Hi tit for tat

Hope you wouldn't mind if I attempted to answer some of your queries.

(1) How can you follow a paedophile mohammed(cbuh), a person who took a 9 yr old girl as his 14 th wife and also took his adopted son's wife as his wife once he saw her naked?

Before I begin, may I ask where you got the info of seeing his adopted son's ex naked? Can you cite the ref. please.

Anyway, the person you are talking about did not have 14 wives at any stage in his life.

He first got married at the age of 25 to a lady named Khadija and maintained a monogamous life for 25 years until her death. After Khadija's death, she got married to the "girl" (Aisha) you are talking about.

Mohammed’s adopted son was called Zaid. Before Mohammed adopted him, Zaid used to be a slave. Mohammed made Zaid free and declared him to be his adopted son. Mohammed adopted son’s ex-wife was called Zainab, who also happened to be Mohammed’s first cousin. Zainab, who was born into a highly prestigious family, got married to Zaid, but couldn’t bear the fact that her husband used to be an ex-slave. Their marriage dissolved. Mohammed’s marriage to Zainab was undertaken for an important legislative purpose, when Koranic prescriptions made the practice of legal adoption unlawful, but commended foster care instead.

I'll ask you to kindly make yourself familiar with the context in which Mohammed lived. That of a seventh century patriarchal, tribal society in which polygyny and slavery were endemic. After a twenty-five year marriage to Khadijah, except for Aisha, all his wives were divorcees or widows, many elderly. They were largely undertaken for legislative purposes, to strengthen kinship and tribal ties, and to protect widows of close companions. Hardly the stuff of Arabian nights harem fantasies, if that’s what you’re implying. Furthermore, they were all contracted before the Koranic revelation restricted polygynous marriages to four, and he did not contract any more marriages once that verse was revealed by God.

Alllllo allo alloo ...F.H. is going to CHURCH :)

F.H. should I rejoice now ? .. no offence mate.. I can understand you dropping in from time to time.. You might like to make mention of that incident in the 'opinion' section of the daily telegraph, its worth mentioning.
I notice that NewsCorp is clearly doing a 'job' in Muslims for the sake of selling advertising space and gaining ratings.
They must have had a 'spy' in the Lakemba mosque or deliberately examined the transcripts of the sermons.

It doesn't change the severity of Hilali's remarks but I don't think they are page 1 material.

Sabasakin

.. regarding Mohammed's wives and the culture of the day, basically you are saying Mohammed was nothing new, just same old same old.. he enjoyed young chicks and there are plenty of hadith to support that. The very idea of him marrying his adopted sons wife is repulsive for THAT culture and ours, hence another one of those handy 'revelations of convenience' to justify him. "So that the believers may know...that its ok to do that".. for crying out loud.. he didn't have to MARRY her to show that.. he just had to SAY so, as he did with so many other issues... on balance of probabilities he took her because he WANTed her .. same with Safiya.. whos father AND husband he had killed. That was an illegal marraige under his own law, and based on 'her beauty'.. i.e. LUST.. there is no escaping that one.
blessings

A question for Muslims posting here:

There is no doubt that Mohammed married the child Aisha when she was six years old and consumated the marriage when she was nine. Muslims seem ok with this, using 'ancient cultural norms' as an excuse for his actions.

So does that mean that if Mohammed returned to earth, Muslims would be pleased if he wished to marry their nine year old daughters? Surely they would be flattered, since Mohammed was supposedly a good and perfect man.

Philo,
Thanks for the info and the link. I will email Dr moyes asking to be told of any reply forthcoming to his question.

Far from comprehensively supporting the Mufti's position I called for him to go (above), I just dont see why Muslim Fundamentalists should be singled out from Christian Fundamentalists who, for decades at least, have proposed 'scantily-clad women' as part of the causal matrix of sexual crimes.

If someone wanted to deport all Religious Fundamentalists for the cock-n-bull attitudes they hold they might have an ally in me but to single out Muslims for proposing views held by Christians for a long time is inequitous.

I notice West did not reply to the question, 'did you actually read the sermon?' I am guessing West didnt since if they had they probably would have declared it.

So, let us, as the Queen of Hearts prescribed, 'have the execution before the trial' or actually why bother examining the evidence at all - just go straight to the execution.

The brotherhood is not thin it is non-existent.

There has never been a shortage of men who flock to take the part of women who play the victim. Huge numbers of men don the shining armour whenever a damsel in distress cries foul irrespective of whether she has a legitimate complaint or not. I call them 'Dr Phils'. In his book The Myth of Male Power, Dr Warren Farrell gives a very interesting account of the dynamic of men rushing to 'protect' women who are engaged in attacking men.