SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : America Under Siege: The End of Innocence -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Richnorth who wrote (20235)12/2/2002 7:55:44 AM
From: zonder  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 27666
 
Re Muhammad had a six-year old for a wife

A small correction - he took that girl when she was eight (sort of like an adoption, she didn't have parents or something) and did not bed her until she "became a woman", (i.e. she menstruated). When she was 12 or so, if I recall correctly.

It is shocking to us now, but let us try to remember that marrying off girls when they are 12-13 was very common practice in those days. A girl would be a spinster by the time she is 20 or so.

This story of Mouhammad marrying a preteen is priceless as slander against the whole religion (not that there's a shortage of material), but its criticism is no different than if Muslims were to laugh at Christ for his involvement with Maria Magdalena.

I know, I know, there is a moral in there somewhere, but just to point out that these things depend on your viewpoint.



To: Richnorth who wrote (20235)12/2/2002 6:37:50 PM
From: Machaon  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 27666
 
<< O yes, Muhammad had a six-year old for a wife, hadn't he? >>

You get excited and show great resentment for me posting something bad about osama bin laden, and then you post a worse insult against Muhammad?

<< Even if it's true, apparently there is no stricture in Islam that forbids that sort of thing. >>

And now, you are trying to justify child molesting, because, you state, that it is an OK practice in Islam?



To: Richnorth who wrote (20235)12/2/2002 10:33:19 PM
From: Investor Clouseau  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 27666
 
BTW, Clinton was partly if not mainly responsible for the mess America is now mired in with Al-Qaeda etc. You see, he adopted an appeasement policy and was evidently pro-Israel at Camp David.

President Clinton is in no way responsible for Al-Qaeda attacking us, only Al-Qaeda is responsible for that.

IC