8-year-old Yemeni child dies at hands of 40-year-old husband on wedding night

0

An eight year old child bride died in Yemen on her wedding night after suffering internal injuries due to sexual trauma. Human rights organizations are calling for the arrest of her husband who was five times her age.


 

The death occurred in the tribal area of Hardh in northwestern Yemen, which borders Saudi Arabia. This brings even more attention to the already existing issue of forced child marriages in the Middle Eastern region.

"According to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), between 2011 and 2020, more than 140 million girls will become child brides. Furthermore, of the 140 million girls who will marry before the age of 18, 50 million will be under the age of 15."

Written By: Albawaba
continue to source article at albawaba.com

NO COMMENTS

  1. …and all because of the Miss World Pageant, sorry wrong thread, must have been the muslims.

    I am not trying to be funny, this just perfectly illustrates the problem with religion and that secular countries who’s populations can manage to watch something as “controversial” as Miss World without the need to do something terrible to a woman of any age.

    • In reply to #2 by alaskansee:

      …and all because of the Miss World Pageant, sorry wrong thread, must have been the muslims.

      I am not trying to be funny, this just perfectly illustrates the problem with religion and that secular countries who’s populations can manage to watch something as “controversial” as Miss World without th…

      Sorry, Miss World may be misogynistic and objectify women, but it is many orders of magnitude less bad than the forced marriage of pre-pubescent children to middle aged paedophiles. If nothing else, all the competitors in Miss World are there voluntarily and are not being forced to do something which endangers their lives.

      Given a choice of things which abuse human rights and dignity, and should be ended, I hope no one would prioritise Miss World over forced marriage. It may be “low hanging fruit”, but its consequences are far less insidious

  2. When will people finally acknowledge, pedophilia is inextricably linked with doctrine of Islam. What’s exceptional about this is that it is being reported. It happens all the time, especially in Africa.

    • In reply to #3 by This Is Not A Meme:

      When will people finally acknowledge, pedophilia is inextricably linked with doctrine of Islam. What’s exceptional about this is that it is being reported. It happens all the time, especially in Africa.

      Really? How then do you explain the actions of the non Muslim Jimmy Saville – to which the BBC turned a blind eye for many years? Or some of the other high profile cases we hear about on a depressingly regular basis. Last month a distinctly non Muslim nursery worker was jailed for life for the rape of a toddler in his care! And I believe there is a whole porn industry devoted to allowing people to watch children being raped in real time which doesn’t seem to be run from any Islamic countries or engaged in by Islamic men paticularly.

      Pedophilia is a sickness that pervades all cultures and beliefs. In this and many other child bride cases, it is as much a comment on their attitude to the rights of women as it is pedophilia. And this case is extreme, but many of those unfortunate child brides are in their teens and able to survive sex but not childbirth. Go onto any porn channel and you’ll find things like all natural virgins or barely legal where younger looking adult women are just catering to similar tastes. I’m not sure they are accessed solely by Muslim men really.

      This is vile behaviour by sexually inadequate monsters. Without wishing to defend Islam it would disgust just as many Muslim men as non Muslim.

  3. This just illustrates what happens when religious notions of “purity” take hold. Nothing short of a massive education program and public shaming of such men will make any difference.

    There are many guilty parties in this tragic circumstance. The parents who “sold” their daughter, the cleric who performed the ceremony and of course the man himself and his family who all condoned the marriage. It makes me sick!

    • In reply to #7 by Nitya:

      There are many guilty parties in this tragic circumstance. The parents who “sold” their daughter, the cleric who performed the ceremony and of course the man himself and his family who all condoned the marriage.

      Anyone who lies about Islam and says it is a religion of peace is complicit. Islam is a religion of atrocity. Unlike the Catholic Church, Islam directly advocates raping children. After the ’79 revolution in Iran, the age of marriage was established at 7, because that is the example set by the murderous, pedophile they take moral instruction from.

      This article flashes my endocrine system. Sympathies to anyone else with a similar response, but this is the world we live in. Islam must be understood in the same league as NAMBLA, not even as dignified as a religion. It is nothing more than the expression of one barbarian’s id.

      • In reply to #15 by This Is Not A Meme:

        In reply to #7 by Nitya:

        There are many guilty parties in this tragic circumstance. The parents who “sold” their daughter, the cleric who performed the ceremony and of course the man himself and his family who all condoned the marriage.

        Anyone who lies about Islam and says it is a religion of peac…

        I know that they were in the process of lowering the age of concent in Egypt before the coup, as well. Just how young is too young?

        • In reply to #22 by Katy Cordeth:

          In reply to #15 by This Is Not A Meme:

          …Unlike the Catholic Church, Islam directly advocates raping children.

          Citation, please.

          Sura 65.4 deals with the necessary waiting period women must wait after they get divorced before they can remarry. This is so their ex-husband can get any children that might have been conceived prior to the divorce. Very strangely (or not so strangely) the Sura says the waiting period is three months for both women who are menstruating and women who are not menstruating. There is no waiting period if the marriage was not consummated. Many Tafsirs (religious interpretations) state that this Sura clearly permits the marriage and consummation of marriage with prepubescent girls.

          • In reply to #29 by prietenul:

            In reply to #22 by Katy Cordeth:

            In reply to #15 by This Is Not A Meme:

            …Unlike the Catholic Church, Islam directly advocates raping children.

            Citation, please.

            Sura 65.4 deals with the necessary waiting period women must wait after they get divorced before they can remarry. This is so their ex-husband can get any children that might have been conceived prior to the divorce. Very strangely (or not so strangely) the Sura says the waiting period is three months for both women who are menstruating and women who are not menstruating. There is no waiting period if the marriage was not consummated. Many Tafsirs (religious interpretations) state that this Sura clearly permits the marriage and consummation of marriage with prepubescent girls.

            Is that it? I was expecting to be inundated with Quranic verses about how sex with children is fine.

            What really interested me was This Is Not A Meme’s assertion that Christianity doesn’t advocate what he accuses Islam of doing.

            A brief internet search however yielded these Biblical passages:

            Numbers 31:17-18 (New International Version):

            Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

            Deuteronomy 20:10-14 (New International Version):

            When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies.

            And for good measure, this:

            YAHOO! Answers: Jews – Why does your Talmud discuss sex with children aged three and sex with dogs so much?:

            When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this (less than three years old) it is as if one puts the finger into the eye (tears come to the eye again and again, so does virginity come back to the little girl under three years);

            A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband’s brother cohabits with her, she becomes his;

            That a proselyte (convert to Judaism) under the age of three years and one day may be married by a priest.

            There’s more of this sort of thing at the link.

            If I hated Christians and Jews as much as so many here at the Clear-Thinking Oasis hate Muslims, I’d probably be motivated to go looking for other passages from these guys’ holy books which permit pedophilia, and perhaps I’d find them.

            I’m beginning to think the Qur’an may not be the child-molester’s charter I had been led to believe it was.

            Come on all you haters, prove me wrong.

          • In reply to #44 by Katy Cordeth:

            The basis for child marriage in Islamic law is in various hadiths, such as the following:-

            Bukhari 7.62.88).

            Bukhari 5.58.234

            The Quran has verses that confirm the importance of Mohamed’s examples of behaviour, as being required for his followers, including 33:21.

            Finally, not wishing to defend Christianity but, the similarities between Bible verses and Koranic verses are not as significant as the differences between the behaviours of the two lots of followers, with some Muslims way ahead of most Christians in terms of brutality.

          • In reply to #44 by Katy Cordeth:

            I’m beginning to think the Qur’an may not be the child-molester’s charter I had been led to believe it was.

            Come on all you haters, prove me wrong.

            Speaking as one of those haters of Islam, may I say that, in case you hadn’t noticed, I believe your challenge has been answered.

            Firstly; the Quran is not the entire Islamic ideology. It is actually the foremost but not the only text that comprise the ‘Sunnah’; which is the whole canonical collection of trusted holy texts according to the ‘ulema’, or the most trusted authoritative Islamic scholars. The other texts are the ‘hadith’ collections, of which Bukhari is the most highly respected; and the ‘Sira’ of Ibn Ishaq; which is the most trusted of the early biographies of Mohamed.

            So, no, the Quran is not a child-molesters charter; but the Sunnah certainly is. See the references given in comment 45 and many more besides.

            So, now; you defenders of these ancient laws and customs, where do you stand?

          • In reply to #46 by inquisador:

            In reply to #44 by Katy Cordeth:

            Speaking as one of those haters of Islam, may I say that, in case you hadn’t noticed, I believe your challenge has been answered.

            Firstly; the Quran is not the entire Islamic ideology. It is actually the foremost but not the only text that comprise the ‘Sunnah’; which is the whole canonical collection of trusted holy texts according to the ‘ulema’, or the most trusted authoritative Islamic scholars. The other texts are the ‘hadith’ collections, of which Bukhari is the most highly respected; and the ‘Sira’ of Ibn Ishaq; which is the most trusted of the early biographies of Mohamed.

            So, no, the Quran is not a child-molesters charter; but the Sunnah certainly is. See the references given in comment 45 and many more besides.

            So, now; you defenders of these ancient laws and customs, where do you stand?

            Sorry, Steven, but I think my Biblical and Talmudic verses trump your Koranic ones.

            I’ve got sex with a three year old in mine. Show me a passage in any of these Islamic texts that says it’s okay to fuck a two year old and I’ll join the BNP myself.

            Apropos of nothing, I’d just like to say that I’m glad I’m not a Christian. I think I’d really miss bacon sandwiches.

          • In reply to #47 by Katy Cordeth:

            In reply to #46 by inquisador:

            Sorry, Steven, but I think my Biblical and Talmudic verses trump your Koranic ones.

            But remember Katherine, we are not playing whist. This is a different game. One that we played before more than once. Recently on the thread:- ” Calm reflections after a storm in a teacup”, My post 398 was about the textual support for violence and mayhem in both Judaeo/Christian and Islamic holy texts:-

            If not for the weight of all this evidence of offensive religious warfare going on right now, none of this textual support for terror and slaughter in the koran (or Bible) would matter a damn. If all Muslims were really peace-loving then even the most gruesome of ancient Islamic texts would be no more than quaint curiosities.

            Instead we now have a grand total of 21,508 deadly terror attacks since 9/11. (now, just over two weeks later, that figure is 21,583).

            • My later interpolations (in round brackets).

            But the clincher then, as now, was that those texts are being put into practice; causing rape, jihadist violence and oppression of minorities, –by Islamic populations, far more so than by any other faith groups.

            This point remains unanswered; probably because it’s irrefutably, and obviously true..

            Snap!

          • In reply to #46 by inquisador:

            In reply to #44 by Katy Cordeth:

            So, now; you defenders of these ancient laws and customs, where do you stand?

            After paying lavish textbook homage to the tu quoque fallacy quoting from the bible (all the while oblivious to the fact of the Koran’s massive plagiarizing of it) in a desperate attempt to save face (oblivious to the fact they long ago lost any face left to save) they might next try to pull a Scott Atran denying that these ancient laws and customs influence much at all the behavior of those who self-proclaim to believe them.

          • In reply to #48 by godsbuster:

            In reply to #46 by inquisador:

            In reply to #44 by Katy Cordeth:

            So, now; you defenders of these ancient laws and customs, where do you stand?

            After paying lavish textbook homage to the tu quoque fallacy quoting from the bible (all the while oblivious to the fact of the Koran’s massive plagiarizin…

            Hi godsbuster! I wouldn’t pay any attention to people on the internet who claim to have two cocks, no matter how they spell it. They’re almost always lying.

          • In reply to #48 by godsbuster:

            In reply to #46 by inquisador:

            After paying lavish textbook homage to the tu quoque fallacy quoting from the bible (all the while oblivious to the fact of the Koran’s massive plagiarizing of it) in a desperate attempt to save face they might next try to pull a Scott Atran denying that these ancient laws and customs influence at all the behavior of those who self-proclaim to believe them

            Yep.

            Isn’t it time they got out the white flag?

            We’ve seen these arguments refuted time and again. Not only is tu quoque a fallacy, but it’s based on a false assumption. The violence of the Bible is descriptive of ancient events in past history, but does not prescribe such atrocities for the present or future.

            But even if the bible were just as prescriptive as the koran, that would not of course excuse any other bad craziness such as those hadiths.

            As for Scott Atran, I agree with Sam Harris.

            And by the way, Kathie, Some Islamic authorities, after Ayatollah Khomeini, place no limit at all on the age for sex or marriage with a child or baby. Though rules do apply against penetration before puberty; sex with a baby is allowed;, known as ‘thighing’ or rubbing.

            ‘Shudder’

          • In reply to #51 by inquisador:

            In reply to #48 by godsbuster:

            In reply to #46 by inquisador:

            After paying lavish textbook homage to the tu quoque fallacy quoting from the bible (all the while oblivious to the fact of the Koran’s massive plagiarizing of it) in a desperate attempt to save face they might next try to pull a Scott…

            I was just wondering at what age the Amish were allowed to marry off their daughters, or the Exclusive Brethren? It would be quite young, though they have to abide by the law of the land ( an inhibiting factor).

            If our secular laws did not prevent the practice, I think they’d be advocating early marriage as well.

          • In reply to #53 by Nitya:

            In reply to #51 by inquisador:
            I was just wondering at what age the Amish were allowed to marry off their daughters, or the Exclusive Brethren? It would be quite young, though they have to abide by the law of the land ( an in

            I know not the answer to this, Nitya. Google wasn’t much help either.

            If anyone does know; please do blurt it out for us here. Thanks.

          • In reply to #55 by inquisador:

            In reply to #53 by Nitya:

            In reply to #51 by inquisador:
            I was just wondering at what age the Amish were allowed to marry off their daughters, or the Exclusive Brethren? It would be quite young, though they have to abide by the law of the land ( an in

            I know not the answer to this, Nitya. Google w…

            I realise that it’s a ‘you too’ argument, but I think most religions would opt to marry off their girls as early as humanly possible if they could get away with it. They wouldn’t want to run the risk of the girl being sullied and thus ineligible for the marriage market.

          • In reply to #44 by Katy Cordeth:

            In reply to #29 by prietenul:

            In reply to #22 by Katy Cordeth:

            In reply to #15 by This Is Not A Meme:

            …Unlike the Catholic Church, Islam directly advocates raping children.

            Citation, please.

            Sura 65.4

            Come on all you haters, prove me wrong.

            Would you like another transitional fossil? Would that satisfy? Not enough citation? Is it ever?

            If Jesus fucked kids it would redefine Xianity. Mohammed (pbuh) was a pedophile. That is the ultimate in normalizing, if not lionizing pedophilia. Mohammed (pbuh) was as sick as, if not sicker, than David Koresh. I feel like accepting Islam as people do is an ad populum error. It’s a huge religion and grants a lot of diversity to its practice globally, but it does not nullify its madness and horror. Jesus didn’t fuck kids, and that makes Xianity more civilized. Islam is just the rot, the very worst of Abrahamic doctrines.

            Islam also suffers from a lack of coherent leadership to bring it into civilized standards. Rabbinical councils updated Judaism and formally did away with their most savage practices of, for example, murdering children. Xianity also has an effective authority structure to drag followers up to contemporary moral standards. Not only does Islam lack this structure, the Koran itself functions a bit like Confucianism, exacerbating the flaws of any culture it infects by empowering petty patriarchs (Imams, fathers). For instance, if a young woman wants to go to college she must obtain permission from her father. For civilized Muslims this is a small formality, possibly enjoyable as it engages the family in the daughter’s life. It might be her achievement, but still not her decision. However, in cultures where women are kept as illiterate chattel, this provision magnifies and stabilizes the oppression of women. Another example is how Mohammed (pbuh) spoke against female circumcision, and urged those who practiced it to make only small cuts, but ultimately Islam grants that decision to petty patriarchs, thus preserving and validating this practice of mutilation.

            Almost half of all people are dumber than most people. There is a smelliest car on the subway. It is fair to compare and say some things are worse than others. By doctrine and history, all evidence suggests Islam is the most vile religion of all. Ask yourself, is it possible for a doctrine of irredeemable evil, which surpasses all others in its immorality and determination towards inflicting harm and suffering, to rise to the level of power and prestige that it could be heralded by a fifth of humanity? Of course that is possible. I merely assert it as happened, and that Mohammed (phuh) was cut from the same cloth as David Berg and David Koresh. Historical factors ascended Mohammed (pbuh) in popularity, but that doesn’t change a damn thing about what Islam is. If all of Islam were a few hundred people, I can’t fathom it being regarded with any sympathy.

          • In reply to #58 by This Is Not A Meme:

            Would you like another transitional fossil? Would that satisfy? Not enough citation? Is it ever?

            If there were as little evidence for evolution as there apparently are Islamic texts which prove the religion mandates pedophilia, I think none of us would have ever heard the names Darwin or Dawkins.

            If Jesus fucked kids it would redefine Xianity. Mohammed (pbuh) was a pedophile. That is the ultimate in normalizing, if not lionizing pedophilia. Mohammed (pbuh) was as sick as, if not sicker, than David Koresh.

            I’ve no wish to defend the Prophet, but I believe he had about twelve other wives, all of whom were of an appropriate age for marriage. If he consummated these relationships, does that mean he was only one thirteenth pedophile?

            I’m sorry to say it, but if child marriage was the norm in the society Muhammad belonged to, I don’t think it’s correct to infer he must have been ‘sick’. I believe he was wed to Aisha for three years before he had sex with her. Somehow I can’t see Jimmy Savile showing similar restraint if he found himself in that position.

            I feel like accepting Islam as people do is an ad populum error. It’s a huge religion and grants a lot of diversity to its practice globally…

            I’m not quite sure what you mean by people accepting Islam. If you’re talking about Muslims themselves, you should know that the vast majority are born into the religion and leaving it is often extremely difficult. If you mean non-Muslims accepting Islam’s followers into their midst and not just grabbing the can of gasoline and book of matches every time a Muslim family moves into the neighborhood; or lobbying governments to nuke Islamic countries back to Allah, that’s a different matter. Maybe you’ll explain.

            …but it does not nullify its madness and horror. Jesus didn’t fuck kids, and that makes Xianity more civilized. Islam is just the rot, the very worst of Abrahamic doctrines.

            Ah, there it is. As predictable as clockwork. You can guarantee that when a thread appears about Islam at our little atheist harbor, someone will claim Christianity’s moral superiority over it. Of course then a thread about the Catholic Church or the Archbishop of Canterbury is posted and all affection for Cap’n Jesus is conveniently dispensed with.

            I agree that Islam is currently the worst of the three branches of Abrahamism, but the fact that its poster boy may have engaged in kiddy fiddling a millennium and a half ago isn’t the reason. Other factors are in play. Western colonial practices over the past several hundred years spring to mind; our propensity for overthrowing stable regimes and installing tin-pot dictators who will do our bidding. Who do you think keeps the fantastically corrupt Saudi royal family in the position it enjoys? I’ll give you a couple of clues. And one more just for luck. Why do you think Russia is so opposed to American intervention in Syria? Your final hint before we move on.

            Islam also suffers from a lack of coherent leadership to bring it into civilized standards. Rabbinical councils updated Judaism and formally did away with their most savage practices of, for example, murdering children. Xianity also has an effective authority structure to drag followers up to contemporary moral standards. Not only does Islam lack this structure, the Koran itself functions a bit like Confucianism, exacerbating the flaws of any culture it infects by empowering petty patriarchs (Imams, fathers)…

            I’ve argued before on this site that I think Islam would benefit from its own Pope-like figure; someone who could provide the final word on matters canonical. It’ll never happen, but I still think it’s a good idea. By the way, can you point me to a society in history which hasn’t functioned as some sort of patriarchy. Humans and those from non-fiction only please, elephants and Amazons don’t count.

            Re your Rabbinical councils and their doing away with savage practices, these guys apparently didn’t get the message. As for an effective authority structure in Christianity, the Roman Catholic Church has just such a hierarchy and we know how well that has worked out in terms of keeping children from coming to harm.

            …Another example is how Mohammed (pbuh) spoke against female circumcision, and urged those who practiced it to make only small cuts, but ultimately Islam grants that decision to petty patriarchs, thus preserving and validating this practice of mutilation.

            I did not know the Prophet had spoken against female circumcision. You learn something every day. I thought Muslims were supposed to cling to his every word as though it were, um, gospel. To learn that individual Islamic authorities can pick and choose which bits of Islamic teaching to subscribe to… well, I guess it’s a bit like Christians who ignore the Biblical injunction not to eat pork or shellfish. Well well well.

            Almost half of all people are dumber than most people.

            I’ve read this statement a few times now and I’ve come to the conclusion that my brain just isn’t equipped to process it to a point where it makes sense to me. It’s my fault, I’m sure, not yours: I can never make sense of those magic eye puzzles and the ‘brothers and sisters have I none’ -type riddles always leave me scratching my head. Almost half of all people are dumber than… no, it’s no good.

            There is a smelliest car on the subway. It is fair to compare and say some things are worse than others…

            I guess if you have no interest in discovering why the subway car is the smelliest, and fail to make the connection between its odoriferousness and the fact that you’ve been using it as a public lavatory for the past god knows how long, you might arrive at the conclusion that it pongs because of some innate flaw in its design or assembly.

            …By doctrine and history, all evidence suggests Islam is the most vile religion of all.

            Much of its doctrine was lifted directly from the Old Testament; and as we’ve learned, our nations’ hands are not exactly clean when it comes to Islam’s current status. Also, I haven’t been convinced that the Catholic Church’s history is any kinder than Islam’s. How long did the Inquisition last? Weeks and weeks, I think. The AIDS epidemic in Africa is directly attributable to the RCC’s presence there and its insistence that condoms do more harm than good. Many fewer people would have died in the Holocaust if the Church hadn’t thrown its lot in with the Nazis. The Shoah might not have occurred at all if the Vatican had decided to do some good and actively oppose Hitler. We’ll never know.

            Ask yourself, is it possible for a doctrine of irredeemable evil, which surpasses all others in its immorality and determination towards inflicting harm and suffering, to rise to the level of power and prestige that it could be heralded by a fifth of humanity? Of course that is possible. I merely assert it as happened, and that Mohammed (phuh) was cut from the same cloth as David Berg and David Koresh. Historical factors ascended Mohammed (pbuh) in popularity, but that doesn’t change a damn thing about what Islam is. If all of Islam were a few hundred people, I can’t fathom it being regarded with any sympathy.

            Darling, you’ve yet to convince me that it ‘surpasses all others in its determination towards inflicting harm and suffering’. What you’re doing here is called begging the question. I still think Christianity has been responsible for more deliberate acts of evil than its younger sibling, Islam.

            Get back to me when you have a few more fossils. Proper ones this time, not the cheap plastic kind you pick up in the museum gift shop on the way out.

          • In reply to #59 by Katy Cordeth:

            In reply to #58 by This Is Not A Meme:

            Darling, you’ve yet to convince me that it ‘surpasses all others in its determination towards inflicting harm and suffering’. What you’re doing here is called begging the question. I still think Christianity has been responsible for more deliberate acts of evil than its younger sibling, Islam.

            Get back to me when you have a few more fossils. Proper ones this time, not the cheap plastic kind you pick up in the museum gift shop on the way out.

            Your quality posts are worthy of more prompt response, pardon. I need a certain head-space (Wild Turkey and coffee) if I’m gonna talk about why 8 year olds get fucked to death. I’ll break it down to two points, 1) Joseph Campbell and 2) policy.

            1) Mohammed(pbuh) was a pedophile, and 72 virgins is the carrot at the end of the sword. If there is any worth to the archetypes celebrated by a culture, if it has any effect on the norms of practices of its people, celebrating a misanthropic icon will have like results. If a society worships the Polanski Satan, it won’t be pretty. Compared to Confucius, the Buddha, the Bab (Baha’i), Jesus, or even Hare Krishna, Mohammed (pbuh) is a villain. This is just contemplating him as an icon, because in reality sending Aisha to gramma’s until she was 9 does not mean his cock wasn’t awash in child-blood while he waited (as you put it) with restraint. He was a monster like David Berg, Jim Jones, or David Koresh. 12 wives when other rich guys only get four? That cat (pbuh) was just like any other sicko of his league, taking drugs and having orgies (not that some of the best people don’t do those things, but he didn’t get it by being the best). He was prolly as fat and high as Elvis* before he died like Michael Jackson (poisoned by a Jew).

            There was something seriously wrong with that guy (pbuh). He reads like a pathological case of some kind… narcissist, psychopath, Manson kind of figure. As you point out, Islam is newer and that makes it worse. He’s not some abstract, mythical virgin like Jesus. He’s like L. Ron Hubbard, and the rise of communication technology might be why he was the last Prophet (we know what Hubbard smoked). No one is worthy of the influence he holds in peoples’ minds; he least of all. He was a murderous pedophile (pbuh). I only assert that matters.

            I don’t think it’s correct to infer he must have been ‘sick’.

            When talking to Muslims, my canned response to that is: “are you saying Jesus fucked kids?” Are you saying it wouldn’t matter if he did? He wasn’t just a ped. He was a murderer. Every time a pedophile murderer rises to that station, claiming to be the voice of God, they are sick freaks.

            2) Aisha was married at 7, consummated at 9. This is why Iran established 7 as the age of consent/marriage, and also why this little girl is dead.

            By the way, can you point me to a society in history which hasn’t functioned as some sort of patriarchy.

            As for patriarchy, i’ll put it this way, the average person has more than one ovary and less than one testicle. For historical matriarchies, I’d make an argument for pre-colonial Khmer people and the Iroquois. In fact, I might even say contemporary Vietnam has a strong matriarchal vibe, maybe due to the artifacts in its language. Saigon is one of the safest places for women to walk alone at night… but the dong absorbs inflation for the yuan, thus establishing the price of tea in China.

            I’m not quite sure what you mean by people accepting Islam.

            If there were only a few hundred Muslims, they would get raided by the ATF. Seeing the doctrine as anything other than a recipe for disaster is just playing a numbers game (ad populum). In other words, to accept Islam as equal to other Abrahamic doctrines is relativism. Entire nation states establish 7 as the age of ‘consent, because they emulate a murderous pedophile… (pbuh).

            There have been many doctrines that promote evils that are contrary to civility. The Darwinism of memes eliminates them as the world becomes civilized. They either adapt or go extinct. Islam is like a shark. Securing its survival and propagation by fully investing itself in brutal means, it does not need to adapt because it’s good at spilling blood.

            dictated but not read,
            Irving R. Pufferfish

          • In reply to #58 by This Is Not A Meme:

            In reply to #44 by Katy Cordeth:
            Would you like another transitional fossil? Would that satisfy? Not enough citation? Is it ever? Rabbinical councils updated Judaism and formally did away with their most savage practices of, for example, murdering children.

            What those who operate under the delusion that religious apologists can be reasoned with end up running into is Sam Harris’ observation of the dilemma: “If someone doesn’t value evidence what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn’t value logic what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?”

            I think we should also avoid cutting religions slack on the basis of savage practices they no longer carry out directly but also do not condemn. That they still have it in them to carry out irrational barbaric practices to this day is evidenced by the genital mutilation of baby boys that is not only obligatorily carried out but also indeed celebrated!

            Moreover, rabbis of certain denominations and their followers can be found on YouTube proudly and unselfconsciously simply (not even claiming -which would at least imply proffering arguments no matter how specious) stating as fact that intermarriage with non-Jews is the greatest abomination in all of Judaism and the most grievous insult to their god resulting in the most massive of penalties. And, even more sinister, stating as fact that Israel is the land their god gave to them, they the chosen people -something which has resulted in the real murder of real children – both of their own and of those whom they deem themselves thus justified to expropriate the land from.

      • In reply to #15 by This Is Not A Meme:

        Anyone who lies about Islam and says it is a religion of peace is complicit.

        I did a bit of research since writing this, hung out with a bunch of Muslims high on MDMA (they were, I was clear-headed), and had some good conversation. Islam translates as submission, which is how they think of peace. Submission is peace. Chomsky would say Hitler has the same definition.

        It’s not complicated, it’s just really really sad, sadder than anyone wants to believe.

        • In reply to #68 by This Is Not A Meme:

          In reply to #15 by This Is Not A Meme:

          Islam translates as submission, which is how they think of peace. Submission is peace.

          Right. So jihad is fighting for peace. Until the infidel are defeated and then surrender.

          That is submission. That means peace. So Islam is a ‘religion of peace.’

          Just as appeasement is a policy of resistance.

          Actually appeasement is a policy of least resistance, which will lead to ‘peace’, as above, or civil war.

  4. In reply to #5 by N_Ellis:

    In reply to #2 by alaskansee:

    .Sorry, Miss World may be misogynistic and objectify women, but it is many orders of magnitude less bad than the forced marriage of pre-pubescent children to middle aged paedophiles. If nothing else, all the competitors in Miss World are there voluntarily and are not being forced to do something which endangers their lives. Given a choice of things which abuse human rights and dignity, and should be ended, I hope no one would prioritise Miss World over forced marriage. It may be “low hanging fruit”, but its consequences are far less insidious

    I’m afraid you misunderstood my comment, there is nothing wrong with Miss World at all – it’s a sign of civilised society. Islam, now there’s your problem. I did contribute to the confusion by mentioning a separate thread – sorry. I would defend Miss World and the right of women to take part.

  5. Will this keep our in-house “Don’t Blame Islam Blame The Misinterpretation Of Islam By Fanatics® ” apologists under their rocks and dissuade them from posting their usual perverse pablum? It might just do the trick but only time will tell.

    • In reply to #10 by godsbuster:

      Will this keep our in-house “Don’t Blame Islam Blame The Misinterpretation Of Islam By Fanatics® ” apologists under their rocks and dissuade them from posting their usual perverse pablum? It might just do the trick but only time will tell.

      I was just about to post the same when I read your comment.

      The “I know some Muslims and they are very nice people brigade” will be calling you peeps criticizing this crap as a bunch of dissenting Islamaphobes.

      • In reply to #17 by Ignorant Amos:

        In reply to #10 by godsbuster:

        Will this keep our in-house “Don’t Blame Islam Blame The Misinterpretation Of Islam By Fanatics® ” apologists under their rocks and dissuade them from posting their usual perverse pablum? It might just do the trick but only time will tell.

        I was just about to post the same when I read your comment.

        The “I know some Muslims and they are very nice people brigade” will be calling you peeps criticizing this crap as a bunch of dissenting Islamaphobes.

        Quite right Amos, there are no nice Muslims.

        A wisdomous man once said this:

        I have a fear of the potential for the Islam that will unfold given that statistics indicate that Muslims coming to Europe is running at 350,000 a year…that’s about a thousand a day. Given their inability to assimilate, their penchant for crimes against humanity, and what the Qu’ran instructs the Immans to instruct the Jihadists to do to the infidel once the Caliphate is realized, I’m not convinced my fear for the future is irrational. So that is not Islamaphobia either.

        Deport the lot of them. And when the last one has been deported, nuke ‘em back to Allah.

        Thinks: Jeez, I may have been on this website too long.

        • In reply to #20 by Katy Cordeth:

          Quite right Amos, there are no nice Muslims.

          There are nice people who may claim to be Muslims…wheter they really are Muslims is another story. There are Muslims that appear to all intents and purposes to nice…but they really are not that nice at all.

          “Dr. Bilal Abdullah, 27, born in England, and moved to Iraq as a child. Alleged attacker, arrested immediately at Glasgow International Airport. Convicted at of conspiracy to murder, and sentenced to life imprisonment.”

          Probably a nice Muslim at dinner parties.

          “Kafeel Ahmed, aka Khalid Ahmed, born in India, studying for a Ph.D in engineering. Taken to hospital after the attack and treated for burns over 90% of his body surface.Died from his injuries, 2 August 2007.”

          No doubt another nice educated Muslim that friends would declare wouldn’t harm a fly.

          “Dr. Mohammed Asha, 26, from Jordan. Arrested on the M6 motorway. Later found not guilty of conspiracy to murder and conspiracy to cause explosions, currently fighting deportation.”

          No doubt another nice chap…doctors are usually nice after all.

          “Dr. Sabeel Ahmed, 26, born in India. Arrested in Liverpool. A doctor who works at Halton Hospital in Cheshire. Brother of Kafeel Ahmed.”

          Surely another nice doctor with a pleasant bedside manner.

          “Mohammad Sidique Khan: aged 30. Khan detonated his bomb just after leaving Edgware Road tube station on a train travelling toward Paddington, at 8:50 a.m. He lived in Beeston, Leeds, with his wife and young child, where he worked as a learning mentor at a primary school. The blast killed seven people, including Khan himself.”

          A family man and a learning mentor at a primary school…how nice is that?

          “Shehzad Tanweer: aged 22. He detonated a bomb aboard a train travelling between Liverpool Street station and Aldgate tube station, at 8:50 a.m. He lived in Leeds with his mother and father, working in a fish and chip shop. He was killed by the explosion along with seven members of the public.”

          Surely another nice lad with a pleasant customer service manner.

          ” Germaine Lindsay: aged 19. He detonated his device on a train travelling between King’s Cross and Russell Square tube stations, at 8:50 a.m. He lived in Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, with his pregnant wife and young son. His blast killed 27 people, including Lindsay himself.”

          How nice is that…another family man.

          “Hasib Hussain: the youngest of the four at 18, Hussain detonated his bomb on the top deck of a double-decker bus at 9:47 a.m. He lived in Leeds with his brother and sister-in-law. Fourteen people, including Hussain, died in the explosion in Tavistock Square.”

          Perhaps not so nice…freeloading on his brother.

          All these nice Muslims had one thing in common…they were murdering bastards. Is it Islamaphobic to say that?

          A wisdomous man once said this:

          I have a fear of the potential for the Islam that will unfold given that statistics indicate that Muslims coming to Europe is running at 350,000 a year…that’s about a thousand a day. Given their inability to assimilate, their penchant for crimes against humanity, and what the Qu’ran instructs the Immans to instruct the Jihadists to do to the infidel once the Caliphate is realized, I’m not convinced my fear for the future is irrational. So that is not Islamaphobia either.

          Yes, but point out any folly in the comment?

          Deport the lot of them. And when the last one has been deported, nuke ‘em back to Allah.

          Now you are just being ridiculous.

          Thinks: Jeez, I may have been on this website too long.

          I guess. But it won’t be a big issue for you not being on this website, seeing that you have so many nice Muslim friends with whom to spend the time with.

          • In reply to #65 by Ignorant Amos:

            In reply to #20 by Katy Cordeth:

            Quite right Amos, there are no nice Muslims.

            There are nice people who may claim to be Muslims…whether they really are Muslims is another story.

            It’s a massive character flaw of mine that I tend to take people at their word. If someone says they’re Muslim, I’m inclined to believe them. Same as if they say they’re Hindu or atheist or whatever. Are you suggesting there are people who are only pretending to be Muslim? Is this reverse taqiyya or something?

            There are Muslims that appear to all intents and purposes to nice…but they really are not that nice at all.

            Dr. Bilal Abdullah…

            Kafeel Ahmed, aka Khalid Ahmed, born in India…

            Dr. Sabeel Ahmed, 26, born in India…

            Mohammad Sidique Khan: aged 30…

            Shehzad Tanweer: aged 22.

            etc

            You’re trying to tell me that some Muslims are terrorists? I already knew that. You could have saved yourself some internet searching if you’d just said Osama bin Laden.

            Some Christians are terrorists too. There’s this place called Northern Ireland, I don’t know if you’ve heard of it. I have it on good authority that every single person who lives there is a terrorist, or at least a potential terrorist. If you don’t believe me, I can list literally hundreds of names.

            All these nice Muslims had one thing in common…they were murdering bastards. Is it Islamaphobic to say that?

            I’m not really sure. You would first have to show me that Islam was responsible for turning them into murdering bastards. What I do know is it’s wrong to say that Muslims in general are not to be trusted because of the actions of these individuals.

            A wisdomous man once said this:

            I have a fear of the potential for the Islam that will unfold given that statistics indicate that Muslims coming to Europe is running at 350,000 a year…that’s about a thousand a day. Given their inability to assimilate, their penchant for crimes against humanity, and what the Qu’ran instructs the Immans to instruct the Jihadists to do to the infidel once the Caliphate is realized, I’m not convinced my fear for the future is irrational. So that is not Islamaphobia either.

            Yes, but point out any folly in the comment?

            Happily. It’s entirely composed of folly. There’s no part of if that isn’t follicious.

            Let’s break it down:

            I have a fear of the potential for the Islam that will unfold given that statistics indicate that Muslims coming to Europe is running at 350,000 a year…that’s about a thousand a day…

            Pretty illiterate, but we get the meaning. 350,000 Muslims per year, 1,000 per day, are arriving in Europe. Apparently. Where they’re coming from is anyone’s guess, but the very fact they wish to go from there to here is cause enough for concern. The reason for this mass exodus is not relevant; it’s essentially an invasion.

            Given their inability to assimilate…

            This is an example of the petitio principii or begging-the-question fallacy. Muslims are not able to assimilate into Western society. Really? There are Muslim teachers, lawyers, doctors, students, newsreaders, butchers, bakers, candlestickmakers, you name it. Going to mosque or not eating pork doesn’t mean you haven’t ― horrid word by the way ― assimilated.

            …their penchant for crimes against humanity

            All Muslims have a penchant for crimes against humanity, do they? We know they’re not a race, so this penchant can’t be genetic. Where is the evidence for this fantastically stupid and racist claim?

            …and what the Qu’ran instructs the Immans to instruct the Jihadists to do to the infidel once the Caliphate is realized, I’m not convinced my fear for the future is irrational. So that is not Islamaphobia either.

            I confess to not knowing what the Qur’an instructs the imams to instruct the jihadists to instruct the infidels to do to themselves once the caliphate is realized. I would imagine the Scientologists have similar instructions in place in the event that their plans for world domination come to fruition.

            I have a vague memory of something Christopher Hitchens said when someone proposed some sort of worst case scenario thing and he sighs ‘hitchslapped’ them down by pointing out the unlikelihood of such an eventuality.

            Deport the lot of them. And when the last one has been deported, nuke ‘em back to Allah.

            Now you are just being ridiculous.

            Well spotted.

            Thinks: Jeez, I may have been on this website too long.

            I guess. But it won’t be a big issue for you not being on this website, seeing that you have so many nice Muslim friends with whom to spend the time.

            Swounds, you may be right. My Muslim friends could indeed be plotting against me. Have I been too trusting? I thought I knew these people, but now I think they’re just using me to further their diabolical goal of planetary domination. Thank you Amos. Thank you for unrestoring my faith in human goodness.

          • In reply to #66 by Katy Cordeth:

            It’s a massive character flaw of mine that I tend to take people at their word. If someone says they’re Muslim, I’m inclined to believe them. Same as if they say they’re Hindu or atheist or whatever. Are you suggesting there are people who are only pretending to be Muslim? Is this reverse taqiyya or something?

            What I am saying is that there are people that assert they are all sorts of things, but by any working definition, they are not.

            Define a Muslim.

            Quran (4:95) – “Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-”

            “This passage criticizes “peaceful” Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah’s eyes. It also demolishes the modern myth that “Jihad” doesn’t mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is the Arabic word used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man’s protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad and this is reflected in other translations of the verse).”

            If I told you I was a Christian, what is the minimum requirement you’d expect that would place me in that category? Because I told you? Because I was born to a Christian family? Because I was Christened? Because I believed in the message of Jesus? Because I believed Christ was God? Because I went to church every Sunday? Etc., etc., etc.,….or a number of these traits?

            It becomes the “no true Scotsman fallacy”….what you define what it is to be a true Christian, is not necessarily what I define a true Christian to be, or what other true Christians define what it is to be a true Christian (replace Christian with religion of choice).

            This is the big problem in debates such as these. You have decided that anyone that claims a religious adherence is therefore defined to that religion. But we know that is erroneous. Even Muslims don’t consider some other fellow Muslims as true Muslims to the point they are prepared to do all manner of wicked things to persecute such diverse other Muslim thinking. Christians in some parts are not much different. Hindus the same, heck even sub-sections of Christianity such as the Amish take issue on such things.

            You’re trying to tell me that some Muslims are terrorists? I already knew that. You could have saved yourself some internet searching if you’d just said Osama bin Laden.

            I’m trying to tell you that the nice liberal Muslim living next door might not be all that they seem to be, as has been demonstrated over and over and over again. It appears that a nice converted Northern Irish girl who was the partner of that radicalized 7/7 bomber, ya know the one I mentioned earlier…

            “Germaine Lindsay: aged 19. He detonated his device on a train travelling between King’s Cross and Russell Square tube stations, at 8:50 a.m. He lived in Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, with his pregnant wife and young son. His blast killed 27 people, including Lindsay himself.”

            …might be a leader of the Nairobi terrorists holding hostages in a Kenyan shopping mall called Samantha Lewthwaite and known as the “White Widow”.

            “Friends and family of the mother-of-three have been left “astonished” by suggestions she is linked to the Nairobi shopping mall massacre”

            “The development is likely to lead to further shock and disbelief for the friends and family of the radicalized British housewife in leafy Buckinghamshire where she used to live an unremarkable life.”

            Just a wee girl from next door after everything is said and done.

            Some Christians are terrorists too. There’s this place called Northern Ireland, I don’t know if you’ve heard of it.

            Well considering I was born and lived there most of my life, I figure I know a bit more about it than you do. Having served on the streets of Northern Ireland as a member of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces I have witnessed first hand the levels “ordinarily nice” people will drop to because of religious bigotry.

            I have it on good authority that every single person who lives there is a terrorist, or at least a potential terrorist.

            What authority would that be Katy? Although the truth might be more surprising than you expect. There are many ordinarily nice people that are prepared to take up an extreme position if and when their back is against the wall. Especially on both sides of the Northern Irish sectarian divide.

            If you don’t believe me, I can list literally hundreds of names.

            Yes, hundreds of names, probably a few of them are my family and friends or neighbors.

            Annecdote for you, I lived a few doors from one of the most notorious mass murdering bastards that Ulster terrorism produced, Lenny Murphy, Brookmount Street, off the Shankill Road, better known as one of the Shankill Butchers. Granted I was only a wee boy when he was chopping up people who he either thought, or who actually were Catholics…and get this, he was part of a group…all ordinary people during daylight hours, sectarian psychopaths by night.

            All the names on your list I’ll bet were “ordinary” nice people at one time.

            Like that nice Londonderry gentleman who was IRA commander there during Bloody Sunday, ya know the one? Martin McGuiness, now the Northern Ireland Deputy First Minister. Thank you for proving my point nicely.

            I’m not really sure. You would first have to show me that Islam was responsible for turning them into murdering bastards.

            This is where your incredulity shows your naivety. What do you suppose is the common denominator as to why Muslims the world over have to resort to violence? What do you suspect the reason is that ordinary working class Catholics and Protestants feel the need to tear one another asunder on the streets of Northern Ireland? Is it their religion perhaps?

            Let me explain how it works. Terrorists get to operate with impunity in their area of operation because of the support they get from their demographic. That support may be from members of their society that will work pro-actively, but are not combatant. Fund raising, safe havens, moral support, etc. Then there is the non-active support, that of those who support the cause, just not the methods, but are prepared to turn a blind eye. Just like the nice ordinary Catholic people in the United States that actively fund raised to support Irish Republican terrorism, at least until politico-religious terrorism came a knocking on their own doors that is…who’d have thought it?

            So yes, nice religious folk who say bugger all can shoulder some of the blame for the dickheads who carry out atrocities in the name of their religion. Those that keep quiet provide succor.

            “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
            ― Edmund Burke

            What I do know is it’s wrong to say that Muslims in general are not to be trusted because of the actions of these individuals.

            Yes, but define a Muslim first and by what definition do you use?

            Its unfortunate that the suspicion created by the actions of these “ordinary” individuals has caused everyone to suffer, including their fellow Muslims. It was exactly the same for the Irish during the 70′s and 80′s…I can attest to such suspicion first hand, even as a serving soldier I was quite often looked upon with suspicion by the English, and with IRA bombs exploding in English cities, how could I blame them? After all, how do you tell the difference between a terrorist from Belfast and an off duty serving soldier from Belfast? Profiling has it’s problems, but it is happening right now, and it works.

            Happily. It’s entirely composed of folly. There’s no part of if that isn’t follicious.

            Hmmmm…let’s not start the literacy trolling.

            Pretty illiterate, but we get the meaning. 350,000 Muslims per year, 1,000 per day, are arriving in Europe. Apparently. Where they’re coming from is anyone’s guess, but the very fact they wish to go from there to here is cause enough for concern. The reason for this mass exodus is not relevant; it’s essentially an invasion.

            This is an example of the petitio principii or begging-the-question fallacy. Muslims are not able to assimilate into Western society. Really? There are Muslim teachers, lawyers, doctors, students, newsreaders, butchers, bakers, candlestickmakers, you name it. Going to mosque or not eating pork doesn’t mean you haven’t ― horrid word by the way ― assimilated.

            I’m sure there was something about Muslims demanding Sharia law in Britain…even to the point that a dickhead ABofC was in agreement.

            “In Britain, where there were already some 85 Sharia courts in operation as of August 2011, an Islamist group called Muslims Against the Crusades (MAC) has launched an ambitious campaign to turn twelve British cities into independent Islamic states. These cities include Birmingham, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, and what MAC calls “Londonistan.” In the Tower Hamlets in East London – or as the Muslims there refer to it, “the Islamic Republic of Tower Hamlets” – imams known as the “Tower Hamlets Taliban” issue death threats to unveiled women, and gays are attacked by gangs of young Muslim men. The neighborhood has been littered with leaflets announcing, “You are entering a Sharia-controlled zone. Islamic rules enforced.” It was in East London, moreover, that the Islamist Abu Izzadeen challenged former Home Secretary John Reid by saying: “How dare you come to a Muslim area?”

            Probably just fear mongering propaganda from the far right…..anyway, here’s a link…MUSLIMS’ REFUSAL TO ASSIMILATE INTO EUROPEAN CULTURE

            All Muslims have a penchant for crimes against humanity, do they?

            Define Muslim.

            We know they’re not a race, so this penchant can’t be genetic. Where is the evidence for this fantastically stupid and racist claim?

            If Islam is not a race then how is it racist? The penchant comes from the Islamic religion. Allah Akbar! is the cry from these imbeciles whether it is suicide bombing, chopping people to bits, or firing rockets at each other in Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, or where ever.

            As for evidence for crimes against humanity.

            UHHHH! Did you notice the OP of this thread?

            Do you think it is normal behavior for young women to be buried up to their shoulders in a hole in the ground while their heads are being smashed to smithereens sharp boulders because of some nonsense religious rules…today in the 21st century….not 3,000 years ago?.

            When peoples basic human rights are refused because of some religious mumbo jumbo in the guise of religious laws, that is a crime against humanity.

            I confess to not knowing what the Qur’an instructs the imams to instruct the jihadists to instruct the infidels to do to themselves once the caliphate is realized.

            Ah, but that is not what I said is it? Here, let me reiterate again,”…what the Qu’ran instructs the Immans to instruct the Jihadists to do to the infidel once the Caliphate is realized..”*

            Well you do really. It is the same fate as the poor apostate.

            Quran (5:33) – “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement”

            Quran (8:12) – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”

            Quran (9:14) – “Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace…”

            Quran (9:73) – “O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.”

            Quran (9:123) – “O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness.”

            Quran (25:52) – “Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness…”

            Quran (33:60-62) – “If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and the alarmists in the city do not cease, We verily shall urge thee on against them, then they will be your neighbors in it but a little while. Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter.”

            “This passage sanctions the slaughter (rendered “merciless” and “horrible murder” in other translations) against three groups:Hypocrites (Muslims who refuse to “fight in the way of Allah” (3:167) and hence don’t act as Muslims should), those with “diseased hearts” (which include Jews and Christians 5:51-52), and “alarmists” or “agitators who include those who merely speak out against Islam, according to Muhammad’s biographers.[You & I] It is worth noting that the victims are to be sought out by Muslims, which is what today’s terrorists do. If this passage is meant merely to apply to the city of Medina, then it is unclear why it is included in Allah’s eternal word to Muslim generations.”

            You can read more Qu’ran here

            I would imagine the Scientologists have similar instructions in place in the event that their plans for world domination come to fruition.

            Well they just might indeed, but the big difference is that Scientology terrorists are not murdering people all around the world without compunction are they? Scientology does not account for 1.6 billion of the planets believers(the number of real Muslims is likely to be considerably lower depending on definition) guided by said plans do they? Groups of Scientology jihadists are not waging war against the western democracies are they? But come the day that Scientology manage to engage in such acts in pursuance of world domination, I’ll give it some serious consideration, like any other kook bunch of crackpots.

            I have a vague memory of something Christopher Hitchens said when someone proposed some sort of worst case scenario thing and he sighs ‘hitchslapped’ them down by pointing out the unlikelihood of such an eventuality.

            And yet in only a few centuries, the USA became thee most powerful nation in the world…and that with its fair share of crackpots too, who’d have thought it?

            Quotes on Islam? Here’s a few of my favourites…

            “Of course this is “about Islam.” The question is, what exactly does that mean? After all, most religious belief isn’t very theological. Most Muslims are not profound Koranic analysts. For a vast number of “believing” Muslim men, “Islam” stands, in a jumbled, half-examined way, not only for the fear of God — the fear more than the love, one suspects — but also for a cluster of customs, opinions and prejudices that include their dietary practices; the sequestration or near-sequestration of “their” women; the sermons delivered by their mullahs of choice; a loathing of modern society in general, riddled as it is with music, godlessness and sex; and a more particularized loathing (and fear) of the prospect that their own immediate surroundings could be taken over — “Westoxicated” — by the liberal Western-style way of life.” ~ Sir Ahmed Salman Rushdie

            “There is no such thing as Islamophobia. Bigotry and racism exist, of course—and they are evils that all well-intentioned people must oppose. And prejudice against Muslims or Arabs, purely because of the accident of their birth, is despicable. But like all religions, Islam is a system of ideas and practices. And it is not a form of bigotry or racism to observe that the specific tenets of the faith pose a special threat to civil society. Nor is it a sign of intolerance to notice when people are simply not being honest about what they and their co-religionists believe.” ~ Sam Harris, Ph.D

            “If the people of this religion [Islam] are asked about the proof for the soundness of their religion, they flare up, get angry and spill the blood of whoever confronts them with this question. They forbid rational speculation, and strive to kill their adversaries. This is why truth became thoroughly silenced and concealed.” ~ Muhammad ibn Zakariyā Rāzī (865 – 925 AD) was a Persian physician, alchemist, chemist, philosopher, and scholar.

            “For nearly five hundred years, these rules and theories of an Arab Shaikh and the interpretations of generations of lazy and good-for-nothing priests have decided the civil and criminal law of Turkey. They have decided the form of the Constitution, the details of the lives of each Turk, his food, his hours of rising and sleeping the shape of his clothes, the routine of the midwife who produced his children, what he learned in his schools, his customs, his thoughts-even his most intimate habits. Islam – this theology of an immoral Arab – is a dead thing. Possibly it might have suited tribes in the desert. It is no good for modern, progressive state. God’s revelation! There is no God! These are only the chains by which the priests and bad rulers bound the people down. A ruler who needs religion is a weakling. No weaklings should rule.” ~ Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (1881 – 1938) was a Turkish army officer, revolutionary statesman, writer, and founder of the Republic of Turkey as well as its first president.

            “England is a cesspit. England is the breeding ground of fundamentalist Muslims. Its social logic is to allow all religions to preach openly. But this is illogic, because none of the other religions preach apocalyptic violence. And yet England allows it. Remember, that country was the breeding ground for communism, too. Karl Marx did all his work in libraries there.” ~ Wole Soyinka, Nigerian. UNESCO Goodwill Ambassador for the promotion of African culture, human rights, freedom of expression, media and communication.

            My Muslim friends could indeed be plotting against me.

            They could be plotting against someone…that’s if they really are Muslims and not just pretending…define Muslim?

            Have I been too trusting? I thought I knew these people, but now I think they’re just using me to further their diabolical goal of planetary domination.

            Naive if you think the Islamic religion isn’t a big problem for the world at this time. Islam is the problem, Muslims are the adherents, if the adherents are adhering to Islam, then they are not Muslims.

            Define Muslim?

            Thank you Amos. Thank you for unrestoring my faith in human goodness.

            It is not about human goodness. Muslims believe in the biggest load of bollocks, on that point alone there is a big problem, just as there is with Bible bashers. That a lot of Muslims actually act out this bollocks in their everyday life is a bigger problem, more so than Christianity. That you have a soft spot in your heart for alleged followers of the despicable nonsense is fair enough…Islam is vile, but you are entitled to surround yourself with folk that follow such insidious bollocks if that is your want, personally I wouldn’t have a human being near me that followed a faith that prescribed the things that Islam prescribes in its scriptures…so you work away there with your faith in human goodness and your wishy washy fair weather Muslim friends.

            One last quote before I go…“As a source of objective morality, the Bible is one of the worst books we have. It might be the very worst, in fact—if we didn’t also happen to have the Qur’an” ~ Sam Harris again.

      • In reply to #17 by Ignorant Amos:

        In reply to #10 by godsbuster:

        Will this keep our in-house “Don’t Blame Islam Blame The Misinterpretation Of Islam By Fanatics® ” apologists under their rocks and dissuade them from posting their usual perverse pablum? It might just do the trick but only time will tell.

        I was just about to post the same when I read your comment.

        The “I know some Muslims and they are very nice people brigade” will be calling you peeps criticizing this crap as a bunch of dissenting Islamaphobes.

        Well, looks like we have two commenters independently arriving at the same observation.

        And, yes, time did tell – this grotesque obscene brutal and savage crime did not keep the apologists under their rock. Will this lead to the permanent discrediting of their shameless, hysterical, strawman laced, reason starved, special pleading rants? I don’t mean banning – it is valuable to have the pathogen under close observation to see how it feeds and multiplies – I mean having more commenters seeing it for what it is.

        • In reply to #37 by godsbuster:

          In reply to #17 by Ignorant Amos:

          Well, looks like we have two commenters independently arriving at the same observation.

          And, yes, time did tell – this grotesque obscene brutal and savage crime did not keep the apologists under their rock. Will this lead to the permanent discrediting of their shameless, hysterical, strawman laced, reason starved, special pleading rants? I don’t mean banning – it is valuable to have the pathogen under close observation to see how it feeds and multiplies – I mean having more commenters seeing it for what it is.

          It’s a shame that some of these apologists’ critics lack the courage to engage directly, preferring instead to make snide comments about them. Maybe it’s just me, but if I see a flaw in a poster’s logic, my fingers start to itch and I have an overwhelming desire to tell them where they’ve gone wrong.

          Here’s a thought: instead of buddying up with someone who shares your views, why not try engaging directly with the apologists. If a fellow user posts a reason-starved, hysterical, strawmannish, special-pleading rant, it should be pathetically easy to refute.

          What’s holding you back? Roll up your sleeves and give them a verbal good hiding.

          …it is valuable to have the pathogen under close observation to see how it feeds and multiplies…

          Golly, all Muslims should be deported and those who disagree with you are pathogenic.

          Just… golly.

          I shan’t hold my breath waiting for a response.

    • In reply to #10 by godsbuster:

      Will this keep our in-house “Don’t Blame Islam Blame The Misinterpretation Of Islam By Fanatics® ” apologists under their rocks and dissuade them from posting their usual perverse pablum? It might just do the trick but only time will tell.

      Who are these “Don’t Blame Islam Blame the Misinterpretation Of Islam By Fanatics®” apologists of whom you speak?

      I’m not aware of anyone on this site who defends Islam or says the religion is misinterpreted. If there are such individuals, perhaps you’d be kind enough direct me to some of their comments; I’d quite like to give them a piece of my mind.

      There are a few (far too few in my opinion) here who, Canute-like, try to hold back the rising tide of Islamophobia that, according to minds more clever than my own, is coming to characterise New Atheism; a few who are smart enough to recognise that incidents like the subject of this thread are as stomach-churning to most decent Muslims (I know, I know, that’s a contradiction in terms) as they are to the rest of us.

      That can’t be who you mean, though.

      • In reply to #18 by Katy Cordeth:

        incidents like the subject of this thread are as stomach-churning to most decent Muslims (I know, I know, that’s a contradiction in terms) as they are to the rest of us.

        If that were really true, KC, then most decent Muslims would be ex-Muslims by now.

  6. This kind of thing is really quite complex and not just consequential on a particular version of the scourge of abrahamism. To take a world view based on religion and to say that the religion does not then affect the way the world is interpreted does not seem correct. It can’t be entirely correct either to say that a religion is solely responsible for social interaction though where religious holds are severe they have a proportionate share of the blame.
    Where child marriages are commonplace there is often ignorance bound with tradition. There is also poverty and more than likely money changes hands, there are cultural attitudes to females, their worth in society and their equation with mere property, there are also the sexual attitudes of humans. Some of these things are certainly influenced by and wrapped up in religious memes.
    However, it takes a very, very sick man in the first place to even see an 8 year old female as sexually attractive before he holds her down screaming while he wrecks her body for sexual gratification.

  7. I’m not going to read this article.

    I think I’m right in saying that the Prophet Mohammad married a child named Eisha, so perhaps this follower was following his prophet’s example.

    When questioned about having murdered this innocent hapless helpless child I dare say he’ll site the myth that it’s written in his holy book that it’s permitted to take a child bride; after all, myths abound about what is written in the Qur’an, even to the extent that it contains “Islamic science”.

    As Steven Weinberg says “Good people do good things, and bad people do bad things, but for a good person to do bad things it takes religion.”.

    Religion is the most grave self-inflicted wound humanity suffers.

  8. I have no time for any religion. It is stories like this that make me very sick about what humans do to children. Even Jimmy Savill did not lower himself to this level although what he did was just as offensive. The muslims in this world should protest about this, instead they are defencive when westerns make negitive comments about the Islam faith. Isn’t it about time Muslim country make tough rules that marriages have to have an age of consent as we do in the west ! Oh no that goes agaisnt their faith as the great prophet had a bride aged nine years. Muslims are just horrible !

  9. alaskansee comment 2
    and all because of the Miss World Pageant, sorry wrong thread, must have been the muslims.

    I am not trying to be funny, this just perfectly illustrates the problem with religion and that secular countries who’s populations can manage to watch something as can manage to watch something as “controversial” as Miss World without the need to do something terrible to a woman of any age.

    Good cos it’s not funny. The horror of this and the fact its magnitudes worse than Miss World does not really make MIss World right in any way shape or form. Why on Earth are using the tragedy of this little girl (who is actually just one of the many child/teenage brides who, if they don’t die as the result of sexual trauma certainly will as a result of childbirth in bodies not mature enough to cope, to justify something that isn’t as wrong but is still not right?

  10. There are many references to this and related topics in the koran/hadith/sira.

    The overall picture that emerges is of a cult in which the leader, Mohamed, owns a large number of female slaves who are used for sex and anything else he requires. I don’t believe the numbers are ever given, probably because they keep changing. The point is that there is no rule limiting the number of slaves.

    Mo also had about 20 wives. They had some recognised rights, and their status is higher than that of slaves. He decreed a limit of 4 wives for other male muslims. The wives were not allowed to refuse to have sex, and could be beaten for disobedience. WikiIslam has more on all this, much of it with linked references.

    The marriage of Mohamed to Aisha when she was 6 and he was over 50, and consummation of the marriage when she was 9 was the guiding precedent for all these present day child marriages. As in so many other ways, the tenets of Islam are proving disastrous for those who follow them and for their innocent victims.

    Instead of the usual undeserved respect which is accorded to this horrible farrago of misbegotten tripe posing as a religion, wouldn’t it be nice if it could simply be banned? If we ignore it it might go away

    Seriously, I wish I knew what we could do. Phil Rimmer has suggested that we should be generous and respectful to ‘moderate’ muslims, which I think he thinks would give us more leverage to deal with the others. Perhaps there is something in that. Personally, I suspect there is a demographic jihad looming, and time is not on our side.

    • In reply to #34 by inquisador:

      Phil Rimmer has suggested that we should be generous and respectful to ‘moderate’ muslims,

      Ha! F*ck that. Only seven people on the planet actually get my respect. (True, Ahmad Shah Massoud would have been one of them.)

      We should simply stop telling Muslims (etc.) what they are duty bound to believe. Clerics, mostly, do that, and boy do they need to keep repeating it to make it stick. Folk, left to their own devices tend to forget the cruel and the hateful bollocks.

      A plan for world improvement hinged on the hope that the religiously oppressed (i.e. the religious) will individually abandon their folly in a single revelatory leap is fatuous. Real political action demands that the fundamental-religiously beguiled are urged to go the route of Quakers, say, that path where the morally disabled recognise their disablement and learn to assume some real, personal responsibility first for there own actions and then for those done in any way in their name. Somewhere on that path to a truly personal moral responsibility gods will fade…

      Being nice to moderates will give us no extra leverage with the others (non-moderates), as you impute of me, but not attacking them when we have better targets will reduce the manufacture of those non-moderates. I, however, advocate being nasty to clerics always.

      We need clerics to distance their religion from this current monstrosity. All should be asked for comment and their comments or failure to comment widely publicised.

      Clerics we can reach. Clerics are the enemy.

      • In reply to #52 by phil rimmer:

        In reply to #34 by inquisador:

        Phil Rimmer has suggested that we should be generous and respectful to ‘moderate’ muslims,

        Ha! F*ck that. Only seven people on the planet actually get my respect. (True, Ahmad Shah Massoud would have been one of them.)

        Clerics are the enemy.

        Many of them are, but I will treat them as neutrals in the absence of reasons to do otherwise, just as I would with other religious specimens.

        Maybe ‘respectful’ was a bit too strong. I was thinking of people like Taj Hargey, who does deserve respect, but he is atypical.

        Still working on that ‘crap’ strategy. So far I just intend to keep on shooting my mouth off until a better idea comes along.

        • In reply to #54 by inquisador:

          Clerics are the enemy.

          Many of them are, but I will treat them as neutrals in the absence of reasons to do otherwise, just as I would with other religious specimens.

          Noooo! They are always the ones whose behaviour you must seek to change first. Even when they are God-of-Love’n’Niceness and keep a low profile they are simple parasites stealing responsibility and injecting spurious made up shit into where a functioning human brain should be doing its own thang. They are, at the very least, quack medicine men. But, often, much worse, by setting the example of failing to voice moral outrage on occasions like this, they greatly multiply up the moral dereliction of duty of the morally disabled.

          Religions (or rather sects) that seek to be anti-clerical are more likely to get a pass from me. And, Desmond Tutu is about the only cleric I have time for as a stepping stone example in a badly culturally damaged society, rife with malignant magical thinking. He is amongst the least of evils (but not the least evil). His God is entirely subservient to and necessarily defined by our very own rational, evidenced, moral dispositions. Pretty much he makes a god of our natural, innate human morality.

          • In reply to #56 by phil rimmer:

            In reply to #54 by inquisador:

            Clerics are the enemy.

            Many of them are, but I will treat them as neutrals in the absence of reasons to do otherwise, just as I would with other religious specimens.

            Noooo! They are always the ones whose behaviour you must seek to change first. …

            Being nice to moderates will give us no extra leverage with the others (non-moderates), as you impute of me, but not attacking them when we have better targets will reduce the manufacture of those non-moderates. I, however, advocate being nasty to clerics always.

            You say, talking about moderate Muslims, that ‘not attacking them when we have better targets’ will, effectively, help to avoid radicalising other Muslims.

            While I say that I will treat them as neutrals, which amounts to the same thing as ‘not attacking them. Although I applied that to clerics, I would extend it to all kinds of Muslims as a default approach setting.

            I agree we need to change the clerics’ behaviour first. Soon as we ascertain what that behaviour is at present. Some can only be improved by incarceration; others may be doing the best that can be done, given the terrible material they have to deal with.

  11. Did Jimmy Saville ever kill a kid, twisted bastard that he was ?

    The husband’s humanity appears to have deserted him, or did he think he was doing the right thing according to the Koran ? I’ll never know, but I have no “respect” for a man like that. Sorry Katy, no respect at all.

    As for Islam, I have no respect for that either, nor any other religion.

  12. In reply to #39 by inquisador:

    In reply to #18 by Katy Cordeth:

    incidents like the subject of this thread are as stomach-churning to most decent Muslims (I know, I know, that’s a contradiction in terms) as they are to the rest of us.

    If that were really true, KC, then most decent Muslims would be ex-Muslims by now.

    You do know that apostasy is sort of frowned on in the Islamic world, don’t you, IQ?

    Are you saying that you think most Muslims would approve of this murder?

    • In reply to #41 by Katy Cordeth:

      In reply to #39 by inquisador:

      You do know that apostasy is sort of frowned on in the Islamic world, don’t you, IQ?
      Are you saying that you think most Muslims would approve of this murder?

      I am not saying that most Muslims would approve, but that they must be unconcerned. As though these kinds of atrocity are no concern of theirs. I am saying why do they not see the connection between this event and the exact similarity of the example set by their prophet?

      Do they not see the chaos and fighting in so many parts of the world where Muslims implement the hatred and intolerance to others that is prescribed by their holey book?

      Why do they not join the dots, see the obvious cause and effect?

      If you have a manual that demands obeisance and obedience; that demands the practice of jihadist slaughter and mayhem in the name of Allah, why be surprised when some of the students who have spent years of their lives reading, reciting and learning that manual are doing just that:- going out and slaughtering in the name of Allah.

      I can understand the reluctance to take the risk attached to public apostasy. I do applaud the brave few who have made that decision to leave. I would love to see many more do the same.

      • In reply to #42 by inquisador:

        In reply to #41 by Katy Cordeth:

        In reply to #39 by inquisador:
        I am not saying that most Muslims would approve, but that they must be unconcerned. As though these kinds of atrocity are no concern of theirs. I am saying why do they not see the connection between this event and the exact similarity of the example set by their prophet?Do they not see the chaos and fighting in so many parts of the world where Muslims implement the hatred and intolerance to others that is prescribed by their holey book? Why do they not join the dots, see the obvious cause and effect?

        Ironic how we expect people, with generations (their entire culture) and their entire lives (as individuals) immersed in and bound (on pain of death or at least extreme ostracism) by a cult imbedded in theocracy, to be able to join the dots in spite of everything we know about the intractable, pernicious and often malevolent effects of cults (there exist stacks of studies on it) while people such as US presidents (who inform us that Islam is the religion of peace) and certain members (one has to wonder why they even are) of the RDFRS who have enjoyed all the benefits of a free society including freedom of speech, freedom of thought and access to enlightenment-values-based-education refuse even to see the dots let alone join them.

  13. I feel that all the recent posters on this thread are missing the point; the reason we don’t have incidents like this happening very often in the west is because our countries are secular, not because they are predominantly Christian. It’s not Christianity in itself that is protecting minors, look at the Vatican! Fortunately our secular laws are able to override the barbaric practices of the fundamentalist.

    • I don’t think they are arguing that our christian history prevents these incidents. There does seem to be a disagreement as to whether Islam is the overall worst religion or just the worst religion today. I agree with you that our secular laws are the best way to prevent these incidents but even in western countries, if they occur in minority communities there is a reluctance by the secular authorities to intervene, perhaps due to misplaced political correctness or fear of being accused of racism. Take the issue of female genital mutilation (FGM). In both the UK and France we now have specific laws against this but France seems to take it much more seriously than the UK:

      http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/convictions-for-female-genital-mutilation-france-100-uk-nil-8722934.html

      In reply to #62 by Nitya:

      I feel that all the recent posters on this thread are missing the point; the reason we don’t have incidents like this happening very often in the west is because our countries are secular, not because they are predominantly Christian. It’s not Christianity in itself that is protecting minors, look a…

      • In reply to #63 by Marktony:

        I don’t think they are arguing that our christian history prevents these incidents. There does seem to be a disagreement as to whether Islam is the overall worst religion or just the worst religion today. I agree with you that our secular laws are the best way to prevent these incidents but even in…

        Islam is obviously the worst as practised, particularly in countries the call themselves The Islamic Republic of……The fact that Muslims may get away with acts that contravene the law of the land, is the fault of a failure in enforcement. I see the same sort of breaches in Christian cults and sects. It seems to be an aspect of the religions I know, that they want to have sex with children. All of them! I think it can be reduced to the adherents’ notion of purity. Who is more pure than an innocent child?

        I think a lot of the anti-Muslim sentiment is whipped up because of their obvious “otherness”. They have not done themselves any favours recently with various incidents of criminal behaviour as well.

  14. In reply to #65 by Ignorant Amos:

    Further to my earlier response , can I just say I had forgotten it was you who said the “I have a fear of the potential for Islam…” stuff.

    I genuinely thought we were talking about some third party’s comment.

    Sorry for saying it was illiterate. :(

Leave a Reply