Muhammed- The Peadophile

Coming from the Muslim bashing xenophobe herself....

Originally posted by Alfheim
Well I get the feeling your a homophobe. Kali seems to be making valid points about Islam but you keep ignoring them. Lil B makes complaints about Islam but I dont see you getting on her case.

When Kali stated he didnt like Islam because they executed gays you were like "so". So obvoulsy your beef with Kali isnt that hes against Islam its that you dont like him because hes gay.

However, Quiero's points are right.

1. Urizen made this thread simply to bash Muslims and to annoy 2 members of this forum. If we had objective mods here, this would be closed.

2. Urizen'sestance on Islam/Muslims is the same as other's stances on homosexuality/gays.

islam is so far beyond humane/rational thats its not even funny, trying to debate its relevance. same goes for most other abrahamic relegions. its funny seeing muslims{or some pro muslims} trying to reconcile it as NORMAL. {no offence}

personally i dont have anything against islam bashing{or christican bashing for that matter} as long as the person knows their stuff and bash the RELEGION, and not the follower. if u start bashing the followers it becomes almost as silly as the relegion itself.

Originally posted by Alliance
Coming from the Muslim bashing xenophobe herself....

However, Quiero's points are right.

1. Urizen made this thread simply to bash Muslims and to annoy 2 members of this forum. If we had objective mods here, this would be closed.

2. Urizen'sestance on Islam/Muslims is the same as other's stances on homosexuality/gays.

Whatever, this thread is still valid. Furthermore Queiro comes off as if hes picking on Kali because hes gay.

Originally posted by Alliance
Coming from the Muslim bashing xenophobe herself....

However, Quiero's points are right.

1. Urizen made this thread simply to bash Muslims and to annoy 2 members of this forum. If we had objective mods here, this would be closed.

2. Urizen'sestance on Islam/Muslims is the same as other's stances on homosexuality/gays.

Get a grip (and a life).

I never bashed Muslims as people (unlike you do with Christians), I criticise Islam, the ideology, and the founder Muhammad, not Muslims, the people.

Learn Islam, then come debate. Your super ignorant sly comments are amusing, but tiring.

Its one thing to be wilfully ignorant, its a whole other to be annoying one at that.

Originally posted by Fatima
From where do u get that ???I have many friends from Oman never heard of it 😕

Originally posted by Alliance

1. Urizen made this thread simply to bash Muslims and to annoy 2 members of this forum. If we had objective mods here, this would be closed.

1. Why is the question "Was Muhammed a pedophile because he had sex with a 9 year old girl?" not valid? Clearly you don't think having sex with a 9 year old is ok, so why is it not ok to question that belief. In fact, why would it NOT be ok to question someone on their belief in this matter? If a Muslim claims to follow a book that condones pedophilia, isn't ok to question them about that belief?

2. There are places in the world where this belief leads to children being sold to older men as sexual property. Obviously you do not agree with this. How then can you justify trying to censor questions of this morality as "objective" then?

Originally posted by Alliance
2. Urizen'sestance on Islam/Muslims is the same as other's stances on homosexuality/gays.

Urizen has gone out of his way to say that his stance on pedophilia is non judgmental. He is wondering a question of fact. The stance of most people against homosexuality is moral in nature. They are not questioning fact.

However, I will throw MY hat in the ring and say a moral thing about Islam that is equivalent.

Islam, and those that practice certain oppressive beliefs supported by thus, is evil because it condones the acts that all civilized people would be appalled by.

now, if to you, that stance is the exact equivalent of: Homosexuals are evil because of the evil sexual acts they commit, then I have noting more to say to you. That essentially excuses all atrocity ever, and in fact demonizes the struggle of man for freedom against tyranny as the same as a tyrant's struggle to oppress people.

Originally posted by inimalist
1. Why is the question "Was Muhammed a pedophile because he had sex with a 9 year old girl?" not valid? Clearly you don't think having sex with a 9 year old is ok, so why is it not ok to question that belief. In fact, why would it NOT be ok to question someone on their belief in this matter? If a Muslim claims to follow a book that condones pedophilia, isn't ok to question them about that belief?

2. There are places in the world where this belief leads to children being sold to older men as sexual property. Obviously you do not agree with this. How then can you justify trying to censor questions of this morality as "objective" then?

Urizen has gone out of his way to say that his stance on pedophilia is non judgmental. He is wondering a question of fact. The stance of most people against homosexuality is moral in nature. They are not questioning fact.

However, I will throw MY hat in the ring and say a moral thing about Islam that is equivalent.

Islam, and those that practice certain oppressive beliefs supported by thus, is evil because it condones the acts that all civilized people would be appalled by.

now, if to you, that stance is the exact equivalent of: Homosexuals are evil because of the evil sexual acts they commit, then I have noting more to say to you. That essentially excuses all atrocity ever, and in fact demonizes the struggle of man for freedom against tyranny as the same as a tyrant's struggle to oppress people.

👆

Originally posted by Alfheim
Whatever, this thread is still valid. Furthermore Queiro comes off as if hes picking on Kali because hes gay.

Quiero has always done that....that is why I no longer pm him or address him.

He has sided with sithsaber about how he thinks homosexuality is wrong, disgusting, abnormal, and unnatural. But then he says he doesn't hate Gay people 🙄

He is okay with The Quran's law about killing Gays, because that is Law..as he so puts it.

Quiero is very defensive of Christianity and Islam, because he is an admirer of the concept of God, and it is deep integrated into his upbringing and culture. I am fine with that. But I find it hypocritical that he thinks it is okay to attack homosexuality and still be free from being labelled a homophobe, but when I attack Islam, im suddenly "islamophobic"

On top of that, he is trying to argue that my disrespect for the Quran is equivalent to a homophobe's hate of homosexual people, but when I earlier argued that Homophobia is the same as Racism, he disagreed and said that Racism is far worse than Homophobia.

He, like Alliance, is a fkn hypocrite 👇

Alliance, the other one 👇

Alliance has attacked Buddhism and Christianity, not only the practice, but the texts as well. He then claims he does not hate Christians or Buddhists. But when I attack the Quran, the concentration of violence done in the Middle East under Quran Law, and Muhammed himself, he goes ballistic and labels me a bigot.....

Right, Alliance...and what about your attacks on Buddhism and Christianity ? Ur somehow not a bigot ? Are you exempt ? 🙄

There is no doubt that in most countries today it is not acceptable for a 53–year-old man to marry a 9–year-girl. Why? Because it is against the law and against the traditions of the people. This means that if we want to label any action as wrong, then we need to ask: wrong according to what, the law or the traditions

The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) never violated the law, the Qur’an descended during his lifetime and never prohibited the Prophet’s acts. Also, the Messenger never violated the traditions and customs of his people, as we all know that he was attacked vigorously by the idolaters, the Jews, and the hypocrites. They lashed out at him boldly and continuously attempted to defame his personality, but they never claimed that he was a pedophile or a child abuser. Why? In fact, using his marriage to `A’ishah, when she was so young, could have been an excellent opportunity to destroy him and to convince his Companions and followers that he was not worthy of following .

The answer is simply because these kinds of practices were the norm at that time of the Prophet . Therefore, he didn’t violate the traditions of his people in his time. Prophet Muhammad was also married to Safiyyah, the daughter of Huyayy ibn Akhtab, the leader of a Jewish tribe in Arabia. The Prophet married her when she was 16 years old and guess what? He was her third husband; she was married twice before him. So, how old do you think she was when she got married to her first husband? Probably around 9, just like `A’ishah.

want to read more ..

http://discover.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1129443839169&pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam%2FAskAboutIslamE%2FAskAboutIslamE

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
👆

If I posted a thread about Buddah and called it :Buddah the sexist ..and I brought some evidence u will not locked it ..Right ???

Originally posted by Fatima
There is no doubt that in most countries today it is not acceptable for a 53–year-old man to marry a 9–year-girl. Why? Because it is against the law and against the traditions of the people. This means that if we want to label any action as wrong, then we need to ask: wrong according to what, the law or the traditions

The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) never violated the law, the Qur’an descended during his lifetime and never prohibited the Prophet’s acts. Also, the Messenger never violated the traditions and customs of his people, as we all know that he was attacked vigorously by the idolaters, the Jews, and the hypocrites. They lashed out at him boldly and continuously attempted to defame his personality, but they never claimed that he was a pedophile or a child abuser. Why? In fact, using his marriage to `A’ishah, when she was so young, could have been an excellent opportunity to destroy him and to convince his Companions and followers that he was not worthy of following .

The answer is simply because these kinds of practices were the norm at that time of the Prophet . Therefore, he didn’t violate the traditions of his people in his time. Prophet Muhammad was also married to Safiyyah, the daughter of Huyayy ibn Akhtab, the leader of a Jewish tribe in Arabia. The Prophet married her when she was 16 years old and guess what? He was her third husband; she was married twice before him. So, how old do you think she was when she got married to her first husband? Probably around 9, just like `A’ishah.

want to read more ..

http://discover.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1129443839169&pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam%2FAskAboutIslamE%2FAskAboutIslamE

yes, the traditions of the time promoted pedophelic actions and were morally wrong, thus the actions of the Prophet (pbuh) were evil, if explained in a historical context.

The fact that you try to pass this off as a historical anomaly does nothing to address the fact that there are many in the world today who practice this tradition and justify it with the religious texts.

Originally posted by Fatima
If I posted a thread about Buddah and called it :Buddah the sexist ..and I brought some evidence u will not locked it ..Right ???

The Dali Lama was a slave owner 😉

Originally posted by inimalist
The Dali Lama was a slave owner 😉

Well this is the bottom line. I could be considered to be a heathen ie religon of the vikings. If you give me examples of vikings doing things that were wrong im not going to try and justify it. Hell raping and pillaging was the norm in those times as well. Dont make it ok does it?

Originally posted by Alfheim
Well this is the bottom line. I could be considered to be a heathen ie religon of the vikings. If you give me examples of vikings doing things that were wrong im not going to try and justify it. Hell raping and pillaging was the norm in those times as well. Dont make it ok does it?

haha, you could try to 🙂

I am saying nothing against the Dali lama though, I am only imitation what was on a Bullsh*t episode. Buddhism is a great religion as far as I'm concerned, though Norse may be even cooler...

If you worship any person (Jesus, Buddha, or Muhammad) you will find, to your dismay, that they all had faults, and all fell short. After all, they were all human.

I just thought of something mildly relevant...

In 400+ years do you guys think Hitler is going to be remembered more as a Napoleon type figure, and his Jew/other people killing explained as a product of the time? (antisemitism and all those other things being common, many in North America were very supportive of Hitler during his rise to power)

Originally posted by inimalist
I just thought of something mildly relevant...

In 400+ years do you guys think Hitler is going to be remembered more as a Napoleon type figure, and his Jew/other people killing explained as a product of the time? (antisemitism and all those other things being common, many in North America were very supportive of Hitler during his rise to power)

No, but I do think that Bush will be seen as on of the best presidents of our time. 😘

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, but I do think that Bush will be seen as on of the best presidents of our time. 😘

really?

how so?

Originally posted by inimalist
really?

how so?

I was just being obtuse. 😉