Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. Gameplay
      2. Missions
      3. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Diamond Casino & Resort
      2. DLC
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Dee.

What is your POV on theism and vice versa?

Recommended Posts

Absurdity

btw, the age of consent in Delaware, United States prior to 1895 was ... 7. This was more than a thousand years after Muhammad committed the 'unthinkable' by taking a nine year old as a wife. Similar age of consent laws can be seen throughout the western world around this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MyName'sJeff

Jeff: I don't think you can prove he had or did not had sex with the girl, you know.

 

@Nutsack: Really dude?

Yes you can prove it Alexander, there are NO quotes in the Qur'an and Hadith therefore he did NOT have it away with her otherwise it would have been there, and people would have instantly denounced from the religion if it was true. People already have a problem with Islam condemning homosexuality, which isn't even relevant to them, that shows you how stupid these anti-islam people are and how obsessed they are with it. If homosexuality and adultery is absolutely hated and condemned in the religion, why the f*ck would the Prophet be a paedophile and use a 9 year old for sex? Please make your mind up.

Edited by MyName'sJeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alexander

Only thing you would prove with that, is that there are no text in the Quran that says they had sex. But believe what you want m9.

 

And I made up my mind. I'd like to think he didn't, but as I said before in this topic, we can't know if what it says in a text written hundreds of years ago if 100% true.

 

 

 

@up: I was wondering when you would show up, Rusty Balls

Edited by AlexanderS4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CoreyDog2014

 

 

What? where does Islam say that engaging sex with a child is acceptable? I just posted NHS's website saying that girls from 8 years old start going through puberty, however there's no way that means you should be having sex with a 8 or 9 year old, f*ck me. That's one of the lowest things that you can do, and something that the prophet DID NOT do.

 

I also said that the prophet didn't WANT to marry Ayesha in the first place, he only married her out of respect due to people pressuring him to marry as his first wife died, and that Abu Bakr wanted her daughter to be with the most respected person in Islam's history and learn things from him. He literally didn't marry her for any other reason than those two, and even then the first reason didn't have much effect on him.

The supposed 'Prophet' married a child. I cannot believe any person would even attempt to justify that, very worrying to rational people.

 

Please show me where it says they did not have sex? Never heard that defence before.

 

So this supposed 'prophet' succumbed to peer pressure to marry a child? Not the kind of person I'd call a good or strong man. Sounds very weak and like a peadophile.

 

He married a 9 year old child going through puberty at a time 1400 years ago where laws were different you tool. Both secularly and religiously. You can search this up. Secondly, he had no choice but to marry her, you cant even call it a marriage if the relationship wasn't even marital. Secondly, he wasn't under pressure, you didn't read my whole paragraph. Thirdly, how can I show you that he didn't have sex when there is NO QUOTES in the Qur'an OR hadith that tells you otherwise? Therefore he didn't you tool, otherwise it would have been in the Qur'an or hadith. He had kids from his first marriage, was with his first wife till she died, had another wife because that time, he just became a prophet and needed someone to help him look after his kids, so why would he marry a 9 year old who he didn't want to marry and use her for sex as you suggest?

To answer your last question, because Mohammed the 'prophet' was a peadophile, who, if lived today, would be in prison. Understand? You are defending a peadophile, is this something you do regularly? I, personnely, find your words and Mohammed's actions, revolting.

 

Yet people see this genocidal peadophile as someone to use as a role model, what conclusion can we draw based on this?

 

You do realise sex doesn't always result in children? Especially if one partner is a child herself. It doesn't say he did have sex with her, it doesn't say he didn't, yet they married.. What's the marriage night tradition again? I forget... Your argument is sounding very unreasonable and foolish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MyName'sJeff

 

 

 

 

I have said that there is no statistics to support the claim that the majority of all muslims in Sweden are homophobic.

 

Secondly, the fact that there is no statistical grounds for a statement does not automatically mean that the statement is a load of garbage.

But the statistical figures suggest that the majority of Muslims demonstrably aren't homophobic, so in this instance the claim they are is a little bit nonsensical.

 

 

This is true.

 

I would not say my claim is nonsensical. If there was more studies venturing into this subject I am very certain that the muslim majority would demostrate high levels of homophobia. If you're looking at religious institutions in Sweden I expect the level to be much higher.

 

Take note though, that with homophobia I mean all kinds of negative attitudes or feeling towards gay people.

 

Homophobia is for example:

 

* The belief that sexual intercourse of people of the same sex is a sin or something otherwise negative

* The belief that relationships with people of the same sex is a sin or something otherwise negative

* The belief that gay people will go to hell

* Exclusion of gay people from religious communities (this is a form of institutionalized homophobia).

* Prohibition of samesex relationships or acts within religious communitiesNo

 

 

Sorry to say, that I believe a great deal of muslims fall into the category of ''homophobic.'' While I do not know any studies or surveys that venture into this subject in Sweden there is other studies from other countries that demostrate that homophobia is common among muslims. There is no doubt that muslims have far more traditional values regarding sexuality, men and women.

 

(http://www.dw.com/en/homophobia-among-muslim-students-in-germany/a-15822192)

 

I do wonder why you think the case would be the opposite - except for the fact that there is no studies to directly prove it (yet).

 

None of what you just posted is homophobic. Prohibition of homosexuality in religion isn't homophobic in anyway, in any case, you're the idiot trying to turn the whole world into a gay fest. The belief that gay people will go to hell is also applied to every single person in the world who doesn't believe in Islam, that's the catch to the religion in the first place, if you don't believe in Islam specifically, it's no problem, the religion says after you die you're not entering heaven, I don't see a problem with that.

 

Prohibition of samesex relationships within religious communities is homophobic because it is an expression of negative attitudes towards samesex relationships. That is homophobia by definition. The fact that the belief is based on religious faith does not make it less homophobic.

 

 

 

 

I have said that there is no statistics to support the claim that the majority of all muslims in Sweden are homophobic.

 

Secondly, the fact that there is no statistical grounds for a statement does not automatically mean that the statement is a load of garbage.

But the statistical figures suggest that the majority of Muslims demonstrably aren't homophobic, so in this instance the claim they are is a little bit nonsensical.

 

 

This is true.

 

I would not say my claim is nonsensical. If there was more studies venturing into this subject I am very certain that the muslim majority would demostrate high levels of homophobia. If you're looking at religious institutions in Sweden I expect the level to be much higher.

 

Take note though, that with homophobia I mean all kinds of negative attitudes or feeling towards gay people.

 

Homophobia is for example:

 

* The belief that sexual intercourse of people of the same sex is a sin or something otherwise negative

* The belief that relationships with people of the same sex is a sin or something otherwise negative

* The belief that gay people will go to hell

* Exclusion of gay people from religious communities (this is a form of institutionalized homophobia).

* Prohibition of samesex relationships or acts within religious communitiesNo

 

 

Sorry to say, that I believe a great deal of muslims fall into the category of ''homophobic.'' While I do not know any studies or surveys that venture into this subject in Sweden there is other studies from other countries that demostrate that homophobia is common among muslims. There is no doubt that muslims have far more traditional values regarding sexuality, men and women.

 

(http://www.dw.com/en/homophobia-among-muslim-students-in-germany/a-15822192)

 

I do wonder why you think the case would be the opposite - except for the fact that there is no studies to directly prove it (yet).

 

Islam quoting man and women are natural sex partners is SCIENTIFIC FACT, you can't even argue with that. Islam is not homophobic in anyway because it does not refer to non-Muslim homosexuals in any shape or form. Fact.

 

 

First off, samesex relationships are natural. You are wrong plain and simple.

 

Secondly, science can't tell anything how relationships ought to be. This is what happens when you try:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/09/13/nigerian-student-science-prove-gay-marriage-wrong_n_3920879.html

 

Third, the fact that Islam does not refer to non-muslim homosexuals is completely irrelevant. With the same argument you could say that Ku Klux Klan is not racist because it does not refer black people. If you're acting homophobic or racist it does not matter what group you belong to - you are still responsible for your own behaviour.

 

The problem with it is that such a faith is that it cause both physical and mental harm to lesbian, gay, transgender, and bisexual people, along with their friends and families. It is indeed a dangerous idea in itself exactly as with racism. It may even end do result in death of people. Those who preach such hatefull ideas are responsible for the harm it cause and there is no way to get around it. Simple as that.

 

You still don't get what I'm saying. I never said same sex relationships were not natural, I said that a man and woman reproducing is NATURAL, which is why Islam supports the relationship between a man and woman only, based on this. Because of reproduction, the belief in Islam is that primarily, reproduction is more important, and then pleasure, therefore because women can supply both, it's the main agenda. I never said gay people f*cking ISN'T natural, I just said they can't produce kids therefore, in terms of reproducing it's NOT natural in anyway. In terms of human characterists and genes, yes it is because other animals and creates have the same homosexual characteristics. So the fact that it's a sin in Islam is NOT homophobic, do you know what a phobia is?

Edited by MyName'sJeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.Smaher.

 

I never said same sex relationships were not natural, I said that a man and woman reproducing is NATURAL

 

Who said anything about reproducing? Your original argument was the gay sex was unnatural. If you didn't imply that, you wouldn't have brought up heterosexual intercourse being natural as a counterargument. And now you're bringing up reproduction from the blue.

 

What scientific basis do you have that only men and women are "natural" sex partners?

 

So the fact that it's a sin in Islam is NOT homophobic, do you know what a phobia is?

 

Do you know what a sin is? It's an immoral act. Saying that being gay is immoral is being homophobic. No matter what way you put it.

And the fact that there are holy books that people live by and justify their beliefs on regarding this should be a no-brainer.

Edited by .Smaher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cyper

 

 

 

 

 

I have said that there is no statistics to support the claim that the majority of all muslims in Sweden are homophobic.

 

Secondly, the fact that there is no statistical grounds for a statement does not automatically mean that the statement is a load of garbage.

But the statistical figures suggest that the majority of Muslims demonstrably aren't homophobic, so in this instance the claim they are is a little bit nonsensical.

 

 

This is true.

 

I would not say my claim is nonsensical. If there was more studies venturing into this subject I am very certain that the muslim majority would demostrate high levels of homophobia. If you're looking at religious institutions in Sweden I expect the level to be much higher.

 

Take note though, that with homophobia I mean all kinds of negative attitudes or feeling towards gay people.

 

Homophobia is for example:

 

* The belief that sexual intercourse of people of the same sex is a sin or something otherwise negative

* The belief that relationships with people of the same sex is a sin or something otherwise negative

* The belief that gay people will go to hell

* Exclusion of gay people from religious communities (this is a form of institutionalized homophobia).

* Prohibition of samesex relationships or acts within religious communitiesNo

 

 

Sorry to say, that I believe a great deal of muslims fall into the category of ''homophobic.'' While I do not know any studies or surveys that venture into this subject in Sweden there is other studies from other countries that demostrate that homophobia is common among muslims. There is no doubt that muslims have far more traditional values regarding sexuality, men and women.

 

(http://www.dw.com/en/homophobia-among-muslim-students-in-germany/a-15822192)

 

I do wonder why you think the case would be the opposite - except for the fact that there is no studies to directly prove it (yet).

 

None of what you just posted is homophobic. Prohibition of homosexuality in religion isn't homophobic in anyway, in any case, you're the idiot trying to turn the whole world into a gay fest. The belief that gay people will go to hell is also applied to every single person in the world who doesn't believe in Islam, that's the catch to the religion in the first place, if you don't believe in Islam specifically, it's no problem, the religion says after you die you're not entering heaven, I don't see a problem with that.

 

Prohibition of samesex relationships within religious communities is homophobic because it is an expression of negative attitudes towards samesex relationships. That is homophobia by definition. The fact that the belief is based on religious faith does not make it less homophobic.

 

 

 

 

I have said that there is no statistics to support the claim that the majority of all muslims in Sweden are homophobic.

 

Secondly, the fact that there is no statistical grounds for a statement does not automatically mean that the statement is a load of garbage.

But the statistical figures suggest that the majority of Muslims demonstrably aren't homophobic, so in this instance the claim they are is a little bit nonsensical.

 

 

This is true.

 

I would not say my claim is nonsensical. If there was more studies venturing into this subject I am very certain that the muslim majority would demostrate high levels of homophobia. If you're looking at religious institutions in Sweden I expect the level to be much higher.

 

Take note though, that with homophobia I mean all kinds of negative attitudes or feeling towards gay people.

 

Homophobia is for example:

 

* The belief that sexual intercourse of people of the same sex is a sin or something otherwise negative

* The belief that relationships with people of the same sex is a sin or something otherwise negative

* The belief that gay people will go to hell

* Exclusion of gay people from religious communities (this is a form of institutionalized homophobia).

* Prohibition of samesex relationships or acts within religious communitiesNo

 

 

Sorry to say, that I believe a great deal of muslims fall into the category of ''homophobic.'' While I do not know any studies or surveys that venture into this subject in Sweden there is other studies from other countries that demostrate that homophobia is common among muslims. There is no doubt that muslims have far more traditional values regarding sexuality, men and women.

 

(http://www.dw.com/en/homophobia-among-muslim-students-in-germany/a-15822192)

 

I do wonder why you think the case would be the opposite - except for the fact that there is no studies to directly prove it (yet).

 

Islam quoting man and women are natural sex partners is SCIENTIFIC FACT, you can't even argue with that. Islam is not homophobic in anyway because it does not refer to non-Muslim homosexuals in any shape or form. Fact.

 

 

First off, samesex relationships are natural. You are wrong plain and simple.

 

Secondly, science can't tell anything how relationships ought to be. This is what happens when you try:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/09/13/nigerian-student-science-prove-gay-marriage-wrong_n_3920879.html

 

Third, the fact that Islam does not refer to non-muslim homosexuals is completely irrelevant. With the same argument you could say that Ku Klux Klan is not racist because it does not refer black people. If you're acting homophobic or racist it does not matter what group you belong to - you are still responsible for your own behaviour.

 

The problem with it is that such a faith is that it cause both physical and mental harm to lesbian, gay, transgender, and bisexual people, along with their friends and families. It is indeed a dangerous idea in itself exactly as with racism. It may even end do result in death of people. Those who preach such hatefull ideas are responsible for the harm it cause and there is no way to get around it. Simple as that.

 

You still don't get what I'm saying. I never said same sex relationships were not natural, I said that a man and woman reproducing is NATURAL, which is why Islam supports the relationship between a man and woman only, based on this. Because of reproduction, the belief in Islam is that primarily, reproduction is more important, and then pleasure, therefore because women can supply both, it is the main agenda. I never said gay people f*cking ISN'T natural, I just said they can't produce kids therefore, in terms of reproducing it's NOT natural in anyway. In terms of human characterists and genes, yes it is because other animals and creates have the same homosexual characteristics.

 

 

I understand what you said. You said that women and men are natural sex partners and that it is a scientific fact. My answer is that men and men or women or women are natural sex partners regardless if they can produce children or not.

 

Then I have to say that if reproduction is the criteria to be in a relationship the door is not only closed to gay gay people, but also elders or sterile people, or people that for other reasons can't reproduce. It seem very odd to me. Not to say problematic; it would mean that the criteria for adoption (which often is for people who can't reproduce) only is acceptable for couple that can reproduce since the criteria for relationship is reproduction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MyName'sJeff

 

 

I never said same sex relationships were not natural, I said that a man and woman reproducing is NATURAL

 

Who said anything about reproducing? Your original argument was the gay sex was unnatural. If you didn't imply that, you wouldn't have brought up heterosexual intercourse being natural as a counterargument. And now you're bringing up reproduction from the blue.

 

What scientific basis do you have that only men and women are "natural" sex partners?

 

So the fact that it's a sin in Islam is NOT homophobic, do you know what a phobia is?

 

Do you know what a sin is? It's an immoral act. Saying that being gay is immoral is being homophobic. No matter what way you put it.

And the fact that there are holy books that people live by and justify their beliefs on regarding this should be a no-brainer.

 

I was talking about reproduction the whole time ffs. Islam in terms of sex, is primarily focused on reproduction than pleasure, that's the reason why homosexuality is not acceptable in the religion. YOU would not have been born if it wasn't for your parents in the bed, not two men shoving their knob in each others anus. That is not homophobic, simple as. Again, I'm seeing a massive gay movement here, if someone like me doesn't care about homosexuality anyway, and respects someone regardless their sexuality, I'm classed as a homophobic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedDagger

do you know what a phobia is?

Oh come on, sod off with this "well if I'm not scared of them it doesn't count, because I have no idea how words work, right?" bollocks.

 

 

Islam in terms of sex, is primarily focused on reproduction than pleasure, that's the reason why homosexuality is not acceptable in the religion. YOU would not have been born if it wasn't for your parents in the bed, not two men shoving their knob in each others anus. That is not homophobic, simple as.

Yes, because if you don't only allow sex for procreation there'll definitely be homosexuals rutting when they could be procreating with the opposite sex, right? Yeah, only allowing sex for procreation is definitely a logical thing and definitely not something that needlessly denies homosexuals something as natural as sex. Good Lord. Edited by RedDagger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Dildo

His Name is Jeff.

 

but it should probably be Richard.

 

cuz he's a dick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MyName'sJeff

 

do you know what a phobia is?

Oh come on, sod off with this "well if I'm not scared of them it doesn't count, because I have no idea how words work, right?" bollocks.

 

Islam in terms of sex, is primarily focused on reproduction than pleasure, that's the reason why homosexuality is not acceptable in the religion. YOU would not have been born if it wasn't for your parents in the bed, not two men shoving their knob in each others anus. That is not homophobic, simple as.

Yes, because if you don't only allow sex for procreation there'll definitely be homosexuals rutting when they could be procreating with the opposite sex, right? Yeah, only allowing sex for procreation is definitely a logical thing and definitely not something that needlessly denies homosexuals something as natural as sex. Good Lord.

 

Talk clearly instead of rambling on with irrelevant bullsh*t. Man and woman = reproduction + pleasure, what's the issue here? All religions have rules, just like how a secular country has rules, what is up with you LGBT activists? Just because I believe in this, doesn't automatically mean I don't count homosexual relationships as false and unnatural. At the end of the day, stop trying to shove homosexuality down my throat, you look desperate. I respect decent human beings, no matter who and what they are, whether they're gay or not, black or white, religious or atheists, it really doesn't matter. However, I bloody despise the people on here thinking I'm homophobic for having different views, even though I don't even care if someone is gay or not. Y'all sound like you want a cock up your arse with your attitude anyway.

Edited by MyName'sJeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedDagger

Are you...trying to play the victim here? Que?

 

I haven't been following this, I just saw you say "homosexuality is not acceptable(...)that is not homophobic" and said that was stupid. You didn't even respond to what I said - you basically implied gay sex is a detriment to society because people won't be born or something, no? That's the issue.

 

Y'all sound like you want a cock up your arse with your attitude anyway.

Interesting, you say that like it's a bad thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Dildo

I don't even care if someone is gay or not. Y'all sound like you want a cock up your arse with your attitude anyway.

massive homophobe says what

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MyName'sJeff

Are you...trying to play the victim here? Que?

 

I haven't been following this, I just saw you say "homosexuality is not acceptable(...)that is not homophobic" and said that was stupid. You didn't even respond to what I said - you basically implied gay sex is a detriment to society because people won't be born or something, no? That's the issue.

Y'all sound like you want a cock up your arse with your attitude anyway.

Interesting, you say that like it's a bad thing.

 

I didn't say it's a bad thing. I'm saying your so blinded by your anti-religion, that you would probably take a cock up your ass literally just to prove a point. Just because I believe in a religion, doesn't mean I'm a homophobic because I've already cleared it up. I don't care if someone is gay or not, that's fine. At the end of the day, I'm straight, the way you're talking suggests you want to force me to be the opposite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fonz

"All right, guys, I'm declaring homosexuality a sin in my household!"

 

"Jeff, why are you being so homophobic?..."

 

"What, it's not homophobic! It doesn't apply to non-residents of my house! Besides, why do you care? Do you want a cock up your ass or something?"

 

Brilliant logic there, Jeff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

Jeff, Mohammed did have sex with Aisha. He married her when she was 6 or 7 and at the time he would not engage in sex with her because Allah told him she was not fully grown enough. Thus, he said (this is a hadith, search "thighing") that Allah told him he could "thrust his member" between her pushed together thighs to reach climax. When she was somewhere between 9 and 11 he began having sex with her. And you're wrong, Mohammed did want to marry her. The Prophet was enamored by her and she was his most trusted companion, arguably moreso than Khadijah. A great chunk of Hadith come from Aisha.

 

 

 

I don't know where you get your knowledge of Islam... It's almost as if you've never read a single Quranic verse or Hadith because your claims are so flat out ridiculous. Are you Muslim? If so I guess I can understand trying to cover for some weird sh*t in your religion's past... If not then I haven't a clue what you're doing here.

 

Relevant Hadith - (you claim no Hadith shows Mohammed as having sex with Aisha)

 

 

Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Number 298:

Narrated 'Aisha: The Prophet and I used to take a bath from a single pot while we were Junub. During the menses, he used to order me to put on an Izar (dress worn below the waist) and used to fondle me. While in Itikaf, he used to bring his head near me and I would wash it while I used to be in my periods (menses).

 

Sahih al-Bukhari 3896

Narrated Hishams father: Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Al-Madina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he wrote the marriage (wedding) contract with Aishah when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consummated that marriage when she was nine years old.

 

 

Sunan Abu Dawud 2116

Aisha said: The Apostle of Allah married me when I was seven years old. (The narrator Sulaiman said: Or six years.) He had intercourse with me when I was nine years old.

Edited by Irviding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coin

I think the worst part here is that you all are actually entertaining this discussion. I mean, it's pretty disingenuous to apply modern morals to a historical figure with little-to-no consideration to the period of time you're plucking them from.

 

Obviously yes, by today's standards Mohammed would (rightfully) be considered a pedophile. So what? If you can't meaningfully demonstrate that Islam instructs and advocates that Muslims engage this sort of behaviour today, it is little more than baiting to bring up to try and make the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

I think the worst part here is that you all are actually entertaining this discussion. I mean, it's pretty disingenuous to apply modern morals to a historical figure with little-to-no consideration to the period of time you're plucking them from.

 

Obviously yes, by today's standards Mohammed would (rightfully) be considered a pedophile. So what? If you can't meaningfully demonstrate that Islam instructs and advocates that Muslims engage this sort of behaviour today, it is little more than baiting to bring up to try and make the point.

I never said he was a pedophile or insulted him. I don't believe in applying modern societal standards to historical figures.

 

That being said, I merely posted the truth. Jeff is either flat out lying or is just wholly uneducated on Islam. He claimed numerous times that no Hadith or Quranic verse is homophobic. When proven wrong he said he meant only for Muslims not non-Muslims. Now he said that there is no Hadith proving Mohammed had sex with Aisha, yet there are those that I posted and I believe between 20-30 more. It's merely correcting a gross error of fact that he's so adamant about defending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coin

 

I never said he was a pedophile or insulted him. I don't believe in applying modern societal standards to historical figures.

 

 

 

 

Poorly phrased on my part; the second sentence was intended to be leveled at CoreyDog2014 and Cypher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CoreyDog2014

 

I never said he was a pedophile or insulted him. I don't believe in applying modern societal standards to historical figures.

 

 

 

Poorly phrased on my part; the second sentence was intended to be leveled at CoreyDog2014 and Cypher.

You miss the point.

 

Muslims today still say he is the greatest ever living man who did no wrong and is to be emulated... Can you see the fundamental flaw in that logic? By today's standard he is far from that. So shouldn't Islam be changing its tune?

 

At what point do we start saying, that Hitler Bloke, I know he was a mass murdering psychopath but it was years ago, he was actually a great man and everyone should be like him. Sound crazy to you? It does me.

 

PS - I should mention Peadophile is a medical term to describe someone who has a sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Doesn't matter where or when, Mohammed had sex with Aisha, he was a peadophile.

Edited by CoreyDog2014

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coin
You miss the point.

 

Muslims today still say he is the greatest ever living man who did no wrong and is to be emulated... Can you see the fundamental flaw in that logic? By today's standard he is far from that. So shouldn't Islam be changing its tune?

 

At what point do we start saying, that Hitler Bloke, I know he was a mass murdering psychopath but it was years ago, he was actually a great man and everyone should be like him. Sound crazy to you? It does me.

 

PS - I should mention Peadophile is a medical term to describe someone who has a sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Doesn't matter where or when, Mohammed had sex with Aisha, he was a peadophile.

 

 

Hah.

 

I don't really care whether Muslims today have a great deal of reverence for Mohammed. It's understandable that they do; he is, to simplify it incredibly.. the founding father* of Islam. And yes, Muslims are instructed to emulate Mohammed (and as I understand it), this is done through Hadith literature. But you've yet to sure up your position with any examples, so..

 

Oh great, Godwin's law invoked. And in incredibly poor fashion as well (not to mention in doing so, missing the point, good job).

 

Re your PS: Again, what is the point of this? Yes, I'm aware that paedophilia is a medical term and what it encompasses but I'm not sure you do with your employ of faulty logic here. Mohammed having sex with Aisha doesn't make him a paedophile in the context of the medical term - only in the context of popular usage. You need to be able to demonstrate that Mohammed was primarily, or exclusively attracted to prepubescent children. The mere act, especially in a period of time where the social norms were far different from what they are now, is not inherently indicative of that.

 

*Unrelated, but that might not be the case anymore.

 

edit: typos fixed, thanks Sivis :p

Edited by ¥en

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

I think you're the one missing the point given that Muslims don't actually claim to emulate the actions of Mohammed word for word. Irv is right in what he's saying- that Jeff is wrong and thst Mohammed did consummate his marriage to a child, but Yen is also correct in pointing out that this was far from unusual behaviour in the mid first millennium AD. By your retroactive definition, vast swathes oof most of the great societies were also paedophiles (note correct spelling). And as much as I hate to agree with Rusty, he's right in this instance in suggesting it's only been a relatively recent development in some places for marriage with children to be outlawed.

 

Plus, invoking Godwin's Law always makes you look pretty silly, quite aside from the idea of comparing Hitler and Mohammed being laughably ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CoreyDog2014

Lots of very selective defences there.

 

Care to find a single prominent religion today who's 'prophet' is documented as having sex with a child? Bear in mind both Jesus and Moses predate Mohammed by centuries, and according to you, further back we go, more prevelant child sex is.

 

If you claim Mohammed is not, in a medical sense, a peadophile, I assume you can evidence this? My evidence for it is the documented case of sex with a child.

 

I can see many similarities between Nazi Beliefs and Islamic beliefs, I simply used both alleged 'founding fathers' as my example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CoreyDog2014

I get the feeling as 3 users have so far sunk to the level of personnel insults that the 'Islamophobia' or 'Racism' cards may get played soon.

 

Should point out I despise all Abrahamic religions, if you were talking about Christianity my attack would be there, the discussion though is focused on one section of Islam.

 

Thought I'd get that out the way, people who have to resort to insults usually go there next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coin

Lots of very selective defences there.

 

 

No, not particularly.

 

 

Care to find a single prominent religion today who's 'prophet' is documented as having sex with a child? Bear in mind both Jesus and Moses predate Mohammed by centuries, and according to you, further back we go, more prevelant child sex is.

 

 

Much of the history surrounding Moses and the exodus of Hebrews from Egypt is pretty debatable and we don't even know how old Zipporah was when she was married to Moses. As for Jesus, he isn't documented as having any partners at all.

 

And no, I didn't say that child sex was more prevalent; that's just you looking at the situation with the lens of presentism*. Many marriage customs were based on when a woman first started showing signs of puberty. Which, in the case of Aisha (consumption, not to mention sources vary), 9 or 10 y.o isn't exactly out there for the period of time.

 

It's only really through the mid point of last century, that age here started approaching what we know it as now (as eluded to by Rusty).

 

*If it needed be clarified, historical analysis, not philosophical.

 

 

If you claim Mohammed is not, in a medical sense, a peadophile, I assume you can evidence this? My evidence for it is the documented case of sex with a child.

 

Every other wife Mohammed took was considerably older than Aisha, when they married.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CoreyDog2014

 

Lots of very selective defences there.

 

No, not particularly.

 

 

Care to find a single prominent religion today who's 'prophet' is documented as having sex with a child? Bear in mind both Jesus and Moses predate Mohammed by centuries, and according to you, further back we go, more prevelant child sex is.

 

Much of the history surrounding Moses and the exodus of Hebrews from Egypt is pretty debatable and we don't even know how old Zipporah was when she was married to Moses. As for Jesus, he isn't documented as having any partners at all.

 

And no, I didn't say that child sex was more prevalent; that's just you looking at the situation with the lens of presentism*. Many marriage customs were based on when a woman first started showing signs of puberty. Which, in the case of Aisha (consumption, not to mention sources vary), 9 or 10 y.o isn't exactly out there for the period of time.

 

It's only really through the mid point of last century, that age here started approaching what we know it as now (as eluded to by Rusty).

 

*If it needed be clarified, historical analysis, not philosophical.

 

 

If you claim Mohammed is not, in a medical sense, a peadophile, I assume you can evidence this? My evidence for it is the documented case of sex with a child.

Every other wife Mohammed took was considerably older than Aisha, when they married.

That's the issue with responding to multiple people, you didn't say it was more prevelant but someone else did.

 

So, you can't name another prominent religion that has a 'prophet' who is documented as having sex with a child? If the people who wrote the Quran felt it necessary to include it, I can't see why the others, from which Islam is based, would not mention it for their own messiahs.

 

Look at the trend of modern paedophiles, alot are married with families, that's not really a defence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Care to find a single prominent religion today who's 'prophet' is documented as having sex with a child?

This is entirely irrelevant to the point I'm actually making and I'm fairly sure you're aware of this. A word of advice, you might want to think twice before coming in swinging wildly with straw men etc.

 

Instead of looking at the actions of figures in scripture, which are largely dependent on how and what has been catalogued, let's look at the laws set down in them. The Halakah, for instance, stipulates that the age of consent is twelve and there are exceptional cases of marriage in Jewish scripture overseen by Rabbi's with brides as young as three. It's far from unusual given the historical context.

 

according to you, further back we go, more prevelant child sex is.

Except I never actually said that. I said that that kind of behaviour wasn't exactly atypical of the historical era or many other pre-modern historical eras. Straw men...

 

In fact, it's a practice still prevalent in much of the developing world. Around 70% of girls in Niger are married before their 18th birthday. 30% of Indian girls are. It's 40% in Nepal and Spain only removed the clause allowing marriage at 14 from their laws earlier this year.

 

If you claim Mohammed is not, in a medical sense, a peadophile, I assume you can evidence this?

One, that would be a negative proof fallacy; the notion of proving something not to be the case is ridiculous. Two, yet again you're creating a straw man here- I never made a claim of this nature, instead stating that the same could be said about vast swathes of historical society and even Western nations in what we consider to be fairly "modern" eras. Seriously, if you aren't capable of responding without completely misconstruing everything I say, don't bother.

 

I can see many similarities between Nazi Beliefs and Islamic beliefs

And are you going to explaining these apparent similarities or just sit there claiming they exist?

 

Then we come onto the false claims about Muslims explicitly emulating Mohammed, which only really apllies to the most conservative/fundamentalist adherents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abel.

To be fair, European noble families often organised child marriages for reasons of state. It was universally understood that consumation would not take place until both parties were of age. I presumed that this was the case for Mohamed and his wife (a member on here attested to this actually--he claimed that he married her to free her from her parents or something and didn't consummate the marriage until she was much older). After reading what Irv posted I'm just left with yet another unsettling feeling regarding Islam. Ultimately though what matters is how your typical Muslim behaves, and, based on experiences with Muslims, the vast majority wouldn't consider sex with children.

 

 

 

Corey: Based on how other threads have gone, it's best not to pursue that comparison any further.

Edited by Failure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CoreyDog2014

 

Care to find a single prominent religion today who's 'prophet' is documented as having sex with a child?

This is entirely irrelevant to the point I'm actually making and I'm fairly sure you're aware of this. A word of advice, you might want to think twice before coming in swinging wildly with straw men etc.

 

Instead of looking at the actions of figures in scripture, which are largely dependent on how and what has been catalogued, let's look at the laws set down in them. The Halakah, for instance, stipulates that the age of consent is twelve and there are exceptional cases of marriage in Jewish scripture overseen by Rabbi's with brides as young as three. It's far from unusual given the historical context.

 

according to you, further back we go, more prevelant child sex is.

Except I never actually said that. I said that that kind of behaviour wasn't exactly atypical of the historical era or many other pre-modern historical eras. Straw men...

 

If you claim Mohammed is not, in a medical sense, a peadophile, I assume you can evidence this?

One, that would be a negative proof fallacy; the notion of proving something not to be the case is ridiculous. Two, yet again you're creating a straw man here- I never made a claim of this nature, instead stating that the same could be said about vast swathes of historical society and even Western nations in what we consider to be fairly "modern" eras. Seriously, if you aren't capable of responding without completely misconstruing everything I say, don't bother.

 

I can see many similarities between Nazi Beliefs and Islamic beliefs

And are you going to explaining these apparent similarities or just sit there claiming they exist?

 

Then we come onto the false claims about Muslims explicitly emulating Mohammed, which only really apllies to the most conservative/fundamentalist adherents.

Yet again, trying to respond to multiple people saying similar things means I won't be able to answer you as you may want. This is a forum thread, not a private conversation.

 

How can it be a negative proof when there is clear evidence it's true? The man had sex with a child, documented in the holy book he allegedly authored. Stating he isn't a peadophile is the negative as there is complete lack of proof to that.

 

Regarding the Nazi/Islamic similarities, I said I saw them, you may not see them, that's your opinion. I made no claims.

 

So its the fundamentalists, I can accept that. Are you from the UK? Rotherham, Oxford, Oldham etc etc. Is this now justifiable because they are fundamentalists?

 

Again, if it was prevelant, as you state, at that time, then why is Mohammed the only noted one?

To be fair, European noble families often organised child marriages for reasons of state. It was universally understood that consumation would not take place until both parties were of age. I presumed that this was the case for Mohamed and his wife (a member on here attested to this actually--he claimed that he married her to free her from her parents or something and didn't consummate the marriage until she was much older). After reading what Irv posted I'm just left with yet another unsettling feeling regarding Islam. Ultimately though what matters is how your typical Muslim behaves, and, based on experiences with Muslims, the vast majority wouldn't consider sex with children.

 

 

 

Corey: Based on how other threads have gone, it's best not to pursue that comparison any further.

Agreed, the majority never would. I would never say all Muslims are paedophiles as that is completely wrong.

 

The point I make is that putting a man on a pedestal who was may lead astray a small minority, that's incredibly dangerous. I cannot understand why the religion can't adapt to the times and admit it's flaws.

 

ISIS are the small minority, Al Queda are the small minority, Boko Harem are small minority. Doesn't mean they are not following the Islamic religion, just one interpretation of it. If something can be interpreted in such a twisted way, it needs addressing.

Edited by CoreyDog2014

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jehannum

I think the worst part here is that you all are actually entertaining this discussion. I mean, it's pretty disingenuous to apply modern morals to a historical figure with little-to-no consideration to the period of time you're plucking them from.

 

Obviously yes, by today's standards Mohammed would (rightfully) be considered a pedophile. So what? If you can't meaningfully demonstrate that Islam instructs and advocates that Muslims engage this sort of behaviour today, it is little more than baiting to bring up to try and make the point.

 

It's not disingenuous to apply 'modern morals' to a historical figure when that historical figure is still venerated as an ideal.

 

'Modern morals' has no meaning inside Islam. The only morality in Islam comes, unchanged, from the Quran. Sharia Law seeks to impose its brand of morality on all of culture.

 

What you think of as modern morality is the result of 2000 years of secular and scientific attrition against the anti-human strictures of Judeo-Christianity.

 

It's depressing to think that the struggle for reason and tolerance will have to start all over again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.