Originally posted by Bardock42
What today is wrong? I am not sure. Help me.
Your simplistic beliefs are beyond help; I will simply rely on the fact that the majority of others will see as totally irrational a view that says that such child labour is in any way acceptable.
And yes, same standards to the old Khanmeister. They were evil times. That's an explanation, not an excuse.
Originally posted by Islamic_Cleric
But not in that society.
And again, nor did the Nazis think it was wrong to mass murder Jews, so who the hell cares what they think? It was still wrong by any reasonable or rational use of such terminoloy.
Of course, your simplistic use of the word 'society' is unhelpful in the matter.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
The Romans WERE evil. Blimey, one of the most vicious civilisations that were ever around!They are admired in spite of that, not in forgiveness of it.
Pax Romana is hardly evil to me. And aren`t Athenians also evil by those standards? They have wiped the population of few small city-states in Peloponese War, had slavery, etc.
20th century Western standards are not universal, I believe.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Your simplistic beliefs are beyond help; I will simply rely on the fact that the majority of others will see as totally irrational a view that says that such child labour is in any way acceptable.And yes, same standards to the old Khanmeister. They were evil times. That's an explanation, not an excuse.
My accurate beliefs might be beyond your beliefs. That is correct. But anyways, wrong thread to bring it up anyways.
Pax Romana was designed entirely to protect Roman citizens, and was enforced in horrendously immoral; ways to the benefit of a society routed in repression and misery.
And yes, the Athenians were pretty evil too in the slavery basis of things (though the Spartans were rather more guility there). Again, evil times. Excuses nothing.
Late 20th century western moral standards are superior in every significant manner.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
And again, nor did the Nazis think it was wrong to mass murder Jews, so who the hell cares what they think? It was still wrong by any reasonable or rational use of such terminoloy.Of course, your simplistic use of the word 'society' is unhelpful in the matter.
This is true but only for those of us who learnt our morality from the books. People forget in a way we all share a god the peoples of the books.
Originally posted by Goddess Kali
That's not what I am asking....this is not about whether it is okay to be a peadophile or not.Please leave judgement out of this....this is about a clear observation....Muslimscholar, Fatima, Islamcleric...the question is simple.
Is [b]Muhammed
a peadophile, yes or no ?In the thread entited "Islam Questions", this question was raised, but never really answered by you guys, so I decided to make a thread just about this one isolated topic.
Muhammed had sex with a 9 year old girl....Cleric says 12....fine, but either way she was very young, she was NOT an adult.
That was an act of peadophilia he committed when he consummated a marriage with a 9 year old.
Why do you deny it ? [/B]
Real pedophilia is a compulsion to be attracted to children. If the majority of his wives were not young and there is no real evidence that he had a compulsion for children it is probably safe to assume that he was not a pedophile.
There are many qualities that children possess that when they manifest themselves in adulthood are considered sexually attractive. The idea of a mature 9 or 12 year old may be more comparable to being his "lolita" barring any further evidence of pedophilia.
I am with you though. The act is one of "pedophilia" even if it is unclear whether or not Muhammed would have had the pedophilic compulsion.
If that answer in any way made sense I'd answer it.
Bottom line- if the given passages are accurate, then yes, he wualifies as a paedophile, but I am hazy to make judgments based on such subjective and questionable material.
And yes, it might be simply in tune with the times he was in. That excuses nothing.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
If that answer in any way made sense I'd answer it.Bottom line- if the given passages are accurate, then yes, he wualifies as a paedophile, but I am hazy to make judgments based on such subjective and questionable material.
And yes, it might be simply in tune with the times he was in. That excuses nothing.
Oh it does though. It excuses a lot.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
It excuses bugger all.besides which, it was always far from impossible to rise above the moral limitations of society at the time. In fact, positive changes have often only come about because of such people rising above.
Yes, but it is way harder. It's easy to talk being supported like both our views are in our societies, but of course the standards of your time do to some extent excuse your behaviour...in a reasonable (man-made/non-absolute) set of morals at least.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, but it is way harder. It's easy to talk being supported like both our views are in our societies, but of course the standards of your time do to some extent excuse your behaviour...in a reasonable (man-made/non-absolute) set of morals at least.
Everyone is a produst off the environment they exist in.
What I mean Ush, is that we can expect more from people living in advanced modern societies than from people from ages ago.
Let`s say we have 2 people. One lives in modern Western country, and is murderer and rapist-psychopath or sociopath, let`s say. Another one is soldier from the past- you can say he is Mongolian/Asyrian/Roman... it doesn`t matter. The army conquers a city, and there is total slaughter and pillaging. Soldier partcipates in murdering and raping of civillians, just like others.
Do you really think that we can judge those two people in the same way?