If Mohammed had sex with his 9 year old wife does that make him a pedophile?

Strange Loop wrote: »

The latter would be the one where I fuck off out of the thread.

Sorry. My mistake. I meant the former, or whichever one wasn't telling you to get the **** out of the thread.

Agent Smith wrote: »

Yet another reason that place needs to be Nuked back to the stone age

Racist.

deravarra wrote: »

What a lovely post from a Mod!

He is not a moderator on this forum.
The moderators of AH are listed at the bottom of the page.
The forums he moderates are listed under his profile name.
Moderators are only moderators of the forums listed under their names. They are all subject to the same rules as everyone else outside of the forums they moderate.

Look under my username. I'm a moderator. However, I am not a mod on this forum. You and I are subject to the same rules, as is Agent Smith.

gbee wrote: »

You know, that's really confusing.

So, I'm Whatt Earp an I'm gunnin' for a mod, erm, I mean a sheriff, but I'm faced with the Brady Bunch, all wearing Sheriff Stars, or Mod Badges ~ but out of jurisdiction .....

HOW THE HELL DO I KNOW WHO TO SHOOT

<

---

Lookie o'er there cowboy.

It will state the jurisdiction they have.

I have read most of the thread and there is a balanced discussion but nothing definitive.

gbee wrote: »

Your request is already answered: Read the entire thread:

Today we have legislation: it makes it a paedophile offence to have sex with children: Irish children can be 25 years of age:

Ok gbee, Calm Down... 25 years of age! While I respect an admire you enthusiam on the subject, I think 25 is perhaps a little far fetched. So much so it's counter productive. The law in ireland to which a child is recognised is up to 18 years old. In America it might be older but here it is nnnnnineeeeteeeen.

Generally peer to peer relationships are respected within reason.


I am over 25 and I feel it would be appropiate to have a a lass for a companion over 21 years old.

wonton wrote: »

im not sure in anyone mention this but the age of consent in saudi arabia is actually nine

Yeah, leagalized sex with children so the pedofiles don't feel bad.

deravarra wrote: »

What a lovely post from a Mod!

WTF has the fact that he's a mod (and not even of this particular forum, for that matter) got to do with anything? Can't you come up with a better comeback?

When are people going to acknowledge that there is wrong-doing, corruption and festering nastiness in every religion and secular organisation in the world - excepting a very few and I'd be hesitant to even put a name to those for fear of being wrong.

A religion or organisation is only as good as the people within it and the bad and evil always comes to the surface and leadership, because that is the nature of evil. It tramples on everyone and everything in order to get it's way. Good, unfortunately, takes into account other people's rights and feelings so can end up at the bottom of the pile.

Then there are the times that good becomes evil - for instance the Puritans versus the Cavaliers, the Sans Culottes versus the Aristocracy because that is the nature of people. The end justifies the means but it doesn't.

A deceased lady who used to wear a white veil with a blue bands around it was rumoured to be as nasty and bigoted as a person could be and despised the very people she helped. Does that mean she was good or evil or did good in the name of evil or did evil in the name of good. Another extremely high profile political figure who did so much good by virtue of his incarceration also seems to be connected with that which he sought to do away with.

I know that a proper Muslim working within the dictates of the Koran is allowed to have four wives as long as he can support them all and treat them all the same (taking into account their needs and wants). He is also allowed to have concubines. He would not dream of having sexual relations with a girl too young to either bear the physicality of sex or who could not birth a child of that sexual relationship safely. He cannot say, "Enough, I don't want any more concubines" because he is duty bound to accept such girls into his household and care for them otherwise he would be dishonouring them and their families and the political and social alliances that are part and parcel of such 'transactions'. However, he would then seek to find a way to see them safely and suitably married and off his hands without offending anyone.

Such a man might also have to work within the dictates of fundamentalist Islam such as Sharia law as well. He then has to tread a very fine line between his personal conscience, his religious conscience, his social conscience and the outside forces which may cause him to make decisions for the greater good which may be and could be seen as wrong by people outside his sphere of experience.

In Ireland not too long ago there was a girl named Ann Lovett. Her case was not so very much different in principle to that of the nine year old girl at the beginning of this thread. Ireland seems to have come out of the dark days that brought about her death but judging by a lot of what people on AH post seems to have swung too far the other way. All things being cyclical, how long before we are back to square one and some other kind of fundamentalism takes hold again in Ireland.

We should look after our own business and allow the honest, right thinking people of the Muslim faith to look after their's. It might take some time but eventually they should prevail. I doubt there will be any time where all the countries of the world are at peace with themselves and others but it's nice to think it might happen,

Those are my thoughts and opinions on this at any rate.

up for anything wrote: »

In Ireland not too long ago there was a girl named Ann Lovett. Her case was not so very much different in principle to that of the nine year old girl at the beginning of this thread. Ireland seems to have come out of the dark days that brought about her death but judging by a lot of what people on AH post seems to have swung too far the other way. All things being cyclical, how long before we are back to square one and some other kind of fundamentalism takes hold again in Ireland.

See what I mean. This lad is in his mid-teens.

owenc wrote: »

I don't think woman do it, more like teenagers... aw god you should see the girls in my year, taking pictures of themselves getting ready and putting it on facebook i mean get over it, or taking pictures of themselves half naked with like a bra on and their tongue out i mean get over it thats just filthy.:rolleyes: Or wearing skirts that are shorter than shorts and taking pics of that. They are just filthy, if the parents seen them they'd get a kick up the arse- teenagers in this day and age are just getting worse and worse thank god i don't do that, i can't stick being a teenager or being around them.

owenc wrote: »

Its supposed to be a grammar school.. i'm pretty sure its far worse over in the high school though, ones walking around with prams in 5th year nearly died when i seen it, i thought that just happened in england. They can't really control who gets into it, as the idiots can get high grades, some of the ones in our school are just waste of time not doing projects or anything i'd know who i would send out if i was principle.

owenc wrote: »

Naw they leave the babies with the boyfriends who don't work and then meet the babies after school (thats how i see them.) then they go home and drink. Its really weird having teenagers walking around the school grounds with prams, the first time i seen it i was in shock (i thought that couldn't be hers) then i walked out the gate and seen them smoking, its so sad.

God help Ireland when he takes hold of the reins of power. The Magdalene Laundries will look like Butlins holiday camps then! :eek:

Terry wrote: »

The problem with this is that Muslims are supposed to try to convert non believers.

Hardly unique to Islam. Plenty of missionaries out in the world for other faiths. Personally ran into a Mormon missionary on Grafton street the other day. Also, there were Christians handing out Bibles on the same street. Islam is hardly the only Religion which looks for converts. Also, last time i checked in a free society, people are allowed to preach there beliefs, be they Islam, Judaism, Mormonism, or Christianity or whatever else.

Terry wrote: »

Whilst Mormons, Jehovah's witnesses and the like are irritating, their books of faith do not require them to kill non-believers if they do not convert.

I take it you have never read a Bible..... Its funny that you think Islam is the only faith with violence in its holy book. It really does ruin your credibility, when you choose to say the above imho.

Terry wrote: »

"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful." (Surah 9:5)

Qur'an (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."

Qur'an (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."

Qur'an (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority".

Qur'an (4:95) - "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-"

Qur'an (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

Or are those complete misinterpretations?
I suppose now you're going to tell me that in Arabic those verses mean that you should cuddle non-believers.

Those passage refer to a time, when the early Muslim community were at war with Mecca. Basically, you are quoting out of context, but of course as with all religious texts there are multiple interpretations. Still, what they say is irrelevant to any point I was making. You seem content on ignoring the fact that other faiths holy books, are full to the brim of violence as well. I find it laughable when this is ignored and you present Islam, as the only faith that has ever engaged in violence. All faith try to spread themselves. A lot of them have violence in there holy books, and yet you seem to single our Islam and ignore the others for some reason.

To give an example (going back to your point regarding Sharia law) the Mormon church gave a lot of money to the campaign to ban Gay marriage in California, so its not like these other groups don't try and influence the laws of the state, according to there Religious beliefs. It is a myth that Muslims uniquely do such things. Of course other doing such things is no excuse, but it is telling that people seem to forget that other do the exact same things, and try to make out that it is only Muslims who do such things.

Terry wrote: »

I have. Can you point out the passages in the bible where Christian or Jews are told to kill the non-believers, please?

Really? You have? I find that hard to believe, but here you go:

Bible
"And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God..." (Deuteronomy 13: 5)

"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;" (Deuteronomy 13: 6)

Also, there is the whole Mose killing idol worshipers portion as well, but if you read the Bible, then you must be aware of that....

Now, I am sure not all Christians believe this should happen nowadays, and I am sure there is a context for the above as well.

Terry wrote: »

It's still calling for the heads of the non-believers.

Yes, it did 1400 years ago. Now to be fair, some Muslims consider it something that needs to be done in there here and now, but again it doesn't change my original point.

Terry wrote: »

I've highlighted the part above where I referred to the Crusades. It's only a couple of posts up too. I'm well aware of the violent history of Christianity.
Nobody is denying the violence of other religions. You only need to look up the road to see that there are still forms of religious discrimination alive and well today (before the pedants pipe up, I know that religion is not the only factor of the troubles up North, but it did play a major role).

However, this thread is about Islam. It's not about Christianity or any other religion, as much as you would seem to like it to be.
What I find laughable is the way you constantly try to excuse Islam for its violent aspects by saying well the Christians did it too. Just because Christianity had a violent past, does not make violence in the name of Islam right. It's like a child who is in trouble for misbehaving saying Well Billy did it too.

I am not trying to excuse anything, and as I said earlier, other doing it is no excuse:

wes wrote: »

Of course other doing such things is no excuse, but it is telling that people seem to forget that other do the exact same things, and try to make out that it is only Muslims who do such things.

You present Islam as being unique to calling for the killing of unbelievers, which as I point out earlier in this post, you are simply wrong. What I find funny, is that you keep saying such things, and claim to have read the Bible, which considering you lack of knowledge of the book, I find hard to believe personally. If you don't want me to mention other Religions, then don't make such claims, as the only way to counter such a claim is to bring up other Religions that say the same things in there Holy texts. If you didn't make your claims regarding the Koran, being the only holy texts calling for the killing of unbelievers, I would never have brought up any other faiths holy texts, which do the same. So, if you want people to not talk about other faiths in this thread, then don't make such claims, as the only way to counter such a point is to discuss when others do the same.

You entire point was that Muslims try to spread there Religion and there holy book calls for the death of unbelievers, and that they are the only ones who do this. Which is simple factually incorrect.

My problem is that people make claims about Islam being uniquely doing one thing or other, which is a claim you made, and one I have shown to be simply incorrect.