It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Teacher To Be Prosecuted For Calling Mohammed Child Molester

page: 6
33
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2016 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee

What is wrong with you, Annee? Really and truly? It has been well-documented that Aisha was nine or ten when Mo consummated their marriage.

I don't care if it is a Catholic priest sodomizing a young pre-teen boy or the founder of Islam scr**ing a little girl. They are all deviants.

Your constant turning-the-tables approach is sickening. I don't care what religion or what individual did it, it is deviant and should be called out for the sick deviant act it is.




posted on May, 12 2016 @ 11:48 AM
link   
It seems rational to believe it would have more to do with the development of secondary sexual characteristics, you know, boobs, public hair, menses....

Anybody having sex with a person who hasn't developed those characteristics is having sex with a child. They would know that -- now, or in the sixth century. It's innate.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bobaganoosh

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Bobaganoosh
a reply to: Annee

Yea and the nazis had a " killing jews is okay". So having a law makes an immoral action okay.

Gotcha.

Gotta love statists.


We get it.

You're anti-Islam.


Sure, I'll take that. Are you so open minded your brain fell out?

The people that defend this crap.... Some things shouldn't be tolerated.


Nobody is defending pedos, thats your first fail, second using an outdated fantasy book to call someone a pedo that lived how many centurys ago, thats your second fail.

Wanna try again



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom

Most people in Mohammed's time married young girls. It was the cultural norm. In fact, it wasn't more than 100 years ago that the Catholic church was arranging marriages for girls at age 7, and allowing them to formally marry (and presumably consummate) at age 12 for girls


Yes, they are legally a woman when their menstrual cycle starts - - about age 12.

In arranged marriages, sometimes they are younger, but are supposed to be taken in by the women of the family and taught how to take care of a household, cook, etc. They are not supposed to have sexual contact until of age, menstrual cycle.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Bobaganoosh

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Bobaganoosh
a reply to: Annee

Yea and the nazis had a " killing jews is okay". So having a law makes an immoral action okay.

Gotcha.

Gotta love statists.


We get it.

You're anti-Islam.


Sure, I'll take that. Are you so open minded your brain fell out?

The people that defend this crap.... Some things shouldn't be tolerated.


Is it just Islam?

How about Christianity?

Or Buddhism?


Nothing special about any of them.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
It seems rational to believe it would have more to do with the development of secondary sexual characteristics, you know, boobs, public hair, menses....

Anybody having sex with a person who hasn't developed those characteristics is having sex with a child. They would know that -- now, or in the sixth century. It's innate.


Legally a woman at beginning of menstrual cycle.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 11:53 AM
link   
I think we'd all be surprised at the great religious icons of any religion that's older than 500 years.

The Torah, Old Testament and New Testament were clever and didn't include much in the way of specific age details.

If Mary followed Judaic tradition, she would have been about 12 when she married Joseph. That puts the "virgin birth" by Mary at about age 12-14.

So, can God be a pedophile, too?



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: Annee

What is wrong with you, Annee? Really and truly? It has been well-documented that Aisha was nine or ten when Mo consummated their marriage.



You want to show me your source of this well-documented "truth"?

Here's mine:

The truth about Muhammad and Aisha www.theguardian.com...



According to this perspective, Aisha may have been young, but she was not younger than was the norm at the time. Other Muslims doubt the very idea that Aisha was six at the time of marriage, referring to historians who have questioned the reliability of Aisha's age as given in the saying. In a society without a birth registry and where people did not celebrate birthdays, most people estimated their own age and that of others. Aisha would have been no different. What's more, Aisha had already been engaged to someone else before she married Muhammad, suggesting she had already been mature enough by the standards of her society to consider marriage for a while. It seems difficult to reconcile this with her being six.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

I didn't refer to defending pedos. I'm talking about defending a blasphemy law.

Get it straight. So quick to point out my perceived failures you made one of your own.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee

And where is that? Many American girls begin menses now at nine. Do you think they are legally an adult? If you are speaking to ancient laws, what is your source?

Even if it was socially acceptable at the time, you would think the screaming, fighting, crying and fighting that went on with a young child would have been a clue that something was wrong, yes? Not to mention the bloody mess that is left following the rape of a young child, which more often than not, requires reconstructive surgery.

Young children who are uneducated in matters of sexual relationships often see sexual abuse as physical abuse, because of the pain involved. While it's true a nineteen year old virgin might also experience some physical discomfort, she is aware of the cause, and the fact that the pain is short lived. A young child who is sexually assaulted is unaware of that, and only perceives it as someone who is hurting her. Which they are.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 12:00 PM
link   
What gets me about some of you that are defending this pervert because it was acceptable at the time, cringe and go off-the-charts nuts when someone points out that slavery was the norm at the time it was going on.

One of these days centuries from now when people are appalled that an emerging life was allowed to be snuffed out of a woman's womb like it was nothing but a glob of cells during the late 20th and 21st centuries, someone will say but... "it was the norm at that time".



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle



Are you saying that God was telling Moses to rape virgin girls?

According to the Talmud yes he did. The Talmud says it's ok for Rabbis to have sex with three year olds.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

It was all about when you could start procreating. I started my cycle two weeks after my tenth birthday, so I could have had my first child before I turned 11. In those days, it wouldn't be uncommon at all for me to have been married at age 10 or 11.

By the way, Muslims who tend to follow this guideline now are the more rural, less educated ones (not all Muslims). That kind of stuff happens in a lot of rural areas over the world. The old ways are hard to break for that group of people, regardless of their religion. You should take a visit to the Appalachians.

Man with his sister and his bride:



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: 5StarOracle



Are you saying that God was telling Moses to rape virgin girls?

According to the Talmud yes he did. The Talmud says it's ok for Rabbis to have sex with three year olds.


You really need to source statements like that.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

Not me. The same people hollering and making a huge deal over Mohammed are more than likely fans of the "Founding Fathers" -- who by a majority owned slaves.

So, these folks are outraged at something 1400 years ago that was socially accepted then -- but cool with their own heroes and role models being slave owners. I guess they all think slavery is cool?



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting

Even if it was socially acceptable at the time, you would think the screaming, fighting, crying and fighting that went on with a young child would have been a clue that something was wrong, yes? Not to mention the bloody mess that is left following the rape of a young child, which more often than not, requires reconstructive surgery.


Where are you getting rape from?

Cultural norm of the time of Mohammed was a girl became a woman when she could bare children - - menstrual.

She is taught to accept her husband.

BTW: several states in the USA for age of marriage: "No minimum age with approval of a superior court judge and parental consent"






edit on 12-5-2016 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

Slavery in the 1600's-1700's: acceptable in society (some of our beloved founding fathers owned slaves, should we disown them and no longer respect them as our founding fathers?)
Slavery today: not acceptable in society

Child brides in the 5th century: acceptable in society (many respectable famous people in that time had child brides)
Child brides today: not acceptable in society

What about that don't you get?



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords



What gets me about some of you that are defending this pervert because it was acceptable at the time, cringe and go off-the-charts nuts when someone points out that slavery was the norm at the time it was going on.

No one is defending just pointing out facts. Judging a persons actions from over a thousand years ago by todays standards makes no sense.



One of these days centuries from now when people are appalled that an emerging life was allowed to be snuffed out of a woman's womb like it was nothing but a glob of cells during the late 20th and 21st centuries, someone will say but... "it was the norm at that time".

More than likely they would find it appalling that a person by the right of their faith gives them authority over another persons body. Also they should be advanced enough to know there is no guarantee that glob of cells will even grow into a life.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

You'll never win here. I gave up on this place a long long time ago. We all know molesting children is wrong. We also know that teachers shouldn't be speaking this way to children and we all know that these ancient religious texts are certainly NOT historical fact. Another thing we know is that we should respect the laws of countries who use vote to determine those laws. The only thing people here care about is hating Muslims despite that not a single person could claim they've ever known an actual terrorist. They're scared.

Should the teacher be criminally punished? Of course not. Should the teacher have said these things to children? Of course not. If one has the capability to speak to kids this way in a classroom setting then they should not be teachers. Religion has no place in the classroom. Replace the teacher and move on. The rest of you can tell your kids that Mohammed was a child molester in your own home. Personally, I wouldn't teach my kids much about religion except for what the definition of religion is. The rest I leave up to their own discovery.

ATS autistic crew in full effect again.
edit on 12-5-2016 by BrokedownChevy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: queenofswords

Slavery in the 1600's-1700's: acceptable in society (some of our beloved founding fathers owned slaves, should we disown them and no longer respect them as our founding fathers?)
Slavery today: not acceptable in society

Child brides in the 5th century: acceptable in society (many respectable famous people in that time had child brides)
Child brides today: not acceptable in society

What about that don't you get?



What do you not get? Re-read what I said. Those of you that condone Mo's pedophilia because it was acceptable at the time are the same posters that get their panties in a wad when some poster tells you that slavery was acceptable at the time. One you accept as okay, the other you condemn.

I'm sorry. When it comes to children, I am very defensive. Too many heinous acts are perpetrated against children by too many people, and it is especially contemptible when it is done by a religious leader just because he can.




top topics



 
33
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join