Does Islam, in fact, Encourage Paedophilia?

#324 wheel o time: "Since Islam is foremost a system of power, it is a radically different (not "evil" but different) system when Muslims around you have significant power (even if they are not in majority) than until they do not"

Now this is THE KEY ASSESSMENT so far. This taken together with your assertion (re: pure faith), should give an incling as why there is suspicions regarding Islam. It is the new freemasonary of the world in a manner of speaking.

Rahul,

The legs? That comes from having too much time on my hands, being a school teacher and all... :-)

If your question related more to the WHY of it, I seriously don't know the answer. Or didn't until I read Kaaloo's #324, which I think begins to explain it.

Thanks, Kaal! I often think you're one-step ahead of my thoughts. Now I know you're several. Dang!!

PM #307 you wrote 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.

Precisely.

And that is the point I have been so diligently trying to get across to some of our Indian friends, starting with my post #156 below, where in response to harish_hyd's statement that "Islam becomes evil when a few Muslims (maybe a tiny minority, but nevertheless) resort to violence ", I had written: Individuals commit crimes. Religion/ideology is merely an excuse they use. Everyone knows that. and provided some examples.

So, while agreeing with this point, it is our Indian friends who need to be educated.

Harish_Hyd: You obviously didnt get the above point when I wrote my post #156. To bad. I take all this trouble, providing examples from history, and I might as well be talking to a blank wall (as my schoolteacher would no doubt have said). :-(

#312 Zeemax:

Why yes, now that you mention it, I do recall that, and other evidence of her intense neurosis and display of classic signs of wife-subjugation, like the time she led the little rebellion against the Prophet because he was favouring Marya a little too much.

HAHA, are we trying to "understand" PM?! :)

Getting personal in that sense is not done really, but since we are all respectful toward him and there is a bigger point to be made, hopefully he won't mind if we make a brief exception here.

My feeling is that PM has to actually live with Islam as it really is, while so many of us don't (at least not yet). Since Islam is foremost a system of power, it is a radically different (not "evil" but different) system when Muslims around you have significant power (even if they are not in majority) than until they do not.

#311 ajeya:

(With apologies to Muslims on the board who wouldn't want me to humour this fella anymore...)

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.

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!)

"Looter - After his war victories."

er... ditto.

"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. And while you're at it, also read up on the wages of treason during a war in the context of the times and place.

Happy reading up!

#321 that is his trade, for that is what he does for a living? You need to get about a bit, Rahul_Cap.

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

#319 was for 318 and #317

and hence pure faith (absolute faith) is a closed system - which can only change if it gets totally destroyed. Thus the fear of change amongst many of faith and a lack of accomodation.

The Anglo-saxons understood this and adapted themselves - hence they move forward in great strides.

By the way, faith and reason are not totally contradictory. Faith is essentially intra-subjective reason, while what vedantists (and all those who do not begin with revelation) call 'reason' is inter-subjective reason.

Pure faith, which is not depedenent upon the "reason of others" is the strongest of all possible reasons, since nothing others say or argue can shake it, unless faith gets weakened on its own terms.

Re: # 318

Well said dear Kaal; you are great. Iqbal had perhaps said the same thing:

"Ghulami me nah kaam aati hein tadbiirein nah shamsheerein
jo ho zouqe yaqiin peida to kat jaati hein
zanjirein"

The question is; why this spiritual slavery engendering personality cult, having faith in 'reason of others'?

rahul, without detracting from PM's genuinely admirable abilities, his greatest strength is that he understands/accepts/acknowledges the power of faith. He is familiar with it. No Hindu can seem to keep himself or herself from dismissing faith. It is the unshakeable Vedanta effect. If you go the Vedantist route then nothing of semitic thought makes any sense (all of Greek philosophy does, the Chinese religiosity, the nature paganism, and all that does, but not semitic thinking). But if you acknowledge that others may choose a route very different from Vedanta, then you end up anywhere from sufism, to Christianity, or to Islam itself, depending upon where you are born and your own natural preferences.

PM, where do you get your debating legs from?Do you takechyawanprash?
Or,Boost is the secret of your energy?
P.S.-This is a serious question.

tahmed#293:

"MiLord, I rest my case. :-)"

No sir, you haven't even started to present your case, which was to respond to the question:
"Is it mandatory for Hindu/Indian chowkies to discuss these problems regardless of what the topic of discussion is?"

BTW, I like your post #295, except that one can be agnostic or god-indifferent (e.g., Buddha) and avoid the dichotomy between atheism and gnosim.

Re: # 315

Dost_mittar:

"BTW, I like your post #295, except that one can be agnostic or god-indifferent (e.g., Buddha) and avoid the dichotomy between atheism and gnosim."

Very good formula indeed! It recalls to me an Ahamadi preacher friend of mine who once said that the most frustrating person is the one to whom when we preach our religion by saying that Mirza Ghulam Mohd is a prophet would simply say, "What then?"

Btw, Budha talked about the Law only as Paky Chief Justice is doing today talking about the law and constitution without personalizing it.