fiction - no matter how plausible, is still fiction.

Submitted by the Grand Infide of Kaffiristan (Australia), Mar 30, 2009 at 19:55

Shaji (peace be upon him) has spent a lot of time rationalising his belief system to make it seem palatable to those who find it at best, peculiar. Having spent a large part of his life being immersed in a culture where it may have been and may still be acceptable - he finds it strange that others find such things as drinking camel urinea little odd . But he misses the point entirely that middle age men sleeping with nine year olds is a moral issue - and quite reprehensible. And then goes on to rationalise his belief and tries to justify the 'Prophet's' behaviour.

This is a problem the Islamic world continues to have. Many of its norms are just unacceptable not just to the West but to most other cultures. At no time in any of the Chinese dynasties over 5,000 years was child sex ever deemed to be OK. Arab children don't mature any more quickly than children in South america or other parts of the world so using that as an excuse is farcical.

"This was the case in Biblical times, and is still used to determine the age of marriage in what the culturally arrogant West calls "primitive societies" throughout the world. .... The reason for this was that they were waiting for her to come of age (i.e. to have her first menstrual period). Puberty as a biological sign shows that a woman is capable of bearing children. "
The 'arrogant West' (as opposed to the prosperous, fair minded, unbiased, progressive Islamic world)
proscribes such behaviour on very good grounds, on the basis of facts observed over millenia. To begin with a nine year old girl's body is not equipped to bring a live birth safely to term without damage to herself or the child. Nor is the girl equipped mentally or emotionally for such a responsibility. It goes without saying that she does not have enough insight at that age about her own identity let alone what she really wants in a relationship.

"Part of the wisdom behind the Prophet's (peace be upon him) marriage to Aishah (may ALLAH be pleased with her) just after she reached puberty is to firmly establish this as a point of Islamic Law,"

So a 53 year old man has sex with a nine year old child tp prove a point that apparently did not really need proving because it was commonly accepted? How very wise of him.

In his lengthy reply he entirely omitted many points especially in regards to Christianity.

There are many 'believers' of all types who use the most convoluted logic to prove that what they believe is correct. Mr. Shaji (pbuh) would like non-Muslims to believe that the 'Comforter' mentioned in the Bible was none other than the child marrying Mohammed of 7th century arabia. This is just not so. A case in point is the Mormons. The Mormons have a fantastic (in its literal sense) history of what Jesus Christ did during his lifetime - he went to America and preached to the lost Israelite tribes there etc etc.

All very lovely and written with flowery descriptions of the events back then. It is very eloquently written and Mormons will cover all objections to any point that 'normal' Christians bring up. Even the total lack of any archeological evidence for the fabled Israelite stettlements is rationalised. But it is all totally fictitious - built on a wonderfully imaginative interpretation of events that never happened. But the Mormons would say that Joseph Smith was the 'Comforter' - with as much conviction as Mr. Shaji has about his beliefs that the Muslim Mohammed was.

Scientologists would tell you that L. Ron Hubbard fits the description . Sai Baba's followers would say Sai Baba is. Their case has even more substance than the case for Mo.

I think Mr. Shaji should track down a burak and fly to many other countries, take a good look at what is and is not socially acceptable, listen with an open mind to what they believe in and take note ofthe manymany systems of belief which prove that Islam is not supreme among religions.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".