Here we go again. The Times reports that there are “fears of Muslim anger” because an academic book critical of Muhammad’s marriage to A’isha, his third wife who was six or seven years old at the time of the marriage (according to traditional reports, although consummation did not occur until she was nine) is to be published soon.
This matter, questioning the sexual behaviour of a man held to be a prophet by 1.2 billion people, is unsurprisingly fraught: it is only a few weeks since the conviction of three men for attempting to diesel bomb the UK publisher of ‘Jewel of Medina’.
But it is not just historical novelists and academics who discuss Muhammad’s marriage to A’isha, some people who are not very keen on Islam also tend to focus on it. Here are a couple of examples taken from the comments threads at Harry’s Place.
From a discussion about thugs rampaging through Luton "to oppose extremism"
From a discussion about the row caused by some parents complaining about interfaith assemblies
The “argument” goes that Muslims believe Muhammad to be a perfect model for behaviour and therefore the fact of Muhammad’s marriage to A’isha somehow proves Islam to be a depraved religion. That no good can come of following it etc etc ad nauseam. This attempt to aggressively apply a modern British definition of paedophilia to seventh century Arabia strikes me as a sign of severe anthropological illiteracy; but the right to express such offensive, anthropologically illiterate statements must be defended staunchly.
In the jurisprudence of the main schools of Islamic law it was accepted that a child could have a marriage arranged for them by their marriage guardian but it should not be consummated until puberty was reached, when the child would have the “Option of Puberty” (khiyar al-bulugh). This meant that the child would be allowed to repudiate the marriage if it had been contracted by a marriage guardian who did not have the right of ijbar (ie who was not their father or, apart from the Hanbalis, their father’s father). As the Qur’an does not deal with these matters many of the rules governing them would have been drawn from pre-Islamic custom and Muhammad’s implicit endorsement of them through not rejecting them.
In considering the question of marriage age in Islam it is, therefore, entirely appropriate to discuss Muhammad’s marriage to A’isha. A book entitled ‘Does God Hate Women?’, which looks at various religious attitudes towards women, would do a disservice to its readers if it were to ignore a matter of such relevance: marriage to a pre-pubescant child with whom consummation occurs upon reaching puberty is not a model most people would be happy with in the modern world (although Bolivia sets the age of consent at puberty).
Which is probably why nearly all Muslim countries have reformed these rules beyond recognition. The age of consent in Algeria and Malaysia is 16, in Indonesia it is 19 for males and 16 for females. In Egypt it’s 18 for both and Tunisia 20. Reform has not, however, come to Saudi Arabia. Back in April the world followed the case of a mother trying to obtain a divorce for her eight-year-old daughter who had been married off by her father to a friend he owed a debt. In the end she succeeded and now there is even talk of Saudi Arabia preventing marriage before the age of 18.
Muhammad’s marriage to A’isha would logically only be of real concern to a non-Muslim living in 21st century Britain if Muslims were, following his model, regularly involved in child marriages. But, apart from possibly in Saudi Arabia and Iran, they aren’t. If your claim is that Islam is fundamentally depraved because Muslims seek to emulate Muhammad and he married a six-year-old, then it is entirely shot down by Muslims not emulating Muhammad on this matter.
But people like “Old Peculier” and “kafuruk” are not concerned by this. They just want to level two of the most heinous accusations thinkable at Muhammad because he is respected by Muslims. It’s stupid and designed to offend but, if people really want to prove their idiocy in this way, then they must be entitled to do so. Not because it’s A Good Thing that people accuse Muhammad of paedophilia, but because defending their right to make such statements is the best way to defend those who would publish books like ‘Jewel of Medina’ and ‘Does God Hate Women?’.
74 Comments
My compliments to you all for the superb posts on here at the Spitoon thusfar; I wish I had more time to comment.
This is another timely contribution and gets to the meat of the problem: the Islamophobes do have a point in general, in that a tiny minority of overzealous Muslims in cahoots with a much larger number of non-Muslims acting out of sheer political correctness, try to censor others or stifle debate. This has led in part to a perception that Islam is off limits for the purposes of discussion or must be handled with kid gloves. Some members of the public, spurred on my a litany of scare stories in the tabloids, have seized on this perceived deference to Islam and exaggerate its remit.
That said, Islamic history should be a legitimate topic for discussion. The first step, as far as I’m concerned, would be to make an example of these three: a sentence of 25 to life would certainly make others reconsider (though it’s unlikely to discourage determined fanatics). Prosecutions should have followed the book and effigy burnings after the Khomeini fatwa. Instead, Sacranie became head of the MCB and was knighted. This was a heinous error of judgement.
For me, the most pressing issue for Britain and one that must be tackled is the question of interfaith marriage. Muslims, Orthodox Jews, Hindus, and Sikhs in public office should have to sign a declaration stating that they agree with interfaith marriage. Otherwise, I foresee problems in a society where religious doctrine is used as a cover for prejudice; where no-one talks about it and it’s never covered in the media.
Well said George.
It’s important that cretins like “Old Peculiar” have the right to be free and easy with the “Prophet was a paedophile” trope even though it’s obvious they’re more concerned with giving offence than the rights of women in Muslim majority countries.
And it was because of the international furore caused by the case of the 8-year old child bride which has forced Saudi Arabia to look at reforming their age of consent laws.
WHAT? the subject of intermarriage is one of the most extensively covered issues in jewish culture. you cannot require jews (or anyone else) to support interfaith marriages any more than you can require us *not* to intermarry. you cannot legislate this sort of thing. and what on *earth* do you think this achieves? what on earth do you think jewish views on intermarriage have to do with our ability to carry out a publicly funded role? look at robert winston – i’m sure the UK would be much the poorer were he to be precluded from working in the NHS because he doesn’t want his daughter to marry out.
this suggestion is fascistic in the extreme. as fascistic as someone who cuts their child off *because* they intermarry. now, i don’t want my kids to intermarry, for all sorts of very good reasons. but if they do, that will be in no small part my own fault for not making a good case for it. i should not be allowed, however, to object under UK law. nor should UK law be able to require me to *not* object. that is absurd.
b’shalom
bananabrain
99% agreement.
Iran, I believe, has a marriage age which possibly is related to the Aisha story – but it seems very confused to me.
http://www.ageofconsent.com/iran.htm
Aisha is used, generally, as a tool for baiting of Muslims. It is pretty disgraceful to use a story with religious – and except in a very few countries- no other practical significance in this manner.
Well, I’m not in an “interfaith marriage” – neither my wife and I believe in God. But requiring religious people to sign declarations of this sort, merely because they’re religious? I don’t think so!
It is far better to start with the assumption that people in public office – of all faiths and none – will use their power lawfully and fairly.
If they don’t, then that’s the time to have a go at them.
I forgot to mention this earlier: according to Egyptian law, one can marry before the age of 18 (I think the lower limit is set according to Hanafi fiqh), but one must secure the consent of one’s parents. Girls must in any case, but this applies equally to boys under the ‘legal’ age. Wiki is therefore a bit misleading here; I suspect the same is true in Algeria.
” i don’t want my kids to intermarry”
I find that sort of attitude appalling in this day and age. What you’re basically saying is that you don’t wish your child to marry someone of another faith, which just as amongst Muslims (until there are more converts and/or larger non-S Asian communties), Sikhs and Hindus, is a de facto racialist/anti-miscegenation position. It’s no different to me telling my daughter that I don’t want her to play with a certain child because he’s Jewish. I must add that many Catholics and Orthodox Christians also object to interfaith marriage, an attitude that I abhor.
In a free society, one should not need declarations and I don’t really support such a measure. However, as non-Christian religious communities in the UK grow in proportion to the indigenous Christian population, there’ll be a situation in my lifetime where we’ll have not just ‘ethnic’ ghettos but ethnic and religious ghettos…and this can’t be good for the future of the UK.
well, too bad. it’s non-negotiable. i hope you read the rest of what i said though. marrying in, in this day and age, is an *option*. i cannot coerce my children, nor would i want to. i would hope, however, that i could make the case effectively for why it wasn’t a good idea and if i don’t, then i will have to come to terms with that. i hope you also understand that the “in this day and age” objection is not one that i find especially persuasive given that my culture has been around for nigh on 3,000 years and we haven’t got where we are by either being inflexible OR by doing whatever happens to be in fashion this century in terms of morality.
if you’re jewish, it’s a religious position alone. there are jews of every hue, shape and cultural background. my wife and i are from totally different jewish backgrounds. my parents are the same. i am more than happy for my kids to marry someone black, white or feckin’ chinese, as long as they’re jewish. that is about religious law and continuity, not race.
how ridiculous. the reason i want my children to marry in is because i would like my grandchildren to be jewish. statistically, religiously and philosophically, it is far less likely if they marry out. i don’t understand the basis for this comparison. it is not about whether i “disapprove” of something about non-jews (i do not) it is about my religious obligations.
for some of the same reasons, but given the demographic factors, with somewhat less justification.
well, that’s something i suppose.
with respect, that is what they said when the jews were allowed back in in the late C17th and in the early C21st, nearly 400 years laters, that hasn’t been a problem for the jewish community, which is both integrated into UK society and a distinct entity.
b’shalom
bananabrain
Hmmm, your bigotry disguised as ‘religious principle’ is not convincing BananaBrain. Frankly, there’s no difference between your de facto racial discrimination and the BNP’s all-white Britain advocacy. The BNP’s ideologues propose a Britain for indigenous British peoples based on nothing more than a philosophical belief; no science is involved. Similarly, you are opposed to interfaith marriage based on your philosophical belief; again, no science is involved.
Just because a book (not written 3000 years ago I might add) tells you that it’s against the ‘law’ to marry a gentile, doesn’t make it right. Indeed, it’s an irrational and racist position to cower behind religious doggerel.
Your fatuous assertion that Britons objected to Jewish immigration based on orthodox Judaism’s prohibition of interfaith marriage has no basis in fact. However, if it were true, Britons in my opinion would be acting in a rational fashion by objecting to a group of people who wanted to immigrate but not intermarry. Had bigots like you remained in the majority an extremely erudite friend of mine, a descendant of the Great Gaon of Vilna and polished academic, would never have been conceived – given that he’s not ‘halakhically Jewish’.
Two events in my life are recalled by your opposition to interfaith marriage that is in reality a de facto anti-miscegenation position: being chased down Stratford High St. by a mixed gender gang of Sylheti thugs bent on hacking my wife and I to death, whose objection to our marriage was based on so-called ‘religious principles’. And the second involves a good friend of mine, an ethnic Nubian married to an ethnic German, who when asked if it would be possible for another friend of mine to marry a Nubian girl, replied: ‘Never!’ Basing his hypocritical prejudice on tradition.
For too long, multiculturalism and the racism of different standards has allowed religious bigots in certain communities to poison the minds of the next generation with their own concealed prejudices. Employing people who hold racist views, albeit couched in religio-speak, should not be tolerated either: the precedent has already been set with the BNP and tax-payer funded services. Expressing doubt as to whether a person’s entrenched prejudices affect their day-to-day function as a policeman or nurse is a red herring.
first of all, i would like to say that given you don’t know me at all, i find your instant recourse to ad hominem abuse rude and uncalled-for.
what a fatuous comparison. jewish status is given, as i am sure you are aware, either by an accident of matrilineal birth or by the religious opt-in of conversion. converts are, without a doubt, some of the most committed jews there are, in my wide experience of them. the bnp maintain that their opposition to immigration is based on competing claims for resources (“our jobs” and “our women”, i believe, or possibly public spending per head, who knows), whereas a non-national religious community is not concerned with such things. our concern for demographic factors is one of absolute sustainability, not ability to compete for resources based on some sort of hypothetical entitlement, scientific or otherwise. all jewish diaspora communities are sustainable if demographic factors are taken into account. i am not suggesting inherent entitlement to sustainability, that is something that these days must stand on its own merits; if people (born or converted) want in, we will remain. if people want out, we will disappear. the science involved here is not eugenics, but statistics. i would have thought that the moral and other benefits of the jewish community were also worth having, if not “scientific” – not that i accept that science should be the arbiter of moral issues.
although our ideas of what constitutes as sustainable community are drawn from the Book, our ideas of “right” are. if you want to make the argument that it is not “wrong” to marry a gentile, you have to understand the laws – and practicalities – involved. clearly, you don’t.
you are conflating race with religion again. i am not “cowering” behind anything. i am speaking plainly and clearly about practicality. i know very well and from the deepest personal experience what these practicalities involve. clearly, you dismiss religious considerations out of hand and you are entitled to do so, but if you wish to have any kind of dialogue that does not involve hurling tendentious and arrogant generalisations, you will have to at least make some effort to understand my point of view.
don’t put words in my mouth. i said nothing about orthodox judaism or interfaith marriage. what i actually meant (although i was responding to something you said), was that the opposition to jewish immigration was based on a perception of growth and non-integration of what was perceived as an “alien” culture. that has plenty of basis in fact and, naturally, both of these have turned out to be both incorrect and irrelevant to the value of the jewish community to the UK. as it turns out, intermarriage has of course occurred and has been demographically harmful to our sustainability, which is the reason this objection has in practical terms been irrelevant. nonetheless, i fail to see why good citizenship should be conditional, let alone dependent, on a demand for access to the reproductive facilities of a given immigrant group. i find that both puzzling and rather distasteful. in fact, the bnp’s objection is more likely to be that immigrants *will* intermarry than that they won’t. even more to the point, intermarriage and assimilation notably failed to prevent the host communities turning on their jewish populations during the second world war – i believe the same occurred in both the break-up of yugoslavia and the rwandan genocide. in short, there is every reason to remain opposed to intermarriage.
well, this is a case in point. is your friend involved in the community at all? if not, i would say that this is a case that shows that intermarriage is harmful to the community, we could do with more of the vilna gaon’s sagacity and perceptiveness. it is always a shame for us to lose such people. what you are assuming, however is that i am also saying that that means it is always harmful to the individuals involved and, clearly, nothing could be further from the truth. more to the point, i happen to believe that the UK authorities’ (and, in general, ashkenazi orthdox authorities’) position on conversion has become far too inflexible and prescriptive, with the result that people are driven away rather than welcomed. i believe this to be a mistake, but believe that the way that the majority of non-orthodox authorities have gone about fixing it has caused as many problems as it has solved, by taking too short-term a view. however, your dismissing me as a “bigot” is not only rude, it is inaccurate and ignorant. this issue is closer to me than you can possibly know.
so you keep saying, whereas i have made it abundantly clear that it is nothing of the sort.
and i am very sorry that you underwent that experience, but i think you are generalising from it. as long as a conversion has taken place, race is not an issue for us. more to the point, people who intermarry are not threatened with violence or verbally abused in any way. if there are examples of this from the jewish community, i am sure i would know of it. i am not saying there are no racists in the jewish community, unfortunately there are many people with stupid, ignorant and mistaken ideas, but i think there’s a bit of a difference between unwarranted chauvinism and attempted murder. i think the actions of these sylhetis has less to do with religion than it has to do with being a bunch of inbred village idiots.
i do not base my objections on prejudice, but practical considerations of sustainability and religious continuity. and i take each case as it comes.
well, if you feel so strongly about it, start a campaign. i am sure you will have plenty of help in purging politics, the NHS, the judiciary and academia at the very least of jews (i dare say the only places we’ll be allowed to work are in banking and the media, it’ll be a stereotypes ball) i am sure that the bnp, the islamist peanut gallery and the far left will be happy to go along with this programme.
b’shalom
bananabrain
BananaBrain you have made some excellent points so far and I (sincerely) apologise for any unjustified assertions that I made. Alas, when I wrote the previous post I was busy preparing for an exam and had little sleep. I am often guilty of reaction as opposed to reasoned argument, particularly on this issue. Indeed, whenever I write about the subject concerned, my writing is adversely coloured by my bad experiences and, despite the fact that I regularly participate in interfaith dialogue, my prejudices take over and all hell is let loose. Moreover, I hijacked this thread in a manner of speaking, and have imposed my sometimes unreasonable attitude on the good people of The Spitoon. I hope that you’ll bear with me, and not take my references to the BNP and bigotry too much to heart…though you’d have every right to do so.
I hope to repost again in response to your latest comment ASAP, and sincerely apologise once again for any offence caused. Best wishes and shalom to you.
On another point, I stated earlier that Wiki was in error as regards the accepted legal age for marriage in Egypt. I’d like to correct my statement as, having conferred with several colleagues and a wide array of Egyptians from different backgrounds over the last couple of days, I have concluded that despite so-called illegal marriages still persisting in some parts of the countryside, they are by far and away in the minority these days. I knew before the post that according to Egyptian law, the legal age was 18 for both genders, yet I thought that, as it used to, one could still be legally (note, under secular law) married with the consent of one’s parents under this age. Apparently, this is not the case any longer except in a minority of cases. Many families still make decisions concerning the betrothal of their progeny as early as the early teens. The official marriage license cannot be obtained, however, until both partners are 18 or over. My apologies if I have lead to any confusion…
George good post. Two things:
1) What do you mean by Islamic Law in the sentence ‘In the jurisprudence of the main schools of Islamic law …..’
2) Correct me if I am wrong, but aren’t there contradictory hadiths about the age of Aisha when married to the Prophet – as some indicate 13? Therefore those who say ‘he married her when six and consummate when 9′ cannot be proven as fact becasue we actually do not know what age she was?
Also it is worth mentioning on the anthropological point that in this society, it was only in 1885 that sexual consent for women was rasied from 13 to 16. See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3699814.stm
What does this show? That societal norms and laws change to reflect what is deemed acceptable and unacceptable by society. Your point on applying today’s ‘definition of paedophilia to seventh century Arabia’ as being severely anthropologically illiterate, is spot on.
Houriya, good questions both.
1) I am referring to the majority positions of the classical Sunni Hanafi, Shafi’i, Hanbali and Maliki schools of Islamic legal thought.
2) There are contradictory hadiths, but so far as I am aware the most common position held has been that consummation occurred at nine, when A’isha reached puberty.
As for the question of defining “Islamic law” – I’d recommend Faisal’s recent post about Abdullahi an-Na’im who does it rather better than I could hope to.
David T: In 1993, according to official statistics, 15% of Iranian brides were between the ages of 9 and 14 years old. Sorry about the stale data, it’s all I have.
WCL: On Egypt, it could be the case that it just is common for girls below the age of consent to co-habit illegally until old enough to marriage. This article cites Egyptian girls married as young as 7 years old. That’s how it works in rural Turkey anyway.
Generally, the worst country for child marriage is Bangladesh, where 52.5% of girls are married by the age of 15 – followed by Niger, Chad, Ethiopia, India, Nigeria, Mauritania, Mali, Guinea and Mozambique. The mortality rate of mothers under the age of fifteen is five times higher than those over twenty.
Houriya and George: can we also agree it’s an equivalent act of anthropological illiteracy to use the practices of 7th century Arabia to justify the exploitation of girl-children in the 21st century?
PS: Link for stats given in comment above.
Members of Paedophile Informationa Exchange and similar organisations would probably argue that just about the only thing one can find to say in favour of Islam is that it sanctions carnal delights with preteens.
Yum yum!
I’m sure all this has been said already, but I planned it as a comment on PP until I realised the post was not accepting comments, so having typed the thing I’m darned well going to post it on teh interwebs…
It’s interesting that in this day and age that it’s even being discussed whether or not people will be safe to make offensive comments about religion and people who follow religion… !!!
The Muslim bloc in the UN has been pushing to make it against international law to do so. The “Human Rights Council”, whom has members who suppress freedom of speech through brutal force, have passed two resolutions urging ALL member states to effectively to ban “defamation of religion”.
I mean seriously WTFF?
I had a virulently anti-semitic neighbour some years ago who said that he didn’t want his daughter to go out with “niggers”, because he believed that “white” culture needed to be preserved. He presumably holds similar views about Jews (when, of course, he’s not simultaneously denying the holocaust and celebrating it).
You should meet him: you’d get along fine. Every argument that he advanced from his bigoted little mind just needs the tiniest tweak. Racists: peas from a pod.
Galloise Blonde.
Absolute 100% agreement.
“Reform has not, however, come to Saudi Arabia.”
Which, unless I am currently living In the 5th century is both the Heart and the Brain of Islam.
Or is there an excuse for that particular fact, just ,as there seems to be for every other anomaly contained in the Islamic Scriptures?
Don’t tell me, I am Islamophobic, never mind I can live with it, one other thing though,
“when the child would have the “Option of Puberty” (khiyar al-bulugh). This meant that the child would be allowed to repudiate the marriage if it had been contracted by a marriage guardian who did not have the right of ijbar (ie who was not their father or, apart from the Hanbalis, their father’s father). ”
If you as believers in the religion of Islam think this is a reasonable explanation or excuse then you really are living in a fantasy world.
the right to express such offensive, anthropologically illiterate statements must be defended staunchly.
Strange, then that I have been banned from Harry’s Place under the new regime of denial.
Yes, I will “aggressively” apply “modern, British” standards to the rape of a nine-year-old child by a fifty-year-man, and question a religion that holds that man to be the paragon of perfection.
Do you imagine it hurt Aisha any less because such depravity and brutality was common at the time. Did she bleed less, was she torn less? As for the “only in Iran” business, are you ignorant of the child brides of Pakistan, Somalia. Each one is a victim of paedophile rape, as practised by Mohammed.
The thing is OP, I don’t think you convince anyone, least of all yourself, that your “outrage” by the practices of a man in 7th century Arabia is because you’re concerned in any way about the rights of Muslim women *today*.
We wouldn’t need to be having this conversation if the religious rituals of a 7th century bedouin tribesman were not being imposed on 21st century UK territory.
Who reads this site?
How many readers, I mean?
Scores or hundreds or just a tiny few sane and literate people?
Having asked THAT, non-rhetorically, it should be added that Faisal needs to be told politely that the best [?] current authority on Women-and-Islam is probably Phyllis Chesler [possibly Chessler?]
As a naive young American Jewess married to an Afghan of the poshest class back in the Monarchic Era, she had – and has – many a tale to tell.
Check out her website.
@Galloise Blonde
“Can we also agree it’s an equivalent act of anthropological illiteracy to use the practices of 7th century Arabia to justify the exploitation of girl-children in the 21st century?”
YES! Definately.
We wouldn’t need to be having this conversation if the religious rituals of a 7th century bedouin tribesman were not being imposed on 21st century UK territory.
Where in “21st century UK territory” is sex with 9 year-olds being religiously “imposed” by Muslims?
the rights of Muslim women *today*.
What rights?
Where in “21st century UK territory” is sex with 9 year-olds being religiously “imposed” by Muslims?
Paedophilia and rape are illegal in the UK. But there are forced marriages, or rather Islamic “marriages” that amount to the same thing.
What rights?
Exactly. So why the faux outrage?
Paedophilia and rape are illegal in the UK. But there are forced marriages, or rather Islamic “marriages” that amount to the same thing.
UK has one of the highest records of paedophilia crimes in Europe. None of it seems to be imposed by the liturgy of the Anglican Church! Although the Church certainly has its share of pederasts. I only see “concern” when we’re discussing the actions of an Arab prophet who died 1,400 years ago.
The “marriage” of Mo with Aisha is of current interest because it forms part of the Sunnah, that body of precedents based it seems almost solely on whatever Mo liked or forbade, that is enjoined on all Muslims. We are not discussing the proclivities of Shi Huang Ti or Al Capone here, but rather a man who is alleged to be a pattern of virtues, the model for all mankind and for all times to come. It follows that his behaviour and those of his followers must be open to scrutiny as it not merely of antiquarian or archeological interest.
This attempt to aggressively apply a modern British definition of paedophilia to seventh century Arabia strikes me as a sign of severe anthropological illiteracy; but the right to express such offensive, anthropologically illiterate statements must be defended staunchly
It isn’t “anthropological illiteracy” that needs to be challenged, but rather theological illiteracy.
A “prophet” anchored ball and chain in the pagan morality of his time , a “prophet” unable and incapable of providing transcedant ethical horizons to his followers or to mankind isn’t a prophet at all.
A prophet must necessarily stand head and shoulders above his/her contemporaries and must serve as a beacon to guide peoples and cultures out of the moral wilderness.
It is primordial that they represent an immaculate moral model against which moral failures can be assessed, measured and then rectified
Mohammed’s example doesn’t do that. He doesn’t provide the means for the Islamic world to see its way out of the wilderness in which it is now mired. You see, it isn’t just a question of pedophilia; it is also a matter of Mohammed’s penchant to lie, decieve, cheat, steal and murder that is important, which plagues the Muslim world, and which prevents it from developing a true civil society.
Mohammed’s example simply doesn’t fournish a sufficient degree of honesty, a preciouus quality that is THE essential prerequisite to doing so.
Bukhari’s hadith mentions TWICE, and in very clear terms, that Mohammed had intercourse with little Aisha when she was only 9. He would come to her when she and her friends were playing with their dolls.
Now pedophiles are present in Christianity and individuals like this author would jump all over Catholicism for its sexual abuses, and he would be right to do so.
The fact remains, though, that that pedophilia is seen as wrong because it is a behavior that is measured against the standards set up by Christianity’s founder, a man who didn’t engage in such acts.
Islam and Mohammed have been a disaster for humanity. Islam took what were for millenia the most advanced, enlightened and prosperous and well fed regions of the globe-Egypt, N. Africa, The Fertile Crescent, Persia and The sind- and then transformed them into dysfunctional parasitic backwaters that are now on the verge of starvation.
Now forgive my “anti-muslim bigotry” for NOT being keen on that. And denouncing pedophilia isn’t an instance of bigotry, anti-muslim or otherwise.
presumably the author considers it anthropologically illiterate to judge e.g. the British Empire and colonial history by today’s standards? Yet it is a staple left wing position to do exactly that. Where is the consistency?
Please!
Stop it!
I’ve *really*, *really* *REALLY* been trying to believe that islam is a boon to women’s rights, and you’re undoing all my efforts!
When the Mullahs took power in Iran in ’79 one of the first laws they passed was one which lowered the marriage age for girls to nine.
But people like “Old Peculier” and “kafuruk” are not concerned by this. They just want to level two of the most heinous accusations thinkable at Muhammad because he is respected by Muslims.
And so by lowering the age of marriage for girls to nine, were the Iranian Mullahs doing likewise?
Were they trashing Mohammed and leveling heinous accusations against him by modelling their marriage laws to dovetail with some imagined sexual perversion which has no basis in Islamic theology?
What prompted these learned, august Persian mullahs to choose nine years as the age for marriage?
Perhaps they just pulled it out of their arses
indeed. now all you need to do is to show how this odious comparison has any relationship to what i actually said. like, for example, “making an argument” if that’s not too much trouble.
sheesh. what is it with people that are so keen to point out why jews are the same as neo-nazis? will it make them feel less guilty about hating us?
b’shalom
bananabrain
Which is the more “aggressive” (see article) – raping a nine-year-old or mentioning it?
@Old Peculier
“But there are forced marriages, or rather Islamic “marriages” that amount to the same thing.”
Saying forced marriages are Islamic marriages is WRONG. If you are going to comment, I suggest you get your theology, facts and analysis straight. And if you think that just becuase there are some Muslims who practice this coercion, then perhaps you should know that other religious communities suffer from this coercion too, such as the Sikh, Hindu and Jewish commuinties amongst many others across the world. Just becuase there are religious communties who practice forced marriages does not mean that all of a sudden that particular religion justifies it. In fact, forced marriages are justified by misogynists.
John P: Did you notice Eithiopia and India on the list of countries? If you went back to the source material I linked you’ll find that child marriage is a significant problem in Latin America, as mentioned in the orginal article. Many of the other countries in the list I gave have signigicant non-Muslim minorities who also contract child marriage.
If you have a problem with child marriage, it’s not enough (and not very productive) to say – Islam sucks and Muhammad was a peadophile – because for a very significant number of child marriages in the world that’s not even an issue. Where’s the sympathy for the child brides of the Caribbean? Do they bleed less? I’m not at all denying that the marriage between Muhammad and Aisha is used to excuse child marriage in Muslim communities, but I am suspicious of the focus upon this at the expense of looking at the causes of child marriage globally.
er, houriya, not that i wish to claim exceptionalism or rose-tinted glasses, but i am not aware of forced marriage being an issue in judaism, except in terms of the unfortunate issue of agunah, although that’s more about it being difficult to get divorced under some circumstances if your husband chooses to act like a heartless crook and a bastard. they’ve fixed it in the UK, but had to use the civil law to do so, which was a terrible indictment of the halakhic process. nonetheless, i am not aware, even in the most fundamentalist of circles, that forced *marriage* itself is a problem. if you have evidence to the contrary, i would be interested to see it.
b’shalom
bananabrain
I am suspicious of the focus upon this at the expense of looking at the causes of child marriage globally.
Child “marriage” isn’t a problem globally, and it certainly isn’t justified by Christianity, whose leader was not a murdering paedophile rapist.
Hang on OP: if child marriage isn’t justified by Christianity, and yet still occurs in Christian countries (eg. 40% of marriages in Nicaragua and Honduras are early marriages), doesn’t that imply that what a religion has to say about child marriage is not as important as other social factors?
John P: Did you notice Eithiopia and India on the list of countries? If you went back to the source material I linked you’ll find that child marriage is a significant problem in Latin America, as mentioned in the orginal article?
Well, both Eithopia and India have significant Muslim comunities.
And Latin American men are notorious for their machismo, a machismo introduced by the Spanish conquistadors that had previously developed when Spain was under Muslim rule.
I do agree that child marriages are probleme in more than just Muslim-majority countries, but at the same time those non-Muslim societies, such as our own, generally frown upon the practice and recognise it as immoral.
Whole swaths of the Islamic world, on the other hand, turn a blind eye to it and tolerate it while not appearing to suffer any moral discomfort.
And in the case of Honduras and Nicaragua, what is meant by “early” marriage.
The subject here isn’t “early” marriage (say at 15) but rather child brides married off, at times to middle-aged men, before they even reach puberty.
In fact, forced marriages are justified by misogynists. Yes, and nothing says OR justifies ‘misogyny’ more that a 50 year old man, a man considered god’s ultimate prophet, having sexual intercourse with a nine year old.
As it is, men can be sexual pigs, so why ramp up those tendancies by legitimising pedophilia and even giving it the stamp of approval by The Divine?
I’ve got more important stuff to do tonight so I’ll have to wave goodbye to this thread. JohnP: You can read the document I linked, and work out how to hold Muslims responsible for the high rate of child marriage in Nepal.
No, holding outdated and ancient practices to any religion doesn’t cut it. It’s unfair to _any_ religion.
However, female genital mutilation is certainly reason to condemn. As is throwing acid on girls going to school. As is the fact that in many Islamic countries, women cannot testify against men in court. That’s 51% of the population, by the way.
The list goes on.
There are many and varied reasons to condemn the Islam of today and those who use moral relativism to excuse such behavior.
Try to excuse those things, please. Rather than ad hominem attacks, do try to address those issue, and I will certainly read the replies.
By the way, let’s avoid moral equivalency too, if we can
I’ve got more important stuff to do tonight so I’ll have to wave goodbye to this thread. JohnP: You can read the document I linked, and work out how to hold Muslims responsible for the high rate of child marriage in Nepal
I don’t hold them responsable for that and have never implied they were. The fact Muslims aren’t responsable for child marriage in Nepal does nothing to absolve them of widely engaging in the practice themselves.
If Muslims aren’t behind child marriages in Nepal, that automatically proves there are no child marriages in Islam and that islam’s founder didn’t have intercourse with a nine year old?
All throughout my adolescence and youth I listened to people denounce the horrible misogyny of Christianity and witnessed denunciation after denunciation of its treament of women.
Then another religion arrives on the scene that is steeped in the most intense forms of it and these same self-styled rights activists either fall silent or erect all sorts of equivalences to justify it.
They scream things like ; “what about Nicaragua”?
Are young girls in Nicaragua prevented from getting an education? Are their schools closed down or blown up? Do these young girls have acid thrown in their faces if they attempt to recieve an education?
Worse still, are they subjected to genital mutilation?
One is permitted to DIRECTLY link violence against women to Christian doctrines, and its been done countless times over the years, yet anyone suggesting there may be a link between Islam’s core texts, the behavior of its founder and the horrible misogyny present in Islam-probably the worst to be found on earth- is automatically accused of being a bigot.
k out how to hold Muslims responsible for the high rate of child marriage in Nepal.
It is no defence of the backward, primitive and barbaric to point to another instance of the same. And in Nepal they don’t worship, as the ideal man and an example for all mankind, a man who was a rapist, a paedophile, a thief and a murderer.
bananabrain: the reason i want my children to marry in is because i would like my grandchildren to be jewish.
And the reason Nick Griffin wants white people to “marry in” is because he wants their children and grandchildren to be white. Both you and Griffin want to divide the world into two kinds of people, the in-group, and outsiders. I, on the other hand, want to see a world where we’re all just people.
I think Nick Griffin is a xenophobe and a bigot. Why should I think any differently about you?
Shorter Tokyo Nambu & Cabalmat:
Jews must marry non-Jewish people or else they are racists like Nick Griffin and besides, if they do go ahead and marry other Jews, Jews won’t be majoritarian Christians like us and that bothers us deeply, because clearly we from majoritarian Christian backgrounds are more moral than Jews who marry other Jews.
>They just want to level two of the most heinous accusations thinkable at Muhammad because he is respected by Muslims. It’s stupid and designed to offend<
Au contraire….Actually, fucking 9 year old girls is, in the scheme of things, and based on mainstream Islamic sources of the Koran and Hadiths…. one of the less heinous accusations one could think of leveling against Mohammed.
Now that may be offensive of me to point out….but tough!
I LOVE this post. The thing I don’t get is why Muslim-bigots differentiate between Islam and other religions? Didn’t Isac marry Rivka when she was 3 (or 14)?
The thing the confuses me the most is that they say that Islam is a middle-aged religion and thus has no hope of changing/developing into a modern religion with modern morals (which makes total sence when you regard all the democratic CHRISTIAN Europien countries out there who are the source of the middle ages/sarc)
The marriage is a problem to Muslims just as it is to non-Muslims of today. I personally found it ill begotten idea on the behalf of prophet Mohamed pbuh to ever entertain such an idea, never mind “consummating”. His prophecy should have foreseen the disrepute and danger it would cause to future Muslims if little girls were married at such a young age.
The opportunists and others who just found such issue “funny” are however best ignored, not raising the value of their books or their vile personality traits.
All prophets who did lead a real life unlike the pansy stories of “Jesus” seem to have had such grey matters brought upon by the cultures and customs they found themselves in.
I thick the prblem is that the Koran is very unclear. To me it seems more closer to the bible – ie relaying on abstract concepts like faith and the afterlife – rather than Jewdaism tha relaies on obaying rules. That’s why to me it seems as if Islam is very loose and unclear, and confusing. Add to that the fact that the ME (birthpalce of Islam) there aren’t a lot of freedoms, and you can’t even disscuss theology regarding Islam with clericks who have studied the religion deeply,
Lbnaz: Jews must marry non-Jewish people or else they are racists like Nick Griffin and besides, if they do go ahead and marry other Jews, Jews won’t be majoritarian Christians like us and that bothers us deeply, because clearly we from majoritarian Christian backgrounds are more moral than Jews who marry other Jews.
Did you misunderstand the point I was making, or are you pretending to misunderstand in order not to have to reply to the points I raised?
BTW, I’m not a Christian, let alone a “majoritarian Christian”.
Of course it’s relevant to mention that Mohommed was a pedophile, in two contexts. First, if you want to deny that the laws sanctioning child rape in Saudi Arabia, and other Islamic countries are based on Mohammed’s example, then you’d best take that up with the Islamic clergy who get murderously angry when law eform to protect girl children is proposed. Their example and justification is in Mohammed. Their power is why the laws are there.
Second, of course child rape also occurs in non-Islamic cultures, and so Islam isn’t the only source of the problem. It’s just that Islam is the single biggest chunk of it. As well as attacking the example of Mohammed, people should also be more aggressive – and “hurtful” and “offensive” and all those luvvie words – about the other cultural defences for child rape as well. But there are reasons why the Islamic countries stand out, statistically.
It’s reasonable to assert the right to say that Mohammed appears to have been a pretty vile excuse for a human being. That’s partly because speaking the truth is intrinsically a good thing, and also because there are people who have been brought up in Islamic cultures or communities who find that hearing disrespect for Mohammed is not offensive: it’s an enormous relief and liberation.
Finally, it’s historically illiterate to assume that pedophilia was uncontroversial in 7th century Arabia. Most literature from pre-Islamic Arabia is lost, but three strands of cultural influence were Judaism, Christianity and to a lesser extent the legacy of the Roman Empire.
For Christians and Jews, the Old Testament makes it clear that young women are only of marriageable age when their breasts have grown and they have public hair. (Ezekial 16, 7-8.) And if you read the entry on Tiberius, in Suetonius’ “The Twelve Ceasars”, the historian’s disgust at Tiberius’ pedophile practices is quite obvious. Suetonius said that Tiberius forced young children into sexual practices because he knew that would evoke disgust for Tiberius, as was his rhetorical aim.
That is, disgust at pedophilia is not some new, recent or local value. Mohammed’s behaviour in raping Aisha was loathsome by the standards of his time, as was his career of murder, banditry and so on.
The founder of Scientology, L Ron Hubbard, was a con artist and – it’s an odd coincidence, in a way – also a pedophile. It’s as nonsensical to discuss the truth value and moral value of Scientology without mentioning those facts as it would be to discuss the truth and other values of Islam without mentioning that it was founded by someone who was by any reasonable standards a very evil man.
The right to mention either of those truths, about Scientology or about Islam, and to say similarly “offensive” truths about the founders of other belief systems shouldn’t be given up too lightly.
Forgot to mention. The age of puberty is not 9, even now. That’s despite the fact that the average age seems to have fallen during the 20th century. But even now, girls are likely to menstruate somewhere between twelve to maybe 14-15. Eleven would be unusually young.
So the chance that 7th century, 9-year old Aisha, who was still playing with toys, had reached puberty is … Well, no, she hadn’t.
OP is quite right. Being raped at that age would have hurt, and is likely to have caused internal damage, putting it as unemotionally as possible. Is OP’s outrage at that rapist being considered as an example to humanity automatically to be dismissed as “faux” outrage? I can’t see why.
DD
wait I’m confused. Didn’t Mohamad marry Aisha when she was 9 and only consumated it when she turned puberty?
Hey, numbnuts – it was NEVER OK to screw a 9y.o. – It does NOT WORK. The body part in question is NOT READY at age 9! Mohammad WAS a pedophile, and YOU ARE an IDIOT! (or maybe you are a pedo as well?)
Go to your local police and tell them you think it’s OK to screw a 9 y.o.
I will wait right here and you can tell me how it went with the cops.
cabalamat:
as i keep saying, there is a practical issue here. there is no shortage of white people in the world, as people keep pointing out. on the other hand, the jewish population has a bit of a demographic issue, partly because so many of us were murdered a generation or so ago and partly because of intermarriage which has had a disproportionate effect on the baby boomers. the only people trying to rectify this by huge amounts of procreation are the ultra-orthodox and, in terms of general population balance, i don’t think having 9-10 kids is a sustainable thing to do in the long term.
not at all. what you are choosing for some reason to ignore is the rather important word “why”. anyone is welcome to join my group as long as they play by the rules, we just don’t go and seek out converts. i love the fact that there are vast numbers of differing groups. they are at liberty to do as they please as long as they are not trying to convert *us*. moreover, being or becoming a jew confers obligations, not rights.
the essential difference (as if you didn’t know) is that nick griffin wishes to disparage, disadvantage and discriminate against people who are not in his group, whereas i, like yourself, am perfectly happy for people to just be people. i’m not suggesting deporting non-jews, nor am i suggesting that we be given special access to jobs, public funds and government support. i may not approve of mixed marriages on principle, but i do my level best not to discriminate against people who intermarry or who are the results of intermarriage; i would be somewhat short on friends and family if i did. i may think that it’s selfish, overly individualistic and shows a lack of consideration for the needs of the community, (baby boomers, d’ye see) but i have no power to make them do otherwise, nor do i seek that power, nor would i approve of such a power being exercised, it being a violation of our fundamental – and, lest we forget, religious – belief in free will. i seek only to make the best of the situation but that doesn’t mean i have to approve of it. nonetheless, i would by far prefer to look at ways to bring the results of intermarriage back in-house – again, unlike nick griffin.
given the level of insight that you’ve displayed in your analysis of my position and the fact that you don’t know me at all, yet are keen to jump to disparaging conclusions, i don’t know why i should care.
@isy:
if you read the link you posted, it should be obvious that no, he didn’t. i don’t know any 3-year olds that are capable of taking a herd of camels to be watered – check the text. the reason there’s a dispute here is because the sages disapprove even of betrothals (which are unconsummated) before the couple are adults. in any case someone who is betrothed as a minor without her consent (by, say her father) has the absolute, inalienable right to repudiate it upon reaching adulthood – BEFORE the actual marriage takes place or is consummated. the only argument we have is about how early she can do the repudiation, given that minors are also considered to be capable of deciding things for themselves to some degree. incidentally, someone who is betrothed as a minor and then repudiates it upon attaining adulthood even before the actual marriage takes place, is entitled to an alimony pay-off and essentially becomes an independent adult – unbeholden to her father even though she may have never left his house. from one point of view, this might count as a 2,000+ year-old form of emancipation from undue parental duress. either way, it is far more progressive than one might expect.
b’shalom
bananabrain
As a proud Muslim apostate let me say that Islam can and should be criticised. The leftists and the fascists who want to portray Mohammed as a saint and above criticism need to get their heads examined as he was one well documented assassin and bandit.
It is quite depressing when leftist westerners make a fetish out of Mohammed and Islam, and claim Islamic atrocities to be strictly the work of evil individuals only. The Islamic ideology is rotten to the core, but of course the illiberal leftists have abandoned enlightenment for fascism and authoritarianism.
A former Muslim and now a proud kafir.
People like “Old Peculier” and “kafuruk” are raised onto a pedestel and given a voice because, wait for it, shocking stories raise the level of adrenalin, a chemical which the human nervous system quickly gets addicted to. Lets not fool ourselves. It’s the same reason why newspapers sell, and why comments on this blog tend to spin out of control.
I don’t see “Old Peculier” and “kafuruk” denouncing Richard II of England, that scion of the monarchy, who married a 7 year old girl. The simple fact is that times change and sensibilities change. What was acceptable 1400 years ago or 700 years is not acceptable now. Personally, I can’t see why this understanding is such a rare commodity. Although I can see how it would fail to sell newspapers.
http://www.thedigitalfolklife.org/childmarriage.htm
respect says:
I admire penetrative minds that can get to the core of things. Please share your analysis. What is rotten about the Islamic idealogy?
Islamic ideologies as opposed to Islamic doctrines per se, can quite easily be called “rotten to the core”. Here is one, for example:
http://www.spittoon.org/archives/513
Dawood,
He said “Islamic ideology is rotten to the core”, not HT’s ideology is corrupt. Do you see the difference? (Or are you saying that HT’s ideology is the core of Islam?)
My question stands:
What is rotten about the Islamic idealogy?
No, I am making a textual difference between the word “ideology”, a word to describe the reductivist ideas of HT in this case, and Islam, the religion, to distinguish it from ordinary religious belief based on Islam.
This is why one can say “Islamic ideology” to represent HT’s ideas which, although grossly simplifying ideas which advocate the use of extremism and violence to achieve their aims, are based on and around Islamic religious doctrine.
And this is why the term “Islamist” is useful to distinguish and describe Islamic political ideologies from mainstream belief.
Okay, HT’s ideas are different from ordinary religious belief based on Islam. Thanks for that.
Now, coming back to respect’s commet: “The Islamic ideology is rotten to the core”. I really am curious. Respect, can you please share and demonstrate how Islamic ideology is rotten to the core.
Okay, HT’s ideas are different from ordinary religious belief based on Islam. Thanks for that.
Yes but in addition to that, it is also an *Islamic* ideology. Hence it is possible and correct to say Islamic ideology, HT for example, is rotten to the core.
Yes, in the same way that it is *possible* to say
“Some things are false. Therefore all things are
false”. Thanks again Dawood.
Respect?
Yes it is *possible*. It is also *possible* to say
“A horse is an animal. It has four legs. Therefore all animals have four legs”.
But only a fool would.
What of someone who says, “HT’s idealogy is
Islamic. It is rotten. Therefore all Islamic
idealogy is rotten”
I wouldn’t call them a fool, rather that they have
misunderstood.
But this is a diversion into contextual predicate
logic, like so many other blog discussions,
and rather boring.
I’m more interested, like respect, in the core
of Islam. How is it rotten?
I’m more interested, like respect, in the core
of Islam. How is it rotten?
respect wrote:
“Islamic ideology is rotten to the core”
not
“Islam is rotten to the core”
With respect to respect, s/he at least took the trouble to be precise.
Dawood, thank you for the correction. Indeed,
respect asserted, with far more precision than
myself, that “Islamic ideology is rotten to the core”.
I am hoping that this very precision belies
the working of a brilliant intellect.
And so I ask respect, with respect: “what is
the core of Islamic ideology, and how
is it corrupt?”
Hi Abu Yusuf,
I’m happy to take up the “Islamic ideology is rotten to the core” challenge. The route I take is applicable to all religions and superstitions. If I may though, I’d like to make an alteration to the inflammatory language of the proposition. I’d prefer simply to say that:
Islam is a superstition and is the product of a combination of tribalism, mental ill health, opportunism, theft, justification of violence (and sexual abuse), heresay, ignorance, confidence tricks, politics, cultural necessity, accident, errors of reporting and irrational confidence in sensory artefact. Thus, it is unfit to be a foundation for the establishment of a civil society. (The same goes for any other religion/superstition.)
The root of the problem is in the method of perception, and interpretation of, reality of those who contributed to the belief system, and those who practise it. If one considers religions/superstitions collectively one notices that though there are a myriad differences between religions, past and present, they all share one fundamental attribute: a fallacious method for the interpretation of reality.
Consider the scientific method:
That involves millions of the best minds available to humanity passing trillions of hours in careful observation, measurement and analysis of every facet of reality perceptible to man or machine over a period, conservatively, of 3 millennia. That work is then peer reviewed and published for all other scientists to inspect. It isn’t accepted until it is cross referenced and can proven replicable and, even then, each successive generation of students is encouraged both to learn it and, during the most fertile period of human intellectual capability (15 to 24 years), to try to make a name for themselves by picking a hole in it. Only once it has survived two or three generation of that level of rigorous investigation is it considered fact. Yet, even then, it never rises to the status of unquestionable. It is simple defined as successively more improbable that it is wrong as corroborative evidence builds up.
Now why is that? There’s a simple answer: confidence. That perpetual invitation to question the body of work we call science is based on confidence in it’s quality. Research has travelled though time, though minds, through cultures and through politics and no matter where, or when, it was done it has proved consistent. Babylonian mathematicians were respected by Greek mathematicians, who in turn are respected by Indian, and Russian and American and Chinese mathematicians.
A good method: one consistent result.
Consider the religious method:
The founders of various religions have invariably looked around them and used their eyes to perceive their environment and commented on that. Yet there isn’t a single religion that looked at the eye itself to consider what it was capable of perceiving and, thus, what it wasn’t. Flowers are often cited in religious texts, in the contexts of gardens and ‘god’ created beauty, yet no religion ever took the time to seriously consider the work it claimed as that of its ‘god’. Many insects perceive the ultraviolet spectrum of light, while humans cannot. Until science made sensors to perceive ultra-violet light no one knew of the markings that evolved on the petals of flowers that act like runway lights, guiding insects over the pollen laden sigma, thus using those insects to produce more viable seed. Religion had adopted a lazy, fairy tale explanation… pretty decorations… god gave you a pretty world.
Not only is this lack intellectual rigour repeated endlessly by the various religions it demonstrates a stunning lack of curiosity for the work of their supposed creator. It’s akin to someone claiming to be an expert on the music of Mozart while disinterested in learning to read music.
The religious method has often involved sensory deprivation: fasting, wandering in a desert, sitting in a hole, not talking, crawling into caves, taking drugs and starvation. Naturally one only has to look at the plethora of fantastic creation myths to understand the utter incompetence of that method. Try it out: hold your breath for a while until oxygen deprivation sets in… you’ll see stars. No not real ones… god isn’t spinning stars around your head… your brain is malfunctioning.
Religions get around the problem of convincing people of their lazy and fanciful interpretations of reality in a number of ways: they indoctrinate the young (consider the famous, and unnerving, Jesuit maxim: “Give me the child until he is seven and I will show you the man.”) ; they try to take control of education and censor it in part or full (madrasahs and the blowing up of girls schools in Pakistan are examples); they use violence, threats of violence and the inculcation of fear (Catholic death cult; Islamic prohibition of apostasy); they make false virtues out of not questioning (Doubting Thomas) but get themselves in a logical twist when having to advise caution with regard to ‘false prophets’ and ‘devils’… so the advise becomes: question everything but never me; they take on political power and policing, often indulging in public summary ‘justice’ to rule by terror (the Taliban: beheadings; Spanish Inquisition: Ducking stool/Waterboarding) ).
Now compare that authoritarian denial of the right to question, the extreme anxiety over education, the prohibition of other lines of thought and the enormous variability of religions, with the confidence and consistency of science.
Islam is unfit for purpose (as are all religions/superstitions) because it is the result of a method which is unfit for purpose. Islam is more violent currently than other religions because it currently has more political power. All religions become violent when they achieve political power. Buddhism, which is a marginal religion because of its high philosophical content, is an exception… though in Japan in its Shinto form showed itself more than capable. Any false explanation of reality is going to get itself in a mess. Errors become compounded. Mistakes have to be justified. Indignation has then to be suppressed. A status quo develops. Poverty, ignorance and opportunism become the natural allies of false realities. Intelligence, independence, creativity and bravery has to be repressed.
Oscar Wilde put the relationship between science and religion thus:
Science is the record of dead religions.
I put it as follows:
A empiricist is someone who in the presence of doubt does some research.
A religious believer is someone who in the presence of doubt eats an albino.
Gosh I look forward to a response to that very articulate post.
No reply, Abu Yusuf?
Sebmel, Abu Yusuf wrote that comment in July, don’t hold your breath waiting for a response.