QuoteOriginally posted by: madmaxyou did not already know that I was a muslim ?no

QuoteOriginally posted by: ppaupernow we're getting to the point of your vitriol.The irony ...QuoteQuoteBy the way in your quote it saysQuoteal-ilah, i.e. the godI know, I read it before I posted it.Surely madmax has sufficient evidence that you are retarded - he doesn't need your help in proving this.

OK, thanks Madmax, this informs and illuminates.MatthewQuoteOriginally posted by: madmaxQuoteFor me the clear inference here is that among mainstream Islam which is not Shia (a key proviso), which holds hadith above all else, they clearly believe her marriage was consummated at 9 years of age.Not really. First what holds above all else in Islam is the Koran. Then for Sunnis, the next most important source is the Sunna (that's where Sunni comes from -who follows the Sunna-). Sunna is the way the prophet lived his life. Then only comes the Hadith. In Arabic, Hadith means narration literally. In this context it refers to what highly trusted people (like his most close followers) have reported about what he approved and what he said about things.Sometimes, it can be difficult to see a difference between Hadith and Sunna. The difference is really subtle. But to summarize it, what belongs to Sunna is so firmly established (and most of the time relates to actions as opposed to sayings) that muslims believe that is what the prophet used to do without any doubt. Hadith is more the narrations made about the prophet by people close to him (and is usually more about things he approved or disapproved).Mainstream muslims hold the Koran for truth. Sunna is considered as example of good behavior and thus is recommended to follow. Most mainstream muslims will agree about what is part of Sunna and what is not. When it comes to Hadith, opinions diverge. The divergence is not with respect to the importance of the hadith but more on what is reliable and what is not. Anything that would have been deemed to be 100% reliable would have made it into Sunna. That is why in books on hadith you will always find the chain of people who reported the hadith ("from X, who heard from Y, that Z said that the prophet told W that....). The names are reported because some of these people are believed to be more reliable than others, and the reader should be able to have that information to make his own judgement.In summary for most mainstream Sunni muslims, Koran is truth from God, Sunna is the truth about Mohammed's life and thus is recommended example. Hadith is also source of "inspiration" but many disagreements exist concerning what is reliable and what has been distorted by the chain of narration, and what is just plain false.In the case of Aisha's age, some are more enclined to hold the age of 14 as more plausible for the reasons cited in the link. Some others estimate 17-18 relying on other things, among which her narrated participation into some early battles, knowing that the minimum age for that was 15. Some arguments can be found in links at the end of the wikipedia page. I have personnally never met a Muslim who subscribed to the 9 years version. They usually state that she was at least 14 or more (up to 20).

This point reminds me that the personal diaries of Christopher Columbus state that girls of 9 and 10 are the most frequent prizes sought in the first Spanish explorations of the Caribbean....MatthewQuoteOriginally posted by: DCFCWhatever the age of this girl, 9 years old is not that unusual from a historical perspective.

It's also true however that puberty now generally begins EARLIER than it used to, principally due to dietary considerations. Any fair analysis needs to be taken into accountMatthewQuoteOriginally posted by: madmaxQuoteEuropeans certainly had sex at this age >500 years ago, indeed Britain only got any legal restriction on the age of consent in the mid 19th centuryIf you go back enough in history, people used to die before 20-25. At 20, they were already all crippled.

The facts remain that according to the haddith, mohammed married a 6 year old girl and had sex with her when she was 9.Marriage, as we see here, and in other examples is very different to marriage as we see it today. Not unknown for people in royal families to be married as babies.Calling me names, as liberals are wont to do, does not change that.I'm not name calling, nor indeed am I what Americans call a liberal, but I do ask why it matters ?Modern Moslems (unlike Catholics) are very hard on people who abuse children.Iran subjects paedophile gangs to long lingering deaths, and invite relatives to help make the last hours of these scum as bad as possible.America gives them tax breaks.

QuoteOriginally posted by: DCFCThe facts remain that according to the haddith, mohammed married a 6 year old girl and had sex with her when she was 9.Marriage, as we see here, and in other examples is very different to marriage as we see it today. Not unknown for people in royal families to be married as babies.Calling me names, as liberals are wont to do, does not change that.I'm not name calling, nor indeed am I what Americans call a liberal, but I do ask why it matters ?Modern Moslems (unlike Catholics) are very hard on people who abuse children.Iran subjects paedophile gangs to long lingering deaths, and invite relatives to help make the last hours of these scum as bad as possible.America gives them tax breaks.Do they? They also recently ladled out billions in fines.

Do they? They also recently ladled out billions in fines.I'm not aware that the Catholic church has had any noticeable fines at all. Have you a link for that ?It is true that a few of the worst priests have been locked up as scapegoats, but they're sad old perverts. The people who organised the cover ups, found them new victims, and new hunting groundswhere terribly punished.Not.Senior Catholics were "really sorry" that they'd moved known paedophiles to ensure they weren't caught and they now"realise it was an error", to destory documents and hide the facts from the police.The sheer scale of funding the legal defence of these people has put financial strain on the Catholic church.Why you ask was no one in charge of discipline in the Catholic Church ?Why was no one telling them to stop ?Well, who do you think was Pope John Paul's enforcer for discipline ?It was Cardinal Ratzinger, which the paedophile gang has now elected as their leader.One wonders how much it was a reward for past services and how much it was because he had evidence that could get cardinals locked up ?

Did some research. Here are the financial costs in just one city in the US. Many churches (about 20%) are to be closed. And this is just in Boston.

QuoteOriginally posted by: ppauperand for the record, it wasn't just aisha who said she had sex with mohammed at age 9.Urwa (also known as Abu Hisham) did so also.Bukhari vol. 7, #88: QuoteNarrated Urwa: "The prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death)."QuoteUrwa was born the son of Zubayr ibn al-Awwam, one of those ten for whom Paradise was promised while alive, and the son of the Prophet’s paternal aunt, Safiyya, and his mother was Asma’, the daughter of Abu Bakr, and who spent much of her life with ‘A’isha, Mother of Believers.‘Urwa can be regarded as a student of ‘A’isha, his aunt. He was also taught by Sa‘id ibn al-Musayyib, who was seven or eight years older than himself.‘Urwa was one of the seven greatest jurists of his time. Most of the Traditions narrated by ‘A’isha were transmitted by him to succeeding generations.[\b] [\Q]

Did some research. Here are the financial costs in just one city in the US. Many churches (about 20%) are to be closed. And this is just in Boston. Yeah, but no fines.Not only is America not hunting these people down, but is allowing the Catholic Church to use Chapter 11 to avoid paying compensation. Interesting how the Cathyolic church can't "stop" abuse, but has managed to arrange it's affiars so that it's core weatlh remains untouched. Ironic ?You cite a link showing that donations have decreased, but only by 25 % . What sort of degenerate scum gives any money to a gang of child rapists ?What exactly do their priests have to do that would make Catholics stop giving them money ?The American state has taken no significant action of any kind to seriously investigate or punish the senior members of the Catholic church like Cardinal Law who amplified the abuse by providing resources and support to the abusers ? Of course the catholic church is hardly likely to anything is it ?America has left justice to those people who can face the traumatic experience of persuing court cases.Imagine that (say) senior executives of McDonalds were found to have hushed up the rape of children by their staff, and that they had helped them do it more. Imagine that is was "only" 500 children raped by McDonalds (a tiny fraction of those raped by Catholic priests.Would the FBI turn up on their doorstep asking pointed questions ?Would McDonalds actually exist in any meaningful form within about a week of this becoming public ?Imagine instead that "only" 50 children were raped by a gang of Moslem Imams. Might the government be interested ?

QuoteDCFC: Imagine that (say) senior executives of McDonalds were found to have hushed up the rape of children by their staff... Good point. Mind you, McDonald's are almost single-handedly responsible for the poisoning of the American population through bad dieting and I don't see the Fed stepping in here either. Is it really their responsibility? Separation of church and state and all that.Supersize Me.

Good point about the poisoning of American by McDonalds, though of course it's at least partly self inflicted.I don't see the Fed stepping in here either. Is it really their responsibility? Separation of church and state and all that.Surely "separation" only applies to the worship and doctrines of the Church ?Thus for that protection the Catholics would have to claim that the rape of children was a policy, not an aberration.

QuoteOriginally posted by: DCFCGood point about the poisoning of American by McDonalds, though of course it's at least partly self inflicted.I don't see the Fed stepping in here either. Is it really their responsibility? Separation of church and state and all that.Surely "separation" only applies to the worship and doctrines of the Church ?Thus for that protection the Catholics would have to claim that the rape of children was a policy, not an aberration.No, even the Catholic Church have admitted that the sexual abuse of children is against the law, both of the courts and His law.

QuoteOriginally posted by: DCFCThe facts remain that according to the haddith, mohammed married a 6 year old girl and had sex with her when she was 9.Marriage, as we see here, and in other examples is very different to marriage as we see it today. Not unknown for people in royal families to be married as babies.indeed, but it was consumated when she was 9. He was I believe 54 at the time.