Shock jock booted from lineup for calling Mo a diaper-lifter.
Broadcaster Michael Smith has been dumped from a guest slot on radio station 2GB after he referred to the prophet Muhammad as a paedophile.
Smith had been booked to present Chris Smith’s afternoon program for three weeks starting Monday.
However, he has revealed on his website that 2GB’s program director, David Kidd, phoned him on Friday evening and allegedly said: ‘‘We won’t be needing you, you can’t call a Deity a paedophile.’’
Mr Kidd declined to comment when approached by Fairfax Media on Saturday.
Smith’s controversial outburst came during an on-air exchange with Ben Fordham on Thursday. ‘‘The prophet Muhammad was a paedophile, a pederast, a sexual offender, a man who promoted the idea that it was OK to marry a six-year-old and consummate the marriage when the little girl was nine. And that’s written into their books, it’s part of the philosophy … the Koran. It’s factually correct,’’ he said.
Well he’s not wrong. Then again if he said that in aid of ranting about Mooosleeems invading Australia, maybe he should be dumped – except he’s a shock jock, and that’s what they do.
But if the objection really is to the quoted statement – well he’s right. Mullahs in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere cite the example of the prophet as the reason it’s ok for grown men to “marry” nine-year-old girls. That’s a bad thing.
David Kidd, phoned him on Friday evening and allegedly said: ‘‘We won’t be needing you, you can’t call a Deity a paedophile.
Just to be pedantic, Mo is a prophet, not a deity.
An easy mistake to make since many of his followers treat his image as holy.
Shatterface:
Glad you mentioned that. I’m not well versed in Islam, but I thought that was the case.
David Kidd thinks you can’t call a so-called prophet a paedophile. Idjit.
Even worse, though, is this idea that you can’t call an imaginary being a paedophile (or characterize it as anything other than nice and kind). I know, I know, many people don’t think Mo or Allah are imaginary.
Remarkable, a shock-jock has been fired for telling the truth.
The station management’s objection is probably to the threat of beheading or high explosives, I doubt that it’s a sudden attack of the PCs.
Well, Mo was real unless the fringe theory that he was a sort of composite character and Islam is older than usually thought turns out to be true. Even then, he could have been a real guy, but they later merged other people’s biographies with his for a convenient one great leader origin story.
Also, shortly before his death, Muhammed is reported to have admired a crawling 11-month-old baby girl and suggesting that he might want to marry HER.
I don’t want Muslims or anyone engaging in non-violent, mostly harmless obsessive hobbies oppressed, but Islam is as stupid as any religion, and dumber and more often used to abuse than any in this age.
Mo was not himself a shock-jock, although he could well have been his circumstances had been a bit different. More likely he would perhaps have qualified as a DJ, like the late Jimmy PM* Savile. (But D for deity not disc.)
.
*(Phantom of the Morgue)
The biggest bunch of losers commenting nothing but BS and lies about an honorable prophet, a person who was chosen to be the most influential person in history by many important authors including Michael Hart. Jealousy is apparent, and hatred is oozing out your words that will hurt no one other than yourselves.
So you’re saying the prophet did not have sex with Aisha when she was 9?
Ed:
Of course even if he were real, that would amount to “speaking ill of the dead”. He would be dead. There would be no “him” to care what people said about him.
****
Khalil Abu Khadijeh
I really don’t care if you call me a loser, so that insult holds no power over me. I’m also an atheist, so I don’t believe in your god, or Zeus, Thor, Yahweh, or any other deity. I also don’t believe in any prophets who people claim spoke to deities. I don’t care that he was chosen as an influential person in history-that silly argument isn’t going to work here. That means exactly squat. I’ve seen no proof that the dude even existed. Even if he did, it still wouldn’t matter to me bc he’d still be dead. Dead people don’t get mad when you say things about them, bc they’re dead.
As for jealousy, I see no evidence of anyone here being jealous of anything with regard to Islam. I also don’t hate imaginary being, so your comment about hatred is misplaced. Not to mention, you’re trying to determine the emotional state of people online, which is foolish. These words harm no one. Saying that your deity is fictional hurts no one, nor does questioning the existence of your prophet.
Being an atheist does not mean you become an animal and start insulting people’s religion and fabricate stories
Or does it??
First denying Jesus ever existed and now denying Mohammad, I can’t see what evidence could be more convincing to a stubborn and ignorant bunch of lousy lost souls. This is like denying that Julia Gillard was once a prime minister 1500 years from now since there was no more evidence to prove the case.
Being an atheist is yet the biggest insult to yourself which makes a loser seem like a compliment. So you believe of Ape Richard and that the universe came from nothing … Wow impressive
Bye bye now.
@6:
I was with you until the bolded portion. Do you have any proof that Islam is used to abuse any more than Christianity? Years ago, I’d have been inclined to agree with you. That was, until I realized that I had grown up in a society that was desensitized to christianity and as a result I didn’t see the examples all around me of how atrocities, abuse, and oppression were justified in its name. With Islam, since I didn’t grow up with it all around me, the main examples I heard about in media were Islamic extremists. It took me a while to understand that they are not representative of the majority of Muslims. That doesn’t mean Islam isn’t used to justify abuse, atrocity, and oppression. It is. But I see no proof that it’s better or worse than Christianity.
Moreover, I don’t know what good it does to say that Islam is the worst. When religion is used in support of oppression, discrimination, violence, and abuse, it’s awful–no matter *what* religion it is.
@8 Khalil Abu Khadijeh,
Where’s the BS?
In regard to influence as a criterion, Genghis Khan, Hitler, Mao and Stalin were also very influential.
Mohammed was a violent criminal, what other religion has a founder that robbed and murdered innocent people?
How could anyone who has experienced the benefits of Western civilisation be envious of a parasitic culture that developed from the ravings of a demented desert nomad and his gangster followers? While Islam slept the West experienced the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the Scientific and Industrial Revolutions and the development of democracy. In fact it’s the Muslims who are jealous because they’re trapped in Islam’s sterile culture.
Khalil Abu Khadijeh
Well, if in 1500 years, people were claiming Julia Gillard had 7 heads, could breathe fire, and rampaged the countryside causing unimaginable amounts of destruction during her term as prime minister, I’d definitely question whether that version of Julia Gillard existed.
Where is your evidence that he killed anyone? In a civilized world you can’t accuse anyone of anything without evidence, you could be sued for defamation or falsifying evidence and fabricating stories. Look at you history of bloodshed before accusing others of your crimes.
[meta]
I think this comment thread is being debouched into Islam-bashing via appealing to the genetic fallacy.
(In passing, I am unaware of any justifiable basis for the claim that Mo was a pederast, unlike the pedophilia claim)
Nooooooooooo, you can’t be sued for “defamation” of someone who’s been dead for 1400 years, or for dismissive opinions about religion. Only theocracies allow that sort of thing.
Khalil Abu Khadijeh @16,
Your attempt at redirection is futile; was it not the problematic accusation that he married a six-year-old and consummated (such delicacy!) that marriage by the time that child was twelve*?
(Did Mo fuck at least one little girl, or did he not? If he did, what is the term for such a person?)
—
* nine in the earlier accounts, but there are different later ones.
@ 17 John Morales,
“I think this comment thread is being debouched into Islam-bashing via appealing to the genetic fallacy.”
Do you mean “debauched” and where’s the ‘Islam bashing’ and what is the ‘genetic fallacy’?
@16 Khalil, ok, so his fellow bandits murdered, enslaved and plundered on his behalf.
[OT]
RJW @20, I did not mean “debauched”, the Islam-bashing is evident (cf. the last paragraph of your @14), and the genetic fallacy is when a proposition is claimed to be wrong purely on the basis of who made it.
(I note in passing that (for example) Christendom in its heyday was no better than Islam now is; if anything, it was worse)
—
I make the topic to be the event where Michael Smith was dumped from a guest slot on a radio station and in particular its basis (that his contention, though (mostly) accurate was insulting to some religious belief), not whether Islam is a backward and an abominable religion and whether it is so because its founder was a pedophile.
Wow, Kidd committing another awful blasphemy right there. And one which is “factually” inaccurate.
@21 John Morales,
“I make the topic to be the event where Michael Smith was dumped from a guest slot on a radio station and in particular its basis (that his contention, though (mostly) accurate was insulting to some religious belief), not whether Islam is a backward and an abominable religion and whether it is so because its founder was a pedophile.’
You’re being rather too precious here, the underlying consideration of the station’s management was most likely the danger Muslim hostility posed to the staff’s safety, so the nature of Islam and the behaviour of its believers is relevant.
‘debouche’, to issue or emerge from a narrow opening, perhaps it’s another of those dialect differences.
(pedant)
@ 19 John Morales
Well it might be “dirty old man” or “rapist”, but I don’t think “pedophile” is accurate. According to Wikipedia…
The same source says of Mo’s marital history…
There were about a dozen wives in total, so Aisha seems to have been very much the exception rather than the rule, and the motive for marrying her was apparently to make a friend (her father) a family member.
I stress that I’m not saying fucking a nine year old isn’t gross – of course it is. I’m saying that if the facts above are true, they are not suggestive of “a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children” and therefore, not suggestive of pedophilia.
(/pedant)
RJW @23, re:
My preciousness or otherwise aside, you have now made a topical comment, if a rather speculative one — and one notably allusive to Islamism’s perceived threat. I can’t say I find it particularly plausible, though.
David Kidd’s motivation is unknown and he has declined to comment on that decision, but his (alleged) justification is that blasphemy is not to be tolerated, rather than that it is dangerous.
Silentbob @24, I referred to the vernacular usage of pedophile, not to the clinical one — but as long as we’re being pedantic, I note the article you adduced refers to marriage and doesn’t deny that concubinage was practiced.
(Me, I smell smoke, I suspect fire)
1- She was not 6. she was 9.
2- There is no evidence that he had sex with her.
3- Marriage among Arabs was a way to strengthen ties not to indulge in endless desires and lust as this is what Islam is against.
4- Girls living in the desert reached maturity much earlier than girls living in colder climates. a 9 year old would have been able to reproduce and they were highly intelligent due to lack of distractions, and a concentrated education.
5- Aisha had a great memory and she was able to narrate so many of the words and actions of the prophet Mohammad (PIUH) which Muslims now are able to use for legislation.
6- What is not an acceptable practice today may have not been a crime back then. Laws introduced to humanity in the 20th century should not be used to demonize the actions of people 1500 years ago. If you smoke in a pub these days you will be seen as an offender, while 10 years ago it was all good. Similarly, death penalty is condemned in Australia and many other countries but it is widely used in the USA. There is no agreement in the world over this issue as differences have always prevailed.
7- At the time when the prophet married Aisha, Christians in Europe were marrying girls at the age of 6, and Jews were marrying girls at the age of 3. so marrying at the age of 9 was too late for some.
8- It is well known in the world that marrying girls was a practice by Arabs in isolated areas, but not endorsed by the majority of Arabs and Muslims, as they understood that the actions of the prophet were not compulsory and if he did wrong ( which he didn’t do) he would be held accountable on the day of judgment.
9- The West today is the biggest nesting ground for pedophiles with major countries such as Italy, Spain, UK, USA, Australia, Canada, …etc topping the list. This is not 1500 years ago, this is now in 21st century
10- The Church today is the biggest pedophilic organisation in history with the number of priests, preachers and ministers who are caught reaching sky-high but the unaccountable for is far greater.
11- Nowadays, it is a common practice for females in Western societies to lose their virginity under the age of ten. those who doubt this ask the females you know when they lost it, and who they lost it to!!
12- What is not acceptable to us now could be fine in 20 years time, for example if a man marries his daughter in Australia they will be jailed. That might not be the case in 20 years time and we will be seen stupid and backwards for jailing them. The way things are going it will be OK to marry a child in 10-15 years with the LGBT group paving the way for it.
Wikipedia: Adolescent sexuality in the United States
@John Morales I’ve gotta go with Silentbob on this one. I don’t see any meaningful evidence to support the assumption that Mohammed was a paedophile. It seems more plausible to me that he saw women’s bodies as chattel and that he consummated his marriage with Ayesha to ensure its legal status. Since she was a child that makes him a child abuser and a rapist, but not necessarily a paedophile since paedophilia is about sexual desires not sexual acts. Does the distinction matter? Well, probably not to poor Ayesha. But it’s an important consideration in deciding whether Mohammed was largely a product of his time and culture or an exceptional sicko. I tend towards the position that the null hypothesis should be the former. (Me, I smell smoke I assume something’s burning on the stove. Plenty of smoke without fire.)
If Mohammed a figment of someone’s (or some people’s) imagination, how does an imaginary person commit a crime? If he really did exist, then who is the complainant, who are the witnesses* (and was it a crime at the time it was ‘committed’?). How does one try a dead person? (Wouldn’t the crime, if it could be even proven, die with him?)
Likewise, trying to psychoanalyse a dead or imaginary person runs into the same kind of problems (however, as mentioned above, the other ‘facts’, if true, would tend to make a diagnosis of paedophilia unlikely).
One can condemn the practice as barbaric in retrospect, but at the time it was not unknown even in ‘civilised’ Europe**.
Dingo
——–
* and how reliable are they?
** In April 1224, the 34 year old William Marshal, 2nd Earl of Pembroke, married the nine year old Eleanor of Leicester (the youngest daughter of the late King John), as an example off the top of my head.
Shatterface #1
It’s worse than that; calling Mohammad a deity is actually blasphemous. Arguably, it’s worse than the original insult because when you insult Mohammad, you’re insulting a human being (a prophet, but still a human being), whereas when you call him a deity you’re implicitly diminishing Allah himself (because you’re putting someone else on the same level).
So, in responding to this insult, they’ve accidentally made a worse insult. Good job.
I’ll go step by step, so this’ll be a bit long:
Six when married, nine when consummated (aka, raped). This has already been made clear in the thread.
So, you’re admitting that the Hadith are worthless? Because, according to wikipedia, that’s the source for that claim.
And yet, he still raped a little girl.
This is not only completely bullshit, it’s also a clear, direct attempt at excusing child rape.
Oh good. That totally makes up for her being raped.
So, first you’re arguing for moral relativity. Next, you’re comparing rape to smoking in pubs. You’re really a class act, aren’t you.
None of these people are held up as paragons of moral virtue, nor are we defending that kind of behavior. We’re saying that child rape is bad, no matter who does it. You’re the one trying to make the case that it’s sometimes okay.
You’re the hypocrite here, not us.
You are endorsing it. You’re saying that he didn’t do anything wrong, despite raping a 9 year old girl, who couldn’t possibly consent to sex. I don’t know about other Muslims, but you are very much endorsing child rape.
Are we saying this is okay? Are we saying that pedophillia is no big deal? Are we saying that pedophiles have done no wrong? No, that’s you again.
Child rape happens, yes. It happens in all countries, as far as I know. We’re the ones who think it shouldn’t happen. You’re the one arguing that it’s perfectly fine.
And if you weren’t a drive-by troll, you’d know that there are plenty of posts on this blog that deal with the crimes of the Catholic Church. We’re no friends of these people and we call them out, just as we call out child abuse in all other contexts.
Once again, we’re against all instance of child rape. You, apparently are only against some.
And that would be illegal. If you have sex with a ten year old girl, you can go to jail. As far as I’m concerned, that’s a good thing, because young children often are not equipped to make such decisions and can be easily taken advantage of.
What’s your position on having sex with ten year olds? Oh right, I remember now. You think that’s just peachy.
Moral relativity again, with a bit of blatant lying thrown in for good measure.
Furthermore, Aisha’s example is in fact being used today by people who want to justify marrying very young girls. By your vigorous defense of the prophet, you’re providing cover for these people. Roll that around in your head for a moment. Your behavior right now is providing cover for child rape, happening today.
This isn’t about changing moral standards. It isn’t even about Muhammad. It’s about your behavior right here, right now, and it stinks.
LyleX – With respect, I think you’ve missed the point somewhat.
A shockjock said some things on air that, frankly, were nothing more the thinly veiled racism, when called to account for the things he said he tried to use a defence of ‘absolute truth’.
The problem is: is it absolute truth?
The Suras in question were not contemptuous to Mohammed’s life, being written some 30 or more years after his death. They are not intended as what we would call ‘absolute history’* and neither were they outside the cultural norms of the times (even in Europe). Judging them by modern standards would not be useful, as moral standards (as the example of ubiquitous smoking, even in hospitals, shows) change over time.
That idiots have tried to use Origin of the Species to justify eugenics, forced sterilisation and euthanasia does not mean that Darwin was a supporter of any of these ideas or practices, nor should anyone be able to claim that he did, then use ‘absolute truth’ defence to avoid the welter of criticism directed at such idiotic remarks.
Dingo
——–
* “They [the rabbis] construct stories that are then integrated into larger ideologically motivated literary units in such a way as to impart particular ideological messages. The sources do not necessarily relate the historical facts about the heroes but they do illustrate the cultural concerns that find expression in the stories told about them. … All this leads to the realization that the significant unit for presentation is not the life of the sage; it is the stories about sages. These stories are not formulated in an attempt to tell the life of the sage. They are told because the sage, as part of the collective culture, has some bearing on the common cultural concerns. Various anecdotes are coupled into a larger story cycle.” – Alon Goshen-Gottstein, The Sinner and the Amnesiac: The Rabbinic Invention of Elisha Ben Abuya and Eleazar Ben Arach, Stanford University Press, 2000.
This would also, in a general way, fit many other kinds of mythos built around real historical figures who are ‘story’ is being used as a narrative metaphor for current events, such as the writings about Mohammed written long after his death.
dingojack #32
That may well be. There are plenty of racists that use “Muslims” as a code word for “brown people”. However, I’m not defending that person specifically, nor is this relevant to the points I’ve made. You can completely disregard everything that this person said and my post at #31 still stands firm.
If we were talking about anthropology or the history of religion, I’d totally agree.
However, we’re not. Muhammad’s example is being defended today (e.g. by Zatem Wahaha). His example is a foundational part of Islamic jurisprudence today. This is not ancient history. These are points that affect people lives right now.
Hardly the same thing. Darwin, as a matter of fact, didn’t support eugenics, nor does the theory of evolution lend any support to such idea. You actually have to be an idiot to think that evolution is an argument for eugenics. However, you don’t have to be an idiot to use Muhammad’s example to justify marrying under-aged girls. In fact, using the example of the prophet to determine what’s right is a cornerstone of Islamic law.
Islam has the same basic problem as most religions do; a dogmatic, legalistic system of morality that short-circuits empathy and discourages individual thought on the matter. The result: Reasonably intelligent people who suddenly can’t tell why there’s anything wrong with raping little children.
Zatem Wahaha isn’t relevant, Michael Smith (the ‘shockjock’ is the OP) is relevant.
“However, you don’t have to be an idiot to use Muhammad’s example to justify marrying under-aged girls. In fact, using the example of the prophet to determine what’s right is a cornerstone of Islamic law.”
So the justification (how ever slim) is not the work of idiots… Is that really what you meant? (Somehow, I doubt it).
“using the example of the prophet to determine what’s right is a cornerstone of Islamic law: – is it?*
Dingo
——-
* BTW: I am not a Islamic law expert, are you? If so, what are your credentials?
Since Zatem was the one I was replying to, I think he’s kinda relevant.
It’s not the work of idiots insofar that it’s the purpose of the system. E.g. an intelligent person, accurately following the system will end up at the conclusion that marrying a nine year old is okay. On the other hand, eugenics is not in any sense a part of evolutionary theory. Someone who intelligently follows the concepts of evolutionary theory would end up at the idea that eugenic is short-sighted and stupid.
I’m not (in this instance) judging the validity of the system itself, but only whether a certain conclusion follows from the precepts of that system,
As a comparison, it doesn’t take an idiot to justify killing Jews, using the Nazi system of thought (no matter how horrible that conclusion is, it’s an inevitable part of the system), but it does take an idiot to justify eating pork using the Torah (because it’s quite antithetical to the system).
I can’t claim to be an expert, but as far as I know, yes, it’s a pretty basic part of Islamic law.
The Qur’an simply doesn’t give enough rules for the formation of a comprehensive system of rules. As such, Muslims long ago decided to complement the Qur’an with the traditions of the prophet, under the assumption that he (since he was chosen by god) must have gotten things right. Therefore, the behavior of the prophet was taken as a reliable guide for principles on which you could found a larger school of jurisprudence.
I’m totally open to being corrected on this point if I’ve missed something, but I’m fairly sure that I’m on the right track.
Again, you’re missing the point (respectfully) the justification of the ‘shockjock ‘ Michael Smith to ‘absolute truth’ is that Mohammed is demonstrably a paedophile. Can this be absolutely proved to be true….? *
Dingo
——–
* unless you can provide absolute evidence of that assertion…
Who gives a shit? The point isn’t whether Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha is a historical fact. The point is that the belief in this idea means that people today, people like Zatem, are actively defending under-aged marriage.
Read what he wrote. He directly said that Muhammad did no wrong, even while accepting that he married a six year old and consummated the marriage at nine. That’s a problematic attitude right now. even if Muhammad never actually did this, Zatem still holds this position. That’s my point. If you’re talking about something else, good for you, but this is what I’m talking about.
If you still think I’m missing your point, then I encourage you to make it a lot clearer what it is.
@37 LykeX,
Agreed, let’s ignore the post modernist sophistry about historical ‘truth’, the issue is that people in the 21st century actually have those repugnant beliefs.
No the issue is that he attempted to weasel out of it by using an absolute truth defence.
(See here).
Dingo
——–
LyleX what he said was:
“Smith’s controversial outburst came during an on-air exchange with Ben Fordham on Thursday. ‘‘The prophet Muhammad was a paedophile, a pederast, a sexual offender, a man who promoted the idea that it was OK to marry a six-year-old and consummate the marriage when the little girl was nine. And that’s written into their books, it’s part of the philosophy … the Koran. It’s factually correct,’’ he said.”
Note his last three words. Now ask yourself are his claims factually correct (as he claims).
“And that’s written into their books, it’s part of the philosophy … the Koran.” And all sorts of kooky stuff is written into the bible, how much is regarded by all Christians as being ‘factually correct’, simply because it is written in a book? Like Christianity, Muslims have a large body of dogma that is not written it their holy book, but has been built up as tradition over time. These dogma are not universal but vary from location to location, and change from time to time.
Weasel out of what? Accurately describing what most Muslims believe? It’s certainly factually correct that mainstream Islamic traditions makes these claims. That’s not a claim made by the radio host; it’s a claim made by Muslims. Then when he repeats back what they’ve told him, suddenly it’s offensive?
It is also factually correct that the marriage to an under-aged girl is part of the religious character of Muhammad, whether that character accurately reflects history or not. The character is what determines how people act, not the history. When the character, as understood by Muslims, endorses child brides, that is what is reflected in people’s treatment of girls today.
Whether Muhammad really behaved as the Hadith describe is irrelevant to how these Hadith are used to justify Islamic traditions. In other words, for any practical purpose, the historical reality is not terribly relevant.
As for the strict history of it, the man’s a radio host, not a historian. You can’t really hold him to exacting standards. Whether or not the claim is accurate history, his statement is entirely in accordance with commonly accepted, mainstream views of Muslims all over the world. It’s based on a tradition of writings going back literally over a thousand years. What he said was neither crazy, unreasonable nor fringe.
If you are really just concerned with making the point that the Hadith are not necessarily historically reliable, okay. You’ve made that point.
Now that we’ve dealt with that, can we get back to the subject of how these stories affect how young girls are treated today and how it causes people like Zatem to defend horrible acts of violence? Because that was my main point and it doesn’t depend on the historical validity of these claims.