I did some preliminary research on the prophet Muhammad and found some not so good things about him. Muhammad had many conquered slaves as wives. Married a child when she was 6-7, and slept with her when she was 9.

I would like to know if this is FACT or FICTION.


Here are some quotes from the Quran and there's quite many more.

Sunan Abu Dawud 2116

Sahih al-Bukhari 5158

Sahih Muslim Book 008, Hadith Number 3310+3311


So, what is the deal here. If a pedophile today wrote a book or created a religion, would we not raise our eyebrows and question the entire validity of said religion? Is this a fact from the evidence in a the Quran (either confirm its validity as evidence, or throw the entire book in the garbage).

Major religious texts are widely available online, if you're actually asking because you'd like to know.

You're going to find a lot of unthinkable practices in many cultures throughout history, especially 1000+ years ago, and history is especially unkind to women and girls.

Using today's social norms and how we would react to something is a good way to get history wrong on virtually every single level.

It always seems to me that posts like this arent interested in discussing this, or arent actually open to an answer, because they already have their strongly held position, and have just hedged like this to make it seem less strong.

If a pedophile today found the cure for cancer, would we not raise our eyebrows and question the entire validity of the cure?

No, I am not saying that religion is similar to a cure for cancer, or even that religion is true and correct. Dismissing someones works by looking at another part of their life and calling it evil, is a logical fallacy.

How? What does the truth or falsity of religion, or a cure for cancer, have to do with the actions of the person who proposes the religion, or the cure? How is it not a logical fallacy? Are you saying that we should dismiss islam precisely because mohammed was a pedophile?

It was the norm to own and beat black slaves 300 years, why are we allowed to judge what the plantation owners did but we're not allowed to judge Muhammad?

Among one of the reasons why we need to dismiss Islam and consider whatever they worship a sham.

The entire Penn State football records were erased going back as long as Joe Paterno knew about Jerry Sandusky pedophilia.

By blindly following Islam, one is ignorantly casting away all the atrocities created by the founder.

This does not address my point. I dont care whether penn state football records were erased.

If a pedophile discovered the cure for cancer, would we automatically dismiss their cure, and consider it a sham?

How can you judge the truth or falsity of something by looking at actions done by the person proclaiming the "fact"?

If I say "2+2=4" and then go out and rape a donkey, does that mean you can automatically dismiss what I said?

If you go and rape a donkey and marry a 9 year old, there is no way anyone should take a book you write and use it to decide what kind of social laws and customs they need to live by.

Curing cancer is different than writing a book on social laws.

You act like Mohammad was just some guy that "proposed" the religion. He is considered by Muslims to be the one holy prophet that Allah chose to give the revelation of the Quran.

OMG you are obtuse. If you think that God would choose a rapist, pedophile and murderer to be his one "holy" prophet to reveal his "holy" Scriptures, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Why wouldnt he?

This is exactly what OP is claiming

forget about the 9 yo for the moment. That is just so emotionally charged that no one can think rationally about it.

What is there about me raping a donkey that debars me from being able to write a book about what kind of social laws and customs people need to live by?

What if I have 2 things in my book
1) rape donkeys
2) be as nice as you possibly can to other people.

Does (1) mean that (2) should now be ignored?

What if I dont mention raping donkeys at all in my holy book ( but still obviously go around raping donkeys) Should (2) then still be ignored? Does my raping donkeys somehow lessen the truth of (2)?

You're allowed to "judge" all you want. But if you have some sort of desire to understand a historical event, your "judgment" doesn't help you in the slightest.

This is maybe where you should have realized that not everyone is going to agree with you. It is a well known fact that religion has been debated for centuries, what you are proposing is nothing new and was basically proposed by Atheists who lived peacefully in Muslim majority lands centuries ago.

I have noted you insult posters on a regular basis for unjustified reasons.



The problem is that you have a rather nasty view of Muslims, in thread after thread about Islam, you find a way to either mock Islam and or Muslims.


During the United States Civil war, slaves owners used the Bible to justify owning slaves while others used the bible to justify abolishing slavery. You can find that folks have interpreted the Bible in a bad way in both the past and present. Folks like you believe that not enough Muslims are rising up against radicals like ISIS and AQ, when in fact the # of Muslims and non Muslims who are risking their life in the fight against ISIS, continues to rise.

The folks who are emotional charged up about Muhammads marriages are generally Anti Islam folks. Your going to have a difficult time finding someone who respects Islam to also speak in poor fashion about Muhammad, just as your going to have a difficult time finding someone who respects Christianity to also speak in poor fashion about Jesus.

If you want to get into a compare and contrast of Jesus and Muhammed based solely on historical accounts, putting personal religious beliefs anyone may have completely aside, Muhammad is going to look pretty terrible.

Why are you so focused on "what ifs"? I'm arguing what is.
Muhammad married a 6-7 year old, and raped a 9 year old girl repeatedly, as well as his slave wives until he died.
Either dispute this or agree with me that this is fact. I don't care about hypothetical donkey raping.

The arguments so far against me in this thread:
1) Muhammad did terrible **** but what if he cured cancer?
2) I'm an Islam hater.

So far not convincing arguments.

I make one statement only.

That Muhammad the Prophet of Allah married a little child, and raped her when she was 9.

So do you agree this to be true? Dispute this or agree with it. That is all I ask.

In addition, at some point you suggested that folks should not take Islam seriously because of the actions of Muhammad.

Aisha was said to be between 9-12 when her marriage with Muhammad was consummated.

I'm not a Muslim but I would imagine that Muslims disagree with using the term "rape. I disagree with your approach, keep in mind we are talking about the 7th century, it wasn't to rare to see young girls marrying older men.

It's true that norms change over the ages, but it is equally true that when it does we tend to be careful who we take advice from. For example, we don't take advice on the equality of men from old treatises that defend slavery. Well, some do but they are usually shunned.

In religion however, we find a beatiful system were barbaric texts are revered diligently regardless of outdated moral values. And taking advice on "family values" from these ancient books that teach that women are property is the norm rather than the exception.

The "it wasn't rare to see X" argument doesn't work when dealing with absolute wrongs.

It wasn't rare to see blacks hung from trees 100 years ago.
It wasn't rare to see conquering armies rape and kill women and children.
It wasn't rare to see women and children sold as slaves.
It wasn't rare to ....
It wasn't rare to see 9 year olds married off to 50 year old men.


So if Muhammad was simply a primitive male with bankrupt morals (common for the time, like duh), why should an entire religion on his thoughts and ideas be used and practiced 1500 years later?

Because your attack is a logical fallacy, its an ad hominem. Its not addressing the issue, its addressing the person who created the issue, or brought up the issue.

I am just pointing out that saying "hes wrong because he is a pedophile" is terrible reasoning, and does nothing to show that islam is false.

Do you understand this? I am not saying what if he created cancer, I am trying to point out that just because someone is a pedophile, this does not automatically negate everything or anything they have done in their life.