Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Pedophilia is a mental disorder.
Pedophilia is not wanting to have sex with children who are under the legal age of constent, but a sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. When you say that people who are attracted to 17 years suffer from pedophilia you're not just displaying cultural ignorance, but a general ignorance in that particular field...
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That was the question I was asking. Did Muhammad have sex with a 9 year old girl?
Does it affect his status as a possible prophet?
Pedophilia doesn't say anything about someone in regards to capabilities, etc. Only that they suffer from that particular mental disorder.
Originally posted by Bentley
Oh, I don't think age makes things right.
Originally posted by Bentley
The child would be an outcast.
Originally posted by Bentley
Personally I find it disgusting.
Originally posted by Bentley
I meant to say coitus.
Originally posted by Bentley
You're surely aware that a girl at that age would not feel coerced and she'd be pretty much convinced that she wants to have sex with the guy. While that's rape, the fact that the girl is formatted for that makes the formatting more violent in our eyes than the actual coitus from her perspective at least.
Originally posted by Bentley
Again, that girl who slept with a child once may have been the saviour of all your country, friends and family. She might've threated the child she raped with love and care, taking him out of the slums and giving him great education and a place in society. But you would kill her and be proud.
Originally posted by Bentley
I don't personally think raping children deserves death, even if it's a horrible crime. So obviously I disagree with the statement.
Originally posted by krisblaze
Yes, but not one you seem to know a whole lot about.Pedophilia is not wanting to have sex with children who are under the legal age of constent, but a sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. When you say that people who are attracted to 17 years suffer from pedophilia you're not just displaying cultural ignorance, but a general ignorance in that particular field...
Originally posted by krisblaze
Okay.
Does it affect his status as a possible prophet?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Wait, age makes all the difference for a developing child.
Sure, but it doesn't necessarily comes with enough critical thinking to allow consent.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
He could take in a child that would be an outcast, and care for it, but a normal man would not want to have sex with that child.
Again, after a while the kid would feel dishonored and just kill herself. Yay!
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
A child cannot give consent.
He cannot mean it. Children didn't exist conceptually back in the day.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Her? Do you mean him?
The question was would I follow a pedophile. The answer is no. Today, I would report the person, but 2,000 years ago, I would have tried to kill the pedophile rather then follow them. I was giving you the depth of my answer.
Again, if the person in question was the saviour of all things you love, you would report her and wouldn't care that everything burns. That's beyond destructive.
I'm making it a her because women can rape children too 👆
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
We disagree.
So it seems.
Well, as long as you don't kill people is not a big deal.
Originally posted by Bentley
Sure, but it doesn't necessarily comes with enough critical thinking to allow consent.
Originally posted by Bentley
Again, after a while the kid would feel dishonored and just kill herself. Yay!
Originally posted by Bentley
He cannot mean it. Children didn't exist conceptually back in the day.
Originally posted by Bentley
Again, if the person in question was the saviour of all things you love, you would report her and wouldn't care that everything burns. That's beyond destructive.
Originally posted by Bentley
I'm making it a her because women can rape children too 👆
Originally posted by Bentley
Well, as long as you don't kill people is not a big deal.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don’t think that sex is a requirement for love.
Keeping your loved one from killing herself sort of is.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But we are also talking about how those action affect today.
Eh, that's an entirely different beast. One thing is understanding the past and a very different thing is emulating the past. The Prophet cannot really do anything about the latter, is not a sin on his head.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I would not follow her, and I would report her. I would also keep a fire extinguisher close at hand.
This is sad. But at least you're brave I guess, doing the wrong thing on the open because you feel like you have to.
I think is weird considering how you judge people on history. But we humans have a contradictory nature.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Do you have a problem with solders killing the enemy?
Not particularly. It's obviously a problem when soldiers come back from the front traumatized and that cities have been razed.
I think any decent human would feel bad for kiilling people even when they deem it necessary.
Originally posted by Bentley
Keeping your loved one from killing herself sort of is.
Originally posted by Bentley
Eh, that's an entirely different beast. One thing is understanding the past and a very different thing is emulating the past. The Prophet cannot really do anything about the latter, is not a sin on his head.
Originally posted by Bentley
This is sad. But at least you're brave I guess, doing the wrong thing on the open because you feel like you have to.
Originally posted by Bentley
I think is weird considering how you judge people on history. But we humans have a contradictory nature.
Originally posted by Bentley
Not particularly. It's obviously a problem when soldiers come back from the front traumatized and that cities have been razed.
I think any decent human would feel bad for kiilling people even when they deem it necessary.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don’t think that is realistic.
That's how many dynasties worked back in the day. It was insulting not to mate with one of your wives, it could be seeing as degrading and hateful. Suicide was a very realistic outcome judging by history.
Marriage wasn't about love after all.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Like I said, no one is going back in time to arrest Muhamad. It puts into question the judgment of Allah for picking such a prophet. Fortunately, it is all fiction anyways.
Allah could pick people who did wrong things. If there is an entity such as Allah, it'd be hard to discern his motivations.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don’t understand way the reporting the rape of a child would be sad, or the wrong thing. I think you have it backwards.
If by reporting the rape of a child you impeded someone from achieving something that would ultimately save your civilization, you are on the wrong. I'm talking about there being a lesser evil.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don’t judge people of history. I never judged Muhamad. I simply asked a question. Perhaps the facts are the judge, and you are mistaken.
I can be mistaken, but I'm actually defending a rather tame thesis. I don't think we can just assume an action is evil on itself -there are things that arguably come close-. Evil is relative to the options available and the possible conséquences. Looking back in time and placing blame in people is very self-righteous, specially if you consider yourself justified in killing people because of a particular action.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Have you ever read The Dead Zone by Stephen King?
Not really, is it good?
Originally posted by Bentley
That's how many dynasties worked back in the day. It was insulting not to mate with one of your wives, it could be seeing as degrading and hateful. Suicide was a very realistic outcome judging by history.
Originally posted by Bentley
Marriage wasn't about love after all.
Originally posted by Bentley
Allah could pick people who did wrong things. If there is an entity such as Allah, it'd be hard to discern his motivations.
Originally posted by Bentley
If by reporting the rape of a child you impeded someone from achieving something that would ultimately save your civilization, you are on the wrong. I'm talking about there being a lesser evil.
Originally posted by Bentley
I can be mistaken, but I'm actually defending a rather tame thesis. I don't think we can just assume an action is evil on itself -there are things that arguably come close-. Evil is relative to the options available and the possible conséquences. Looking back in time and placing blame in people is very self-righteous, specially if you consider yourself justified in killing people because of a particular action.
Originally posted by Bentley
Not really, is it good?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don’t think this applies to a 9 year old girl. She would not been aware.
It can apply and it has applied in history. That's your recently invented notion of infancy speaking for you.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
How does a 9 year old girl fit into this?
Arguably a 9 year old doesn't marry for love.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is the problem with such gods.
To be fair, my personal knowledge of ancient times is limited, that's why I don't have a clear cut opinion in the subject.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
This is too contrived. History could have play out in a better way than it did. Who is to know?
Do you realize there are people in governments that have to make this kind of call all the time? They ally themselves with people that have done much worse than raping and taking care of a child for life. They don't know better, but they are responsible for their actions.
So I don't think is contrived at all, we can make proposterous what if scenarios all we want, this is just a discussion. If you have the personal conviction that everything would be for the better, would you do it? Would you accept that there is much worse than pedophilia? That there is a greater good?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Solders kill, and it is justifiable. Killing can be justified and not be self-righteous.
The people you bring up are there to prevent killing, are in risk of being killed themselves and are trained for it. Again, I'm not the one who claims something is good or bad in the absolute, you're the one essentially saying "pédophiles should die, I would kill them myself".
Originally posted by Bentley
...The people you bring up are there to prevent killing, are in risk of being killed themselves and are trained for it. Again, I'm not the one who claims something is good or bad in the absolute, you're the one essentially saying "pédophiles should die, I would kill them myself".
You are getting confused. We are talking about 2,000 years ago, and today.
Today I would report a pedophile, but 2,000 years ago in the fictional story you created for me, I would have killed the man. Now you are saying I want to kill the man today. Do you see how you are confused?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are getting confused. We are talking about 2,000 years ago, and today.Today I would report a pedophile, but 2,000 years ago in the fictional story you created for me, I would have killed the man. Now you are saying I want to kill the man today. Do you see how you are confused?
I see that you argue in a pretty flimsy matter about timelines, since earlier you said you cared about the now and not about the past. Governments also made sacrifices for the greater good 2000 ago... It doesn't matter.
So today in my fictional timeline you would report a crime even if it doomed many lives?
So 2000 years ago in my fictional timeline you would kill a man if it doomed many lives?
I mean it literaly doesn't matter at all for my argument. Are you dancing around it on propose?
Originally posted by krisblaze
And we don't know if he put one in her when she was yet a child.
It is widely accepted in Islam that Muhammad married Aisha when she was 6-7 and consummated the marriage when she was 9(some sources say 10, more say 9) and he was in his early 50's.
So yes, we do know for all intents and purposes that Muhammad had sex with a child, as it makes no sense for the majority of Islam to go with this age considering all the stigma behind it, instead of the minority who claim she was 18 or older.
You can even google and find Islamic religious leaders speaking on the manner, just look for subtitled ones, unless you read Arabic and/or Farsi
Originally posted by Bentley
I see that you argue in a pretty flimsy matter about timelines, since earlier you said you cared about the now and not about the past.
Originally posted by Bentley
Governments also made sacrifices for the greater good 2000 ago... It doesn't matter.
Originally posted by Bentley
So today in my fictional timeline you would report a crime even if it doomed many lives?
Originally posted by Bentley
So 2000 years ago in my fictional timeline you would kill a man if it doomed many lives?
Originally posted by Bentley
I mean it literaly doesn't matter at all for my argument. Are you dancing around it on propose?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Are we talking about today, or in the past?Today, 18, unless the partner is within two years. I think that is how the law is today.
In the past, I would say puberty. 11 or 12? It depends on the girl.
Well, that's interesting, because she stayed at her parents house for 3-4 years before living with Muhammad. Aisha married at 9, not 7. Also, you're argument is just like murder. Didn't Europeans kill other Europeans during the 15th-16th century? Doesn't the world find that wrong today? So really, what argument is their.
Also, it was impossible for Muslims to rule the land that was 'claimed' by them, or so the history textbook's say. How many Muslims of Saudi Arabia were their, comparing that to Africa, Asia, and Spain? The Muslims of those lands followed Islams because they believed that Islam was true.
So, we can both say that Muhammad married Aisha at 9, yet it is a fact, from multiple sources at that time, that Muhammad waited until she was 12-13 until he allowed her to stay with him. She lived with her parents. That was really all to it. You can argue what you like, but this is fact, not speculation.
You're talking to a Muslim about your own personal opinions and beliefs. I would leave them alone, if they weren't so offensive and hateful and direly inaccurate.
Originally posted by Neisuh
Well, that's interesting, because she stayed at her parents house for 3-4 years before living with Muhammad. Aisha married at 9, not 7. Also, you're argument is just like murder. Didn't Europeans kill other Europeans during the 15th-16th century? Doesn't the world find that wrong today? So really, what argument is their.
Originally posted by Neisuh
Also, it was impossible for Muslims to rule the land that was 'claimed' by them, or so the history textbook's say. How many Muslims of Saudi Arabia were their, comparing that to Africa, Asia, and Spain? The Muslims of those lands followed Islams because they believed that Islam was true.
Originally posted by Neisuh
So, we can both say that Muhammad married Aisha at 9, yet it is a fact, from multiple sources at that time, that Muhammad waited until she was 12-13 until he allowed her to stay with him. She lived with her parents. That was really all to it. You can argue what you like, but this is fact, not speculation.
Originally posted by Neisuh
You're talking to a Muslim about your own personal opinions and beliefs. I would leave them alone, if they weren't so offensive and hateful and direly inaccurate.
Originally posted by Bentley
Since you brought pedophilia yourself I expected a more nuanced discussion. Obviously we're at a corner.As things are, I'm glad we talked.
I was told that Muhammad had sex with a 9 year old girl. I know very little about Islam, and when I ask about this issue all I get is insults. This make me suspicious that first it is true, and seconds that it maybe still allowed.
Originally posted by Neisuh
Well, that's interesting, because she stayed at her parents house for 3-4 years before living with Muhammad. Aisha married at 9, not 7. Also, you're argument is just like murder. Didn't Europeans kill other Europeans during the 15th-16th century? Doesn't the world find that wrong today? So really, what argument is their.Also, it was impossible for Muslims to rule the land that was 'claimed' by them, or so the history textbook's say. How many Muslims of Saudi Arabia were their, comparing that to Africa, Asia, and Spain? The Muslims of those lands followed Islams because they believed that Islam was true.
So, we can both say that Muhammad married Aisha at 9, yet it is a fact, from multiple sources at that time, that Muhammad waited until she was 12-13 until he allowed her to stay with him. She lived with her parents. That was really all to it. You can argue what you like, but this is fact, not speculation.
You're talking to a Muslim about your own personal opinions and beliefs. I would leave them alone, if they weren't so offensive and hateful and direly inaccurate.
This super Muslim reads directly from the Hadiths, which gives the age of marriage at 6 and age of consummation at 9:
Whatcha afraid of? Why do you fear the truth?