1400 children sexually exploited in UK town Rotherham: report

[Steely Dan]

Does Islam justify child sexual abuse, child brides etc.?

Unfortunately, some Muslim teachers and leaders think that it does, using the 'fact' that Mohammed married a six year old girl and consummated that marriage when she was nine; but did he?

Yes! Islam justifies child abuse! Period! It is overwhelming. (Cultural relativity being celebrated as it is means muslims dont see it as child abuse, and western apologists dont see it at all!). It is ingrained into both Koran and Ahadith. There is so much information supporting this that when someone says there is no information supporting this they have either never read the documents or hope you have never read the documents.

Next question: Yes! Mohammed married 6 year old Aisha. There is only circumstantial evidence suggesting he did not penetrate her until she was 9, as islamic apologists are currently revising. In Mohammed's defense as to he perhaps not consummating the marriage until 9 years old, there is overwhelming scriptural references to one of Aisha's daily jobs being cleaning Mohammed's semen from his clothes. He was often bathing with Aisha and "thighing" her- rubbing his penis between her legs. Indeed, so ingrained is their reality that there are fatwas detailing the manner in which Infant Thighing is to be done. These facts suggest he just sexually abused her without penetration; but it is suggestive, and it is child abuse regardless.

Sexual abuse of all children is a core social component of Islam (not a pillar). From the bacha bazi boys of Afghanistan to the numerous male sexual rapes in the arab world, Islam practices this historically despised act.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2835389/posts

http://vladtepesblog.com/2011/08/12/western-complicity-in-the-rape-of-boys-in-the-islamic-world/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11217772

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/rotherham-muslims-victims-sexual-abuse-vulnerable-girls-muslim-communities

http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines/taliban-muslims-sexually-abusing-young-boys-being-trained-to-be-suicide-bombers

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/frank-crimi/funding-islamic-schools-of-child-sexual-abuse/

http://europenews.dk/en/node/29775

On a previous post I posted unassailable information and history supporting institutionalized pedophilia in islamic scripture. I am well aware discussions (in the now current climate of silencing critique) on these matters are sensitive. I know this. But all the points made are valid points supported by citation and links. Only rarely will I just weigh in from emotional outrage. These are facts available to every citizen of planet earth.

In

I implore people to wake up and see what is going on.

The facts are invisible to the willfully blind. Is it any wonder the OIC are desperately trying to coerce the West into adopting Islamic style blasphemy or defamation laws. As an aside the Islamic definition of libel or slander is to state something not to the advantage of the libeled, whether it is true or fair comment is of no consequence.

[arjunadawn]

Global context of Rotherham (con't)

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/raymond-ibrahim/muslims-sexually-enslaving-children-a-global-phenomenon/

http://newsninja2012.com/did-you-know-that-sex-with-a-goat-is-allowed-under-islam/

Bio of cited Islamic scholar permitting sex with goats

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakir_Naik

Context validates our gut intuition

[jacky54]

Bio of cited Islamic scholar permitting sex with goats

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakir_Naik

Context validates our gut intuition

This bloke says death for apostasy should only be for those who speak against Islam and that he would not condemn Osama Bin laden as he had not met him. He also goes on a 'peace' march every November, so he's obviously one of the moderates then! Sex with goats is preferable to nine year old children, see who said Islam could not reform itself.

[7by7]

Strange, after some of the best posts on the subject the silence from the apologists is deafening!

As absolutely no one here has ever been an apologist for child abuse, not strange at all!

If, however, by 'apologists' you mean, amongst others, me; then as I have a life and a job and a family, I can't spend all my time glued to this forum; unlike some, it seems.

Both articles I linked to were written by a Muslims. I did make a mistake about the author of the first (surprised none of you picked up on that!), but in it he quotes Jewish scholars who agree with him and his premise.

Are you and others claiming these Jewish scholars are Islamic apologists?

arjunadawn, you say "The first link begins early by saying the notion that Aisha was 6 first appeared on rightwing websites."

Read it again, it does not say that. The first line: "The allegation that the Prophet Muhammad married Aisha in the year 624AD when she was only a nine-year old girl, is not new."

But whatever her age, if you are going to condemn Muslims for this, you must also condemn every other religion and culture in the world where, until very recently, the age of consent was considered to be when a child reached puberty; for a girl that was when she started to menstruate.

As I said before, it wasn't until 1885 that the age of consent in the UK was raised from 13 to 16; and this wasn't done for any concern about the welfare of young girls but as a measure to try and combat child prostitution; not very many Muslims living in the UK in 1885!

No one has denied that some Muslims use Aisha as an excuse to carry on the vile practice of child sex; but many more don't and condemn the practice.

To keep this more or less on topic: Muslim leaders condemn child sex grooming

[jacky54]

so do YOU admit Ayisha was married at six and raped at nine by a man in his 50's,or do you go along with the apologists and revisionists?

[jacky54]

delete

Edited September 11, 2014 by jacky54

[7by7]

so do YOU admit Ayisha was married at six and raped at nine by a man in his 50's,or do you go along with the apologists and revisionists?

I believe the historical evidence, as discussed by many and outlined in the articles such as the one I linked to by Tarek Fatah, which indicates she was closer to 19 than 9.

For example

The historian al-Tabari informs us in his treatise on Islamic history that the father of Aisha, Abu Bakr had four children and all them were born before the year 610AD, the year of the advent of Islam. If, as is generally accepted, Aisha became Muhammad’s bride in the year 624AD, then she had to be at least 14 years of age, if not older on the day of her wedding.

There is one reason why medieval Islamic writings place her as younger;

Most medieval Islamic history books were written 200-300 years after the advent of Islam and it is true that all of them state emphatically that Aisha was only nine when she became Muhammad’s bride. However, all of them rely on, and quote, one single individual as the source of this information. His name was Hishām ibn Urwah, a prominent narrator of sayings of the Prophet (the Hadith), who died in the year 756AD. He was Aisha’s great-grand nephew, who first suggested that his great-grand aunt was only nine-years old on the day of her wedding, 125 years after the said event.

Prior to his utterance, a century after the fact, there is no mention or reference to the age of Aisha. Hisham bin Urwah lived and taught in Medina for 70 years, yet no one else—not even his famous pupil Malik ibn Anas—-reported Aisha’s age.

Are religious texts historically accurate?

Of course not; if the Bible, Torah and Koran are historically accurate then, according Bishop Ussher's and other's calculations, the world was created in 4004 BC!

And do you really believe that the prophets lived as long as the Bible, Torah and Koran say? Did Noah really live to over 900?

[jacky54]

So you believe the apologists and revisionists rather than more respected sources, because that's what you want to believe. No surprise there then.

[arjunadawn]

Strange, after some of the best posts on the subject the silence from the apologists is deafening!

As absolutely no one here has ever been an apologist for child abuse, not strange at all!

If, however, by 'apologists' you mean, amongst others, me; then as I have a life and a job and a family, I can't spend all my time glued to this forum; unlike some, it seems.

Both articles I linked to were written by a Muslims. I did make a mistake about the author of the first (surprised none of you picked up on that!), but in it he quotes Jewish scholars who agree with him and his premise.

Are you and others claiming these Jewish scholars are Islamic apologists?

arjunadawn, you say "The first link begins early by saying the notion that Aisha was 6 first appeared on rightwing websites."

Read it again, it does not say that. The first line: "The allegation that the Prophet Muhammad married Aisha in the year 624AD when she was only a nine-year old girl, is not new."

But whatever her age, if you are going to condemn Muslims for this, you must also condemn every other religion and culture in the world where, until very recently, the age of consent was considered to be when a child reached puberty; for a girl that was when she started to menstruate.

As I said before, it wasn't until 1885 that the age of consent in the UK was raised from 13 to 16; and this wasn't done for any concern about the welfare of young girls but as a measure to try and combat child prostitution; not very many Muslims living in the UK in 1885!

No one has denied that some Muslims use Aisha as an excuse to carry on the vile practice of child sex; but many more don't and condemn the practice.

To keep this more or less on topic: Muslim leaders condemn child sex grooming

Sahih al-Bukhari 3896- Mohammed said allah authorized he marry Aisha when she was 6 years old.

I will seek out those links and try to see why or how I erred. Perhaps I got confused by which link. Yes, the age of menstruation has traditionally been womanhood. You are correct. Yet context is everything. Islam has a very elaborate and detailed fabric for how women as property are to be used, exploited when spoils, and even has highly developed permissions and admonishments for penetration opposed to penis thrusting in infant's thighs, etc. The overall context then does call into question this one, small part of islam's relation to sex, and sex with the young.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-J7_TKgw1To

If the broad sweep of history and contemporary affairs did not include overwhelming instances of similar crimes this issue would not find much traction. Lastly, I restate, the issue was not whether Mohammed had sex with Aisha or not at 9, I think its clear he did. The issue is him marrying her at 6 years old then "thighing" her (infant sex without penetration- see related fatwas). This black eye has modern islamic scholars attempting to distance islam from this unfortunate embarrassment to the modern world. Aisha being married at 6 years old remains because most mulsims believe this point, as evidenced by large populations of muslims in central asia living this very injunction, as modeled by their prophet. Moreover, the information may not be easily noted by the west, but islamic law and history knows she was 6.

http://islamqa.info/en/178318

It is utter nonsense that Mohammed did not marry a 6 year old! This single point suggests how very deep islamic duplicity runs.

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2014/04/cnn-calls-islamic-child-marriage.html

I am pleased muslim leaders are speaking out against these actions; this is support for my points.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/65-of-brides-in-muslim-yemen-are-children/

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/04/nigeria-muslim-child-bride-forced-into-marriage-poisons-husband

[7by7]

So you believe the apologists and revisionists rather than more respected sources, because that's what you want to believe. No surprise there then.

If she was, indeed, 9, explain the following two extracts from the article, if you can:

"The historian al-Tabari informs us in his treatise on Islamic history that the father of Aisha, Abu Bakr had four children and all them were born before the year 610AD, the year of the advent of Islam. If, as is generally accepted, Aisha became Muhammad’s bride in the year 624AD, then she had to be at least 14 years of age, if not older on the day of her wedding."

"Most medieval Islamic history books were written 200-300 years after the advent of Islam and it is true that all of them state emphatically that Aisha was only nine when she became Muhammad’s bride. However, all of them rely on, and quote, one single individual as the source of this information. His name was Hishām ibn Urwah, a prominent narrator of sayings of the Prophet (the Hadith), who died in the year 756AD. He was Aisha’s great-grand nephew, who first suggested that his great-grand aunt was only nine-years old on the day of her wedding, 125 years after the said event.

Prior to his utterance, a century after the fact, there is no mention or reference to the age of Aisha. Hisham bin Urwah lived and taught in Medina for 70 years, yet no one else—not even his famous pupil Malik ibn Anas—-reported Aisha’s age."

[7by7]

arjunadawn,

I have never denied that many Muslims believe Aisha was 9 when she first had sex with Mohammed; but as shown, this is based upon the first mention of her age, which was made 125 years after her marriage.

Her young age is now widely disputed in the Islamic world; except in those places where it is used to excuse the abuse of young girls.

I have never denied that such abuse takes place.

But, as shown many times, it is now widely condemned by many Muslim leaders and scholars.

[jacky54]

If you want to believe an 'historian' rather than the Hadith then that's up to you. What do you think makes him more accurate than the Hadiths that many times say the opposite? Why is he more reliable than a descendent, and why would he lie about her age?

[simple1]

I believe I an correct in saying Saudi Arabia & Yemen are the only Muslim majority countries that do not have laws on the minimum age for marriage. Those Muslim countries that do have laws in place have huge issues for enforcement in the face of Muslim conservatives and tradition. Politicians / leaders, who have influence are critical for societal changes, require the vote / support of the conservatives to stay in power. If the more moderate leaders push to hard for rapid changes, (there have been a number of assassinations) are voted out or removed the will for law enforcement will only get worse.

The ongoing issue of sexual abuse in Muslim majority countries / comunities is terrible and heart breaking, but it is illegal and against Islamic principles. Countries under the jurisdiction of Sharia Criminal Law have the death sentence for crimes such as rape, death sentences are carried out. Mudding sentencing is the tradition of Blood Money. As we know the evidential requirements for Sharia Criminal Law are onerous to say the least, but slowly changing in some Islamic countries.

[Credo]

If Aiysha was 15 or 19 or well into her developed years, why is there all this discussion about 'thighing' her? She must have been a small child in that case.

[jacky54]

If Aiysha was 15 or 19 or well into her developed years, why is there all this discussion about 'thighing' her? She must have been a small child in that case.

Only the deluded and the worst of apologists believe she was older than nine. The practice of thighing is only done to babies and infants as the vagina is too small to be raped, even by these barbarians.

[MJP]

Strange, after some of the best posts on the subject the silence from the apologists is deafening!

As absolutely no one here has ever been an apologist for child abuse, not strange at all!

If, however, by 'apologists' you mean, amongst others, me; then as I have a life and a job and a family, I can't spend all my time glued to this forum; unlike some, it seems.

Both articles I linked to were written by a Muslims. I did make a mistake about the author of the first (surprised none of you picked up on that!), but in it he quotes Jewish scholars who agree with him and his premise.

Are you and others claiming these Jewish scholars are Islamic apologists?

arjunadawn, you say "The first link begins early by saying the notion that Aisha was 6 first appeared on rightwing websites."

Read it again, it does not say that. The first line: "The allegation that the Prophet Muhammad married Aisha in the year 624AD when she was only a nine-year old girl, is not new."

But whatever her age, if you are going to condemn Muslims for this, you must also condemn every other religion and culture in the world where, until very recently, the age of consent was considered to be when a child reached puberty; for a girl that was when she started to menstruate.

As I said before, it wasn't until 1885 that the age of consent in the UK was raised from 13 to 16; and this wasn't done for any concern about the welfare of young girls but as a measure to try and combat child prostitution; not very many Muslims living in the UK in 1885!

No one has denied that some Muslims use Aisha as an excuse to carry on the vile practice of child sex; but many more don't and condemn the practice.

To keep this more or less on topic: Muslim leaders condemn child sex grooming

Sahih al-Bukhari 3896- Mohammed said allah authorized he marry Aisha when she was 6 years old.

I will seek out those links and try to see why or how I erred. Perhaps I got confused by which link. Yes, the age of menstruation has traditionally been womanhood. You are correct. Yet context is everything. Islam has a very elaborate and detailed fabric for how women as property are to be used, exploited when spoils, and even has highly developed permissions and admonishments for penetration opposed to penis thrusting in infant's thighs, etc. The overall context then does call into question this one, small part of islam's relation to sex, and sex with the young.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-J7_TKgw1To

If the broad sweep of history and contemporary affairs did not include overwhelming instances of similar crimes this issue would not find much traction. Lastly, I restate, the issue was not whether Mohammed had sex with Aisha or not at 9, I think its clear he did. The issue is him marrying her at 6 years old then "thighing" her (infant sex without penetration- see related fatwas). This black eye has modern islamic scholars attempting to distance islam from this unfortunate embarrassment to the modern world. Aisha being married at 6 years old remains because most mulsims believe this point, as evidenced by large populations of muslims in central asia living this very injunction, as modeled by their prophet. Moreover, the information may not be easily noted by the west, but islamic law and history knows she was 6.

http://islamqa.info/en/178318

It is utter nonsense that Mohammed did not marry a 6 year old! This single point suggests how very deep islamic duplicity runs.

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2014/04/cnn-calls-islamic-child-marriage.html

I am pleased muslim leaders are speaking out against these actions; this is support for my points.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/65-of-brides-in-muslim-yemen-are-children/

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/04/nigeria-muslim-child-bride-forced-into-marriage-poisons-husband

Had to grow up way too fast. What a wonderful person and future World leader, her and Malala both.

[7by7]

If Aiysha was 15 or 19 or well into her developed years, why is there all this discussion about 'thighing' her? She must have been a small child in that case.

Sexual activity between consenting adults doesn't always include vaginal penetration, and there is such a thing as foreplay.

If your sex life has no foreplay and only includes vaginal penetration, I'm sorry for you and your partner; it must be rather boring.

Of course, the only accounts of what transpired were, like the accounts of her age, written well over 100 years later and were most likely written thus to please the author's superiors at the time in order to justify their sexual abuse of children.

Just as today, unfortunately, some Muslims still do.

But as said before, child sexual abuse is not a Muslim problem, it is a worldwide problem; with approximately 40% of all child marriages occurring in India.

However, the Islam haters aren't interested in that. They don't care about this dreadful crime, they don't care about the victims.

All they care about is having another reason to justify their prejudice against all Muslims.

[7by7]

Meanwhile, back to the actual topic:

Rotherham abuse: 'No confidence' in PCC Shaun Wright

A vote of no confidence in South Yorkshire police commissioner Shaun Wright has been passed by the county's police and crime panel.

Mr Wright was appearing before the panel for the first time since a report revealed 1,400 children were abused in Rotherham from 1997-2013.

[H1w4yR1da]

If Aiysha was 15 or 19 or well into her developed years, why is there all this discussion about 'thighing' her? She must have been a small child in that case.

Sexual activity between consenting adults doesn't always include vaginal penetration, and there is such a thing as foreplay.

If your sex life has no foreplay and only includes vaginal penetration, I'm sorry for you and your partner; it must be rather boring.

Oh! So it was foreplay was it? Do you actually understand the meaning of the word 'foreplay'? Is a precursor to full sex. Hence the prefix 'fore'. If this was the case, it proves old Mo' was banging a kid.

If he was only 'thighing' her, it must have been because she was very, very young. Either way, the guy's a nonce.

But you carry on with your constant apologising. Everyone can see it for what it is though.

[Albertosez]

Anyone for " Acid Bucket Challenge " ?

[7by7]

(Quote removed to comply with forum software)

Sexual activity between consenting adults doesn't always include vaginal penetration, and there is such a thing as foreplay.

If your sex life has no foreplay and only includes vaginal penetration, I'm sorry for you and your partner; it must be rather boring.

Oh! So it was foreplay was it? Do you actually understand the meaning of the word 'foreplay'? Is a precursor to full sex. Hence the prefix 'fore'. If this was the case, it proves old Mo' was banging a kid.

If he was only 'thighing' her, it must have been because she was very, very young. Either way, the guy's a nonce.

But you carry on with your constant apologising. Everyone can see it for what it is though.

I don't know what activities took place between Aisha and Mohammed, nor her and his ages at the time. Neither do you and neither does anyone for sure because there are no contemporaneous accounts.

Only those written well over 100 years later.

Not sure, though, what you thinK I am apologising for. As I said

(these accounts) were most likely written thus to please the author's superiors at the time in order to justify their sexual abuse of children.

Just as today, unfortunately, some Muslims still (use them) do (the same).

I am obviously not apologising for the vile crime of child abuse; sexual, physical, mental or any form. I have condemned such many times.

Tell us, what do you think I am apologising for?

I went on

But as said before, child sexual abuse is not a Muslim problem, it is a worldwide problem; with approximately 40% of all child marriages occurring in India.

However, the Islam haters aren't interested in that. They don't care about this dreadful crime, they don't care about the victims.

All they care about is having another reason to justify their prejudice against all Muslims

You have, yet again, proven my point far better than I ever could!

[jacky54]

However, the Islam haters aren't interested in that. They don't care about this dreadful crime, they don't care about the victims.

All they care about is having another reason to justify their prejudice against all Muslims.

Yet another outrageous slur on posters here. I am sure we ALL care about the victims, including the 260 MILLION victims of Islamic violence in the last 1400 years. There is no reason to have prejudice against Muslims, their conduct driven by the violent and backward commands of the koran and the despicable conduct of the monster prophet speak for themselves, no need to demonise them, they do a very good job of that on a daily basis.!

[jacky54]

Tell us, what do you think I am apologising for?

You apologise consistently for Islam, or shall we have a vote on it?

[7by7]

Islam has no more need for me to apologise for it than Christianity, Judaism or any other world religion.

What I am doing, though, is attempting to educate the ignorant away from their prejudice.

BTW, how many people have been victims of Christian violence?

No need to go back to the start of Christianity, just in the last 1400 years.

[jacky54]

Yes it does you are apologising for a religion which was spread by the sword and the knife, one that killed an estimated 260 million innocent people in the last 1400 years, one that still carries out the cruel and backward obscenities in the koran and is a belief system that still oppresses women gays and of course kaffirs. It's a religion that demeans women and encourages rape and that preaches not integration, but separation and superiority. Islamic followers have carried out thousands of terrorist attacks in the last 13 years alone!The well worn oh well what about Christianity line just does not impress me or anyone else on here, it's such a pathetic and weak argument it no longer even deserves an answer.

Edited September 12, 2014 by jacky54

[Steely Dan]

If Aiysha was 15 or 19 or well into her developed years, why is there all this discussion about 'thighing' her? She must have been a small child in that case.

Sexual activity between consenting adults doesn't always include vaginal penetration, and there is such a thing as foreplay.

If your sex life has no foreplay and only includes vaginal penetration, I'm sorry for you and your partner; it must be rather boring.

Of course, the only accounts of what transpired were, like the accounts of her age, written well over 100 years later and were most likely written thus to please the author's superiors at the time in order to justify their sexual abuse of children.

Just as today, unfortunately, some Muslims still do.

But as said before, child sexual abuse is not a Muslim problem, it is a worldwide problem; with approximately 40% of all child marriages occurring in India.

However, the Islam haters aren't interested in that. They don't care about this dreadful crime, they don't care about the victims.

All they care about is having another reason to justify their prejudice against all Muslims.

How fascinating! You now can conceive of the accounts of Mohammad's relations with Aisha being written post-hoc to justify the sexual perversions of some dessert nomads. I put it to you that by the same token much of the Koran could have likewise been fabricated in order to justify rape, murder, slavery and all other manner of evil sadistic whims of whoever wrote it.

In which case why persist with the farce that you are somehow protecting Muslims by repeatedly attempting to rationalize or excuse criticism of the ideology that has caused them and everyone else so much misery?

[jacky54]

How fascinating! You now can conceive of the accounts of Mohammad's relations with Aisha being written post-hoc to justify the sexual perversions of some dessert nomads. I put it to you that by the same token much of the Koran could have likewise been fabricated in order to justify rape, murder, slavery and all other manner of evil sadistic whims of whoever wrote it.

In which case why persist with the farce that you are somehow protecting Muslims by repeatedly attempting to rationalize or excuse criticism of the ideology that has caused them and everyone else so much misery?

Yes funny that the apologists dismiss history they don't like such as child rape by the prophet by claiming things were written too long after he died to be reliable, but are quite happy to defend the koran, also written after the prohphet died. If they are not defending the koran then they have no argument at all as the whole basis of Islam is the koran. It is of course all a fairy tale and the so called prophet was very probably schizophrenic, but also cunning. He 'received' more than one command from Allah to permit his wrong doings, very convenient for the murderer, thief and rapist, Allah must have been proud! Or was it Allah? Mohamed at first thought his revelations were from Satan and wanted to kill himself, if only he had all those poor kids in Rotherham would not have been raped and tortured, still, Allah knows best!

Edited September 12, 2014 by jacky54

[arjunadawn]

If Aiysha was 15 or 19 or well into her developed years, why is there all this discussion about 'thighing' her? She must have been a small child in that case.

Only the deluded and the worst of apologists believe she was older than nine. The practice of thighing is only done to babies and infants as the vagina is too small to be raped, even by these barbarians.

This is actually brutal confirmation. The weight of this point clearly outweighs the modern revisionists trying to remap the hadith, etc. The fact is, "thighing" is masturbation with the penis on infants (or likely implying non pubescent children), between the thighs until ejaculation. Why indeed, would Mohammed be doing this in the text if she was pubescent? Of course, he would not. The interlocking, corroborating information contained in these texts makes this one of the rarer consistencies of the islamic religious texts.

[arjunadawn]

Islam has no more need for me to apologise for it than Christianity, Judaism or any other world religion.

What I am doing, though, is attempting to educate the ignorant away from their prejudice.

BTW, how many people have been victims of Christian violence?

No need to go back to the start of Christianity, just in the last 1400 years.

Please stop trying to make your point by appealing to the argument everyone does it- "How many people have been victims of christian violence?" Behavior such is this is wrong no matter who does it. The topic is not regarding Christians (and you can likely support your point with various excerpts from that history). Therefore, you either condone brutality and child abuse or you do not; provide us context for your position, or you do not. But equating the issue with, in your opinion, equally barbaric acts of others, does not make any point. It does not strengthen a position that should be easy to defend- yours!

[arjunadawn]

If Aiysha was 15 or 19 or well into her developed years, why is there all this discussion about 'thighing' her? She must have been a small child in that case.

Sexual activity between consenting adults doesn't always include vaginal penetration, and there is such a thing as foreplay.

If your sex life has no foreplay and only includes vaginal penetration, I'm sorry for you and your partner; it must be rather boring.

Of course, the only accounts of what transpired were, like the accounts of her age, written well over 100 years later and were most likely written thus to please the author's superiors at the time in order to justify their sexual abuse of children.

Just as today, unfortunately, some Muslims still do.

But as said before, child sexual abuse is not a Muslim problem, it is a worldwide problem; with approximately 40% of all child marriages occurring in India.

However, the Islam haters aren't interested in that. They don't care about this dreadful crime, they don't care about the victims.

All they care about is having another reason to justify their prejudice against all Muslims.

I congratulate you on the bold, if not mad approach, following the affirmation that Aisha was a child, to make your point noting "sexual activity between consenting adults doesn't always include vaginal penetration." You are either saying this child, age 6 or 9, was a consenting adult, or the acts reflected in the religious texts were foreplay. Its unfortunate that you put this in there. Or, if mistaken, its unfortunate you didn't recognize the greater point you made.

When historians try to determine whether there is validity to certain things in the past one of the things they look at is cui bono- who benefits, and also "would something like this, so unlikely, really be untrue?" Historians have consistently found the curious fact that when outlandish or odd declarations are found out of context they are actually correct (Nevertheless, the entries regarding Aisha and Mohammed are in koranic contxt).. Now, child sex would not have been out of context at the time, not for new islam and not for the pre existing tribal structure it came to rest upon. Had it been, certainly these notes 100 years later would not be written. Had it been absurd Aisha was 6 it would have been blasphemy; it was taken for granted.