How old Aisha was when Muhammad married her?!

You and your never-ending campaign against Islam. We all get it, you hate Islam. Don't you have anything else to say about ANY subject on planet Earth??

kaviaq--

And how is it any different than the attacks on Israel, or Christianity or Zionists, or Republicans, or Democrats, or Obama, or Bush, or Palin the list goes on.

You don't like it, DO NOT POST OR READ IT!!! Whoa what a concept.

Go find a seed that bashes Christians and have fun.

Goes has every right to post about Islam if he wants to.

Or kaviaq are you just too scared of the truth and wish to remain in constant denial?

Or are you scared to learn history?

kaviaqa, Muslims adheres to an all-encompassing Islamic Ploitical-military-legal-legal doctrine known as shariah. Shariah obliges Muslims to engage in jihad to achieve the triumph of Islam worldwide through the establishment of a global Islamic State governed exclusively by shariah, under a restored caliphate.

Few Kafir, are aware of the diversity and success to date of such efforts to insinuate shariah into the United States and let alone the world - Many do not understand the full implications of the mortal threat this totalitarian doctrine represents to our freedom, society and government. Fewer fail to understand the nature of the Islam, its deceit, duality, unchangeable nature, lies, hatredof the kafis, jihad, dhimmitude, and many other issues Islam presents in order to force all to submit to Allah and convert to Islam or be killed.

kaviaq the horses is not dead, No we do not hate Muslims its Islam and its agenda which need to be understood by the Kafir which is important. And it is Islam which hates and has no intention of letting up. So it is Islam which as caused this issue and it is Islam which has made its self the only subject on Earth. And as long as there are folks like Goes and others who are willing to educated the Ignorant (kafir), which Islam, says is the Human problem. Soon many will understand to think and understand how the Islamic thinks and that way Kaviaq, Islam will be over come and freedom gained and not lost the the Islamic threat.

I hope this has helped you understand. But kaviaq, I think you allready understand this.

Yes. Sp people will know the truth.

If one doesn't like reading something, why bother to read it?

You and your never-ending campaign against Islam. We all get it, you hate Islam. Don't you have anything else to say about ANY subject on planet Earth??

I love you, Kaviaq but let's rephrase your statement a bit...

"You and your never-ending campaign against superstition\pro-lifers. We all get it, you hate anti-science rhetoric\anti- abortion legislators. Don't you have anything else...."

We all have our pet peeves and areas of special interest and education. And for Goes to play to his strengths and knowledge is commendable and far better than spouting about things he knows little.

Goes material is first rate, supported by facts and provides a very good source of information regarding a regressive creed.

Additionally, the below link is a list of concessions to Islam everyone needs to be aware of:

Concessions to Islam

Aisha was 6, and their marriage was consumated. In other words, muhammed was a child molester. Their marriage consmated by age 9.

The serious problem with Muhammed is not a prophet, he was a man of his historical period, and I do not believe that people deify him. He is not the perfect man. For the unbaised opinion, a child molester no matter what people say. That is like deifying John Wayne Gacey, and calling him a perfect man.

How do you block a seeder? I don't what you on my screen thank you have a good day!

GA Girl-718836

I mean no disrespect, but isn't it important to challenge your world view, at least occasionally? Is it that you do not wish to read the content, or that you have no adequete response to the content the article contains?

The thing is, if one is providing the truth, with appropriate citations, isn't that what Newsvine is supposed to be all about? I honestly have to say that Goes does a much better job of providing a solid foundation for what he posts than probably 99 per cent of the membership of the Vine.

I would further suggest that bigotry and prejudice are also evidenced by those who choose to avoid the evidence which might not fit with their world view.

It seems to me that one of the favorite tactics of some is to immediately cry foul and suggest bigotry and prejudice based on nothing more than the fact that a particular subject is being examined.

I doubt you will read this, but....

Great party Goes! first time to visit your seeds. Heh go on , hopefully this non-abated effort helps in kicking brotherhood out of Egyptian Parliament :)

Fada!!
How are you?
*hugs*
:D

Hi Abby nice to see you. Everything is well over here except everything since Parliamentary election has begun :)

Hang in there, luvvy!
You can email me whenever you want.
*hugs*

Aisha was definitely older than 3 years and one day.

Wow saw this article and before I hit it I knew she was six yrs. old but I did not realize this POS man waited until she was at least 9 years old. I give him kudos for that. I "think" depending on the "worthless" man they make excuses and build religions around their sexual gratification in other words "booty call". They either want multiply women or children to be theirs. Look its even on TV now, those stupid "sister" wives are so brainwashed and desperate for a man they will televise their ignorance even when its illegal. Humans will go to any means to justify their deviant behavior and others who want to be part of this sickness or "step" lightly to being politically correct should all be thrown together. IMO

They either want multiply women or children to be theirs

Such condescent!... cocksures lecturing values in convenience like it is not happening in the west on daily scale under different names , for multiple women it is adultry , for kids and infants its name is 'child abuse' and it is the service of ''child sex tourism'' they travel thousands of miles to get it

And yet it is not condoned by Jesus.....or the larger society.

And how is it any different than the attacks on Israel, or Christianity or Zionists, or Republicans, or Democrats, or Obama, or Bush, or Palin the list goes on.

It is different becausehe ONLY posts on one subject. Anyone who only harps on ONE subject would be equally annoying...no matter what the subject.

Walt,

I am not defending Islam. I was specifically referring to Goes' unhealthy obsession with it. I don't like any of the Abrahamic religions, but for a Christian such as Goes to keep harping on how evil Islam is, considering all the horrible atrocities committed in the name of HIS religion...is disingenuous and smacks of an unhealthy obsession.

Or kaviaq are you just too scared of the truth and wish to remain in constant denial?

Or are you scared to learn history?

You seem to be implying I am defending Islam. I am not. But goes posts article after article on this one subject. I was just telling him I'd be more interested to hear his opinion on a DIFFERENT subject for once. I know history just fine, thanks. All the Abrahamic religions are abominations that the world would have been far better off without.

**Sorry, all this is responses to comments from #1. Can't move it back up for some reason.

kaviaq--

Then here is a thought DO NOT READ THE SEEDS/ARTICLES

Stay away from them.

No actually you even commenting in the first place shows an unhealthy obsession of someone just posting a history lesson about Islam.

Yup I KNEW the attacks on Christianity would come out sooner or later.

All the Abrahamic religions are abominations that the world would have been far better off without.

Ah so speaks the atheist. And non-religious communist countries really are a blessing and completely peaceful aren't they.

Considering the fact that right now for Western society, the society YOU hold dearly, is actually under threat by Islam, I WOULD pay attention to what Goes is posting.

You won't because you just want to be PC and go with all religion is an abomination. Ya know what hon, HUMANS, regardless of religion, are an abomination. However, given you live in Western society I WOULD be paying close attention to Islam more tan any other religion right now.

Kshark,

Dude...try decaf!

kaviaq--

Kshark,

Dude...try decaf!

Try maturity. You started this, no one else did.

Once again, take a look at my column, you will find different subjects being discussed other than Islam.

I DID look at your column before posting. I didn't see any articles you posted that were not about Islam.

OK, I rechecked. Scrolling down even further I did find three that appear to be unrelated to Islam. But really, you seem a bit obsessed. But whatever, I'll leave you to your fans and move on.

Goes we all have our thing and if its the truth...well good it should annoy people that the truth needs to be known. But heaven forbid man you are dissing those Muslims watch out. You could suspended or banned for that, unlike those who constantly dissed Christians or "gasp" Catholics. Only certain groups are "hands off" *oops cracking eggshells*

If you like this one you'll LOVE his next 7,524 articles on the exact same subject!!

kaviaq if your not interested don't read them. No his articles cover many subject under one heading, Islam. You might take time to read his articles you might learn something. If he and other are correct you won't have to worry about reading or writing any thing. Its against Sharia Law.

@walt - agreed....not only that, but he writes about a subject he knows of which makes it that much more interesting....pretty simple for someone to NOT read article that you dislike or deem repetitive.

I do find it odd and downright humorous that someone on the internet would actually think they can specify a complete and total stranger has an unhealthy obsession with....anything at all.

I'll respond to whatever thread I want in whatever way I want. If you don't like it you can all just whine about it....oh wait....you already are!!

kaviaq--

I'll respond to whatever thread I want in whatever way I want. If you don't like it you can all just whine about it....oh wait....you already are!!

That is rather comical, you are the one that started all the whining to begin with. Shall we look at exhibit A, post #1

kaviaq

Goes,

The horse has been dead for months....must you keep beating it??

Yes, good article. Thanks. I will be reading more of them. Nice to see the facts once in a while.

It's kind of rude to put a link to your own column on someone else's article.

I think it is against COH unless this author oks it.

Hi Sherry-long time no see, lovely lady! I believe you're right, but I didn't want to say it.

As the Author, its OK for me if someone puts others links here. its fine with me. But the point here is that the person (Goes?) shall read the article and get the context in full - before authoritatively saying what he / she wants to say. Thanks, remembering that we were only discussing.

Again, please no insulting words to any of the Prophets; yeah you can use those words for me (if you want to) - I won't hide or delete them. :)

Fareed, you are not the author of this article, nor the moderator, and it is bad form to put links to your own article on someone else's article/comments without so much as a 'how do you do' to the author.

This is a copy of the comment I left at your thread.

The author's sixth argument

According to a number of narratives, Ayesha (رضى الله عنها) accompanied the Muslims in the battle of Badr and Uhud. Furthermore, it is also reported in books of hadith and history that no one under the age of 15 years was allowed to take part in the battle of Uhud. All the boys below 15 years of age were sent back. Ayesha's (رضى الله عنها) participation in the battle of Badr and Uhud clearly indicate that she was not nine or ten years old at that time. After all, women used to accompany men to the battle fields to help them, not to be a burden on them.

She didn't take part in the battle, she accompanied the muslims.
As a wife.
In that regard, there is no age restriction.
The restrictions were imposed on the boys under 15, not the "women".
So your own argument does not help your argument, does it?
;)

I've gone and ordered some literature.
The Koran,
The Bible,
Some stuff on Hinduism & Buddhism.
I don't know how to get a copy of the Torah, so I'm gonna track down Enoch, & seewhat he can suggest.
The reason I've done this, is to better educate myself on the subject of religion.
Wish me luck, luvvy!
:D

Thankyou, Goes.
*hugs*

Abby:

The Torah is the name given by Jews to the first five books of the bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy in Hebrew, Bere@!$%#, Shmot, Vayikra, Bamidbar, Dvarim).

If you have the bible, those books of the old testament are what you would call the Torah, though it is a little more complicated as part of the Torah isn't just the written word, but the overall interpretation of those words and to appreciate that, you really need to go to Rabbinical school.

Thankyou Jon,
*hugs*

Thankyou for all of these resources Goes.
:D

As always Goes....a wealth of information. Thank you.

mweaver,

It's also a different time, with no relevance to today.

In addition, marrying children was also common practice in royalty in europe, though it was known that the terms of those marriages were that they would not be consummated until the child was 14 (which was the unofficial age of consent). It was very much a matter of alliance building, in the same vein today of companies buying bits of each other to ensure that partnerships work out.

Absolutely, if one can think of nothing else to say....time to either bash Christians, or attempt to otherwise excuse the behavior. I rarely see the same people say the same things when Christainity is the subject, in fact I often see quite the opposite. Those who apologize for abhorrent behavior, support it.

Second, Mary's case was an exception...

No, it really wasn't.

Mary was betrothed at the usual age for girls to get betrothed. Scholars infer her age by the fact that she was given to Joseph to marry and they picked the age that's normal.

I'm not defending the practice of marrying children. I'm pointing out that current social norms are not the norms of years past, whether your math is right or not. This fact does not, in any way, invalidate the religions which once observed those same religious practices.

Fluffy is right. There are plenty of other aspects that invalidate religion.

Baron:

That's another discussion.

For full disclosure, I am a religious man, though I do not pray to the Judeo-Christian Deity. I have met, read about, and heard of Muslims who are pretty obviously good people; while there are jerks in every crowd, I see no reason to attack the religion.

People need to be able to separate custom from doctrine.

12-14 years is different than 9.

But they are the same in that we would consider an adult having sex with someone at any of those ages to be a pedophile today.

As I said. You need to learn the difference between custom and doctrine; I don't think anyone is suggesting that marrying underage girls is a tenet of the religion.

I say the religion should be attacked because it is why gives rise to those weaknesses of mind which lead to such atrocities as we see in the current day. Would there still be violence? Of course, but let's not give them yet another reason to justify it.

As far as marrying underage girls, no they prefer to rape and stone them. They get that from their religion after all.

Baron:

And I say that religion is a process to come into contact with and participate in a higher truth. You are welcome to think I'm silly for believing that, but I've met quite strong minded religious folk, some of the brightest and wisest I've known.

As I said, I'm not here to debate the relative merits of religion in general; that's another debate. I'm only saying that if one attempts to apply modern sensibilities to a number of historical figures, you'll find that their actions are not acceptable by modern standards.

Okay. Then is forcing the conversion of passing merchants by force of arms something that was cultural acceptable at the time? Violence as the foundation of the "religion of peace"? There are certain things that are true now that were true then. The fact that Muhammad was a terrorist cannot be denied. The fact that he was a child rapist, well we can just chalk that one up to cultural relativism.

goes,

the tradition may have been (i don't know, just hypothesizing here) that a girl comes of age as of puberty, and aisha may have hit puberty far sooner than most.

It is hard to say for sure, but the reality is, it was a different time, and there are things that 'prophets' won't want to change because it would upset the population and prevent uptake of the religion (marketing at its best lol). This is similar to christianity having many holidays on the same day as many 'pagan' holidays.

well at the time, there was a reason for it, so the context is missing from it. The problem is, with fundamentalist religions of any kind, including christianity, is that context is everything, and if you try to interpret something without that context, then you just end up looking backwards.

For example, every one of the jewish dietary laws has a legitimate reason, but looking at the time that they were created and today, the reasons aren't necessarily valid anymore (the ban on pork, well we know why pork was causing people to get sick now, but the ban remains).

This information will always be timely, thanks Goes.

not just muslim countries, but any fundamentalist country, including the fundamentalists in the US that say, for example, which that George Michael died because, he is gay, or that Obama should be dead because he had the gaul to run as president while being part black. Fundamentalism is stupid, regardless of the religion (or pseudo religion in some cases).

I do have give the fundamentalist bhuddists a bye, because they just don't seem to be violent. (lol).

Yes, one has to attack those evil Christians...look what they've done in the US...freedom for every conceivable religious faith...how dare they be so tolerant?

ok, a question that I have, is the word 'menstruated' actually in the Koran in its original arabic (as opposed to it being a translational approximation)?

not that I have read.

but there is this.

Bukhari :: Book 8 :: Volume 73 :: Hadith 151

Narrated 'Aisha:

I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13)

http://www.quranexplorer.com/Hadith/English/Hadith/bukhari/008.073.151.html

and my question there is still not answered because that is in english, not the original arabic. Is that a literal translation, or a figurative one?

Someone here who is fluent in Arabic would have to answer that question.

That's great, but you don't get it...

You're talking about some customary practice...that's no longer viable. Since the modern world is not required to submit to the will of allah, people living there have the ability to think for themselves and realized that it wasn't a good practice.

On the other hand, you have the prophet of "a great religion" that married a girl when she was 6 and consumated the marriage at 9. That's not very prophet-like behavior. What's worse is that the so-called prophet is called in the quran a "beautiful pattern of conduct" and is to be emulated...and that is why his followers believe that it is their allah-given right to marry and fuk pre-pubed girls to this day.

teufelhund,

We are ALL more than likely missing some details of the story.

No, not all...just those that don't know jack about islam. You should read the quran and sunnah...

I'll pass

(I say the same thing if someone tells me I should read the bible again too by the way).

I'll pass

Then I guess you'll remain one of those missing the details...

for someone that doesn't believe in any god, whether it be the judeo christian islamic god, or the great pumpkin from peanuts, I don't believe I am missing much.

I find religion interesting from a sociological sense, but not from a 'meaning of life' sense.

judeo christian islamic god

The judeo christian god is not the islamic god...

I find religion interesting from a sociological sense

That's not true...if it were, then you wouldn't say things like

I'll pass

And this is why you believe things like

We are ALL more than likely missing some details of the story.

You might be interested to know that the reason that fuking little girls is acceptable in islamic societies is because it is the example set by der prophet. I find it interesting that many people don't know this...I also find it interesting that when people find out about it, they tend to write it off as some crazy shi'ite written down in a book 2000 years ago. That's fine, but even more interesting is that what was revealed to mo in the 7th century is just as applicable today as it was then.

If you were interested in islam from a societal perspective, then you can find out how fukd up it is by reading the source texts...

teufel.

hmmm for someone that supposedly read the Koran, you apparently missed that interesting little detail, for yes, the god of Islam is most definitely the same god as in Christianity which is most definitely the same god as in Judaism. In fact, the bible (not the new testament) is also considered a holy book (though a lesser one) in Islam.

The "interesting detail" which you missed is that Muslims claim Him to be the same God, while most Christians deny it.

So what if most christians deny it, for almost a millennium, most christians 'knew' that the sun orbited around the earth, hell it was a punishment of death in many cases that was the result of saying otherwise, and we now know how accurate that was.

And FYI, Islam does NOT accord christianity the same treatment. Jesus was not a prophet in Islam, so it again doesn't really matter what christians say.

you apparently missed that interesting little detail, for yes, the god of Islam is most definitely the same god as in Christianity which is most definitely the same god as in Judaism.

Yes, I missed the fact that yahweh changed his name to a rock called "allah". This is just one example, but as it is the most important, I'll stop there...

Jesus was not a prophet in Islam

For one that finds religions interesting, you certainly don't know @!$%# about them...

yeah whatever,

since you have no interest in polite discourse, please put me on ignore, as I have no interest in continuing this.

I'm all for polite discourse...but if you don't know jesus is mentioned in the quran and is a prophet of islam, there's nothing to talk about. Read the quran and sunnah, and then come back and discuss the topic...but don't make statements about it if you have no clue what you're talking about...that's not me being impolite, just frank.

for yes, the god of Islam is most definitely the same god as in Christianity which is most definitely the same god as in Judaism

and then reality rear her ugly head.

A 1315 illustration from the Jami al-Tawarikh, inspired by the Sirah Rasul Allah story of Muhammad and the Meccan clan elders lifting the Black Stone into place, is historically verified in this photo,of Mohammad with the black stone of the Kabba pre-revelation(or claimed revelation)

http://ivarfjeld.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/islam-moon.jpg

present day photo of the black stone of the Kabba after revelation (or claimed revelation)http://www.flickr.com/photos/57806841@N05/5835945239/

meet "allah" the black stone of the Kaaba

goes

We are talking about women being married at a early age.

Then this is not a serious discussion of men of all faiths and cultures having sex with young girls in past centuries.

This then is just bashing a particular religion.

........................................

Nor is there any difference between Cain and Abel.

You are acting like Christianity is superior to other religions and it is not, cultural norms change over time and what was considered normal at one time in mans history changes over time.

By the way Ishmael and Isaac were brothers that means the modern Arabs and Jews are blood brothers/cousins.

Which also means that neither of them is or was Hebrew.

cultural norms change over time and what was considered normal at one time in mans history changes over time.

And that is exactly why Islam needs to reform and get out of the 7th Century and join the modern world. It's not ok to kill gays, it's not ok to stone women to death, it's not ok to kill for family honor. Might have been 700 years ago.....but it's unacceptable today.

It is not ok to lie to go to war and kill innocent people.

And it is not ok to kill hundreds of thousands of 'collateral damaged'' Iraqis in a war based at fake premises and it is not ok to kill civilians by drone strikes at daily scale

Empire's Norms at the 21th century is to ok mass killing if it is the killer and to issue hypocritic speech criticizing other killers

And it is not ok to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraq in a war based at fake premises

But it was ok for Saddam Hussein to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Kurd's, as well as Iranians and Kuwaiti's and no one stop him? It was ok for Hitler to kill millions of Jews and no one stop him? Or, were those fake premises?

and it is not ok to kill civilians by drone strikes at daily scale.

But it is okay for terrorist to hide among innocent citizens who they know are in danger of being killed? One thing we have learned about terrorists like bin Laden, Saddam and others....they hide behind their women believing that will save them.

It means that the three supposed great religions are based upon the life and times of one particular extended family.

When you look at all of the rape, robbery and murder in Judaism, Islam and Christianity neither is better or superior in my mind than the other.

In fact, the larger point is indeed which world view each of us support. The enemy within is what is most saddening.

But it was ok for Saddam Hussein to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Kurd's, as well as Iranians and Kuwaiti's and no one stop him?

So it is a contest of who kills more? definiately US wins the contest in its overseas multi-wars but no one stops her because the hypocrite World Police punishs and not to be punished

By the way it is interesting that Saddam and US 'the liberator' both have killed the same people of Iraq

One thing we have learned about terrorists like bin Laden, Saddam and others....they hide behind their women

Many things we have learnt about the hypocrite World Police.... international terrorism is allowed in wars for OIL based at forged premises and the killed innocents are ''collateral damage''

Ah....appreciate your comment..it seems the agenda becomes more clear.

dr 'Know everything' aprops show up...standing ovation!

I always refrain Goes from personal comments untill some one issues irrelevant comment to my posts and jumps into void personal attacks like this: ''the agenda becomes more clear''

Unless you see this uncalled meddling is allowed in your seeds from favoured agendists and answers for meddling not allowed , I don't know about this rule here

Alright Goes I will not waste more time on this worthless derail , just explaining you because you'r the moderator that I won't miss an answer to me below my post and below '#20.12 that was the response to #20.9' . Starting with 'Ah' as surprise must be response for new post 'mine' not for #20.9

Personal agenda is ok when it means personal standing not when mentioned in particular context of casting doubts over personal motives. We all have thoughts and views and causes to support. I appreciate your agenda Goes , I just disagree with how to fight religious control. I am with revealing evil clerics and institutions to publicity not offending the harmless ordinary people who really believe that books are from God

Thank you for your comments.

While difficult, I will not defend myself in an effort to keep the focus where it should be, the topic of the fine article.

Goes , let me say it outstraight , such seeds bring offensive comments about profhit of muslems. I may harbour more than sarcasm but I don't say it in public because this is not the way to convince believers anything about their religion , this provokes unnecessary hatred and let poor muslems stuck more to religion in defensive attitude.

Salaf's leadership said with smirk in TV that immigrant Copts in US helped Noor party in getting part of vote in election by their attacks on Islam symbols and Qura'an on Facebook and Twitter! Those people are smarter than we think and they put every criticism on tens of TV channels sponsered by Saudia to prove that they are fighting in what they call 'war on Islam' .

I'd rather fight fundamentalist directly and not attacking a book. If you know 'al-Osboa journal' , it published an article I wrote about salafi saying 'what those brainless chunks know about Constitution and economy' and who gives those freak creatures the right to speak about Egyptian Liberals and Christians and women and artists? I wrote in clear words that I am ready to kick any of those ignorants under belt if he dares to tell me what to do and what not to do

And I would suggest it is you that are missing the point. The modern and ancient are not different standards.

Oh yes there was. People married younger because people lived shorter. And I know the point, bashing a religion you don't agree with because of the marriage practices of the time of it's prophet.

Try again...

because of the marriage practices of the time of it's prophet.

Do some research. It's simple, shorter life expectancy as well as the high mortality rate of childbirth had people marrying younger. Julius Cesar was married at age 10 to a bride aged 7 is just one example. The facts does not support you. Sorry. But I know, easier to demonize modern people for acts commited in the past, rather like the atheists demonizing Christians for the Crusades and the Inquestion.

Wraith...you continue to miss the point.....Regardless of what you suggest regarding ancient history, most Christians no longer support the practice precisely because they support the new standards of which you speak. The suggestion here is that due to the strictness of the Koran in terms of making NO changes, and the admonition to follow in Mohammad's footsteps, that the there has been no similar change in the Islamic World View. You're addressing a point which is not in dispute, while ignoring the central issue at the heart of the discussion.

Is there a large group of people who live by the rulings of julius ceasar and make it a point to emulate them? It's not a rational comparison to mohammad, the "profit" of a religion. And here's a good point: islam makes a point of being the last testament, as in the old, new, and last testaments. Supposedly, it is the final revealed religion, and the last message to humans from god. It's better than all religions before it type thing. So if that is true, then what god is saying is that mohammad, who slept with little girls, is a better example for humans to live their lives by than jesus, who never slept with anyone, much less a child. We could expand that by comparing things like mohammd saying that he was commanded to fight unbelievers until religion was all for allah. Jesus simply told us to turn the other cheek...

Regardless of whatever custom was appropriate for the time, sleeping with pre-pube chicks really ins't prophet-like behavior, not to mention that behavior that is a degradation of the behavior of the previous prophet that mo supposedly replaced...either way, islam is stupid. And nobody is demonizing modern people...just criticising the ideology that has infected them.