Originally posted by Robtard
^
^
Na, I'm sticking with pedophilia is pedophilia, call me stubborn and ignorant if you wish.
you mean the psychological disorder in which one has a sexual compulsion for underaged partners?
ya, mohammed would not have qualified for that whatsoever
you can stick with whatever you want, its up to you if you want to actually understand other cultures.
Originally posted by inimalist
you mean the psychological disorder in which one has a sexual compulsion for underaged partners?ya, mohammed would not have qualified for that whatsoever
you can stick with whatever you want, its up to you if you want to actually understand other cultures.
Wait so Mohamed didn't marry Aisha?
I'm confused...is it not true or something?
Originally posted by Robtard
That was an 18 year old boy with a growth problem.PS, he loved it, squealed like a pig.
Well, here's a kicker: if you were attracted to his prepubescent looking form, then that would most likely be pedophilia, as well: using his age as a crutch doesn't change that.
Originally posted by inimalist
you mean the psychological disorder in which one has a sexual compulsion for underaged partners?ya, mohammed would not have qualified for that whatsoever
you can stick with whatever you want, its up to you if you want to actually understand other cultures.
Guy marries a 6 year old and then beds her when she's 9. Yet somehow he isn't a pedophile? Was there something outside his power conpulsing/forcing him and he couldn't wait longer?
I understand that marrying and ****ing little children was culturally acceptable in his day and age, great. Yet I still don't agree with it and the man was a sick ****, imo. Just as I understand owning a negro as a slave-whipping-boy and doing whatever you wish with what was considered your "property" was culturally acceptable in 1820's United States, or parts there of. I still don't think it was okay though and slave owners were sick ****s too.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Wait so Mohamed didn't marry Aisha?I'm confused...is it not true or something?
ok....
"pedophilia" is a mental disorder. It requires more than simply "having sex with a child" to be a "pedophile".
Mohammed married Aisha for family and alliance reasons, and is required by his religion to bang her.
I'm not saying it is ok or makes sense in our culture, but calling him a "pedophile" (a word that only really makes sense in modern Western culture) is incorrect.
His previous and successful sexual marriages to 4 other women, some many years his senior, and lack of any real evidence that he pursued children, or even Aisha for that matter (remember, arranged familial alliance relationships) pretty much confirms that, while that behaviour would be unacceptable in our society, it is not the same as pedophilia
Originally posted by Robtard
I understand that marrying and ****ing little children was culturally acceptable in his day and age, great. Yet I still don't agree with it and the man was a sick ****, imo. Just as I understand owning a negro as a slave-whipping-boy and doing whatever you wish with what was considered your "property" was culturally acceptable in 1820's United States, or parts there of. I still don't think it was okay though and slave owners were sick ****s too.
sure, the act is disgusting
however, "pedophile", the term, actually means something different from how you are using it
Originally posted by dadudemon
Wait so Mohamed didn't marry Aisha?I'm confused...is it not true or something?.
He did marry her. She became his favourite wife and quite powerful after his death.
His marriage to Aisha is one of many controversies in Islam - I have heard Muslim scholars defend it with ''women mature faster in hot areas''.
The problem is not only in the fact he married Aisha - problem is that Muhammed is supposed to be the perfect human being and an example for us all - does that then mean we are to allow 45 year old men to marry 9 year old girls?
If not, then he cannot be that perfect human being and it puts into question a lot of Muhammad's claims.
i have subjective morals and i realize that some morals are based on society and time period... if it is the norm and so long as it doesnt force someone into such a situation it doesnt bother me.. but if they are being forced and the girl or boy are unable to make an informed consent then that might be a problem...
ppl need to look at it like this they dont believe in what you believe and no one is forcing you to live the way someone else lives.. you have no more reason telling an african bushman how to raise his child then the bushman has any right to tell you how to fix your car..
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
i have subjective morals and i realize that some morals are based on society and time period... if it is the norm and so long as it doesnt force someone into such a situation it doesnt bother me.. but if they are being forced and the girl or boy are unable to make an informed consent then that might be a problem...ppl need to look at it like this they dont believe in what you believe and no one is forcing you to live the way someone else lives.. you have no more reason telling an african bushman how to raise his child then the bushman has any right to tell you how to fix your car..
I would argue that human beings tend to thrive better in certain situations as opposed to others. Ethics are relative only when one refuses to apply a framework with which to view the human condition.
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
is it unethical to send a 12 yr old into the wild with a wooden spear and rags for a few weeks months and told to bring back a bear, wolf, hyena?
Obviously external conditions apply and the remaining groups of African tribes that still live life in the traditional manner, must act in such a way that they will survive. However, such lifestyles are not necessary given modern day technology and capabilities.
Dispatching out a child to go and hunt dangerous game for extended periods of time, is not a healthy for that child's wellbeing unless these tribes wish to continue to live in such a manner. I suppose one could call it a cultural novelty at best.
Originally posted by Autokratsame with marrying and matching young children to older adults,.. also keep in mind that the life span was quiet shorter back in the day...
Obviously external conditions apply and the remaining groups of African tribes that still live life in the traditional manner, must act in such a way that they will survive. However, such lifestyles are not necessary given modern day technology and capabilities.Dispatching out a child to go and hunt dangerous game for extended periods of time, is not a healthy for that child's wellbeing unless these tribes wish to continue to live in such a manner. I suppose one could call it a cultural novelty at best.
anyways do you see any moral issues with genitalia mutilation, like circumcision or Female genital cutting?
Originally posted by inimalist
ok...."pedophilia" is a mental disorder. It requires more than simply "having sex with a child" to be a "pedophile".
Mohammed married Aisha for family and alliance reasons, and is required by his religion to bang her.
I'm not saying it is ok or makes sense in our culture, but calling him a "pedophile" (a word that only really makes sense in modern Western culture) is incorrect.
His previous and successful sexual marriages to 4 other women, some many years his senior, and lack of any real evidence that he pursued children, or even Aisha for that matter (remember, arranged familial alliance relationships) pretty much confirms that, while that behaviour would be unacceptable in our society, it is not the same as pedophilia
Oh, the old "not a true-pedophile" argument, huh? You crafty research psychologist, you. 😊
However, he did NOT need to have sex with her and it was not necessary. In fact, it would have been frowned upon by his own people until she at least started menstruating: fact.
And you said he was required by his religion to have sex with her? You mean the religion he championed, right? (Joseph Smith still gets shit for his multiple wives thing...so why not Muhammad (I didn't spell it correclty the first time, right? 😄 )
You are probably more aware than I am, but pedophiles justify their actions and make excuses for it. "It was necessary to create a familial bond with a man that I was already 'brothers' with." So weird that he needed to forge an alliance with a man that he was "brothers" with, don't you think?
Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh, the old "not a true-pedophile" argument, huh? You crafty research psychologist, you. 😊However, he did NOT need to have sex with her and it was not necessary. In fact, it would have been frowned upon by his own people until she at least started menstruating: fact.
And you said he was required by his religion to have sex with her? You mean the religion he championed, right? (Joseph Smith still gets shit for his multiple wives thing...so why not Muhammad (I didn't spell it correclty the first time, right? 😄 )
You are probably more aware than I am, but pedophiles justify their actions and make excuses for it. "It was necessary to create a familial bond with a man that I was already 'brothers' with." So weird that he needed to forge an alliance with a man that he was "brothers" with, don't you think?
Do you ever watch Date Line w/ Chris Hansen? Those are pedophiles; caught red-handed. A lot of pedophiles are also rapist-murderers; they abduct the child, rape and then kill her, and dump the body in a ditch somewhere. They don't marry her and hold off on the sex for a few years like Mohammed did. Also, pedophiles have a pattern of it; Mohammed's first wife was 20 years his senior.
So Mohammed didn't have any paraphilia. He married an underage girl because it was politically to his advantage (very common in that era), not because he was some sex-crazed peddy-bear.
You release he married her when she was 6 years old?
And how many times must I point out that Muhammad IS al-insan al-kamil. He is regarded as having the divine intellect. What century it was does not play out in this - because he is the man God sent - and gave him the divine intellect.
He allowed his followers to keep women as concubines after they pillaged towns and villages, but told them they must hold off sex for 3 days while the women mourned their murdered husbands.
So either he is not al insan al kamil and does not have the divine intellect, or we're all wrong. It is one or the other.
Therefore, it is against God (or that particular God who sent Muhammad) that we're working against or he wasn't sent by one.
EDIT - He did NOT marry Aisha for political reasons.
It explicitly states in the Hadith that he married her because Allah wished it.
Sahih Bukhari 9.140
Narrated 'Aisha:
Allah's Apostle said to me, "You were shown to me twice (in my dream) before I married you. I saw an angel carrying you in a silken piece of cloth, and I said to him, 'Uncover (her),' and behold, it was you. I said (to myself), 'If this is from Allah, then it must happen.
God also said in the old testament to kill all the women who have known the touch of man and all the males including the animals when they would destroy a city once this is done they may take the women who have not known the touch of man.. its sounds the same and i guess god's divine judgment is also being scrutinized when we look at muhammad (peace be upon him). iirc..
we really cant judge ppl with our own modern morality..
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
You release he married her when she was 6 years old?And how many times must I point out that Muhammad IS al-insan al-kamil. He is regarded as having the divine intellect. What century it was does not play out in this - because he is the man God sent - and gave him the divine intellect.
He allowed his followers to keep women as concubines after they pillaged towns and villages, but told them they must hold off sex for 3 days while the women mourned their murdered husbands.
So either he is not al insan al kamil and does not have the divine intellect, or we're all wrong. It is one or the other.
Therefore, it is against God (or that particular God who sent Muhammad) that we're working against or he wasn't sent by one.EDIT - He did NOT marry Aisha for political reasons.
It explicitly states in the Hadith that he married her because Allah wished it.Sahih Bukhari 9.140
Narrated 'Aisha:
Allah's Apostle said to me, "You were shown to me twice (in my dream) before I married you. I saw an angel carrying you in a silken piece of cloth, and I said to him, 'Uncover (her),' and behold, it was you. I said (to myself), 'If this is from Allah, then it must happen.
I'm arguing whether he was the Al-Insan Al-Kamil or not--I don't believe he had a hankering for only underage girls.
The Hadith is not the Koran.