Err Steel....

the book about Jewell of Medina was not a 'hate' book..it took a very sympathetic view of the girl and regarded her as a heroine....
She was virtually 'sold' at 6 and in my view raped at 9, and how any non brain damaged person can conceive of her falling in love with the old bugger who used her.. is if anything a testimony to the reality of Stockholm syndrome.

check your facts first please.

The above aside.. the book SHOULD have made much of the AGE of the man... and described it as it really is.. disgusting..degenerate..disgraceful and destructive when one considers he is held up as an example for all to follow TODAY.

I have no idea how you came to such a conclusion. I can't document every incident, but the second two links certainly should have woken you up a bit even so. What I posted was the tip of the iceburg. You can list every media outlet you like that tumbles out of your mind, it doesn't change the fact they are all owned by the same few people and interests. Many news items here in Australia and elsewhere simply receive no coverage for this reason. You could read any of the Fairfax papers and you are reading the same opinion and news, only photocopied or rewritten. The variety you talk about is a drop in the bucket. Read the other two links a bit more thoroughly before you make your mind up on this. I can find an endless amount of examples. Here are more: http://www.blacklistednews.com/

Steel,

OK I cheated and created a secondary ID.

You are making no sense. You write:

"You can list every media outlet you like that tumbles out of your mind, it doesn't change the fact they are all owned by the same few people and interests.."

Let's examine that statement confining ourselves to the major media outlets to start.

Are you seriously suggesting that the NY Times and Fox are owned by the same people or interests?

Or that CNN is part of the Murdock stable?

Or that Rupert controls TIME Magazine.

PBS (Public Broadcasting System) is not actually owned by anyone and seems to serve mainly as a conduit for the BBC.

The Guardian is owned by an independent press trust.

Al Jazeera is definitely not controlled by any American "interest" and is becoming a major news outlet in the US. I should imagine they cover most of the stories in the Middle-East you would like to see covered.

Ditto the BBC.

This does not take into account the tens of thousands of independents including IndyMedia.

If you don’t like the coverage in Fairfax here is a link to Al Jazeera.

http://english.aljazeera.net/

If you'd like an explicitly Zionist conspiracy site try David Duke.

http://www.davidduke.com/

I frequently go onto the Indian newspaper sites. Try the Times of India:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/default?xml=0&

The fact that most media outlets do not cover the news in the way you would like to see it covered does not prove there is censorship.

Steel,

Consider that maybe, just maybe, the major news outlets do not present wall to wall coverage of "Americo-Zionist" conspiracies because no such conspiracies exist.

Or if they do exist the viewing public may prefer to watch Big Brother or Lost or football. Appalling but there it is.

And maybe the Israelis do not actually "murder" Palestinian teenagers. Maybe they happen to be casualties in a bitter war. Maybe Mark Schneider of "Accurate Press" is as much a propagandist as you accuse the US media of being.

But, and this is the point, no one is censoring Mark Schneider of "Accurate Press.

As stated above, the book is not anti-islam. From reports it paints a loving "romantic" relationship between Mohammad and Aisha. It is another "Islam is wonderful" book that will overlook important facts from the traditions, like Mohammad beating her, the raid on Banu al-Mustaliq and rape of the women and Aisha's part in the story, the wives' bitter relationships, the comments from Aisha regarding abuse of Muslim women, etc.

So why was it cancelled? To serve as an example to infidels not to talk about anything Islamic -- to make it clear to infidels that Islam is off limits, always. Muslims will tell us all we need known about Islam.

Steel, the question is NOT age of consent. The issue is the morality of an old man having sex with a 9year old. Period. Be aware that this age is given 3 times in different places in the ahadith. Do not insult us pretending she was 14-15-18.

On the other hand, we cant say it was pedophilia. We don't know if Aisha had reached puberty. The traditions don't say. However she was still playing with dolls.

Even so, a great evil was done. The evil was the example. Because of what Mohammad did, because of what is written in the traditions and because of what Allah allowed his faithful to do and write (speaking from an Muslim viewpoint), a terrible example was given has destroyed the bodies and lives of millions of girls for over 1300 years -- because Islam's prophet did it, it must be good. Here is a quote from a British paper:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/feb/22/ukcrime.gender

Notice that the example of Islam's prophet is cited to justify this vile practice. One would think that if Allah is god, if he is all-knowing, if he knows the future, if he cares about innocent young girls, he would have taken steps to clarify the situation or prohibit this evil. This is not theology, this is logic. The only explanation then is that this abuse happens because Allah let it happen. Allah doesn't care about little girls. Allah approves of rape.

Pathetic!

Kactuz

Kactuz your post started off reasonably but ended terribly. There is simply no justification for making such an absurd out of context statement about Islam. It's disgraceful. Not least because it was normal to marry and sleep with girls of similar age in the past. It was normal practice. IN THE WEST AND EUROPE. Partly of necessity, but partly that you and I can't choose age of consent over nature and biology.

Part of the reason you do not have a mature understanding of history, is because our society would censor any representation of life as it was (unless only murderous acts, torture or violence were involved...then it's all ok). That is a tragedy from a historical perspective but it's a fact in our society. No amount of contemporary rage will change the fact that it was normal back then to do this. If a 'girl' could be impregnated, then she was a woman. Period. Biology dictated this fact. Same with 'boys' who probably sired sons as soon as biology dictated they could. What we understand a child to be and how a child is defined today, is absolute nonsense when applied to history.

I could not care less about what a sociopathic 7th century warlord may or may not have done.

What I do care about is that a 21st century mainstream US publisher, BY ITS OWN ADMISSION, was so intimidated that it pulped a book apparently before any actual threats had been received.

This is the issue.

This is the path to servitude.

A type of servitude called "dhimmitude."