So..... Muhammad was a pedofile

Duke

Well-Known Member
Staff member
#61
Really, explain to me your statement that "11 yr olds had bodies of 16 yr olds". Really, I am incredibly curious what anthropologic, sociological and biological sources you have for this inane statement. Actually, start with context first. Compared to what? 16 yr olds? Who had bodies of...21 yr olds? How does this work? Do we just add another 5 years to the age?

Please. I am very, very piqued.
 

Duke

Well-Known Member
Staff member
#63
I'm just trying to make him explain his statements. I'm just wondering what kind of delightful logic and reasoning he's going to use to support his outrageous claims.
 

Duke

Well-Known Member
Staff member
#64
I'm still waiting for an answer and i haven't started on the insane claim that an 11 year old girl, 1400 years ago, was in any way mature and conscious enough to decide who she wanted to marry. 11 year old girls today, in any culture, are still 11 year old girls. Let alone one and a half millennium ago in a totally male-centered world.
 
#65
Useless and disrepectful thread,wonder why but not worth the time reading ignorance like this.

This is an old issue used to incite hatred.

Pedophilia is both a sexual dysfunction and a legal one. Obviously, he wasn’t a pedophile in the legal sense because there was no law against it at the time and in fact it was common practice and not considered improper. Sexual dysfunction is a psychological issue. The fact that he had many wives, most of whom were his age or older (one was 15 years older), shows that he was not a predator of young girls or had a particular thing for them. Otherwise, he could have had a harem of them had he wanted. As for Aisha, it’s not like he saw this six-year-old and said, I want her. It was suggested by a female friend of Muhammed’s that he marry Aisha, after the death of his first wife, to help cement ties between him and her father, Abu Bakr. A practice that was common in Arabian culture. He then had a dream about it that convinced him it was the will of Allah. His female friend then went and proposed this union to Aisha’s father and mother. They agreed and Mohammed got their blessing (as all pedophiles do). So, was it wrong for the well being of the girl? Yes. It was wrong for the whole culture to practice and accept it. But that they did and they didn’t all happen to be pedophiles. And neither was Muhammad. He was just a product of his time and place. No need to exaggerate and insult others needlessly. It’s not going to change their beliefs.
nothing else to say !
 

Duke

Well-Known Member
Staff member
#66
Useless and disrepectful thread,wonder why but not worth the time reading ignorance like this.



nothing else to say !
Rukas could've picked a more appropriate title in the light of muslims' sensitivity over this, but the point is valid and the discussion that ensues from it is justified in socialogical respects.
 

Sebastian

Well-Known Member
#67
Useless and disrepectful thread,wonder why but not worth the time reading ignorance like this.

nothing else to say !
Im not sure if the point slipped your observation but Jokerman clearly said in his statement that it was wrong for Muhammad and the whole culture to do it the way it was done back then.

You agree with that?
 

Casey

Well-Known Member
Staff member
#68
11 yr old girls at that time had bodies of 16/17 yr olds.

They lived in the desert back then and this made them look more mature.
This is the stupidest thing ever written on this forum.

Living in the desert gave 11 year old girls the bodies of 16 year olds...... AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

That 5 year difference between 11 and 16 is the most important part of the development cycle for human beings and always has been. 5 years is almost half the entire lifespan of an 11 year old, and you ACTUALLY believe that living in the desert will actually increase their maturity by another 5 years.

You have NO clue about human biology. Instead of asking a "Quran scholar" how about you ask somebody that actually knows what the fuck they are talking about.
 

Duke

Well-Known Member
Staff member
#69
^ Not only that, but looking at the nutrition and basic health back then, it's more likely it was the other way around. Not a 5 year difference of course, but a 11 year old then was in general a bit more underdeveloped than a 11 year old today.

Apart from all that, it's the mental thing that was really "out there". Eleven year old children are not in any age or culture mature and conscious enough to make such decisions.
 

Prize Gotti

Boots N Cats
Staff member
#70
I seriously can't wait for the day that the planets average level of intelligence surpasses the belief in fictional characters.

Until then, me and my best friend Goku are gonna go beat up some Saibamen.
 

masta247

Well-Known Member
Staff member
#71
No dumbass. Imagine what happen if you want to an black African country wearing a kkk costume yelling ******s or if you went to Israel with a Nazi uniform yelling hail hitler.

Some of the comments you idiots made will get you hurt.
Your comparison is shocking but anyway:

1.) That's the point. We're not in the middle east. We're in the civilized world. We're not going to the middle east throwing punchlines at locals. They are coming to our countries threatening people like they would in their countries while they should either stay in the middle east or chill the fuck out and behave like other people, obey the law and such.

2.)"Some of the comments you idiots made will get you hurt." - And this proves the second point.
"Offending Islam" -> (natural consequence) getting hurt.

Those 2 exactly support everything I've said in this thread (except of my initial comment ofc).


Threads like this make me understand why you guys hate on religions so much.
 

Bobby Sands

Well-Known Member
#72
flipmo,duke, lyrical start

get your asses back into the football threads

its champions league and europa league semi final 2nd leg week and here you are debating whether Muhammad is a pedophile or not.

you disappoint me.
 

S O F I

Administrator
Staff member
#74
@Sofi Yes I know this and I find it stupid.

Back in the days you would also get your head chopped for making fun of Jesus but we're past that time. Why would I have to feel threatened for "insulting" Muhammad? Especially since there are many things that insult Muslims that are perfectly normal to most other people. Since we don't live in a country where Islam is the "official religion" where you can get stoned for bullshit we can be civilized and should punish things that are not okay to us.
I agree that my first remark could be considered as an insult but then drawing him is not an insult by any means. And "they" find it insulting while authors of that drawing feel threatened. And they live in a free country!
I wouldn't have any negative feelings if they kept stoning themselves and murdering for bullshit in their own country where it's allowed but keep civilized if you're on the outside and behave or gtfo.
Drawing Muhammad or making fun of a mythical figure is not agains the law nor most peoples' moral code (at least amongst those who weren't raised amongst muslims). Threatening and killing is.

If there was a religion forbidding looking at their believers and they would kill for looking would it also be okay? Yes, I believe they would also make people feel threatened.

I find it extremely stupid because if I went to their country I guess I would have to be okay with it and watch my every step granted I'd like to keep my head.
I never said you should feel threatened if you insult Muhammad. My post means to convey the notion that, while drawing cartoons of Muhammad is an expresion of freedom of speech, it's a poor one at that. The editors who drew cartoons did it knowingly that they would insult Muslims and wanted to insult Muslims. If you go back to my original post in one of the two muhammad-related threads, you can see I don't agree with fundamentalists dealing out threats and acting on them.

The point I'm trying to convey is compassion. When you're drawing cartoons of Muhammad, trying to convey freedom of speech, you aren't defending freedom of speech per se, you're just being an insensitive prick. You and I come from Socialist/Communist societies where freedom of speech was disallowed and something that, when attained, rewarded people and yielded benefit of a more open society. When you draw cartoons of Muhammad, all you are saying is "I'm making you mad, but I don't care, because my country gives me the right to do so". But there is no social benefit to that as opposed to having freedom of speech to put your leaders to account for what they are doing or to express your opinion on something. Remember, you can express an opinion without being offensive. Drawing a cartoon of Muhammad is the wrong way of going about it. I don't mind South Park because they're known for making fun of everyone and everything and in the end, it is a business where money is to be made. Also, many times it's satirical. It's not meant to convey opinions, but to ridicule opinions.
 

S O F I

Administrator
Staff member
#75
On the other hand, one cannot expect the West to suddenly give Islam a wide berth and think twice about everything to make sure we don't piss the muslims off.

And yes, I do believe most Western core values (equality, democracy, freedom of speech) are superior to some other cultures where these values are not or less appreciated. No one should expect us westerners to just cave in and treat Islam with silk gloves.

I can understand that a devout muslim would be really offended by the prophet being depicted in a political cartoon, but we westerners ridicule eveything in those cartoons. Should we apply a double standard just to spare the muslims?


And on a related note, the muslim world is hypocritcal as fuck when it comes to "offensive behaviour". I mean seriously. Somewhere in Denmark a cartoon is printed and what is the response? Worldwide protests, riots, clamouring for death of the authors, bounties on heads and last but not least, some Islamic cartoonists took it upon themselves to retaliate. Most of them ridiculing the Jews and the Holocaust, which apart from having fuck all to do with it, is imo just as offensive if not more offensive than drawing Muhammad.

So what, "we" can't even lift a finger and when we as much as look dirty in their direction, we have to undergo a flood of hatemail? Muslim women want to be able to wear a 2-person camping tent in the west and when they are denied they are yelling "opression". But if a western woman got off the plane in Teheran wearing a bikini she's disrespecting the culture, asking to get raped and prolly end up stoned. Real fresh there.
While undoubtedly the double standard exists, one takeaway from it is the notion of cultural tolerance. You can't, from a sociological and cultural perspective, treat everyone the same because not everyone is the same. Your and Casey's idea of doing away with this double standard, on a macro scale, would lead to world annihilation, but that's beside the point.

It's a double standard if there ever was one and I'm not going to stand for it. In the adult world it's give and take, and I'd really like the muslim community to look up the word "compromise" in the dictionary.

What would you like the Muslim world to compromise on? What does the West give and get and what does the Muslim world give and get?
 

masta247

Well-Known Member
Staff member
#76
I never said you should feel threatened if you insult Muhammad. My post means to convey the notion that, while drawing cartoons of Muhammad is an expresion of freedom of speech, it's a poor one at that. The editors who drew cartoons did it knowingly that they would insult Muslims and wanted to insult Muslims. If you go back to my original post in one of the two muhammad-related threads, you can see I don't agree with fundamentalists dealing out threats and acting on them.

The point I'm trying to convey is compassion. When you're drawing cartoons of Muhammad, trying to convey freedom of speech, you aren't defending freedom of speech per se, you're just being an insensitive prick. You and I come from Socialist/Communist societies where freedom of speech was disallowed and something that, when attained, rewarded people and yielded benefit of a more open society. When you draw cartoons of Muhammad, all you are saying is "I'm making you mad, but I don't care, because my country gives me the right to do so". But there is no social benefit to that as opposed to having freedom of speech to put your leaders to account for what they are doing or to express your opinion on something. Remember, you can express an opinion without being offensive. Drawing a cartoon of Muhammad is the wrong way of going about it. I don't mind South Park because they're known for making fun of everyone and everything and in the end, it is a business where money is to be made.
It's not just about freedom of speech. Not everyone has enough empathy and knows what muslims think. I doubt that creators of South Park were trying to hit muslims with that line. It was just meant to be funny. An assholish humor.

So we came to a point where a person can say "fuck you", "eat shit" etc. and it's funny. Unless you encounter a coked gangster with a loaded gun in his hand or someone who really overreacts chances are you'll most probably survive.
It's a bit different after you do anything Muhammad-related.

We're talking about extremes here though. All I'm saying is that muslims who live in the west should adjust. If I had my own strange beliefs most people don't share I'm sure only a small group of people would respect them. So I'd either look for people with similar beliefs and stay with them or keep them to myself whenever possible. I could live by them but adjust to the society too.
It would be stupid of me to come up with "hey, I'll kill you for insulting that tree, I love trees and I'll kill you if you do that again". Or "I like to get dressed up as a tree and if you fire me I'll sue you and win". Certainly there would be something wrong with me.

On a side note if a religion sparks its believers to kill for insulting their God it fails epically and sucks big time for me.
 

S O F I

Administrator
Staff member
#77
The creators of South Park are smart people. They know very well what they're doing. It's not just assholish humor. It's bigger than that. I actually think it's ridiculing people like Casey Rain and Duke. But it may be just them trying to be freedom of speech crusaders. Time will tell.

Again, you can't generalize that humor has moved on. In may places in the world, that humor is not tolerated. In Bosnia, you will get fucked up for making gay jokes, for example. I'm not saying it's right, but your world-view, Masta, is limited and you can't see that the EU and the US are not the world. Or you can see, but you don't care.
 

masta247

Well-Known Member
Staff member
#78
I'm talking about the western world. Obviously, like I said if I went to the east I'd watch my step and adjust. I'm a guest from a country with different culture and I know I couldn't force my culture there or demand others to respect it. I wouldn't go there if I couldn't bear it.
I wouldn't laugh at people in Bosnia and I wouldn't laugh at Muhammad in the middle east.
Just like Muslims should adjust when they travel to the west. They should be aware of that or stay in their own countries where they are free to kill non-believers.
 

vg4030

Well-Known Member
#79
flipmo,duke, lyrical start

get your asses back into the football threads

its champions league and europa league semi final 2nd leg week and here you are debating whether Muhammad is a pedophile or not.

you disappoint me.
Ill start a thread in the PL thread titled "Is Gerrard a pedophile?"

Ironically, the Liverpool fans will threaten with violence... I wonder if they are Muslim?
 

Latest posts

Donate

Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.

Members online

No members online now.
Top