So..... Muhammad was a pedofile

Jurhum

Well-Known Member
In general you're right about how it needs to come from both sides, but one side can also push it. There's simply "having respect" and then there's having to go change legislation, procedures etc etc all for the sake of one specific community. That's the double standard that pisses a lot of westerners off. Like the example Rukas used earlier in one of these two threads. A cyclist had to take off his helmet and glasses but a women in a "thingy" could go right in. Now, would I really give a shit in real life? No, it does not affect me. But it's still a "wait, what?" moment.
The bank can and have the right to ban women wearing nigab from entering if it deemed it a security issue. Anyway, a woman that wears nigab needs to also now that she cant go out without a male , either brother, son or husband or someone that can't marry her called mahram.

No one is arguing that single entities have the right to do what they want. But when gov't take it upon themselves to ban citizens from exercising their rights to certain things. that's when we are crossing the line.
 

Duke

Well-Known Member
Staff member
to illmatic

^ that is simply what I have been trying to say.

While no one argued that it wasn't offensive and without meaning, the bigger underlying issue, here and in the other thread, is that you seem to at least partially defend the often violent reactions coming from the muslim corner. Like when it's said that "while the Muhammad cartoons are indeed offensive and stupid, it's still wrong to wanna kill the guy that made the drawing", you seem to just "shrug" and say "well you shouldn't piss us off".

How do you, as a muslim, as a person and as probably not a fundamentalistic terrorist, feel about the massive protests after the Danish cartoons? The death threats, making the man go into hiding over, let's face it, an offensive piece of paper. Or Theo van Gogh. Could his movie be deemed offensive? Sure. But you cannot disagree that killing him for it is still out and out wrong. I haven't once seen you condemn these actions carried out in the name of your faith which you so obviously care about.
 

masta247

Well-Known Member
Staff member
ultimately those cartoons were conjured simply to stir up controversy under the guise of making a "political point". my point is, is that regardless of freeom of speech, it was an unnecesary act, which only served to shit on millions of devout (peaceful) muslims who are just going about their daily lives like you and i. no one is trying to limit your freedom of speech / expression, it's simply a case of "say what the fuck you want... but fuck man, was it really necessary to shit on the God i love in that way? did you seriously need to do that, knowing that it would really hurt me in doing so?". It's a lack of respect man. For a multicultural society to be successful this respect needs to go both ways. Muslims in western countries havent demanded anything or contributed to anything that has hindered the progressiveness of Western countries. If I am wrong then let me know. But as far as I know, they are quiet people, are law abiding, contribute to the economy like any other person, and are (surprise surprise), normal people who are going about their daily lives. But instead people like Masta are convinced these "ninjas" (real classy), are on a pursuit to destroy his way of life, compromise his safety, and "reduce his living standards". based on what? they're desire to wear a head scarf?

it's this lack of respect for different peoples cultures which makes me sick.
Ehh you're taking the opposite extreme which is as far from truth as saying that muslims are blowing everything around them. Some probably do while some are not. Because a God loving peaceful man would like to kill others for "offending their God", right?
And I'm not talking about cartoons (If I had to I don't watch south park but since they shit on anyone and everything I also don't know why Muhammad should be any different - it was a cheap joke).
Like Duke and Carmi already mentioned numerous times - I'm just against special treatment for them. Respect is respect. I don't think that they deserve more respect than others just because it's easier to enrage them. They are already taking advantage of their possibilities and are trying to force their laws. There's a special treatment for them.
And I'm not talking about head scarfs wtf? I'm talking about this:


In some cases it's just not okay to wear this. And it's very troublesome at times. At times you can't tell them that they have to take it off because "you're a racist".
It's okay if they're getting their respect as much as anyone else but point is that it's not enough for them.
It's getting harder and harder not to insult them because everyone is protecting them from a direct confrontation with the rest of the non-muslim world.

I'm usually the one defending religious people. I feel like everyone can have their beliefs whatever they are. That is unless you force any of them on others. You have to adjust to the society, religion should not negatively affect others around you. I believe it should remain in the spiritual part of yourself and that's it. Forcing any religious whereabouts outside is silly and illogical (imo) but most of all in many cases it just does nothing good to others. It just causes trouble. It's even worse with religion-based laws. That is wrong. It's hard to picture something more terrifying than an illogical law in a civilized country.
If I believed in a magic fairy I wouldn't call all tv stations showing cartoons that they insult my beliefs. I should either turn the tv off or chill and adjust. Not everyone will respect my belief. Since Islam is way more popular the only difference is that more people are aware of their whereabouts. Still it's unbelievably silly that others have to adjust to them instead.
There's a line between what is okay and what is not okay.

In my culture a man offending or hurting a woman would get hurt. I could kick someone's ass because he offended a woman and I wouldn't get charged.
Muslims tend to offend their women if they don't obey them. There's violence included. Can I go abroad and insult (not even punch) all muslims who punch their wifes and then say that it's a part of my culture? And it's more logical and probably better for the society. If not then why? Would a muslim sue me instead?
 

Jurhum

Well-Known Member
While no one argued that it wasn't offensive and without meaning, the bigger underlying issue, here and in the other thread, is that you seem to at least partially defend the often violent reactions coming from the muslim corner. Like when it's said that "while the Muhammad cartoons are indeed offensive and stupid, it's still wrong to wanna kill the guy that made the drawing", you seem to just "shrug" and say "well you shouldn't piss us off".

How do you, as a muslim, as a person and as probably not a fundamentalistic terrorist, feel about the massive protests after the Danish cartoons? The death threats, making the man go into hiding over, let's face it, an offensive piece of paper. Or Theo van Gogh. Could his movie be deemed offensive? Sure. But you cannot disagree that killing him for it is still out and out wrong. I haven't once seen you condemn these actions carried out in the name of your faith which you so obviously care about.
To be honest, the cartoonists deserve it. However, Theo van Gogh, I didnt see the movie so I can't really comment.
 

_carmi

me, myself & us
^Why did they deserve it? I'd like to understand how threats resolve those type of situations. I honestly just want to hear the reasoning behind this.
 

Rukas

Capo Dei Capi
Staff member
Jurhum, I have another completely unrelated question for you.

2002 Bali bombing. Muslims bombed a western nightclub in Bali. Did those westerners deserve to die?
 

Jurhum

Well-Known Member
^Why did they deserve it? I'd like to understand how threats resolve those type of situations. I honestly just want to hear the reasoning behind this.
To a Muslim, religions is above everything else. Allah and Mohamed are out of the question. You curse either one. Your punishment is death. Simple as that, unless that person repents from such a crime.
 

Jurhum

Well-Known Member
Jurhum, I have another completely unrelated question for you.

2002 Bali bombing. Muslims bombed a western nightclub in Bali. Did those westerners deserve to die?
No. Those do not deserve to die. I am completely against all suicide bombings. I belong to a group called ahul al sunnah. We do not condone any suicide attacks against anyone. It is actually considered a crime.

Simple as that.

However, the cartoonists gave a reason for Muslims to attack them. They attacked our most honored person. They will get attacked. Boycotting was the best option in my opinion. But, going after them and killing them, i do not object to that. Doesn't mean I will do it. I do understand it though.
 

_carmi

me, myself & us
To a Muslim, religions is above everything else. Allah and Mohamed are out of the question. You curse either one. Your punishment is death. Simple as that, unless that person repents from such a crime.
But I didn't ask for about Muslims in general, I asked for your personal point of view. Anyone who follows a certain religion must question at a certain point what their following, no? Don't you ever question that? How do you really justify killing someone else? Who are you to decide if someone should live or not?

However, the cartoonists gave a reason for Muslims to attack them. They attacked our most honored person. They will get attacked. Boycotting was the best option in my opinion. But, going after them and killing them, i do not object to that. Doesn't mean I will do it. I do understand it though.
There's a difference between attacking a person with a drawing and attacking someone by taking their life from them.
Do you condone that behaviour?
 

Rukas

Capo Dei Capi
Staff member
Here is another question, back on topic. If Muhammad was to return and sleep with a 9 year old girl NOW, would you condone it?
 

Jurhum

Well-Known Member
Here is another question, back on topic. If Muhammad was to return and sleep with a 9 year old girl NOW, would you condone it?
As I said, I will not find any problem with his actions whether back then or now. You know why, because he wouldn't do anything that is morally wrong.
 

Rukas

Capo Dei Capi
Staff member
As I said, I will not find any problem with his actions whether back then or now. You know why, because he wouldn't do anything that is morally wrong.

So you are saying that sleeping with a nine year old girl, in the year 2010 is not morally wrong?

So you support other people who sleep with 9 year old girls then right? Because if it wasn't morally wrong for Muhammad to do it, it cant be morally wrong for them either yes?
 

Jurhum

Well-Known Member
So you are saying that sleeping with a nine year old girl, in the year 2010 is not morally wrong?

So you support other people who sleep with 9 year old girls then right? Because if it wasn't morally wrong for Muhammad to do it, it cant be morally wrong for them either yes?
As long as it is through marriage and that all the parties agree including the girl (the girl has to have reached puberty though.) Why not.
 

Rukas

Capo Dei Capi
Staff member
As long as it is through marriage and that all the parties agree including the girl (the girl has to have reached puberty though.) Why not.
I could go on and on about "why not" but you dont seem the type to follow logic, medical, or scientific evidence so I will spare this thread that discussion.

So you would let Muhammad, or any other man, sleep with your 9 year old child then? I feel sorry for your children. No girl becomes a women at 9 years old. No girl. Desert or no desert.

Jurhum, if you said this stuff to me in real life, I would probably knock your jaw through the back of your head. Furthermore, Id gladly remove the testicles of ANY pedophile I came in contact with, religious leader or common man. Now, if this happened.... What would that make me in your opinion? Racist?
 

_carmi

me, myself & us
As long as it is through marriage and that all the parties agree including the girl (the girl has to have reached puberty though.) Why not.
I assume by puberty you do not mean begin puberty but really when the girl has fully matured physically? Because no girl reaches puberty at 9. It might begin at 9, but a girl doesn't fully mature until at least 14-16.

And what do you make of psychological maturity? It's not because a girl is physically mature that she is psychologically mature.
 

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