Who’s An Authority?

30


Who’s
An Authority?

by Robert Spencer

JWAtlasHeader

The Roman
Catholic diocese of Worcester, Massachusetts invited me last June to speak at
their Catholic Men’s Conference this coming March 16; however, under pressure
from the Boston Globe and Islamic supremacists in the area, the diocese has
canceled my appearance. I am planning to buy an exhibitor’s table and be at the
confence anyway, but the whole episode raises important questions about who
exactly constitutes an authority to speak on issues of jihad and Islam (and,
indeed, any other issue as well), and how that authority is accorded to people
in contemporary society.

Story continues below advertisement

The diocese folded after receiving a
heated and defamatory attack on me from Abdul Cader Asmal, cochairman of
communications for the Islamic Council of New England, wrote a libelous and hysterical screed to
the diocese of Worcester, labeling me a “hatemonger” and demanding that they
cancel my appearance at the conference coming up this March 16. I posted it in
full here. Among Asmal’s many claims were these: “Mr Spencer has a
very deep rooted Islamophobia and argues by selective quoting of sacred passages
taken totally out of context, and exploits any and every opportunity he gets to
link the lunatic act of a Muslim in any part of the world as a direct
consequence of Islam. He
is not an academician, nor does he have a modicum of understanding of Islam.”

Says who? I don't actually do any of these things, but for
the diocese of Worcester, it was apparently enough that Abdul Cader Asmal said I did. But who is Abdul Cader Asmal? He is a Boston-area endocrinologist who in
2011 was stripped
of his license to practice medicine for reasons unexplained
. Even worse, according
to Charles Jacobs of Americans for Peace and Tolerance, he is a self-proclaimed
friend and supporter of the convicted jihad terrorist, Tarek Mehanna, who is at this moment in federal prison
for aiding al-Qaeda.

So why would the
diocese of Worcester hasten to do the bidding of Abdul Cader Asmal? Because
despite his affinity for al-Qaeda terrorists and his own questionable ethics,
he represents politically correct opinion, which virtually everyone in the U.S.
today – Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, atheist, whatever – desperately fears to
offend.

Consider, in a
similar vein, the case of Omid Safi. In her story on the cancellation of my
talk in Worcester, the Boston Globe’s Lisa Wangsness wrote this in response to
my observation that the Koran contains numerous texts exhorting Muslims to
commit violence against unbelievers:

Omid
Safi, an Islamic studies scholar at the University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill, said that there are indeed references like that to holy war in the ­Koran
and that some ­Muslims in different periods of history have used them to
justify their actions.

That
does not mean, he said, that most modern ­Muslims accept them literally.

“If
we go flipping through each other’s scriptures to persuade ourselves that other
people’s scriptures contain violent elements, then that’s a losing game for all
of us,” Safi said. “The question is: How do we make sense of them, and which
ones do we call upon to live our lives today?”

In
the Gospel of Matthew, he notes, Jesus says, “I come not to bring peace, but the
sword.

Yeah, that’s why we see armed Christian
groups making war against non-Christians worldwide, and quoting this verse. Of
course, in reality we don’t see any such thing, and yet we do see armed jihadis
all around the world making war against non-Muslims and justifying their
actions by reference to the Qur’an. The difference is stark, and shows up the
dishonesty of Safi’s remarks.

“Safi also said,” according to
Wangsness, “that Spencer has no formal training in Islamic studies or Arabic.”
But this is an obvious dodge. Does Safi really expect us to believe that “slay
the idolaters” becomes “give the idolaters a hug” when rendered in Arabic?

Anyway, here again: why does Wangsness
turn to Omid Safi as an authority? Omid Safi is an extremely dishonest
pseudo-academic of extraordinarily low character. He has falsely claimed
that I threatened to kill him and his family
. He has a long-standing hatred
of me based on my daring to challenge his dismissal of me with the manipulative
Muslim Brotherhood neologism of “Islamophobe” and my outrageous offer to come
to the class where he was discussing my work and engage in discussion and
debate with him and his students.

Threatening to kill someone is a felony
offense. Yet Omid Safi has never brought charges against me. Why? Because he is
lying. I never threatened him or anyone. He is merely engaging in defamation. I
complained to officials at the University of North Carolina about his highly
unethical behavior, but got no action, of course, because his opinions are
politically correct and mine aren’t. So now we have an academic liar being
cited as a source by a highly biased advocacy “journalist.”

Also, how did Wangsness dig Safi up?
Why did a Boston Globe reporter writing about a Massachusetts conference go to
an academic in North Carolina to get comment on me? Why not someone from
Harvard or Boston University or Tufts or any number of local universities? Was
it because someone tipped her off that Safi would reliably provide negative
comment on Spencer? Who did the tipping off?

But however she found him, she thought
his comments worth featuring not because he has any notable achievement, or any
connection to the events in Worcester. She obviously wasn’t concerned about the
manifest absurdity of what he said about violent passages in the Bible and the
Qur’an. Nor did she express any concern when I wrote to her to notify her about
Safi’s reprehensible dishonesty – it simply doesn’t matter, because Safi has
the proper politically correct opinions, and I don’t.

Such is the low state of the public
discourse these days.

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam
(and the Crusades)
and The Truth About Muhammad. His upcoming book, Not Peace But A Sword: The
Great Chasm Between Christianity and Islam
, will be available in March.

The Truth Must be Told

Your contribution supports independent journalism

Please take a moment to consider this. Now, more than ever, people are reading Geller Report for news they won't get anywhere else. But advertising revenues have all but disappeared. Google Adsense is the online advertising monopoly and they have banned us. Social media giants like Facebook and Twitter have blocked and shadow-banned our accounts. But we won't put up a paywall. Because never has the free world needed independent journalism more.

Everyone who reads our reporting knows the Geller Report covers the news the media won't. We cannot do our ground-breaking report without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the left's war on freedom. Our readers’ contributions make that possible.

Geller Report's independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our work is critical in the fight for freedom and because it is your fight, too.

Please contribute here.

or

Make a monthly commitment to support The Geller Report – choose the option that suits you best.

Quick note: We cannot do this without your support. Fact. Our work is made possible by you and only you. We receive no grants, government handouts, or major funding. Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here— it’s free and it’s essential NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America's survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow Pamela Geller on Gettr. I am there. click here.

Follow Pamela Geller on
Trump's social media platform, Truth Social. It's open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spammy or unhelpful, click the - symbol under the comment to let us know. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

If you would like to join the conversation, but don't have an account, you can sign up for one right here.

If you are having problems leaving a comment, it's likely because you are using an ad blocker, something that break ads, of course, but also breaks the comments section of our site. If you are using an ad blocker, and would like to share your thoughts, please disable your ad blocker. We look forward to seeing your comments below.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
30 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Steve
Steve
11 years ago

SUPER IMPORTANT!!!!
Freedomfighter & Islam-Critic Lars Hedegaard was SHOT!
They say he survived, but there is not much to go on so far, I just thought it should be made known!

Kevin Stroup
Kevin Stroup
11 years ago

Let the merits of the facts and opinions presented in the debate speak for themselves. It is obvious that the leftist do not want a debate to take place.

Amy Soldier
Amy Soldier
11 years ago

You folks have to go for the jugular of the Islamist dinosaur. Delegitimize Mohamed and his supposed link with the Creator and all the so-called moderate Muslims around the world will see the light of day. Get a group of lawyer-type thinkers to fine-tune and perfect this argument:
1.) Children were designed by the Creator, both physically and psychologically, to behave nonsexually. One is able to truly psychoanalyze the will, intentions, and demeanor of the Creator by observing Its design for children.
2.) The mind of Mohamed repeatedly went through the thought processes which brought his body to a state of sexual arousal with a nine, ten year old child. He repeatedly engaged in sexual relations with said child.
3.) No passage in the Qur’an can be found where the Creator employs Gabriel to inform Mohamed of the Creators will and intentions to “Knock it off!” with said child. No revelations to Mohamed from the Creator informing Mohamed of the Creator’s demeanor of displeasure while Mohamed behaves contrary to the intentions of the Creator and Its design of children.
4.) The silence of the Creator in regards to Mohamed and his behavior towards the child can only be concluded with the fact that there was never a relationship between the Creator and Mohamed. All the claims of revelations by Mohamed received through Gabriel and from the Creator are deemed “false.” I’ll let the legal eagles polish this thought to the better conclusion.
If one wishes to view a movie scene which parallels the gravity of the conclusive thought that the silence of the Creator in regards to bringing a revelation to Mohamed renders null and void all of Mohamed’s claims of and for an intimate relationship with the Creator, I suggest watching the movie, The Last Samurai. Scene 25, Katsumoto’s Refusal, at time 1:26:40 in the movie, the Japanese god is refusing to speak to Katsumoto in the court. The silence is telling. https://itunes.apple.com/us/movie/the-last-samurai/id282577271
I have a project which can bring these thoughts of Islam to the big screen, thus generating millions of dollars to those involved. Contact me if interested in making money while in the process of placing the Islamist dinosaur into a permanent state of sleep.

illustratormom
illustratormom
11 years ago

Thank you, Mr. Spencer (and Ms. Geller), for your courage and determination to speak the truth.

RCCA
RCCA
11 years ago

What’s morally reprehensible is demonizing an honest man or woman for the sake of a liar.
Do you really have to know Arabic or be a Muslim to know something about Islam, to know that it’s both a religion and a political system? That’s just basic information. Of course religion is an emotional thing, so it goes with the territory that you’re going to get irrational responses if you challenge someone’s religious beliefs.

Stephen Gash
Stephen Gash
11 years ago

Abdul Cader Asmal quote: “Mr Spencer has a very deep rooted Islamophobia and argues by selective quoting of sacred passages taken totally out of context,”
Anyone with even a modicum of knowledge about the Koran knows it is impossible to put any verse into context. This is because the Koranic verses have been deliberately jumbled up to remove all chronological sequence, thereby removing all context. As written the Koran has no context which is exactly why jihadists use its verses to condone their murderous activities.
As Pamela put it so brilliantly “The Koran is prescriptive not descriptive”.
Abdul Cader Asmal quote: quote: “and exploits any and every opportunity he gets to link the lunatic act of a Muslim in any part of the world as a direct consequence of Islam. He is not an academician, nor does he have a modicum of understanding of Islam.”
Let’s hear Abdul Cader Asmal aim that criticism at jihadists who do exactly what he accuses Robert of doing, except they go further by committing violence, unlike Robert. Let’s hear him make as fulsome a condemnation of such murderous jihadists as he does of Robert. Maybe he’ll break out in a rash of real Islamophobia and be too scared to.

Georgina
Georgina
11 years ago

As I have said before, elsewhere, if I wish to know the about the habits of bugs, I ask an entomologist, not a bug.

Pam K.
Pam K.
11 years ago

@ Amy Soldier You have a film project? After the Innocence video, and considering that most of Hollywood is far left Islamapologist, how would you ever get your movie made? Just curious…..

Drew the Infidel
Drew the Infidel
11 years ago

The Catholic Church seems to have a schizophrenic interpretation of the First Amendment. On the one hand they seek to muzzle Spencer while on the other they set up a self-serving howl concerning the contraception mandate contained in the health care bill.

tracey
tracey
11 years ago

Mr. Spencer,
I have known Omid Safi since I was 13 years old, we grew up together. Omid is one of the most decent, kind-hearted good souls I have ever met. You don’t have to like Islam, that’s your perogative. However, cheap shots make you look cheap. I’m not a Muslim, but I would think we need more voices like Omid. He shows a reasonable face of Islam, that is not always seen in the media. You can do better.

Taha
Taha
11 years ago

Sigh. What a far cry from Louis Massignon, Martin Lings, William Montgomery Watt, etc.
@Kevin Stroup – just a quick note – the child marriage angle is hotly contested in Islam itself. There is one hadith which says Ayesha was a child but there are numerous which suggest that she certainly was not. You’ll find mountains to read online on that controversy, there’s a bit of linguistics involved too. Not to detract from your de-legitimization efforts, but most “moderates” don’t take the whole child marriage thing literally – Aisha was most likely in her late teens. And of course, as per Islamic law, a marriage strictly has to be between consenting *adults*.
The Last Samurai is a very good film though – the samurai’s way is the closest I imagine to the Muslim conception of Jihad.
Does anyone here know the difference between the “lesser Jihad” and the “greater Jihad” in Islam? Look it up if you don’t! You might be surprised!
Mr Spencer, it says your next book is on “The Great Chasm between Christianity and Islam” – a wonderful topic! I hope it’ll include mention of the contract Muhammad made with the monks at St Catherine’s monastery.

James
James
11 years ago

What an islamophobic piece of crap! Get a life, Robert-Terry Jones!

Amy Soldier
Amy Soldier
11 years ago

Taha, so the information on the following webpage, quoting from the Qur’an, is information that is debatable?
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/prepubescent.htm
All those bold lettered words on that webpage are telling you something that countless numbers of Muslims in the past have read and understood perfectly well, and now you can debate those Qur’anic passages to conclude that Mohamed had no relations with a child? Wow, you are trying too hard not to realize Mohamed for what he was.

Amy Soldier
Amy Soldier
11 years ago

James and Tracey are in actuality Muslims posing as Western folk. These Muslim posers are nowdays all over the internet blogs, news comments, and the like, and always responding in condescension towards those who realize Mohamed couldn’t possibly have had any relation with the Creator. Mohamed’s so-called revelations are all concoctions that only served Mohamed and his gang of marauders at the time.

Kurt L Hanson
Kurt L Hanson
11 years ago

Because Mohamed had no intimate relation with the Creator, and all his so-called revelations were only self-serving concoctions, thus the words and the thoughts wrought from a reading of the Qur’an give the reader false ideas as to the will, the intention, the demeanor, and the nature of the Creator. The Qur’an paints a false picture of the Creator in the mind of any reader.
Oh, and Taha is a Muslim, too.

Taha
Taha
11 years ago

James! The information on the webpage you posted (which incidentally does not have any Koranic citations sponsoring underage marriage) has been the subject of debate for many centuries now. There *are* no Koranic passages supporting child marriages. Period.
What you’ve posted are Hadith. Hadith are different from the Koran. Hadith are not considered the infallible word of God. They are oral traditions, many have been proved to be flawed, fabricated, etc. and many hadith conflict directly with each other. Robert Spencer has detailed on that topic quite a bit in his book, Did Muhammad Exist – a good read.
There is most certainly a hadith in which the Prophet wed a child – those are the basis for all those biographical accounts and the fatwas on the page you posted. Likewise – as I suggested in my post earlier – there are hadith, quite a few of them, which indicate she was *not* a child at all when she married. It is a very spirited debate, but unfortunately Westerners only get to see one particular side of it. Here’s just one basic problem:
http://riemism.wordpress.com/2010/04/20/was-aisha-a-child-bride/
There are more detailed ones if you do a bit of googling. Hadith criticism is serious business. Oh, and *do* look up that linguistic anomaly in that particular hadith that I mentioned – as a student of Arabic I found that very very convincing.
My original point though was that Muslims – the overwhelming majority of them – do not buy into the child marriage story. Child marriages are not common at all. Not even close to other mainstays of Islamic civilization such as perhaps…polygamy. They will generally be found in very poor Muslim communities where the educational standard is very very very low, and a tribal setup exists.
And, yes, Army Soldier, I am a Muslim, and a very patient one too. If anything vexes you about Islam – or life even – feel free to ask me questions. Happy to help!

Amy Soldier
Amy Soldier
11 years ago

Taha, through the one hadith we assume Mohamed must have been aware and heard the talk of others that he had a child bride. If Aisha narrated other hadiths, then the one that mentions her age would have been tossed away were it not true. Perhaps chronological order of authorship of hadiths needs to be taken into account, but odd it is that the hadith that mentions her young age exists and then others exist only to contradict her young age is odd. Yeah, the authors of the contrary hadiths had their conscience panged upon learning of her age, thus the reason for writing something contrary. Odd it is that the one hadith mentioning her young age wasn’t somehow “lost.” Someone, somewher realizes its legitimacy.

Taha
Taha
11 years ago

Sigh. “Through that one hadith” Muhammad was *not* aware of what people thought – because hadith compilation started two centuries or so after his death. It would be like imagining him being aware of what you and I think of him today.
Yes, it is “odd” that conflicting hadith exist, but it is very normal for oral traditions.
Authors did not *invent* other hadith simply over wounded consciences, because the contrary hadith did not contradict this one directly – it was analysis done centuries later that revealed the contradiction. If I wanted to contradict this particular hadith, I would invent one saying, hey! Ayesha was thirty when she got married, and here’s a lengthy chain of transmitters. But we don’t have any such hadith.
It’s not *odd* when one considers the linguistic anomaly in how Arabs count. This issue has been raised in other hadith too. Please do some reading on it? Pretty please? A simple google search will show it!
Hmm, somehow my posts aren’t showing up with my name.

Kufar Dawg
Kufar Dawg
11 years ago

@Taha
Anything to say about the following hadiths scuzzlum?
Bukhari:V4B52N177
“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘You Muslims will fight the Jews till some of them hide behind stones. The stones will betray them saying, “O Abdullah (slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.”‘”
Ishaq:441
“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. “O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.”‘”
In Sahih Muslim: Book 041, Number 6985:
Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.

Amy Soldier
Amy Soldier
11 years ago

The wording Sahih al-Bukhari used, “…while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends,” it is difficult for me to believe Bukhari simple imagined this idea and then employed it into a hadith, Apparently Bukhari was privy to letters between the girl and relatives.
Over the centuries of time Islamist scholars have not accused Bukhari of insulting the Prophet, and with this a cause to completely ignore this hadith. On the contrary, the hadith still exists. What other factors are playing into the picture here that allows this hadith to stand with all the others? Perhaps because in the opinion of so many (but not all) Islamist scholars throughout time the authenticity of the hadith is beyond reproach. There are too many who cannot simply ignore it, even if the information doesn’t bring Mohamed to appear to be intimate with the Creator. If I were in a position of authority within Islam this one hadith if true is a problem. A problem not that Mohamed behaved in a manner as certain humans do, but because the Creator never gave a proclamation to Mohamed and the rest of the world for all time immortal to respect Its intentions for Its design of children. The prophet of Islam was never given a stern lecture by the Creator because of his involvement with the child? The silence is telling.

Taha
Taha
11 years ago

Hmm, my posts aren’t showing up. I’ll split my piece up a bit:
In turn:
@ArmySoldier, a few points:
1. Hadith are by definition *oral* tradition. Oral means spoken/heard *not* written. I understand your speculation, looking at the translation you’re reading, there *are* no letters written by Ayesha – if there were, it wouldn’t qualify as Hadith. Parchment in those days was a scarce resource, it was only used to note down Koranic verses, draw up treaties, and communicate with foreign heads of state. Ladies did not keep intimate journals. And, oh, there was no postal system.
2. You haven’t read up on the linguistic-anomaly explanation for this hadith that I mentioned. Shame. You should. That cracks this riddle entirely.
3. “What other factors are playing into the picture that allows this hadith to stand with all the others?” – It only stands out that way for the Western world. The answer is orientalism. As Watt says, Muhammad is the most maligned figure in history. You probably also believe that the Koran mandates the veil and the headscarf and all sorts of feminine bondage. It does not! Quelle surprise!

Taha
Taha
11 years ago

“Perhaps because in the opinion of so many (but not all) Islamist scholars throughout time the authenticity of the hadith is beyond reproach.”
Just clarifying some issues:
1. There is big difference between “Islamic” and “Islamist” – an Islamic scholar is a scholar working in the tradition of Islam over the centuries. Islamists are politically oriented folks who emerged in the last couple of centuries calling for an Islamic revolution, etc. We are talking about the first.
2. Islamic scholars over the centuries *have* accused Bukhari of including multiple Hadith that are negative of the Prophet. Please do some research. Imam Bukhari is not a sacred cow.
3. The majority of Muslims don’t take this Hadith very seriously, and to confirm this issue for yourself, I suggest you draw up a list of the most influential Islamic thinkers across the ages – in fact I’ll do it for you – it’ll be Imams Ghazali, Jafar Sadiq, Abu Hanifa, Malik, Shafi, and Hanbal – and see what the majority of *them* say about this Hadith?

Taha
Taha
11 years ago

4. If you’re still not convinced, I suggest you draw up a list of the Prophet’s companions and other prominent Muslims from back in the day and see how many of them had child marriages?
5. And you could also check the undisputed canonical Islamic rules of marriage where both parties have to be consenting adults (the Arabic word is baligh). And the plethora of Koranic verses and Hadith in support of these rulings. A starting point would be Kitab-e-Nikah – the Book of Marriage!
6. I would also recommend reading up on some modern Muslim feminists: Fatema Mernissi is particularly accessible to the Western reader and she has a fine fine book called Women and Islam. Much of it is about uncovering how folks invented Hadith over time to suit their prejudices.
Hope that helps! Happy reading!
@Kufar – what about those Hadith?
Apologies for the long long post 🙁

Amy Soldier
Amy Soldier
11 years ago

All your explanations haven’t explained why the hadith of Bakhari is even in existence. Perhaps you should explain why it remains to this day instead of explaining why it isn’t excepted by everyone. I already know why it exists. Because it states the truth.
Because the subject of Mohamed’s relation with a child is a sensitive subject and one that concludes only with Mohamed rendered illegitimate, other prominent Islamists imply Bukhari is only a clown, perhaps a goofy Jester type of person, and the problems are Bukhari and anyone who reads and believes what he wrote. Taha, you and so many other Muslims would never believe or even entertain the thought that the Bukhari account is true. This is why there have been so many other explanations intending only to contradict the words of a passage of text that are readily understood. The only reason this hadith exists is because of its authenticity, and there could never be an unanimous consensus to expunge it from Islamist texts because of its genuine authenticity. But people such as yourself would stop believing in Islam were you to believe the words inside this hadith, and so these other prominent Islamist throughout time write that they don’t believe it, either.
As powerful as Mohamed was, at the snap of his fingers he could have acquired as much parchment as she wanted. If she asked, he would’ve acquired parchment for his favorite wife.

Taha
Taha
11 years ago

Hmm. Alright…final word…
This is how it is:
1. There is a hadith which says Ayesha was 9 years old when she married. Lets call that Hadith A.
2. There is a plethora of hadith which contradict this. Some of those hadith are actually “stronger” than Hadith A, or, in layman terms more valid.
3. There is no other hadith like Hadith A – i.e. no incidence of prominent Companions having child marriages.
3. There is a linguistic anomaly which has often created contradictions in hadith that involve counting and numbers.
4. Ergo – Hadith A likely suffers from said counting anomaly!
Apologies if I make it sound too simplistic, I’m a scientist by training, I like to go step by step.

Taha
Taha
11 years ago

I haven’t *given* any explanations or presented any evidence, only hinted – in subtle and not-so-subtle terms – that it is out there if you look for it. And if you don’t look for it – its still out there for those who’ll look. It’s not made up stuff, its valid scholarly effort, one can only lead a horse to water and all that.
You’re quite right though, its a very sensitive subject. As an educated adult, I would be in quite a moral fix if there were convincing evidence – well, convincing as per my standards – that this child marriage did take place. But thankfully there isn’t. Anyone who has studied transmission of knowledge in oral cultures, basic hadith criticism, or even child marriage in ancient cultures (like in India) would agree. Plutarch is our primary source for Roman history – according to him Plato and Caeser had virgin births! Life would be very colourful – and ridiculous – if we did not critically analyse our historians.

Taha
Taha
11 years ago

And lets not get into what me and many other Muslims “would believe or never believe”, because, that argument could very easily be turned around. Yes, I may “stop believing in Islam one day”, but it most likely will not be based on this particular hadith. Unless of course, fresh evidence turns up (like those letters you’re quite convinced about!). I’ll certainly have to rethink my position then. Which I’m very willing to do. I try to be rational – if its just about blind belief, I might as well be a Scientologist!
You are quite free to believe the whole pedophile angle, that is your privilege, of course, I’d just wrap up with a few words of advice:
1. Once again, there’s a difference between Islamic and Islamist. Bukhari is *not* an Islamist. That’s like equating Thomas Jefferson with Sarah Palin. Us Muslims tend to chuckle at that and not take you seriously at all.
2. Find some *convincing* evidence that this marriage took place. So far there’s just a suspect hadith, a whole lot of earnest conviction, and a stubbornness to not do any serious reading or research. Some like to follow the evidence to wherever it leads and think for themselves. Please don’t take it for a moral failing on their part.
3. Muhammad would not “snap his fingers” – he was penniless most of his life, even when he was head of the community, the leader of all Arabia, his daughter and son in law were coming to him for handouts and he would turn them away, he would mend his own sandals, sleep on a bed of straw, and when he was dying his friends were offering to settle his debts. Perhaps you’re confusing him with some king, Caeser, perhaps? I repeatedly get the sense that we’re talking about entirely different people here. May I ask which biography you’ve read on him?
I don’t think there’s anything I can do, on my part, to take this dialogue forward. Hmm, it was nice meeting you! Hope it was helpful for you too.

Kurt L Hanson
Kurt L Hanson
11 years ago

Taha, try to stay focused on the train of thought I propose. Again I ask, why does Bukhari’s hadith exist within prominent Islamist texts? What explanations do prominent Islamists throughout the history of the religion of Islam offer for including his hadith and assertions with Aisha?
Many stories were written after the time Jesus roamed the earth. Several of these stories were written with claims and assertions about the life, the times, and the relations of Jesus with others. These apocryphal texts were reviewed by certain religious authorities of past and for various reasons deemed not credible and trustworthy accounts, and as such are not included within established, mainstream Christian institutions. Sure, these Christian apocryphal books can be found and read today, as you suggest I also do to and then to read contradictions of and for Bukhari’s claims with Aisha. But any effort on my part is an exercise in futility if Islamist scholars throughout history have found no evidence refuting the authenticity of Bukhari’s hadith, thereby giving Bukhari’s claim of relations with Aisha validity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahih_al-Bukhari
Catholics say Jesus probably had no brothers or sisters. Protestants make contrary assertions. Both Catholic and Protestant arguments are supported with credible assertions. Other less mainstream Christian denominations claim other ideas but are rejected by the majority. In some circles, Bukhari is considered the most authentic book after the Quran. Is Wikipedia’s information about Aisha untrustworthy and thus unbelievable to you, too? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha
You’re not being as partial and objective to the subject of Aisha as you claim through your writings here on this page. I suppose the sensitive subject makes my proposition and thought that Mohammed had no intimate relations with the Creator all that more incredible to believe, also.

Amy Soldier
Amy Soldier
11 years ago

Bakhari is not a reliable source of Aisha’s age but all the other authors of contrary hadiths are “more reliable,” and thus Muslims such as Taha find them believable.
Wow. Attempting to define and understand the will, intentions, and demeanor of the Creator takes a nose dive with Islamist texts.

www.brinkjewelry.com
www.brinkjewelry.com
11 years ago

I really like it whenever people get together and share ideas.
Great site, keep it up!

Sponsored
Geller Report
Thanks for sharing!