Why are muslims so quick to kill anyone who insults muhammad?

[husnain1]

on the other hand, random Muslims keep Viacom messing around with episodes of South Park, and that's just flat-out annoying

why is it so hard for people to understand that Muslims don't tolerate the denigration of our Prophet (pbuh) or that of any other Prophet. There is such a thing as free speech however, why use it so callously? You can't live in a pluralistic society and expect everyone else to hold the same views you do. What is so wrong with respecting other's beliefs? Hatred only breeds more hatred

 

[ThaChozenWun]

why is it so hard for people to understand that Muslims don't tolerate the denigration of our Prophet (pbuh) or that of any other Prophet. There is such a thing as free speech however, why use it so callously? You can't live in a pluralistic society and expect everyone else to hold the same views you do. What is so wrong with respecting other's beliefs? Hatred only breeds more hatred

So you want people to respect your views and not speak bad upon your prophets because you believe they are real, but those who dont believe in all the religious non-sense are to hold their tounges about what they percieve is real?

 

[husnain1]

Age of Aisha at time of marriage with Holy Prophet Muhammad

It is believed on the authority of some Hadith reports that the marriage ceremony (known as nikah, amounting to betrothal) of Aisha with the Holy Prophet Muhammad took place when she was six years of age, and that she joined the Holy Prophet as his wife three years later at the age of nine. We quote below from two such reports in Bukhari.

“It is reported from Aisha that she said: The Prophet entered into marriage with me when I was a girl of six … and at the time [of joining his household] I was a girl of nine years of age.”

“Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed [alone] for two years or so. He married Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consummated that marriage when she was nine years old.” [3]

As to the authenticity of these reports, it may be noted that the compilers of the books of Hadith did not apply the same stringent tests when accepting reports relating to historical matters as they did before accepting reports relating to the practical teachings and laws of Islam. The reason is that the former type of report was regarded as merely of academic interest while the latter type of report had a direct bearing on the practical duties of a Muslim and on what was allowed to them and what was prohibited. Thus the occurrence of reports such as the above about the marriage of Aisha in books of Hadith, even in Bukhari, is not necessarily a proof of their credibility.

Determination of the true age of Aisha

It appears that Maulana Muhammad Ali was the first Islamic scholar directly to challenge the notion that Aisha was aged six and nine, respectively, at the time of her nikah and consummation of marriage. This he did in, at least, the following writings: his English booklet Prophet of Islam, his larger English book Muhammad, the Prophet, and in the footnotes in his voluminous Urdu translation and commentary of Sahih Bukhari entitled Fadl-ul-Bari, these three writings being published in the 1920s and 1930s. In the booklet Prophet of Islam, which was later incorporated in 1948 as the first chapter of his book Living Thoughts of the Prophet Muhammad, he writes in a lengthy footnote as follows:

“A great misconception prevails as to the age at which Aisha was taken in marriage by the Prophet. Ibn Sa‘d has stated in the Tabaqat that when Abu Bakr [father of Aisha] was approached on behalf of the Holy Prophet, he replied that the girl had already been betrothed to Jubair, and that he would have to settle the matter first with him. This shows that Aisha must have been approaching majority at the time. Again, the Isaba, speaking of the Prophet’s daughter Fatima, says that she was born five years before the Call and was about five years older than Aisha. This shows that Aisha must have been about ten years at the time of her betrothal to the Prophet, and not six years as she is generally supposed to be. This is further borne out by the fact that Aisha herself is reported to have stated that when the chapter [of the Holy Quran] entitled The Moon, the fifty-fourth chapter, was revealed, she was a girl playing about and remembered certain verses then revealed. Now the fifty-fourth chapter was undoubtedly revealed before the sixth year of the Call. All these considerations point to but one conclusion, viz., that Aisha could not have been less than ten years of age at the time of her nikah, which was virtually only a betrothal. And there is one report in the Tabaqat that Aisha was nine years of age at the time of nikah. Again it is a fact admitted on all hands that the nikah of Aisha took place in the tenth year of the Call in the month of Shawwal, while there is also preponderance of evidence as to the consummation of her marriage taking place in the second year of Hijra in the same month, which shows that full five years had elapsed between the nikah and the consummation. Hence there is not the least doubt that Aisha was at least nine or ten years of age at the time of betrothal, and fourteen or fifteen years at the time of marriage.” [4] (Bolding is mine.)

To facilitate understanding dates of these events, please note that it was in the tenth year of the Call, i.e. the tenth year after the Holy Prophet Muhammad received his calling from God to his mission of prophethood, that his wife Khadija passed away, and the approach was made to Abu Bakr for the hand of his daughter Aisha. The hijra or emigration of the Holy Prophet to Madina took place three years later, and Aisha came to the household of the Holy Prophet in the second year after hijra. So if Aisha was born in the year of the Call, she would be ten years old at the time of the nikah and fifteen years old at the time of the consummation of the marriage.

Later research

Research subsequent to the time of Maulana Muhammad Ali has shown that she was older than this. An excellent short work presenting such evidence is the Urdu pamphlet Rukhsati kai waqt Sayyida Aisha Siddiqa ki umar (‘The age of Lady Aisha at the time of the start of her married life’) by Abu Tahir Irfani.[4a] Points 1 to 3 below have been brought to light in this pamphlet.

1. The famous classical historian of Islam, Ibn Jarir Tabari, wrote in his ‘History’:

“In the time before Islam, Abu Bakr married two women. The first was Fatila daughter of Abdul Uzza, from whom Abdullah and Asma were born. Then he married Umm Ruman, from whom Abdur Rahman and Aisha were born. These four were born before Islam.” [5]

Being born before Islam means being born before the Call.

2. The compiler of the famous Hadith collection Mishkat al-Masabih, Imam Wali-ud-Din Muhammad ibn Abdullah Al-Khatib, who died 700 years ago, has also written brief biographical notes on the narrators of Hadith reports. He writes under Asma, the older daughter of Abu Bakr:

“She was the sister of Aisha Siddiqa, wife of the Holy Prophet, and was ten years older than her. … In 73 A.H. … Asma died at the age of one hundred years.” [6]

(Go here to see an image of the full entry in Urdu.)

This would make Asma 28 years of age in 1 A.H., the year of the Hijra, thus making Aisha 18 years old in 1 A.H. So Aisha would be 19 years old at the time of the consummation of her marriage, and 14 or 15 years old at the time of her nikah. It would place her year of birth at four or five years before the Call.

3. The same statement is made by the famous classical commentator of the Holy Quran, Ibn Kathir, in his book Al-bidayya wal-nihaya:

“Asma died in 73 A.H. at the age of one hundred years. She was ten years older than her sister Aisha.” [7]

Apart from these three evidences, which are presented in the Urdu pamphlet referred to above, we also note that the birth of Aisha being a little before the Call is consistent with the opening words of a statement by her which is recorded four times in Bukhari. Those words are as follows:

“Ever since I can remember (or understand things) my parents were following the religion of Islam.” [8]

This is tantamount to saying that she was born sometime before her parents accepted Islam but she can only remember them practising Islam. No doubt she and her parents knew well whether she was born before or after they accepted Islam, as their acceptance of Islam was such a landmark event in their life which took place just after the Holy Prophet received his mission from God. If she had been born after they accepted Islam it would make no sense for her to say that she always remembered them as following Islam. Only if she was born before they accepted Islam, would it make sense for her to say that she can only remember them being Muslims, as she was too young to remember things before their conversion. This is consistent with her being born before the Call, and being perhaps four or five years old at the time of the Call, which was also almost the time when her parents accepted Islam.

Two further evidences cited by Maulana Muhammad Ali

In the footnotes of his Urdu translation and commentary of Sahih Bukhari, entitled Fadl-ul-Bari, Maulana Muhammad Ali had pointed out reports of two events which show that Aisha could not have been born later than the year of the Call. These are as follows.

1. The above mentioned statement by Aisha in Bukhari, about her earliest memory of her parents being that they were followers of Islam, begins with the following words in its version in Bukhari’s Kitab-ul-Kafalat. We quote this from the English translation of Bukhari by M. Muhsin Khan:

“Since I reached the age when I could remember things, I have seen my parents worshipping according to the right faith of Islam. Not a single day passed but Allah’s Apostle visited us both in the morning and in the evening. When the Muslims were persecuted, Abu Bakr set out for Ethiopia as an emigrant.” [9]

Commenting on this report, Maulana Muhammad Ali writes:

“This report sheds some light on the question of the age of Aisha. … The mention of the persecution of Muslims along with the emigration to Ethiopia clearly shows that this refers to the fifth or the sixth year of the Call. … At that time Aisha was of an age to discern things, and so her birth could not have been later than the first year of the Call.” [10]

Again, this would make her more than fourteen at the time of the consummation of her marriage.

2. There is a report in Sahih Bukhari as follows:

“On the day (of the battle) of Uhud when (some) people retreated and left the Prophet, I saw Aisha daughter of Abu Bakr and Umm Sulaim, with their robes tucked up so that the bangles around their ankles were visible hurrying with their water skins (in another narration it is said, ‘carrying the water skins on their backs’). Then they would pour the water in the mouths of the people, and return to fill the water skins again and came back again to pour water in the mouths of the people.” [11]

 

[husnain1]

(cont'd)

Maulana Muhammad Ali writes in a footnote under this report:

“It should also be noted that Aisha joined the Holy Prophet’s household only one year before the battle of Uhud. According to the common view she would be only ten years of age at this time, which is certainly not a suitable age for the work she did on this occasion. This also shows that she was not so young at this time.” [12]

If, as shown in the previous section above, Aisha was nineteen at the time of the consummation of her marriage, then she would be twenty years old at the time of the battle of Uhud. It may be added that on the earlier occasion of the battle of Badr when some Muslim youths tried, out of eagerness, to go along with the Muslim army to the field of battle, the Holy Prophet Muhammad sent them back on account of their young age (allowing only one such youngster, Umair ibn Abi Waqqas, to accompany his older brother the famous Companion Sa‘d ibn Abi Waqqas). It seems, therefore, highly unlikely that if Aisha was ten years old the Holy Prophet would have allowed her to accompany the army to the field of battle.

We conclude from all the evidence cited above that Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) was nineteen years old when she joined the Holy Prophet as his wife in the year 2 A.H., the nikah or betrothal having taken place five years previously.

 

[ThaChozenWun]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That didnt prove she wasnt, it gave evidence to support its fact just as other people have to support the claim that she was younger. There is nothing in either case to acually prove the other wrong.

Being that marriage and sex with girls prior to puberty was common in ancient times, I believe it. You dont want a negative image of Muhammad because thats your religion so you pick the other side.

 

[husnain1]

So you want people to respect your views and not speak bad upon your prophets because you believe they are real, but those who dont believe in all the religious non-sense are to hold their tounges about what they percieve is real?

I am saying there is a way to have a constructive discussion without resorting to insults. Just because neither side fails to see the point of the other doesn't mean the issues can't be approached objectively. For example, you could have just as easily stated in your previous posts that you hear the Prophet (pbuh) was married to a girl of six years and that you don't believe this to be something that look upon with respect but you don't know the full story. However, to claim someone is a pedophile while at the same time admitting you don't know much about the religion you are simply showing that your views are based on your ignorance of islam.

 

[husnain1]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That didnt prove she wasnt, it gave evidence to support its fact just as other people have to support the claim that she was younger. There is nothing in either case to acually prove the other wrong.

Being that marriage and sex with girls prior to puberty was common in ancient times, I believe it. You dont want a negative image of Muhammad because thats your religion so you pick the other side.

lol in that case there can be no proof of anything because each side has their arguments. Interestingly enough the "sides" in this case are all muslim. You are using hadiths to try to make your argument yet you don't even believe in their veracity so how can you unequivocally state that the hadiths im providing don't prove anything? You can't derive a conclusion based on something you state to not even believe in the first place.

 

[ThaChozenWun]

I am saying there is a way to have a constructive discussion without resorting to insults. Just because neither side fails to see the point of the other doesn't mean the issues can't be approached objectively. For example, you could have just as easily stated in your previous posts that you hear the Prophet (pbuh) was married to a girl of six years and that you don't believe this to be something that look upon with respect but you don't know the full story. However, to claim someone is a pedophile while at the same time admitting you don't know much about the religion you are simply showing that your views are based on your ignorance of islam.

But you are saying you allow no one to disrespect Muhammad. If you tell a christian their god isnt the right one, or that Jesus their miraculous mirical son they love so dearly and nothing more than a prophet, that would be disrespectful to them. So why is it they have to remain absoulutely silent about Muhammad, (IE the whole south park shit), but its okay for your religion to disrespectfully call Jesus a prophet? If you want people to respect your guy you have to respect theirs.

 

[ThaChozenWun]

lol in that case there can be no proof of anything because each side has their arguments. Interestingly enough the "sides" in this case are all muslim. You are using hadiths to try to make your argument yet you don't even believe in their veracity so how can you unequivocally state that the hadiths im providing don't prove anything? You can't derive a conclusion based on something you state to not even believe in the first place.

If I take into account that its real and not a man made sham, I can put pieces together and draw my conclusion. I dont believe in the bible yet I can tell that it condones slavery. I do believe some of these people were real, Muhammad and Jesus to me though were nothing more than glorified con artists.

If both are true, which they both cant be considering each has a very different age group, Im going with the pedo one because it was common practice during the time so IMO if either were true it would be that one. I make a conclusion because I believe Muhammad was a real man, and that based on the times he did marry and have sex with an underage girl. Again I do think he was real, but he was only a glorified con artist.

 

[husnain1]

But you are saying you allow no one to disrespect Muhammad. If you tell a christian their god isnt the right one, or that Jesus was their miraculous mirical son they love so dearly and nothing more than a prophet, that would be disrespectful to them. So why is it they have to remain absoulutely silent about Muhammad, (IE the whole south park shit), but its okay for your religion to disrespectfully call Jesus a prophet? If you want people to respect your guy you have to respect theirs.

Well if you are confining the word disrespectful to such a narrow definition then your argument is right. However, I believe there is a difference between saying that your (i.e. muslims) is a pedophile and saying that you don't believe he was a prophet. My point is that one can have a debate about anything and keep it civil. It's funny how showing respect to each other as humans can go such a long way.

 

[ThaChozenWun]

Well if you are confining the word disrespectful to such a narrow definition then your argument is right. However, I believe there is a difference between saying that your (i.e. muslims) is a pedophile and saying that you don't believe he was a prophet. My point is that one can have a debate about anything and keep it civil. It's funny how showing respect to each other as humans can go such a long way.

Lol basically calling Muhammad a pedo to me is on the same level as saying someone who christians have based a honestly completely different religion from and now think he is "God" that he really wasnt. Yours can be true, at the time it wouldnt have been wrong so it shouldn't matter except from the standpoint we have now on what is okay to mate with. If he did have sex with a 9 year old girl, it wouldnt change anything about Islam. But by saying Jesus wasnt who they claim is honestly destroying their whole religion. Thats where my comparison came from.

Ill get called a house nigga again but I agree with the bolded, respecting and learning from other cultures and races does go a long way and will eventually have us all united and working as what we are, a race of humans.

 

[BiblicalAtheist]

Isn't the islamic faith like 1200 years behind? Other religions were the same way too, they're just decades and decades matured.

 

[husnain1]

If I take into account that its real and not a man made sham, I can put pieces together and draw my conclusion. I dont believe in the bible yet I can tell that it condones slavery. I do believe some of these people were real, Muhammad and Jesus to me though were nothing more than glorified con artists.

If both are true, which they both cant be considering each has a very different age group, Im going with the pedo one because it was common practice during the time so IMO if either were true it would be that one. I make a conclusion because I believe Muhammad was a real man, and that based on the times he did marry and have sex with an underage girl. Again I do think he was real, but he was only a glorified con artist.

Well as far as the hadith you are using as your argument it comes from Hisham ibn Urwah who was known to have a failing memory in the later stages of his life and therefore other muslim jurists of his time stated that his hadiths were only to be accepted until a certain time period (i.e. before he started losing his memory, the hadith you mentioned was related by Hisham ibn Urwah when it was known that his memory had already started to fail). Furthermore, Aisha (peace be upon her) is a central figure in islamic history and its interesting to note that Hisham ibn Urwah was the only narrator of hadiths who related the hadith you speak of while the vasto majority is to the contrary. Moreover, the hadith you stated is heralded by oppinents of islam because it serves their goal of denigrating it. One further point, just because they practice of marrying young girls may have been common at the time does not mean the Prophet (peace be upon him) took part in such a practice. Of note the Prophet's (peace be upn him) first wife was Khadija (peace be upon her) who was a widow and 25 years older then him.

 

[ThaChozenWun]

Well as far as the hadith you are using as your argument it comes from Hisham ibn Urwah who was known to have a failing memory in the later stages of his life and therefore other muslim jurists of his time stated that his hadiths were only to be accepted until a certain time period (i.e. before he started losing his memory, the hadith you mentioned was related by Hisham ibn Urwah when it was known that his memory had already started to fail). Furthermore, Aisha (peace be upon her) is a central figure in islamic history and its interesting to note that Hisham ibn Urwah was the only narrator of hadiths who related the hadith you speak of while the vasto majority is to the contrary. Moreover, the hadith you stated is heralded by oppinents of islam because it serves their goal of denigrating it. One further point, just because they practice of marrying young girls may have been common at the time does not mean the Prophet (peace be upon him) took part in such a practice. Of note the Prophet's (peace be upn him) first wife was Khadija (peace be upon her) who was a widow and 25 years older then him.

Well obviously I have my beliefs and you have yours, I believe he was a pedo, since you have presented me with something that says otherwise, I will look into it more than what you have posted and try to overturn my decision. But no matter what I still believe the other discussion that sayin Jesus aint the christians version of jesus is just as if not more disrespectful than saying Muhammad was a pedo among a time when it was widely accepted and done.

 

[husnain1]

Lol basically calling Muhammad a pedo to me is on the same level as saying someone who christians have based a honestly completely different religion from and now think he is "God" that he really wasnt. Yours can be true, at the time it wouldnt have been wrong so it shouldn't matter except from the standpoint we have now on what is okay to mate with. If he did have sex with a 9 year old girl, it wouldnt change anything about Islam. But by saying Jesus wasnt who they claim is honestly destroying their whole religion. Thats where my comparison came from.

Ill get called a house nigga again but I agree with the bolded, respecting and learning from other cultures and races does go a long way and will eventually have us all united and working as what we are, a race of humans.

I totally see your point. What is respectful and what is not is a relative matter. But at the same time one can strive to be respectful. I've had conversations with Christians who wholeheartedly believed I was going to hell if I didn't accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior however I still kept it respectful. As for denigrating our Prophet (peace be upon him) that has seem to become a trend to rile up people's own self-interests. South Park, for example, did exactly just that, they got people talking.

 

[husnain1]

Well obviously I have my beliefs and you have yours, I believe he was a pedo, since you have presented me with something that says otherwise, I will look into it more than what you have posted and try to overturn my decision. But no matter what I still believe the other discussion that sayin Jesus aint the christians version of jesus is just as if not more disrespectful than saying Muhammad was a pedo among a time when it was widely accepted and done.

That's the point I was trying to make. At the end of the day we all believe what makes sense to us nothing wrong with that. All I was saying is that I don't think you clearly understood the basis of your own views on the particular issue. I tried to provide evidence on the contrary and I applaud you for taking this evidence into consideration. As for muslims disagreeing with christians on the issues of Jesus's divinity yeah it can be taken disrespectfully on both sides. However, rationality dictates that we as human beings assume that not everyone else holds the same beliefs we do. Each side can debate the issue with their evidence but remind the other that they are not trying to be disrespectful of the other. There is something to be said about a man (the Prophet) whose own enemies, who tried many times to kill him, referred to him as the most honest and trustworthy man they knew. Even to the point that while in battle against him (the Prophet) they would not hesitate to leave their belongings in his trust.

 

[ThaChozenWun]

That's the point I was trying to make. At the end of the day we all believe what makes sense to us nothing wrong with that. All I was saying is that I don't think you clearly understood the basis of your own views on the particular issue. I tried to provide evidence on the contrary and I applaud you for taking this evidence into consideration. As for muslims disagreeing with christians on the issues of Jesus's divinity yeah it can be taken disrespectfully on both sides. However, rationality dictates that we as human beings assume that not everyone else holds the same beliefs we do. Each side can debate the issue with their evidence but remind the other that they are not trying to be disrespectful of the other. There is something to be said about a man (the Prophet) whose own enemies, who tried many times to kill him, referred to him as the most honest and trustworthy man they knew. Even to the point that while in battle against him (the Prophet) they would not hesitate to leave their belongings in his trust.

The reason I am disrespectful is that people are killing others when Muhammad is disagreed with. To me that isnt people understanding we have different views. Im not sayin all muslims will come blow some shit up because of it because truthfully most of yall arent extremist. But because there are those who do say dont disrespect our guy and respect other peoples views, and then go n kill people because their views are different makes me say some disrespectful shit at times. When someone goes as far as trying to push their religion on me I will be disrespectful because you infringed on my respect, killing is beyond just trying to convert, blood was drawn over it so to me he's fair game now.

 

[husnain1]

The reason I am disrespectful is that people are killing others when Muhammad is disagreed with. To me that isnt people understanding we have different views. Im not sayin all muslims will come blow some shit up because of it because truthfully most of yall arent extremist. But because there are those who do say dont disrespect our guy and respect other peoples views, and then go n kill people because their views are different makes me say some disrespectful shit at times. When someone goes as far as trying to push their religion on me I will be disrespectful because you infringed on my respect, killing is beyond just trying to convert, blood was drawn over it so to me he's fair game now.

understandable, but then you should wholeheartedly be upset by killing in the name of other religions/ideas too. Their are extremists in every religion however, overemphasizing those who are muslim is just biased. Furthermore, why is it that whenever a muslim is involved in such atrocities their religion always gets assaulted. Many of the muslims who commit such acts of violence have political means even though they seem to be veiled under the guise of religion

 

[ThaChozenWun]

understandable, but then you should wholeheartedly be upset by killing in the name of other religions/ideas too. Their are extremists in every religion however, overemphasizing those who are muslim is just biased. Furthermore, why is it that whenever a muslim is involved in such atrocities their religion always gets assaulted. Many of the muslims who commit such acts of violence have political means even though they seem to be veiled under the guise of religion

I am, I dont think killing should be acceptable unless it destroys someone elses life. If you take a life knowingly and with the intent of harming them, then you should also be killed, if you rape/molest someone imo you should die. Outside of that I dont think anyone should kill anyone.

You dont know me to well, I blast other religions 1000 times worst than Islam for their killings and slaying of people who have done nothing. Christians kill because they think God sent them to do his work, they dont like another religion, someones a different race etc...., Jews as well as christians and muslims kill over land that cant be proven who really was there. To me Christianity is the most violent religion ever started, Islam just gets hated because thats what christian run stations choose to focus on in the news. I'm not one of those who see a suicide bombing and think "Them damn muslim sand ni99ers and their crazy asses are going to kill us all with their nuclear weapons" I know its only a small group within the religion that goes to such lengths.

My distaste for religion does not single out any one specific, it includes them all if they involve killing people. To the killers they may not be innocent but to me they are. Every man has the right to think how he pleases, but it crosses the line when his thoughts lead to the deaths of someone not sharing his views. Buddhist for example I have no issue with, they dont kill people who express different views, then again they have no great creator so it may be biased on my part as to why I think they are a good religion.

 

[husnain1]

I am, I dont think killing should be acceptable unless it destroys someone elses life. If you take a life knowingly and with the intent of harming them, then you should also be killed, if you rape/molest someone imo you should die. Outside of that I dont think anyone should kill anyone.

You dont know me to well, I blast other religions 1000 times worst than Islam for their killings and slaying of people who have done nothing. Christians kill because they think God sent them to do his work, they dont like another religion, someones a different race etc...., Jews as well as christians and muslims kill over land that cant be proven who really was there. To me Christianity is the most violent religion ever started, Islam just gets hated because thats what christian run stations choose to focus on in the news. I'm not one of those who see a suicide bombing and think "Them damn muslim sand ni99ers and their crazy asses are going to kill us all with their nuclear weapons" I know its only a small group within the religion that goes to such lengths.

My distaste for religion does not single out any one specific, it includes them all if they involve killing people. To the killers they may not be innocent but to me they are. Every man has the right to think how he pleases, but it crosses the line when his thoughts lead to the deaths of someone not sharing his views. Buddhist for example I have no issue with, they dont kill people who express different views, then again they have no great creator so it may be biased on my part as to why I think they are a good religion.

lol I didnt imply you when I said "you" maybe I should have said "one." You're right I don't know you too well I was an avid poster years ago and I dont keep up with AHH now so I don't really spend too much time checking out everyone else's post. Anyhow I get your point and I think you get mine and I think this thread has gotten boring now lol so i'm done. peace and take care