Was Muhammad a good man?

[F0uad]

To start off there are conflicting reports on the age of Aicha(ra) because people back then didn't knew the exact age but lets in sake of argument hold those ages.

If my great grandfather was having sex with nine year olds, then yes, he was immoral.

What if your grand-grand mother was 12 or 14? Is he then still immoral? Because i am pretty sure your ancestors in the medieval period were around that age and the more the dates go back the younger she becomes.

Regardless of his beliefs/claims of it being sanctioned by god.

Totally irrelevant to the discussion but i am used to it by Atheist to throw god into the picture.

Feel free to point out the flaws in my "comparison".

You made the suggestion that the authorities gave us such commandment.

If you feel that having sex with nine year olds is immoral, then you are in direct conflict with Allah.

How is this a reply? On what basis are you using the word IMMORAL?

I would say that 1000 years ago marrying someone who matured was not immoral and i hope you can try to stop imposing your acceptability on other people's traditions and certainly on the ones that lived in a desert 1433 years ago. Men and women lived shorter, women became faster adults and both sides wanted it. I am pretty sure if you opened a history book you would find 99% of the history immoral by your standards.

 

[F0uad]

To be honest, I initially only heard it from other Muslims. Also, there are plenty of Muslims in this thread who use the excuse of "But it was a cultural norm at the time". So it appears to be a well-accepted fact.

Are you denying that he married and had sex with a child?

She was not considered to be a child..
Moreover the age is not historical proven and contradicts some historical events.

Was it ok for your ancestors to have sex with a child?
Typical double-standards your ancestors who found it normal to marry at a young age were ok to do it but when the Prophet(saws) did it.. it was bad.

 

[FearGod]

Nowadays it is done without marriage,let me give you a short information then i'll show you one by one a shocking news about how the society is great in the 21th century.

i am showing here facts and not ahadith that had been claimed to be said by someone before 1100 years and long after the death of the prophet PBUH

Let's start

Child sexual abuse is so often hidden, the statistics vary widely. The research that has been done shows that it widespread and has a devastating impact on families and communities.

As many as one in three girls and one in seven boys will be sexually abused at some point in their childhood.

Briere, J., Eliot, D.M. Prevalence and Psychological Sequence of Self-Reported Childhood Physical and Sexual Abuse in General Population: Child Abuse and Neglecti, 2003, 27 10

This corresponds to results from Stop It Now! telephone public opinion surveys in the US: 29% of women and 14% of men surveyed reported having been sexually abused as children.

Stop It Now! meta-analysis of ten random digit dialed telephone surveys between 1997 and 2007.

Over 78,000 cases of child sexual abuse were reported and substantiatedi in 2006, (Child Maltreatment 2006.) However, this does not include the majority of cases which are never reported to authorities. Only between 12% (see Hanson, 1999) and 30% of cases (Finkelhor, 2008) are reported to authorities. Based on reporting percentages, the real number could be anywhere from 260,000-650,000 a year.

Globally, prevalence rates show that a range of 7-36% of women and 3-29% of men experience sexual abuse in childhood. (Dartnall E, Jewkes R, Sexual violence against women: The scope of the problem, Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology (2012),

Child sexual abuse happens in all racial, religious, ethnic and age groups, and at all socio-economic levels. Since children are abused in homes across the country, adults need to learn what makes children vulnerable, how to recognize warning signs of those who may be sexually abusing children and what to do if sexual abuse is suspected.

Reference : How Often Are Children Sexually Abused? | Stop It Now

TO BE CONTINUED........

 

[Aquitaine]

She was not considered to be a child..
Moreover the age is not historical proven and contradicts some historical events.

Was it ok for your ancestors to have sex with a child?
Typical double-standards your ancestors who found it normal to marry at a young age were ok to do it but when the Prophet(saws) did it.. it was bad.

My ancestors (like yours) were uneducated, lived in fear and utter poverty. They were not "Prophets" sent from a "Merciful, all-powerful God" who should have known better, being an apparently enlightened individual. Plus, my ancestors didn't ask to be worshipped for being the pinnacle of human character and values.

So yes, if I found out my ancestors married children, I would be disgusted.

EDIT: Your post #150 also suggests to me, that even you acknowledge that she was a child. When Muslim apologists say "but it was their culture at the time" it becomes immediately obvious.

 

[Aquitaine]

Nowadays it is done without marriage,let me give you a short information then i'll show you one by one a shocking news about how the society is great in the 21th century.

i am showing here facts and not ahadith that had been claimed to be said by someone before 1100 years and long after the death of the prophet PBUH

Let's start

Child sexual abuse is so often hidden, the statistics vary widely. The research that has been done shows that it widespread and has a devastating impact on families and communities.

As many as one in three girls and one in seven boys will be sexually abused at some point in their childhood.

Briere, J., Eliot, D.M. Prevalence and Psychological Sequence of Self-Reported Childhood Physical and Sexual Abuse in General Population: Child Abuse and Neglecti, 2003, 27 10

This corresponds to results from Stop It Now! telephone public opinion surveys in the US: 29% of women and 14% of men surveyed reported having been sexually abused as children.

Stop It Now! meta-analysis of ten random digit dialed telephone surveys between 1997 and 2007.

Over 78,000 cases of child sexual abuse were reported and substantiatedi in 2006, (Child Maltreatment 2006.) However, this does not include the majority of cases which are never reported to authorities. Only between 12% (see Hanson, 1999) and 30% of cases (Finkelhor, 2008) are reported to authorities. Based on reporting percentages, the real number could be anywhere from 260,000-650,000 a year.

Globally, prevalence rates show that a range of 7-36% of women and 3-29% of men experience sexual abuse in childhood. (Dartnall E, Jewkes R, Sexual violence against women: The scope of the problem, Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology (2012),

Child sexual abuse happens in all racial, religious, ethnic and age groups, and at all socio-economic levels. Since children are abused in homes across the country, adults need to learn what makes children vulnerable, how to recognize warning signs of those who may be sexually abusing children and what to do if sexual abuse is suspected.

Reference : How Often Are Children Sexually Abused? | Stop It Now

TO BE CONTINUED........

I don't see anybody worshipping the Child Abusers responsible for the stats in your post as holy Prophets and the highest examples of Humanity. Child abuse, regardless of who commits it, is horrific and despicable.

 

[WyattDerp]

I can't even properly "judge" people who are my contemporaries and live in what I would consider backwater cultures. <-- I know thinking that way is arrogant and subjective, but it's still how I see it.

I still remember when a friend, who was super good at old greek (never wrote a test worse than A+, and I'll never stop being jealous of the ease with which he did that ), suddenly exclaiming with not little shock "oh my god, the greeks were all pedos! they ****** child prostitutes!". Come to think of it, maybe you could say "Europe" is a word invented by child molesters?

I guess the difference is that we can talk about ideas like democracy without having to adore the people who came up with it. And that is a big difference, admittedly.

But still, just consider how recently it was perfectly normal to send kids into mines to work. Or how long it took for women's suffrage to become thing, or slavery and segregation in the US to end. Plenty of people of those days "we" still consider heroes for other efforts. We don't look at how they failed to completely contradict in all matters the society they lived in, we look at what they *did* bring to the table. Don't get me wrong, I'm personally not a big fan of the Quran, but hearsay about Mohammed is no factor in that.

And just so you know it's not because I just don't care: I used to like Klaus Kinski - not so much as an actor, but as an ignorant jerk who sometimes said some rather spot on things, with gusto I enjoyed. But when his daughter recently went public saying he raped her as a child, and without having a reason to disbelieve her in the slightest... let's just say I don't want to hear a word of what the dude had to say, ever again. There's being a jerk, which is already hard enough to forgive, and there's that.

But Mohammed? Too long ago, in a culture too different from my own, and relayed only by hearsay... I think we should have bigger fish to fry than that. I'd rather criticize some Muslims for what they do today, or even for what is in the Quran, than for what their Prophet supposedly did.

 

[Satnaam]

Credible Source...A+

You guys pass sikhism as non-violent and peaceful..what about Dharam Yudh or Just War...examples of which are:

• The forceful passing of a resolution to cede Water and Electricity Boards to Punjab Control in the region
• The murder of Indian Police officers in 1982 &#8211; 1983, in revenge
• Bhindrandales Murder of two nirinkari Gurus in 1981
• Bombing of Cinemas in Delhi in 2005
• Bombing of Air India Flight 182

very peaceful and a complete way of life which fails to address countless issues encountered in life..Sikhism only covers prayer and religious obligations. It has no understanding of how to interact with the real world. It has no detailed economic system, social system, or ruling system.


I think these threads are useless..the Muslims will defend Muhammad..the Muhammad Haters will copy and paste off anti-Islam websites.. I see that people are so concerned with proving others religion/worldview wrong that they forget to critically examine their own belief system for contradictions..


I could start posting from anti-sikh websites but what purpose would that serve other than gaining enmity from sikhs and further fueling this baseless resentment towards eachother..My God and your God is the same...then why do we fight over who the messenger is..we should be more concerned with understanding what that message is..


Personally I like Sikhs, they are good representative of their jolly punjabi culture and on doing a bit of research on Sikhism (not intensive tho) seem to come across as true monotheists..altho I am confused by a few hindu concepts that contradict my understanding of God which have been incorporated into Sikhism..I dont understand why Sikhs speak so badly about Muhammad and Islam on RF tho..are you only supposed to be good to other Sikhs? Is that what Guru Nanak taught you? Or wasnt it quite the contrary and his travel companions Kabir and Baba Farid were muslim(sufi)? In person I have never felt this resentment surface but guess hiding behind the veil of the internet turns cowards into ballsy lions..what sad is that they support their arguments with biased sources..

Monotheist, this thread is not about Sikhi. I invite you to open a new thread where I can debunk all your claims. Your arguments aren't valid, it is as if I used Boston bombings to condemn Islam. Have you even read the Sikh scripture?
You can't condemn a religion by its followers or their deeds centuries after but by the actual life of the 'prophets' or their writings. Which is what we are doing in the case of Muhammad.
You can however bring up the so called Sikh 'terror' attacks if you can prove SIKHI approves of it, but not if you can't. On the other hand, debating Islam is different. We CAN bring up terror facts because thats what Islam teaches, killing of the Kufr, fight against the non Muslim world (Dar Ul Harb).

Sikhs do not hate Muslims, nor do I. But I do condemn Islam, not only Islam but other blind faiths too.

I will also clear your misconceptions about the 'Hindu' terms in Sikhi which confuse you.

To the other Muslims, it is funny that using a Muslim source makes me a Muslim. Not logical at all. I used a Muslim source to show Muhammads character, as a historical writing. I do not regard any Islamic literature as having any spiritual merit.

 

[Satnaam]

But Mohammed? Too long ago, in a culture too different from my own, and relayed only by hearsay... I think we should have bigger fish to fry than that. I'd rather criticize some Muslims for what they do today, or even for what is in the Quran, than for what their Prophet supposedly did.

I don't agree. There are some secular Muslims too and then there are the likes of the Al Qaeda, who are the 'real' Muslims according to the Quran? We can't judge Islam by simply taking a follower but also see if he is living according to the Quran. Teachings of the Quran and also the life of its prophet should be crucial in the debate... because how can a immoral man be an englightened human being, a prophet? That is the backbone of Islam, Muhammad and his teachings.

 

[Aquitaine]

I don't agree. There are some secular Muslims too and then there are the likes of the Al Qaeda, who are the 'real' Muslims according to the Quran? We can't judge Islam by simply taking a follower but also see if he is living according to the Quran. Teachings of the Quran and also the life of its prophet should be crucial in the debate... because how can a immoral man be an englightened human being, a prophet? That is the backbone of Islam, Muhammad and his teachings.

Indeed, he is also the "Final Messenger of God". So he was essentially the ultimate representation of God's eternal will. Mohammad shouldn't be judged amongst your average uneducated, unenlightened, poverty-stricken desert peasant of the past.

 

[YmirGF]

I can't even properly "judge" people who are my contemporaries and live in what I would consider backwater cultures. <-- I know thinking that way is arrogant and subjective, but it's still how I see it.

I still remember when a friend, who was super good at old greek (never wrote a test worse than A+, and I'll never stop being jealous of the ease with which he did that ), suddenly exclaiming with not little shock "oh my god, the greeks were all pedos! they ****** child prostitutes!". Come to think of it, maybe you could say "Europe" is a word invented by child molesters?

I guess the difference is that we can talk about ideas like democracy without having to adore the people who came up with it. And that is a big difference, admittedly.

But still, just consider how recently it was perfectly normal to send kids into mines to work. Or how long it took for women's suffrage to become thing, or slavery and segregation in the US to end. Plenty of people of those days "we" still consider heroes for other efforts. We don't look at how they failed to completely contradict in all matters the society they lived in, we look at what they *did* bring to the table. Don't get me wrong, I'm personally not a big fan of the Quran, but hearsay about Mohammed is no factor in that.

And just so you know it's not because I just don't care: I used to like Klaus Kinski - not so much as an actor, but as an ignorant jerk who sometimes said some rather spot on things, with gusto I enjoyed. But when his daughter recently went public saying he raped her as a child, and without having a reason to disbelieve her in the slightest... let's just say I don't want to hear a word of what the dude had to say, ever again. There's being a jerk, which is already hard enough to forgive, and there's that.

But Mohammed? Too long ago, in a culture too different from my own, and relayed only by hearsay... I think we should have bigger fish to fry than that. I'd rather criticize some Muslims for what they do today, or even for what is in the Quran, than for what their Prophet supposedly did.

I could not possibly agree more, though I still think you're out to lunch on Gitmo, LOL.

 

[Satnaam]

Wrong remains wrong. Children are not fit for sexual activity, nature has a process called 'puberty' to prepare them for that. Marrying children and having intercourse with them is thus against nature.
Who cares if it was a social norm, doesn't make it right?

"Look at the teachings not the teacher?" Big joke that is. How can one take the teachings of a weak, immoral man seriously? Weak is used here because he couldn't resist his temptations or couldn't stand against the society he lived in.
A prophet or an enlightened individual has to go against society because he is not bound to society but to 'God' or the truth.

Going off topic but my faith was founded by Guru Nanak Dev in the 15 century in north India. At that time, caste system, women veils, corruption, forced conversions, tyranny & slavery were all common BUT the Guru did speak out against all these social evils & rejected these, and told the people to discard these bad practises. That is what one has to respect, the courage one can show against society.

Simply fitting in and continuing a wrong practise negates any sign of 'prophethood'. If Muhammad was a prophet, he would've stood by the truth not what was socially prevalent at that time.

 

[1robin]

Good thing God has you to pass judgement on all this. I'm sure He's grateful for the day off. :yes:

What does a more sinful man than I and most others have to offer to God for my sin? Nothing. No man with even a single sin may do anything to fix another&#8217;s sin. Christ was able to provide the perfect sacrifice (please note that even the animals sacrificed were to be perfect but even then they only pushed sin forward to Christ's death and never forgave anything). Muhammad does not have a single requirement to do anything about the sins of another, and you are the only Muslim I have ever heard say he could have. Muhammad died by being poisoned by a women from a tribe he had destroyed, not as a sinless offering selected by God before the Earth was even made.

 

[YmirGF]

What does a more sinful than I and most others have to offer to God for my sin? Nothing. No man with even a single sin may do anything to fix another’s sin. Christ was able to provide the perfect sacrifice (please note that even the animals sacrificed were to be perfect but even then they only pushed sin forward to Christ's death and never forgave anything). Muhammad does not have a single requirement to do anything about the sins of another, and you are the only Muslim I have ever heard say he could have. Muhammad died by being poisoned by a women from a tribe he had destroyed, not as a sinless offering selected by God before the Earth was even made.

When did Quagmire become a Muslim? Quaggy? :help:

 

[1robin]

It's perfectly plausible that pre-Islamic Arabian peoples, for whatever reason or another, had come to know certain truths. The only way your explanation can make sense is if you believe that, before a divine revelation, absolutely nothing can be known of the god or beliefs that said revelation represents. If this is the case, then god giving man a mind to think and reason was basically pointless.

You sure are rabidly defending something you do not subscribe to. I think you are saying this happened. Some folks who worshipped a bunch of false God's were given correct practices to worship them by, by the true God. Does this make sense to you? You do not discover revelation and revelation truth. You receive it or you don’t know it. However none of this explains why stories already reviled were butchered in the Quran. Like the dates crucifixion was practiced, the dates Samaritans existed, Jesus talking at birth, what the Trinity is even claimed to be, infancy Gospels know to be heretical etc....The Quran got huge swaths of revelation from known heretical sources and myths easily traceable from from known heretical groups who left Israel for Arabia to Muhammad .

The only way this satisfactorily explains anything is if it could be conclusively proven that Islam is not the "true religion". Since religion is largely subjective, there is no way to prove said claim.

No, that is my and many scholars conclusion given the evidence. This explanation more adequately explains the horrible inaccuracies, borrowing, Biblical distortion, violence and sexual behavior of the prophet, the lack of supernatural proof of his commission, the very strange circumstances of his "Gabriel visits" and the fact that he did not come from the line of Prophets indicated by the Bible by which previous prophets had come. It is a vastly more logical conclusion than any God constructed the very faulty religion and that this very faulty man was his prophet.

Regardless of what written records there are, Mithras was borrowed by the Romans from the Zoroastrians, whose religion predates Christianity by at least 300 years, and there is evidence it predates even Judaism. The Romans could have been worshiping Mithras in the style described in later texts long before the advent of Christianity. Another fact you're forgetting is that, at the time of the advent of Jesus, Galilee was not comprised only of Jews. There were many pagan groups living in the area as well. So the idea that at least one of them borrowed some ideas from surrounding religions is quite plausible. It's more common today, but the fact that it does happen today, is good evidence that it could have happened back then, too. And, while, as a whole, the Jews did hate the Romans, they did, during the intertestamental period, borrow from both Roman and Greek philosophy, as can be shown by works such as 3rd and 4th Maccabees.

You can't say regardless of written records. There exists little evidence outside these records. It does not matter if there were non-Jews in Israel, the Jews were a primary target and the one thing that would doom any false religion to failure with them is borrowing. It was also to be adopted by Roman society as well and it certainly would make no sense to borrow a story from their own religion and try and sell it back as something new. It also does not explain the hundreds of prophecies about these events written long before even your gestimation about Mithras. Nothing in the intertestamental period is considered inspired (meaning not from God). At the very best and with many problems left to overcome you could show it was not impossible. You can't even begin to show that borrowing is a better conclusion than originality for the Gospels and Christ. For some reason you seem to prefer certain truths even though they are less substantiated than reality. Why?

Religion is largely a means of usage of symbols. So it's not always the words that are important, it's the symbolism behind them. Christians, since ancient times, have used the sun as a metaphor for the risen Son. It's that very rising of the sun, and particularly during the vernal equinox, that laid the foundation for many religious symbols.

Again the issue is not what Christians have done. In this case Catholics at times have associated the sun with the son to make it easier to convert pagans. The Bible does not and that is what I am defending. The words not the symbols is the problem with this borrowing claim and that issue arose because of poor language skills. Mithras is the sun God. Jesus is the son of God. Not borrowed.

This is only true if you take the Bible, and it's authors, as infallible, which I do not. I believe critical analysis is quite important when deciding on the veracity of religious claims.

It was not a proof claim. It was to show that they knew these issues existed and claimed to never have borrowed form anything invalid. There is little chance that anyone stating that they did not do X would in the very same book actually do X. It's possible just very unlikely.

I won't disagree with any of this. I might just start a thread on the topic, and see where it goes.

Ok, but I would not use Mithras as an argument. BTW why did you not address most of my points that showed it was not parallel with Christianity? I only saw a single one you posted.

 

[WyattDerp]

I don't agree. There are some secular Muslims too and then there are the likes of the Al Qaeda, who are the 'real' Muslims according to the Quran? We can't judge Islam by simply taking a follower but also see if he is living according to the Quran.

Yes, about the Quran I'm happy to argue. About hadith I don't care. If someone takes a position I would criticize based on them, I would criticize that position, when it comes up.

Did someone argue so far that it's cool for an old guy to marry a child, today? Even then, where are they located? What leverage do I have to criticize them? I'm not above criticizing others just to feel better about myself, but I'm not sure it could achieve more than that.

I mean, take the caste system in India. BLEH!!! But what can I do? Well, not buy into it, for starters. Don't join crap, explore and teach other values, and hope for the best. But I know I'm certainly not "better" just because I have been born where I was born, with books on bookshelves and parents who could string more than 3 sentences together and were able to hug. I often forget that when criticizing Europe or the US, I simply assume I can ask certain things from "us", and that's bad enough... it's also easy to forget during online discussions with people you never met. But sometimes I remember, and it's just *obvious* to me in other cases that I cannot expect certain things from others out of the blue. Becoming aware of one's own privilege is a lifelong exploration I think.

 

[1robin]

I think the concept of Atonement contradicts the OT...and there is no such concept of inheriting sin in Islam either..Muhammad does not need to be eligible for Atonement. No Human being for that matter is..IMO Jesus was a human being

First it was a Muslim that claimed Muhammad died for our sins. I do not agree nor have I ever heard a Muslim claim that before. My argument was more in the style that IF atonement was necessary then Muhammad did not qualify. As for the OT you will find blood being offered for sin over and over again all the way back to Adam. In the OT blood never eliminated sin debts. It only pushed them forward, year by year. It did so until Christ arrived who was the PERFECT lamb of God and was able to do what animal blood never could. Eliminate the debt.

Ezeikel 18:20
King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
The soul that sins, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

This was meant to indicate that sons were not guilty of their fathers sins or vice versa with God. This has nothing to do with what Christ did.

Please don’t say that this doesn’t apply to eve and her original sin...I have had Christians defend this claim by saying eves sin can be passed down because she is not male (the father)..So how do we know which verses of the Bible should be interpreted literally and which of those figuratively?

That sounds like a bad argument and one I have never heard. I think that the sin referred to in the above verse deal with sins actually committed not the general fallen nature of man.

Christians hold that the metaphorical view applies to Genesis and creation while this verse from Ezekiel should be interpreted literally and so should the instances where Jesus says he is Son of God..Im confused..how do we know which interpretation to use?

I was about to say this very thing. As to how we know which one to use. I would say a good start is not to use one that contradicts any other. God is perfectly consistent or should be and no interpretation that causes conflict could be from him. The problem you mention is valid but far far worse for Islam. The Quran says the Bible is to be used to judge its self. Even a cursory reading of the Bible illustrates that it is not compatible with Islam. So the claim that Bible verses are corrupt was invented. There is no method or list given to know which verse are corrupt and which are not. In general Muslims simply claim all that are consistent with the Quran are ok and any that are not are corrupt. That is one self-serving and terrible way to go about exegesis and is far worse and in more need of an explanation then inter biblical interpretation.

Ezekiel verse quoted above IMO means simply that Sin is not something that is passed down..a very logical interpretation in my view..

I am familiar with the problem you illustrate here and have only found a few things to shed light on it so far. One is that Adam and Eve were perfect representations of all men and women who have ever lived. Any one of us in that situation would have failed just s badly. They were perfect representatives of man. We do not so much inherit their failures as our own represented by him. I do believe that verse is speaking about literal sins and was part of Hebrew law and not part of a general commentary about man in general. If you are still concerned about this then I will investigate it. We are all on our own plenty imperfect enough to disqualify ourselves for heaven and it takes more than a hand-waving away of sin to rectify this problem.

 

[1robin]

Such a lie you are unaware of the whole stories you just chopped down things from website and posted them here.
I will debate a Christian anytime in the moral teachings and values of the Hadith in comparison with the bible.
I will debate a Christian anytime about the comparison of the prophets in the OT and that of Islam to see which one is more peaceful.

I will not tolerate accusations of lying. Our discussion has ended.

 

[FearGod]

I don't see anybody worshipping the Child Abusers responsible for the stats in your post as holy Prophets and the highest examples of Humanity. Child abuse, regardless of who commits it, is horrific and despicable.

Those facts are happening nowadays because of lack of faith and i think mainly because of atheism whereas no evidences about the age and the story of Aisha other than she was a great woman and have a major role in Islam.

muslims don't worship the prophet as you claimed in your post which shows your blatant ignorance about Islam.

 

[Father Heathen]

So your argument is basically:

"It is disgusting! who agrees with me?"
​

Well, surely God, along with anyone who genuinely represented him, would've had some understanding and insight into how raping children is physiologically and psychologically damaging to them, regardless of cultural norms.

 

[Aquitaine]

Those facts are happening nowadays because of lack of faith and i think mainly because of atheism

LOL riiiight, because of Atheism. I'm sure there is no Child Abuse or Rape going on in religious communities. I'm sure Saudi Arabia has one of the lowest rates of Rape, for example .

whereas no evidences about the age and the story of Aisha other than she was a great woman and have a major role in Islam.

Virtually every Muslim on this topic has stated "but it was the culture at the time". Also, the fact that Aisha brought her toy dolls with her after moving in with Mohammad is quite telling.
Some Muslims here on RF have even tried to justify it to me, by saying he waited for three years until she was 9 before he married her, as if that's somehow any better.

muslims don't worship the prophet as you claimed in your post which shows your blatant ignorance about Islam.

LOLWUT!? He is held as the pinnacle of Human character, qualities and values. If you draw a cartoon of him, some Muslims go insane and people end up murdered.