|
Attention: Year 2009 is here
Wishing a very Happy New Year to all members of FFI. Our new and improved site is ready. To visit main site, click at faithfreedom.org and to visit our new forum, click at forum09.faithfreedom.org and register again. Do not worry about your old forum posts and PM, everything is saved here till 31st December, 2008 for future references.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
continuum
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 216
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 3:04 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| Your mother IS a mother whether he is a wife or not. Keep spitting at your dad if you wish. |
Based on your same argument, Aisha is still a child and consequently Mohammad is a childfucker. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
sum
Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 8527
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 4:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hello A Muslim
Your post -
Sum posted
Quote:
Are you saying that if Muhammad, aged 54yrs, was married to 9yrs old Aisha, then the sexual intercourse between them when Aisha was only 9yrs old was perfectly acceptable?
A Muslim
Are you saying you object to husband having sex with wife? What�s with you all? You all seem so uptight with that. I am truly beginning to feel that your parents are not married and hence, you have grudge against husbands having sex with legal wife!
You are avoiding answering a very specific question. Are you finding it too embarrassing to answer?
Please answer my question in the quote above - it only requires a "yes" or "no".
sum |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Brave Steed
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 3285
Location: Here, like you.
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 4:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| A Muslim wrote: |
Brave Steed posted
| Quote: |
Ali Sina only debates known reputable scholars. You are "A Muslim", an anonymous person who has no known credentials.
|
Thank you for confirming that the challenge is a fake. The challenge makes no mention of persons having credentials whatsoever. It makes a challenge plain and straight.
Now that a challenger comes along, you put up excuses. Thank your for the confirmation that it is a fake. |
You need to get your eyes checked, or learn to pay closer attention to what you read. Here, for the last time, is the link:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/challenge.htm
On that page you will hopefully see these words: "As of this date (2007), I will no longer debate with people who want to debate anonymously. I only debate with reputable scholars. I made this decision because often, Muslims moved by their faith and zealotry, but with little knowledge of Islam, challenge me to debate. They rehash the same tried and refuted arguments that bore everyone and disappear. Then, other Muslims, either accuse me of fabricating those debates or pooh-pooh my opponents for not being scholars.
As of this day, I am also doubling the reward. If you are not a reputable scholar, you can still win the prize. All you have to do is persuade a scholar to debate with me. If he (she) disproves my charges or can prove that Muhammad was a prophet of God, both you and he (she) will be rewarded $50,000 dollars each. This is to encourage you to write to your admired scholar and convince them that Islam is in danger and that it is their duty to defend it. Once you write to invite someone, please CC a copy to us for announcing the invitation. Our email is faithfreedom2 (at) gmail.com"
I may have made a mistake in saying that if you successfuly caused people like myself, who are presently in agreement with Ali Sina about the charges he made against Mahamood, to change our minds that we would alert Dr. Sina and ask him to read what you wrote and consider giving you the prize, etc. I believe that those were earlier terms which have been, through necessity, superceded by the present terms that you see in full on the Challenge page (see above link). My advice would be for you to find a scholar who will engage in debate with Dr. Sina and the two of you together may become $100,000 richer (i.e. $50,000 for you and $50,000 for the scholar you enlist).
Please stop saying that I have confirmed any fakeness. I have done no such thing other than to assert the fakeness of your pretend prophet, Mahamood, and his marionette, Allah. If you continue to put words into my mouth, as punishment, I will have to marry you to a gorilla.
| A Muslim wrote: |
| I showed that his charge is false because he is using an invented concept. This invented concept does nothing to illegalise legal marriages. This invented concept of pedophile is just to address the problem of what constitutes consensual sex, which arose because you allow consensual sex. This invented concept would never have existed if you had been as moral as your forefathers, observing that sex between husband and wife is sacred. |
You are wrong, A muslim. The concept of pedophilia is not an invention, but a recent recognition of something that has wrongfully been done in the past unchecked and now is recognized by civilized people as unhealthy (both physically and psychologically), immoral and illegal.
You can find several definitions of the term here.
| A muslim wrote: |
| Brave Steed wrote: |
Have you heard the expression "moral reletaveness"? We don't buy into it here. Not all stands on morality are "different but equal".
|
Neither do I buy that term, whatever that is. |
I misspelled it before. "Moral relativity" is the correct term.
Here is a lengthy article on the subject so you can familiarize yourself with the concept:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
| A muslim wrote: |
It is you people who keep coming up with the relativism stuff. What the heck is that? |
Please see the article at the above link I just gave.
| A muslim wrote: |
To me, sex outside marriage is immoral. |
You may believe that if you wish. Many people do. I do not agree that sex outside of marriage is necessarily immoral, especially if it happens in a loving context by responsible people willing to provide loving support to any child who is brought into the world as a result of the act. It depends on many factors for the act to be judged, and there generally is no necessity for humans to make such a judgement.
| A muslim wrote: |
That is nothing relative about it. |
Wrong again, Mahamoodan. The child that might be born would be a relative of both the mother and the father. (Just playing with the double meaning of the word "relative".  )
| A muslim wrote: |
Many societies around the world, even today frown on that. It is you westerners that are unique in this, in that you allow sex with mistresses, with your boss� secretary, with prostitutes, with the girl next door, with the postman�s wife, with your man-friend, with your dog, with an inanimate object like the hole down the sink and so on.
Is that the relativism you are talking about, which allows you to do all those things in your culture, while the rest of the world frowns on those bizarre sexual practices you have? |
Not so much. Please read the above linked article about Moral Relativism.
BTW, you never answered my question. Do you have sex with a child? Understanding you better now, I should rephrase the question to "Are you married to a child?" as I understand you would not be the kind of pervert who would abduct a child from a playground and rape her. I wonder, though, if where you live you have a child bride and if you have consumated the marriage? It would disgust me to read that you have done so, but still I want to know the truth about you, this person I am engaged in correspondence with.
One more thing, I should add, arguing by analogy. To have sex with a child is a little bit like taking a bite out of an unripened fruit. It will not be a pleasant experience for the taster, and the fruit is quite likely never to recover from the trauma and thus shall not produce viable seedlings. This analogy says nothing about the pain and suffering that a child would experience having sex with a full grown man, but arguing by analogy is always imprecise and at least somewhat faulty, but perhaps it gets a good message across. Please let me know if you understand the point I'm making here.
Steed
_________________
Find the daughter killer Yassir Said
</islam> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
A Muslim
Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 40
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 6:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Greetings to all and may Allah bless and guide the Faithful,
Yes, yes. Allah is Great. He has shown that anti-Muslims cannot sustain their lies and now have to resort to name-calling and mud slinging.
The only person worthy of a reply here appears to be Brave Steed, which he posted
| Quote: |
On that page you will hopefully see these words: "As of this date (2007), I will no longer debate with people who want to debate anonymously. I only debate with reputable scholars.
|
That settles it, doesn’t it? So the challenge….
| Quote: |
If you do not like this site and want me to remove it, instead of acting as a bully or as a victim, disprove my charges against Muhammad logically. Not only will I remove the site, I will publicly announce that Islam is a true religion. I will also pay
$50,000 U.S. dollars
to anyone who can disprove any of the dozen of the accusations that I have made against Muhammad. I accuse Muhammad of being:
|
…..is a fake. Thank you once again.
| Quote: |
My advice would be for you to find a scholar who will engage in debate with Dr. Sina and the two of you together may become $100,000 richer
|
My advice to you is to get Ali Sina to take the challenge off if you want to keep your hate site up. At least FFI won’t look stupid then, putting up a challenge to anybody, but with a clause saying that this anybody has to be a somebody.
In any case, if Ali Sina thinks his time is precious and does not wish to debate with anybody, what makes he think scholars have the time to take up his fake challenge which he does not keep to his promise?
More confirmation that the challenge is a fake, I suppose.
| Quote: |
You are wrong, A muslim. The concept of pedophilia is not an invention, but a recent recognition of something that has wrongfully been done in the past unchecked and now is recognized by civilized people as unhealthy (both physically and psychologically), immoral and illegal.
You can find several definitions of the term here.
|
Your definition is from western literature. So what do you expect? A literature that supports free sex in which you can fling, right? A piece of literature that would condone free consensual sex, condone that consensual starts from age 16, and confirm that any girl below 16 is in no position to give consent, hence, pedophilizes any legal marriage if the bride is below 16.
You have just entered a circular argument. What good is that? You only confirm my statement that paedophile is a constructed and invented concept!
Please be reminded that it is anti-Muslims here who are the ones who use that term. That is not my term. So get them, not me, to support the moral relativism argument. You bark up wrong tree.
My stance is paedophile is a construct, an invention and a result of the problem of what constitutes consensual sex. That in turn arises from the fact that you allow consensual sex for so long as two parties consent. Paedophile arises because you cut off the age of consent at 16, making all sexual relations paedophilic, even if the bride is a legal bride to the man.
If you want to claim that is relativism, then get your books out, argue your case out, but NEVER, NEVER, NEVER say that I am supporting moral relativism, UNTIL you have shown that to be so.
| Quote: |
BTW, you never answered my question. Do you have sex with a child?
|
Red herring. My wife is an adult. I have sex with only my wife and my wife alone – unlike you westerners who will have sex with about anyone or even anything thing – living or inanimate.
| Quote: |
One more thing, I should add, arguing by analogy. To have sex with a child is a little bit like taking a bite out of an unripened fruit. It will not be a pleasant experience for the taster, and the fruit is quite likely never to recover from the trauma and thus shall not produce viable seedlings. This analogy says nothing about the pain and suffering that a child would experience having sex with a full grown man, but arguing by analogy is always imprecise and at least somewhat faulty, but perhaps it gets a good message across. Please let me know if you understand the point I'm making here.
|
Wrong analogy. If you say a child is a fruit, then I say Islam is the man whoh picks that fruit, he nurtures it, plants its seeds and grows new fruit trees from it.
A better analogy is this. Westerners approve sex outside marriage. Sex outside marriage is forbidden fruit because wife does not approve it. Forbidden fruit tastes sweeter then legal fruit, which represents the wife.
So you legalise the taste of forbidden fruit, and chuck away the legal fruit. The forbidden fruit however, cannot bear seeds that gives you new fruit trees. In the meantime, the legal fruit that has borne you seeds that grow into new fruits trees (your children from your wife) are neglected.
So in trying to pursue the forbidden fruit in place of legal fruit, western society tears up the social fabric of family life. Your divorce rates goes up. Single motherhood goes up. Juvenile delinquency goes up. Disrespect for parents goes up, which in turn gives rise to disrespect for authority in schools and even for the law. This in turn gives rise to higher crime rate including robbery, rape and murder.
The above is a better analogy.
Talking about moral relativism, to you westerners, having a fling outside marriage is moral. Take a look at your own society. Has it not degenerated into a social mess of adulterers, divorcees and children without proper parental care? Which that in turn, results more criminals on the streets that do not respect law enforces like the police and the courts?
That is morally correct? Or is it morally relatively correct?
Btw – I have dropped my call for Sina to be here. You have confirmed that the challenge is a fake.
_________________
Banned. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
piggy
Joined: 13 Feb 2004
Posts: 6372
Location: Godwana
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 6:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| A Muslim wrote: |
I have told you that pedophile is a constructed term. For centuries, many couples marry their daughters young, way, way, before 16. Just because you westerners want to have your fling without the responsibility of marriage, you allow free consensual sex, which then gives rise to the problem of defining what is consensual.
So once again, be reminded that the term and concept of pedophile is a construct, a creation and is nothing more than a tool, to allow free sex (which is what you really want) among those 16 and above. |
It seems even the ancients, e.g Egytians of the Middle East were indulgent in the 'western construct'. 
http://www.thekeep.org/~kunoichi/kunoichi/themestream/sexuality.html
An extract:
"The Egyptian sacred 'prostitute' (who was probably a highly regarded as a member of Egyptian society because of her association with different gods or goddesses (such as Bes and Hathor), rather than the street walker that the modern mind imagines) advertised herself through her clothing and make up. Some of these women wore blue faience beaded fish-net dresses. They painted their lips red, and tattooed themselves on the breasts or thighs and even went around totally nude. There is no evidence that these women were paid for these fertility-related acts, so some believe that word 'prostitute' is probably an incorrect term for these women."
----------------------------------------------------------------
Look here the culture and environment of the fake prophet Mohammed.
http://promatriarchy.net/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=21
Quote:
"DeMeo's maps show spreading centers for the origins of patriarchal authoritarian cultures within this same Saharasian global region - male-dominated, child-abusive, sex-repressive cultures with a great emphasis upon war-making and empire-building. DeMeo points to the work of the controversial natural scientist Wilhelm Reich to explain the patterns."
and............
"Treatment of children causes violence
The roots of modern violence are similar to the ancient roots of violence, DeMeo says: "It is all in the treatment of our children, and in our sexual attitudes and behavior. If we would end institutional violence towards babies and children in the hospitals, making gentle home birth more widely available, ending practices such as circumcision, allowing more freedom and even student-democracy in the schools, emphasizing 'hearts over heads', if we could be more tolerant of adolescent romance and premarital sex - giving kids a real education about contraceptives and love instead of a false education of AIDS hysteria - and also eliminate compulsiveness in our marriages, then social violence would gradually ebb away. Ending the better-known forms of child-abuse, such as beating of children, is very important but by itself is simply insufficient."
DeMeo again points to the cross-cultural evidence to support his, and Reich's, controversial positions. "If this theory was wrong, there would have been no positive support from the cross-cultural evidence, and no patterns on my world maps. Instead, the cross-cultural review demonstrated a 95% positive correlation between the many variables, at a high level of statistical significance." DeMeo's "World Behavior Map" which was also prepared from cross-cultural data, appears strikingly similar to a world climate map, with the harshest desert areas of the Old World characterized by extreme patriarchal authoritarian culture.
The geographical patterns, he asserts, are imbedded in the same data found in every university library. "These data were gathered by hundreds of anthropologists who engaged in field work and published their studies over the last 100 years. The data was then coded by a team under the direction of George Peter Murdock at the University of Pittsburgh in the 1960s. I took the data and made maps from them, and the maps demonstrated the Saharasian patterns which can be clearly seen. This finding has therefore been subjected to a triple-blind control procedure, which virtually insures the pattern is real and not some methodological quirk or accident. My later review of archaeological and historical patterns demonstrated the same Saharasian pattern extended back in time to around 4000 BC, which was the starting point for both the vast Saharasian desert belt, and the very first child-abusive, sex-repressive, and violent patriarchal authoritarian societies. The drying up of the Saharasian desert belt was the cause of a vast epoch of generations-long famine, migration and land-abandonment, leading to the first-time appearance of warlike patriarchal authoritarian culture. The process started firstly in Arabia and Central Asia, spreading outwards over several thousand years to eventually encompass nearly the entire world." "
--------------------------------------------------------------------
So much for the 'western' origins of THE PROBLEM. 
oh, and btw,
http://reactor-core.org/islamic-homosexuality.html
Quote:
"But the Qur'an and hadith also have traces of the permitted homosexual desires of straight men. There is even a hadith in Bukhari, admittedly giving not the Prophet's opinion but that of Abu Jafar, according to which a pedophile is prohibited from marrying the mother of his boy-beloved if there is penetration:
(Bukhari LXII, 25) As for whom(ever) plays with a boy: if he caused him to enter him, then he shall not marry his mother.
Arabic: feeman yal'abu bis-sabiyy: in 'adkhalahu feehi falaa yatazawwajanna 'ummahu.
(This rule is accompanied in the same chapter by prohibitions against a man marrying both a mother and her daughter.) Apparently according to this hadith, even sexual penetration of a boy is not considered sodomy, because if it was, surely the sodomite would have more worries than whether he could marry the boy's mother! Like whether he preferred to die by fire, stoning, or falling from a high tower! These are some of the punishments mentioned in the hadith for "doing as the people of Lut did."
The distinction between pederasty (sex with boys) and sodomy (penetration of "males") was commonly, albeit not universally maintained throughout the ancient world, and indeed survived throughout most of the history of Islam until at least the nineteenth century (in spite of the futile objections of some medieval scholars). Apparently, boy-love was considered okay by many people because, like "natural eunuchs," underage boys also lacked the "defining skill of males" (sexual potency with women). The Qur'an itself gives support to pederasts in its glimpses of paradise:
52:17-29 And they shall have boys [ghilmaan] circulating among them as if they were hidden pearls.
56:22-23 and dark-eyed ones [hoorun 'eenun], the like of hidden pearls
76:19 And immortal boys [wildaanun mukhalladoona] will circulate among them, when you see them you will count them as scattered pearls.
2:25 And they shall have immaculate partners [azwaajun mutahharatun] in [the gardens] …
4:57 And they shall have immaculate partners [azwaajun mutahharatun] in them …
One of the great male Sufi contemporaries of Rabi'a al-'Adawiyya provided a divine justification for a pederastic relationship, which was repeated without a hint of disapproval in a 10th century book about great Sufi women:
One day Rabi'a saw Rabah [al-Qaysi] kissing a young boy ["huwa yuqabbil sabiyyan"]. 'Do you love him?' she asked. 'Yes,' he said. To which she replied, 'I did not imagine that there was room in your heart to love anything other than God, the Glorious and Mighty!' Rabah was overcome at this and fainted. When he awoke, he said, 'On the contrary, this is a mercy that God Most High has put into the hearts of his slaves.'
(Quoted from as-Sulami, Early Sufi Women = Dhikr an-niswa al-muta 'abbidat as sufiyyat, translated by Rkia E. Cornell, Louisville, KY: Fons Vitae, 1999, pp. 78-79.)
Besides boys, straight Muslim men were occasionally interested in grown adults as well, provided they were not "male." There is a hadith in which the Prophet's companions asked whether they were allowed to use men (presumably prisoners of war) as "eunuchs" to fulfill their sexual urges, since they were far from their wives.
Bukhari LXII 6:9 [Narrated by ibn Mas'ud:] "We used to fight [in battle] together with the Prophet, peace be upon him. There were no women with us. We said: O Messenger, may we treat some as eunuchs [a laa nastakhsii]? He forbade us to do so."
The version in Bukhari LXII 8:13 says that rather than let the companions "treat [some] as eunuchs" in the absence of their wives, the Prophet "allowed them to marry corrupted women" [rakhasa lana an nankih al-maraa bil-shaub] from the vicinity, and he recited to them from the Qur'an: "O ye who believe! Make not unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you, but commit no transgression."
The fact that Muhammad forbade the companions from designating men as eunuchs is not the point here. Of course, using a straight male as a eunuch was wrong — that was essentially the sin of the people of Lut. But what about using a eunuch (i.e. one who permanently lacks arousal with women) as a eunuch? Given that ibn Mas'ud made reference to the use of eunuchs for sexual gratification, and given that the Prophet understood what he meant, that indicates that the use of eunuchs for sexual gratification was known in Arabic society, and was considered a use that was appropriate to eunuchs. Since eunuchs were not considered male, there was no prohibition against it, not even in the Qur'an."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.cyonic-nemeton.com/AncientSex.html
Quote:
"Marriage in Ancient Greece was an important public event conducted in the presence of witnesses. According to Martin, the bride’s guardian would recite, "I give you this woman for the plowing [procreation] of legitimate children." That was the purpose of marriage. Hesiod encouraged men to marry a virgin in the fifth year after her puberty. Her dowry consisted of liquid property or income-producing land that was inheritable by her children. Her husband was obligated to protect the dowry and return it to her family in event of a divorce."
.
Last edited by piggy on Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:11 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nomad
Joined: 01 Apr 2004
Posts: 6320
Location: Allahpalooza
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 6:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
All this guy doing is just rehashing the same crap that old abdullahnoor did yrs ago, practically word for word. Nothing new here.
_________________
"We do not differentiate between those dressed in military uniforms and civilians; they are all targets in this fatwah," Osama bin Laden 1998
"I consider every American my enemy." Zacarias Moussaoui 2006 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gonzophilosopher
Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 760
Location: Dar-Ul-Gehenna
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| A Muslim wrote: |
Gonzophilosopher posted
Quote:
However marrying a child and consummating that marriage is still pedophillia, still child abuse.
Congratulations. You have insulted your ancestors who married young brides. Like Basileos, you have bastardised your own lineage.
Allah has a strange way of making His enemies smell bad.
|
First of all, the term bastard refers to those born out of wedlock and as my ancestors were all born before me I am in no position to "bastardise" any of them. I am, however, in a position to judge whatever actions they may have taken in their lives and determine if it is good or bad. To acknowledge the reality that my ancestors may have done bad things is no insult to them, the bigger insult would be for me to knowingly perform immoral actions. Our ancestors and their actions cannot be considered automatically moral by virtue of being ancestors, not all ancestors were good people and many were probably not aware of the harm their actions inflicted; they simply wouldn't have known what we know today. The same applies to Muhammad, he did not know the harm that his actions (having sex with a child) would have on the child. Yet the fact remains that he still had sex with a child and we can look back and judge this to be immoral.
The major problem with Islamic morality is that it is both totalitarian (a strictly dictated moral code) and based on 7th century knowledge of right and wrong. You believe it is the word of god and cannot be changed even when proved false; new knowledge is rejected because it contradicts the koran and a barbaric moral code remains at large in the 21st century. You regard a 7th century illiterate bandit to be the most moral man ever and try to emulate his actions and barbaric practices.
Regards,
Gonzo
_________________
"The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum. Whenever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles" - Ayn Rand
</Islam> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ixolite
Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Posts: 12939
Location: land of pork and beer
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 8:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| By that argument, motherf� is a term used on one who has sex with mothers. |
You still don't get it. A mother is only a mother to her own children. 
| Quote: |
| Like ixolite and continuum, you have spat at your dad�s face, inferring him that he is a motherf---. |
No, mohammedan, that is YOUR definition and not only you "have spat" at my dad, you have also spat at YOUR OWN dad, because as per your definition he is also a motherfucker, since he fucked your mom.
Btw, going after the oponents family is the lowest form of ad hominem and tells a lot about your character.
| Quote: |
| You have insulted your ancestors who married young brides. |
Well, my ancestors married when they already were pubescent and they married people of their own age. None of my ancestors was the Uswa Hasana, btw.
| Quote: |
| 1. After Ixolite was born, his dad has not even once had sex with his mom � how do you know that? That actually means that he cannot have siblings, which you erroneously said he has. |
I'm not a "he". How should gkjfaithfreedom know if I have siblings or not anyway?
| Quote: |
| Are you saying you object to husband having sex with wife? What�s with you all? You all seem so uptight with that. I am truly beginning to feel that your parents are not married and hence, you have grudge against husbands having sex with legal wife! |
Do you understand what marriage is? Marriage is a partnership between consenting adults. A child is neither an adult nor can it give it's consent, since it doesn't have the maturity to understand certain things.
It is interesting how you emphazise "legal", too. What's an "illegal" wife in oposite to "legal"? Can it have to do with the fact that a man has to have "islamic blessings" for his ownership over a woman? Can it have to do with the fact that he then can have sex with his "legal" wife whenever HE pleases to, whether the woman likes it or not (this is called rape in civilized countries, btw.) Can it have to do with the fact that the woman has sold her vagina to him for use with the marriage and has been given the dowry in exchange? (What did Fatima get for hers? A coat of mail, iirc?)
You have a screwed up view about marriage. What you call "legal" marriage, in the civilized world we call disgusting, immoral, rape and prostitution.
| Quote: |
| If you insist that Aisha is a child to everyone, then in the eyes of everyone, your mother is a mother too. |
Wrong again, mohammedan. The oposite of child is not mother, but adult. My mom was an adult, while Aisha was a child. Duh!
You STILL didn't answer my question, maybe you oversaw it? Well, in this case, here it is once more a bit bigger:
What should we call Mohammed who had sex with a child? Paedophile or childfucker?
Please answer and stop squirming, mohammedan.
_________________
</islam>
"Never argue with idiots. They bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience." - Goldthwait H. Dorr |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aprakat
Joined: 16 Mar 2007
Posts: 44
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 10:06 am Post subject: Pedophile Mohammad |
|
|
The logic of A Muslim goes like this:
'It is okay to have sex with a child if she is your wife."
This is how a typical muslim mind works. It would justify anything if it was done by Mohammad or written in Quran.
The question arises; who told you that it was okay to have sexual relations with your wife even if she was a child? Does she become your property as soon as you marry her? Of course she does. Your quran lays it down so clearly, doesn't it? Does everything become acceptable simply because Mohammd did it? Wouldn't you muslims grow beyond 7th century morals? If you are growing with times, then today having sex with a child is a crime and the charge on Mohammad stands proved. If you are not, and wish to remain stuck in 7th century, I would suggest you to carry stones in your pocket to clean yourself after urination, stop using internet and computers, stop using modern medicine, use only camels for transport etc etc, because whatever Mohammad did is right to you and whatever he did not is wrong.
The point is that Pedophile may be a modern concept but if it fits Mohammad, he will be called a pedophile. Dates have been around for thousands of years, but there is nothing wrong in calling them ''Phoenix dactylifera" simply because the scientic name has been coined recently.
Mohammad might have been following the then prevailing social practices, but he was supposed to show the humanity "right" path for all the generations to come, wasn't he?
Let me ask you a question, A Muslim. How does a girl become a wife? By following socially acceptable rituals, right?
Social rules are made by people of the society. Whereas 'Allah' himself has designed human beings such that they reach sexual maturity at certain age. If he wished to allow sexual activity at any age, he could have easily made everyone take birth as sexually mature individuals. Mohammad flouted the design of Allah by having sex with a 9 year old child, wife or no wife. You muslims revere mohammad more than even Allah?
He might have been legally right, but he still was a pedophile.
Even if our forefathers did the same, they were wrong. But Mohammad was a prophet so he could have shown some mercy on the young girl. By the way, who were your forefathers? Pagans, no?
I really wonder who are the enemies of Allah. Which group of people he is killing at the ever increasing rate? Which group of people he has kept backward, illiterate and poor? Which group of people he has been inspiring to self-destruct? Which group of people he divides and then makes them blood thirsty for each other? Which group of people he has prepared to implode?
If there is really an Allah, muslims are his worst enemies and he makes them smell bad!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sum
Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 8527
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 10:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hello A Muslim
Will you be giving an answer to my question?
It only requires a "yes" or "no".
sum |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TurnLooseTheSwans
Joined: 26 May 2006
Posts: 115
Location: Krakow, PL
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 12:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A muslim has taken postmodern approach to dealing with the issue - he is trying to deconstruct the notion of 'paedophilia' - that's the easy part. The difficult part is dealing with real-life children who have experienced sexual contact with adults in their early years. Are you interested, A muslim, in their lives? In their traumas? In their psychological and sexual problems afterwards? Would you be willing to see into psychology journals that deal with the problem?
Think about it honestly.
Given your religion and current beliefs, would you be fair and unbiased when reading about mass evidence in psychology today of harmful and often disastrous effects of adult-child sex?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1959086&dopt=Citation
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1544021&dopt=Citation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse#Effects_of_child_sexual_abuse
We do not condemn paedophilia of Muhammad just coz we don't like His Pbuh, but because peadophilia is really something wrong. Firstly, because of its harmful effects on child's psychology, or sexual life (please note that Aisha didn't have any children - could you think why? - and then could you think again, if you are really fair and unbiased in your judgment?). Secondly, A Muslim, its especially disgusting because a child is defenseless against such activity.
The ground of completely negative view on child marriage that we have in our culture is based on fundamental personalist philosophy embedded in the Western mind. We believe - implicitly or explicitly - that only self-aware, developed, free person can be both object and subject of moral action. That is why we will object to slavery, persecution, inequality etc. That is why marrying a child is wrong - a girl is not a thing belonging to her parents. A wife is not a thing belonging to her husband. The only thing parents should be allowed to do is just... help their children to become full, self-aware, free, critical human beings. Just that. A child is not developed yet. You can ignore the body of 100 years of psychology if you want, to whitewash your religious belief. It's a matter of your own, personal honesty and none of my business.
_________________
Μολὼν λαβέ!!
--Leonidas, 480 B.C. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
A Muslim
Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 40
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 1:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Greetings again and may Allah guide and bless the Faithful,
Piggy,
Your Ancient Egyptian and Greek literature, is that not written from a western perspective? Would you accept that US’s so called democracy, as written by Maoists to be a representative of US culture? No? So what makes you think western writers, writing about non-western practices from a western perspective, would not be slanted heavily towards western bias?
As for your hadith quotes, the same old out of context game played by anti-Muslims applies. It is no different from taking a leaf from one of your statutes from one of the 50 states of US, explaining how to execute criminals, then say that the US condones violence.
Good try to sound intellectual, but a snort and grunt is nothing intellectual, really.
Gonzo posted
| Quote: |
First of all, the term bastard refers to those born out of wedlock and as my ancestors were all born before me I am in no position to "bastardise" any of them.
|
I never used the word bastard. You are doing it now. I said bastardising, which has a different meaning from the word bastard.
Bastardising is making a legal action illegal and monstrous. Hence, it can be said that the contorted views of the hadith put up by Sina and gang in FFI, is the bastardisation of Islamic scriptures.
Likewise, when your ancestors married young brides, which is considered a legal and legitimate during their era, yet you claim that marrying girls below 16 is paedophilic, you have thus bastardised your ancestry by inferring that they have done something immoral and illegal, when they have done nothing of that sort in the first place.
That is the meaning of bastardisation of your ancestry.
The lesson from this episode in this thread is clear. Anti-Muslims in their attempt to demonise and accuse Muhammad (pbuh), are being punished by Allah in that they now swear and curse their own ancestors and dads.
That is like cutting off your own noses to spite your face, so that you can accuse someone else falsely.
Allah is great. He makes his enemies smell bad by using their own foolery to humiliate them.
Ixolite
| Quote: |
You still don't get it. A mother is only a mother to her own children.
|
Still at it, girl?
Listen up here, gal. A mother is still known as a mother, whether she is your mom, my mom or another person’s mom. She IS a mother. Got that?
| Quote: |
Well, my ancestors married when they already were pubescent and they married people of their own age.
|
How do you know? You were around 1,000 years ago to witness your great x10 to the power of n parents’ marriage? There are many cultures around the world, even today, where marrying child brides is a common practice.
You prefer to be referred to as it? OK, ok. Just a joke.
| Quote: |
How should gkjfaithfreedom know if I have siblings or not anyway?
|
Beats me! Good question! You ask him! Or she.
| Quote: |
Do you understand what marriage is?
|
Do YOU know what it is?
| Quote: |
Marriage is a partnership between consenting adults. A child is neither an adult nor can it give it's consent, since it doesn't have the maturity to understand certain things.
|
That is the western concept of marriage. It is NOT the only concept. You talk as if your culture is superior to all others. Typical Western colonist mindset. Wake up! This is the 21st C, not 18th C where White Man was considered superior.
| Quote: |
You have a screwed up view about marriage. What you call "legal" marriage, in the civilized world we call disgusting, immoral, rape and prostitution.
|
Yep, that confirms your colonial mentality. We are in the post modern era and you are still living in the 18th C believing that all other kinds of marriages which do not resemble the Western marriage (ie bride must be above 16), that marriage is barbaric. No different from the colonial times where blacks were considered uncivilised and hence, must be chained.
| Quote: |
You STILL didn't answer my question, maybe you oversaw it? Well, in this case, here it is once more a bit bigger:
What should we call Mohammed who had sex with a child? Paedophile or childfucker?
Please answer and stop squirming, mohammedan.
|
We? We? WEEEEE?????
Feel free to call anything you want. Just don’t bring me in. But remember, using YOUR logic, your mother is a mother and since your dad has sex with her, you have shown that you are willing to spit onto your dad’s face, implying he is a motherf…..
Baaaaaad girl. If Daddy reads what you post, you will get a severe spanking.
Aprakat posted
| Quote: |
The question arises; who told you that it was okay to have sexual relations with your wife even if she was a child?
|
Is it not common in all societies that a husband is EXPECTED to have sex with wife??????
What’s with you? Oh, I forgot. Where you come from, having sex with anyone or anything is expected. Hence, having sex with wife is bizarre. This must be the moral relativism anti-Muslims are talking about.
To westerners, having sex with your boss’s secretary is cool. Having sex with your lady boss is even cooler. Having sex with your neighbour’s wife is cool too. Having sex with your neighbour’s dog is even cooler. The more forbidden the fruit, the cooler the experience. This must be the relative morality anti-Muslims are talking about, that is OK to you, but not OK to many other societies.
| Quote: |
Social rules are made by people of the society.
|
Exactly! And that is why during the era of Muhammad (pbuh), marrying Aisha was a non-issue even among the most hardcore of his enemies!
If the enemies wanted to finish him on the spot, this would have been the PERFECT chance! But because marrying young brides is the norm in the era, nobody gave a damn about that.
However, anti-Muslims today, invent and concoct a crime that never existed in the first place. They use the constructed concept of paedophile and juxtapose that concept on a legal marriage to Aisha.
As I have been saying all along, Sina has been spreading callous lies.
| Quote: |
Even if our forefathers did the same, they were wrong.
|
Wrong to marry child brides? Says who? Your cultural relativism? Who says that your culture is so superior, it makes other cultures redundant?
Are you not living in the 18th C, believing the White Man is superior? Look at who’s the backward one here! Yes, the anti-Muslims!
====================================
I am dedicating this portion of the post as a reply to TurnLooseTheSwans because in my opinion, his post deserves a higher level of discussion, as compared to the other anti-Muslims who resort to low down name-calling and sidetracking.
TurnLoose posted
| Quote: |
A muslim has taken postmodern approach to dealing with the issue - he is trying to deconstruct the notion of 'paedophilia' - that's the easy part.
|
Ah, a man (or woman) of academic literacy! Heck. Not my type. I don’t give a hoot about the arts.
Interestingly, you have confirmed my point that paedophilia is a construction! Let me elaborate.
Child abuse exists BECAUSE you have allowed free sex to occur. In societies where free sex is not tolerated, any sex outside marriage is disallowed. This includes child sexual abuse, isn’t it?
Because you allow free sex, free sex is rampant where you come from. This leads to child abuse because in the eyes of the sex predator, he is having fun. It is from here you westerners realise the horrors of free sex. But instead of stemming free sex, you raise the age to 16 before you can have free sex.
But if you think about it carefully, cultures that don’t even allow sex outside marriage, don’t even allow sexual abuse of children.
So if at all, you have confirmed that your desire for free sex gives rise to child sexual abuse problems in the first place. Which in turn, requires you to set 16 as cut off age. Which in turn confirms that paedophile is nothing but a construct, an invention of your immoral tolerance for sex outside marriage!
Come off your hypocrisy that you care for your children. If you care for them, you will have sex with only your wife and your wife alone. But because you care for you sexual freedom more than you care for you wife, you are willing to risk divorce, neglect of your children, and even visit prostitutes from other countries of the third world WHO MAY BE CHILDREN!
So stop being the bloody hypocrite on one hand pretending to fight paedophilia in your country, when you westerners so freely travel to the third world looking to satisfy your lust having sex with underaged girls!
Is this not what is happening in the real world where westerners arrogantly believe they are civilised, yet do the most uncivilised things?
| Quote: |
We do not condemn paedophilia of Muhammad just coz we don't like His Pbuh, but because peadophilia is really something wrong. Firstly, because of its harmful effects on child's psychology, or sexual life (please note that Aisha didn't have any children - could you think why? - and then could you think again, if you are really fair and unbiased in your judgment?). Secondly, A Muslim, its especially disgusting because a child is defenseless against such activity.
The ground of completely negative view on child marriage that we have in our culture is based on fundamental personalist philosophy embedded in the Western mind. We believe - implicitly or explicitly - that only self-aware, developed, free person can be both object and subject of moral action. That is why we will object to slavery, persecution, inequality etc. That is why marrying a child is wrong - a girl is not a thing belonging to her parents. A wife is not a thing belonging to her husband. The only thing parents should be allowed to do is just... help their children to become full, self-aware, free, critical human beings. Just that. A child is not developed yet. You can ignore the body of 100 years of psychology if you want, to whitewash your religious belief. It's a matter of your own, personal honesty and none of my business.
|
High handed talk, low moral values. Accept the fact that westerners form the biggest number of customers in the underworld of underaged organized prostitution.
Who are you, a person deeply rooted in western culture, which allows you to travel to the third world to have sex with underaged girls, to tell me, a man faithful to his wife and loves his children, what is right or wrong in sexual relations?
All you need is to return to practice of having sex with wife and only with wife. Child abuse will die a natural death. This concept, which is an Islamic one ensures that. Your concept, the western one, allows you to have sex with anyone or anything, for so long as the sex object you have sex with, is above 16, if you are in your country - or any age, if it is out of your country.
Take a hard look in the mirror, fella, before you point an accusing finger at others.
_________________
Banned. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sum
Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 8527
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 1:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello A Muslim
You seem to have given a response to virtually all posters except my post.
Would you please answer my question? It is very simple and only requires a "yes" or "no". Please do not ignore it as it goes to the very heart of the thread.
sum |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tomc
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Posts: 1077
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 1:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| A Muslim wrote: |
| As for your hadith quotes, the same old out of context game played by anti-Muslims applies. It is no different from taking a leaf from one of your statutes from one of the 50 states of US, explaining how to execute criminals, then say that the US condones violence. |
The US DOES condone violence. But only if commited by the state, against individuals or groups that hurt others, and don't submit to the law voluntarily.
Otherwise, the US does not condone violence.
Your archaic prophet condoned violence in the service of beating and raping his neighbor's wives. Quite another thing.
| A Muslim wrote: |
| Bastardising is making a legal action illegal and monstrous. Hence, it can be said that the contorted views of the hadith put up by Sina and gang in FFI, is the bastardisation of Islamic scriptures. |
Why are these terms in the scriptures in the first place ? Or, if you do accept them as being revolting (which they are) then change "allah's law".
Oh wait ...
| A Muslim wrote: |
| Likewise, when your ancestors married young brides, which is considered a legal and legitimate during their era, yet you claim that marrying girls below 16 is paedophilic, you have thus bastardised your ancestry by inferring that they have done something immoral and illegal, when they have done nothing of that sort in the first place. |
Except muslims DEMAND that the law lets them rape children "within marriage" right now, while these ancestors you are talking about do not, nor did they ever do such a thing. Not that marrying before at least 14 years was never condoned in western society, not even thousands of years ago. Note also, that sex at 9 wasn't condoned in the arab society at muhammad's time AT ALL.
Why do you have to lie so much to defend your religion ?
| A Muslim wrote: |
| The lesson from this episode in this thread is clear. Anti-Muslims in their attempt to demonise and accuse Muhammad (pbuh), are being punished by Allah in that they now swear and curse their own ancestors and dads. |
You know you are the one macking a mockery of your religion ...
listen to allah ! he's perfect ! his law is for all time ! ... except for these things I've changed in order to make his law more acceptable, so they'll laugh at me less.
This changed law of the paedophile would obviously not be islamic in any reasonable measure.
But if you agree to change
1) the quran
2) the hadith
3) sharia
to be equal to western law systems, then we would be able to agree easily. Just get these "bastardized" idiocies out of the quran, let's start with the extreme racism of 8:55.
So let's see you rip out that verse (and the 4 or 5 after that also). Then let's see you encourage other muslims to do the same, and then we'll talk about this modified islam.
But you obviously need to change it to do this.
If you think that allah's word is changing over time, as you claim here, there can't be any problem in changing it now ? After all, the new quran would just be reflecting the "new" message from God that's conveniently delivered right to this forum member. Aren't we lucky ?
I do wonder why no-one is talking about the necessity of changing the new testament in light of new times. I'd say you're simply looking for the word of God in the wrong book.
But the mere fact that you even suggest that actions "approved by allah" (raping 9 year old girls) could be immoral now, is clear proof of one thing : you don't believe in islam at all.
But I've yet to meet the first muslim who does. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Atheist
Joined: 02 Aug 2007
Posts: 60
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 1:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A Muslim: Your arguement on child and mother is all wrong. I am not sure that you do not get it or you are just indulging in cognitive dissonance.
Let me try to illuminate the difference.
Suppose your mother kisses your 9 year old daughter. Then the mother is a childkisser. Suppose your friend from office kisses your daughter. He is also a childkisser. The fact that your daughter is a child is irrelevant of who is kissing. Now suppose your mother kisses your wife. Does she become a motherkisser or a daughterkisser? Your wife is somebody's daughter and somebody's mother. So whom has your mother kissed? Now suppose your friend from office kisses your wife. Then is he still a motherkisser?
The mistake you make is mother, daughter etc are all relations, and are to be used when that relation is relevant. So a motherkisser is one who has kissed his own mother. Not just anybody's mother. But a childkisser is one who has kissed anybody's child. Not just his own. Mother is a relative description. A child is not.
_________________
I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it - Voltaire |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
