How Khomeini, founder of the Islamic Republic, condemns pedophilia

[jimnyc]

"A man can marry a girl younger than nine years of age, even if the girl is still a baby being breastfed. A man, however is prohibited from having intercourse with a girl younger than nine, other sexual acts such as foreplay, rubbing, kissing and sodomy is allowed. A man having intercourse with a girl younger than nine years of age has not committed a crime, but only an infraction, if the girl is not permanently damaged. If the girl, however, is permanently damaged, the man must provide for her all her life. But this girl will not count as one of the man's four permanent wives. He also is not permitted to marry the girl's sister."

The Little Green Book, Sayings of Ayatollah Khomeini, Political, Philosophical, Social and Religious, ISBN number 0-553-14032-9, page 47

In fairness, I don't own this book, but a little research around the web makes me believe this is the real thing. Here are reviews of the book from Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/review/R3N7OPB18KKGHK

[jafar00]

Khomeini was a sick individual. I'm sure he's resting in a special pit in hell.

[jimnyc]

Khomeini was a sick individual. I'm sure he's resting in a special pit in hell.

I agree and hope so as well. But curiously, why would his comments be sick and perhaps condemn him to hell, but if say someone actually did sleep with an underage child, albeit a long time ago, be revered instead of condemned for actually committing such acts and not just stating them?

[jafar00]

I agree and hope so as well. But curiously, why would his comments be sick and perhaps condemn him to hell, but if say someone actually did sleep with an underage child, albeit a long time ago, be revered instead of condemned for actually committing such acts and not just stating them?

There is a lot more to his writings than just that such as bestiality etc....

As for your snide little swipe, we already dealt with the historical customs of the time compared to the customs of today in another thread. Funnily enough, only one man from that time is constantly referred to for just doing what everyone was doing as accepted practice, at the time. Was Aicha abused? Did she ever complain about her marriage?

[jimnyc]

There is a lot more to his writings than just that such as bestiality etc....

As for your snide little swipe, we already dealt with the historical customs of the time compared to the customs of today in another thread. Funnily enough, only one man from that time is constantly referred to for just doing what everyone was doing as accepted practice, at the time. Was Aicha abused? Did she ever complain about her marriage?

Always an excuse.

Was she abused? Yes, I think being forced to marry at 6 and have sex at 9 IS abuse, and sexual abuse to boot. No way in hell, even back then, were little kids brains and bodies able to fully comprehend marriage and sexual relations. Did she complain? Likely, and likely fell on deaf ears. Today people are killed are threatened to be killed of they even dare insult the pedophile, I can only imagine what would happen if a child or their family complained about the filthy liberties being taken by a sexual predator.

You keep telling yourself that it was OK for your prophet to sleep with a child, if that helps you sleep, so be it. I don't believe for a second that a child's little body was prepared, back then, or today, to be violated by an adult.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Khomeini was a sick individual. I'm sure he's resting in a special pit in hell.

As is Mohamboy, a few other famous Islamic leaders that murdered so many millions of innocent people. -Tyr

[gabosaurus]

Yep, Khomeini was such an insidiously evil person, Ronald Reagan agreed to send him arms and money. To be payable after he won the 1980 election.

[jafar00]

Always an excuse.

Was she abused? Yes, I think being forced to marry at 6 and have sex at 9 IS abuse, and sexual abuse to boot. No way in hell, even back then, were little kids brains and bodies able to fully comprehend marriage and sexual relations. Did she complain? Likely, and likely fell on deaf ears. Today people are killed are threatened to be killed of they even dare insult the pedophile, I can only imagine what would happen if a child or their family complained about the filthy liberties being taken by a sexual predator.

You keep telling yourself that it was OK for your prophet to sleep with a child, if that helps you sleep, so be it. I don't believe for a second that a child's little body was prepared, back then, or today, to be violated by an adult.

The marriage was consumated at puberty. There are records that she had breasts at the time. As was the custom among thousands of other people 1400 years ago.

You can come back to me when you also condemn in the same breath...

* Henry XI of Głogów who married Barbara of Brandenburg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_of_Brandenburg) when she was 8 y/o
* Isaac II Angelos the Byzantine emperor who married Margaret of Hungary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_of_Hungary) at the age of 9 y/o
* Humphrey IV of Toron who married Isabella I of Jerusalem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabella_I_of_Jerusalem) when she was 11 y/o after betrothal at 8
* Stephen Uroš I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Uro%C5%A1_I) (Uros the Great) who was king of Serbia who married Helen of Anjou (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_of_Anjou) when she was 9 y/o
* Stephen Dragutin of Serbia who married Catherine of Hungary, Queen of Serbia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_of_Hungary,_Queen_of_Serbia) at age 11 or 12.
* King Stephen Uroš II Milutin who married Simonida Nemanjić (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simonida) when she was 5 y/o

...... and many more

Early marriage to unite clans, royal families was normal practise. Girls and boys were betrothed at early ages in order to secure alliances. In fact Aicha's betrothal was intended to strengthen Mohammed's (saw) ties with the family of Abu Bakr (as). She later became one of Islam's most revered figures.

No more debate is needed on the subject.

[taft2012]

Yep, Khomeini was such an insidiously evil person, Ronald Reagan agreed to send him arms and money. To be payable after he won the 1980 election.

Ehhhh, got any proof of that?

[taft2012]

The marriage was consumated at puberty. There are records that she had breasts at the time. As was the custom among thousands of other people 1400 years ago.

You can come back to me when you also condemn in the same breath...

* Henry XI of Głogów who married Barbara of Brandenburg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_of_Brandenburg) when she was 8 y/o
* Isaac II Angelos the Byzantine emperor who married Margaret of Hungary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_of_Hungary) at the age of 9 y/o
* Humphrey IV of Toron who married Isabella I of Jerusalem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabella_I_of_Jerusalem) when she was 11 y/o after betrothal at 8
* Stephen Uroš I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Uro%C5%A1_I) (Uros the Great) who was king of Serbia who married Helen of Anjou (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_of_Anjou) when she was 9 y/o
* Stephen Dragutin of Serbia who married Catherine of Hungary, Queen of Serbia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_of_Hungary,_Queen_of_Serbia) at age 11 or 12.
* King Stephen Uroš II Milutin who married Simonida Nemanjić (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simonida) when she was 5 y/o

...... and many more

Early marriage to unite clans, royal families was normal practise. Girls and boys were betrothed at early ages in order to secure alliances. In fact Aicha's betrothal was intended to strengthen Mohammed's (saw) ties with the family of Abu Bakr (as). She later became one of Islam's most revered figures.

No more debate is needed on the subject.


And people were also kings and emperors at ages as young as 3 years-old once upon a time. In the 20th century, Pu Yi was the last Chinese emperor at the age of 3.

What you omit from the above is how old the royals in question were, and at what age the marriages were consummated. Furthermore, those marriages were political arrangements moreso than just marriages, as opposed to the Prophet, who merely married a child out of lust and perversion.

[jimnyc]

The marriage was consumated at puberty. There are records that she had breasts at the time. As was the custom among thousands of other people 1400 years ago.

You can come back to me when you also condemn in the same breath...

* Henry XI of Głogów who married Barbara of Brandenburg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_of_Brandenburg) when she was 8 y/o
* Isaac II Angelos the Byzantine emperor who married Margaret of Hungary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_of_Hungary) at the age of 9 y/o
* Humphrey IV of Toron who married Isabella I of Jerusalem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabella_I_of_Jerusalem) when she was 11 y/o after betrothal at 8
* Stephen Uroš I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Uro%C5%A1_I) (Uros the Great) who was king of Serbia who married Helen of Anjou (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_of_Anjou) when she was 9 y/o
* Stephen Dragutin of Serbia who married Catherine of Hungary, Queen of Serbia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_of_Hungary,_Queen_of_Serbia) at age 11 or 12.
* King Stephen Uroš II Milutin who married Simonida Nemanjić (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simonida) when she was 5 y/o

...... and many more

As you requested! That is absolutely disgusting. I don't see where they had sexual relations with these CHILDREN, but I'll assume that marriage lead to that, So NOT A ONE of them is any better than the pedophile Muhammed, they are ALL pedophiles if they took advantage of children. I don't give a damn what their families or parents wanted, it should be what the bride wants, and a child cannot fully understand what a bride truly is nor what sexual relations are and nor are their bodies possibly ready for sexual relations with an adult. There, you happy, I equally condemn your list along with Muhammed.


Early marriage to unite clans, royal families was normal practise. Girls and boys were betrothed at early ages in order to secure alliances. In fact Aicha's betrothal was intended to strengthen Mohammed's (saw) ties with the family of Abu Bakr (as). She later became one of Islam's most revered figures.

No more debate is needed on the subject.


For YOU no more debate is needed, you figure if you can post a short list of others that took advantage of children that it would somehow excuse your beloved prophet from his disgusting acts. It doesn't. And I got another one for you, how many of those on your list are seen as a prophet, and so beloved that people literally KILL if he is simply insulted? How many are held in the highest regard where an entire religion of billions of people follow his every words as if it came straight from God? Big deal, alliances were secured, family ties strengthened - all at the cost of a CHILD'S future, virginity and soul. The fact that Islam revered her since she was violated by their prophet says nothing at all, nothing more than people revered her because their beloved was with her. Being violated doesn't make one special or even a woman, she would have been much better off if she had time for her body and mind to fully develop, lived a proper life and had her relations when SHE was ready.

[jafar00]

[COLOR=#000000][FONT=sans-serif]

As you requested! That is absolutely disgusting. I don't see where they had sexual relations with these CHILDREN, but I'll assume that marriage lead to that, So NOT A ONE of them is any better than the pedophile Muhammed, they are ALL pedophiles if they took advantage of children. I don't give a damn what their families or parents wanted, it should be what the bride wants, and a child cannot fully understand what a bride truly is nor what sexual relations are and nor are their bodies possibly ready for sexual relations with an adult. There, you happy, I equally condemn your list along with Muhammed.



For YOU no more debate is needed, you figure if you can post a short list of others that took advantage of children that it would somehow excuse your beloved prophet from his disgusting acts. It doesn't. And I got another one for you, how many of those on your list are seen as a prophet, and so beloved that people literally KILL if he is simply insulted? How many are held in the highest regard where an entire religion of billions of people follow his every words as if it came straight from God? Big deal, alliances were secured, family ties strengthened - all at the cost of a CHILD'S future, virginity and soul. The fact that Islam revered her since she was violated by their prophet says nothing at all, nothing more than people revered her because their beloved was with her. Being violated doesn't make one special or even a woman, she would have been much better off if she had time for her body and mind to fully develop, lived a proper life and had her relations when SHE was ready.

I can understand your disgust if the people listed above did the same in 2012 as they did in 1500 or so years ago. We would be disgusted these days if everyone threw buckets of shit and piss out the window and onto the street, but that's exactly what they did in the dark ages in Europe. They used to burn witches alive too but if we did that these days, we would find ourselves in jail on a murder charge.

You simply cannot judge the morality customs of 1500 years ago with the morality and customs of 2012. Why don't you understand that?

Prophet or King, it's just what they did back then. They all had slaves too but that wouldn't be acceptable now either.

I eagerly await multiple threads from you on "Uros the Great" condemning him as a pedophile for his 9 y/o bride.

[jimnyc]

I can understand your disgust if the people listed above did the same in 2012 as they did in 1500 or so years ago. We would be disgusted these days if everyone threw buckets of shit and piss out the window and onto the street, but that's exactly what they did in the dark ages in Europe. They used to burn witches alive too but if we did that these days, we would find ourselves in jail on a murder charge.

You simply cannot judge the morality customs of 1500 years ago with the morality and customs of 2012. Why don't you understand that?

Prophet or King, it's just what they did back then. They all had slaves too but that wouldn't be acceptable now either.

I eagerly await multiple threads from you on "Uros the Great" condemning him as a pedophile for his 9 y/o bride.

I would start multiple threads if these people were TODAY being held in the highest regard, prayed to and being called a prophet. Oh, and if people were killing based on others insulting what these other pedophiles did. As far as I can tell, only ONE RELIGION is out there doing such today.

[taft2012]

I can understand your disgust if the people listed above did the same in 2012 as they did in 1500 or so years ago. We would be disgusted these days if everyone threw buckets of shit and piss out the window and onto the street, but that's exactly what they did in the dark ages in Europe. They used to burn witches alive too but if we did that these days, we would find ourselves in jail on a murder charge.

You simply cannot judge the morality customs of 1500 years ago with the morality and customs of 2012. Why don't you understand that?



Exactly. And they used to stone people to death for adultery and cut peoples' heads off for blaspheming. Praise Allah we've all become so much more civilized than that nowadays.

Oh.... wait a minute.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

And people were also kings and emperors at ages as young as 3 years-old once upon a time. In the 20th century, Pu Yi was the last Chinese emperor at the age of 3.

What you omit from the above is how old the royals in question were, and at what age the marriages were consummated. Furthermore, those marriages were political arrangements moreso than just marriages, as opposed to the Prophet, who merely married a child out of lust and perversion.

Exactly, those marraiges were the acts of alliances made.. Mohamboy had a lust for little girls.. Jafar attempts to excuse that by naming other that married for political alliances etc. Even if the others were perverted child diddlers how does that excuse Mohamboy being one as well?? It simply does not to any decent, rational person.-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The marriage was consumated at puberty. There are records that she had breasts at the time. As was the custom among thousands of other people 1400 years ago..
[/FONT][/COLOR]

Every girl has breasts. Even males have breasts. Are you saying her's were larger and caught the pervert's eyes ?
How is that defending Moham? There was no alliance from moham's perversion with that child and it was not normal even for the times back then except with perverts.-Tyr

[gabosaurus]

Every girl has breasts. Even males have breasts. Are you saying her's were larger and caught the pervert's eyes ?
How is that defending Moham? There was no alliance from moham's perversion with that child and it was not normal even for the times back then except with perverts.-Tyr

As usual, you have no clue what you are taking about.
And I am guessing you know a lot about perverts. Most likely from independent study. Perhaps you can tell us what you know about perversion with children.

[jimnyc]

As usual, you have no clue what you are taking about.
And I am guessing you know a lot about perverts. Most likely from independent study. Perhaps you can tell us what you know about perversion with children.

Unfortunately that is 2 for 2 in thread bans for you. Discussing factual and historical figures, and debating over whether or not the actions were wrong, is a legit topic. Implying a member here, with no evidence whatsoever, is somehow involved in perversion with children, simply won't be tolerated.

[tailfins]

I can understand your disgust if the people listed above did the same in 2012 as they did in 1500 or so years ago. We would be disgusted these days if everyone threw buckets of shit and piss out the window and onto the street, but that's exactly what they did in the dark ages in Europe. They used to burn witches alive too but if we did that these days, we would find ourselves in jail on a murder charge.

You simply cannot judge the morality customs of 1500 years ago with the morality and customs of 2012. Why don't you understand that?

Prophet or King, it's just what they did back then. They all had slaves too but that wouldn't be acceptable now either.

I eagerly await multiple threads from you on "Uros the Great" condemning him as a pedophile for his 9 y/o bride.

You probably won't see those threads because no one cares about an ancient Polack dictator. Although it might make good fodder for a few Polack jokes.


Which of these are outdated?




1.

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

2.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

3.

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

4.

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

5.

Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.

6.

Thou shalt not kill.

7.

Thou shalt not commit adultery.

8.

Thou shalt not steal.

9.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

10.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

[Drummond]

The marriage was consumated at puberty. There are records that she had breasts at the time. As was the custom among thousands of other people 1400 years ago.

You can come back to me when you also condemn in the same breath...

* Henry XI of Głogów who married Barbara of Brandenburg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_of_Brandenburg) when she was 8 y/o
* Isaac II Angelos the Byzantine emperor who married Margaret of Hungary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_of_Hungary) at the age of 9 y/o
* Humphrey IV of Toron who married Isabella I of Jerusalem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabella_I_of_Jerusalem) when she was 11 y/o after betrothal at 8
* Stephen Uroš I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Uro%C5%A1_I) (Uros the Great) who was king of Serbia who married Helen of Anjou (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_of_Anjou) when she was 9 y/o
* Stephen Dragutin of Serbia who married Catherine of Hungary, Queen of Serbia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_of_Hungary,_Queen_of_Serbia) at age 11 or 12.
* King Stephen Uroš II Milutin who married Simonida Nemanjić (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simonida) when she was 5 y/o

...... and many more

Early marriage to unite clans, royal families was normal practise. Girls and boys were betrothed at early ages in order to secure alliances. In fact Aicha's betrothal was intended to strengthen Mohammed's (saw) ties with the family of Abu Bakr (as). She later became one of Islam's most revered figures.

No more debate is needed on the subject.


When someone tries to cut off debate when that debate has barely got started ... I find myself wondering what the weakness in that debate is, that it has to be terminated quickly.

Here, it seems pretty obvious ...

Now, Jafar ... let's say I accept every one of the examples you cited to be examples of non-Muslim contemporaries to Mohammed (relatively speaking) who could be said to be anything like as perverted as we understand Mohammed was. Ok, interesting point. HOWEVER ... can you perhaps point to those cited examples, and show me where entire religions grew up around those individuals ???

In each of the cases cited, I think I'm right in saying that nobody considers those individuals to be anything more than people ? But, Jafar, is your Prophet Mohammed considered to be the TEENSIEST bit more than that ?

You know, it really comes to something, doesn't it, when a whole religion can be built up around someone who lusted after kids ....

.. but, here's the thing, Jafar. The other individuals you cited are 'mere' historical figures .. yes ? Mohammed, however, has considerably more relevance, courtesy of Islam, to TODAY'S world. Though you could consign everyone else you've cited, with whatever perversions attributable to them, to the 'dustbin of history', we can't, thanks to Islam, quite do that with Mohammed.

Islam roots us, today, IN THOSE PERVERSIONS OF THE PAST. IT IS RETROGRADE. IT IS ANTI-PROGRESS.

Jafar, in case you want to take issue with that, well ... Khomeini's comment shows you have precious little room to try to argue. Khomeini didn't live hundreds of years ago, Jafar, he was a TWENTIETH CENTURY FIGURE.

Is he the one and only comparatively contemporary link to perverted teachings and conduct ? Well, let's see ...

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-05-04-pleasure-marriage_x.htm


The 1,400-year-old practice of muta'a— "ecstasy" in Arabic — is as old as Islam itself. It was permitted by the prophet Mohammed as a way to ensure a respectable means of income for widowed women.

Pleasure marriages were outlawed under Saddam Hussein but have begun to flourish again. The contracts, lasting anywhere from one hour to 10 years, generally stipulate that the man will pay the woman in exchange for sexual intimacy. Now some Iraqi clerics and women's rights activists are complaining that the contracts have become less a mechanism for taking care of widows than an outlet for male sexual desires.

The renaissance of the pleasure marriage coincides with a revival of other Shiite traditions long suppressed by the former regime. Interest in Shiite customs has accelerated since Shiite parties swept Jan. 30 elections to become the biggest bloc in the new National Assembly.

"Under Saddam, we were very scared," says Al-Zaidi, 39, a lawyer from Sadr City, a sprawling Shiite neighborhood in eastern Baghdad. "They would punish people. Now, all my friends are doing it."

A turbaned Shiite cleric who issues wedding permits from a street-side counter in Sadr City says he encourages permanent marriages but gives the OK for pleasure marriages when there are "special reasons."

MODERN-DAY IRAQ, JAFAR ! I DEFY YOU TO REINTERPRET THIS AS ANYTHING OTHER THAN ISLAMIC-SANCTIONED PROSTITUTION ... A PRACTICE UNDERGOING A REVIVAL.

Basically, Jafar, I think it fair to say that if any perverts out there were looking for a religion that served their interests, they'd certainly find something of interest in what Islam can offer them !! I mean, heyy, your lot are trying to revive these highly 'questionable' practices, aren't you, judging by the link I've found ...

It seems to me that a religion which can inspire 'people' to be faithful to the barbarities of Sharia, one capable of firing terrorists up to murder, maim, behead their victims, is certainly one which would naturally encourage other non-civilised standards as well. Encourage TODAY .. NOT HUNDREDS OF YEARS AGO.

So tell me, Jafar. You're OK with all of that ? Still a loyal follower of Islam ? Unswerving in that loyalty ?

Tell me WHY you are, if you are !!

[Drummond]

As usual, you have no clue what you are taking about.
And I am guessing you know a lot about perverts. Most likely from independent study. Perhaps you can tell us what you know about perversion with children.

'Congratulations', Gabby, on a particularly disgusting post !

I have a theory. You have your avatar, and have dedicated yourself to trying to find new and inventive ways of totally defying it. But this time, you've hit a new low.

Utterly disgusting. :shitfan:

[aboutime]

As usual, you have no clue what you are taking about.
And I am guessing you know a lot about perverts. Most likely from independent study. Perhaps you can tell us what you know about perversion with children.

lGabby. When we are talking about people like that. You seem to become instantly offended because it seems, someone struck a personal nerve as you sound so typically Liberal. Trying that standard trick we all recognize of ACCUSING someone else...to DISTRACT, or REDIRECT attention from yourself.

When you come here and accuse someone...as you just did above. You make most of us thankful...OUR Children, and Grand children....are NOWHERE NEAR YOU.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I have found that if you hit 'em with enough truth it almost always pushes the weaker minded ones over the edge. Gabby falsely accuses me of being a child molester, say isnt that actionable under the law? I believe that it is!
Whats really funny about her idiotcy is this isnt even my thread , its Jim's. She already started full blown ranting bullshit on another thread that was mine and I merely laughed at her and suggested that she calm down. Now she in her massive ignorance decides to libel me. TRUTH sheds light upon the wicked and that light sends the roaches scurrying for cover. Back under into dark places where they feel the comfort of the darkness that they glorify in! I'm used to being attacked but this accusation was indeed a new low.. However she isnt the only one attempting to censor me here. Thank God that Jim believes in free speech and our freedoms as Americans which obvious to me a few members here do not ! Gabby owes me a public apology , lets see if I get one!

libel--definition
1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander, which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. Proof of malice, however, does allow a party defamed to sue for general damages for damage to reputation, while an inadvertent libel limits the damages to actual harm (such as loss of business) called special damages. Libel per se involves statements so vicious that malice is assumed and does not require a proof of intent to get an award of general damages. Libel against the reputation of a person who has died will allow surviving members of the family to bring an action for damages. Most states provide for a party defamed by a periodical to demand a published retraction. If the correction is made, then there is no right to file a lawsuit.

How about an apology gabby?-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

As usual, you have no clue what you are taking about.
And I am guessing you know a lot about perverts. Most likely from independent study. Perhaps you can tell us what you know about perversion with children.

I see, so you really are just that damn dense. I pity you , I really do. Rather than debate my points made about ISLAM ,YOU CHOOSE INSTEAD TO LIBEL ME!! Simply brilliant.. You do know that is actionable under the law, right?-Even if you don't I do!!!!--Tyr

[jafar00]

When someone tries to cut off debate when that debate has barely got started ... I find myself wondering what the weakness in that debate is, that it has to be terminated quickly.

Here, it seems pretty obvious ...

Now, Jafar ... let's say I accept every one of the examples you cited to be examples of non-Muslim contemporaries to Mohammed (relatively speaking) who could be said to be anything like as perverted as we understand Mohammed was. Ok, interesting point. HOWEVER ... can you perhaps point to those cited examples, and show me where entire religions grew up around those individuals ???

Entire civilisations grew up around those Kings and Nobles. Like Aicha's marriage to Mohammed (saw), they were done early as was the custom and also to strengthen family/clan/international ties.


You know, it really comes to something, doesn't it, when a whole religion can be built up around someone who lusted after kids ....

It always amuses me that in these debates, the age of Mohammed's (saw) other wives are completely ignored.

Khadija was 40
Sawda bint Zam'a was 55
Hafsa bint Umar was 24
Umm Salam bint Abi Umayya was 29
Zaynah bint Jahsh was 33
Jiwayriya bint al-Harith was 20
Ramlah bint Abi-Sufyan was 30 or 35
Barra bint al-Harith was 36

And so on. You say he lusted after kids, but there is a pattern here that says otherwise. Aicha was a special case as mentioned before and she was married according to the customs of the time.


Jafar, in case you want to take issue with that, well ... Khomeini's comment shows you have precious little room to try to argue. Khomeini didn't live hundreds of years ago, Jafar, he was a TWENTIETH CENTURY FIGURE.

I totally agree with you. Shia'ism is wrong. I'm a Muslim. Why do you people keep confusing matters by saying the likes of Khomeini are figures I follow?


Is he the one and only comparatively contemporary link to perverted teachings and conduct ? Well, let's see ...

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-05-04-pleasure-marriage_x.htm



MODERN-DAY IRAQ, JAFAR ! I DEFY YOU TO REINTERPRET THIS AS ANYTHING OTHER THAN ISLAMIC-SANCTIONED PROSTITUTION ... A PRACTICE UNDERGOING A REVIVAL.

Basically, Jafar, I think it fair to say that if any perverts out there were looking for a religion that served their interests, they'd certainly find something of interest in what Islam can offer them !! I mean, heyy, your lot are trying to revive these highly 'questionable' practices, aren't you, judging by the link I've found ...

It seems to me that a religion which can inspire 'people' to be faithful to the barbarities of Sharia, one capable of firing terrorists up to murder, maim, behead their victims, is certainly one which would naturally encourage other non-civilised standards as well. Encourage TODAY .. NOT HUNDREDS OF YEARS AGO.

So tell me, Jafar. You're OK with all of that ? Still a loyal follower of Islam ? Unswerving in that loyalty ?

Tell me WHY you are, if you are !!

No I am not ok with Muta'a. It is haram. Marriage in Islam is for blessings and mercy. Also a Muta'a marriage has a time limit. Marriage in Islam is for life or until divorce. Putting a time limit on it and also marrying without withness or guardian's approval alone makes it totally forbidden according to Islamic law.

Don't try to use Shia perversions against me. You will only fail.

[Drummond]

Entire civilisations grew up around those Kings and Nobles. Like Aicha's marriage to Mohammed (saw), they were done early as was the custom and also to strengthen family/clan/international ties.

So ?

Civilisations come and go. What you cited refers to the distant past, and belongs there. However, Islam, though rooted in the distant past - and in its thinking, its attitudes .. remains to this day, and even wants to spread - and even to advertise itself as something GOOD for the world !!

There's a bit of a difference there, between long dead civilisations, and a creed still persisting, determined to thrive !


It always amuses me that in these debates, the age of Mohammed's (saw) other wives are completely ignored.

Khadija was 40
Sawda bint Zam'a was 55
Hafsa bint Umar was 24
Umm Salam bint Abi Umayya was 29
Zaynah bint Jahsh was 33
Jiwayriya bint al-Harith was 20
Ramlah bint Abi-Sufyan was 30 or 35
Barra bint al-Harith was 36

And so on. You say he lusted after kids, but there is a pattern here that says otherwise. Aicha was a special case as mentioned before and she was married according to the customs of the time.

Oh, so, suddenly, there's NO reason to suppose he lusted after kids, then ? Is this what you're claiming ? In true Orwellian fashion, you're simultaneously seeing, yet not seeing at all, the truth of Mohammed ?

In which case, why bother with your other cited examples ? Customs don't HAVE to be indulged in, Jafar, if a person's whims and peculiarities don't identify with them ...

Perhaps his sexual interests weren't limited to children, Jafar, but you can't reasonably try and claim that children held no such interest for him. Saying he didn't indulge his perversions ALL of the time, doesn't mean he couldn't have been one AT ALL !!

You may find that an unpleasant reality to face, Jafar. But you can't deny the truth just because you'd prefer to. Face this fact .. at the centre of your religion, a figure you're supposed to revere because your religion requires it, was A PERVERT.

It happens to be true. Face that truth.


I totally agree with you. Shia'ism is wrong. I'm a Muslim. Why do you people keep confusing matters by saying the likes of Khomeini are figures I follow?

Well, that's progress. Glad you made your feelings on the Shias clear. Even so ... aren't Shias also Islamists ? Did Khomeini deny being a Muslim, did he ever say that he wasn't representing Islam ?

Is this all what you're asserting ? Care to tell us, then, what religion they DO identify with ?


No I am not ok with Muta'a. It is haram. Marriage in Islam is for blessings and mercy. Also a Muta'a marriage has a time limit. Marriage in Islam is for life or until divorce. Putting a time limit on it and also marrying without withness or guardian's approval alone makes it totally forbidden according to Islamic law.

Don't try to use Shia perversions against me. You will only fail.

If what you say is true, how do you account for the existence of these 'perversions', and the attempts evidently being made to re-establish and consolidate them ?

And, do you deny it's done in the name of Islam ?

[jafar00]

So ?

Civilisations come and go. What you cited refers to the distant past, and belongs there. However, Islam, though rooted in the distant past - and in its thinking, its attitudes .. remains to this day, and even wants to spread - and even to advertise itself as something GOOD for the world !!

There's a bit of a difference there, between long dead civilisations, and a creed still persisting, determined to thrive !

The fact that Islam is still around and stronger than ever means we did something right with it.


Oh, so, suddenly, there's NO reason to suppose he lusted after kids, then ? Is this what you're claiming ? In true Orwellian fashion, you're simultaneously seeing, yet not seeing at all, the truth of Mohammed ?

In which case, why bother with your other cited examples ? Customs don't HAVE to be indulged in, Jafar, if a person's whims and peculiarities don't identify with them ...

Perhaps his sexual interests weren't limited to children, Jafar, but you can't reasonably try and claim that children held no such interest for him. Saying he didn't indulge his perversions ALL of the time, doesn't mean he couldn't have been one AT ALL !!

You may find that an unpleasant reality to face, Jafar. But you can't deny the truth just because you'd prefer to. Face this fact .. at the centre of your religion, a figure you're supposed to revere because your religion requires it, was A PERVERT.

It happens to be true. Face that truth.

No. I see the marriage of Aicha and Mohamed (saw) for what it was. A marriage arranged to strengthen family ties. It was the custom of the time (why do I sound like a broken record?).

You cannot use the customs and morality of 2012 to judge the customs and morality of 1500 years ago (broken record is stuck again).

Example 1)

Let's go back just 100 years. To 1912. What was acceptable beach wear back then?

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4033/4476181381_526c7e2f22_o.jpg
--------------------------------
If a woman from 2012 went back in time and went on the beach in a bikini, it would be a scandal! She would be arrested for lewd conduct for sure. What is acceptable now was not acceptable then.

Example 2

In the Middle Ages, Lords would sit in their manors being tended to by slaves and serfs who were subservient to their masters.
--------------------------------
These days, such a setup would be raided, the slaves set free, and the "lord" jailed.

Example 3

In the Middle Ages, the lack of medical knowledge led to the practice of bloodletting. The idea was that you could drain off any toxins in the body thus healing the unfortunate sick person. However all that did was made them weaker resulting in death from the illness or simply from blood loss.
--------------------------------
If a doctor did that today, he would be arrested for attempted murder.

Example 4

They used to burn witches in the Middle Ages.
--------------------------------
Do that today and you will find yourself up on a murder charge.

Now, don't you see what is wrong with the idea that Mohamed (saw) was a child molester for marrying a young bride as was the custom of the time?



Well, that's progress. Glad you made your feelings on the Shias clear. Even so ... aren't Shias also Islamists ? Did Khomeini deny being a Muslim, did he ever say that he wasn't representing Islam ?

Is this all what you're asserting ? Care to tell us, then, what religion they DO identify with ?



If what you say is true, how do you account for the existence of these 'perversions', and the attempts evidently being made to re-establish and consolidate them ?

And, do you deny it's done in the name of Islam ?

Shia'ism is a perversion of Islam. Not Islam. I call them Shia, not Muslim.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The fact that Islam is still around and stronger than ever means we did something right with it.

YES, its called murdering all the opposition, even children so as to be dominate , animals practice it too BY KILLING ALL YOUNG ANIMALS SIRED BY THE PREVIOUS DOMINATE MALE..-Tyr


No. I see the marriage of Aicha and Mohamed (saw) for what it was. A marriage arranged to strengthen family ties. It was the custom of the time (why do I sound like a broken record?).

Bull, Ive found nowhere where it was described as a political marraige, why would it be her father was a baker!-Tyr



Shia'ism is a perversion of Islam. Not Islam. I call them Shia, not Muslim.

SHIA ARE MUSLIM,THE WORLD KNOWS THIS . You denying it does nothing..-Tyr

Here for your education some real information.-Tyr


From the Hadith:

Muslim (8:3309) - Muhammad consummated his marriage to Aisha when she was only nine. (See also Bukhari 58:234 and many other places). No where in the reliable Hadith or Sira is there any other age given.

Bukhari (62:18) - Aisha's father, Abu Bakr, wasn't on board at first, but Muhammad explained how the rules of their religion made it possible. This is similar to the way that present-day cult leaders manipulate their followers into similar concessions.

Muslim (8:3311) - The girl took her dolls with her to Muhammad's house (something to play with when the "prophet" was not having sex with her).

Bukhari (6:298) - Muhammad would take a bath with the little girl and fondle her.

Muslim (8:3460) - "Why didn't you marry a young girl so that you could sport with her and she sport with you, or you could amuse with her and she could amuse with you?" Muhammad posed this question to one of his followers who had married an "older woman" instead of opting to fondle a child.

Bukhari (4:232) - Muhammad's wives would wash semen stains out of his clothes, which were still wet from the spot-cleaning even when he went to the mosque for prayers. Between copulation and prayer, it's a wonder he found the time to slay pagans.

Bukhari (6:300) - Muhammad's wives had to be available for the prophet's fondling even when they were having their menstrual period.

Bukhari (93:639) - The Prophet of Islam would recite the 'Holy Qur'an' with his head in Aisha's lap, when she was menstruating.

Bukhari (62:6) - "The Prophet used to go round (have sexual relations with) all his wives in one night, and he had nine wives." Muhammad also said that it was impossible to treat all wives equally - and it isn't hard to guess why.

Bukhari (5:268) - "The Prophet used to visit all his wives in a round, during the day and night and they were eleven in number." I asked Anas, 'Had the Prophet the strength for it?' Anas replied, 'We used to say that the Prophet was given the strength of thirty men.' "

Bukhari (60:311) - "I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires." These words were spoken by Aisha within the context of her husband having been given 'Allah's permission' to fulfill his sexual desires with a large number of women in whatever order he chooses. (It has been suggested that Aisha may have been speaking somewhat wryly).

Muslim (8:3424) - One of several narrations in which a leering Muhammad orders a clearly startled woman to suckle a grown man with her breast so that he will become "unlawful" to her - meaning that they can live under the same roof together.

Tabari IX:137 - "Allah granted Rayhana of the Qurayza to Muhammad as booty." Muhammad considered the women that he captured and enslaved to be God's gift to him.

Tabari VIII:117 - "Dihyah had asked the Messenger for Safiyah when the Prophet chose her for himself... the Apostle traded for Safiyah by giving Dihyah her two cousins. The women of Khaybar were distributed among the Muslims." He sometimes pulled rank to reserve the most beautiful captured women for himself.

Tabari IX:139 - "You are a self-respecting girl, but the prophet is a womanizer." Words spoken by the disappointed parents of a girl who had 'offered' herself to Muhammad (he accepted).

[jafar00]

SHIA ARE MUSLIM,THE WORLD KNOWS THIS . You denying it does nothing..-Tyr

Here for your education some real information.-Tyr


From the Hadith:

Muslim (8:3309) - Muhammad consummated his marriage to Aisha when she was only nine. (See also Bukhari 58:234 and many other places). No where in the reliable Hadith or Sira is there any other age given.

Bukhari (62:18) - Aisha's father, Abu Bakr, wasn't on board at first, but Muhammad explained how the rules of their religion made it possible. This is similar to the way that present-day cult leaders manipulate their followers into similar concessions.

Muslim (8:3311) - The girl took her dolls with her to Muhammad's house (something to play with when the "prophet" was not having sex with her).

Bukhari (6:298) - Muhammad would take a bath with the little girl and fondle her.

Muslim (8:3460) - "Why didn't you marry a young girl so that you could sport with her and she sport with you, or you could amuse with her and she could amuse with you?" Muhammad posed this question to one of his followers who had married an "older woman" instead of opting to fondle a child.

Bukhari (4:232) - Muhammad's wives would wash semen stains out of his clothes, which were still wet from the spot-cleaning even when he went to the mosque for prayers. Between copulation and prayer, it's a wonder he found the time to slay pagans.

Bukhari (6:300) - Muhammad's wives had to be available for the prophet's fondling even when they were having their menstrual period.

Bukhari (93:639) - The Prophet of Islam would recite the 'Holy Qur'an' with his head in Aisha's lap, when she was menstruating.

Bukhari (62:6) - "The Prophet used to go round (have sexual relations with) all his wives in one night, and he had nine wives." Muhammad also said that it was impossible to treat all wives equally - and it isn't hard to guess why.

Bukhari (5:268) - "The Prophet used to visit all his wives in a round, during the day and night and they were eleven in number." I asked Anas, 'Had the Prophet the strength for it?' Anas replied, 'We used to say that the Prophet was given the strength of thirty men.' "

Bukhari (60:311) - "I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires." These words were spoken by Aisha within the context of her husband having been given 'Allah's permission' to fulfill his sexual desires with a large number of women in whatever order he chooses. (It has been suggested that Aisha may have been speaking somewhat wryly).

Muslim (8:3424) - One of several narrations in which a leering Muhammad orders a clearly startled woman to suckle a grown man with her breast so that he will become "unlawful" to her - meaning that they can live under the same roof together.

Tabari IX:137 - "Allah granted Rayhana of the Qurayza to Muhammad as booty." Muhammad considered the women that he captured and enslaved to be God's gift to him.

Tabari VIII:117 - "Dihyah had asked the Messenger for Safiyah when the Prophet chose her for himself... the Apostle traded for Safiyah by giving Dihyah her two cousins. The women of Khaybar were distributed among the Muslims." He sometimes pulled rank to reserve the most beautiful captured women for himself.

Tabari IX:139 - "You are a self-respecting girl, but the prophet is a womanizer." Words spoken by the disappointed parents of a girl who had 'offered' herself to Muhammad (he accepted).

Let me ask you if you know whether any of what the unlinked hate site you copy/pasted this from is true, of weak transmission, or a total fabrication? I am not a scholar of hadith but even I know never to take a hadith at face value.

[taft2012]

The fact that Islam is still around and stronger than ever means we did something right with it.


Shia'ism is a perversion of Islam. Not Islam. I call them Shia, not Muslim.


So who are the *REAL* Muslims? And if *REAL* "Islam is still around and stronger than ever," why doesn't it seem to be in power in any of these Middle Eastern theocracies? Or anywhere for that matter?

Why is it that the *REAL* Muslims are never the ones in power and are always buried far away somewhere, never seen, and never heard from?

[tailfins]

Example 4

They used to burn witches in the Middle Ages.


Now there's an idea that shouldn't have gone out of style! Being misled by a false religion is one thing, deliberately summoning demons is another.

[Drummond]

The fact that Islam is still around and stronger than ever means we did something right with it.

Not necessarily, no.

For example: what's the penalty in Islam for apostacy ?

From what I've read ... an Islamist who dares to leave Islam, and convert to another religion, could be under sentence of death for daring to do so.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_apos3.htm


In many predominately Muslim countries, the punishment for apostasy is death.

Assuming that the individual:
bullet Was a Muslim
bullet Openly rejects Islam,
bullet Has made this decision freely and without coercion,
bullet Is aware of the nature of his/her statements, and
bullet Is an adult. then the penalty prescribed by Shari'a (Islamic) law is execution for men and life imprisonment for women. Drunkards and mentally ill persons are excluded from this punishment because they are considered to be not responsible for their statements.

A person born of a Muslim parent who later rejects Islam is called a "Murtad Fitri" (Apostate - natural). This is viewed a treason against God. They are given a second chance. If they repent of their decision, they will be released. A person who converted to Islam and later rejected the religion is a "Murtad Milli" (apostate - from the community.) This is viewed as treason against the community. Male apostates are executed even if they repent. Female apostates are released from imprisonment if they repent.

... quite a 'religion of peace', eh, Jafar ? I'm assuming, of course, Jafar, that you don't approve of people being killed for daring to separate themselves from the tyranny of Islam. Then again ... it's theoretically possible that you see that measure as a 'good' thing....

I wonder, just on that one specific point, how much less 'popular' Islam would be, if everyone could leave it without being killed in the process ?


No. I see the marriage of Aicha and Mohamed (saw) for what it was. A marriage arranged to strengthen family ties. It was the custom of the time (why do I sound like a broken record?).

You cannot use the customs and morality of 2012 to judge the customs and morality of 1500 years ago (broken record is stuck again).

Example 1)

Let's go back just 100 years. To 1912. What was acceptable beach wear back then?

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4033/4476181381_526c7e2f22_o.jpg
--------------------------------
If a woman from 2012 went back in time and went on the beach in a bikini, it would be a scandal! She would be arrested for lewd conduct for sure. What is acceptable now was not acceptable then.

Example 2

In the Middle Ages, Lords would sit in their manors being tended to by slaves and serfs who were subservient to their masters.
--------------------------------
These days, such a setup would be raided, the slaves set free, and the "lord" jailed.

Example 3

In the Middle Ages, the lack of medical knowledge led to the practice of bloodletting. The idea was that you could drain off any toxins in the body thus healing the unfortunate sick person. However all that did was made them weaker resulting in death from the illness or simply from blood loss.
--------------------------------
If a doctor did that today, he would be arrested for attempted murder.

Example 4

They used to burn witches in the Middle Ages.
--------------------------------
Do that today and you will find yourself up on a murder charge.

Now, don't you see what is wrong with the idea that Mohamed (saw) was a child molester for marrying a young bride as was the custom of the time?

Of course not. Why would I ?

Look at it this way.

Of what value is a Prophet of your 'God', Jafar, if all he's good for is following the trends and perversions his society is prone to ??

One would imagine, Jafar, that a Prophet should be getting SOME kind of guidance, or feedback at absolute minimum, from his God, something that might, actually, seem a little more important to him than what man-made laws, or 'fashions', guide him into thinking acceptable ?

.. I mean ... don't you think Allah, if he was sufficiently on the job, might've taken time out to tell Mohammed, when he was on his tea break from his latest lust-filled perversion, to turn to Mohammed and say something like, 'Hey, Mohammed, you've got to stop being a pervert, if you're going to represent me. It ain't nice, it's really lousy PR, and besides, you're supposed to be a SPIRITUAL LEADER, not a filthy degenerate. Knock it off, already !!!' ...

.. or words to that effect ....

However ... would you have me believe that Allah was all OK with all that going on, and just couldn't be bothered ? Because if so, Jafar, it REALLY doesn't say much for Islam, does it ?

Maybe Mohammed was just too much of a perverted creep to listen, though .. in which case, how come any of his teachings or commandments hold any weight ??

You know, Jafar .. the more I consider Islam, the dodgier it seems to be ...

Taking this extract from Tyr's offering .. from the Hadith ...


Muslim (8:3309) - Muhammad consummated his marriage to Aisha when she was only nine. (See also Bukhari 58:234 and many other places). No where in the reliable Hadith or Sira is there any other age given.

Bukhari (62:18) - Aisha's father, Abu Bakr, wasn't on board at first, but Muhammad explained how the rules of their religion made it possible. This is similar to the way that present-day cult leaders manipulate their followers into similar concessions.

Muslim (8:3311) - The girl took her dolls with her to Muhammad's house (something to play with when the "prophet" was not having sex with her).

Bukhari (6:298) - Muhammad would take a bath with the little girl and fondle her.

Muslim (8:3460) - "Why didn't you marry a young girl so that you could sport with her and she sport with you, or you could amuse with her and she could amuse with you?" Muhammad posed this question to one of his followers who had married an "older woman" instead of opting to fondle a child.

Now, Jafar, is this evidence of a man being guided by pre-existing social pressures, preferences, expectations, OR, is this evidence of a twisted creep decreeing religious sanction to uphold his sick perversions, and to teach others to follow his example ???

So ... forget your examples, Jafar. What we have here is a sicko who tried to fashion Islam in such a way that, supposedly, perversions were to be accepted as 'God-permitted'. Mohammed LED all of this, he wasn't SUBJECT to his conditions.

On the status of Mohammed in Islam ... get a load of THIS ... !! ...

http://www.usislam.org/islamicyouth/Muhammad/status_of_prophet_muhammad.htm


It was the blessing of Allah and His mercy to human beings, above all other creatures on this earth, to endow them with intellect and to enlighten them with His divine guidance through a long string of prophets and messengers, starting with Adam. The Qur’an says what means:


*{Then Adam received (some) Words from his Lord; so He relented towards him; surely He, Ever He, is The Superbly Relenting, The Ever-Merciful.}* (Al-Baqarah 2:37)


Prophets and messengers were all normal human beings according to the Qur’an, which says what means:


*{And in no way did We send before you any of the Emissaries, except that surely they indeed ate food and walked in the markets.}* (Al-Furqan 25:20)


*{And in no way did We send before you except men to whom We revealed [the Message].}* (Al-Anbiyaa’ 21:7–8)


*{And whomever of them should say, “Surely I am a god apart from Him,” then that one We recompense with Hell; thus We recompense the unjust.}* (Al-Anbiyaa’ 21:29)


*{Say [O Muhammad], “Surely I am only a mortal the like of you: it is revealed to me that surely your God is only One God. So whoever hopes for the meeting with his Lord, then let him do righteous deed(s) and not associate anyone in the worship of his Lord. }* (Al-Kahf 18:110)


Yet, the chosen prophets were endowed with such moral, spiritual, and intellectual merits to be trustworthy of delivering Allah's guidance

... OK ... so, what I'm getting from this, is that Prophets of Islam were meant (as you'd expect) to be messengers of the 'divine guidance' that Allah felt disposed to deign to pass on to his followers .. and that, they were 'morally, spiritually and intellectually' representative of Allah. Well, Jafar, if all you Islamists are all supposed to see Mohammed in that way ... why aren't you saying that everything Mohammed said and did was RIGHT ?

... AH .. but, then again, what did Khomeini tell us ????

Forget the 'Khomeini was wrong' argument, Jafar, because it seems to me that Khomeini was just following through of some VERY dubious precedents originating from several hundred years ago. Which, of course, explains why this sort of moral 'dodginess' is making something of a comeback !!!

Mohammed was a pervy little git, Jafar, complete with monumental ego, who used Islam to SANCTION HIS PERVERSIONS, thereby fatally tainting it to be the blight on human existence it persists in being.


Shia'ism is a perversion of Islam. Not Islam. I call them Shia, not Muslim.

Not from where I'm standing !

[Anton Chigurh]

Khomeini was a sick individual.He was merely following the lead of his prophet.

[jafar00]

Not necessarily, no.

For example: what's the penalty in Islam for apostacy ?

From what I've read ... an Islamist who dares to leave Islam, and convert to another religion, could be under sentence of death for daring to do so.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_apos3.htm



... quite a 'religion of peace', eh, Jafar ? I'm assuming, of course, Jafar, that you don't approve of people being killed for daring to separate themselves from the tyranny of Islam. Then again ... it's theoretically possible that you see that measure as a 'good' thing....

I wonder, just on that one specific point, how much less 'popular' Islam would be, if everyone could leave it without being killed in the process ?

I like how you chose to omit the discussion about how there is no prescribed death penalty for leaving Islam. Nothing Hadiths. Nothing in the Qur'aan. Your argument is moot.



Of what value is a Prophet of your 'God', Jafar, if all he's good for is following the trends and perversions his society is prone to ??

One would imagine, Jafar, that a Prophet should be getting SOME kind of guidance, or feedback at absolute minimum, from his God, something that might, actually, seem a little more important to him than what man-made laws, or 'fashions', guide him into thinking acceptable ?

.. I mean ... don't you think Allah, if he was sufficiently on the job, might've taken time out to tell Mohammed, when he was on his tea break from his latest lust-filled perversion, to turn to Mohammed and say something like, 'Hey, Mohammed, you've got to stop being a pervert, if you're going to represent me. It ain't nice, it's really lousy PR, and besides, you're supposed to be a SPIRITUAL LEADER, not a filthy degenerate. Knock it off, already !!!' ...

.. or words to that effect ....

If he really was a pervert there would be a string of young brides to his name but there isn't. I say again, it was a common custom of the time especially among the Christian nobles of Europe and you can't judge him nor the thousands of others who did much the same by today's standards.

Of course, Mohamed (saw) being Muslim allows free reign to condemn only him.


Taking this extract from Tyr's offering .. from the Hadith ...



Now, Jafar, is this evidence of a man being guided by pre-existing social pressures, preferences, expectations, OR, is this evidence of a twisted creep decreeing religious sanction to uphold his sick perversions, and to teach others to follow his example ???

So ... forget your examples, Jafar. What we have here is a sicko who tried to fashion Islam in such a way that, supposedly, perversions were to be accepted as 'God-permitted'. Mohammed LED all of this, he wasn't SUBJECT to his conditions.

I refuse to accept a string of dubious hadiths without regard to their validity as an argument!


On the status of Mohammed in Islam ... get a load of THIS ... !! ...

http://www.usislam.org/islamicyouth/Muhammad/status_of_prophet_muhammad.htm



... OK ... so, what I'm getting from this, is that Prophets of Islam were meant (as you'd expect) to be messengers of the 'divine guidance' that Allah felt disposed to deign to pass on to his followers .. and that, they were 'morally, spiritually and intellectually' representative of Allah. Well, Jafar, if all you Islamists are all supposed to see Mohammed in that way ... why aren't you saying that everything Mohammed said and did was RIGHT ?

Marrying later in life is a recent custom. What he did was morally, spiritually and intellectually correct for the time period he lived in.

[jimnyc]

I like how you chose to omit the discussion about how there is no prescribed death penalty for leaving Islam. Nothing Hadiths. Nothing in the Qur'aan. Your argument is moot.

Except for the fact that it happens ALL over Islam, in MANY countries. So while it may not be mandated by Islam, it happens often in Islam, and doesn't in other religions. Please don't ask for examples - as you'll be overwhelmed by them. And many of them words/stories from people themselves who had to escape where they lived in order to survive apostasy. Similar to "honor killings" that are very prevalent in many places amongst Islam, and while also not in the scriptures, still happen WAY too often. Argument is VALID and not moot.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I like how you chose to omit the discussion about how there is no prescribed death penalty for leaving Islam. Nothing Hadiths. Nothing in the Qur'aan. Your argument is moot.

I refuse to accept a string of dubious hadiths without regard to their validity as an argument!



Here educate yourself on the Hadiths.. I did long ago..

http://theonlyquran.com/hadith/Sahih-Muslim


<TBODY>
Sahih Muslimby Imam Muslim, translation by Abdul Hamid Siddiqui


Sahih Muslim (Arabic: ???? ????, ?a?i? Muslim, full title Al-Musnadu Al-Sahihu bi Naklil Adli) is one of the Six major collections of the hadith in Sunni Islam, oral traditions relating to the words and deeds of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad. It is the second most authentic hadith collection according to Sunni Muslims, the most authentic book of hadith after Sahih Al-Bukhari. It was collected by Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj, also known as Imam Muslim. Sahih translates as authentic or correct. Imam Muslim (Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj) was born in 202 AH in Naysabur, Iran into a Persian family (817/818CE) and died in 261AH (874/875CE) also in Nishapur. He traveled widely to gather his collection of ahadith (plural of hadith), including to Iraq, the Arabian Peninsula, Syria and Egypt. Out of 300,000 hadith which he evaluated, approximately 4,000 were extracted for inclusion into his collection based on stringent acceptance criteria. Each report in his collection was checked and the veracity of the chain of reporters was painstakingly established. Sunni Muslims consider it the second most authentic hadith collection, after Sahih Bukhari. However, it is important to realize that Imam Muslim never claimed to collect all authentic traditions as his goal was to collect only traditions that all Muslims should agree on about accuracy. According to Munthiri, there are a total of 2200 hadiths (without repetition) in Sahih Muslim. According to Muhammad Amin, [2] there are 1400 authentic hadiths that are reported in other books, mainly the Six major Hadith collections.


The list of volumes in this book is given below.





<TBODY>
List of Volumes


The Book of Faith (Kitab Al-Iman) (http://www.debatepolicy.com/hadith/Sahih-Muslim/?volume=1)



The Book of Purification (Kitab Al-Taharah) (http://www.debatepolicy.com/hadith/Sahih-Muslim/?volume=2)



The Book of Menstruation (Kitab Al-Haid) (http://www.debatepolicy.com/hadith/Sahih-Muslim/?volume=3)



The Book of Prayers (Kitab Al-Salat) (http://www.debatepolicy.com/hadith/Sahih-Muslim/?volume=4)



The Book of Zakat (Kitab Al-Zakat) (http://www.debatepolicy.com/hadith/Sahih-Muslim/?volume=5)



The Book of Fasting (Kitab Al-Sawm) (http://www.debatepolicy.com/hadith/Sahih-Muslim/?volume=6)



The Book of Pilgrimage (Kitab Al-Hajj) (http://www.debatepolicy.com/hadith/Sahih-Muslim/?volume=7)



The Book of Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah) (http://www.debatepolicy.com/hadith/Sahih-Muslim/?volume=8)

A PARTIAL LIST, TO SEE MORE CLICK ON THE LINK PROVIDED..-Tyr


</TBODY>


</TBODY>

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://theonlyquran.com/hadith/Sahih-Muslim/?volume=1&chapter=9


<TBODY>
Sahih MuslimShare on facebook (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#)Share on twitter (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#)Share on email (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#)Share on google (http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&winname=addthis&pub=nemothecapt&source=tbx-250&lng=en-us&s=google&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftheonlyquran.com%2Fhadith%2FSahih-Muslim%2F%3Fvolume%3D1%26chapter%3D9&title=Hadith%20-%20Sahih%20Muslim%2C%20Volume%201%20-%20COMMAND%20FOR%20FIGHTING%20AGAINST%20THE%20PEOP LE%20SO%20LONG%20AS%20THEY%20DO%20NOT%20PROFESS%20 THAT%20THERE%20IS%20NO%20GOD%20BUT%20ALLAH%20AND%2 0MUHAMMAD%20IS%20HIS%20MESSENGER&ate=AT-nemothecapt/-/-/506cf63b254a37f7/2&frommenu=1&uid=506cf63b2ea5c675&ct=1&pre=http%3A%2F%2Ftheonlyquran.com%2Fhadith%2FSahih-Muslim%2F%3Fvolume%3D1&tt=0&captcha_provider=recaptcha)More Sharing Services (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#)




by Imam Muslim, translation by Abdul Hamid Siddiqui , Volume: The Book of Faith (Kitab Al-Iman)
Chapter: COMMAND FOR FIGHTING AGAINST THE PEOPLE SO LONG AS THEY DO NOT PROFESS THAT THERE IS NO GOD BUT ALLAH AND MUHAMMAD IS HIS MESSENGER


<TBODY>
<FORM method=get action=show_quran.php><SELECT id=actionMenu> <OPTION selected value=5>View 5 Hadiths</OPTION> <OPTION value=10>View 10 Hadiths</OPTION> <OPTION value=15>View 15 Hadiths</OPTION> <OPTION value=20>View 20 Hadiths</OPTION> <OPTION value=0>View Whole Chapter</OPTION></SELECT> </FORM>

</TBODY>


</TBODY>

<TBODY>
29.




It is narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) breathed his last and Abu Bakr was appointed as his successor (Caliph), those amongst the Arabs who wanted to become apostates became apostates. 'Umar b. Khattab said to Abu Bakr: Why would you fight against the people, when the Messenger of Allah declared: I have been directed to fight against people so long as they do not say: There is no god but Allah, and he who professed it was granted full protection of his property and life on my behalf except for a right? His (other) affairs rest with Allah. Upon this Abu Bakr said: By Allah, I would definitely fight against him who severed prayer from Zakat, for it is the obligation upon the rich. By Allah, I would fight against them even to secure the cord (used for hobbling the feet of a camel) which they used to give to the Messenger of Allah (as zakat) but now they have withheld it. Umar b. Khattab remarked: By Allah, I found nothing but the fact that Allah had opened the heart of Abu Bakr for (perceiving the justification of) fighting (against those who refused to pay Zakat) and I fully recognized that the (stand of Abu Bakr) was right.


30.




It is reported on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah, and he who professed it was guaranteed the protection of his property and life on my behalf except for the right affairs rest with Allah.


31.




It is reported on the authority of Abu Huraira that he heard the Messenger of Allah say: I have been commanded to fight against people, till they testify to the fact that there is no god but Allah, and believe in me (that) I am the messenger (from the Lord) and in all that I have brought. And when they do it, their blood and riches are guaranteed protection on my behalf except where it is justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See pedro, I dont lie. I can refute most of your errors/lies .. Tyr

</TBODY>

[jafar00]

And which of the hadiths are weak or fabricated and included in the hadith collections for students of hadith to study?

Every Muslim knows not to use or abuse hadiths like you do.

here is some education for you.
http://www.guidedways.com/riadusaleheen/chapter_display.php

Ryad As Saliheen is a hadith collection including extensive commentary on what the hadiths mean. It's not just a raw collection. It is better that you read this.

[jafar00]

Here is some more education for you.

Riyad As Saliheen is a collection of verified hadiths with extensive discussion and explanations of them. Not just raw translated text like you have been posting.
http://www.guidedways.com/riadusaleheen/chapter_display.php?book=0&chapter=1

[Drummond]

I like how you chose to omit the discussion about how there is no prescribed death penalty for leaving Islam. Nothing Hadiths. Nothing in the Qur'aan. Your argument is moot.

'Moot', you say ?? You're being rather dismissive, aren't you, of all the deaths resulting from the consequences of apostacy !!

As Jim pointed out ....


.. it happens ALL over Islam, in MANY countries.


If he really was a pervert there would be a string of young brides to his name but there isn't. I say again, it was a common custom of the time especially among the Christian nobles of Europe and you can't judge him nor the thousands of others who did much the same by today's standards.

I think I've already covered much of this ? If someone's a true messenger of his God, you'd expect him to be guided by THAT source of authority, and not what his man-made society found fashionable at the time ?

And I fail to see how the number of wives he had of a certain age amounts to PROOF of the extent, frequency, etc of his perverted conduct. Just the ONE is surely one too many, if Mohammed was NOT a pervert ...


I refuse to accept a string of dubious hadiths without regard to their validity as an argument!

.. but what you DON'T refuse to do is cherrypick what you find it convenient to accept or ignore, according to convenience ..


Marrying later in life is a recent custom. What he did was morally, spiritually and intellectually correct for the time period he lived in.

We're back, again, to the 'what was fashionable at the time is all that matters' argument. If morals, in Islam, are as flexible and as transitory as societal fashions, Jafar, this really doesn't say anything good about Islam !!!

.. I mean, right now, it's 'fashionable' for Islamic terrorists to go around blowing people to smithereens. Following that logic through, then you'd have to concede that terrorism is undoubtedly a bona fide, pro-Islamic activity, proven to be such, just from the fact that Islamists enjoy doing it.

How do you feel about being loyal to such a 'fashion-friendly' religion, Jafar ?

There's an 'unofficial' Website run by service personnel from the British Army .. part of it is a Wikipedia spoof. Called 'Arrse' (Army Rumour Service), they've come up with an uncharacteristically in-depth (- for them -) description of the Koran. I sincerely hope you enjoy it, Jafar ....

http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/Koran


KORAN -

A 7th Century book of Monotheistic Arabic Mysticism which Muslims (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Muslims) believe was dictated to Mohammed (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Mohammed) by the Angel Gabriel. It borrows heavily from Christian (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Christian) and Jewish (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Jewish) traditions but without the "Love thy Neighbour" and "Turn the other cheek" bits.

Rather like a bad Quentin Tarantino (http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&catId=11450&item=300774362010) film, the Koran is arranged in no meaningful order. It contains 114 Suras, the first of which is, logically enough, called "The Opening". The other 113 are ranged not in any meaningful chronological order, in which they have to be interpreted, but in decreasing order of length.

But why is the order so important? Well, Mohammed, I mean God, liked to change his mind. These changes of mind, properly called " abrogations", conveniently happened whenever Mohammed was having problems with things he, I mean God, had previously decreed. For instance, Mohammed, I mean God, decreed that believers could have four wives. But our Mo wanted a few more, so there is a sudden revelation that Mohammed can have more, indeed as many as he liked. But of course this revelation explicitly only provides Mohammed with the exception, and not the rest of the believers.

Alcohol is another case in point - 16:67 accepts it, then 4:43 prohibits turning up to worship drunk, and finally 5:90 prohibits it. Perhaps the most relevant abrogation today relates to attitudes towards nonbelievers (including the "people of the book") - the so-called Verse of the Sword, 9:5, aggregates and therefore cancels out no fewer than 124 more peaceful and tolerant verses, including the famous "there is no compulsion in religion" (which appears chronologically earlier). The vast majority of Islamic scholars agree that Sura 9 was chronologically the last to be "revealed", and - shock horror - an awful lot of the really nasty stuff appears in this sura and cancels out anything it contradicts!

The Suras are coarsely grouped into three Meccan (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Mecca) periods, and the Medinan period.

Mainstream Muslim opinion views the Koran in much the same way as extremist Christian opinion views the Bible -- that it is the unabridged and absolutely final Word of God, end of debate. The fact that "Koran" itself means "recitation", and that it was initially an oral tradition written down later seems to have passed them by entirely.

The mainstream view is also that the Koran should only be read in the original classical Arabic, and that translations into modern languages are merely "interpretations" with no validity. This has the unfortunate consequence that many Muslims have never actually read the Koran, since they are not provided it in a language they can understand, much like the Latin Bible in medieval (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Medieval) Catholicism. Oh, and according to a related view, only Muslims can understand it anyway, so there's no point in you reading it, infidel (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Infidels)

Even in the best translations, the language of the Koran is turgid. Imagine the most impenetrable parts of the King James Bible, and extend that to the whole book. There is incessant repetition (Mohammed, I mean God, couldn't always remember whether he had said something already), and extremely mangled versions of Bible stories, which are also sometimes repeated.

Indeed, some of these mangled Bible stories have a distinctly Arabian touch - Mary, for instance, gives birth under a palm tree, and the baby Jesus immediately speaks. God, I mean Mohammed, was trying somehow to link his religion in continuity with the two major monotheistic religions of the past, to claim legitimacy from them, and convince their followers to convert - an idea they weren't wholly chuffed with, the fact of which explains Mohammed's, I mean God's, bile towards Jews and Christians in the Medinan period Suras.

Unlike in the Bible, there are no miracles in the Koran. The "proofs" and "signs" are the recycled Bible stories, and the words of the Koran themselves. These mere words are deemed to be proof enough, and questioning their divine providence is a dangerous thing to do in a country governed by Islamic law. Another contrast with the Bible is that the content of the Koran is meant to contain all the knowledge required ever, and that it is complete and perfect.

As a result, the standard of proof of a contention in Islamic scholarship is not whether the contention stands up to analysis, but whether it is supported by a Koranic quote. This includes the contention of the Koran's divine origin. The fact that this is a complete tautology is deemed totally irrelevant. This accounts largely for the lack of technical progress in countries dominated politically by Islam.

A further contrast with the New Testament of the Bible is that, instead of discussing moral questions with analogy, anecdote, and parable, God, I mean Mohammed, just plainly lays down the law. This law includes dress codes, conduct codes, prohibitions, permissions, and even standard responses for believers to say when faced with specific questions. Mohammed would have felt quite at home as an EU bureaucrat churning out thousands of pages of regulations outlining people's lives for them in the most intimate details.

In fact, in the later Suras, God, I mean Mohammed, gets quite brazen and dictates laws which are awfully convenient to Mohammed's personal and political problems, needs, and wants of the moment. Mohammed gets 20% of all war booty, for instance, and an unlimited number of wives, as well as being able to shag his slave girls . When getting stiffed on loan interest payments, he outlaws usury. Many of the laws reflect Mohammed's own personal preferences, prejudices, and indeed perversions (for instance the obsession with menstruation [admittedly certain elements of this appear in other societies around this time] and sex, amongst others). He essentially gets to act as legislature (although "officially" that's God), executive, Judge, and jury -

[Gaffer]

This describes my opinion of mohamad very well. He made things up as he went along. Just like every other cult leader.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

'Moot', you say ?? You're being rather dismissive, aren't you, of all the deaths resulting from the consequences of apostacy !!

As Jim pointed out ....





I think I've already covered much of this ? If someone's a true messenger of his God, you'd expect him to be guided by THAT source of authority, and not what his man-made society found fashionable at the time ?

And I fail to see how the number of wives he had of a certain age amounts to PROOF of the extent, frequency, etc of his perverted conduct. Just the ONE is surely one too many, if Mohammed was NOT a pervert ...



.. but what you DON'T refuse to do is cherrypick what you find it convenient to accept or ignore, according to convenience ..



We're back, again, to the 'what was fashionable at the time is all that matters' argument. If morals, in Islam, are as flexible and as transitory as societal fashions, Jafar, this really doesn't say anything good about Islam !!!

.. I mean, right now, it's 'fashionable' for Islamic terrorists to go around blowing people to smithereens. Following that logic through, then you'd have to concede that terrorism is undoubtedly a bona fide, pro-Islamic activity, proven to be such, just from the fact that Islamists enjoy doing it.

How do you feel about being loyal to such a 'fashion-friendly' religion, Jafar ?

There's an 'unofficial' Website run by service personnel from the British Army .. part of it is a Wikipedia spoof. Called 'Arrse' (Army Rumour Service), they've come up with an uncharacteristically in-depth (- for them -) description of the Koran. I sincerely hope you enjoy it, Jafar ....

http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/Koran

Seems like everytime mohamboy got an erection some new rules/laws were laid down to satisfy whatever new lust had entered his evil little heart! If camels could talk and write down things we'd know a bit more about him most likely. Moham's god had trouble making up his mind, thats why we see reversals of earlier commands from the almighty god that talked only to mohamboy. Rumor has it that after mohamboy died they destroyed all the instructions he gave on how to diddle little boys and why it was a holy act..;)

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Here is some more education for you.

Riyad As Saliheen is a collection of verified hadiths with extensive discussion and explanations of them. Not just raw translated text like you have been posting.
http://www.guidedways.com/riadusaleheen/chapter_display.php?book=0&chapter=1

You mean carefully editted hadiths. :laugh:

[aboutime]

Khomeini is just hiding his own identity....39723973

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

This describes my opinion of mohamad very well. He made things up as he went along. Just like every other cult leader.

His God made commands suited exactly to mohammad's tastes, perverted and evil. Revelations that sanctioned robbery ,rape and murder to enrich mohammad. Even revelations that ok'ed child molesting! Yes sir, the mohamboy was one damn slick willie!-Tyr