Does Islam, in fact, Encourage Paedophilia?

zee

I posted a fitting response - that should have been enough for you... :)

Abuse of minor girls is rampant in india and other places... But nowhere the abusers are held up as prophets... all are considered criminals and prosecuted wherever possible... Only muslims seem to hold a child abusers as prophet - even defend such acts with elaborate excuses...

Does this work for you?

Naqshabandi: Props to you for having the guts to deal with this topic. This isn't about mo or aisha or any of that, this is about the willingness of muslims to question stuff about mo without going ape-shit.

For someone who declares himself to be a real muslim to do this is the equivalent of drawing the danish cartoons. Props to you again.

Personally, I don't think any religion encourages anything or that being a follower of islam makes anyone a pedo. It's just that the vast majority of the followers of certain religions have the tendency to interpret certain tenets of their holy book more seriously than others.

sattar2:259:

"Folks, this just in:"

Nothing new in this. tahmed has always maintained that the Quran was for Arabs. And he is not without reason in saying that. As you know, the Quran clearly says that Allah sent the same message to all nations and tahmed, I think, believes that Vedas was the message delivered to the people of the subcontinent which the Hindus distorted over time, just as the jews and christians distorted messages sent to them. And the Quran does say that the message is delivered so that ordinary Arabs can understand it in their own language.

#260 Posted by dost_mittar on July 24, 2007 2:38:01 pm


As far as I know, Tamil Tigers do not commit their suicides chanting "Om shanti, shanti"


Do hindu immigrants from india blow up subways in london because the brit government backs the sri lankan government instead of the tigers?

Do you hear of spanish catholics blowing up british subways because of what the british government did to catholics in ireland?

No? then the terrorism in both cases has nothing to do with religion...

OTOH, you have brit-paki MUSLIMS born and bred in the UK blowing up british subways because of the UK government support of the war against islamic terrorism..and then there's muslims from africa blowing up spanish subways because of the war in iraq...That IS islamic terrorism..

It can conclusively be proven that Tahmed is an idiot par excellence who is clueless about the Quran and the contents therein. It is too bad, he has hindus to use as strawmen. You have to wonder what he would have had to say if there were no injuns pestering him about the religion he grew up with.

PM,

kaka will make this absolutely plain, so pay attention:

The summary of questions that you posted earlier is the perfect example of BS that may address 'age-old' issues that li'l PM might like find out about for his kicks.. but no go.

You may be excused for not knowing the Quran (refer to sattar's posts) and the onus put on Mohammad as the most perfect being etc. So let me break it down.. we don't give a fuck about injun girls being sold as fish.. WE ARE INTERESTED IN SALVATION.

You know the creator of universe, who knows the cure for cancer and Kennedy's assasin.. THAT GUY.. He said, follow Mohammad as his way of doing things were perfect. IF YOU DON'T THEN a) YOU WILL BURN IN HELL or b) YOU MAY FALL ASTRAY AND THEN YOU WILL BURN IN HELL. (a lil' reminder: we really don't give a fuck about how injun foetus are being aborted)

This Mohammad guy, this non-Rod Stewart fellow had sex with a girl with a tiny vagina, it seems either to strengthen family relations with the father of the bride OR BECAUSE OF THE TINY VAGINA. Now urstruly has blessed this union because of proof from the Medical Journal of Vikings and his own wet dreams, BUT NEITHER OF THOSE REASONS (brotherhood or vagina) is making believers comfortable. 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? Should we outlaw this even though some urstrulys want to follow Mohammad's penis's path? Are we going to hell disallowing this when it is clearly written in the scriptures that we follow Mohammad (and not the injun pimps from Bombay)?

What about the 9 year old who go ewww at the proposal from a fine 53 old gentleman? For the sake of a better than average chance of salvation, should we attempt brainwashing and make movies starring Dakota Fanning and Clint Eastwood?

post#260:

The bold portion of that post was a chowk glitch.

tahmed#233:

You went somewhat off-course. The main question, in response to Indians not talking about their own problems was this:

"Is it mandatory for Hindu/Indian chowkies to discuss these problems regardless of what the topic of discussion is?"

The article I had referred to was here: http://chowk.com/articles/10512

"In any case, my point is that you dont condemn an entire religion due to something done in its name. Otherwise (as I have painstakingly tried to demonstrate by giving examples of Shintoism, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism) every religion stands condemned. Every ideology (including Democracy, Capitalism, Communism) stands condemned. And that while Indians are adept at this (and some are full time specialists like JayP), you dont find Pakistanis returning the favor."

This has been answered so many times by so many people that I would be wasting my time doing this, but I do have some time to waste, so here goes. I have always stated that there are violent and non-violent people in every religion. But as long as you have Muslims -and there is no dearth of them even on chowk- who defend certain actions of Muslims as Islamic, people would be justified in associating them with the religion. As far as I know, Tamil Tigers do not commit their suicides chanting "Om shanti, shanti" nor the Japanse committed their terrorist acts saying "Buddham sharnam gachhaami". But Muslim "terrorists" do shout takbeer while committing their acts.

Does Islam promote terrorism? Frankly, it is hard to be unambiguous on this. Certainly, the Islam you believe in does not promote terrorism. And you can find support for your belief in the Quranic saying that killing one innoncent person is a crime against humanity. But this passage has to be weighed against several other passages which not only justify brutal violence in the name of jihad but condemns in no uncertain terms those who refuse to participate in this "fard".

...and yes, it is "sawaal gandum, jawaab cheenum", channa doesn't even rhyme with gandum. :)

kaal, we all see that … it’s just that tahmed does not see that. And he goes on and on trying to rationalize his faith to us.

Folks, this just in: According to tahmed, Quran is for Arabs only. So I am not even sure why he is trying to defend Quran. Perhaps he thinks he is an Arab? I dunno … what’s the name for it … Arab envy??? But I thought only naqsh suffered from such delusions!

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

This is the kind of talk that despairs me, and makes all Hindu-Muslim conversation just impossible.

The foundation of tahmed's faith is just faith, and it is far stronger than any reason can ever be. Why is that so hard to see?

So prophet tahmed: I'm assuming you're not taking me up on my offer...

Let me repeat

How about we put your beliefs to the test and see if they're in line with what allah's chosen people, the pakis, think...

If you carry a banner saying "the prophet Mohammad was an imperfect human being" in a public place in Pakiland, I'll pay for your return fare and I'll stop posting here..

I'll make it better...I'll carry a banner saying "Jefferson was a moron" outside the jefferson memorial...

#250 Posted by KaalChakra

kaal

((((philo

PM accepts the validity of religion WITHOUUT any recourse to reason, on the basis of faith alone.))))

LOL....kaal ji.....friendly fire????

ginai_420

(((What philosophy do you study?)))

I study philosophy of gaoism and its muttar's influence on the modren india's philosophico-spirtual activity and gao goaber's effects on indian politics.

Jay Hind.

Re: # 250

Kaal, you are right I meant philosopher

#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.

PM, sorry for delayed response. I agreed that our bad feelings or feelings of being victims (of abuse, molested, oppressed, cheated, being short, being fat etc) are exaggerated by the norms prevalent through which society exerts its control. BUT that is only partly true and ..in my view partly a good thing. even if there was no pressure from society or society considers it perfectly normal for a 40 yr old male to have sex with a 5 yr old, does that make it right to do so? No. I might live in a society that thinks fat people are beautiful, but we now know it may not be good for my health.

for some reason I don't buy your theory that young children having sex (even if willfully) with older adults does not constitute abuse. you seem to suggest that youngster is tender and beautiful hence has power over the older freak and older freak is a nice guy melted like moam worshipping and pleasing the youngster hence no abuse. That is bull of crap in my opinion. there may be exceptions..an intelligent, confident and informed 19 yr old sleeping and marrying a 80 yr old millionaire, knowing she will get his millions in couple of years...but even that has proved to ruin her life..anna nicole.

tahmed yar, if you draw a cartoon of thomas jefferson cohabiting with his slaves, not even a chai ki dukan will be burnt..have some sense of proportion.

tahmed,

You are clutching on straws. Your Thomas Jefferson example misses the point. There is a big difference between him and Muhammad (pbuh).

Muhammad, and not TJ, came from god. And Muhammad conveyed a book from god. And this book, among other things, praises Muhammad himself (unless you’re dense, you’d see the irony). Moral lapses, or lack of foresight, on part of Muhammad cast a shadow of doubt on the book itself. This shakes the very foundation of Islam. Of course, denial is one way to deal with these issues.

Furthermore, people like Thomas Jefferson gave us the US constitution, which has been amended 27 times so far. People understand that framers of constitution were human after all, and thus the need to amend the constitution as needed. But the same does not apply to Quran. How many times has it been amended?