Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Lights on the way
by akay
Today at 06:36 AM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
Yesterday at 05:41 PM

Dutch elections
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 10:11 PM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 08:46 PM

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
November 13, 2024, 05:18 PM

AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
November 07, 2024, 09:56 AM

Do humans have needed kno...
November 04, 2024, 03:51 AM

The origins of Judaism
by zeca
November 02, 2024, 12:56 PM

New Britain
October 30, 2024, 08:34 PM

Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
October 22, 2024, 09:05 PM

Tariq Ramadan Accused of ...
September 11, 2024, 01:37 PM

France Muslims were in d...
September 05, 2024, 03:21 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Mohammad, the Pedophile

 (Read 138518 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 7 8 910 11 ... 23 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: Mohammad, the Pedophile
     Reply #240 - March 28, 2009, 11:56 AM

    On the front page of the news today is an item about a soap opera storyline - in other words, fiction is being dissected as though it were real, as though anyone really cares  - the ultimate waste of time. Here, in this thread, we have thousands of words devoted to exactly the same thing.


    False. Your takes on this thread is a silly, subjective approach that is showing itself to be very worn out. The life and behaviors of Mo are anything but a "soap opera". Now let's get to the part where you proclaim this "imagineriness"

    'This imaginary person was worse than that imaginary person', etc. What for, can someone tell me?


    This is a bit like Ed Gein marvelling at all the press coverage over the murders he committed and asking "What's the fuss all about". Well, there's nothing imaginary about Muhammad and his deeds and the example that he set for those followers who cross the same boundaries of basic human decency that he crossed. So what would make you say that? Is it to re-inforce your claim that:

    Quote
    Terrorism and Paedophilia are the only remaining taboos in both the media and society, both frighten the public, and the media, of course, love that. Acts of terror, by their very nature, are sensationalist. Sensationalism on the front page accompanied by a picture of an exploded car/train/plane/bus gives the green light to a government to rein us in and step up their own operations in the name of ?security?, which in turn, hands extremist groups excuses to bomb us. What ?Mi?amo Jihad? represents is a middle finger to Big Brother, the populist media, the brainwashed tabloid readers and the brainwashed sheep who dream up and carry out these attacks. No one is ever going to achieve their aims by force anymore, be it the armies that represent our nations, the secret services or the ?terrorists?, those days are gone. The world has changed. People are waking up and arming themselves, not with weapons, but with bullshit detectors. Bullshit detectors terrify goverments far more than a bomb ever can, providing us with an opportunity to laugh at these people instead of crying with despair. We?ve had enough vengeful rhetoric since 9/11 and it?s not working. Let?s be honest, the real reason the west has engaged upon this ?war on terror? is because our leaders will not tolerate the cage being rattled ? the fact that the bogeymen cage-rattlers are Islamic funamentalists is neither here nor there. Wealth and power require order. Order cannot be maintained whilst the plebs are rattling the cage.





    So it's all something contrived by "ruling elites" who will not tolerate the "cage being rattled"? Which cage are you talking about? The prison of your own mind or the cages of tyranny that surround so many Muslims?  Is it the military-industrial complex of the West? Yeah, it makes great grist and  you can tell all your friends about it in the "scene" but the scene is waking up to such proclamations as well as the bogus nature of Tawqacore. So it looks like you're a little too late to be some sort of punk rock hero. But then again it just might pass at some punk reunion featuring yesterdays' burnouts and today's accelerated elderly spewing out the same crap from 30 years ago who eagerly await new slogans. So remember that I have an attachment theory about you since you have no idea about what "letting go" means.


    Edit - Link removed
  • Re: Mohammad, the Pedophile
     Reply #241 - March 28, 2009, 12:05 PM

    Ansar, don't give links to articles written by members under their real names.

    "Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny."  - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
  • Re: Mohammad, the Pedophile
     Reply #242 - March 28, 2009, 12:18 PM

    On the front page of the news today is an item about a soap opera storyline - in other words, fiction is being dissected as though it were real, as though anyone really cares  - the ultimate waste of time. Here, in this thread, we have thousands of words devoted to exactly the same thing. 'This imaginary person was worse than that imaginary person', etc. What for, can someone tell me?


    Well, only because these "imaginary" people & stories are held to be "real" by more than half of the planet-well, they're held to be real by almost half the planet if we excluse the cultural Muslims & Christians. And for the people who consider these stories real, their belief motivates their conduct.

    Christians are urged to be "Christ like" Muslims consider Mohammed their "insaan i kamil" & strive to emulate everything he did. The billions who consider these men paragons of virtue try to be like them-& many of the people who consider these fictional tales to be real will be enraged if you suggest that they're fictional-particularly Muslims. Blasphemy is a punishable offence, punishable by the death sentence in Pakistan & some other Muslim nations.

    When imaginary tales seem real to billions & when billions model their conduct on an imaginary man they believe is the epitome of virtue, it becomes important to discuss him & to point out that the man(mostly Mohammed, but in a few ways Jesus too) wasn't the perfect example for all times.

    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • Re: Mohammad, the Pedophile
     Reply #243 - March 28, 2009, 03:43 PM

    I never read Dawkins but if Dawkins presented the Judaism/Jesus dichotomy in this fashion, then I think Dawkin's position may bear some remnants of Christian thinking. Jesus didn't preach anything radically new, nor his stories of exorcising demons and healing crippled people are anything but banal.


    Well, Dawkins' didn't exactly say those two things one after the other-he spoke about the OT God in one chapter & about Jesus in another chapter, if I remember correctly- but even as a non believer he did praise Jesus while excoriating the OT God in the same book.

    I too think a lot of what Jesus did was superstitious non sense. He cured an epileptic by "casting out a demon" so he might've believed the superstition that epilepsy =demonic possession. He also cast out the Devil from some 200 pigs by sending them to their deaths by drowning. Why couldn't he simply exorcise their demons too?

    What an animal abuser!  Roll Eyes But in all fairness, he's infinitely better than Mohammed!



    And as far as anybody knows, he NEVER fucked a 9yo girl.

  • Re: Mohammad, the Pedophile
     Reply #244 - March 28, 2009, 04:42 PM

    Again, we reach the difficult point of you not having read a certain book or researched an issue.


    Being talked down to by a 14-year old. This is awesome. Have you read "Comrades and Enemies: Arab and Jewish Workers in Palestine, 1906-1948"? If not, I'll be sure to cite in our next debate on Israel/Palestine and when you say you haven't read it, chide you for not having done so.

    Well, Jews or Jewish organizations could've equated it with anti Semitism had they chosen to do so.


    The ADL regularly calls any criticism they don't like anti-Semitism, but it doesn't make it so.

    Quote
    He calls the OT God practically all the unpleasant adjectives one can think of, while saying in the same book that Jesus Christ was "one of the greatest ethical innovators" of all time & then gives certain examples to prove that point.


    Sounds like a reasonable analysis. Nothing inherently anti-Semitic about that. But I'll wait to read the book to give final judgment on that.

    Quote
    However, there was no uproar over that book from Jewish organizations, certainly no death threats to Dawkins.


    Are you quite certain of that?



    Other than Israel, where the Hamas are ready & eager to wipe them off the planet, Jews like in U.S.A., all over Europe & in places of the mid East- I haven't seen them attacking anyone.


    Let me help you out then. The JDL, which I mentioned above, was founded in the US and has had an extensive terrorist history in the country from the 1970s to the early 2000s, including bombings against Arab and Soviet targets in the US and the murder of an Arab-American civil rights activist. They even went so far as to conspire to murder an Arab-American congressman from California: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Defense_League

    Furthermore, organizations like Lehi and Irgun were committing terrorist attacks long before Hamas, or even Israel, existed, like the bombing of the King David Hotel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_Bombing, or the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian villages like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre

    How many more examples of Jewish, Christian, and secular terrorism do I need to provide you before you admit that terrorism in the Middle East/Palestine/Israel (or anywhere else for that matter) is not limited to Muslims? I've got plenty more where that came from. You're in a largely Hindu country, would you like me to provide you some examples of Hindu terrorists? Because I can certainly do that too.

    I'll freely admit, as I have on many occasions here before, that terrorism is a much bigger problem with Islam than with other religions at this point in our history (from 1979 to today), but, please, please stop insinuating that other religious groups don't do it too or are somehow incapable, in the modern era, of extreme religious intolerance and violence. It still happens, and contrary to your opinion, I do not believe that Islam will always be the biggest offender-- eventually objective material conditions will change and there will be a different force leading irregular warfare/terrorism in the world.

    Quote
    Not a single Jew bombed Germany after the Holocaust.


    No reason to. Germany was thoroughly smashed after WWII, and when they were rebuilt banned any Nazi or anti-Semitic activity. Furthermore, every militant Jew was too busy establishing and defending Israel at that point to worry about conquered Germany.

    fuck you
  • Re: Mohammad, the Pedophile
     Reply #245 - March 28, 2009, 04:44 PM

    Quote from: Q-Man
    Please avoid lumping yourself in with everyone else.

    Alright, I think I actually agree with this, because I criticised Hassan harshly a while ago for doing exactly the same. This does not mean that I agree with the other points raised, though.

    Enjoy your drinking.  whistling2



    Just got back home a little while ago, around noon...so mission accomplished. Smiley The rest of the day will be spent recovering.

    fuck you
  • Re: Mohammad, the Pedophile
     Reply #246 - March 28, 2009, 05:19 PM

    Quote from: Q-Man
    The ADL regularly calls any criticism they don't like anti-Semitism, but it doesn't make it so.

    Your subjective opinion. Not truth.  Roll Eyes

    Islam: where idiots meet terrorists.
  • Re: Mohammad, the Pedophile
     Reply #247 - March 28, 2009, 05:29 PM

    I'll freely admit, as I have on many occasions here before, that terrorism is a much bigger problem with Islam than with other religions at this point in our history (from 1979 to today), but, please, please stop insinuating that other religious groups don't do it too or are somehow incapable, in the modern era, of extreme religious intolerance and violence. It still happens, and contrary to your opinion, I do not believe that Islam will always be the biggest offender-- eventually objective material conditions will change and there will be a different force leading irregular warfare/terrorism in the world.

    The main difference is that some religions explicitly condemn killing or harming anyone for any reason, no loopholes allowed. And terrorists that label themselves as adherents to such religions should find themselves opposed by the rest of the community on a religious basis. Or, at least, nobody could claim to support them by using their very faith alone, because it's in direct contradiction with it.
    Example: a buddhist who kills anyone, even in self defense, is necessarily acting against buddhism.

    While some other religions allow killing and harming others under certain circumstances, and terrorists that label themselves as adherents to such religions might end up being tolerated by the rest of the community because their actions might be interpreted as well within their religious credo.
    Example: a muslim who kills somebody is not necessarily acting against islam.

    So, yes, terrorism can happen within any religious group. But beliefs play a fundamental role in how easily fanatics can turn into terrorists and in how much terrorism is tolerated or ignored by the religious community.

    Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
  • Re: Mohammad, the Pedophile
     Reply #248 - March 28, 2009, 05:30 PM

    Again, we reach the difficult point of you not having read a certain book or researched an issue.


    Being talked down to by a 14-year old. This is awesome. Have you read "Comrades and Enemies: Arab and Jewish Workers in Palestine, 1906-1948"? If not, I'll be sure to cite in our next debate on Israel/Palestine and when you say you haven't read it, chide you for not having done so.

    Well, Jews or Jewish organizations could've equated it with anti Semitism had they chosen to do so.


    The ADL regularly calls any criticism they don't like anti-Semitism, but it doesn't make it so.

    Quote
    He calls the OT God practically all the unpleasant adjectives one can think of, while saying in the same book that Jesus Christ was "one of the greatest ethical innovators" of all time & then gives certain examples to prove that point.


    Sounds like a reasonable analysis. Nothing inherently anti-Semitic about that. But I'll wait to read the book to give final judgment on that.

    Quote
    However, there was no uproar over that book from Jewish organizations, certainly no death threats to Dawkins.


    Are you quite certain of that?



    Other than Israel, where the Hamas are ready & eager to wipe them off the planet, Jews like in U.S.A., all over Europe & in places of the mid East- I haven't seen them attacking anyone.


    Let me help you out then. The JDL, which I mentioned above, was founded in the US and has had an extensive terrorist history in the country from the 1970s to the early 2000s, including bombings against Arab and Soviet targets in the US and the murder of an Arab-American civil rights activist. They even went so far as to conspire to murder an Arab-American congressman from California: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Defense_League

    Furthermore, organizations like Lehi and Irgun were committing terrorist attacks long before Hamas, or even Israel, existed, like the bombing of the King David Hotel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_Bombing, or the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian villages like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre

    How many more examples of Jewish, Christian, and secular terrorism do I need to provide you before you admit that terrorism in the Middle East/Palestine/Israel (or anywhere else for that matter) is not limited to Muslims? I've got plenty more where that came from. You're in a largely Hindu country, would you like me to provide you some examples of Hindu terrorists? Because I can certainly do that too.

    I'll freely admit, as I have on many occasions here before, that terrorism is a much bigger problem with Islam than with other religions at this point in our history (from 1979 to today), but, please, please stop insinuating that other religious groups don't do it too or are somehow incapable, in the modern era, of extreme religious intolerance and violence. It still happens, and contrary to your opinion, I do not believe that Islam will always be the biggest offender-- eventually objective material conditions will change and there will be a different force leading irregular warfare/terrorism in the world.

    Quote
    Not a single Jew bombed Germany after the Holocaust.


    No reason to. Germany was thoroughly smashed after WWII, and when they were rebuilt banned any Nazi or anti-Semitic activity. Furthermore, every militant Jew was too busy establishing and defending Israel at that point to worry about conquered Germany.


    Sorry for talking down, I sincerely didn't mean to offend you. Well, I read through the links you provided, & I'll get hold of the book you cited.  thnkyu for enlarging my knowledge.

    As to the "reasonable analysis" that the OT God is unpleasant & Jesus is a huge improvement on Him, it is also an equally "reasonable analysis" that Prophet Mohammed is an unsavoury character compared to Buddha or Jesus-two other founders of world religions. Nothing inherently "anti Islamic" in claiming that either. bunny

    Much of the criticism of Islam is criticism of Prophet Muhammad, & his life as it is portrayed in Islamic sources themselves is hugely different from what we know about either Jesus or Buddha's life-who are also regarded as paragons of virtue by their followers.

    If you don't find anything "inherently anti Semitic" in characterizing the OT God as violent & you feel that its a "reasonable analysis"-then you ought to feel exactly the same way about any criticism of Prophet Muhammed too. I however see you jumping to Muhammed's defence in this thread when people accuse him of pedophilia, you were quick to chastise those posters.

    If the OT God can be called all the horrible adjectives possible & that is simply calling a spade a spade-why should people be circumspect while criticising Muhammed?

    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • Re: Mohammad, the Pedophile
     Reply #249 - March 28, 2009, 06:30 PM

    As to the "reasonable analysis" that the OT God is unpleasant & Jesus is a huge improvement on Him, it is also an equally "reasonable analysis" that Prophet Mohammed is an unsavoury character compared to Buddha or Jesus-two other founders of world religions. Nothing inherently "anti Islamic" in claiming that either. bunny


    Where did I say otherwise? In this thread I've only made two general points about Mohammed's pedophilia:

    1. That marriage to young brides was widespread at that time, not just in Islam, but in Christendom as well. I don't know that's a defense of Mohammed's actions, but it is putting them within the proper context

    2. I questioned whether using Aisha's age in anti-Islamic polemics was in any way constructive. Although I have not yet read "The God Delusion", I suspect when I do I'll find many of Dawkins' criticisms of Judaism and Christianity to be unconstructive. I have seen videos of debates/forums Dawkins has participated in, and his strident, overly aggressive manner of criticizing religion could arguably be considered unconstructive, and, in fact, is considered unconstructive by some other leading secularists.

    Nowhere did I accuse you or Zaephon or anyone else on this thread of "Islamophobia" or the like for criticizing Mohammed in any way. Now I do think I mentioned that some of these same criticisms are used by anti-Muslim bigots, but again, this does not relate to whether the criticisms are legit or not, just whether or not they are constructive.

    fuck you
  • Re: Mohammad, the Pedophile
     Reply #250 - March 28, 2009, 06:30 PM

    Quote from: Q-Man
    The ADL regularly calls any criticism they don't like anti-Semitism, but it doesn't make it so.

    Your subjective opinion. Not truth.  Roll Eyes


    It's both.

    fuck you
  • Re: Mohammad, the Pedophile
     Reply #251 - March 28, 2009, 06:37 PM

    It's both.

    Nope. Sorry.

    Islam: where idiots meet terrorists.
  • Re: Mohammad, the Pedophile
     Reply #252 - March 28, 2009, 06:55 PM

    I remember reading this hadith, looked it up, think that its relevant here.
    Sahih Bukhari 9.140
    Narrated 'Aisha:
    Allah's Apostle said to me, "You were shown to me twice (in my dream) before I married you. I saw an angel carrying you in a silken piece of cloth, and I said to him, 'Uncover (her),' and behold, it was you. I said (to myself), 'If this is from Allah, then it must happen.

    Mohammed here was narrating to Ayesha how & why he asked for her hand in marriage. The important thing here is that Prophet Mohammed consummated his marriage with Ayesha when she was 9, but he asked for her hand when she was just 6. So he must have dreamt of her when she was at the most, 6 years old. She might've been even younger as the angel was carrying her in a piece of cloth. Ayesha was his friends' young daughter & he must have met her in real life.

    What sort of man has such dreams regarding his friend's pre pubertal 6 year old?  Huh?
    And even if they happened to have such a dream, how many men act on it?


    That marriage to young brides was widespread at that time, not just in Islam, but in Christendom as well. I don't know that's a defense of Mohammed's actions, but it is putting them within the proper context


    Well, even if marriage to young brides was widespread-very often the groom was a pretty young man only a few years older. However, often very old men did marry very young brides. Also sometimes young girls' were bethrothed to older men & married soon after puberty-say around 12 years & this happened all over the world for millennia although modernity scorns upon such practices.No disputes there.

    However, how many very old men(earlier life expectancies were far shorter, so a 50+ man was extremely old) had such dreams as Prophet Mohammed did regarding Ayesha? Although Muhammad consummated the marriage with Ayesha when she was reportedly 8 years 9 months old & might have reached puberty, he married her when she was just 6.

    Muhammad & Ayesha's father Abu Bakr has a "pact of brotherhood" where they had promised to regard each other as brothers' according to some prevailing Arab custom & so when Muhammad asked for Ayesha's hand in marriage, Abu Bakr was hesitant at first coz the brotherhood pact had made Ayesha Muhammad's  foster  niece,   but Muhammad managed to convince him.

    And what according to Muhammad was the catalyst that led to his marrying Ayesha? He had a dream, actually a couple of dreams where he saw Angel Gabriel carrying Ayesha on a piece of cloth...

    Ayesha was his closest friend's daughter & he must have met her in real life. How many men, in whatever era have such dreams regarding their friend's 6 year old girl?Even if they happened to have such dreams, wouldn't they, or oughtn't they to be embarrased by it rather than asking for their friend's little girl's hand in marriage?

    Also an almost 9 year old might have reached puberty, but for a 6 year old its near impossible. As Abu Bakr was Muhammad's friend for quite some time & as Ayesha was little enough to be carried on a cloth, she was 6 or younger. How many men in ancient times met their friend's little daughter, had such a dream & promptly decided to marry her despite the fact that he was her father's "brother" by a pact & thus her foster uncle? 001_wub

    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • Re: Mohammad, the Pedophile
     Reply #253 - March 28, 2009, 06:57 PM



    Is so!

    fuck you
  • Re: Mohammad, the Pedophile
     Reply #254 - March 28, 2009, 06:59 PM

    Buncha stuff


    Rashna, don't get me wrong. Some of that shit written about Mohammed and Aisha is downright creepy and disgusting. Putting it in context and questioning the criticism's usefulness in no way changes that.

    fuck you
  • Re: Mohammad, the Pedophile
     Reply #255 - March 28, 2009, 07:15 PM

    Buncha stuff


    Rashna, don't get me wrong. Some of that shit written about Mohammed and Aisha is downright creepy and disgusting. Putting it in context.


    Putting it in context makes things worse. Although older men married very young women all over the world & in Saudi as well, people in Saudi at Muhammad's time respected brotherhood pacts. A daughter of such a foster brother was regarded as a niece & men did not marry their foster nieces.

    Also while there were often dynastic alliances between older men & very young, sometimes even pre pubertal women whose marriages were consummated right after or sometimes even before the bride reached puberty- how many men met their foster brother's pretty little 6 year old, felt attracted enough to see her twice in a dream & felt horny enough to marry her despite his friend's objections that she was like his niece?

    Such things didn't even happen in context. Not in Saudi(hence Abu Bakr's objections that she's his "niece") & anywhere else too, it wouldn't be a dynastic alliance but a clearly evident case of a very old fellow who felt attracted to a child barely out of her diapers to want to wed & bed her! Tongue

    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • Re: Mohammad, the Pedophile
     Reply #256 - March 28, 2009, 07:57 PM


    Is not.  Tongue

    Islam: where idiots meet terrorists.
  • Re: Mohammad, the Pedophile
     Reply #257 - March 28, 2009, 09:08 PM

    Buncha stuff


    Rashna, don't get me wrong. Some of that shit written about Mohammed and Aisha is downright creepy and disgusting. Putting it in context.


    Putting it in context makes things worse. Although older men married very young women all over the world & in Saudi as well, people in Saudi at Muhammad's time respected brotherhood pacts. A daughter of such a foster brother was regarded as a niece & men did not marry their foster nieces.

    Also while there were often dynastic alliances between older men & very young, sometimes even pre pubertal women whose marriages were consummated right after or sometimes even before the bride reached puberty- how many men met their foster brother's pretty little 6 year old, felt attracted enough to see her twice in a dream & felt horny enough to marry her despite his friend's objections that she was like his niece?

    Such things didn't even happen in context. Not in Saudi(hence Abu Bakr's objections that she's his "niece") & anywhere else too, it wouldn't be a dynastic alliance but a clearly evident case of a very old fellow who felt attracted to a child barely out of her diapers to want to wed & bed her! Tongue


    Sure, if you want to believe all those lies.

    fuck you
  • Re: Mohammad, the Pedophile
     Reply #258 - March 28, 2009, 09:26 PM

    Quote from: Q-Man
    Sure, if you want to believe all those lies.

    Who exactly has a Manichaean worldview, I wonder? Roll Eyes

    Islam: where idiots meet terrorists.
  • Re: Mohammad, the Pedophile
     Reply #259 - March 28, 2009, 09:29 PM

    Quote from: Q-Man
    Sure, if you want to believe all those lies.

    Who exactly has a Manichaean worldview, I wonder? Roll Eyes


    I'm just yankin her chain. I actually thought Rashna made an excellent point.

    fuck you
  • Re: Mohammad, the Pedophile
     Reply #260 - March 29, 2009, 06:40 AM

    Sure, if you want to believe all those lies.


    Who's believing lies here Q-Man? Whatever claims I made regarding Prophet Muhammad's marriage to Ayesha comes from authentic sources-in fact they come from the most authentic collection of hadiths- namely the Sahih Bukhari. Here's the hadith regarding Abu Bakr's objection to marry his daughter to his foster "brother" Muhammad:

    Sahih Bukhari 7.18
    Narrated 'Ursa:
    The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for 'Aisha's hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said "But I am your brother." The Prophet said, "You are my brother in Allah's religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry."


    And what led Prophet Muhammad to ask for 6 year old Ayesha's hand, according to his own statement? Having come across Ayesha in real life from the time she was a baby, he felt attracted enough to her to see her twice in a dream, the next thing he did was to ask for her hand from her father, overriding his objections that they're "brothers" & such a match between foster uncle & niece is inappropriate.

    Incidentally, if the Bukhari hadiths are false, Muslims should stop praying five times daily coz no such statement is there in the Quran. The Quran in itself does not have enough material to make a complete new faith, the hadiths, especially the two authentic collections of Sahih Bukhari & Sahih Muslim expand on the themes in the Quran & give additional directives to Muslims regarding their faith.

    Of course, it might all very well be lies. Its possible that even Prophet Muhammad never existed, the whole story was cooked up by 7th century Arabs for their self aggrandisement & as a vehicle of world conquest-but since the stories exist & they're held to be true by a billion+ people, I'm questioning the story.

    Incidentally was Dawkins believing lies about the OT God when he denounced that God as "The most unpleasant character?" Nope, he wasn't. He himself has no belief in the Divine, he was simply criticising the idea of the OT God & claiming that such a God is unworthy of worship.

    And why does every argument have to meet your criteria of "constructive" to be worthy of discussion?Dawkins has an aggressive stance, he hopes to wean people away from the belief in God I think his arguments are neither constructive nor destructive-they're certainly entertaining. Does it mean that the man, who's otherwise a harmless, law abiding citizen ought to be silenced?

    When we discuss the lives of Hollywood celebs, how is it constructive? Perhaps it causes a great deal of anguish to the children of actors when their parents' romances are scrutinized, does this mean that all such gossip magazines ought to be banned?

    We endlessly discuss all issues in the public sphere, from Clinton's affairs to Sarah Palin's daughter, should every journalist think twice before discussing lurid details of politician's personal lives?

    Everythig under the sun, every topic which effects people in large numbers ought to be discussed & the Quran or Prophet Muhammad's life are no exception to this rule-nor should it be. We have a right to denounce Prophet Muhammad just like the OT\Torah God & we have a right to discuss the sordid details of the Prophet's life just like we discuss the life of any other public figure.  mysmilie_977

    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • Re: Mohammad, the Pedophile
     Reply #261 - March 29, 2009, 07:32 AM

    I have to agree with those who, on technical grounds, are disinclined to use the term pedophile for Mohammed.  The best argument for this is not the historical/cultural relativism point offered by Hassan, but rather the definition of the word itself, by which it must involve repeated offenses and not just one.  A pedophile's pathology is serial.  While we do call serial killers "murderers", we do not call all murderers "serial killers" if they have only killed one or two people.  And, of course, behind the serial aspect of the pathology is the obsessiveness that comes from repeated behavior.

    Does this let Mohammed off the hook for fucking a 9-year-old girl, and for continuing to fuck her until he died?  Of course not. 

    Does this let Muslims in our modern times off the hook for praising Mohammed as the "best model of conduct" for all time and as the "most perfect human"?  Of course not.

    That is the real point here.

    How can we tell the difference between harmless Muslims, and dangerous Muslims?
  • Re: Mohammad, the Pedophile
     Reply #262 - March 29, 2009, 07:46 AM

    I have to agree with those who, on technical grounds, are disinclined to use the term pedophile for Mohammed.  The best argument for this is not the historical/cultural relativism point offered by Hassan, but rather the definition of the word itself, by which it must involve repeated offenses and not just one.  A pedophile's pathology is serial.  While we do call serial killers "murderers", we do not call all murderers "serial killers" if they have only killed one or two people.  And, of course, behind the serial aspect of the pathology is the obsessiveness that comes from repeated behavior.




    I disagree about the repeated behaviour definition of pedophilia. If a man has sex with an underage girl/boy, whether that is the sole offence, he is prosecuted for pedophilia.

    The exact definition in the dictionary states child or children.

    Your example of calling a murderer a serial killer is a weak one, since both are crimes of homicide. What would you call a man who engaged in sexual acts with an underage child (singular), then, if a murderer is a murderer for killing one, and a serial killer is a serial killer for the death of many?
  • Re: Mohammad, the Pedophile
     Reply #263 - March 29, 2009, 07:56 AM

    I have to agree with those who, on technical grounds, are disinclined to use the term pedophile for Mohammed.  The best argument for this is not the historical/cultural relativism point offered by Hassan, but rather the definition of the word itself, by which it must involve repeated offenses and not just one.  A pedophile's pathology is serial.  While we do call serial killers "murderers", we do not call all murderers "serial killers" if they have only killed one or two people.  And, of course, behind the serial aspect of the pathology is the obsessiveness that comes from repeated behavior.




    I disagree about the repeated behaviour definition of pedophilia. If a man has sex with an underage girl/boy, whether that is the sole offence, he is prosecuted for pedophilia.

    The exact definition in the dictionary states child or children.

    Your example of calling a murderer a serial killer is a weak one, since both are crimes of homicide. What would you call a man who engaged in sexual acts with an underage child (singular), then, if a murderer is a murderer for killing one, and a serial killer is a serial killer for the death of many?


    Well, Muhammad according to his earliest biographer also hoped to enter into another union with another little girl-this time a crawling baby. Here's that bit:

    In the Sirat Rasul Muhammad himself, wanted to marry a crawling baby girl a few years before his death. This happened after he married A?isha. The following citation is from the book of Sirat Rasul Allah by Ibn Ishak, the most authentic biographer of Muhammad (pbuh) Most other biographies are based on this monumental work by Ibn Ishak/Ibn Hisham
    (Suhayli, ii.79: In the riwaya of Yunus I.I recorded that the apostle saw her (Ummu?l-Fadl) when she was baby crawling before him and said, ?If she grows up and I am still alive I will marry her.? But he died before she grew up and Sufyan b. al-Aswad b. Abdu?l-Asad al-Makhzumi married her and she bore him Rizq and Lubaba?.(ref.10, p. 311)

    In the events leading up to Muhammad's marriage with Ayesha, we see that he had a dream where the child Ayesha was carried to him on a piece of cloth, & this caused him to rush to his friend Abu Bakr's house & promptly ask for Ayesha's hand in marriage, although she was his adopted niece. Since Muhammad wed Ayesha when she was just 6, although he waited until she was almost 9 to bed her, he must have had the dream regarding his best friend's little girl when she was barely 6 or younger, young enough apparently to be carried on a piece of cloth.

    In the Sira, we see that Muhammad wanted to marry another crawling baby, as soon as she grew up, when he was old & frail enough to wonder whether he'd last a few years more until she became marriageable! Wink

    Had Muhammad wed Umm Fadl too, he'd have been a repeat offender. Death prevented him from this second alliance, but we see something of a disturbing pattern here, Muhammad meets children, is overcome with desire  001_wub & hopes to wed & bed them as soon as possible...

    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • Re: Mohammad, the Pedophile
     Reply #264 - March 29, 2009, 08:38 AM

    Rashna,

    In one sense you're right about "pedophilia" -- the definition does not depend upon a serial aspect, apparently.

    However, I don't think modern Western countries actually use the word "pedophile" in their legal language for prosecution.

    But these are beside the point, as my last post tried to argue.  The point is that Muslims revere Mohammed as the "best model of conduct" for all time and as the "most perfect human", even though he had sex with a 9 year old girl.

    As for other instances, such as the Sira about the baby you mention, I'll have to nail down that citation source before I'm comfortable using it.

    There is another instance of pedophilia in Muhammad, documented in Bukhari:

    ...I left with him until we reached the mosque. He sat down and wrapped himself in his garment. Then he said, 'Where is the little one? Call the little one to me.' Hasan came running and jumped into his lap. Then he put his hand in his beard. Then the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, opened his mouth and put his tongue in his mouth. Then he said, O Allah, I love him, so love him and the one who loves him!'


    http://www.sunnipath.com/Library/Hadith/H0003P0046.aspx

    How can we tell the difference between harmless Muslims, and dangerous Muslims?
  • Re: Mohammad, the Pedophile
     Reply #265 - March 29, 2009, 09:04 AM

    Rashna,

    In one sense you're right about "pedophilia" -- the definition does not depend upon a serial aspect, apparently.

    However, I don't think modern Western countries actually use the word "pedophile" in their legal language for prosecution.


    Doesn't matter if they use the term pedophilia or child sex offender, they still imprison a man if he has sexual contact with an underage child, or children.

    Rashna, I had no idea about that! Thanks for that bit of info.
  • Re: Mohammad, the Pedophile
     Reply #266 - March 29, 2009, 09:35 AM

    Sure, if you want to believe all those lies.


    Who's believing lies here Q-Man? --Edited for brevity--



    Rashna, read my reply to Zaephon posted just above the one of yours I just quoted. You must have missed it. The "lies" post was a joke-- I actually didn't disagree with anything you wrote in that post, I was just messin with ya. Pulling people's chains is a fundamental aspect of my personality and I do it all the time, online and off.

    fuck you
  • Re: Mohammad, the Pedophile
     Reply #267 - March 29, 2009, 11:14 AM

    ...I left with him until we reached the mosque. He sat down and wrapped himself in his garment. Then he said, 'Where is the little one? Call the little one to me.' Hasan came running and jumped into his lap. Then he put his hand in his beard. Then the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, opened his mouth and put his tongue in his mouth. Then he said, O Allah, I love him, so love him and the one who loves him!' (Sahih Bukhari 1183.)



    this is a very different scenario. Not only does it turn the prophet into a homosexual (not that I have a problem with it, but I am sure Muslims would) but he is having relations without beng married to them?


    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Mohammad, the Pedophile
     Reply #268 - March 29, 2009, 01:40 PM

    As to the "reasonable analysis" that the OT God is unpleasant & Jesus is a huge improvement on Him, it is also an equally "reasonable analysis" that Prophet Mohammed is an unsavoury character compared to Buddha or Jesus-two other founders of world religions. Nothing inherently "anti Islamic" in claiming that either. bunny


    Where did I say otherwise? In this thread I've only made two general points about Mohammed's pedophilia:

    1. That marriage to young brides was widespread at that time, not just in Islam, but in Christendom as well. I don't know that's a defense of Mohammed's actions, but it is putting them within the proper context

    Only answering to point 1:

    Marriage to girls who did not display secondary sexual traits was so rare as to be non-existent. The only evidence i ever read about 'wide spread pedophilia in the west' is few 'honest-to-god-pedophile' kings and the rest of the young inter-marriages can be chalked off to politics and inter-marrying royal/noble blood. It just was not accepted within the normal population.

    "Ask the slave girl; she will tell you the truth.' So the Apostle called Burayra to ask her. Ali got up and gave her a violent beating first, saying, 'Tell the Apostle the truth.'"
  • Re: Mohammad, the Pedophile
     Reply #269 - March 29, 2009, 01:55 PM

    I think there was a way marriages of very young women to much older men can & did happen:

    There was a diplomatic alliance between the girl's Daddy & the groom & girl was given simply as chattel. In this instance, the groom did not usually lust for the girl before asking for her hand although they did have sexual relations after marriage, with all that it entails.In this case, the groom would not fit the psychological definition of pedophilia, he was simply behaving according to prevalent cultural norms although he could certainly be arrested for pedophilia had he behaved likewise at the current date.

    Muhammad & Ayesha's marriage did not conform to this pattern, Muhammad in his own words has seen little  Ayesha in real life, had a couple of dreams where he saw the child carried on a piece of cloth & so went to her father to ask for her hand, overriding his objections that they were "brothers" by a pact.

    Thus in the way the incident is recollected by Muhammad himself, it wasn't just a diplomatic alliance-clearly Muhammad had first lusted for a pre pubertal child which caused to dream about her & want to bed her by wedding her, inspite of the brotherhood pact.

    This does bring it rather close to the clinical definition of pedophilia.


    There is another instance of pedophilia in Muhammad, documented in Bukhari:

    ...I left with him until we reached the mosque. He sat down and wrapped himself in his garment. Then he said, 'Where is the little one? Call the little one to me.' Hasan came running and jumped into his lap. Then he put his hand in his beard. Then the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, opened his mouth and put his tongue in his mouth. Then he said, O Allah, I love him, so love him and the one who loves him!'


    http://www.sunnipath.com/Library/Hadith/H0003P0046.aspx


    Unless putting tongues in kids' mouths was an accepted way of expressing affection in Muhammad's society, it seems he was again abusing a child. Hasan was his grandson right? How horrible! furious

    Fatimah shouldn't have let her perv father come anywhere near her children! finmad



    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • Previous page 1 ... 7 8 910 11 ... 23 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »