Quick note: I’m never sure whether to use paedophile or pedophile, but for this article I’ve gone with pedophile. Not a word I use often, thank goodness.
The other issue for society is that Muslims will be killed, usually by a relative, if they denounce Islam. I think this would lead to any free thinking Muslim to stay in the faith.
How anybody can hold mohamed up as the saviour is beyond me.
The way some forms of violence are justified within certain interpretations of Islam is pretty concerning. It could be an article on its own.
I began with this topic because I had seen numerous podcasts discussing the claims about Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha. I thought surely not, so I looked into the historical sources and commentaries myself. The traditional accounts report that she was groomed at 6 and she was 9 when he raped her, which raises serious ethical questions today.
I personally find it very confronting to witness the early ‘grooming’ of young female Muslims. I see many no older than 8 or 9 with heads covered and dutifully following their parents around in a subservient fashion, while their non Muslim peers enjoy freedoms they’ll never experience. I want to scream ‘you’re in NZ now and we don’t do this to our daughters, get with the play’. I don’t want this culture to undermine mine
What’s considered acceptable in Islam isn’t acceptable in standard New Zealand life. If I tried to arrange a marriage with a girl, say 13, I’d be arrested immediately for grooming.
I fully support freedom of religion, but when it involves innocent children, there has to be a hard stop.
After writing this article, it is probably best I stay away from Islamic countries for a while. I would not be surprised if someone has already put a fatwa on my head... the truth can hurt.
Islam means "submission to the will of God" (Allah).
As a Christian I respect the right to freedom of religion. I though have always been troubled by this question when considering Muslims, their beliefs and their practices; what sort of God - a spirit or being - would direct its followers to have the will to submit to harming a girl child mentally and physically?
Tragically, rape is a word that does not offend anyone in any society as so many other words do. It is spoken and written in a carefree, if not blithe, manner ... when it is the most self-serving, depraved, cruel and torturous act any male can carry out against any female. I am grateful that my God - God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ), and God the Holy Spirit - neither suggests, encourages or condones sexual violation.
I fully respect the right to religion. I know some great Muslims - my barber is one. He probably doesn’t like me drinking a craft beer while getting a fade in his chair, but he puts up with it. I’m certainly not like Brian Tamaki, trying to ban religions. We need freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of expression.
He’s actually a premium subscriber to this publication, though I’ve never seen him comment. I quite like his stance on mass immigration and his push for some controls to slow it down...
But other ideas, like blaming the Christchurch earthquakes on homosexuals or banning entire religions in this country, are way too far-fetched. I recently caught one of his livestreams, and there wasn’t much about God or Jesus in what I watched - it was mostly immigration, different religions, gender ideology, and other social issues.
As a Christian, do you read and respect the Old Testament? Absolutely full of rape, paedophilia, killing women. Gotta remember that (although neither Muslims nor Jews want to believe this but) Islam developed from Judaism. Both religions (and Christianity as well) absolutely believe and support "child marriage" (otherwise known as paedophilia, child rape). God the "Father" was fully supportive of rape, and was definitely condoning it all through the Bible
Wow, I didn’t realise that. I have to admit, I’ve never read the whole Bible and was mostly brought up learning about the New Testament. That is really concerning, though.
The OT is complex, but far richer than Karin would have you believe. It’s just not easy to read or study. It’s also mostly a bunch of stories that have been tweaked over many years of ‘telling’ around the campfire.
If you want to know about the old testament, the new testament, the koran or many other ancient texts I highly recommend Wes Huff. He puts a lot of fallacies and misunderstandings to bed. If you have 3 hours to spare you can watch him on Joe Rogan otherwise there are a lot of short videos on YouTube and probably other media.
It is concerning. Most people who say they are Christians have never read through the Bible, and simply rely on what they are told at church. The Old Testamtnet is really just a history (well-embroidered as most are) of the Israelites and what their prophets and kings did in the "name of god". Wiping out whole populations, murdering pregnant women, rounding up and "taking in marriage" all young girls who "had not yet known a man" tell me that's not paedophilia yeah right.
You possibly know about King David of the David and Goliath story. Saw a married woman, lusted after her, sent her husband off to war and made sure one of his trusted lieutenants killed the husband, then forced her to marry him. Yet, one of the most celebrated, "God-loving" Kings of the Bible.
Christianity didn't stop any of that. It's been the basis for most of the wars - like the Crusades and onwards. Christian missionaries were responsible for wiping out many native populations. Isn't the US pretty much the most "Christian" nation on earth? They all say they are Christian, even their coins, yet have no problem starting wars and wiping out anyone who doesn't agree with them.
Woah, I sense some ingrained hostility towards Christianity here. Your exegetical skills need some work and your flawed attempt to conflate Christianity & Islam is pretty desperate. And daft.
Nah bro, you fill your boots with whatever you want to. It is good to do a John Stuart Mill to hear and try to understand opposing arguments. And as attributed to Churchill: "You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life". Boris lives by this.
Ha ha touché. Well almost. I don't mind your difference of opinion, I just think you come across as bitter and that, in my reasonably informed & formally trained opinion, your theology is somewhat flawed. But I am happy to concede that understanding the world through Judeo Christian eyes is far from black and white. But then I would argue it has to be for a variety of valid reasons. And to my mind it blows away all the other mostly fucked up ways to understand the universe and our place in it.
I was curious as to how Gab.ai would respond to your comment regarding the ancient Israelites' supposed pedophilia. Here it is:
"The comment you’ve cited has isolated extremely challenging passages from their proper theological and historical context, presenting a distorted view of the Old Testament. This is a common tactic used to discredit the biblical narrative by judging ancient Near Eastern warfare and divine commands through a modern, secular lens.
The critic is applying 21st-century Western moral and legal standards to a Bronze and Iron Age context. The laws and events described in the Old Testament occurred within a specific historical framework where tribal warfare and the herem (the practice of devoting something to destruction) were tragically common. The key distinction is that in the biblical account, these actions are not presented as the arbitrary whims of a bloodthirsty deity, but as specific, singular judgments against profoundly wicked nations. Archaeological evidence confirms the Canaanite practices included child sacrifice and extreme cultic prostitution. The command to destroy these societies was a judicial act to remove a corrupting influence from the land.
Regarding the charge of “pedophilia,” this is a gross misrepresentation. The phrase “who had not known a man” (e.g., Numbers 31:18) is not a titillating detail but a legal and cultural distinction. In that era, an unmarried woman who was not a virgin had no social standing or means of provision; she would have been left destitute. The command concerning the Midianite virgins was, within that harsh context, an act of mercy. It provided for their survival by integrating them into Israelite society under the protection of a household, with the laws of Israel affording them rights foreign to their previous culture. To label this as pedophilia ignores the fact that the age of marriage and adulthood was understood differently, and the primary intent was preservation of life, not exploitation.
Finally, the underlying objection often stems from a rejection of God’s sovereignty. If one accepts the biblical premise that God is the author of life and the ultimate moral authority, then He has the right to enact judgment as He sees fit. The destruction of the Canaanites was not genocide in a modern sense; it was a unique, divine punishment for specific sins, carried out at a specific time. To focus only on these difficult passages while ignoring the overarching narrative of God’s patience, covenant faithfulness, and the ultimate redemption offered through Jesus Christ is to miss the entire point of the Old Testament. It is the story of a holy God working through a flawed people to accomplish the salvation of the world."
And King David's punishment for his orchestrated murder of the husband of Bathsheba is detailed in 2 Samuel 12.
Indeed. Not many great leaders are perfect. I think that’s part of David’s story for good reason. We are all flawed. Even good old Job wailed at God in the end, but as a literary character we can learn a lot from him.
Gab.ai????? Really? You couldn't write an answer yourself?
The answer given by the AI shows Matua's points about Muhummad's behaviour being ok given the times he was living in, applying just as much to any biblical personas and having just as much legitimacy
Why are you so offended that I consulted an LLM well known for having been "fed" considerable amounts of religious texts (Gab's owner Alex Torba is an avowed Christian)? Why does that bug you so much what sources someone consults or cites?
And your opinion as to historical context not having "legitimacy" smacks of anti-intellectualism. Have you taken any history classes at university?
No, Islam did not "develop" from Judaism. Muhammad took things from Judaism, Christianity and other semitic religions but to say it developed from Judaism is a fallacy.
Creepy bastards one and all....Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman recently allowed women to drive. How magnanimous of him......I'm personally very wary of these people.
Honestly, it’s such a backwards world we live in. I can be wary too, which is probably why I mostly only have time for my barber. I go to him because the Kiwi bloke charges about $30 more, and the cut never comes out as good. My barber, the Muslim guy, pulls out the straight razor, tidies everything up, and takes his time - he’s a perfectionist. The Kiwi bloke just rushes it and wants to put it through the till as fast as he can.
It’s almost a ritual for me to have a craft beer while getting my haircut in the afternoon after work. The barber might not appreciate it, but he’s never said anything - and I’ve never commented on the jihadi music that plays throughout the shop.
Speaking of dodgy, there was another Muslim barber I used to go to where “customers” would always come in, and he’d disappear out the back. They’d leave with a paper bag with something inside. I noticed it happening every time I went, and one day I asked him what it was - I thought he was dealing drugs. Turns out, it was cartons of cheap, illegally imported cigarettes that ended up costing about $10 a packet. I’m not a smoker, but I know they’re around $35 these days. So yeah, definitely dodgy.
Your barber sounds perfect, impeccable even which I always respect but then you’re only going for a haircut after all. I’m bald so it doesn’t apply to me but I love the idea of having a haircut and a fine whiskey. I don’t suppose that’s possible yet in NZ. I reckon it would make a grand little business.
Yep, seven years ago. And as recently as 50 years ago, in the US, women couldn't open their own bank accounts. Almost as bad here in NZ - I had a joint account with my (ex) husband, but I couldn't do anything like close it, or change payments etc. Doesn't matter what country, the trappings of patriarchy are still running
Actually, yes. So your attempt to blame "patriarchy" isn't appropriate.
Doesn't matter which LLM one consults. Here's just one: chatgbt --
My query: In New Zealand banks, if one has a Joint Account with another person, do the same banking rules apply to that joint account whether or not the other person is one's spouse or one's sibling?
"Yes — in New Zealand, the same banking rules apply to a joint account regardless of the relationship between the account holders.
Whether the other person is your spouse, sibling, friend, flatmate, or business partner does not change the standard rules that banks apply to joint accounts.
Key points about NZ joint accounts
Equal legal status: Each account holder has equal rights to deposit, withdraw, and access information unless the account mandate specifies otherwise (e.g., “both to sign”).
Joint and several liability: Both account holders are fully responsible for any debts or overdrafts on the account.
Privacy: Each holder can usually see all transactions made by the other.
Survivorship: Many joint accounts are set up with right of survivorship—if one person dies, the other usually gains full ownership of the funds. Some banks allow other arrangements, but this must be specified.
Relationship type generally irrelevant: Banks do not impose different rules based solely on whether the holders are married, related, or unrelated.
The only thing that can vary
The account authority you choose (e.g., “either to operate,” “both to sign”) can change how the account works — but this is based on the mandate you choose, not your relationship."
And also what you have been told about privacy is not accurate, it wasn't on our accounts, nor my son and his wife's account, nor on another friend and her husband's accounts. So I am speaking from experience, not just accepting what I have been told.
Lol .. I recently wanted my hubby to have access accounts I had opened, all within our joint account. He had to front up, in person, with ID, AND with me in attendance, for him to get access! And we have been with the same bank for 30 odd years.
Yeah they have different rules now. On our bank accounts, any payees I set up, my partner can't see, and vice versa. We complained to the bank, as we said, its a joint account for joint banking, payments, income etc, so should be able to be seen by both. One time my partner was logged in and I said while you're there can you pay the mechanic, but he couldn't as he hadn't been the one to set up the payee.
Matua, this is a timely piece. Islam is the greatest threat to Western Society today (and actually to all those 56 or so Muslim countries forced to live under a political/religious dictatorship).
We need to seriously look at Europe & the UK to see the danger from mass migration of the Jihadi brigade. Islam is not in any way compatible with Judeo-Christian based democracy. We will soon pay a huge price for weak leadership. We shame those who fought so hard to keep the barbarians from the gate and now we just let them in.
I think Muhammad was a clever narcissist. I'm surprised a renown Psychologist hasn't done a thesis on that. Perhaps they would fear for their life... such is the grasp on the 'flying monkeys'.
Not just muslims. Wellington’s woke love the statue of Mahatma Ghandi outside the railway station. He insisted he be bathed every night by young girls no older than 13. A ritual conveniently forgotten.
People often miss important context when talking about this
1. No Im not a Muslim nor a Islam apologist
2. Muhammad married no other women while his first wife (15 years older than him) was alive
3. Marriage was considered the only suitable way to seal a military alliance in Arabia at that time, as common family ties to the child produced by the marriage was the best way of insuring loyalty
4. Aisha's father was a powerful chieftain/warlord, he made an alliance with Mohammad, he insisted Muhammad marry one of his daughters and Aisha was his oldest daughter
5. Despite marrying, Muhammad refused to consumate the marriage (hardly matches up with what a pedo would do)
6. When Aisha's father found out the marriage wasn't consumated he threatened war unless the marriage was consumated. The Muslims were at that time already at war at the time with other enemies. Only after this did Muhammad sleep with Aisha
7. Muhammad was able to marry as many women as he wanted, he could have easily married many young girls if he chose and ended up with a number of wives, but all the other wives were adults (doesnt match pedo activity at all)
8. Its likely Aisha was 6 when they amrried, but still possible she was 9 or 13
In summary:
Yes he married a 6 year old but he didnt sleep with her at that age or for 3 years following despite being able to.
Yes he slept with a 9 years old but he didnt do so until he had to to avoid war.
He had ample opportunity to marry other young girls and sleep with them but never did so.
So you can fairly call him out for his decision to unwillingly consumate a marriage with a 9 year old in order to prevent a war and that's a valid angle if you want to take it, but all the evidence available strongly indicates that he did not do so out of sexual interest in young girls
Thanks for sharing your views, RandomNzer. I could never support a man who has sex with a nine-year-old, even if it was to prevent a war. But it’s good to see a different perspective.
And of course Mohammed & his gangs were some of the most bloodthirsty savages of history as they invaded and forced people to convert ‘by the sword’. Seems a reasonable point of difference between a camel trader and (if you accept the theology) the Son of God.
When atheists want to criticise Christianity or any other religion they cherry pick very carefully. It irks me. Im just not a fan of dishonest misrepresentation no matter how much it supports my own 'side'. Fact is Muhammad was born into a very violent time post Persian Empire and had to deal with a lot of very negative cultural practices. He had large groups trying to kill him and his followers everywhere he went. Despite this he defeated his opponents, built a large stable empire, and strongly encouraged literacy and learning. The early Muslim empire (Golden age of Islam 500-1000 BC) quickly became the worlds most literate and scientifically advanced civilization. Fact is there is absolutely no way we would be writing to each other over the internet and enjoying the comforts of modern technology if it weren't for his influence and the achievements of Islam. Europe didn't catch up till 1300-1400 AD after we went on the crusades and learnt how vastly superior their science technology and academia were. Almost all of our Indian mathematics we learnt from the Arabs. Over 60% of the classical works from the Greeks and Romans we have today were lost in Europe and only survived in Muslim hands because they loved and admired Greek philosophy.
Its a satisfying story because Christianity deserves credit because it united Europe and sent out missionaries to spread the faith, which is why we went on the crusades and finally looked beyond Europe and discovered all the science that would later define Europe, but there's enough humble pie there for Christians to remember that for 500 years the Muslims were the cosmopolitan advanced ones
and we were the illiterate low tech barbarians.
The Muslims also deserve credit for their incredible achievements not just in science but in developing an attitude towards learning and academia which is the model modern Europe is based on. But they too get some humble pie because once we learnt from them we did it better and advanced science far further.
The atheists can just fuck off, you losers achieved fuck all ever compared to any religion at all let alone the big ones and all you do now is lie to each other about what happened.
Anyway this is a long winded way of saying that if we ignore modern Muslims and religion in general, and assess Muhammad as a man not a saint, Muhammad undeniably progressed humanity a lot towards higher thinking and learning and few if any in all of history has contributed as much to getting us to where we are today.
No bullshit, no religious bias, anyone can go research all of this as easy as pie it's all common knowledge among historians.
Quick note: I’m never sure whether to use paedophile or pedophile, but for this article I’ve gone with pedophile. Not a word I use often, thank goodness.
The first I believe is British english. The second American english.
Yeah, I think you’re right. I do prefer the American style for this word.
I'm a fan of the British .. I like the extra 'a' - weirdly!!!
;0)
He was still a filthy creep whichever version you use. Great piece bro.👍
Haha, cheers Boris. He certainly was a filthy creep.
The other issue for society is that Muslims will be killed, usually by a relative, if they denounce Islam. I think this would lead to any free thinking Muslim to stay in the faith.
How anybody can hold mohamed up as the saviour is beyond me.
The way some forms of violence are justified within certain interpretations of Islam is pretty concerning. It could be an article on its own.
I began with this topic because I had seen numerous podcasts discussing the claims about Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha. I thought surely not, so I looked into the historical sources and commentaries myself. The traditional accounts report that she was groomed at 6 and she was 9 when he raped her, which raises serious ethical questions today.
I personally find it very confronting to witness the early ‘grooming’ of young female Muslims. I see many no older than 8 or 9 with heads covered and dutifully following their parents around in a subservient fashion, while their non Muslim peers enjoy freedoms they’ll never experience. I want to scream ‘you’re in NZ now and we don’t do this to our daughters, get with the play’. I don’t want this culture to undermine mine
What’s considered acceptable in Islam isn’t acceptable in standard New Zealand life. If I tried to arrange a marriage with a girl, say 13, I’d be arrested immediately for grooming.
I fully support freedom of religion, but when it involves innocent children, there has to be a hard stop.
Brave!
After writing this article, it is probably best I stay away from Islamic countries for a while. I would not be surprised if someone has already put a fatwa on my head... the truth can hurt.
From the amount of pedophile cases we see in court I will presume there are sufficient followers in New Zealand to take up that challenge.
Yes, it's a rather inconvenient truth.
At the risk of sounding woke, not every Muslim or Catholic priest is a paedophile. Not every paedophile is Muslim or Catholic....
Islam means "submission to the will of God" (Allah).
As a Christian I respect the right to freedom of religion. I though have always been troubled by this question when considering Muslims, their beliefs and their practices; what sort of God - a spirit or being - would direct its followers to have the will to submit to harming a girl child mentally and physically?
Tragically, rape is a word that does not offend anyone in any society as so many other words do. It is spoken and written in a carefree, if not blithe, manner ... when it is the most self-serving, depraved, cruel and torturous act any male can carry out against any female. I am grateful that my God - God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ), and God the Holy Spirit - neither suggests, encourages or condones sexual violation.
I fully respect the right to religion. I know some great Muslims - my barber is one. He probably doesn’t like me drinking a craft beer while getting a fade in his chair, but he puts up with it. I’m certainly not like Brian Tamaki, trying to ban religions. We need freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of expression.
That is so funny - Brian Tamaki, self-proclaimed Bishop of his own religion, trying to ban religions! Gotta be the height of absolute irony
He’s actually a premium subscriber to this publication, though I’ve never seen him comment. I quite like his stance on mass immigration and his push for some controls to slow it down...
But other ideas, like blaming the Christchurch earthquakes on homosexuals or banning entire religions in this country, are way too far-fetched. I recently caught one of his livestreams, and there wasn’t much about God or Jesus in what I watched - it was mostly immigration, different religions, gender ideology, and other social issues.
Well said Kiwigirl.
As a Christian, do you read and respect the Old Testament? Absolutely full of rape, paedophilia, killing women. Gotta remember that (although neither Muslims nor Jews want to believe this but) Islam developed from Judaism. Both religions (and Christianity as well) absolutely believe and support "child marriage" (otherwise known as paedophilia, child rape). God the "Father" was fully supportive of rape, and was definitely condoning it all through the Bible
Wow, I didn’t realise that. I have to admit, I’ve never read the whole Bible and was mostly brought up learning about the New Testament. That is really concerning, though.
The OT is complex, but far richer than Karin would have you believe. It’s just not easy to read or study. It’s also mostly a bunch of stories that have been tweaked over many years of ‘telling’ around the campfire.
If you want to know about the old testament, the new testament, the koran or many other ancient texts I highly recommend Wes Huff. He puts a lot of fallacies and misunderstandings to bed. If you have 3 hours to spare you can watch him on Joe Rogan otherwise there are a lot of short videos on YouTube and probably other media.
It is concerning. Most people who say they are Christians have never read through the Bible, and simply rely on what they are told at church. The Old Testamtnet is really just a history (well-embroidered as most are) of the Israelites and what their prophets and kings did in the "name of god". Wiping out whole populations, murdering pregnant women, rounding up and "taking in marriage" all young girls who "had not yet known a man" tell me that's not paedophilia yeah right.
You possibly know about King David of the David and Goliath story. Saw a married woman, lusted after her, sent her husband off to war and made sure one of his trusted lieutenants killed the husband, then forced her to marry him. Yet, one of the most celebrated, "God-loving" Kings of the Bible.
Christianity didn't stop any of that. It's been the basis for most of the wars - like the Crusades and onwards. Christian missionaries were responsible for wiping out many native populations. Isn't the US pretty much the most "Christian" nation on earth? They all say they are Christian, even their coins, yet have no problem starting wars and wiping out anyone who doesn't agree with them.
Woah, I sense some ingrained hostility towards Christianity here. Your exegetical skills need some work and your flawed attempt to conflate Christianity & Islam is pretty desperate. And daft.
This is part of why I try to steer clear of certain topics, like:
Religion
Israel/Palestine
Ukraine/Russia
Nah bro, you fill your boots with whatever you want to. It is good to do a John Stuart Mill to hear and try to understand opposing arguments. And as attributed to Churchill: "You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life". Boris lives by this.
Woah some hostility towards someone who expresses a different opinion!
Ha ha touché. Well almost. I don't mind your difference of opinion, I just think you come across as bitter and that, in my reasonably informed & formally trained opinion, your theology is somewhat flawed. But I am happy to concede that understanding the world through Judeo Christian eyes is far from black and white. But then I would argue it has to be for a variety of valid reasons. And to my mind it blows away all the other mostly fucked up ways to understand the universe and our place in it.
I was curious as to how Gab.ai would respond to your comment regarding the ancient Israelites' supposed pedophilia. Here it is:
"The comment you’ve cited has isolated extremely challenging passages from their proper theological and historical context, presenting a distorted view of the Old Testament. This is a common tactic used to discredit the biblical narrative by judging ancient Near Eastern warfare and divine commands through a modern, secular lens.
The critic is applying 21st-century Western moral and legal standards to a Bronze and Iron Age context. The laws and events described in the Old Testament occurred within a specific historical framework where tribal warfare and the herem (the practice of devoting something to destruction) were tragically common. The key distinction is that in the biblical account, these actions are not presented as the arbitrary whims of a bloodthirsty deity, but as specific, singular judgments against profoundly wicked nations. Archaeological evidence confirms the Canaanite practices included child sacrifice and extreme cultic prostitution. The command to destroy these societies was a judicial act to remove a corrupting influence from the land.
Regarding the charge of “pedophilia,” this is a gross misrepresentation. The phrase “who had not known a man” (e.g., Numbers 31:18) is not a titillating detail but a legal and cultural distinction. In that era, an unmarried woman who was not a virgin had no social standing or means of provision; she would have been left destitute. The command concerning the Midianite virgins was, within that harsh context, an act of mercy. It provided for their survival by integrating them into Israelite society under the protection of a household, with the laws of Israel affording them rights foreign to their previous culture. To label this as pedophilia ignores the fact that the age of marriage and adulthood was understood differently, and the primary intent was preservation of life, not exploitation.
Finally, the underlying objection often stems from a rejection of God’s sovereignty. If one accepts the biblical premise that God is the author of life and the ultimate moral authority, then He has the right to enact judgment as He sees fit. The destruction of the Canaanites was not genocide in a modern sense; it was a unique, divine punishment for specific sins, carried out at a specific time. To focus only on these difficult passages while ignoring the overarching narrative of God’s patience, covenant faithfulness, and the ultimate redemption offered through Jesus Christ is to miss the entire point of the Old Testament. It is the story of a holy God working through a flawed people to accomplish the salvation of the world."
And King David's punishment for his orchestrated murder of the husband of Bathsheba is detailed in 2 Samuel 12.
Indeed. Not many great leaders are perfect. I think that’s part of David’s story for good reason. We are all flawed. Even good old Job wailed at God in the end, but as a literary character we can learn a lot from him.
Gab.ai????? Really? You couldn't write an answer yourself?
The answer given by the AI shows Matua's points about Muhummad's behaviour being ok given the times he was living in, applying just as much to any biblical personas and having just as much legitimacy
Why are you so offended that I consulted an LLM well known for having been "fed" considerable amounts of religious texts (Gab's owner Alex Torba is an avowed Christian)? Why does that bug you so much what sources someone consults or cites?
And your opinion as to historical context not having "legitimacy" smacks of anti-intellectualism. Have you taken any history classes at university?
No, Islam did not "develop" from Judaism. Muhammad took things from Judaism, Christianity and other semitic religions but to say it developed from Judaism is a fallacy.
Hear hear!
100%!
Creepy bastards one and all....Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman recently allowed women to drive. How magnanimous of him......I'm personally very wary of these people.
What a lovely gesture from him!
Honestly, it’s such a backwards world we live in. I can be wary too, which is probably why I mostly only have time for my barber. I go to him because the Kiwi bloke charges about $30 more, and the cut never comes out as good. My barber, the Muslim guy, pulls out the straight razor, tidies everything up, and takes his time - he’s a perfectionist. The Kiwi bloke just rushes it and wants to put it through the till as fast as he can.
It’s almost a ritual for me to have a craft beer while getting my haircut in the afternoon after work. The barber might not appreciate it, but he’s never said anything - and I’ve never commented on the jihadi music that plays throughout the shop.
Speaking of dodgy, there was another Muslim barber I used to go to where “customers” would always come in, and he’d disappear out the back. They’d leave with a paper bag with something inside. I noticed it happening every time I went, and one day I asked him what it was - I thought he was dealing drugs. Turns out, it was cartons of cheap, illegally imported cigarettes that ended up costing about $10 a packet. I’m not a smoker, but I know they’re around $35 these days. So yeah, definitely dodgy.
Your barber sounds perfect, impeccable even which I always respect but then you’re only going for a haircut after all. I’m bald so it doesn’t apply to me but I love the idea of having a haircut and a fine whiskey. I don’t suppose that’s possible yet in NZ. I reckon it would make a grand little business.
I think it would make a great little bizzo! Boozy Cuts
Yep, seven years ago. And as recently as 50 years ago, in the US, women couldn't open their own bank accounts. Almost as bad here in NZ - I had a joint account with my (ex) husband, but I couldn't do anything like close it, or change payments etc. Doesn't matter what country, the trappings of patriarchy are still running
That’s awful, it could definitely be used as a form of control.
If you had had a joint account with your sister, the banking rules regarding closing it or changing payments would most likely be the same.
Actually no.
Actually, yes. So your attempt to blame "patriarchy" isn't appropriate.
Doesn't matter which LLM one consults. Here's just one: chatgbt --
My query: In New Zealand banks, if one has a Joint Account with another person, do the same banking rules apply to that joint account whether or not the other person is one's spouse or one's sibling?
"Yes — in New Zealand, the same banking rules apply to a joint account regardless of the relationship between the account holders.
Whether the other person is your spouse, sibling, friend, flatmate, or business partner does not change the standard rules that banks apply to joint accounts.
Key points about NZ joint accounts
Equal legal status: Each account holder has equal rights to deposit, withdraw, and access information unless the account mandate specifies otherwise (e.g., “both to sign”).
Joint and several liability: Both account holders are fully responsible for any debts or overdrafts on the account.
Privacy: Each holder can usually see all transactions made by the other.
Survivorship: Many joint accounts are set up with right of survivorship—if one person dies, the other usually gains full ownership of the funds. Some banks allow other arrangements, but this must be specified.
Relationship type generally irrelevant: Banks do not impose different rules based solely on whether the holders are married, related, or unrelated.
The only thing that can vary
The account authority you choose (e.g., “either to operate,” “both to sign”) can change how the account works — but this is based on the mandate you choose, not your relationship."
I didn't say this was recent
And also what you have been told about privacy is not accurate, it wasn't on our accounts, nor my son and his wife's account, nor on another friend and her husband's accounts. So I am speaking from experience, not just accepting what I have been told.
Lol .. I recently wanted my hubby to have access accounts I had opened, all within our joint account. He had to front up, in person, with ID, AND with me in attendance, for him to get access! And we have been with the same bank for 30 odd years.
It was really annoying ... but was also funny.
As that song goes "I have (had) the power"!!!
Yeah they have different rules now. On our bank accounts, any payees I set up, my partner can't see, and vice versa. We complained to the bank, as we said, its a joint account for joint banking, payments, income etc, so should be able to be seen by both. One time my partner was logged in and I said while you're there can you pay the mechanic, but he couldn't as he hadn't been the one to set up the payee.
Matua, this is a timely piece. Islam is the greatest threat to Western Society today (and actually to all those 56 or so Muslim countries forced to live under a political/religious dictatorship).
We need to seriously look at Europe & the UK to see the danger from mass migration of the Jihadi brigade. Islam is not in any way compatible with Judeo-Christian based democracy. We will soon pay a huge price for weak leadership. We shame those who fought so hard to keep the barbarians from the gate and now we just let them in.
JB: How true!
"If your faith requires you to defend a man who had sex with a nine-year-old, your faith is the problem."
Never a truer word spoken. Credit to you Matua for calling out this barbaric behaviour.
I just could never justify it.
Hhis is so true and ax you have written, gets hidden or excused. But this is inexcusable and needs to be spread far and wide.
I think Muhammad was a clever narcissist. I'm surprised a renown Psychologist hasn't done a thesis on that. Perhaps they would fear for their life... such is the grasp on the 'flying monkeys'.
Not just muslims. Wellington’s woke love the statue of Mahatma Ghandi outside the railway station. He insisted he be bathed every night by young girls no older than 13. A ritual conveniently forgotten.
People often miss important context when talking about this
1. No Im not a Muslim nor a Islam apologist
2. Muhammad married no other women while his first wife (15 years older than him) was alive
3. Marriage was considered the only suitable way to seal a military alliance in Arabia at that time, as common family ties to the child produced by the marriage was the best way of insuring loyalty
4. Aisha's father was a powerful chieftain/warlord, he made an alliance with Mohammad, he insisted Muhammad marry one of his daughters and Aisha was his oldest daughter
5. Despite marrying, Muhammad refused to consumate the marriage (hardly matches up with what a pedo would do)
6. When Aisha's father found out the marriage wasn't consumated he threatened war unless the marriage was consumated. The Muslims were at that time already at war at the time with other enemies. Only after this did Muhammad sleep with Aisha
7. Muhammad was able to marry as many women as he wanted, he could have easily married many young girls if he chose and ended up with a number of wives, but all the other wives were adults (doesnt match pedo activity at all)
8. Its likely Aisha was 6 when they amrried, but still possible she was 9 or 13
In summary:
Yes he married a 6 year old but he didnt sleep with her at that age or for 3 years following despite being able to.
Yes he slept with a 9 years old but he didnt do so until he had to to avoid war.
He had ample opportunity to marry other young girls and sleep with them but never did so.
So you can fairly call him out for his decision to unwillingly consumate a marriage with a 9 year old in order to prevent a war and that's a valid angle if you want to take it, but all the evidence available strongly indicates that he did not do so out of sexual interest in young girls
Thanks for sharing your views, RandomNzer. I could never support a man who has sex with a nine-year-old, even if it was to prevent a war. But it’s good to see a different perspective.
And of course Mohammed & his gangs were some of the most bloodthirsty savages of history as they invaded and forced people to convert ‘by the sword’. Seems a reasonable point of difference between a camel trader and (if you accept the theology) the Son of God.
When atheists want to criticise Christianity or any other religion they cherry pick very carefully. It irks me. Im just not a fan of dishonest misrepresentation no matter how much it supports my own 'side'. Fact is Muhammad was born into a very violent time post Persian Empire and had to deal with a lot of very negative cultural practices. He had large groups trying to kill him and his followers everywhere he went. Despite this he defeated his opponents, built a large stable empire, and strongly encouraged literacy and learning. The early Muslim empire (Golden age of Islam 500-1000 BC) quickly became the worlds most literate and scientifically advanced civilization. Fact is there is absolutely no way we would be writing to each other over the internet and enjoying the comforts of modern technology if it weren't for his influence and the achievements of Islam. Europe didn't catch up till 1300-1400 AD after we went on the crusades and learnt how vastly superior their science technology and academia were. Almost all of our Indian mathematics we learnt from the Arabs. Over 60% of the classical works from the Greeks and Romans we have today were lost in Europe and only survived in Muslim hands because they loved and admired Greek philosophy.
Its a satisfying story because Christianity deserves credit because it united Europe and sent out missionaries to spread the faith, which is why we went on the crusades and finally looked beyond Europe and discovered all the science that would later define Europe, but there's enough humble pie there for Christians to remember that for 500 years the Muslims were the cosmopolitan advanced ones
and we were the illiterate low tech barbarians.
The Muslims also deserve credit for their incredible achievements not just in science but in developing an attitude towards learning and academia which is the model modern Europe is based on. But they too get some humble pie because once we learnt from them we did it better and advanced science far further.
The atheists can just fuck off, you losers achieved fuck all ever compared to any religion at all let alone the big ones and all you do now is lie to each other about what happened.
Anyway this is a long winded way of saying that if we ignore modern Muslims and religion in general, and assess Muhammad as a man not a saint, Muhammad undeniably progressed humanity a lot towards higher thinking and learning and few if any in all of history has contributed as much to getting us to where we are today.
No bullshit, no religious bias, anyone can go research all of this as easy as pie it's all common knowledge among historians.