I missed part 1 - t last night , but was able to watch it on BBC IPlayer, today . The Life of Muhammad, BBC Two, review Chris Harvey reviews the first episode of the BBC's three-part series about the founder of Islam. Telegraph review. "That seems reason enough to have made this series of three one-hour documentaries, which, according to the BBC, are the first full account of the history of Muhammads life to have been shown on "Western TV". http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/8631089/The-Life-of- Muhammad-BBC-Two-review.html (some comments from other viewers is also -"interesting" ). ehem . =========== In a ground-breaking first for British television, this three-part series presented by Rageh Omaar charts the life of Muhammad, a man who - for the billion and half Muslims across the globe - is the messenger and final prophet of God. In a journey that is both literal and historical, and beginning in Muhammad's birthplace of Mecca, Omaar investigates the Arabia Muhammad was born into - a world of tribal loyalties and polytheistic religion. Drawing on the expertise and comment of some of the world's leading academics and commentators on Islam, the programme examines Muhammad's first marriage to Khadijah and how he received the first of the revelations that had such a profound effect both on his life, and on the lives of those closest to him. BBC2 IPlayer (if you can get it in yr part of planet) http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b012mkg5/The_Life_of_Muhammad_The_Seeker/
I watched it and found it fascinating. I couldn't see anything that might unduly exercise any Muslim; certainly from that first episode. In fact I thought it was extremely respectful.
A pedophile... respectful?????????? A thief... respectful????????????? A murderer... respectful????????? Tell us that your are opinionated... knowledgeable doubtful...!!!!
Of course, I havent watched it but I have a strong feeling it will be whitewashed and sugarcoated like everything else the BBC does. I wouldnt be surprised if Karen Armstrong is involved as a consultant, and if that is the case, it will inevitably be a waste of time since it will be nothing but fiction. Anyway, here is a link to the Sira, the official biography of Muhammad, which together with the Hadith collections makes up the Sunnah (the example), and then combined with the Koran comprises the Islamic trilogy Sirat Rasoul Allah
Bender , whatever yr opinions it counts for nowt . Whether you like to admit it or not, he has undoubtedly reformed the desert tribes and had a tremendous influence on world history. btw - the Hebrew bible is full of "Pedos " Thieves/robbers (i.e. the former Egyptian slaves fleeing with stolen gold ) incl. Moses the murderer, and the worse imaginable atrocities , - with EL or Elohim's blessings - no doubt. . READ YOUR BIBLE ..
OBAMOBA - Its a pity you refused watching the program before commenting, however you're right Karen Armstrong did contribute alongside others i.e. Prof Robert Hoyland of Hebrew Uni - J'lem , Emeritus Prof. Gerald Hawting of London School of Oriental Studies, Prof.John Esposito , Geirgtwon Uni Washington D.C. , Pro. Robert Thompson, Oxfor Uni. and many more non-muslims. btw - it might interest other readers to know that : Ms. Armstrong studied at Oxford University, where she read literature and wrote a doctoral thesis that was subsequently rejected by an external examiner and which prompted her departure from academia. She took a position teaching English at a girls' school for several years, and is presently teaching Christianity at London's Leo Baeck College for the Study of Judaism. Armstrong's achievements as an independent scholar focusing on the three great monotheistic religions, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, have earned her a reputation as a major contributor to interfaith understanding and respect. Her books on Islam and Muhammed have given many Westerners their first clear and unbiased insight into the history and teachings of this great tradition and its prophet. With the recent publication of a biography of Buddha, she is extending her reach into the East and offering readers another accessible, if unconventional, account of one of the most influential religious teachers of all time. cheers. .
We have already discussed this... He married a six year old girl and CONSUMATED his marriage when she was NINE thus a PEDOPHILE... A thief that attacked Caravans and shared the booty. As a Murderer he killed 3 Jewish tribes al-Nadhir, Qurayza, Khaybar (a few thousand Jews) took their women for themselves and sold the kids into slavery.
despite that muslim scholars are not sure about the age, but that was normal in the standard of time, and thus will make almost >90% of all human that ever existed pedophiles. Attacking Caravans, is normal action of warfare! Killing opposant tribes, is also normal part of warfare by that time standards according to you, i can guarantee most human that ever existed on earth since the Homo Erectus, were murderers, pedophiles and theives
from wiki As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia (or paedophilia) is defined as a psychiatric disorder in adults or late adolescents (persons age 16 or older) typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children
Ayisha was 19 not 9 http://www.muslim.org/islam/aisha-age.htm watch out any minute 'The Doctor' will be along shortly frothing at the mouth at the mention of pedophila. It's a few here's favourite subject must be saying something mustn't it
The historical standard for herdsmen who knew the dangers of breeding to0 young was three years after the onset of the menses. You should know that.
FB - only a fool would compare/equate todays standards with those of 7th Century. As late as 18th Century - Europe/+ America, suspected "witches " were still burnt at the stake , warlocks hung drawn + quartered IN PUBLIC .The word pedophile /paedophile was unknown until 19th century. However for anyone who's not just carping /(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing in an attempt to sound - knowledgeable but genuinely interested in age of consent/marriageable age ,etc. read and learn : History and social attitudes Traditionally, across the globe, the age of consent for a sexual union was a matter for the family to decide, or a tribal custom. In most cases this coincided with signs of puberty, menstruation for a woman and pubic hair for a man.[2] The first recorded age-of-consent law dates back 800 years: In 1275, in England, as part of the rape law, a statute, Westminster 1, made it a misdemeanor to "ravish" a "maiden within age," whether with or without her consent. The phrase "within age" was interpreted by jurist Sir Edward Coke as meaning the age of marriage, which at the time was twelve years of age.[3] In the 12th century Gratian, the influential founder of Canon law in medieval Europe, accepted age of puberty for marriage to be between twelve and fourteen but acknowledged consent to be meaningful if the children were older than seven. There were authorities that said that consent could take place earlier. Marriage would then be valid as long as neither of the two parties annulled the marital agreement before reaching puberty, or if they had already consummated the marriage. It should be noted that Judges honored marriages based on mutual consent at ages younger than seven, in spite of what Gratian had said; there are recorded marriages of two and three year olds.[] The American colonies followed the English tradition, and the law was more of a guide. For example, Mary Hathaway (Virginia, 1689) was only nine when she was married to William Williams. Sir Edward Coke (England, 17th century) made it clear that "the marriage of girls under twelve was normal, and the age at which a girl who was a wife was eligible for a dower from her husband's estate was nine even though her husband be only four years old."[2] Reliable data for when people used to marry is very difficult to find. In England for example snip... In the United States, by the 1880s, most states set the age of consent at ten or twelve, and in one state, Delaware, the age of consent was only seven. A New York Times article states that it was still aged seven in Delaware in 1895 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent#History_and_social_attitudes btw - according to the TV program + other accounts of Muhamed's marital life , he married a woman older than himself and remained faithull - monogamous for over 20 yrs , and after her death , was a widower for some years before remarrying. I suppose those who refused to watch the program would'nt know or want to know that , would they ? tatty byeeee.
Knowing the history of Saudi Arabia and its pre Islamic roots as herders with knowledge in animal husbandry. The first birth control was inserting an apricot pit into the womb of a female camel.
Hi margot, I hope you find time to read the following, its long but as ill-informed on the subject as I am, found it very informative. http://www.faqs.org/childhood/A-Ar/Age-of-Consent.html cheers.
Margot im still waiting for facts to come out of you all i have ever seen is blindness hypocrisy and falsifications .
i don't think so, because He married many women many are in their 40s like his first ever wife was older than him, she was 40 or 50, dunno but in all cases, it is neither primary nor exclusive even the marriage you cite, was it sexual ineterst or other interests?? unless you prove that 1. it is exclusive 2. or primary 3. prove the sexual interest it is not pedophilia sorry but that is my impartial opinion as for killings and seizing caravans, it is a legitimate war act unless you also will call israelis MURDERS AND THEIVES
Bender , yr opinion on this or on many other subjects , matteris less than a ........... ehem. LOL tatty byeee.
If you spent a few minutes + delved deeper , you'd eventually learn that Jews and Christians were - then / at that time - held in much higher regard/respec than polytheists - they were "people of the book" i.e. monotheists I'd suggest you take a quickie course in comparative religious studies at a reputable unbiased educational institute. good luck . btw - pls do not cherry pick , I'd have more respect for yr posts if you posted my posts IN FULL, + Highlighting relevant sections - instead of HALF SENTENCES, which could easily be distorted/misinterpreted. thx ... ..
How does this greater respect make the statement more or less true? Why don't you answer the question instead of making suggestions of how I could spend my time? Its quite simple really, here it is again: .... the Arabia Muhammad was born into - a world of tribal loyalties and polytheistic religion. Now how true is that considering the Christian and Jewish population of the time? Were their numbers so comparatively small that their existance could be ignored? Or perhaps "Arabia" was a slip and the word was supposed to be "life"? What do you think? I don't see why you should have a problem with my selecting only the part of your post which I am addressing. I do it for the sake of brevity and ease of understanding. It is also easier for me when I can see what I am replying to in one window. Quoting your post in full as I now have done to make the point, dulls the debate IMO and readers can always use the link to the full post which includes any quotes. I indicate that I have taken part of the post by dashes. Sorry you have a problem with that but I'm not going to change.
