Jesus ‘n’ Mo ‘n’ Aisha

According to the hadith (the traditional sayings of Muhammad, not the Qur’an), Muhammad was betrothed to a six-year-old girl, Aisha, but didn’t consummate the marriage until she was the ripe old age of NINE. That much is agreed on by many Islamic scholars, though a few apologists argue that she was older, finding the claim of child rape “disgusting” (see one apologist here).  It’s a sore spot for defenders of Islam, as the practice of child marriage among many Muslims is based on the hadith story.

At any rate, today’s Jesus and Mo strip, called “hurts”, is about that issue:

And the author’s email came with a note:

Today’s strip was prompted by this story in The Freethinker last week. Here’s the billboard and a response by the director of the Muslim Alliance of Indiana:

Over at The Friendly Atheist, David G. McAfee (what happened to Hemant?) examines the claims of the billboard and finds this:

Child marriage: PARTLY FALSE. Muhammed married Aisha when she was NINE, not six. A distinction without a difference.

Slave owner and dealer. TRUE.

Rapist. MAY BE TRUE based on Aisha and other inferences from the Qur’an

Beheaded 600 Jews. TRUE: 600-900 beheaded after a “military dispute”, though McAfee doesn’t say whether they were Jews

13 wives. TRUE: Mo had between 11 and 13 wives, most of them in a polygamous situation,

Torture and murder of unbelievers. NOT CLEAR; some unbelievers killed during war.

What’s interesting about McAfee’s post is that he indicts the Old Testament for approving similar behavior: rape, genocide, slavery, and so on. That’s true, but it’s beside the point, for Christians now reject those precepts and have largely been “defanged” after the Enlightenment, while those tenets of Islam (even an equivalent of slavery) are still in practiced in some places, and the murder of apostates and unbelievers is a regular practice. The defense of Islam by saying “Well, the Bible says that bad stuff, too,” is something I wouldn’t expect on Hemant’s site.

 

93 Comments

  1. kirbmarc
    Posted June 14, 2017 at 10:25 am | Permalink

    It’s all TRUE, actually. McAfee is wrong when he says that Mo MARRIED Aisha at nine, he MARRIED her at six, but had sex with her at nine.

    Mo is also incredibly likely to be a rapist: his men tortured and killed the husband of Safiyah, and he order her brought to him, then “married” her because she was incredibly beautiful that Mo was overwhelmed by lust, even though she was a “heathen” Jew.

    No mention of Safiyah consenting, or even having a say in her “marriage”. It’s doubtful that she’d have been overjoyed to “marry” the man responsible for the torture and death of her husband. Mo acted like a stereotypical moustache-twirling bad guy in this case.

    There’s plenty of evidence of torture and murders of unbelievers or just critics of old Mo (including a poet who made fun of him) in the ahadith.

    • Posted June 14, 2017 at 8:40 pm | Permalink

      Mo fondled and performed frontage on Aisha when she was six.

      • Brujo Feo
        Posted June 14, 2017 at 8:51 pm | Permalink

        “[F]rontage”? Did you mean “frottage”?

        • Posted June 14, 2017 at 8:55 pm | Permalink

          That’s what I typed. HAL 9000 must’ve changed it.

    • Craw
      Posted June 14, 2017 at 11:36 pm | Permalink

      As for the rape thing. Concubines captured in war.

  2. BobTerrace
    Posted June 14, 2017 at 10:44 am | Permalink

    Hemant shares his blog with other contributors often. I read the ‘defense’ of Mohamed and don’t understand why he thinks he can ignore known facts.

    • Craw
      Posted June 14, 2017 at 8:31 pm | Permalink

      He thinks he can ignore known facts because he can. He knows that if he defends Islam he will get cover. There is no cost, and some gain, in ignoring known facts.

  3. Posted June 14, 2017 at 10:46 am | Permalink

    Respectful correction: a tenant is a person who rents property or a dwelling. A tenet is a belief, opinion or dogma. All too common mistake.

  4. E.A. Blair
    Posted June 14, 2017 at 10:47 am | Permalink

    “…those tenants of Isam…”

    It’s “tenets” and “Islam”.

    Remember: Every time you make a typo, the errorists win.

    • Phil Giordana FCD
      Posted June 15, 2017 at 1:41 am | Permalink

      😀 Brilliant!

    • Colin McLachlan
      Posted June 15, 2017 at 4:56 am | Permalink

      😀 😀

  5. Posted June 14, 2017 at 10:54 am | Permalink

    Disgusting language? No swear words–just some inconvenient facts the Muslim Alliance would like to ignore.

    • Heather Hastie
      Posted June 14, 2017 at 1:40 pm | Permalink

      +1.

    • BJ
      Posted June 14, 2017 at 2:40 pm | Permalink

      And notice how they don’t bother denying anything in the statement, but just say they want to have a “conversation” (which I imagine would also involve releasing the name of the person and posting it all over the web and branding him an Islamophobe).

    • E.A. Blair
      Posted June 14, 2017 at 8:43 pm | Permalink

      Those aren’t swear words – those are sentence enhancers.

  6. JohnE
    Posted June 14, 2017 at 11:00 am | Permalink

    I question the basis for McAfee’s assertion that it is “false” to claim that Mohammed married A’isha when she was only six years old. According to Wikipedia, there are six major hadith collections of Sunni Islam, including “Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī” and “Sahih Muslim.”

    The following is from Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236 of Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī:

    “Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married ‘Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she was nine years old.”

    The following is from Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64 of Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī:

    “[T]he Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).”

    The following is from Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65 of Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī:

    “[T]he Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death).”

    The following is from Book 008, Number 3310 of Sahih Muslim:

    “A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.”

    The following is from Book 008, Number 3311 of Sahih Muslim:

    “A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and he was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old.”

    • Heather Hastie
      Posted June 14, 2017 at 1:48 pm | Permalink

      Some don’t consider a marriage real until it’s consummated. That’s all I can come up with.

      However, if Muhammad and Aisha weren’t actually married, could she have married someone else?

      • JohnE
        Posted June 14, 2017 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

        And why do each of these quotes specifically refer to her being “married” at 6 or 7? They CLEARLY acknowledge a distinction between being married and consummating the marriage.

        • Heather Hastie
          Posted June 14, 2017 at 2:16 pm | Permalink

          I’m not disagreeing. I think the post is wrong and Muhammad and Aisha were married when she was six. I was just offering a possible explanation for why he said they weren’t married until she was nine.

          • JohnE
            Posted June 14, 2017 at 2:50 pm | Permalink

            Sorry, I didn’t think you were disagreeing. Perhaps I should have phrased my response more artfully. 🙂

            • Heather Hastie
              Posted June 14, 2017 at 2:55 pm | Permalink

              No worries. 🙂

      • Craw
        Posted June 14, 2017 at 8:10 pm | Permalink

        There are two traditions. Married at 6, screwed at 9; married at 9, screwed at 12.

        Neither is true, the Hadith are legends that accrued over time, but all that matters is that they are believed and seen as the right guide for behavior.

        • Heather Hastie
          Posted June 14, 2017 at 9:20 pm | Permalink

          Yes, that’s my opinion too. There’s no more evidence that Muhammad actually existed than Jesus existed. And at least Nazareth was a genuine location. Several major locations in Muhammad;s biography didn’t exist at the time he was supposed to be alive.

          • rickflick
            Posted June 15, 2017 at 6:06 am | Permalink

            Picky, picky, picky…

    • somer
      Posted June 15, 2017 at 1:06 am | Permalink

      In a lot of cultures – especially ones with dowry – the parents/guardians agree the marriage in advance when the child is very young – betrothal – the actual transfer of the daughter to the grooms residence and consummation is when the marriage actually begins. Islam has a bride price the groom has to pay.

  7. Kevin
    Posted June 14, 2017 at 11:14 am | Permalink

    Rima Shahid’s fear of ‘disgusting language’ is simply bullet points about Mo’s life. If that’s disgusting it’s not the words, it is what Mo did!

    There is no constructive dialogue to be had, unless it’s excuses for one’s belief in ancient myth. Likewise, what difference, in this case, would it make had the author put his/her name. Rima would have very likely been just as offended.

  8. Craw
    Posted June 14, 2017 at 11:20 am | Permalink

    “Well, the Bible says that bad stuff, too,” is something I hear ever fricking time. I agree! Mein Kampf is a nasty book too. So what? And I’d be careful about comparing a book I was defending to some other odious book anyway.

    • Dean Reimer
      Posted June 14, 2017 at 12:46 pm | Permalink

      I always read that as a reminder to Christians to avoid getting holier than thou about their particular holy book.

      • Craw
        Posted June 14, 2017 at 8:12 pm | Permalink

        I always read it as an attempt to pretend there are only two choices.

    • rickflick
      Posted June 14, 2017 at 3:10 pm | Permalink

      It’s irrelevant but as I recall, similar stuff about Christianity has been up on billboards, so, what’s to whine about? Truth sometimes hurts.

  9. P. Puk
    Posted June 14, 2017 at 11:24 am | Permalink

    Absolutely any time someone posts any kind of info in the comments over at FA the immediate response by any one of the many regressives that pollute that site is that Christians were no better behaved ergo criticising Muslims for throwing gays off of buildings is bigotry.

    • Posted June 14, 2017 at 8:57 pm | Permalink

      .. but … but … The Crusades!

    • Phil Giordana FCD
      Posted June 15, 2017 at 1:50 am | Permalink

      As a matter of fact, they often trot the argument that the quran was written in older times, when morals were different, and shouldn’t be judged on the basis of today’s western morals. Of course, this totally ignores that the amoral teachings of the quran are still being enacted to this day in many parts of the world (including the West).

      And then they go on about the frecking crusades as a moral equivalent. To which everyone should respond: “but it was in older times, when morals were different, and shouldn’t be judged on the basis of today’s western morals.”

      The paradox doesn’t seem to ever enter their minds.

  10. Brujo Feo
    Posted June 14, 2017 at 11:25 am | Permalink

    sub

  11. JonLynnHarvey
    Posted June 14, 2017 at 11:26 am | Permalink

    I have no difficulty with polygamy per se, but it can be a deadly institution when existing with a heavily patriarchal male-authority-based culture.

    In a more gender-equal culture, I feel there is no problem with it.

    (Both Obama and Mitt Romney had polygamous grandparents.)

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted June 14, 2017 at 11:49 am | Permalink

      Though not much chance those polygamous grandparents intermarried. 🙂

    • Posted June 14, 2017 at 1:32 pm | Permalink

      Polygamy with one male marrying 2 or more females is inevitably locked in a vicious circle with “heavily patriarchal male-authority-based culture”, because the husband will divide and rule his wives. Even if he has only one, he can harass and blackmail her with constant threats to marry a second wife and make the newcomer his favorite.

      There is also a danger that rich guys will furnish themselves with harems while poor guys will be unable to find a wife.

      • Craw
        Posted June 14, 2017 at 8:18 pm | Permalink

        Yes.
        There have been numerous models of polygamy under various assumptions.
        You can actually prove that polygyny benefits women, as long as you stipulate as axioms several things that are never true in real polygynous societies. (I have seen people try to pass this stuff off as meaningful.) Polygyny in the real world is women as trophies. It is destructive in most cases.

    • somer
      Posted June 14, 2017 at 11:57 pm | Permalink

      (Both Obama and Mitt Romney had polygamous grandparents.)
      And the polygamous set up – at least on Obama’s side – was thoroughly misogynistic – maybe part of the reason he chose not to adopt his father’s faith. Though admittedly in the African situation in the relatively recent past the infant mortality used to be tremendously high
      Grandma Obama’s support for Domestic violence
      https://www.theguardian.com/science/the-lay-scientist/2012/aug/03/africa-obama-administration

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted June 15, 2017 at 7:36 am | Permalink

        Luckily, in the US of A we do not visit the sins of the parents (or grandparents) upon the children (or grandchildren). Heck, Article 5 of our constitution expressly prohibits “corruption of blood.”

  12. Zach
    Posted June 14, 2017 at 11:29 am | Permalink

    Hemant: “there is a ridiculous double standard when it comes to similar issues in Christianity and Judaism.”

    Yeah… not really. The real issue, after all, is not the barbarity and violence of those barbarous times. It is that phrase, “The Perfect Man,” which has far more relevance to the theology of Islam than any similar concept in Christianity or Judaism.

    While those earlier versions of monotheism certainly venerated, and venerate, their prophet-figures, it’s really impossible to exaggerate the degree to which the practices of Islam revolve around the personal actions of Mohamed. He invented virtually every novel aspect of the faith, to the point that those who follow it assiduously appear to be participating in a cult of personality. Muslims like to insist they don’t worship Mohamed because he was, after all, just a man, but one could easily be fooled.

    With that said, I really have to wonder at the motivations of people who bring this up with a billboard in Indiana, of all places.

    • Posted June 14, 2017 at 11:43 am | Permalink

      Trolling, presumably.

    • Posted June 14, 2017 at 1:34 pm | Permalink

      What is special about Indiana in this respect? (I am a European and know little about differences between US states.)

      • JohnE
        Posted June 14, 2017 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

        Indiana (where I live) is one of the more conservative states, although not one of the most conservative (Indiana voted for Obama in 2008). It’s actually surprising that the billboard went up here rather than in, say, Alabama, Mississippi or Texas.

        • Zach
          Posted June 14, 2017 at 5:41 pm | Permalink

          I guess in terms of religious (read: Christian) conservatism, it makes sense that people in Indiana would put it up, rather than people in, say, Illinois.

          With my “of all places” remark, I was more thinking along the lines of, “Seriously, how many Muslims are even in Indiana? What’s the point of such a billboard?”

          I’m inclined to agree with pck below.

          • Zach
            Posted June 14, 2017 at 5:45 pm | Permalink

            Note for Europeans: Illinois borders Indiana to the west, and is the state which houses Chicago. While geographically similar to Indiana, it is generally more liberal, even in its rural parts.

  13. Posted June 14, 2017 at 11:38 am | Permalink

    About the Bible and horrendous passages therein: even hypocrites can be correct, after all!

  14. Ken Kukec
    Posted June 14, 2017 at 12:04 pm | Permalink

    One ought not to claim that words are “taken out of context” when all one can offer is that the words can be given an alternative, ameliorating interpretation (especially when it is the alternative interpretation that derogates the words’ plain meaning).

    That said, I’m no fan of the billboard in question; its intent seems to be to inflame and divide rather than to edify.

  15. pck
    Posted June 14, 2017 at 12:10 pm | Permalink

    Whether it’s true or not is irrelevant, the point is clearly to incite hatred against a specific minority who isn’t doing any of these things to a larger degree than the rest. This billboard would perhaps be appropriate in Saudi Arabia where the targeted group won’t be subject to attacks because of messages like that.

    • kirbmarc
      Posted June 14, 2017 at 1:07 pm | Permalink

      In Saudi Arabia putting up a billboard like that would get you executed.

    • Posted June 14, 2017 at 1:37 pm | Permalink

      In countries where this minority is a majority, these things are done in a larger degree.

    • Craw
      Posted June 14, 2017 at 8:23 pm | Permalink

      I grant you that no-one is beheading 600 Jews a day more often than the Quakers are. So part of your claim is technically correct. But surely it matters that some people admire such actions more than the Quakers do.

    • nicky
      Posted June 14, 2017 at 9:03 pm | Permalink

      I think the billboard was aimed at regressive leftists and others smooching up to Islam. The ‘truthophobes’ that say that whether it is true or not is irrelevant.
      Of course it is relevant. A majority of Muslims consider Mohammed the ‘perfect man’, one that should be emulated (which luckily most actually do not).
      The default ‘offended’ reaction of the Muslim Alliance of Indiana is typical.

      Moreover, maybe the authors of the original billboard might have a good reason to want to stay anonymous? We aļl know what we are talking about. Highly disingenuous of the Muslim Alliance of Indiana.

  16. Taz
    Posted June 14, 2017 at 12:37 pm | Permalink

    What’s interesting about McAfee’s post is that he indicts the Old Testament for approving similar behavior

    Irrelevant. The billboard isn’t about the Koran it’s about Mohammed. I’m no Christian, but there’s a stark contrast between the character of Mohammed and the character of Jesus. Can you imagine Jesus ordering beheadings? It wouldn’t fit the narrative. It’s not out of bounds to wonder about the effects of the personalities of the founders of various religions.

    • Posted June 14, 2017 at 1:07 pm | Permalink

      As with Jesus, there is little verified evidence on the life of Mohammed, or even whether he actually existed. So it boils down to the fact that the early Christians made up a more noble superhero than did the early Muslims.

      • BJ
        Posted June 14, 2017 at 2:47 pm | Permalink

        Yes, but when you make your mythical superhero do the things Mohammed did, and then continue to deify him and call him “perfect” in the 21st century, it says a lot about your religion’s morals.

        • Harrison
          Posted June 14, 2017 at 5:30 pm | Permalink

          Exactly.

          If there were a cult dedicated to the worship of Baron Harkonnen I’d argue they’d be fairly disgusting people.

          It’s about ideas. Whether he existed or not Mo comes bundled with certain ideas about what’s acceptable behavior that are clearly wrong.

          • E.A. Blair
            Posted June 14, 2017 at 8:36 pm | Permalink

            “If there were a cult dedicated to the worship of Baron Harkonnen…”

            How the hell did you find out about us? Now we’ll have to kill you…

            • Zach
              Posted June 14, 2017 at 9:48 pm | Permalink

              I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little death that brings total obliteration…

              • Colin McLachlan
                Posted June 15, 2017 at 5:03 am | Permalink

                😀

        • Ken Kukec
          Posted June 14, 2017 at 5:43 pm | Permalink

          Technically speaking, Muslims don’t “deify” the prophet; that would be sacrilege. See Pillar No. 1.

          • BJ
            Posted June 14, 2017 at 8:10 pm | Permalink

            I think you know exactly what I meant: to adore as if he is a deity, not to actual consider him a deity.

            • Craw
              Posted June 14, 2017 at 8:25 pm | Permalink

              He is the acme of human excellence, but not divine.

            • Ken Kukec
              Posted June 14, 2017 at 10:28 pm | Permalink

              Oh, I understood you. And I wasn’t criticizing. Just a clarification on the literal point, since it’s a frequent source of confusion among us kafirs.

              • BJ
                Posted June 15, 2017 at 9:16 am | Permalink

                Ah, gotcha

    • JohnE
      Posted June 14, 2017 at 1:36 pm | Permalink

      Ah, but let’s not forget that gentle Jesus meek and mild invented the concept of hell — eternal, excruciating torment for the whole of eternity for sinners and mere non-believers (apparently including Anne Frank and Gandhi).

      “Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the close of the age. The Son of man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers, and throw them into the furnace of fire; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.” Matthew 13:40-42

      “Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels’ . . . .” Matthew 25:41

      “And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire, where the worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.” Mark 9:43-48

      Of course, progressive christians will be quick to point out that these are some of the many things that Jesus didn’t really mean, or which were intended to be allegorical. All the good stuff he actually did mean. All the bad stuff, not so much.

      • Posted June 14, 2017 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

        Mohammed, however, did not waive the Hell but doubled down on it. Anyway, I have no problem with the posthumous Hell, only with those who are making Hell here on Earth.

      • Taz
        Posted June 14, 2017 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

        I’ll take a fictitious burning over a real beheading any day.

        • JohnE
          Posted June 14, 2017 at 1:51 pm | Permalink

          I absolutely agree that I’d prefer a fictitious hell to a real beheading. But to the extent Jesus invented the concept of hell, believed it was real, told others it was real, and apparently wanted it to be real, he’s a pathetic monster. (Of course, all of this presupposes Jesus actually existed and that the gospels quote him accurately — admittedly some big assumptions.)

      • Craw
        Posted June 14, 2017 at 8:37 pm | Permalink

        This is wrong. Jesus did not invent heaven and hell. There were apocalyptic sects before, after, and contemporaneously with his. This is like saying the Beatles invented having a drummer.

        • Ken Kukec
          Posted June 14, 2017 at 9:53 pm | Permalink

          I could argue that Ringo invented pure Rock’n’Roll drumming, since the best of his contemporaries — Ginger Baker, Charlie Watts, Keith Moon, etc. — were all converted jazz drummers, but that would be off topic in a thread about Jesus & Mo, so I won’t. 🙂

        • JohnE
          Posted June 14, 2017 at 10:03 pm | Permalink

          I didn’t say anything about Jesus inventing heaven, and any apocalyptic sects that came after Jesus (and perhaps even contemporary sects) would be irrelevant to whether Jesus invented hell. Since I’m guessing that not one person in million could name an apocalyptic sect who predated Jesus and preached the concept of a fiery hell (not just some other unpleasant afterlife), then I think it’s safe to say that if Jesus didn’t invent it, he is single-handedly responsible for popularizing the concept. Contrary to your drummer analogy, a more apt analogy might be to say that while Leif Erikson may have actually been the first European to “discover” America — so what? — it was Columbus who made it world famous.

          • Craw
            Posted June 14, 2017 at 11:10 pm | Permalink

            Actually Paul did more than anyone to spread and create Christianity. Even taking the gospels as a source, John the Baptist came before Jesus. But independently we know the Essenes were preaching hell before Jesus. There were other apocalyptic Jewish sects.

            • Phil Giordana FCD
              Posted June 15, 2017 at 2:05 am | Permalink

              Paul was the bassist. Do try to keep up.

      • Posted June 14, 2017 at 9:05 pm | Permalink

        This is at best a tu quoque, and hardly equivalent at that.

  17. jeffery
    Posted June 14, 2017 at 1:38 pm | Permalink

    “The Bible has a lot of bad stuff in it, too”- yes, but Christians aren’t DOING those things every day right NOW!

    • Posted June 14, 2017 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

      + 1

    • Posted June 14, 2017 at 8:54 pm | Permalink

      The OT has a lot of bad stuff in it. The NT is pretty benign. And I am sick of ignorant atheists, who obviously were never actively practicing Christians, ‘splaining how the OT is an integral part of Christianity.

      • Brujo Feo
        Posted June 14, 2017 at 9:01 pm | Permalink

        Matt, you’re kidding, right? Perhaps you need to review Matthew 5:18, et seq.

        I love watching faitheists tie themselves into knots trying to explain how those verses don’t say exactly what they say.

        • Posted June 14, 2017 at 9:07 pm | Permalink

          That’s all you got? You want to stack that up against the entire hadith?

          • Brujo Feo
            Posted June 14, 2017 at 10:45 pm | Permalink

            No, Matt…your logical fallacy is “non sequitur.” I was only “‘splaining how the OT is an integral part of Christianity.” Neither your statement (which contained that language) nor my responses said anything about hadith, or Sahih Muslim 3371, or ANYTHING having to do with Islam at all.

            • Craw
              Posted June 14, 2017 at 11:28 pm | Permalink

              Matt’s task here is actually easy. You think the “law” must refer to every book of the (then undefined) OT. But that is just one interpretation, and not one all Christians accept.

              That part of Matthew is immediately followed by injunctions, and it is perfectly sensible to read those injunctions as elaboration and explanation of the “law” in the verse you cite. You cannot simply say the author of Matthew accepted the OT, or that Jesus did. There was no OT. Different sects differed on what Jewish law was, sometimes very significantly disagreed. What Jesus or Matthew actually meant by “the law” might not be the same as what you mean by it.

              • Brujo Feo
                Posted June 14, 2017 at 11:59 pm | Permalink

                Thanks for making my point for me, “Exhibit A.” As I said, fascinating to watch faitheists try to explain it away. In fact, the whole concept of the “New Covenant” is weasel work.

                And of course I’m not concerned with what Jesus or Matthew “meant,” as both are quite likely imaginary. I’m talking about much later (maybe even post-Second Council of Nicaea), by which time there certainly was an OT, and a Matthew 5:18, et seq.

                You can argue the point all you like, but certainly the Fred Phelpses and the Rick Tylers of this world are damned sure that the Jesus of Matthew 5:18 is talking about Genesis, Deuteronomy, and Leviticus. Every word. Just ask them.

              • Craw
                Posted June 15, 2017 at 9:16 pm | Permalink

                What a foolish remark, since any of the regulars can tell you I am an atheist. I do though try to get my facts right. Might I suggest …

        • Posted June 14, 2017 at 9:11 pm | Permalink

          Matthew 5:18

          Sahih Muslim 3371.

          Your turn.

  18. Posted June 14, 2017 at 1:47 pm | Permalink

    Excellent post.

    I think Rima Shahid is an incarnated stereotype of an Islamist bully. She calls out the billboard’s authors, knowing perfectly that if their identity is known, they will be hunted down by Muslim vigilantes. To me, such a Muslim activist does more harm to the image of the Muslim community than any billboard could.

  19. Tom
    Posted June 14, 2017 at 3:18 pm | Permalink

    How can you insult a fictitious person? Mohammad, Jesus, Oliver Twist, Jane Eyre, Gandalf all came from the fertile minds of writers and were only ever characters in various books.
    Why do otherwise sensible people have the idea these people existed?
    For instance, I cannot conceive that anybody would be hauled up before a Beak and jailed for making insulting comments about Beowulf or to go further back in time Gilgamesh, since we recognise these as fictions.
    But then again only the fabled Mohammed and Jesus have massive organisations to perpetuate the “faith”
    Incidentally, the reverence given to the books of faith is an unconcious acknowledgment that these characters never really existed outside the pages of these holy books and in truth can only be found there.
    For instance as more than one christian inquisitor noted, burn the books and the prophet disappears,

  20. Harrison
    Posted June 14, 2017 at 5:22 pm | Permalink

    The majority of McAfee’s blogging under Hemant’s banner has been Islamic apologetics. This one was so egregious even the usual commenters couldn’t put up with it and the response was almost entirely pushback.

    What’s notable is that the billboard does not name the person or the religion it’s about. It’s all context clues. In order for someone to be offended they have to already be aware of the truth of these claims. It’s actually fairly clever.

    • BJ
      Posted June 14, 2017 at 8:11 pm | Permalink

      Great point in your second paragraph.

    • Colin McLachlan
      Posted June 15, 2017 at 5:11 am | Permalink

      Yes, I was wondering when someone was going to point that out.

      If the cap (or shoe) fits…

  21. Posted June 14, 2017 at 8:48 pm | Permalink

    David McAfee’s TFA posts so far:

    * Let’s not jump to conclusions about the religion of the Manchester bomber;

    * Okay, he was a moslem, but let’s not jump to conclusions about his motivations. I will post again when we learn more;

    * [crickets];

    * Ha ha, lets mock this mormon photographer for using a caucasian model as Jesus;

    * Hey guys, it’s not nice to mock Mohammed.

    Can’t tell at this point whether McAfee is in the employ of CAIR, or just one of their useful idiots.


Post a Comment

Required fields are marked *
*
*

%d bloggers like this: