Does Islam, in fact, Encourage Paedophilia?

zeemax, mian, fallow musalmaan



what you saying? tauba tauba do you knowing most of the girls are musalmaan girls and not hinood girls.



we need to strengthen musalmaani here.

#294 Posted by tahmed32 on July 24, 2007 8:41:07 pm

chickening out? let me repeat



how about I carry a sign saying (hindu god of your choosing) is a fraud in India and you carry a sign saying "Prophet mohammed was an imperfect human being" in Pakiland?

PM,

I recall your asking whether there was any evidence that Ayesha was in any manner traumatized or mentally atrophied due to her early marriage.

Sure there's plenty of evidence. In fact she was so traumatized and mentally atrophied that she commanded a 30,000 strong confederate army and occupied Basra, and could only be persuaded by her opponents to stop fighting by killing the camel she was riding on during battle.

310 Posted by PM

[And your proof for Muhammed's having a sinister agenda is...? Could it be that you're simply speaking from your own er.. faith-perspective? ]

No, AS I HAVE SAID A THOUSAND TIMES IN THE ALL MY PREVIOUS POSTS (god knows why this fails to penetrate the skull) - IT IS BECAUSE HE IS A BAD MAN WHO CANNOT BE TRUSTED - BY HIS ACTIONS ALONE (LEAVING ASIDE HIS WORDS FOR THE MOMENT).



["You are clutching at straws, faced with the OVERWHELMING evidence that he is a man whose character and actions are so absymally low, that he CANNOT be trusted with even BELIEVABLE things, leave alone cock-and-bull stories about winged creatures in caves."

Excuse me, but I missed the part where you, or anyone, established that Mohammed's character was "abysmally low". Assuming that the basis of this claim go beyond "because-I-said-so", could you please point out where such was provided. Otherwise, well, we'll know just how much importance to give your future posts.]

Where I equated a pedophile, serial rapist, looter, and mass murderer as a man with a bad character.

You can read my previous posts, but I'll give you a summary:

Pedophile - Ayesha
Serial Rapist - all the women war booties he raped, for example the woman he raped the same day he had killed her father and brother.
Looter - After his war victories.
Mass murderer - for example when he beheaded 700 UNARMED CIVILIANS and sold their INNOCENT and helpless women and children as slaves.


["The VERY FOUNDATION of your faith is non-existent."

ajey, I recall your first post addressed to Tahmed on this board accusing him of engaging in logical circularity. You missed the point there. TAhmed was not, then, providing a logical proof of either the prophethood or the divintiy of the Quran. He doesn't feel the need to do so, either.]

Well, if he says that he has no logical proof, then he can simply state that it is his faith, and just shut up.

Of course, he has to then silently withstand all abuses hurled at him for being a pedophile follower etc., just like someone who had "faith" in the divinity/prophethood of Hitler would have to undergo.

re. #304 ajeya:
(TAhmed, with your permission...)

re. "tahmed,...Of course, ol' mo was a smart cookie. This is how he chose to spin it, because this makes him look separate from the "message". But this is no proof of anything... The VERY FOUNDATION of your faith is non-existent."

And your proof for Muhammed's having a sinister agenda is...? Could it be that you're simply speaking from your own er.. faith-perspective?

"You are clutching at straws, faced with the OVERWHELMING evidence that he is a man whose character and actions are so absymally low, that he CANNOT be trusted with even BELIEVABLE things, leave alone cock-and-bull stories about winged creatures in caves."

Excuse me, but I missed the part where you, or anyone, established that Mohammed's character was "abysmally low". Assuming that the basis of this claim go beyond "because-I-said-so", could you please point out where such was provided. Otherwise, well, we'll know just how much importance to give your future posts.

"The VERY FOUNDATION of your faith is non-existent."

ajey, I recall your first post addressed to Tahmed on this board accusing him of engaging in logical circularity. You missed the point there. TAhmed was not, then, providing a logical proof of either the prophethood or the divintiy of the Quran. He doesn't feel the need to do so, either.

#307 by PM

Yaar thanks for explaining it to Tahmed32 better than I could ever have. Not once did Hitler use verses in the Bible or Christian symbols/imagery to justify his horrible deeds, nor did the LTTE ever use verses from the Bhagavad Geetha while blowing up Sri Lankan soldiers. Yet somehow, as only he can, Tahmed32 associates the perpetrators' religion with their deeds.

As for Hinduism not being considered a religion, not many are going to lose sleep over it. Hinduism's strength lies in its flexibility. No one needs to adhere to any rigid set of beliefs and no one needs to fear beheading for switching their beliefs (if they have any to begin with). Why, only recently 50,000 Dalits converted to Buddhism in a widely publicized ceremony. There was the usual hue and cry by the RSS, but nothing beyond that.

re. philospher #248:

"I won't surprise to see this kinda stupidity from hamid buffoon and the hindu fundos here but.......PM(patrick)?"

Yaar, you hold me to too high a standard, philoo. I'm happy to be as big a buffoon as hamid. Hell, I'd give an arm to be so!

Besides, what're talking about? It's not a validity of religion, per se, that is being questioned, just the soundness of some very real, practical (or so some would believe) implications of following it to the tee. This is not open to philosophical debate?? Pray tell why!

re. "TAhmed #248:
"So, you think the pope just happened to be christian when anabaptists were burnt at the stake in the middle ages (over 200,000 by one estimate)? or that brahmins just happen to be hindus when they piled insult over injury over insult over untouchables through the centuries?"

Two things, TAhmed: First, let's differentiate between the Christianity of the Popes, and the Christianity of the Bible... unlike in Islam, one can easily make a strong case for this dualism.

Now, Catholicism, the Christianity of the Pope (and the Crusaders, by extention) must definitely be held accountable for the wrongdoings of the pope, since it was on its pretext and ideological basis that the Christians raped, plundered and did all those other bad things . But then, the (one) good thing about Catholicism is that it's open to change. So it's not quite as bad now as it was back then.

Now there's the other Christianity I mentioned. If you can show how/that the Pope used anything from the New Testament, or indeed from the bible, to justify his unjust wars and pillage, then you indeed do have a case against this Christianity too. It's possible.

But to lay responsibility of say, Hitler's (a Roman Catholic) actions at the doorstep of Christianity would be as plainly idiotic as blaming the Islam for Karimov's evil ways in Uzbekistan. Neither pretend(ed) to be acting in accordance with, or to further, their religions.

Brahmins and Hinduism? Yaar, hindusim is such a non-religion that I won't even go there... Certainly, the caste system predated anything remotely 'organized' or scriptural about Hindusim as a pseudo-religion.

hamzaad:

"He said, follow Mohammad as his way of doing things were perfect....REMEMBER THE STAKES: the righteous path of 53 year old penis making its way into a 9-19 year old vagina.. is this the example to follow?"

PM will try to elaborate on a discussion between himself and cliftonbridge earlier. Now FOCUS a little, li'll kaka:

"Follow his ways" need not mean emulate his every action. No Muslim follows his ways of dressing, picking his nose, or riding his camel. Maybe its because these actions are not seen, by an overwhelming majority of Muslims, to come under the umbrella of morality, which is where a distinction is made. Even when some actions do relate to morality, a vast majority of Muslims will temper their decision to emulate such with an eye to changed convention and circumstances.

Maybe kaka does not live in this world where real people, even real, devout, Muslims, by and large, find rationalizations to NOT emulate the Prophet's actions down to the way he picked his nose-- whether or not his Boss might have instructed them to do so. So for kaka, the stakes are high in his rarefied air of pure logic. (PM has been there, so he knows.) For a vast majority of others, these are non issues, since the tail wags the dog anyways.

Chowk Episode 3
===============

Chowk Muslim #1: wallahu wallahu wallasssssalaam!!!!!

Chowk Muslim #2: ssssalamawallahu wallahu wallahu!!!!! Subhanallah!! Jazkiallah!! Tazkiallah!! Mashallah! You are a GENIUS, brother! A GENIUS!!!

Chowk Muslim #1: heh, heh, heh....I try...heh heh...

Chowk Muslim #2: It worked like a CHARM! Just like you said!

Chowk Muslim #1: What did I tell you? Eh? The Indian kafirs have their dhotis in a twist! They are busy discussing our diversions... heh heh...

Chowk Muslim #2: Glory be to Allah! Mashallah! Pashallah! Tashallah!

Chowk Muslim #1: I threw in ALL the diversions...hee hee...and a few more that I cooked up on the spot...

Chowk Muslim #2: Subhanallah! Which ones?

Chowk Muslim #1: Well, the child marriage stuff worked like magic, but just as the smoke began to clear, I threw in a new one - "is being a Muslim the same as being a pedophile?".

Chowk Muslim #2: It worked? I mean, WHAT does that have to do with whether our Prophet was a pedophile? Did anyone BUY that?

Chowk Muslim #1: It went as I expected, Allah be praised!! Our Muslim brothers felt offended - THEY were being accused of being pedophiles! And the Hindu kafirs started arguing with them...everyone forgot what the actual argument was about! It was PANDEMONIUM!!!

Chowk Muslim #2: You'll get ALL the HOURIS! I tell you! And the Ghilmans too!

Chowk Muslim #1: Then I put in some more - "DO HINDUS BURN THEIR WIVES?", "ARE THEIR SOCIAL EVILS IN HINDUISM?" - stuff like that.

Chowk Muslim #2: And?

Chowk Muslim #1: It was chaos, praise Allah! Everyone forgot that we were talking about our Prophet (peace be upon him, because Allah knows he deserves it more than anybody else). They started talking about everything under the sun - everything BUT the Prophet's holy union with Ayesha.

Chowk Muslim #2: You are a GENIUS!!! Glory be to Allah! Mashallah!! Subhanallah!! Pashallah!!! Tashallah! Jazkiallah!!

Chowk Muslim #1: Illah illah! Ullah ullah! Billah billah! Jazkiallah!! Mashallah! Pashallah!

dost-mitter:

I posted #111 and 112 partly in response to your post directed at me. I forgot to mention that.

#254 Posted by ajeya

I AM REPEATING MY POST TO TAHMED HERE (THERE IS NO DOUBT IN MY MIND THAT HE MISSED MY EARLIER POST, SO I'M BRINGING IT TO HIS ATTENTION)

#196 Posted by tahmed32

[ajeya: as for the prophet - I believe that he had a spiritual experience in the cave, and he relayed it honestly (and this is the key, and I'll come back to it in a minute) to his followers. He thus fulfilled his role as messenger, which is all that is expected from him. He is not considered to be an angel or a divine being who must be perfect in every way - that is too much to expect from any human being, and it takes away nothing from the fact that he played his role of messenger quite faithfully.

His honesty: The message that he relayed (as written down in the Quran) clearly limits his role to that of a messenger. It explicitly denies him any role in implementation. If he was not honest, there is every reason to believe that he would have left these parts out.]

tahmed,

Of course, ol' mo was a smart cookie. This is how he chose to spin it, because this makes him look separate from the "message". But this is no proof of anything.

You are clutching at straws, faced with the OVERWHELMING evidence that he is a man whose character and actions are so absymally low, that he CANNOT be trusted with even BELIEVABLE things, leave alone cock-and-bull stories about winged creatures in caves.

The VERY FOUNDATION of your faith is non-existent.

Unfortunately, that's the sad truth. Stop lying to yourself, and admit it to yourself. You'll feel better about yourself.

Re: # 301

Tahmed, my friend

you misunderstand . I was trying to understand your logic for your arguments and followed it till i got confused because I believe the faith overtook the logic. Just sought a clarification.

Incidently, please do not comment on treatment of minorities in either country. There is plenty of blame to go around.

FYI for every one fault you find in Hindusim, I will find 100 and be glad to point them all out to you.

I guess that is the point Kaal and Arjun were trying to make, logically if I may add.

Since you were obviously in no mood to discuss logically I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt and hence I asked.

Go with God my friend

giani: gtg and nothing more to add. bye.

#298 giani: You are welcome to demonize what is a minority religion in your countryI am only glad that Pakistanis dont demonize minority religions in Pakistan the same way. (this btw was the point of my earlier post). and btw, for every one fault you find in Islam, I could find 10 in hinduism. Except, I couldnt care less.

#292 giani: no need to get defensive my friend. Re-read what I wrote a bit more carefully and I think that post is clear enough.