Just a Thought: Islamic Child Brides (Part 2)

Just a Thought: Islamic Child Brides (Part 2): In this day and age we would even consider Muhammad a confused pedophile.  Muhammad's sexual appetite was legendary.  Even &quot...

Islamic Child Brides (Part 2)

In this day and age we would even consider Muhammad a confused pedophile.  Muhammad's sexual appetite was legendary.  Even "Sahih Al-Bukhari" says Muhammad slept with his 11 wives in one night.  Muhammad is estimated by scholars to have had somewhere between 15-25 wives. All agree that he had 9 wives at the time of his death.  Whether you would class Muhammad as a pedophile by today's understanding is moot. The essential feature of pedophilia is that an individual is sexually attracted exclusively or in part to prepubescent children.  It can encompasses just desire, not just physical sexual activity.  We don't know what Muhammad's thought in life but his actions certainly don't look good: at a minimum history attests to Muhammad's gross moral turpitude and sexual abuse. We also know that Muhammad was a heartless terrorist who tortured people by cutting off their heads (over 700 Jews in Medina alone), their hands and their feet. He also made captives die of thirst, and made people bleed to death after cutting off their limbs.  Muhammad took captives attractive female slaves into his harem, and distributed the wives and children of his enemies to his followers as slaves.

Muhammad’s was sexually involved with at least 22 women. Although in the Quran he would limit his followers to having four wives, he himself took more than four wives and many concubines. The question of the number of women with whom Muhammad was sexually involved either as wives, concubines or devotees was made a point of contention by the Jews in Muhammad's day. Ali Dashti comments:

"All the commentaries agree that verse 57 of Surah 4 (on-Nesa) was sent down after the Jews criticized Mohammad's appetite for women, alleging that he had nothing to do except to take wives" (Ali Dashti, 23 Years, pp. 120-138).
Muhammad's first wife - Khadija, died a few years before he fled to Medina.  Later, he was encouraged to take another wife.  At the age of 49 he was betrothed to Aisha, age six in 624 A.D.  Aisha was his closest friend's, Abu Bakr's, daughter.  Abu Bakr was Muhammad’s daily companion and one of his first believers and successor of Muhammad. We can rightfully imagine 6 year old Aisha picking up her toys and moving to Muhammad's house, where he demurely waited until she was nine to have sexual intercourse with her.

In the first year of Muhammad's residence at Yathrib (now Medina) the "Prophet" who never prophesized, celebrated his marriage to Ayisha.  Ayisha was then only a young girl (jariyah) of 9-years old per Al-Bukhari, Abu Dawud and Tabari Aisha was 9 when they  Muhammad sexually consummated his marriage with her.  Muhammad 52.

Aisha herself testified to these facts:
“The messenger of God betrothed me when I was six years old and then married me when I was nine years old.”

Source: Sahih Muslim (by Imam al-Mawawy), vol. 3, p. 577.

Lying with a 9 year old girl in this century or in the 7th century is abominable. It was abominable then in Arabian society also. Particularly distasteful about Muhammad, is that after Muhammad deflowered this young 9 year old girl, he also taught that his followers were to follow his "sunnah" or lifestyle.  And his followers do follow the example of this warrior "prophet", who made no prophecies.  In the last century, the cruel Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini married a ten-year old girl, when he was 28 years old.  This "mad Ayatollah" called marriage to a prepubescent girl a "divine blessing".  He is quoted to have said to fellow Muslims; "Do your best to ensure your daughters do not see their first blood in your house".


Ayatollah Khomeini told the Muslim faithful that marrying a girl before she begins menstration was a "divine blessing."  He then told Muslim fathers: "Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house."

The following is the story of Safiyah Bint Huyeiy Ibn Akhtab, the Jewish woman who was captured when Muhammad’s troops attacked Kheibar and brought her to the Prophet as part of his share of the booty. This story, is reported in the Book of Tabaqat Safiyah was seventeen and very beautiful when Muslims killed her father, husband and many of her relatives. In the same day the Prophet of Allah wanted to sleep with her. Here is the exact text of the story:

She was groomed and made-up for the Prophet by Umm Sulaim, the mother of Anas ibn Malik. They spent the night there. Abu Ayyub al-Ansari guarded the tent of the Prophet the whole night. When, in the early dawn, the Prophet saw Abu Ayyub strolling up and down, he asked him what he meant by this sentry-go; he replied: "I was afraid for you with this young lady. You had killed her father, her husband and many of her relatives, and till recently she was an unbeliever. I was really afraid for you on her account". The Prophet prayed for Abu Ayyub al-Ansari (Ibn Hisham, p. 766) Safiyah had requested the Prophet to wait till he had gone a stage away from Khaibar. "Why?" asked the Prophet. "I was afraid for you on account of the Jews who still happened to be near at Khaibar!"

The reason Safiyah rejected the sexual advances of the 57-year-old Muhammad should be obvious to any objective person. I believe most women prefer to mourn than jump into bed with the killer of their father, husband and many relatives on the same day of their death. But the fact that the prophet of Allah could not contain his sexual urges for one day to let this young girl grieve, says a lot of his thinking and moral character.

“The next day a Walima (we dding-feast) was arranged on behalf of the Prophet…

Note that the historian is saying that the wedding took place one day after the prophet got private with Safiyah and made his moves to have sex with her. This presented no problem for the Muhammad as he had his Allah reveal a verse personally agreeable to himself saying it is okay to sleep with women captured in war without marrying them even if they are married.

“And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess…” (Qur'an 4:24 )
Non-consent forced Marriages in Islam:

What a disgraceful and degrading thing a temporary, contractual marriage is for a woman! This is something which Muhammad made lawful according to all the scholars and chroniclers without exception. What an insult to a woman whom Muhammad stripped of her humanity and dignity in order to become a mere instrument for man’s enjoyment!

Islamic law has codified this principle of non-consent for under-age women based on Muhammad’s precedent:

“A father may give consent to have his young virgin daughter married without obtaining her permission, for she does not have a choice, exactly as Abu Bakr El Sadiq did to his daughter Aisha, when she was six years old. He married her to the prophet Muhammad without her permission.”



According to all Muslim scholars (especially in Sahih Muslim) the temporary, contractual marriage was made lawful by Muhammad simply to satisfy the sexual passions of his soldiers. The “marriage” only had to last 3 days, after which the woman could be deserted and left without any rights. Only the fact that it is temporary a “marriage” separates it from outright fornication and adultery (forbidden in Islam), but there is practically no difference. It was practiced during the beginning of the Islamic era (during the caliphates of Abu Bakr and Ibn Abu ‘Umar) and is continued in practice today by over 100 million Shi’ite Muslims worldwide.
Concerning this practice the following Islamic authority states:

“While in the army, Allah’s Apostle came to us and said, ‘You have been allowed to have Muta (“pleasure”), so do it.’ If a man and a woman agree to marry temporarily, their marriage should last for three nights …”

Source: Sahih al-Bukbari, part 7, p. 37.

Just a Thought: Lessons in Islam (Part 1)

Just a Thought: Lessons in Islam (Part 1): The Qur’an talks only about scourging and exiling the adulterer, yet Muhammad himself stoned some adulterers. Thus, stoning the married adu...

Lessons in Islam (Part 1)

The Qur’an talks only about scourging and exiling the adulterer, yet Muhammad himself stoned some adulterers. Thus, stoning the married adulterer (male or female) and not flogging them, has become Islamic law. The reason for that is that Muhammad said and did so.

Under Iran's brutal Islamic Sharia Laws, women usually get stoned for crimes against chastity. While men who even murder someone in a fit of rage in these cases, usually get only a few years in jail.

 

Under Iran's strict Sharia law, women sentenced to execution by stoning have their hands bound behind their back. They are wrapped from head to toe in sheets before being seated in a pit. The ditch is filled up to their breasts with dirt, and the soil is packed tightly before people assemble to execute the woman by pitching rocks at her head and upper body. 

 

Article 104 of the Iranian Penal Code states that the stones used for execution should "not be large enough to kill the person by one or two strikes, nor should they be so small that they could not be defined as stones."

Ironically, the court sentenced the woman's brother Abu Bakr Ghorbany and husband Mohammad Daneshfar to only six years in jail for killing her lover. According to Sharia law, murder carries a lesser penalty than "crimes against chastity."

Benevolence and Forgiveness?

One time a woman was brought to Muhammad who had committed adultery.  They asked him, "What shall we do with her?  Muhammad said, "Go away. Bring her back after the baby is born."  So they brought her back after the baby was born, and Muhammad said, "Let her go and nurse the child. Bring her back when the child is two years old."  So they brought her back, and Muhammad said, "Take the baby from her and kill her."  And that is what they did.

 

Just a Thought: America in crisis (The decline of the American Dre...

Just a Thought: America in crisis (The decline of the American Dre...:      Most of my friends are going to think I am crazy for taking on this topic. But anyway.       What I have seen out of St Louis is noth...

Just a Thought: America in crisis (The decline of the American Dre...

Just a Thought: America in crisis (The decline of the American Dre...:      Most of my friends are going to think I am crazy for taking on this topic. But anyway.       What I have seen out of St Louis is noth...

America in crisis (The decline of the American Dream)

     Most of my friends are going to think I am crazy for taking on this topic. But anyway. 

     What I have seen out of St Louis is nothing short of an American disgrace. A young man loosing his life is tragic enough, but the way people have responded to this event has been nothing short of third world in likeness. You have groups up there that are doing for themselves and trying to benefit from all of tragic events. We are a nation of laws and what has become so disconcerting is the fact that some people think they do not have to follow those laws or some should have the ability to go around them. This case should be tried in a court not on TV and damn sure not from enraged citizens. If this were the case people would resort back to western days and send out a posse and hang the man before any trial is conveyed.  Thank God we have grown since that time. Or have we? All we want now days is fast as hell justice against white on black shootings and not so much on Black on Black shootings. Is that because black on black shootings are not so relevant? Or is there just more to gain from  a white on black shooting. Lets see they are both human beings separated by only color. But if you were to hear and intellectual talk about it, they would seem to find every little thing they can pick out of it and rummage through it like a rat, just so they can find some asinine talking point they can later become famous with. 

     As I have set here and watched the coverage of this I have come to the conclusion that there is an agenda here for the media. Mostly just to keep it stirred up long enough to attain ratings. The story is just over a week old and the media has already adjudicated it for the American people. These conclusions have been racism, police brutality, authoritarian system and so fourth. But the one thing that has not come up is the responsibility for the damage they have cause their own neighborhood. Why are they not asking (why are they destroying their own businesses and property?) Answer by the media. "because they are angry and it is everyone in America's fault for the oppression they have went through," "before my time" and it is America's responsibility to keep feeling guilty for something they had nothing to do with 160 years ago.  In other words WHITE GUILT. That gives people the right to use that excuse (Racism) as cover for total destruction. 

     I have very good friends that are people of color, all are hard working and very well educated and did not all come from rich homes and good neighborhoods. And yet they have offered no excuse for the people that have exploited the destruction that has gone on. They have asked the same questions I have and that is "Why?" why not let the law of the land reign in the problem  and let a Jury of his Peers Judge him like the community standards dictate. 

     I have seen all manner of excuses used here except for the correct one. The families wishes have not been held, people have went out in this young mans name and destroyed a town and a community. All of them should be ashamed of themselves for this. But that will not happen because the excuses they have used they have used for so long that people have become accustom to hearing them. Even the President still uses the excuse of color for the destruction of their communities. From what I have read from Dr Martin Luther King is he would have been disappointed in what his struggle has become. And that it had been bastardized by self serving people that look out only for themselves. 

Judge a Man not by the color of his skin but by the content of his character.  Dr King. 

     The decline of the inter cities can be attributed to the lack of passion of the community to better themselves instead of using the blame and guilt tactic. Instead of walking around with your pants to your knees and yelling HO and Bitch and saying we do that because that is our culture. That just goes to show your own ignorance about African Heritage. The cradle of civilization was not founded by people yelling such things and generally walking around making an ass of themselves. Whites are just as guilty of this as anyone else. This will never end until we put the past behind us and we grow up and realize we are all human beings and we are responsible for what we want out of life. I have lived in countries where the people there have no choice in the matter. So pull up your big boy and girl pants and take some responsibility for your action and instead of making the problem worse, make it better.