"Everyone Draw Muhammad Day" causing waves.

Yes, it's important to note that he indeed is not a pedophile. Only a child-****er.

The difference is clearly monumental.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
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.

You're not arguing that, exactly, you're choosing to ignore it, which bears a huge importance on the argument.

And Hadith is not the Qur'an, indeed. I dread to think that if Muslims who wrote the Hadith and were devoted to Muhammed, followed him, went to war with him and converted to his religion wrote such things, what would non muslims, if there, witnessing his life, actually write.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
You're not arguing that, exactly, you're choosing to ignore it, which bears a huge importance on the argument.

I'm not arguing that, sorry.

@ lil bitchiness
i am fully aware that the judeo religion was the bases for the various beliefs like christianity, Quran and what not just like all the old various sects.. did you know the Torah the judeo religion was heavily inspired by an even older religion like Zoroastrianism?

now the reason i mention it is b/c they are all tied in to the same god but different time and different view from a different culture...

anyways if i didnt know about their similarity and connections i must have slept through all my religious,cultural and theology classes..
🤓 😖mart:

anyways i think the way you argue is hot... 😮
you must be smart and pretty.. wanna bite of my apple?
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/04/28/2_ringer_060425113418891_wideweb__300x459.jpg

Originally posted by BackFire
Yes, it's important to note that he indeed is not a pedophile. Only a child-****er.

The difference is clearly monumental.

The former has a constant psychological urge to have sex with children.

He wasn't the only child-****er in that place and era, it was commonplace. If you lived in 600's Arabia, you may well have been a child-****er too. Now, its easy to look at Mohammed from the viewpoint of a 21st Century American and say "Hell no I wouldn't! That's sick, dude!". But if you were raised then, your mentality on the topic would be totally different.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
@ lil bitchiness
i am fully aware that the judeo religion was the bases for the various beliefs like christianity, Quran and what not just like all the old various sects.. did you know the Torah the judeo religion was heavily inspired by an even older religion like Zoroastrianism?

now the reason i mention it is b/c they are all tied in to the same god but different time and different view from a different culture...

anyways if i didnt know about their similarity and connections i must have slept through all my religious,cultural and theology classes..
🤓 😖mart:

anyways i think the way you argue is hot... 😮
you must be smart and pretty.. wanna bite of my apple?
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/04/28/2_ringer_060425113418891_wideweb__300x459.jpg

The Zoroastrian God is not the Abrahamic God. Just because they believe in one god, doesn't mean its related to the Biblical/Koranic view of god. Sikhs believe in one god, but its not the Abrahamic God.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
The Zoroastrian God is not the Abrahamic God. Just because they believe in one god, doesn't mean its related to the Biblical/Koranic view of god. Sikhs believe in one god, but its not the Abrahamic God.

Judaism was heavily influenced by Zoroastrianism, especially the dualistic concept of light vs dark, good vs evil.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota

The Zoroastrian God is not the Abrahamic God. Just because they believe in one god, doesn't mean its related to the Biblical/Koranic view of god. Sikhs believe in one god, but its not the Abrahamic God.

i wasnt referring Zoroastrianism's god being the judeo god... i was referring to the judeo/christian god to the islamic god being the same..

i just threw in Zoroastrianism b/c i was asking her a question if she knew that judeo religion was heavily inspired by Zoroastrianism..

The original Hebrew god was a Cannite sky god.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
The former has a constant psychological urge to have sex with children.

He wasn't the only child-****er in that place and era, it was commonplace. If you lived in 600's Arabia, you may well have been a child-****er too. Now, its easy to look at Mohammed from the viewpoint of a 21st Century American and say "Hell no I wouldn't! That's sick, dude!". But if you were raised then, your mentality on the topic would be totally different.

Cultural relativism. Whoo. Gotta love a philosophy that can rationalize childrape.
😬

Originally posted by Autokrat
The original Hebrew god was a Cannite sky god.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Cultural relativism. Whoo. Gotta love a philosophy that can rationalize childrape.
😬

there is an actual sexual compulsion, a full on paraphelia, called pedophilia. Among other things, symptoms essentially require that a person be unable to recieve sexual gratification without it somehow involving young children.

There is no evidence that mohammed had this, and it is silly to suggest that mental health issues are just "made up" for social justification

So all pedophiles only have (or crave) sex with children; this makes them pedophiles?

By those standards, there are likely very few pedophiles, as there's a considerable percentage of "child- ****ers" that also have sex with adults, are in [sexual] relationships with adults or have been in the past.

Whether it be the Pope and his many friends, Muhammad marrying a six year old, Rabbis completing circumcisions with their teeth, or whatever; Religion is a clearly a playground for nonces who know that if their flock was dumb enough to fall for the whole god thing that they will most likely be dumb enough to accept their f***ed explanations as to why they should be allowed to abuse children.. alarming that so many of the flock, (and even the ones not in that flock in this thread) knowingly defend/excuse paedophilia in this thread.

And I think Robtards right.
At no point whatsoever would "I have an adult wife" be accepted as evidence of an accused nonce's non-guilt.
The amount of Catholic priests that are married should prove that.

Heard on the news, that the facebook site has "gone". Facebook say they didn´t remove it.

Looks like violent threats won the day again.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
The former has a constant psychological urge to have sex with children.

He wasn't the only child-****er in that place and era, it was commonplace. If you lived in 600's Arabia, you may well have been a child-****er too. Now, its easy to look at Mohammed from the viewpoint of a 21st Century American and say "Hell no I wouldn't! That's sick, dude!". But if you were raised then, your mentality on the topic would be totally different.

There was alot of raping and pillaging going on back in the day. That makes it ok. 👆

Originally posted by Robtard
So all pedophiles only have (or crave) sex with children; this makes them pedophiles?

By those standards, there are likely very few pedophiles, as there's a considerable percentage of "child- ****ers" that also have sex with adults, are in [sexual] relationships with adults or have been in the past.

yes

there are far more sexual criminals than simply pedophiles

also, people who do qualify as pedophiles traditionally have a very difficuly time holding down normal relations with people. Its not like a "school girl" fetish, or seeing that overly mature 14 yo at the mall.

We have to be able to distinguish problematic and criminal sexual behaviour from compulsive, essentially, predation of children

EDIT: blah, whatever, its a dumb issue and people already think that trying to distinguish between relevant categories is defending people's actions, /sigh, the future is bright

Originally posted by Deadline
There was alot of raping and pillaging going on back in the day. That makes it ok. 👆

No, but the acceptance of it in those cultures certainly goes a long way toward explaining why people kept doing it.

Originally posted by Deadline
There was alot of raping and pillaging going on back in the day. That makes it ok. 👆

this is a good point, you can't judge people who lived in a totally different era, a barbaric era which we cannot begin to comprehend by today's standards

Originally posted by inimalist
there is an actual sexual compulsion, a full on paraphelia, called pedophilia. Among other things, symptoms essentially require that a person be unable to recieve sexual gratification without it somehow involving young children.

There is no evidence that mohammed had this, and it is silly to suggest that mental health issues are just "made up" for social justification

This position is, as I see it, a perfect example of how Cultural Relativism can be contorted to defend even the most backwards and wrongheaded actions imaginable. As far as I can tell, the actual motivations behind his actions were ascribed (by QM) entirely to Cultural Norms, rather than some sort of active sexual compulsion. Thus, I was not (intentionally) suggesting that "mental health issues are just 'made up.'"

Edit: i seem to have stepped into a discussion without the necessary context. 😮

Originally posted by inimalist
yes

there are far more sexual criminals than simply pedophiles

also, people who do qualify as pedophiles traditionally have a very difficuly time holding down normal relations with people. Its not like a "school girl" fetish, or seeing that overly mature 14 yo at the mall.

We have to be able to distinguish problematic and criminal sexual behaviour from compulsive, essentially, predation of children

EDIT: blah, whatever, its a dumb issue and people already think that trying to distinguish between relevant categories is defending people's actions, /sigh, the future is bright

I understood what you were saying: It wasn't clincal pedophilia. I agree with that.

But, I'm sure Backfire hit it right on the head with his post: why the **** does it matter if children were his primary preference? He still ****ed a little girl. It was not necessary for an alliance (the girl was the daughter of Muhammad's "brother"😉. A sex act, one time, with a child, does not constitute clinical pedophilia, of course. Muhammad can try and justify sex with a child all he wants, but it's still sex with a child. There's a reason it's looked down upon as something horrible: 1. we are programmed to find sexually mature humans attractive and there are several markers that make this easy. 2. Little girls can't handle a full grown man's penis: some girls die from sex with an adult male (how absurdly horrible.) 3. Muhammad HAD to get an sustain an erection in order to have sex with a girl, which means, on some level, he was sexually attracted to a prepubescent child. 4. It looks like he used religion to get away with it.

4 reasons for me to not give a shit that it doesn't qualify as clinical pedophilia.

Maybe you could talk some sense into me: I'm probably being extremely biased about this because of how much I care about my daughter and my crapload of nieces: I would NEVER condone or agree to letting a 50+ year-old-man have sex with any of them at 9. That's just so horrible and disgustingly wrong from both a biological and my own emotional perspective.