Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Pakistan Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: WHY DID the PERP MOHAMMED MARRY A 6 yr old girl
trustedsourceofinfo    10/30/2005 2:23:21 AM
How can you Koranic pigs ever revere a 54 yr old man who rapes a 6 yr old girl. If any of you doubts this fact please pick up the HAadith Sunnas by Bukhari and check out info on Mohammed's fourth wife...a mere 6 yr old girl.... Ayesha was also Abu Bakr's daughter...A faithful brother to Mohammed... Islam is a fabricated lie...A source of terrorism... DEnounce it/renounce it... A terrorist can never ever be a messenger of God...
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7   NEXT
eu4ea    RE:Unbelievable   1/14/2006 12:58:41 AM
Why dont they question this? Because "questioning" is not what they do - "islam" means "submission", and that is what they do. Submit. Lower their heads. Do as they are told. Believe what they hear. Turn a blind eye if their sect's leader screws nine year old girls, advocates war and murder, supports slavery, etc. All this is fairly typical behaviour, by the way, of mentaly unbalanced religious leaders. See, for instance, many of the modern sects - such as they Aru Shinbaum in Japan, the Temple Davidians in America, the scientologists worldwide, and the like. They all feature mentally pathological leaders that routinelly engage in that type of behaviour patterns - sexual predation, robbery, exploitation, torture, and the like. The followers typically go along with the leader's increasingly's pathological behaviour. Indeed, they submit to it - islam means submission, and that would be a perfect description of the followers of any of the modern-day religious sects.
 
Quote    Reply

whacky_paki    Islamic response   1/17/2006 3:35:07 PM
different times, different culture * According to Ibn Hisham's recension of Ibn Ishaq's (d. 768) biography of Prophet Muhammad, the Sirat Rashul Allah, the earliest surviving biography of Muhammad, Aisha accepted Islam before Umar ibn al-Khattab. If true, then Aisha accepted Islam during the first few years of Islam. She could not have been less than 14 years in 1 AH - the time she got married[citation needed]. * Tabari reports that when Abu Bakr planned on migrating to Ethiopia (8 years before Hijrah), he went to Mut`am - with whose son Aisha was engaged at that time - and asked him to take Aisha as his son's wife. Mut`am refused because Abu Bakr had converted to Islam. If Aisha was only six years old at the time of her betrothal to Muhammad, she could not have been born at the time Abu Bakr decided on migrating to Ethiopia. Tehqiq e umar e Siddiqah e Ka'inat, Habib ur Rahman Kandhalwi, p. 38. * Tabari in his treatise on Islamic history reports that Abu Bakr had four children and all four were born during the Jahiliyyah - the pre Islamic period. If Aisha was born in the period of jahiliyyah, she could not have been less than 14 years in 1 AH. Tarikh al-umam wa al-mamloo'k, Al-Tabari, Vol. 4, p. 50. * According to Ibn Hajar, Fatima was five years older than Aisha. Fatima is reported to have been born when Muhammad was 35 years old. Muhammad migrated to Medina when he was 52, making Aisha 14 years old in 1 AH. Tamyeez al-Sahaabah, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalaniy, Vol. 4, p. 377.
 
Quote    Reply

whacky_paki    RE:Islamic response   1/17/2006 3:38:09 PM
and another thing.. what Bukhari's main goal in his book of Hadiths was to get the interpretation and set rules of worship and conducting ones selve correctly.. he did not scrutinize the numerical aspect as much (times, dates, ages)
 
Quote    Reply

enlighten    RE:Islamic response   1/17/2006 8:11:48 PM
To Whacky_Paki: Your reply justifies his action of marrying Aiysha.A messenger of god should not tdo this what ever your justification has. Secondly if you treat him as a common man also this action is not justifiable. Even if I accept your argument about the age of Aiysha at the time of marriage. A Prophet/messenger of God should not have done this after having eight wives and at the age of 54 marrying a child/girl .This is totally unacceptable even in the stone age.This is nothing but a sexual desire. He could have adopted her as daughter or as servant, if he wished to keep with him.
 
Quote    Reply

trustedsourceofinfo    RE:Islamic response   1/18/2006 1:39:45 AM
I'll take one verse at a time and request you to please furnish proof with some URL! ""According to Ibn Hajar, Fatima was five years older than Aisha. Fatima is reported to have been born when Muhammad was 35 years old. Muhammad migrated to Medina when he was 52, making Aisha 14 years old in 1 AH. Tamyeez al-Sahaabah, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalaniy, Vol. 4, p. 377."" --->How does Ibn Hajar conclude that Fatima was five years older than Aisha or that Fatima was born when the prophet was 35 yrs old? And let me understand that we're on the same page here: 1.Hijra was the year 621AD-according to what I have read. If you do agree to this do tell me how old the Prophet was in the year of the Hijrah -Or if u entirely disagree on the yr of the Hijrah! We'll take it from there!
 
Quote    Reply

trustedsourceofinfo    RE:Islamic response   1/18/2006 1:41:42 AM
""what Bukhari's main goal in his book of Hadiths was to get the interpretation and set rules of worship and conducting ones selve correctly." -->Thats right!But this is just a subset of the Haadiths. The Haadiths are probably the only genuine nrrations abt the prophet and his life.
 
Quote    Reply

swhitebull    A Little Song And Dance, Please - Setting the Record Straight   1/19/2006 6:03:59 PM
Islam Beheaded By David Wood AnsweringInfidels.com | January 19, 2006 The Information Superhighway and the Death of Mohammedanism. [1] Heinrich Heine once wrote a clever poem titled "Marie Antoinette," in which the ghost of everyone's favorite French queen entertains her guests with "strictest etiquette." The irony of the poem is that neither Antoinette nor her guests realize that their heads are missing. They were all beheaded during the French Revolution, but without their heads, they don't have the brains to acknowledge their headlessness. Islam is currently in a similar situation. Muhammad's empire of faith has managed to thrive in the modern world for one simple reason: Muslims have kept Muhammad's dark past a secret. Indeed, they have gone beyond keeping it a secret; they have somehow convinced themselves (and many others) that Muhammad was an outstanding moral example, perhaps even the greatest moral example of all time. Perpetuating this fraud has been, in my opinion, the most stupendous deception in world history. True, there are plenty of instances in Muhammad's life that one could view as the deeds of a moral individual, and Muslims are quick to point out his acts of charity and his dedication to prayer. However, in assessing the overall character of a man, we must take into account all of his actions, not just the ones that support our feelings about him. For instance, suppose I become convinced that the greatest person in history was a man named John Gacy. I could point to his charity work at local hospitals, to his activities in the Boy Scouts and the Jaycees[2], to his patient endurance of numerous physical ailments, to his community activities such as neighborhood barbecues and other social gatherings, to his generosity to others, to his dedication to his family, and to his outstanding work ethic, which made him one of the pillars of his local business community. Yet, if I am to make a case for the moral superiority of Mr. Gacy, I must not leave out the fact that he raped, tortured, and murdered more than thirty boys and buried them under his house.[3] I bring this up because of the peculiar tactic employed by Muslims whenever the character of Muhammad is challenged. When someone argues that Muhammad was a robber or a murderer, Muslims suddenly cry out in one accord, "But he was merciful and kind! He started Islam, and Islam is good! God revealed the Qur'an through him! How dare you say something bad about him!? He was the greatest prophet ever! Stop being so intolerant!" The difficulty here is that, no matter how loudly a Muslim shouts these objections, they have no power to overcome the historical fact that Muhammad was a robber and a murderer. Yet, to a Muslim who already believes that Muhammad was a prophet, the Islamic line of reasoning apparently makes sense. Nevertheless, to anyone who is not a committed Muslim, any claim to moral superiority will be an empirical issue, that is, a matter of examining and weighing the evidence. Tragically, examining the evidence is something that most Muslims seem unwilling to do. In fact, Muslims have been so persistent in ignoring the facts about their prophet that the Muhammad now proclaimed by Islam bears little resemblance to the man who preached in Arabia more than thirteen centuries ago. For example, Abul A'la Mawdudi presents the following picture of Muhammad: He is entirely different from the people among whom he is born and with whom he spends his youth and early manhood. He never tells a lie. The whole nation is unanimous in testifying to his truthfulness. . . . He is the very embodiment of modesty in the midst of a society which is immodest to the core. . . . He helps the orphans and the widows. He is hospitable to travelers. He harms no one . . . [He] is such a lover of peace that his heart melts for the people when they take up arms and cut each other's throats. . . . In brief, the towering and radiant personality of this man, in the midst of such a corrupted and dark environment, may be likened to a beacon-light brightening a pitch-dark night or to a diamond in a heap of dead stones. . . . [After he begins to deliver the message of Islam the] ignorant nation turns against him. Abuses and stones are showered at his august person. Every conceivable torture and cruelty is perpetrated upon him. . . . Can anyone ever imagine a higher example of self-sacrifice, brotherliness and kind-heartedness towards his fellow beings than that a man would ruin his happiness for the good of others, while those very people for whose betterment he is striving should stone him, abuse him, banish him, and give him no quarter even in his exile, and that, in spite of this all, he should refuse to stop working for their well being? . . . When he began preaching his Message, all of Arabia stood in awe and wonder and was bewitched by his wonderful eloquence and oratory. It was so impressive and captivating that his worst enemies
 
Quote    Reply

InterArmaEnimSilent    a complete and total load of BS   1/19/2006 6:33:53 PM
this is a complete load of BS this is completely similar to arabs giving legitimacy to "Chronicles of the elders of zion" and other such nonsense get a life
 
Quote    Reply

swhitebull    RE:a complete and total load of BS   1/19/2006 9:42:31 PM
...this is a complete load of BS... Long on insult, short on actual counterargument and logic. If you think it's factually incorrect, then the correct form is to point out the errors, cite evidence, and show where I'm wrong. Ive backed up the piece with citations and references. you've just shown the bankruptcy of empty words. ... this is completely similar to arabs giving legitimacy to "Chronicles of the elders of zion.... What? The Protocols don't exist? That's news to me. Since Ive been a contributor for several decades. We only pretended that the tsar's police fabricated the Protocols. In actuality, they were secretly given to them in Switzerland as part of "The Plan" to mask the real agenda. Didnt you know that? It came out in the 70s. swhitebull - proud member of P.O.T.E.Z.
 
Quote    Reply

trustedsourceofinfo    RE:a complete and total load of BS   1/21/2006 12:29:45 AM
Add interarma to the list of those Paki idiots!
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics