Muslim's stop publication of book about the life of Muhammad's child bride

reply to post by neformore


Hmm, seems to me to be a very, very reliable source, not filled with the usual double talk I hear from the pro-muslim factions. In fact I highly recommend the site to anyone taking a serious look at this issue. They have some very important articles that are referenced on the site. These are the people we should be listening to.

weren't the sources he was using:

THE HADITH OF SAHIH BUKHARI, THE HADITH OF SAHIH MUSLIM VOLUME 2, #3309, THE HADITH OF THE SUNAN OF ABU DAWUD

FROM THE HISTORY OF TABARI

whichever website these scriptures are posted on is irrelevant isn't it.

that's like saying the declaration of independence is hogwash if it's posted on rense.com

Just in case anyone needs reminding of the very real danger of publishing stuff the muslim clerics would rather keep quiet:

The publication of the Satanic Verses in 1989 triggered not just the fatwah from Iran but also riots in Pakistan, India and Turkey among Muslims who felt he had insulted the prophet.

In the following decade, the book's Japanese translator was murdered and its Norwegian publisher and Italian translator seriously injured in separate attacks.

Publisher Penguin received 5,000 abusive or threatening letters and 25 bomb threats.

www.thisislondon.co.uk...'suck'/article.do

Here is some more very revealing information from this website that people should be made aware of.

www.exmuslim.com...

"Girls are considered marriageable from the time they reach puberty. The lower class marries very young. The ages for marriage and first
pregnancy on Tarut Island, off the east coast, were published in a rare study on women that I unearthed from a library. In the group as a whole, the mean age for marriage was fourteen, with the first pregnancy occurring at sixteen. Out of 193 girls, 3 married as young as ten. Among the Bedouins and the rural poor, a girl can be the second of two wives, married to a man older than her father, the mother of several children, and suffering from severe depression by the age of eighteen."

"Miriam Ali, in "Without Mercy", pub. by Warner Books, 1995 tells
the story of her daughters being abducted and sold as wives in Yemen.

Zana had met so many girls taken from the Midlands (England), taken
by force who were now in Yemen. One was a petite blonde from Derby. She was 9 years old when she was taken and had already three miscarriages when she became pregnant a forth time.

If this is really happening, this is something that the world should be very aware of. It reminds me of the new story discussed here on ATS about an EIGHT YEAR OLD Girl filing for divorce. Obviously these things are happening.

racy historical novel about Aisha, .............a tale of lust, love and intrigue

it hardly sounds like important scholarship to me

not claiming that fiction soes not deserve freespeech too - but when you are making things up - it does IMHO shift the goal post as to what is insulting to islam

again - just my opinion - but a non fiction work - detailong the life of Aisha that is based on genuine historical recoiords andd legitimate scholarship - should be published - whatever the moslem world thinks of it

but a work of fiction - should IMHO be more mindfull of whether it causes offence

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Ownification

 

Well, according to others, there are numerous Hadith that report the marriage toook place when the girl was very young.

THE HADITH OF SAHIH BUKHARI, THE HADITH OF SAHIH MUSLIM VOLUME 2, #3309, THE HADITH OF THE SUNAN OF ABU DAWUD

FROM THE HISTORY OF TABARI Tabari wrote the most authentic Islamic history. It covers 39 volumes. Tabari was one of the greatest Islamic scholars and the greatest Islamic Historian. From Tabari, volume 7, page7: "....my marriage (to Muhammad) was consummated when I was nine....."

www.exmuslim.com...

Sahih Bukhari is not a hadith narrator, he was a Hadith collector, the same goes for Sahih Muslim. "Tabari wrote the most authentic Islamic history. It covers 39 volumes.", I don't think Tabari wrote the most authentic Islamic history because he forgot to take into consideration the historical evidence which proves Aisha was at least 19-20 when moved with Mohammad.

As I said previousely that every historian knows that a quote can be verified through different means, they are not usually trusted. Once again the narrator was Hashim, and his Hadith's credibility droped at the older age because of his memory loss, that's when he moved to Iraq. Don't make me explain in paragraphs, please!!



[edit on 043131p://31b8 by Ownification]

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Ownification

 

So, it really is a matter of opinion of whether or not this is false history. Still, how can you say this novel is hate speech?

When you say "I'm not going to defend those Muslims who do such an act, they can come here and defend themselves." What exactly do you mean? As a Muslim, you don't feel that you should speak out against Muslims who feel that they have a right to violate the laws of the country in which they live by threatening those who they disagree with?

Do you think this should be the attititude we should take in the west?

From the way conversations are going on the internet, things will get much worse before they get better. There is a strong backlash coming, and the only way it is going to be be stopped is with frank and honest discussion, but that doesn't look like it is going to happen.

Again how could it not be a hate speech, what defines a hate speech, is there realy a clear line defining the bounderies of just a speech, and hate speech? Aren't Muslims being hated because of this type of speech, this is the impression of Muslims in the mind of whoever reads the book, isn't it? What impression would one have after reading this book? Most people would hate Muslims after reading this type of false history, why else would you think that a million lives of Muslims are not worth 3000 Americans. The same happened in Germany back in Nazi era, remember? Why do you think the normal Germans allowed this atrocity to happen? Because of hate. Muslims today wouldn't mind seeing Americans getting killed, because of how some spread hate amongst Muslims, against America.

I'm basically saying that, if this type of books are allowed to be published, than let the Muslims publish their hate speech is well. You think that would be fair?

Ummmm firstly I never said I'm a Muslims, let's not asume now shall we. Muslims who feel like they have the right to violate the laws of west should be punished accordingly, no different than anyone else. People are afraid of publishing a book but not afraid of invading two Muslim countries? wow, that's a nice excuse. Muslims don't care about a book, they are angry because the book is being published from the west, they have hate for the west(hate speech). How can I describe this best ummm, well it's like sparking fuel. The fuel is a Muslim and the spark comes from the West, you get what I mean? Muslims hate West and they are looking for any reason to get them back. It's not just Islamic issues which sparks violent protests, any criticism has the same effect.

[edit on 043131p://31b8 by Ownification]

Originally posted by Attari
All those 1.5bil terrorist muslims need to be nuked and be cleansed off the face of earth.They are all bad jihadi people.

Happy now?

There always seems to be a new thing to pi*# off the muslims..
Muslims this.. Muslims that.. blaa de blaa bla bla blaa...and than i myself have muslim freinds and seen muslim families and they are as peaceful as the standard natural resident of this country.

[edit on 9-8-2008 by Attari]

Lets expand that to All Religious fruitcakes.. It would surely take care of the worlds major problems if all religious fruitcakes were eliminated right?

So.. Let kill off all Jews, All muslims, All Christians, All budists, All religious nuts. They are all infected with the same virus .. The religious virus that is.

Religion = irrationality .. Pure and simple and anyone who doesn't recognise this is infected with the God/religion bug.

So.. if your willing to kill off all the muslims why not just kill off all the religious nuts? It would be the fairest way to do it..

Mehh... Kill em all and let their so called god sort em out.. Ignorance should be treated as a mental virus and Exterminated..


Edit....... BTW.. If you havn't read the book you can not say it is "Hate speech" or not. Secondly NOTHING can be considered Hate speech that is historically accurate.

If the Book is true it can not be Hate speech..




[edit on 17-8-2008 by wolfmanjack]

Does anyone know of any animal other than humans which do not reproduce(or attempt to reproduce) in the first year they are able to reproduce?

It seems to me that somewhere along the lines our culture became preverted.

Animals are meant to reproduce as soon as their bodies allow it.

Vas

reply to post by Ownification


Maybe he did take the historical evidence you claim as proof that the girl was much older into consideration, and decided that it was not legitimate or worth considering. Then again, you claimed that no one else has reported that Muhammad took a child bribe, and I provide other sources, so obviously you are not the best source of information. Just because you claim these additional sources are not reliable doesn't prove that they do not exist. I say your sources did not take into account the other sources that claim the girl was a child bride, and so your sources are not credible. Therefore by your own logic, there are no credible sources that show that the girl was not a child bride.

In other words, you argument is complete nonsense.

reply to post by Ownification


So no one should ever be allowed to record history that reports negatively on a people, because it might cause hatred towards these people who have negative things in their history. Is that what you are saying, because that is what you seem to be saying.

So we should not write books about Muhammad taking a child bride because it causes people to hate Muslims.

I guess we should also not write books about Israel having take lands from other people, because it causes people to hate Jews.

By your logic, we should not write any books about wars, or invasions, or slavery, or anything else that might cause one group to hate another. That would be some trick by historians.

reply to post by Vasilis Azoth


So we should be like the animals?

Do you know of any animals who pray to God?

Rape is also typical in the animal kingdom, should that also be acceptable?

reply to post by poet1b


I'm surprised a prominent American publisher would have such a lack of courage. While we've seen countless examples of European and British companies and government organizations censoring themselves out of fear of offending the Muslim population (and although it's rarely stated out loud, because they fear violent retribution), such behavior is rarer in the States. Especially since a book like that would probably make quite a lot of money and end up on the NYT best-sellers list. We don't tend to have a lot of irrationally radical and violent people among the immigrant Muslim population here. While a lot of them may sympathize with those who commit terrorist acts abroad against artists who publish works that may offend their religious ideas, I don't think a lot of them would consider perpetrating such violence here in America.

Just another instance where muslims will do make threats or cause a loss of freedom of speech based on there militant actions.

They should let the world know about mohammed and his pedophile ways. He and the men of his era and region had an unnatural fear of women and they of course have severe cases of penis envy always afraid that if there women are with another man that there smallness and lack of action in the bedroom will make them less of a man.

Hopefully Islam will go through a reformation sooner then later.

reply to post by AntiCensorship


It is a very, very bad sign, and just goes to show that what happens in Europe effects what happens in the U.S..

What really bothers me is how quickly our first amendment rights have been defeated and swept under the table. This clearly is a major defeat for freedom of speech, and of religion, or peaceful assembly for that matter. Chances are that nothing was done, or will be done about this. Our government is too busy starting new wars overseas and fighting drugs and other wars on civil rights here. If anything, our secret government probably applauds this success, this swift and easy defeat of free speech.

I would be embarrassed as hell if I was a Muslim...

what a bunch of hooey, this whole thing about reacting violently to percieved slurs to their religion of any kind is nuts...

cartoons? books?

like I said, I would be embarrassed... but since I am not religious in any way I am just sort of perplexed and a little disgusted...

and to a certain degree offended too, since they continuoulsly attack other religions and beliefs... nonsense, this whole thing.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Ownification

 

Maybe he did take the historical evidence you claim as proof that the girl was much older into consideration, and decided that it was not legitimate or worth considering. Then again, you claimed that no one else has reported that Muhammad took a child bribe, and I provide other sources, so obviously you are not the best source of information. Just because you claim these additional sources are not reliable doesn't prove that they do not exist. I say your sources did not take into account the other sources that claim the girl was a child bride, and so your sources are not credible. Therefore by your own logic, there are no credible sources that show that the girl was not a child bride.

In other words, you argument is complete nonsense.

Ahhh once again you didn't get my explanation, Bukhari and Muslim both are not narrators, I think I told you before to learn how Hadith credibility is sorted. If one person narrates something, there isn't much credibility. It's like witnesses in a trial, if you have only one witness and that witness seems to have memory loss, wouldn't that make the witness's credibility low? Especially when other evidence goes against his/her claims?

If you believe that Tabari took in to consideration the historical evidence than please provide reference from his book and his argument against the historical evidence, that's not much to ask for, is it? If you can't find it than please point out your arguments against the historical evidence. There are many anti-Islamic websites, use them

I never said they are not reliable, I said the narrator is not reliable. Twists and turns to prove your points, reminds me of someone

My source is me, I did take in to consideration Bashir's narration and I also provided my argument on why Bashir's narration is not credible. This clearly shows that you are completely lost because you don't have much knowledge in Islamic history. I don't want to be your lecturer and write paragraphs after paragraphs to explain and make you understand. This discussion is turning out to be quite annoyance actully. I think you should stick with political and social issues untile you learn alittle more about religiouse issues.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Ownification

 

So no one should ever be allowed to record history that reports negatively on a people, because it might cause hatred towards these people who have negative things in their history. Is that what you are saying, because that is what you seem to be saying.

So we should not write books about Muhammad taking a child bride because it causes people to hate Muslims.

I guess we should also not write books about Israel having take lands from other people, because it causes people to hate Jews.

By your logic, we should not write any books about wars, or invasions, or slavery, or anything else that might cause one group to hate another. That would be some trick by historians.

Once again twists and turns. I didn't say we shouldn't record history which is negative, I clearly said that fictitious books shouldn't be called historic even if it has a tiny bit of historic facts in it. That is exactly why I gave you an example about how europe imprisons people who deny the holocaust. Lord Of The Ring also have historic facts in it but I don't see anyone using it as a historical evidence lol imagin if that happens one day, wierd

Soo many twists and turn, I would like you to out my posts in quotes next time you reference me because I don't like people twisting my words, thanks

reply to post by Ownification


I'm not going to play this did not, did so game with you. I provided three sources that prove you wrong. The sources I provided are available here in the thread for everyone to see, and of course they can do their own research. In addition, I provided additional evidence that marriage to pre-adolescent girls is condoned in the Muslim Nations, which adds weight to the historical reports that Muhammad had a child bride. Here on ATS several months ago there was a hot topic discussion about an 8 YEAR OLD GIRL FILING FOR DIVORCE IN A MUSLIM NATION.

Apparently you are the one who doesn't understand how Hadith credibility is sorted. For that matter, you don't seem to understand how history is recorded, interpreted, and viewed. All history is subject to speculation, and most tend to choose what they want to believe, as you obviously are doing in this situation.

reply to post by Ownification


All I am doing is quoting this mess of logic.

Again how could it not be a hate speech, what defines a hate speech, is there realy a clear line defining the bounderies of just a speech, and hate speech? Aren't Muslims being hated because of this type of speech, this is the impression of Muslims in the mind of whoever reads the book, isn't it? What impression would one have after reading this book? Most people would hate Muslims after reading this type of false history, why else would you think that a million lives of Muslims are not worth 3000 Americans. The same happened in Germany back in Nazi era, remember? Why do you think the normal Germans allowed this atrocity to happen? Because of hate. Muslims today wouldn't mind seeing Americans getting killed, because of how some spread hate amongst Muslims, against America.

What you claim to be "false history" is only your interpretation. By your logic, any history that people want to label as false history is hate speech. This is a ridiculous assertion. All of history has disentors who claim that the versions are false. What you are trying to do is censor the views of history that you disagree with.

Muslims can publish what ever books they want that are critical of Western Nations. There are many, many works of historical fiction that grossly distort history, and plenty of them are aimed at Western nations and Western culture.

This novel clearly admits that it is historical fiction, based on research about historical events that are believed to have happened. Everyone who knows anything about history realizes that many historical accounts, expecially those of over a thousand years ago, might not be accurate. It would be easy enough to include in the book a statement that there are many who believe that this is not an accurate reflextion of history. Your attempt to equate this book to hate speech is pure nonsense. The woman who wrote the book looks at it as a great love story.

You claims that this is historically inaccurate and attempts to equate this book to hate speech not only are without merit, they do not in any way justify terrorist extortion of publishing houses. The nations of the west need to start taking steps now to stop this type of extortion, to maintain our freedom of speech.