry demonstrates that isn’t true.

    It also isn’t true that we are incredibly intelligent either.

    In logic, the proposition that “all Xs are Y” is usually false since one can point to a member of the class that is not Y.

    In this case, you are trying to paint all Muslims as paedophiles from the Comments of one Imam.

    Islam unlike religions such as Catholocism, Anglicans, or other Churches with a central leadership is not unified. That is individual Imams run their Mosques pretty much the way they want and say what they believe is backed up by the Qur’an.

    The Shahada says: ا إله إلا الله محمد رسول الله

    “There is no god but God, and Muhammad is the messenger of God.”

    This is akin to The Nicene Creed and what unifies Muslims. For a Muslim to not revere Muhammad would be the same as a Christian not believing in Jesus Christ.

    Additionally, Hindus practise child marriage in modern times.

    I have to admit that you make me ashamed to call myself an Athiest by this demonstration of ignorance.

    Paedophilia is not limited to Islam, but is manifest in other religions as other commenters have noted.

    To try to say that your Eurocentric religious/ethnic bigotry is anything other than the closed mindedness shown by the religious–especially Christians–is rubbish.

    Don’t Single out one faith as being evil when others demonstrate the same beliefs. Otherwise, you show yourself up as being a bigot.

  34. Don says:

    DogGone,

    You make some very good points. But your mate is wrong if he thinks there is such a thing as ‘we Atheists’.

    Just because someone is an atheist does not mean they are not also a bigot or a half-smart arsehole, or someone I’d do not see as a compadre. I visit this site daily, mostly enjoy it and comment now and then. But it’s good to see someone calling for more rigour.

    I hope your dog comes back.

  35. barriejohn says:

    I have stated on this site before that I do not fear “Eurabia”, and, despite the ridiculous concessions made to Muslims for various reasons, consider that our main enemy in the Western world remains the Christian Church. However, going back to the point that I was trying to make before, although there may be great differences of opinion amongst Muslims, the fact remains that in many respects it doesn’t matter what the Koran or the Hadiths say, as their principal aim is to emulate Mohammed – the “perfect man”. Christians may well seek to be like Jesus; and although this “Jesus” bears little relationship to the character depicted in the Gospels, being largely a figment of their imagination, at least he is a loving, kind, pacific, benign character. However, you can’t say this about “The Prophet”. Many Muslims throughout the world are modelling themselves on a vicious, brutal, barbaric warlord, and consider that character traits that we would find obnoxious are the ideal!

  36. AngieRS says:

    mohammed was and is still celebrated as a child molester and your argument completely misses the point, doggone. Yes, it went on in the bloody seventh century in Europe, when you were lucky if you lived beyond twenty. Even though I don’t agree with it from this centuries standpoint, it is easy to see why it happened. Raping some poor kid at nine will not pass on your seed or ensure you have any sort of a family.

  37. sailor1031 says:

    The point is not that Mohammad, in the seventh century was or was not more evil than contemporaneous christians, hindus or any other people. The point is that here in the twenty-first century we have an imam expressing the consensus of the ulema that child marriage is STILL okay and that having sex with female children is totally permissible as long as the child is physically capable of supporting the weight of the man. It’s a good thing these morons apparently only know the missionary position – otherwise they’d be having sex with babies right out of the “new life center”.

    And yes, in the west we do have people like Warren Jeffs. But when they are caught they go to jail for a very long time. Our society does not condone this.

    As long as the imams keeps on promoting seventh century morals as acceptable today (just because Mohammad did it), they will reap this kind of approbation.

  38. […] Mohammed was a paedophile, but hush, you can’t say that on Australian radio […]

  39. Newspaniard says:

    @DogGone. Your post 16 Aug 0840. How can anything said against this dreadful cult be “unfair” when it refers to second and 3rd generation immigrants who want to turn the clock back in Europe to the 7th century? They have come to Europe voluntarily for a better life and refuse to accept the norms of the host nation although they quite happily accept the financial ones. When, for example, there is criticism of the mutilation of their childrens’ genitals or the fact that children born in their adopted country are unable to speak the local language when they attend their first education establishment, they immediately raise the victim cards and shout “Islamophobia”. It is not that they haven’t had an example of how to behave in the 21st century, it is all around them but because the rest of us are all infidels, they refuse to accept our norms and, in many cases, our laws. Don’t keep banging on about what they and those of other religions do in their “home” countries, most Europeans don’t care, what Europeans DO care about is the creeping imposition of the 7th century (backward) norms on their society.

  40. Newspaniard says:

    @DogGone. Your post 17 Aug 0101 hrs. There you go again, dripping on and on about the nasty Europeans, centuries ago and what people currently do on the Indian sub-continent. You seem to be waffling on to try and obscure the fact that islam in the 21st century remains a cult which would have all infidels either dead or enslaved. The active arm of the cult are the Taliban who say that they are the only true believers as they regard their hate book as the unchangeable word of their god and that any cult member who wants to moderate their behaviour is an apostate and should be killed. Hindus, native Americans, atheists, and pastafarians don’t rush around their local village chopping heads off, even in India but it is commonplace in Pakistan and other islamic countries. We do not need that kind of activity in Europe, thank you. You expend so many words pointing the finger away from the death cult, are you sure that you are not an educated immam?

  41. Newspaniard says:

    @DogGone. Your post 17 Aug 0936 hrs. There you go again saying that it’s OK to have sex with children and Big Mo was really quite a nice bloke compared with other, non cultists.

    Your post 17 Aug 1724 hrs. Now I’m from the lunatic religious right, ho hum. Ah Hah! So you are of the Left and believe that the death cultists are misunderstood and that we have to get our house in order before we are all enslaved… Hmmm.

    Your post 17 Aug 1756 hrs. Now, anyone who thinks that your keyboard is being used by a pro-death cultist is a bigot? Are you sure you are on the right site? Are you a troll? Are you going to start quoting from a “good book”? It’s been interesting.

  42. Diesel Balaam says:

    Newspaniard hits the nail on the head, while DogGone really needs to grow a pair and stop drivelling and drooling over the dodgy Muslims he fondly imagines are his chums (they’re not, they despise limp-wristed liberals like him). He tries to place Muslims beyond criticism by claiming they are “less advantaged” (oh bless!), apparently unaware that Muslim extremism is funded by the oil-rich Saudis. Where does he suppose Bin Laden came from? Does he think the Muslim doctors who tried to bomb Glasgow Airport and London’s Tiger Tiger nightclub were “less advantaged” too? DogGone is the worst kind of atheist: naiive, out-of-touch, unpatriotic, irredeemably wet and bitterly critical of a mildly irritating Christianity, yet foolishly indulgent of poisonous Islam. For the record, modern secularism in Britain has its deepest roots in this country’s indigenous, progressive, Christian tradition. Islam, meanwhile, is wholly alien.

  43. Yasmin says:

    There is no way to justify a 54 year old man marrying a 6 year old, ever! The Koran allows Muslim men to marry children today. Thankfully most Muslims aren’t like Muhammad. Even Jews didn’t marry children. Both their boys and girls used to marry during puberty as they thought those aged 20+ and unmarried were cursed by god. Their book talks about reaching womanhood when breasts form. Not like prepubescent Aisha who’s was damaged by this monster. BTW 6 years old in the Islamic calendar makes her 5 years, 10 months old.

  44. rb says:

    I actually think DogGone makes some very important points here. It is important to consider child marriage in the context of life expectancy and broader cultural norms prevalent at the time, and we do need to be wary of those using such salacious stories to spray a whole religion with the same shit-cannonâ„¢. That is not the same as justifying paedophilia and excusing all the wrongs perpetrated in the name or under the guise of religion. Obviously.

    Of course, it’s hugely problematic when fundamentalist religious leaders (or, “tools”) such as Al-Fawzan choose to justify abhorrent present-day behaviour with dubious by-gone precedents, but thankfully this does not fly in more progressive countries (as evinced by Pujiono Cahyo Widiyanto’s imprisonment in Indonesia last year). In the same way that none of the Judeo-Christian texts deal with the abolition of slavery (aside from vague instructions to treat your slave nicely), given the right conditions, modern day humanism will eventually prevail over dogma.

    Before anyone starts flaming, yes, there are still areas of the world where child abuse and slavery routinely occur with religious justification and I am aware that Indonesia’s legislature is confused at best when it comes to reconciling human rights with religious zeal, but (I unfairly anticipate) you’re missing the wider point. To me it’s far more revealing when such contradictions mean religious types are forced to admit that much behaviour acceptable 1400+ years ago is completely unacceptable today. The concession is an important one and should be highlighted as a tacit departure from the claim that these religious texts are genuinely the infallible decrees of an invisible man in the sky.

  45. spaghetti says:

    The Hadith Bukhari states Mad Mo’s sex with 9 year old Aisha.Islam claims Mo is the perfect man and the last prophet of God. Therefore what this Imam is preaching is correct from a literal perspective. Thank goodness most Muslim’s arent literalists.