Muslims are terrorists?

[Rosarium]

I've heard repeated references to Mohammed as a pedophile. What evidence is there that he was a pedophile?

He requested to marry Aisha, who was around 7.

He was 50 at the time and his first wife, Khadija, had died (they were married for around 25 years, and were of normal ages. They married when he was 25).

He had many other wives as well.

A 50 year old man does not marry a 7 year old girl.

EDIT: The marriage was consummated when she was 9. A 52 year old man having sex with a 9 year old girl.

This doesn't count his concubines either.

He was very shrewd, no?

[INPEFESS]

I've heard repeated references to Mohammed as a pedophile. What evidence is there that he was a pedophile?

He requested to marry Aisha, who was around 7.

He was 50 at the time and his first wife, Khadija, had died (they were married for around 25 years, and were of normal ages. They married when he was 25).

He had many other wives as well.

A 50 year old man does not marry a 7 year old girl.

This doesn't count his concubines either.

He was very shrewd, no?

Well yes, according to history, he was very "shrewd", but that is not a conclusion formed in response to the above unsubstantiated claims.

I was just wondering if his desire to marry a 7 year old girl was the source for the pedophilic labels. I see now that it is.

[Rosarium]

I've heard repeated references to Mohammed as a pedophile. What evidence is there that he was a pedophile?

He requested to marry Aisha, who was around 7.

He was 50 at the time and his first wife, Khadija, had died (they were married for around 25 years, and were of normal ages. They married when he was 25).

He had many other wives as well.

A 50 year old man does not marry a 7 year old girl.

This doesn't count his concubines either.

He was very shrewd, no?

Well yes, according to history, he was very "shrewd", but that is not a conclusion formed in response to the above unsubstantiated claims.

I was just wondering if his desire to marry a 7 year old girl was the source for the pedophilic labels. I see now that it is.

I had corrected my post to give more detail. It wasn't his desire to marry a 6-7 year old, but his having sex with a 9 year old.

[INPEFESS]

I've heard repeated references to Mohammed as a pedophile. What evidence is there that he was a pedophile?

He requested to marry Aisha, who was around 7.

He was 50 at the time and his first wife, Khadija, had died (they were married for around 25 years, and were of normal ages. They married when he was 25).

He had many other wives as well.

A 50 year old man does not marry a 7 year old girl.

This doesn't count his concubines either.

He was very shrewd, no?

Well yes, according to history, he was very "shrewd", but that is not a conclusion formed in response to the above unsubstantiated claims.

I was just wondering if his desire to marry a 7 year old girl was the source for the pedophilic labels. I see now that it is.

I had corrected my post to give more detail. It wasn't his desire to marry a 6-7 year old, but his having sex with a 9 year old.

Ok. I see.

[Vetus Ordo]

And it's not that hard to find Muslims who do condemn terrorism.
http://www.freemuslims.org/
http://www.islamfortoday.com/terrorism.htm
http://www.m-a-t.org/
http://www.unc.edu/~kurzman/terror.htm
http://www.reformislam.org/

That is plain ridiculous. Those guys are as muslim as Calvin or Luther were catholics.

"Heretical" muslim sites do not account for Islam, so much as Catholic Asnwers doesn't account for Catholicism. As you should know, claiming to be muslim is not the same as being muslim.

[Walty]

And it's not that hard to find Muslims who do condemn terrorism.
http://www.freemuslims.org/
http://www.islamfortoday.com/terrorism.htm
http://www.m-a-t.org/
http://www.unc.edu/~kurzman/terror.htm
http://www.reformislam.org/

That is plain ridiculous. Those guys are as muslim as Calvin or Luther were catholics.

"Heretical" muslim sites do not account for Islam, so much as Catholic Asnwers doesn't account for Catholicism. As you should know, claiming to be muslim is not the same as being muslim.

I think that's kind of a silly and nonsensical claim to make.  What makes one heretical in Christianity is whether or not they align with the Truth.  There may very well be some truth in Islam, but most of it is inherently an enemy to truth (which seems especially true of the more radical versions). 

Traditional and orthodox Catholicism are not true Catholicism just because they happen to be the most conservative.  It is true Catholicism because it is the version fully in line with Truth.  The most conservative versions of Islam could just as easily be the ones farthest from the truth and in most need of reform.  Certainly, if there is any Christian truth in Islam it would be found in greater quantities within the Islamic groups that I posted instead of a bunch of suicidal Wahhabists.

[Vetus Ordo]

Traditional and orthodox Catholicism are not true Catholicism just because they happen to be the most conservative.  It is true Catholicism because it is the version fully in line with Truth.  The most conservative versions of Islam could just as easily be the ones farthest from the truth and in most need of reform.  Certainly, if there is any Christian truth in Islam it would be found in greater quantities within the Islamic groups that I posted instead of a bunch of suicidal Wahhabists.

"Reformers" of Islam are just muslims "protestants", Walty.

I'm not arguing that Islam is the Truth, far from that! However, Islam has its own sunni (and shia) "orthodoxy" and those guys you quoted are completely "heretical" regarding that centuries-old and widespread "orthodoxy" and thus are not truly muslims by any sense of the word. You can't interpret the Qur'an on your own and make up the Islam that suits you best, the same way you can't interpret the Holy Bible on your own and make up the Christianity that suits you best.

[Walty]

Traditional and orthodox Catholicism are not true Catholicism just because they happen to be the most conservative.  It is true Catholicism because it is the version fully in line with Truth.  The most conservative versions of Islam could just as easily be the ones farthest from the truth and in most need of reform.  Certainly, if there is any Christian truth in Islam it would be found in greater quantities within the Islamic groups that I posted instead of a bunch of suicidal Wahhabists.

"Reformers" of Islam are just muslims "protestants", Walty.

I'm not arguing that Islam is the Truth, far from that! However, Islam has its own sunni (and shia) "orthodoxy" and those guys you quoted are completely "heretical" regarding that centuries-old and widespread "orthodoxy" and thus are not truly muslims by any sense of the word. You can't interpret the Qur'an on your own and make up the Islam that suits you best, the same way you can't interpret the Holy Bible on your own and make up the Christianity that suits you best.

I understand what you are saying, but I think it is oversimplifying to make such broad analogies between two entirely different contexts.  I really don't think the two are analogous at all because "orthodoxy" in Islam is relative and has no ties to reality.  It could just as easily have been something else.  Protestantism is Christianity Lacking because it is further from truth.  Reform Islam is just another form of Islam which may or may not be closer to the truth than the other forms of Islam that are all bunk anyway.  The "orthodox" view of Islam is not something agreed upon nor does it have any authority.  It is just as much a fantasy and subjective read as what the reform viewpoint is.  Without the light of truth in Islam the whole thing is meaningless, thus even a definition of Islam from an objective stance is really nothing more than what the most barbaric and monstrous Muslims have gotten to decide after weeding out the competition .   In Islamic history, might makes right and Sunni pre-Islamic political tribalism has as much to do with deciding what Islam "is" as anything else.  I mean, I guess what we have to ask ourselves is twofold.  Firstly, which type of Islam is closer to the truth and secondly, is it possible (and if so, how) to determine which is the "authentic" version of Islam?

I think, since we are talking about a faith that is often opposed to the True Faith, that the closest we can get to "authenticating" Islam is looking into which modern branch of Islam is most in line with the teachings of Mohammed.  Now, I see your point and agree to some extent.  I think Islam is a religion of violence and depravity and that Mohammed set it up as such.  But, I also think that Islam has been really changed and made even more depraved by Arabian tribalism (particularly within Sunnism) and the Ummayad and Abbasid dynasties. 

So, I think it is possible that Islamic reform movements can have some "authenticity" to them since even Mohammed wasn't as blood thirsty as many of the early shapers of Islam.  And, the reformers may not be "orthodox" but they are Muslims nevertheless, just as Protestants are still Christians.  I think those reform movements are closer to Christianity than Islamic fundamentalism for obvious reasons.  I pointed them out to say that not all Muslims were depraved or violent personally or communally even if they stray from modern views of "orthodoxy" which are not entirely solid or truly orthodox to begin with.  They are less depraved and, in fact, quite peaceful even though they remain Muslims, and may God bless them and bring them to a full conversion for it.

And I think the very fact that you are putting "orthodoxy" and "heretical" in quotation marks proves my point.  Those are meaningless and subjective terms in Islam and cannot be used in a definition of objective truth.  So, perhaps we are best off asking what the majority of Muslims (an "orthodoxy" if you will) agree upon as to what makes one Muslim (and even then we are only talking about what a majority of people think which, as you know, is still only so good as democracy or popular opinion cannot say a darn thing about what is actually true).  What is overwhelmingly agreed upon within Islam is that one only needs to profess the Shahada in order to be a true Muslim.  "I believe Allah is the only God, and Muhammad is His Prophet."  That's all one has to do, so I do think that even the most extreme or "orthodox" groups in Islam would indeed recognize these groups as truly Muslim, just in an unfortunate and erroneous way.

So, I do stand by my view that there are peaceful Muslims.

[Vetus Ordo]

What is overwhelmingly agreed upon within Islam is that one only needs to profess the Shahada in order to be a true Muslim.  "I believe Allah is the only God, and Muhammad is His Prophet."  That's all one has to do, so I do think that even the most extreme or "orthodox" groups in Islam would indeed recognize these groups as truly Muslim, just in an unfortunate and erroneous way.

Well, the essential duties one must fulfill in order to be a muslim are to profess the shahadah, to pray the regular salat (5 times a day), to pay the monthly zakah, to fast during the month of Ramadan and to perform the Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca) at least once in his or her lifetime. One can also add the lesser and greater Jihad as a muslim duty. These five practices, also called "the five pillars of Islam", are essential to be considered a muslim.

Besides that, one is expected to follow one of the four mainline schools of jurisprudence in Sunni Islam: Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i or Hanbali. The majority of muslims believe that all four schools have "correct guidance", and the differences between them lie not in the fundamentals of faith, but in finer judgements and jurisprudence, which are a result of the independent reasoning of the imams and the scholars who followed them. Because their individual methodologies of interpretation and extraction from the primary sources were different, they came to different judgements on particular matters. For example, there are subtle differences in the methods of prayer among the four schools, yet the differences are not so great as to require separate prayers by the followers of each school. In fact, a follower of any school can usually pray behind an imam of another school without any confusion.

So, there is something we can aplty call as "orthodox" Islam. It's not a monolithic group but there's a reasonable coherent set of beliefs and practices that any muslim in the world must do in order to be considered one. To interpret the Qur'an on your own, as the "reformers" do, with no respect for islamic traditions and the ahadith, puts them pretty much out of the mainstream islamic fold and islamic "orthodoxy". That's why I called them "heretics" and I said that they weren't really muslims to begin with.

So, I do stand by my view that there are peaceful Muslims.

Of course there are peaceful muslims, that's not even in question. I'm sorry if I gave that impression in my first posts.

[Walty]

What is overwhelmingly agreed upon within Islam is that one only needs to profess the Shahada in order to be a true Muslim.  "I believe Allah is the only God, and Muhammad is His Prophet."  That's all one has to do, so I do think that even the most extreme or "orthodox" groups in Islam would indeed recognize these groups as truly Muslim, just in an unfortunate and erroneous way.

Well, the essential duties one must fulfill in order to be a muslim are to profess the shahadah, to pray the regular salat (5 times a day), to pay the monthly zakah, to fast during the month of Ramadan and to perform the Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca) at least once in his or her lifetime. One can also add the lesser and greater Jihad as a muslim duty. These five practices, also called "the five pillars of Islam", are essential to be considered a muslim.

Besides that, one is expected to follow one of the four mainline schools of jurisprudence in Sunni Islam: Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i or Hanbali. The majority of muslims believe that all four schools have "correct guidance", and the differences between them lie not in the fundamentals of faith, but in finer judgements and jurisprudence, which are a result of the independent reasoning of the imams and the scholars who followed them. Because their individual methodologies of interpretation and extraction from the primary sources were different, they came to different judgements on particular matters. For example, there are subtle differences in the methods of prayer among the four schools, yet the differences are not so great as to require separate prayers by the followers of each school. In fact, a follower of any school can usually pray behind an imam of another school without any confusion.

So, there is something we can aplty call as "orthodox" Islam. It's not a monolithic group but there's a reasonable coherent set of beliefs and practices that any muslim in the world must do in order to be considered one. To interpret the Qur'an on your own, as the "reformers" do, with no respect for islamic traditions and the ahadith, puts them pretty much out of the mainstream islamic fold and islamic "orthodoxy". That's why I called them "heretics" and I said that they weren't really muslims to begin with.

So, I do stand by my view that there are peaceful Muslims.

Of course there are peaceful muslims, that's not even in question. I'm sorry if I gave that impression in my first posts.

I think we pretty much agree except for semantics.  The reason I posted those links in the first place was to say that there are peaceful Muslims and a number got all up in arms about that so I assumed you were with them.  Otherwise, I think we completely agree.