Muhammad would be proud
I think this gag in this context could be better written, as Islamophobes bring up Mohammed's young wife as a vague criticism of all Muslims. The usual implication is that Muslims are automatically child abusers or respect child abuse, or something.
OK, now I've tied my leg down and wikipedia'd I see Aisha was 6 or 7 when married, 9 or 10 when consummated. Was that kind of behaviour really (socially) OK in the 7th century? I did think the age was 13ish, an age I figured in the past may have been socially acceptable (according to those willing to try and explain Saville et al.'s behaviour, pre-1980 things worked differently).
But no matter what, the comment is a strawman: none of us know what someone who lived centuries would think.
I feel that there has been a massive rise in Islamophobia since 9/11, clearly overt stuff like the EDL, but also casual comments against Islam are much more acceptable than in the past. Pre-9/11 "Paki" jokes were getting rather tired in British society, but they have seen a renaissance since 9/11 and a "Muslim" re-branding. Just the other week I saw a copy of the Sun with a headline about how a British soldier had converted to Islam, the subtext being that "our boys" should be fighting Islam, not following it. Fucking foul, it looked like the kind of shite I have seen as examples of anti-Semitic propaganda in pre-WWII Germany. Yeap, Godwin'd myself :(
Giving religions shit is fine, it is just when hater's choices of ammo are used (even for benign comments) it can look like genuine hate. When ironic jokes are done well they are excellent, but when not they stand to confuse.
Is the gag hilarious and I am confused, or could the point be better made? (or maid, ahem).
And AD, I think if comparisons are to be made then perhaps they should be with things that have victims, or with things that are socially uncool now that were cool in the past. (edit: for those that wonder WTF this is about, I am referring to AD's undo comment: http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_Lennon&diff=1248295&oldid=1248294 )
 The religious really should never take offence, isn't it for their space-wizard to judge?
Stephen Lennon's disgusting double standards
So I went on the Twitter page of Theodore Shoebat. I went on his list of followers and guess who was right at the top? Tommy Robinson (I couldn't get a picture up but look it up for yourselves). So apparently when Muslims advocate the Slaughter of gays, the abolition of democracy, a global religion, the death of blasphemers and the reversal of women's rights it should be fanatically opposed (as if should be), but when Christians advocate the slaughter of gays, the abolition of democracy, a global religion, the death of blasphemers and the reversal of women's rights it's okay. Maybe I'm just making something out of nothing, but this is really getting under my skin.
- can people stop posting links to far right fuckheads' youtube channels please, or at least give some warning? thanks. oh, not just arrested, 13 months. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Tommy Robinson Did Nothing Wrong
I reverted changes by Special:Contributions/188.8.131.52. This user had edited a quote from senior police officer Mark Rowley to reverse its meaning, and made a number of other dubious claims none of which were referenced. I don't object to people trying to provide balance or counter-arguments, but they must provide sources and they must not edit other people's quoted words. --Gospatric (talk) 09:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)