Cartoon and Wedding

Submitted by Amir (United States), Feb 21, 2006 at 16:22

"it seems possible she might have ended up like that poor Hindu sailor who discussed the Danish cartoons with his 2 Muslim shipmates."

I don't resort to violence. I can raise the blood pressure just by typing ;)

"The reason the Danish cartoon ignited so much Islamic furor is because it struck a true nerve: the extreme violence inherent in current Islam, which Islam is doing nothing to root out."

A perfect example of your inability to think logically. I guess if we follow your logic, Jews get offended when the holocaust is mocked because they know it's hoax? If Jesus is called a gay, would Christians get offended because they know that Jesus was gay? People get offended when something they think is sacred is mocked. There is nothing more to it.

"The reason Harrak/Amir became livid about a possible cartoon depicting Mohammed in his 50's trying to wed a pre-pubescent girl still playing with her dolls is also because it struck a true nerve:"

I saw some cartoons like that on several sites.. didn't bother me a bit. Yes some Muslims would get offended, just as some religious Jews would get offended if porn depicting Moses sex life is posted.

"the subjugation of women that is an integral part of Islam as it is now practiced, which Islam is doing nothing to root out."

According to you it is internal part of Islam. According to some Muslim women it is not. Some of these women are scholars like Fatema Mernissi and Riffat Hassan. I personally believe women are subjugated in all religions. Read the Bible. Or do you want me to quote it for you?

"Unfortunately for Harrak/Amir, his web link indicates just the opposite of what he's trying to say: this "wedding" was almost certainly abuse of a female minor"

No, the link indicates that there are conflicting traditions on the issue. For secular scholars, Bukhari (200 to 300 years after Muhammad -- Aisha was long dead for more than century by then) is not more authoritative than say Ibn Ishaq.

"something not acceptable by Judaism nor Christianity, even hundreds of years ago."

Really? How do you explain this then

"A girl three years and one day old is betrothed by intercourse. "A girl three years old may be betrothed through an act of sexual intercourse," the words of R. Meir. And sages say, "Three years and one day old." http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/guido_deimel/judaism.html

(scroll down on the page; the footnote number is 134)

(snip cut and past from Wikipedia. I posted the link and I know what it says. Everyone can click on it. No need for cut and past http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha).

---

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".