Founder of Islam, Mohammad, was a Pedophile

[damngrumpy]

You can but it does not have the same impact as per say the times we are
living in now. The only way to measure the impact is in contrast to the over
all progress we have made since the events of before.
For example, let us take the days of prohibition, it was illegal immoral and
often filled with violence and murder, just to go out for a few drinks. By today's
standards, where booze is legal, there is legal outlets and it is unlikely the mob
will be supplying bathtub gin to the establishments. We do not apply the same
rules to booze today as society did then. At the time of the ancients as it were,
a thousand years ago to about four hundred years ago people didn't live as long.
marriage was at around fourteen and sometimes younger it was the mainstream
of society for its time. Remember a thousand years ago someone forty five
years old was really old. No I don't agree people should marry off their daughter
at six or even nine, but it happened.
The acceptable practises of the past are no longer acceptable because we have
become more enlightened through time, it is just hard to compare the past with
what we know now.

gerry you are comparing today with the last forty years that is a fair comparison
some are trying to compare ancient history with today's standard and that is
all but impossible, because what was normal practise then is anything but now.

 

[gerryh]

gerry you are comparing today with the last forty years that is a fair comparison
some are trying to compare ancient history with today's standard and that is
all but impossible, because what was normal practise then is anything but now.

No I'm not. Couderoy is pulling the moral card. Basically stating that we, today, are "more" moral than they, Mohamed, were back then. I'm just pointing out that our "moral" society in Canada has allowed over 3 million children to be killed since 1969. How is that any more "moral"?

 

[damngrumpy]

Today we are not only applying moral then and now it is also a matter of legal
then and now. In the past the laws were different, and the moral attitudes were
different, for example early marriage, due to the age of everyone and also the
fact that slavery was legal, and in their way moral. Today we believe it was not
moral.
If i am right you are talking about three million unborn children killed by abortion.
In today's society, we determined that abortion is legal and in fact it is not even
a moral issue any longer. For the most part I am pro choice but I believe we
must have some rules surrounding it not to make it moral but legal.
Today we are not necessarily more moral, we just made what was unpalatable
morally now legal hoping the effect of the issue would go away.

 

[lone wolf]

You mean the moral standard that has allowed over 3 million children to be murdered in Canada since 1969?

When you see it often enough, the shock value in anything wears off.

 

[Corduroy]

You can but it does not have the same impact as per say the times we are
living in now. The only way to measure the impact is in contrast to the over
all progress we have made since the events of before.

What do you mean by it not having the same impact. On whom is it having an impact? Obviously not the people from the past, because they're long dead. So do you mean on people nowadays? Do you mean that people today will get upset about someone raping a 9 year old in the 21st century, but won't think it's as wrong to rape a 9 year old in the 6th century?

 

[TenPenny]

Do you think we shouldn't apply our moral standards to the past?

Isn't it rather difficult / pointless?

To apply today's moral standards to an ancient fable?

Should we condemn the prince charming for sexually assaulting Sleeping Beauty?

 

[Unforgiven]

Isn't it rather difficult / pointless?

To apply today's moral standards to an ancient fable?

Should we condemn the prince charming for sexually assaulting Sleeping Beauty?

As a child I was forced to watch that horror as the hulking brute crept up and stole away
her innocence while she lay defenseless in her drugged stupor. I still weep when I see the Disney logo!

Hello class action! Whose with me?

 

[CDNBear]

I'm in.

 

[damngrumpy]

What I am saying if we know the past we will improve on it but what happened centuries ago
is subject to its own time and place. Christ said slaves obey your masters, Does that mean
he advocated in favour of slavery? No but then at the time slavery by the standard of the day
was normal, today it is recognized for the evil that it is. Today no one in their right mind would
advocate for a child being married off to some dirty old man. The fact is you cannot compare
two totally different periods of history and praise or condemn history is what it is and we learn
from it, either to uphold an institution or practice such as democracy. In contrast we institute
laws and a system of social justice to ensure such things as child rape do not happen now or
in the future.
The reason for example, we had the age of consent at fourteen in this country for so long was
because the society was different and the life expectancy of people was much younger even a
hundred and thirty years ago. We established a social order based on the realities that confronted
the people in our earlier historical years. Of course today fourteen is way too young and was
likely then too, but it was socially and legally acceptable and now it is not.
I suppose we could go about condemning every page of human history and changing to suit a new
acceptable version and say that all those who went before us were just plain evil. It would not
serve as a learning tool for the future, and it wouldn't teach us the truth about about our past. Its a
free country, we can single people out from history and say nasty things about them, if it makes us
feel better. If we are going to do that though the eventual list will be very long and extremely time
consuming. I think we can use our time better making the present world a safer place for our
children and ensuring the legacy we leave behind is much improved and a platform for more
progress after we are gone.
Do I approve of Mohammad having a six or nine year old girl as a wife of course not and history
has already judged him. Some claim he is a prophet, and some claim he is a pedophile. In
looking at history, I see he is a bit of both, and had his success and enormous failings like everyone
else in his time. It is more important that when history judges us in our own circles of remembrance
that we attempt to have as few failings as possible. You may have heard of the old Irish saying.
"May you be in Heaven a half hour before the Devil knows your dead"
To answer your question outright, I have twenty three grand children and I wouldn't want any of them
molested or raped by anyone. We also must remember that history is what it is and the reason the
Muslim Faith is what it is, is because of the success and the serious failings of the prophet himself
He left behind in my view a large dysfunctional religion that has stunted the growth of nations for
centuries, it was a movement born of rebellion and fuelled by the need for people to rise out of
oppression, and that is the reason they are so dysfunctional

 

[MHz]

When Israel captured virgin women they could be taken for wives, if the captives were virgin female children then they were raised as children until the time of marriage. With a captured one she could not be given away as a virgin daughter so her virginity was removed and she was then free to choose who she would marry. Should the man who took care of her during those child years want to take her as a wife then sex would have taken place when it was determined that she was a woman and not a child.

De.21:10
When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies,
and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands,
and thou hast taken them captive,
De.21:11
And seest among the captives a beautiful woman,
and hast a desire unto her,
that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;
De.21:12
Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house;
and she shall shave her head,
and pare her nails;
De.21:13
And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her,
and shall remain in thine house,
and bewail her father and her mother a full month:
and after that thou shalt go in unto her,
and be her husband,
and she shall be thy wife.
De.21:14
And it shall be,
if thou have no delight in her,
then thou shalt let her go whither she will;
but thou shalt not sell her at all for money,
thou shalt not make merchandise of her,
because thou hast humbled her.

I would think a shrink could make a case for the ones promoting this as child rape is feeding a fantasy of how they would personally handle that same situation should they be the one in charge back then.

 

[Corduroy]

Isn't it rather difficult / pointless?

To apply today's moral standards to an ancient fable?

It would be pointless if this ancient fable was not believed to be the standard of morality for a billion people.

What I am saying if we know the past we will improve on it but what happened centuries ago
is subject to its own time and place. Christ said slaves obey your masters, Does that mean
he advocated in favour of slavery? No but then at the time slavery by the standard of the day
was normal, today it is recognized for the evil that it is. Today no one in their right mind would
advocate for a child being married off to some dirty old man. The fact is you cannot compare
two totally different periods of history and praise or condemn history is what it is and we learn
from it, either to uphold an institution or practice such as democracy. In contrast we institute
laws and a system of social justice to ensure such things as child rape do not happen now or
in the future.
The reason for example, we had the age of consent at fourteen in this country for so long was
because the society was different and the life expectancy of people was much younger even a
hundred and thirty years ago. We established a social order based on the realities that confronted
the people in our earlier historical years. Of course today fourteen is way too young and was
likely then too, but it was socially and legally acceptable and now it is not.
I suppose we could go about condemning every page of human history and changing to suit a new
acceptable version and say that all those who went before us were just plain evil. It would not
serve as a learning tool for the future, and it wouldn't teach us the truth about about our past. Its a
free country, we can single people out from history and say nasty things about them, if it makes us
feel better. If we are going to do that though the eventual list will be very long and extremely time
consuming. I think we can use our time better making the present world a safer place for our
children and ensuring the legacy we leave behind is much improved and a platform for more
progress after we are gone.
Do I approve of Mohammad having a six or nine year old girl as a wife of course not and history
has already judged him. Some claim he is a prophet, and some claim he is a pedophile. In
looking at history, I see he is a bit of both, and had his success and enormous failings like everyone
else in his time. It is more important that when history judges us in our own circles of remembrance
that we attempt to have as few failings as possible. You may have heard of the old Irish saying.
"May you be in Heaven a half hour before the Devil knows your dead"
To answer your question outright, I have twenty three grand children and I wouldn't want any of them
molested or raped by anyone. We also must remember that history is what it is and the reason the
Muslim Faith is what it is, is because of the success and the serious failings of the prophet himself
He left behind in my view a large dysfunctional religion that has stunted the growth of nations for
centuries, it was a movement born of rebellion and fuelled by the need for people to rise out of
oppression, and that is the reason they are so dysfunctional

I have no idea what you're trying to say. Yeah I can see recurring themes throughout your posts but nothing actually coalesces into any kind of coherent answer to my questions.

I want to know why you don't believe we should judge the actions of people from the past. All I can get out of your posts is that "it was a different time" and "we learn from the past". Is that a good summation of your position? Please try to answer succinctly. Thank you.

 

[TenPenny]

It would be pointless if this ancient fable was not believed to be the standard of morality for a billion people.

I would venture to say that the number of Muslims who believe that pedophilia is acceptable are on par with the number of Christians who believe the same thing.

Back to the OP - cross dressing? One of the complaints is that Mohammad was a cross dresser?

 

[Corduroy]

I would venture to say that the number of Muslims who believe that pedophilia is acceptable are on par with the number of Christians who believe the same thing.

What makes you think this?

 

[MHz]

I would venture to say that the number of Muslims who believe that pedophilia is acceptable are on par with the number of Christians who believe the same thing.

Got any examples??

 

[Durry]

I would venture to say that the number of Muslims who believe that pedophilia is acceptable are on par with the number of Christians who believe the same thing.

Back to the OP - cross dressing? One of the complaints is that Mohammad was a cross dresser?

No, this is not correct. Most Muslims who follow Mo see nothing wrong with marrying a nine year old as accepted in the q'ran. They just don't consider it pedophilia.
If you have any Muslim friends, just ask them ..

 

[eanassir]

So all of them agree with Wayzalways! They are convinced that Mohammed is a pedophil as they say!
And none of them said: How could you reach to this conclusion and what is your proof?

Now he said

Eanassir, notice the difference between this thread and the one you titled "The witness Jesus"? The difference is that you filed false charges against Jesus and this thread merely points out the facts claimed by your own islamic sources. According to the Quran, Hadith, and your "scholars".

So tell me where in the Quran it is said that Mohammed took his wife as a child as you claim.
As I told you; you are misfortunate.

 

[Cliffy]

So all of them agree with Wayzalways! They are convinced that Mohammed is a pedophil as they say!
And none of them said: How could you reach to this conclusion and what is your proof?

Now he said


So tell me where in the Quran it is said that Mohammed took his wife as a child as you claim.
As I told you; you are misfortunate.

I think you meant "misinformed".

When 40 was considered old age, most women were married when they reached puberty in all cultures, including Christianity. It has only been in the last hundred years or so that the practice has become taboo. This coincides with the fact that our life expectancy has risen considerably in that time period. So no, we cannot judge the morals of the past by the morals of the present.

 

[eanassir]

Muhammad wanted to sexually fondle her. And Muhammad also abused her.

The founder of Islam was not only a pedophile, but also a cross dresser, briber, deceiver, hypocrite, liar, mass murderer, torturer, terrorist, and a war monger.

This is the person that Muslims revere!

What a bunch of lies! Was he all this? At least say one thing only: but all these together: it indicates these are obvious lies.

(Do they [: the hypocrites] not know that whosoever transgresses [the restrictions of] God and His messenger – there will be for him [in the afterlife] the fire of Hell, to be therein forever and ever; that is the extreme degradation?)


The above between brackets is the explanation of the aya 9: 63
أَلَمْ يَعْلَمُواْ أَنَّهُ مَن يُحَادِدِ اللّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ فَأَنَّ لَهُ نَارَ جَهَنَّمَ خَالِدًا فِيهَا ذَلِكَ الْخِزْيُ الْعَظِيمُ

And in the aya 9: 61
وَالَّذِينَ يُؤْذُونَ رَسُولَ اللّهِ لَهُمْ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ

The explanation:
(And [in the afterlife] there will be a painful punishment for those who hurt the messenger of God.)

 

[Corduroy]

So all of them agree with Wayzalways! They are convinced that Mohammed is a pedophil as they say!
And none of them said: How could you reach to this conclusion and what is your proof?

Actually, most of the posters just mocked or ignored the OP.

When 40 was considered old age, most women were married when they reached puberty in all cultures, including Christianity. It has only been in the last hundred years or so that the practice has become taboo. This coincides with the fact that our life expectancy has risen considerably in that time period. So no, we cannot judge the morals of the past by the morals of the present.

After 40, the chances of a woman conceiving are greatly diminished and soon enough become impossible. Life expectancy exceeding menopause should have no effect on the urgency of marriage and make it acceptable to hold off marriage longer. And the younger a girl conceives the greater chance she and her baby have of not surviving the pregnancy. It would make sense to hold off marriage until the girl has matured more at any point in history.

The real reason for child marriage is that throughout history female sexuality has been considered a property to be bought, sold and protected, and in the words of escaped rapist Roman Polanski "everyone wants to **** young girls." It's really that simple. No need to imagine some pseudo-anthropological theory about life expectancy. It's about sex.

 

[TenPenny]

Got any examples??

Examples of what?

What makes you think this?

Possibly the same thing that makes you think that Muslims agree with pedophilia, except I have the ability to think.