Does Islam, in fact, Encourage Paedophilia?

PM # 321

LOL, you evil man. I thought we will let the subject die out. But then you are a fascinating personality, PM, and we want to know what we can (so long as you don't mind :)). So, yes, rahul, why did you pick our brother PM? :)

#321 Posted by rahul_capri

"kaal, I genuinely want to know what drives him. Why I chose him and not anyone else,I would explain later,if asked.

aarrghhh... can't resist.... I'm asking !!

#323 Posted by PM

#311 ajeya:

[re. your 'evidence' proving Muhammed's vile nature...

You write:

Pedophile - Ayesha

Take a course in either sociology or anthropology and come back in few months if you seriously want to debate this. It's not as if you're debating the more valid question of whether Muhammed's marrying Ayesha sets a bad precedent.]


I don't need a course in sociology or anthropology to tell me that a 55 year old man being sexually attracted to a 6-year old is perverted. I know it, because I am a man.

Social customs change. But what is good or bad remains the same. Let me reapeat a few lines from my post here:

"Some perverted leches want to have sex with little children. Always have, always will. Good people back then did not want to have sex with little children. They still don't.

Just because it was possible back then without going to jail does not mean he was not a lech. Jesus did not want to bone little girls. Buddha didn't. Christ didn't. Mahavir Jain didn't.

If you are a good man, you don't do a million things that your "prophet" did. If you are a bad man, you do the things he did.

And if you are a bad man, I don't want to verify whether there REALLY was a winged creature in the cave giving you updates to the Old and New Testaments. (I actually wouldn't want to know anyway).

Sorry, ALL you Muslims have been the subject of a BIG hoax. Your prophet managed to fool everybody and bone everything he wanted to. Did what he wanted. When he wanted. As much as he could get away with.

You guys are idiots. Yes. ALL of you. Remember that the next time you are praying.




[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.

Ditto. (I'll concede, IMHO Muhammed here was no better than the next guy, but 'serial rapist' in the context of 7th century warfare!? -- c'mon, grow a brain, willya!) ]

Forcing sex on a woman whose brother and father he killed the same day? That's not an average guy. That's a monster by any standards. From any age.

I'm sorry, I cannot buy that. Compare his actions to that of Buddha who was born about a thousand years EARLIER to him.




["Looter - After his war victories."

er... ditto.]

Yes. Ditto from me too.



["Mass murderer - for example when he beheaded 700 UNARMED CIVILIANS and sold their INNOCENT and helpless women and children as slaves."

You need to read up on the details of this massacre. He wasn't the one who gave the go-ahead.]

You guys will go to any lengths to try and rescue this guy. Won't you?

Face up to it. he was a VERY evil man. And you guys have been going on his word about a winged dude telling him stuff that sound vaguely familiar from the Old and New Testaments?

There's still time - to assert your right to live like a FREE human being.

#340: abay itna takaluff kyouN, bhai??

Thanks PM and Kaal.And yes,I agree,it is not the done thing( to ask such questions).

#337 TAhmed:
Apparently you missed the part where I tried to distinguish between those who attempt to furnish scriptural support (however misinterpreted) for their acts of violence and those who didn't. Or between those acting with a specifically religiously motivated agenda and those not.

re. TAhmed:
"And this is where sufism (seeking to bring Allah within the "Circle of Light") goes wrong,.."

In my (admittedly limited) understanding, the sufis, or Christian/Buddhist/Hindu mystics seek to bring Allah within the experiential realm, not the intellectual; thus making him/it a more palpable "entity". What good is it knowing that something exists if you can't relate to it in any way or at any level at all? That is not the agnostic's question in any case. He/she is concerned with the question of whether something exists in the first place.

PM: what part of "as plainly idiotic as blaming the Islam for Karimov's evil ways " that you wrote did I miss? That is what I have been arguing about all this time (see #156 where I was prompted to do this by what, per your definition, would be an idiotic statement blaming Islam for the terrorists evil ways).

further to #332 also note, that while being the same as agnosticism in the sense that religion distinguishes between "faith" and "fact", it goes a step forward by making explicit the need for a code of conduct. The latter being a practical necessity for a civilized society and even for a robust economy (per my example of Toyota earlier), and not merely a "feel good" thing. Thus religion covers agnosticism and goes a step beyond - and that is why I say if you like agnosticism, you will love religion (any religion - as long as you focus on the essence, and forget the bs that priests have made out of it).

#334 If you go past London anytime before that gives us a shout....

#331 Posted by Dash_Dot

You're on. You get the beer, I'll supply the salted nuts.

#326: TAhmed, I think you're still missing the point. But imma let it go now :)

DM #315 on the other issue (gnosticism, agnosticism, atheism), if you like agnosticism, then you will love religion (or at least the fundamental concepts that underlie all religion, but are long forgotten as priests have painted their own stuff all over it).

Reason: The concept of a Supreme Being in virtually every religion places him outside the "circle of light" that I mentioned. And what lies outside the "circle of light" is unknown, and that is where agnosticism and religion (the essence) meet.
In Islam, this is reflected in the fact that all of Allah's names are considered unknown and indeed unknowable to man. And the tradition of strict prohibition against visual representations of Allah reflect this. In Tsoism, it is stated "The Tao that can be named is not the true Tao". Hinduism has the same concept I believe reflected in the Bhagvad Gita. And this is where sufism (seeking to bring Allah within the "Circle of Light") goes wrong, and this is where maulvis (seeking to mix religion and politics or religion and science) go wrong.

#330 sure lets do it with a few bottles of the finest from Muree

re dash-dot #322

"...that is his trade, for that is what he does for a living?"

Kaash! Waisey, if you're suggesting I don't get out, well, next time you're in Karachi, I'd like to challenge you to better me at a sport -- ANY sport-- take your pick!

DM #315 As for your question: "Is it mandatory for Hindu/Indian chowkies to discuss these problems regardless of what the topic of discussion is?"
Of course not. But it would be useful (if one seeks to have an intelligent discussion on chowk, rather than The War of Communal Grafitti Writing Latrine Walls) that Indian posters learnt something from the Pakistani posters when once in a blue moon some Indian issue is discussed on chowk (per the examples I provided below).