Socrates, you really do take the biscuit. One gets used to the occasional imbecile on any site but it's the fact you use the name 'Socrates' which somehow makes it so much worse. I would also be wary about being quite so rude about the founder of Islam. That obviously isn't a threat, just an observation about courtesy. It would be like drinking alcohol in Medina high street during Ramadan. There are just some things for which the word you used might bounce back on you, with some justification.
No-one can be sure how old ‘Ā’ishah bint Abī Bakr was. You really ought, however, to do some learning about this. Marriages of the day were always political and this was certainly a political union. She stayed with him for the remainder of his life and by all accounts it was a happy union.
He was a great, a very great, man with the distinction of not claiming to be anything other than a man unlike Jesus (or his followers). But then you dismissed the Trinity in one sentence the other day so you obviously know your stuff on that as you do with Islam. Pb.com is terribly lucky to have you around.
It's not imbecilic to take a stand against the sexual abuse of children. Right and wrong stand on their merits, not according to the opinion of people at any point in time. It was considered acceptable to put people to death for their religion in the Middle Ages - was that also not wrong due to that fact?
Mohammed's marriage with Aisha was not merely political. It was consummated. She was, at best, in her early teens when it happened. But that is a minority view. The consensus of the vast majority of scholars was that she was just nine when Muhammad had sex with her. It is not "being rude" to point out how wrong that is.
It is also absolutely ridiculously to compare breaking the local laws in a particular place to criticism of the founder of Islam. Unlike Medina, this is not a Muslim country and Islam does not deserve protection from criticism any more than any other ideology. I'm not going to refrain from pointing out that Muhammed engaged in the sexual abuse of a child to protect Muslim feelings any more than I would refrain from pointing out that Jimmy Saville did to protect Jim'll Fix It fans. If these facts are uncomfortable for Muslims than they must make peace with the fact that their religious founder engaged in this sort of behaviour, or alter their religious views accordingly.
Just had a chance to watch the speech from Harry Leslie Smith to Labour conference. Very moving stuff, surely that's the making of a Party Political Broadcast for 2015? If Labour make the NHS No.1 or No.2 issue of the campaign they'll win convincingly.
Just as everything they do turns into a catastrophe, there are two points that will absolutely kill the Labour NHS camapign stone dead:
1. Wales 2. Mid-Staffs
There, that was easy.
If this were the case Labour wouldn't be the most trusted on Healthcare. I'm not denying the points you are making, just the effect (or lack of) they will have on peoples perceptions of party competency when it comes to healthcare.
It did seem somewhat obscene that the Labours members sprang to their feet to ra-ra-ra for the NHS only being safe on their watch. A one minute silence for the victims of Stafford would have been more appropriate.
And then these same delegates get all weepy when a 90-odd year man recounts how life was when there was no NHS. The implicit message being that this horror will return if the Tories are re-elected. Which, frankly, was another piece of obscene theatre.
Try crying for those you killed when last in power, Labour.
The Mail has some heartwarming pictures of a meeting at a mosque in Bolton where the locals are campaigning for Henning's release.
Sadly it will make little difference.
The pigs holding Henning hostage, would likely butcher his many supporters given the opportunity.
You should be careful with your language. Calling Muslims pigs may have the thought police round your door .
Yes calling Muslims pigs would indeed be poor choice of words. But then ISIL aren't Muslims, at least not Muslims that Muhammed (pbuh) would recognise.
It's a bit like saying the Crusaders were Christians. I'm sure they thought they were but, really, they had little in common with their founder's message. Same goes with the lunatics in ISIL.
You're taking the piss presumably? Both ISIL and the Crusaders are / were bang-on certain bits of the message. Didn't Mohammed massacre Jews, too?
To paraphrase Blackadder II, for ISIL the last 1,000 years of progress were something that happened to other people.
They were both great men, very great men. Unfortunately some of their alleged followers are assholes.
There are grounds for believing that Islamic science was other people's and that once they'd appropriated it all they created no more: http://www.ninevehsoft.com/fiorina.htm
Peter BetBasoo is an Assyrian with an axe to grind and agenda. He is a journalist and not an academic.
In academic circles it is pretty much accepted, and attested in properly peer-reviewed articles that in areas such as astronomy, mathematics, medicine, irrigation through to preservation of manuscripts the Muslim world was responsible for some of the great advances of civilisation in the period roughly 700-1700. There is so, so, much more could be written on this but it isn't the place.
'With significant issues devolved an English parliament would rise to be a competitor to the UK parliament, and have a potentially destabilising dominance over what remains of the Union.''
Mr. Caporeal has put forward the same line in the threads over the past week or so but has never, in my view, managed to justify it. I had hoped he would have had a go in this article.
Nonetheless, Mr. Caporeal, an interesting piece, thank you.
This article pre-dates those conversations. To some extent it comes back to how funding would be worked out, and my suspicions about how much influence
But this thread was more about what will happen than what should, and the dominance of an English parliament has been raised by opponents of it, so I was trying to reflect that.
But an English parliament RESTRICTS English dominance, because it moves all the contentious English issues down to a lower level, so UK governments aren't politically affected by them.
I thought you were arguing that the English were suffering unfair influence
My honest position on an English parliament is that I'm still undecided over it, how it'd work etc. This was intended to be about what will rather than should happen. The likelihood of a fudge seems high.
He was a great, a very great, man with the distinction of not claiming to be anything other than a man unlike Jesus (or his followers). But then you dismissed the Trinity in one sentence the other day so you obviously know your stuff on that as you do with Islam. Pb.com is terribly lucky to have you around.
It's not imbecilic to take a stand against the sexual abuse of children. Right and wrong stand on their merits, not according to the opinion of people at any point in time. It was considered acceptable to put people to death for their religion in the Middle Ages - was that also not wrong due to that fact?
Mohammed's marriage with Aisha was not merely political. It was consummated. She was, at best, in her early teens when it happened. But that is a minority view. The consensus of the vast majority of scholars was that she was just nine when Muhammad had sex with her. It is not "being rude" to point out how wrong that is.
It is also absolutely ridiculously to compare breaking the local laws in a particular place to criticism of the founder of Islam. Unlike Medina, this is not a Muslim country and Islam does not deserve protection from criticism any more than any other ideology. I'm not going to refrain from pointing out that Muhammed engaged in the sexual abuse of a child to protect Muslim feelings any more than I would refrain from pointing out that Jimmy Saville did to protect Jim'll Fix It fans. If these facts are uncomfortable for Muslims than they must make peace with the fact that their religious founder engaged in this sort of behaviour, or alter their religious views accordingly.
I think you have entirely missed my point Socrates, but that doesn't surprise me. You called Mohammed (pbuh) an asshole, something which is deeply insulting and whatever you might like to think not something you are at liberty to say. Do you wish me to point you to laws of this land it might contravene?
By all means debate the rights and wrongs of polygamous marriages, political marriages and ones which, by today's standards, would be called under age but don't call him that word.
I should make a correction. Some mainstream sources mention Aisha was 10, although most say 9. Also, Muhammad was not in his 30s when he had sex with her. He was in his 50s.
I think you have entirely missed my point Socrates, but that doesn't surprise me. You called Mohammed (pbuh) an asshole, something which is deeply insulting and whatever you might like to think not something you are at liberty to say. Do you wish me to point you to laws of this land it might contravene?
Of course he is at liberty to say it. In fact it should be said a lot more about a lot of these religious frauds.
The Mail has some heartwarming pictures of a meeting at a mosque in Bolton where the locals are campaigning for Henning's release.
Sadly it will make little difference.
The pigs holding Henning hostage, would likely butcher his many supporters given the opportunity.
You should be careful with your language. Calling Muslims pigs may have the thought police round your door .
Yes calling Muslims pigs would indeed be poor choice of words. But then ISIL aren't Muslims, at least not Muslims that Muhammed (pbuh) would recognise.
It's a bit like saying the Crusaders were Christians. I'm sure they thought they were but, really, they had little in common with their founder's message. Same goes with the lunatics in ISIL.
You're taking the piss presumably? Both ISIL and the Crusaders are / were bang-on certain bits of the message. Didn't Mohammed massacre Jews, too?
To paraphrase Blackadder II, for ISIL the last 1,000 years of progress were something that happened to other people.
They were both great men, very great men. Unfortunately some of their alleged followers are assholes.
There are grounds for believing that Islamic science was other people's and that once they'd appropriated it all they created no more: http://www.ninevehsoft.com/fiorina.htm
Peter BetBasoo is an Assyrian with an axe to grind and agenda. He is a journalist and not an academic.
In academic circles it is pretty much accepted, and attested in properly peer-reviewed articles that in areas such as astronomy, mathematics, medicine, irrigation through to preservation of manuscripts the Muslim world was responsible for some of the great advances of civilisation in the period roughly 700-1700. There is so, so, much more could be written on this but it isn't the place.
What were the great advances in civilisation they were responsible for between 1500 and 1700?
I think you have entirely missed my point Socrates, but that doesn't surprise me. You called Mohammed (pbuh) an asshole, something which is deeply insulting and whatever you might like to think not something you are at liberty to say. Do you wish me to point you to laws of this land it might contravene?
Of course he is at liberty to say it. In fact it should be said a lot more about a lot of these religious frauds.
Indeed. Rare is the sentence that passes my lips in which, if the words "Richard Dawkins" are present, the word "asshole" is not also present.
Socrates, let me put this to you as a thought and then I will leave this topic alone. You clearly know as much about Islam as you do about the doctrine of the Trinity: a little, but not a lot. Patronising though this may be, how about learning a little more?
Have you read the Qur'an? Have you studied any of the hadith? Have you ever been to Friday prayers at a mosque? By all means debate but please don't do so from a position of ignorance. It is people like you who fire out the sort of word you used who incense the Muslim world against us in the west, and with some justification. It reminds me of my pilot friend in a Muslim country who drinks alcohol openly during Ramadan. Not just drinking, but drinking alcohol. If you want to criticise people at least do so from understanding and with courtesy.
The Mail has some heartwarming pictures of a meeting at a mosque in Bolton where the locals are campaigning for Henning's release.
Sadly it will make little difference.
The pigs holding Henning hostage, would likely butcher his many supporters given the opportunity.
You should be careful with your language. Calling Muslims pigs may have the thought police round your door .
Yes calling Muslims pigs would indeed be poor choice of words. But then ISIL aren't Muslims, at least not Muslims that Muhammed (pbuh) would recognise.
It's a bit like saying the Crusaders were Christians. I'm sure they thought they were but, really, they had little in common with their founder's message. Same goes with the lunatics in ISIL.
You're taking the piss presumably? Both ISIL and the Crusaders are / were bang-on certain bits of the message. Didn't Mohammed massacre Jews, too?
To paraphrase Blackadder II, for ISIL the last 1,000 years of progress were something that happened to other people.
They were both great men, very great men. Unfortunately some of their alleged followers are assholes.
There are grounds for believing that Islamic science was other people's and that once they'd appropriated it all they created no more: http://www.ninevehsoft.com/fiorina.htm
Peter BetBasoo is an Assyrian with an axe to grind and agenda. He is a journalist and not an academic.
In academic circles it is pretty much accepted, and attested in properly peer-reviewed articles that in areas such as astronomy, mathematics, medicine, irrigation through to preservation of manuscripts the Muslim world was responsible for some of the great advances of civilisation in the period roughly 700-1700. There is so, so, much more could be written on this but it isn't the place.
What were the great advances in civilisation they were responsible for between 1500 and 1700?
It's not imbecilic to take a stand against the sexual abuse of children. Right and wrong stand on their merits, not according to the opinion of people at any point in time. It was considered acceptable to put people to death for their religion in the Middle Ages - was that also not wrong due to that fact?
Mohammed's marriage with Aisha was not merely political. It was consummated. She was, at best, in her early teens when it happened. But that is a minority view. The consensus of the vast majority of scholars was that she was just nine when Muhammad had sex with her. It is not "being rude" to point out how wrong that is.
It is also absolutely ridiculously to compare breaking the local laws in a particular place to criticism of the founder of Islam. Unlike Medina, this is not a Muslim country and Islam does not deserve protection from criticism any more than any other ideology. I'm not going to refrain from pointing out that Muhammed engaged in the sexual abuse of a child to protect Muslim feelings any more than I would refrain from pointing out that Jimmy Saville did to protect Jim'll Fix It fans. If these facts are uncomfortable for Muslims than they must make peace with the fact that their religious founder engaged in this sort of behaviour, or alter their religious views accordingly.
I think you have entirely missed my point Socrates, but that doesn't surprise me. You called Mohammed (pbuh) an asshole, something which is deeply insulting and whatever you might like to think not something you are at liberty to say. Do you wish me to point you to laws of this land it might contravene?
Look, I consider calling anyone an asshole to be a very rude thing to say. Apart from anything else one should properly use the British term "arsehole", rather than crude Americanisms. In either case, I don't generally approve of being rude about people. Politeness is a virtue and should be encouraged.
However, Socrates is entirely at liberty to call me an asshole, or whatever term of abuse he should wish, and I am free to judge him lacking in manners as a result. But I'm not going to tolerate anyone telling him he isn't allowed to insult me if he wishes.
Calling Mohammed an asshole, or describing Jesus as a pillock are things that anyone is at liberty to say.
The Mail has some heartwarming pictures of a meeting at a mosque in Bolton where the locals are campaigning for Henning's release.
Sadly it will make little difference.
The pigs holding Henning hostage, would likely butcher his many supporters given the opportunity.
You should be careful with your language. Calling Muslims pigs may have the thought police round your door .
Yes calling Muslims pigs would indeed be poor choice of words. But then ISIL aren't Muslims, at least not Muslims that Muhammed (pbuh) would recognise.
It's a bit like saying the Crusaders were Christians. I'm sure they thought they were but, really, they had little in common with their founder's message. Same goes with the lunatics in ISIL.
You're taking the piss presumably? Both ISIL and the Crusaders are / were bang-on certain bits of the message. Didn't Mohammed massacre Jews, too?
To paraphrase Blackadder II, for ISIL the last 1,000 years of progress were something that happened to other people.
They were both great men, very great men. Unfortunately some of their alleged followers are assholes.
There are grounds for believing that Islamic science was other people's and that once they'd appropriated it all they created no more: http://www.ninevehsoft.com/fiorina.htm
Peter BetBasoo is an Assyrian with an axe to grind and agenda. He is a journalist and not an academic.
In academic circles it is pretty much accepted, and attested in properly peer-reviewed articles that in areas such as astronomy, mathematics, medicine, irrigation through to preservation of manuscripts the Muslim world was responsible for some of the great advances of civilisation in the period roughly 700-1700. There is so, so, much more could be written on this but it isn't the place.
What were the great advances in civilisation they were responsible for between 1500 and 1700?
He was a great, a very great, man with the distinction of not claiming to be anything other than a man unlike Jesus (or his followers). But then you dismissed the Trinity in one sentence the other day so you obviously know your stuff on that as you do with Islam. Pb.com is terribly lucky to have you around.
It's not imbecilic to take a stand against the sexual abuse of children. Right and wrong stand on their merits, not according to the opinion of people at any point in time. It was considered acceptable to put people to death for their religion in the Middle Ages - was that also not wrong due to that fact?
Mohammed's marriage with Aisha was not merely political. It was consummated. She was, at best, in her early teens when it happened. But that is a minority view. The consensus of the vast majority of scholars was that she was just nine when Muhammad had sex with her. It is not "being rude" to point out how wrong that is.
It is also absolutely ridiculously to compare breaking the local laws in a particular place to criticism of the founder of Islam. Unlike Medina, this is not a Muslim country and Islam does not deserve protection from criticism any more than any other ideology. I'm not going to refrain from pointing out that Muhammed engaged in the sexual abuse of a child to protect Muslim feelings any more than I would refrain from pointing out that Jimmy Saville did to protect Jim'll Fix It fans. If these facts are uncomfortable for Muslims than they must make peace with the fact that their religious founder engaged in this sort of behaviour, or alter their religious views accordingly.
I think you have entirely missed my point Socrates, but that doesn't surprise me. You called Mohammed (pbuh) an asshole, something which is deeply insulting and whatever you might like to think not something you are at liberty to say. Do you wish me to point you to laws of this land it might contravene?
By all means debate the rights and wrongs of polygamous marriages, political marriages and ones which, by today's standards, would be called under age but don't call him that word.
I never said that explicitly. I merely said
(1) that an adult man having sex with a child a fraction of his age is an asshole (2) that Muhammad was an adult man that had sex with a child a fraction of his age.
Socrates, you really do take the biscuit. One gets used to the occasional imbecile on any site but it's the fact you use the name 'Socrates' which somehow makes it so much worse. I would also be wary about being quite so rude about the founder of Islam. That obviously isn't a threat, just an observation about courtesy. It would be like drinking alcohol in Medina high street during Ramadan. There are just some things for which the word you used might bounce back on you, with some justification.
No-one can be sure how old ‘Ā’ishah bint Abī Bakr was. You really ought, however, to do some learning about this. Marriages of the day were always political and this was certainly a political union. She stayed with him for the remainder of his life and by all accounts it was a happy union.
He was a great, a very great, man with the distinction of not claiming to be anything other than a man unlike Jesus (or his followers). But then you dismissed the Trinity in one sentence the other day so you obviously know your stuff on that as you do with Islam. Pb.com is terribly lucky to have you around.
Why should one be courteous to something one holds in such utter contempt? Your claims about Mo (let's write some fatuous letters in brackets after his name) are based entirely upon a hagiography designed to make us think he had some special connection to a Middle Eastern Sky Fairy. The idea that he was a 'very great man' is completely unsupportable given what we know about him.
I suppose he does have the one advantage that, unlike Jesus, we can be fairly certain he existed but beyond that ascribing any great virtues to him is a real non-starter.
Some truth in that. It's sometimes hard to be courteous to those you hold in utter contempt like, say, Islamophobes, or racists and those who deliberately spread inflammatory division and racial hatred.
Jesus, similarly, was an astonishing radical in his day but more has been written about him so I hopefully don't need to elaborate.
They were both great men, very great men. Unfortunately some of their alleged followers are assholes.
I would have thought a man in his 30s having sex with a child would be enough to qualify someone as an asshole...
Socrates, you really do take the biscuit. One gets used to the occasional imbecile on any site but it's the fact you use the name 'Socrates' which somehow makes it so much worse. I would also be wary about being quite so rude about the founder of Islam. That obviously isn't a threat, just an observation about courtesy. It would be like drinking alcohol in Medina high street during Ramadan. There are just some things for which the word you used might bounce back on you, with some justification.
No-one can be sure how old ‘Ā’ishah bint Abī Bakr was. You really ought, however, to do some learning about this. Marriages of the day were always political and this was certainly a political union. They were also often married off young, with consummation frequently taking place a lot later. Aisha stayed with him for the remainder of his life and by all accounts it was a happy union.
He was a great, a very great, man with the distinction of not claiming to be anything other than a man unlike Jesus (or his followers). But then you dismissed the doctrine of the Trinity in one sentence the other day so you obviously know your stuff on that as you do with Islam.
Gosh, pb.com is terribly lucky to have you around.
So his wife stayed with him and that means, what? Because of course women in the 7th Century had lots of choices: I mean she might have gone off, got a job, established her own business.
Honestly: all that fact tells you is that women in the 7th century had no choices. The Western world has changed. And some of us are a bit annoyed that some here want to impose a similar lack of choice on Muslim British women here.
Socrates or anyone else is entitled to think as much or as little of Mohammed or Jesus or anyone else as they choose. And this is even more apposite given that Muslims are supposed, I understand, to view him as the perfect man. If so, we are entitled to find out and comment on what this "perfect man" did.
It's the lack of free speech, the lack of criticism of what Islam is and has been in the past in particular countries which might, you know, be one reason why a large part of the Islamic world is in the mess it is. There is no reason to import that lack of critical faculty here.
It's not imbecilic to take a stand against the sexual abuse of children. Right and wrong stand on their merits, not according to the opinion of people at any point in time. It was considered acceptable to put people to death for their religion in the Middle Ages - was that also not wrong due to that fact?
Mohammed's marriage with Aisha was not merely political. It was consummated. She was, at best, in her early teens when it happened. But that is a minority view. The consensus of the vast majority of scholars was that she was just nine when Muhammad had sex with her. It is not "being rude" to point out how wrong that is.
It is also absolutely ridiculously to compare breaking the local laws in a particular place to criticism of the founder of Islam. Unlike Medina, this is not a Muslim country and Islam does not deserve protection from criticism any more than any other ideology. I'm not going to refrain from pointing out that Muhammed engaged in the sexual abuse of a child to protect Muslim feelings any more than I would refrain from pointing out that Jimmy Saville did to protect Jim'll Fix It fans. If these facts are uncomfortable for Muslims than they must make peace with the fact that their religious founder engaged in this sort of behaviour, or alter their religious views accordingly.
I think you have entirely missed my point Socrates, but that doesn't surprise me. You called Mohammed (pbuh) an asshole, something which is deeply insulting and whatever you might like to think not something you are at liberty to say. Do you wish me to point you to laws of this land it might contravene?
L I'm not going to tolerate anyone telling him he isn't allowed to insult me if he wishes.
Calling Mohammed an asshole, or describing Jesus as a pillock are things that anyone is at liberty to say.
You're actually not at liberty to say it. If you did it in the street you'd be arrested for incitement to race hatred. This website isn't very different.
Freedom is only worth protecting if people respect the boundaries. That word crosses them.
It's not imbecilic to take a stand against the sexual abuse of children. Right and wrong stand on their merits, not according to the opinion of people at any point in time. It was considered acceptable to put people to death for their religion in the Middle Ages - was that also not wrong due to that fact?
Mohammed's marriage with Aisha was not merely political. It was consummated. She was, at best, in her early teens when it happened. But that is a minority view. The consensus of the vast majority of scholars was that she was just nine when Muhammad had sex with her. It is not "being rude" to point out how wrong that is.
It is also absolutely ridiculously to compare breaking the local laws in a particular place to criticism of the founder of Islam. Unlike Medina, this is not a Muslim country and Islam does not deserve protection from criticism any more than any other ideology. I'm not going to refrain from pointing out that Muhammed engaged in the sexual abuse of a child to protect Muslim feelings any more than I would refrain from pointing out that Jimmy Saville did to protect Jim'll Fix It fans. If these facts are uncomfortable for Muslims than they must make peace with the fact that their religious founder engaged in this sort of behaviour, or alter their religious views accordingly.
I think you have entirely missed my point Socrates, but that doesn't surprise me. You called Mohammed (pbuh) an asshole, something which is deeply insulting and whatever you might like to think not something you are at liberty to say. Do you wish me to point you to laws of this land it might contravene?
L I'm not going to tolerate anyone telling him he isn't allowed to insult me if he wishes.
Calling Mohammed an asshole, or describing Jesus as a pillock are things that anyone is at liberty to say.
You're actually not at liberty to say it. If you did it in the street you'd be arrested for incitement to race hatred. This website isn't very different.
Freedom is only worth protecting if people respect the boundaries. That word crosses them.
Freedom is clearly a concept you know nothing about. Sadly, large swathes of parliament are similarly disrespectful of the concept.
My understanding was that the Ottomans started to decline when it ceased having a modern (as it were) inclusive approach and the interests of a more hardline Islamic sect began to hold more sway, holding back scientific progress and reducing the number of well-educated Christians in the bureaucracy (at a time when Christians within the empire were generally better educated this led to a decline in competence).
The Ottomans and their forerunners shouldn't be put on a pedestal or hurled into a pit. Naturally they varied, with some leaders super, some horrid and most in between. Bayezit was a cock, Suleiman[sp] was a top chap, as I wrote about a few years ago with regards to one particular action:
It's not imbecilic to take a stand against the sexual abuse of children. Right and wrong stand on their merits, not according to the opinion of people at any point in time. It was considered acceptable to put people to death for their religion in the Middle Ages - was that also not wrong due to that fact?
Mohammed's marriage with Aisha was not merely political. It was consummated. She was, at best, in her early teens when it happened. But that is a minority view. The consensus of the vast majority of scholars was that she was just nine when Muhammad had sex with her. It is not "being rude" to point out how wrong that is.
It is also absolutely ridiculously to compare breaking the local laws in a particular place to criticism of the founder of Islam. Unlike Medina, this is not a Muslim country and Islam does not deserve protection from criticism any more than any other ideology. I'm not going to refrain from pointing out that Muhammed engaged in the sexual abuse of a child to protect Muslim feelings any more than I would refrain from pointing out that Jimmy Saville did to protect Jim'll Fix It fans. If these facts are uncomfortable for Muslims than they must make peace with the fact that their religious founder engaged in this sort of behaviour, or alter their religious views accordingly.
I think you have entirely missed my point Socrates, but that doesn't surprise me. You called Mohammed (pbuh) an asshole, something which is deeply insulting and whatever you might like to think not something you are at liberty to say. Do you wish me to point you to laws of this land it might contravene?
L I'm not going to tolerate anyone telling him he isn't allowed to insult me if he wishes.
Calling Mohammed an asshole, or describing Jesus as a pillock are things that anyone is at liberty to say.
You're actually not at liberty to say it. If you did it in the street you'd be arrested for incitement to race hatred. This website isn't very different.
Freedom is only worth protecting if people respect the boundaries. That word crosses them.
I don't agree that calling Mohammed an asshole is incitement to race hatred.
If that is the current definition of the law then the law should be changed.
Socrates, you really do take the biscuit. One gets used to the occasional imbecile on any site but it's the fact you use the name 'Socrates' which somehow makes it so much worse. I would also be wary about being quite so rude about the founder of Islam. That obviously isn't a threat, just an observation about courtesy. It would be like drinking alcohol in Medina high street during Ramadan. There are just some things for which the word you used might bounce back on you, with some justification.
No-one can be sure how old ‘Ā’ishah bint Abī Bakr was. You really ought, however, to do some learning about this. Marriages of the day were always political and this was certainly a political union. She stayed with him for the remainder of his life and by all accounts it was a happy union.
He was a great, a very great, man with the distinction of not claiming to be anything other than a man unlike Jesus (or his followers). But then you dismissed the Trinity in one sentence the other day so you obviously know your stuff on that as you do with Islam. Pb.com is terribly lucky to have you around.
Why should one be courteous to something one holds in such utter contempt? Your claims about Mo (let's write some fatuous letters in brackets after his name) are based entirely upon a hagiography designed to make us think he had some special connection to a Middle Eastern Sky Fairy. The idea that he was a 'very great man' is completely unsupportable given what we know about him.
I suppose he does have the one advantage that, unlike Jesus, we can be fairly certain he existed but beyond that ascribing any great virtues to him is a real non-starter.
Some truth in that. It's sometimes hard to be courteous to those you hold in utter contempt like, say, Islamophobes, or racists and those who deliberately spread inflammatory division and racial hatred.
Indeed. Those that dislike all Muslims are very wrong. I only dislike the ones that do things wrong, and I particularly dislike ones that do heinous crimes. Like having sex with nine year olds.
Anyway, let's move on. We're a long way from politics. I merely wanted to contest the argument that Muhammad was a great man, because I don't like untruths going unchallenged.
What electoral system should we have for an English parliament?
It's not imbecilic to take a stand against the sexual abuse of children. Right and wrong stand on their merits, not according to the opinion of people at any point in time. It was considered acceptable to put people to death for their religion in the Middle Ages - was that also not wrong due to that fact?
Mohammed's marriage with Aisha was not merely political. It was consummated. She was, at best, in her early teens when it happened. But that is a minority view. The consensus of the vast majority of scholars was that she was just nine when Muhammad had sex with her. It is not "being rude" to point out how wrong that is.
It is also absolutely ridiculously to compare breaking the local laws in a particular place to criticism of the founder of Islam. Unlike Medina, this is not a Muslim country and Islam does not deserve protection from criticism any more than any other ideology. I'm not going to refrain from pointing out that Muhammed engaged in the sexual abuse of a child to protect Muslim feelings any more than I would refrain from pointing out that Jimmy Saville did to protect Jim'll Fix It fans. If these facts are uncomfortable for Muslims than they must make peace with the fact that their religious founder engaged in this sort of behaviour, or alter their religious views accordingly.
I think you have entirely missed my point Socrates, but that doesn't surprise me. You called Mohammed (pbuh) an asshole, something which is deeply insulting and whatever you might like to think not something you are at liberty to say. Do you wish me to point you to laws of this land it might contravene?
L I'm not going to tolerate anyone telling him he isn't allowed to insult me if he wishes.
Calling Mohammed an asshole, or describing Jesus as a pillock are things that anyone is at liberty to say.
You're actually not at liberty to say it. If you did it in the street you'd be arrested for incitement to race hatred. This website isn't very different.
Freedom is only worth protecting if people respect the boundaries. That word crosses them.
Freedom is always worth protecting, particularly against moronic religious followers who would try to restrict it. I have no idea if Socrates was right in his comments about Muhammad but I am damn sure that many of his followers and supporters do indeed behave like assholes and your attack on freedom of speech is a damn good example of that.
If you want to understand why the Muslim extremists do what they do, some of the comments below are illustrative. You take freedom and instead of it being a thing of beauty, use it as a weapon. You think it means liberty to say what you like, but actually it doesn't. If I promulgated a message, to use Socrates's pet topic, that having sex with children is a great thing then I would be under scrutiny. If I accuse a child of being a witch, then I am under scrutiny. If I incite terrorist acts, then I am under scrutiny. If I incite race hatred, then I am under scrutiny. One of the great ironies of democracy is that in order to protect it you actually have to restrict it. We are not free to say whatever we like, wherever we like, willy nilly.
My final comment is merely one about learning. Some of you would do well to learn a little more about Islam, and comment on it a little less. Just a thought.
Socrates, you really do take the biscuit. One gets used to the occasional imbecile on any site but it's the fact you use the name 'Socrates' which somehow makes it so much worse. I would also be wary about being quite so rude about the founder of Islam. That obviously isn't a threat, just an observation about courtesy. It would be like drinking alcohol in Medina high street during Ramadan. There are just some things for which the word you used might bounce back on you, with some justification.
No-one can be sure how old ‘Ā’ishah bint Abī Bakr was. You really ought, however, to do some learning about this. Marriages of the day were always political and this was certainly a political union. She stayed with him for the remainder of his life and by all accounts it was a happy union.
He was a great, a very great, man with the distinction of not claiming to be anything other than a man unlike Jesus (or his followers). But then you dismissed the Trinity in one sentence the other day so you obviously know your stuff on that as you do with Islam. Pb.com is terribly lucky to have you around.
Why should one be courteous to something one holds in such utter contempt? Your claims about Mo (let's write some fatuous letters in brackets after his name) are based entirely upon a hagiography designed to make us think he had some special connection to a Middle Eastern Sky Fairy. The idea that he was a 'very great man' is completely unsupportable given what we know about him.
I suppose he does have the one advantage that, unlike Jesus, we can be fairly certain he existed but beyond that ascribing any great virtues to him is a real non-starter.
Some truth in that. It's sometimes hard to be courteous to those you hold in utter contempt like, say, Islamophobes, or racists and those who deliberately spread inflammatory division and racial hatred.
Don't worry Hugh, I am sure many people feel the same about you. Although in your case it is more pity at your ignorance than contempt.
It's not imbecilic to take a stand against the sexual abuse of children. Right and wrong stand on their merits, not according to the opinion of people at any point in time. It was considered acceptable to put people to death for their religion in the Middle Ages - was that also not wrong due to that fact?
Mohammed's marriage with Aisha was not merely political. It was consummated. She was, at best, in her early teens when it happened. But that is a minority view. The consensus of the vast majority of scholars was that she was just nine when Muhammad had sex with her. It is not "being rude" to point out how wrong that is.
It is also absolutely ridiculously to compare breaking the local laws in a particular place to criticism of the founder of Islam. Unlike Medina, this is not a Muslim country and Islam does not deserve protection from criticism any more than any other ideology. I'm not going to refrain from pointing out that Muhammed engaged in the sexual abuse of a child to protect Muslim feelings any more than I would refrain from pointing out that Jimmy Saville did to protect Jim'll Fix It fans. If these facts are uncomfortable for Muslims than they must make peace with the fact that their religious founder engaged in this sort of behaviour, or alter their religious views accordingly.
I think you have entirely missed my point Socrates, but that doesn't surprise me. You called Mohammed (pbuh) an asshole, something which is deeply insulting and whatever you might like to think not something you are at liberty to say. Do you wish me to point you to laws of this land it might contravene?
L I'm not going to tolerate anyone telling him he isn't allowed to insult me if he wishes.
Calling Mohammed an asshole, or describing Jesus as a pillock are things that anyone is at liberty to say.
You're actually not at liberty to say it. If you did it in the street you'd be arrested for incitement to race hatred. This website isn't very different.
Freedom is only worth protecting if people respect the boundaries. That word crosses them.
I have no idea if Socrates was right in his comments about Muhammad but I am damn sure that many of his followers and supporters do indeed behave like assholes and your attack on freedom of speech is a damn good example of that.
Erm, it was me that described some of his alleged followers as assholes! Wake up.
If you want to understand why the Muslim extremists do what they do, some of the comments below are illustrative. You take freedom and instead of it being a thing of beauty, use it as a weapon. You think it means liberty to say what you like, but actually it doesn't. If I promulgated a message, to use Socrates's pet topic, that having sex with children is a great thing then I would be under scrutiny. If I accuse a child of being a witch, then I am under scrutiny. If I incite terrorist acts, then I am under scrutiny. If I incite race hatred, then I am under scrutiny. One of the great ironies of democracy is that in order to protect it you actually have to restrict it. We are not free to say whatever we like, wherever we like, willy nilly.
My final comment is merely one about learning. Some of you would do well to learn a little more about Islam, and comment on it a little less. Just a thought.
For those that wish to learn more, you can read about the nine year old that Muhammad had sex with here:
There is no rush to implement EV4EL, just because Scotland is getting devomax. If Labour win the election and need Scottish MP's to get English/Wales legislation through, then as the UK government they should be able to do this. Why should they stop all non English MP's voting on English laws/divisions ? You can just imagine the Tories putting forward a vote of no confidence in the government in relation to England only, if they have a majority of English MP's.
I think it a non starter to start mucking around with the current HOC rules. I am not sure it is even possible to change the HOC standing orders in relation to MP's voting rights. There needs to be some form of constituitional convention lasting say a max of 2 years and then put the options to the public in a referendum. It may be the public want to move towards more powerful national parliamments, with a Westminster federal parliament. The last time they were asked about regional government, they were not that interested.
This sounds like kicking the whole matter into the long grass for political purposes. I believe that the SNP MPs do not vote on English and Welsh devolved matters, so why cannot an agreement be made with the other Scots, Welsh and Irish MPs on such matters.
Or are you proposing that English MPs vote on Scots, Welsh and Irish devolve matters.
Perhaps the Tories should try harder to win seats in Scotland. They might even think about moving towards PR, as they won 16.7% of the vote in Scotland, but only have 1 MP in Scotland.
You just have to accept that Westminster is a UK parliament. If England wants to have their own parliament, then let them. I am not against it. We can have an English first minister and a UK PM The UK PM at Westminster would be more powerful, as they would still look after Defence, Foreign Office and other UK wide issues.
You ignore the very existence of devolution. It does not matter how many MPs anyone has in Scotland it still means that they can vote on English matters but not on the same devolved matters. Simply parroting an English Parliament and ignoring the massive relative size of England is no use. The UK is not a true (relatively) equal sized federal country. Its evolution is against a separate English Parliament. EV4EL seems fair and the SNP do that now.
It's not imbecilic to take a stand against the sexual abuse of children. Right and wrong stand on their merits, not according to the opinion of people at any point in time. It was considered acceptable to put people to death for their religion in the Middle Ages - was that also not wrong due to that fact?
Mohammed's marriage with Aisha was not merely political. It was consummated. She was, at best, in her early teens when it happened. But that is a minority view. The consensus of the vast majority of scholars was that she was just nine when Muhammad had sex with her. It is not "being rude" to point out how wrong that is.
It is also absolutely ridiculously to compare breaking the local laws in a particular place to criticism of the founder of Islam. Unlike Medina, this is not a Muslim country and Islam does not deserve protection from criticism any more than any other ideology. I'm not going to refrain from pointing out that Muhammed engaged in the sexual abuse of a child to protect Muslim feelings any more than I would refrain from pointing out that Jimmy Saville did to protect Jim'll Fix It fans. If these facts are uncomfortable for Muslims than they must make peace with the fact that their religious founder engaged in this sort of behaviour, or alter their religious views accordingly.
I think you have entirely missed my point Socrates, but that doesn't surprise me. You called Mohammed (pbuh) an asshole, something which is deeply insulting and whatever you might like to think not something you are at liberty to say. Do you wish me to point you to laws of this land it might contravene?
L I'm not going to tolerate anyone telling him he isn't allowed to insult me if he wishes.
Calling Mohammed an asshole, or describing Jesus as a pillock are things that anyone is at liberty to say.
You're actually not at liberty to say it. If you did it in the street you'd be arrested for incitement to race hatred. This website isn't very different.
Freedom is only worth protecting if people respect the boundaries. That word crosses them.
I have no idea if Socrates was right in his comments about Muhammad but I am damn sure that many of his followers and supporters do indeed behave like assholes and your attack on freedom of speech is a damn good example of that.
Erm, it was me that described some of his alleged followers as assholes! Wake up.
I know and your subsequent comments have allowed me to extend that description to you as well.
If you want to understand why the Muslim extremists do what they do, some of the comments below are illustrative. You take freedom and instead of it being a thing of beauty, use it as a weapon. You think it means liberty to say what you like, but actually it doesn't. If I promulgated a message, to use Socrates's pet topic, that having sex with children is a great thing then I would be under scrutiny. If I accuse a child of being a witch, then I am under scrutiny. If I incite terrorist acts, then I am under scrutiny. If I incite race hatred, then I am under scrutiny. One of the great ironies of democracy is that in order to protect it you actually have to restrict it. We are not free to say whatever we like, wherever we like, willy nilly.
My final comment is merely one about learning. Some of you would do well to learn a little more about Islam, and comment on it a little less. Just a thought.
The only thing I am using freedom as a weapon against is ignorance. I have not attacked anyone alive today with my words. I merely described, accurately, the crimes of a historical figure. If people choose to be offended by that, it's their fault.
I went into a Ladbrokes shop and the max stake on Phillip Hollobone to be next ukip defector is a tenner!!!! What's the point?!
I wouldn't mind an explanation from Shadsy as to the logic of such low maximum stakes. Do they assume every political punter will take money off them?
To be fair, on markets like that they are very vulnerable to someone having inside information. It's not like betting on an election.
Perhaps. But that seems to happen on election markets as well - it did to me anyway.
I sometimes wonder if it's a more of a function of the fact that most political punters are in some way interested and/or knowledgeable, and the bookies just lack confidence in their judgements, so they play safe and restrict on price. They can't rely on the same % of 'mugs' betting as, say, they do in horse racing or football to make up their winnings through their losses. So they're just uber-cautious instead.
It's not imbecilic to take a stand against the sexual abuse of children. Right and wrong stand on their merits, not according to the opinion of people at any point in time. It was considered acceptable to put people to death for their religion in the Middle Ages - was that also not wrong due to that fact?
Mohammed's marriage with Aisha was not merely political. It was consummated. She was, at best, in her early teens when it happened. But that is a minority view. The consensus of the vast majority of scholars was that she was just nine when Muhammad had sex with her. It is not "being rude" to point out how wrong that is.
I
I think you have entirely missed my point Socrates, but that doesn't surprise me. You called Mohammed (pbuh) an asshole, something which is deeply insulting and whatever you might like to think not something you are at liberty to say. Do you wish me to point you to laws of this land it might contravene?
L I'm not going to tolerate anyone telling him he isn't allowed to insult me if he wishes.
Calling Mohammed an asshole, or describing Jesus as a pillock are things that anyone is at liberty to say.
You're actually not at liberty to say it. If you did it in the street you'd be arrested for incitement to race hatred. This website isn't very different.
Freedom is only worth protecting if people respect the boundaries. That word crosses them.
I have no idea if Socrates was right in his comments about Muhammad but I am damn sure that many of his followers and supporters do indeed behave like assholes and your attack on freedom of speech is a damn good example of that.
Erm, it was me that described some of his alleged followers as assholes! Wake up.
I know and your subsequent comments have allowed me to extend that description to you as well.
Well you're a charming fellow Richard aren't you? I suggest that we show respect for Muslims by not insulting the prophet and that's your response. Brilliant.
Seriously, show a little respect that's what I'm saying. Calling Muhammed (pbuh) an asshole is unacceptable. It does nothing to further understanding and brokering solutions to the world's problems, instead it's the sort of ignorant remark that causes the strife.
If you want to understand why the Muslim extremists do what they do, some of the comments below are illustrative. You take freedom and instead of it being a thing of beauty, use it as a weapon. You think it means liberty to say what you like, but actually it doesn't. If I promulgated a message, to use Socrates's pet topic, that having sex with children is a great thing then I would be under scrutiny. If I accuse a child of being a witch, then I am under scrutiny. If I incite terrorist acts, then I am under scrutiny. If I incite race hatred, then I am under scrutiny. One of the great ironies of democracy is that in order to protect it you actually have to restrict it. We are not free to say whatever we like, wherever we like, willy nilly.
My final comment is merely one about learning. Some of you would do well to learn a little more about Islam, and comment on it a little less. Just a thought.
For those that wish to learn more, you can read about the nine year old that Muhammad had sex with here:
You can then judge for yourself how accurate I am being.
Ah Socrates the learned turns to that marvellously academic rigorous source wikipedia. Your namesake would weep.
Some sources suggest she may very well have been mid-teens and of course one controversial one that is disputed suggests late teens.
But, look, that's a whole other area and you are applying your cultural norms to a situation and sitz im leben that is from another time, place and culture. That's the topic for a massive debate and not, with respect, for someone like you who clearly doesn't know his shahada from his shiraz.
You're actually not at liberty to say it. If you did it in the street you'd be arrested for incitement to race hatred. This website isn't very different.
Freedom is only worth protecting if people respect the boundaries. That word crosses them.
It'd be inciting religious hatred if anything. However I don't think that criticism of a god is quite that. I know that believers in the religions might be upset, and pushing matters too far would trespass your boundaries, but neither of the criticised parties is likely to complain, and if they are really Gods then I doubt it'll ruin their day.
Freedom encompasses the right to free speech. It's very important that right or wrong we should be able to air our views. And the importance is mainly to those who take umbrage at them.
Well you're a charming fellow Richard aren't you? I suggest that we show respect for Muslims by not insulting the prophet and that's your response. Brilliant.
Seriously, show a little respect that's what I'm saying. Calling Muhammed (pbuh) an asshole is unacceptable. It does nothing to further understanding and brokering solutions to the world's problems, instead it's the sort of ignorant remark that causes the strife.
No you tried to insist that Socrates was not at liberty to say what he did because it was illegal. Which is garbage. Calling Muhammed an asshole is not unacceptable any more than calling any other religious nutter the same thing is. Now I don't go out of my way to do it simply because I find these sky fairy beliefs tedious in the extreme but I would certainly support anyone's right to do so if they wish.
And I am afraid that the idea of using religion as a means of furthering understanding and brokering solutions to the world's problems is a concept that could have come right out of the pages of 1984.
Well you're a charming fellow Richard aren't you? I suggest that we show respect for Muslims by not insulting the prophet and that's your response. Brilliant.
Seriously, show a little respect that's what I'm saying. Calling Muhammed (pbuh) an asshole is unacceptable. It does nothing to further understanding and brokering solutions to the world's problems, instead it's the sort of ignorant remark that causes the strife.
No you tried to insist that Socrates was not at liberty to say what he did because it was illegal. Which is garbage. Calling Muhammed an asshole is not unacceptable any more than calling any other religious nutter the same thing is. Now I don't go out of my way to do it simply because I find these sky fairy beliefs tedious in the extreme but I would certainly support anyone's right to do so if they wish.
And I am afraid that the idea of using religion as a means of furthering understanding and brokering solutions to the world's problems is a concept that could have come right out of the pages of 1984.
Just so I know, you probably think the cartoon publications in the Danish magazine were ok?
Well you're a charming fellow Richard aren't you? I suggest that we show respect for Muslims by not insulting the prophet and that's your response. Brilliant.
Seriously, show a little respect that's what I'm saying. Calling Muhammed (pbuh) an asshole is unacceptable. It does nothing to further understanding and brokering solutions to the world's problems, instead it's the sort of ignorant remark that causes the strife.
No you tried to insist that Socrates was not at liberty to say what he did because it was illegal. Which is garbage. Calling Muhammed an asshole is not unacceptable any more than calling any other religious nutter the same thing is. Now I don't go out of my way to do it simply because I find these sky fairy beliefs tedious in the extreme but I would certainly support anyone's right to do so if they wish.
And I am afraid that the idea of using religion as a means of furthering understanding and brokering solutions to the world's problems is a concept that could have come right out of the pages of 1984.
Just so I know, you probably think the cartoon publications in the Danish magazine were ok?
Well you're a charming fellow Richard aren't you? I suggest that we show respect for Muslims by not insulting the prophet and that's your response. Brilliant.
Seriously, show a little respect that's what I'm saying. Calling Muhammed (pbuh) an asshole is unacceptable. It does nothing to further understanding and brokering solutions to the world's problems, instead it's the sort of ignorant remark that causes the strife.
No you tried to insist that Socrates was not at liberty to say what he did because it was illegal. Which is garbage. Calling Muhammed an asshole is not unacceptable any more than calling any other religious nutter the same thing is. Now I don't go out of my way to do it simply because I find these sky fairy beliefs tedious in the extreme but I would certainly support anyone's right to do so if they wish.
And I am afraid that the idea of using religion as a means of furthering understanding and brokering solutions to the world's problems is a concept that could have come right out of the pages of 1984.
Just so I know, you probably think the cartoon publications in the Danish magazine were ok?
Yes.
Yep. Well that tells me everything I needed to know.
euan mccolm @euanmccolm 11m asked at a dinner with editors whether he'd rather push Farage or Salmond off beachy head, Cameron said "Salmond. business before pleasure."
Comments
Mohammed's marriage with Aisha was not merely political. It was consummated. She was, at best, in her early teens when it happened. But that is a minority view. The consensus of the vast majority of scholars was that she was just nine when Muhammad had sex with her. It is not "being rude" to point out how wrong that is.
It is also absolutely ridiculously to compare breaking the local laws in a particular place to criticism of the founder of Islam. Unlike Medina, this is not a Muslim country and Islam does not deserve protection from criticism any more than any other ideology. I'm not going to refrain from pointing out that Muhammed engaged in the sexual abuse of a child to protect Muslim feelings any more than I would refrain from pointing out that Jimmy Saville did to protect Jim'll Fix It fans. If these facts are uncomfortable for Muslims than they must make peace with the fact that their religious founder engaged in this sort of behaviour, or alter their religious views accordingly.
And then these same delegates get all weepy when a 90-odd year man recounts how life was when there was no NHS. The implicit message being that this horror will return if the Tories are re-elected. Which, frankly, was another piece of obscene theatre.
Try crying for those you killed when last in power, Labour.
In academic circles it is pretty much accepted, and attested in properly peer-reviewed articles that in areas such as astronomy, mathematics, medicine, irrigation through to preservation of manuscripts the Muslim world was responsible for some of the great advances of civilisation in the period roughly 700-1700. There is so, so, much more could be written on this but it isn't the place.
My honest position on an English parliament is that I'm still undecided over it, how it'd work etc. This was intended to be about what will rather than should happen. The likelihood of a fudge seems high.
By all means debate the rights and wrongs of polygamous marriages, political marriages and ones which, by today's standards, would be called under age but don't call him that word.
The main principle was that UK constitutional reform is driven by crises, and is fixed with fudge, so that's the most likely outcome here.
But it does lack some discipline.
Have you read the Qur'an? Have you studied any of the hadith? Have you ever been to Friday prayers at a mosque? By all means debate but please don't do so from a position of ignorance. It is people like you who fire out the sort of word you used who incense the Muslim world against us in the west, and with some justification. It reminds me of my pilot friend in a Muslim country who drinks alcohol openly during Ramadan. Not just drinking, but drinking alcohol. If you want to criticise people at least do so from understanding and with courtesy.
However, Socrates is entirely at liberty to call me an asshole, or whatever term of abuse he should wish, and I am free to judge him lacking in manners as a result. But I'm not going to tolerate anyone telling him he isn't allowed to insult me if he wishes.
Calling Mohammed an asshole, or describing Jesus as a pillock are things that anyone is at liberty to say.
(1) that an adult man having sex with a child a fraction of his age is an asshole
(2) that Muhammad was an adult man that had sex with a child a fraction of his age.
Which of (1) or (2) do you disagree with?
Honestly: all that fact tells you is that women in the 7th century had no choices. The Western world has changed. And some of us are a bit annoyed that some here want to impose a similar lack of choice on Muslim British women here.
Socrates or anyone else is entitled to think as much or as little of Mohammed or Jesus or anyone else as they choose. And this is even more apposite given that Muslims are supposed, I understand, to view him as the perfect man. If so, we are entitled to find out and comment on what this "perfect man" did.
It's the lack of free speech, the lack of criticism of what Islam is and has been in the past in particular countries which might, you know, be one reason why a large part of the Islamic world is in the mess it is. There is no reason to import that lack of critical faculty here.
Freedom is only worth protecting if people respect the boundaries. That word crosses them.
The Ottomans and their forerunners shouldn't be put on a pedestal or hurled into a pit. Naturally they varied, with some leaders super, some horrid and most in between. Bayezit was a cock, Suleiman[sp] was a top chap, as I wrote about a few years ago with regards to one particular action:
http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/knights-of-st-john.html
Edited extra bit: obviously this stuff is frightfully modern, so if I've made any errors I hope they're forgiven.
If that is the current definition of the law then the law should be changed.
Anyway, let's move on. We're a long way from politics. I merely wanted to contest the argument that Muhammad was a great man, because I don't like untruths going unchallenged.
What electoral system should we have for an English parliament?
My final comment is merely one about learning. Some of you would do well to learn a little more about Islam, and comment on it a little less. Just a thought.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha
You can then judge for yourself how accurate I am being.
I sometimes wonder if it's a more of a function of the fact that most political punters are in some way interested and/or knowledgeable, and the bookies just lack confidence in their judgements, so they play safe and restrict on price. They can't rely on the same % of 'mugs' betting as, say, they do in horse racing or football to make up their winnings through their losses. So they're just uber-cautious instead.
Seriously, show a little respect that's what I'm saying. Calling Muhammed (pbuh) an asshole is unacceptable. It does nothing to further understanding and brokering solutions to the world's problems, instead it's the sort of ignorant remark that causes the strife.
Some sources suggest she may very well have been mid-teens and of course one controversial one that is disputed suggests late teens.
But, look, that's a whole other area and you are applying your cultural norms to a situation and sitz im leben that is from another time, place and culture. That's the topic for a massive debate and not, with respect, for someone like you who clearly doesn't know his shahada from his shiraz.
Freedom encompasses the right to free speech. It's very important that right or wrong we should be able to air our views. And the importance is mainly to those who take umbrage at them.
And I am afraid that the idea of using religion as a means of furthering understanding and brokering solutions to the world's problems is a concept that could have come right out of the pages of 1984.