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.

 

Muhamed was a child molester.

page: 20
51
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2016 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox




I am consistently against atrocities, no matter when or who is commiting them.

Yeah. They say hindsight is always 20/20.




posted on May, 15 2016 @ 07:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: JoshuaCox




I am consistently against atrocities, no matter when or who is commiting them.

Yeah. They say hindsight is always 20/20.


Exactly..and looking back. A big percentage of them were monsters.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 07:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: mulberry4000
a reply to: 5StarOracle

Again your imposing your own 21th century view on a man of the 7th century. To him or ayiasha she was a adult, and to her family as well when she reached puberty. Marriage was not about sex is Islam or pre Islamic Arabia, you must understand this, it was a social contract. A man who married a girl does not necessary marry for sex but to unite families of importance. Muhammad was offered Ayisaha by her father who wanted to cement his relationship with the man he considered the prophet of god, and in direct communication. This was accepted by all at the time and for the last 1400 year. Also people have linked Muslim countries who do this as backward, in the same vain as African countries, well we are in no postion to say who is back ward. For Muslim societies would regard abortion as murder and the fact millions of children have been aborted in the mass would be grossly shocking to Muslim societies, they would say the west is barbaric and backward etc.


Abortion is not a new thing. People have been drinking weird herbs and such to end unwanted pregnancy for all of recorded human history.

No matter what culture.

In fact, the bible is suspiciously silent on a subject that would have absolutely been an issue in the first century...or I guess if it wasn't an issue, it is because it wasn't considered particularly immoral.


Maybe future generations will consider it barbaric, I don't know, but it won't only be modern society they point at.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 07:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: JoshuaCox




I am consistently against atrocities, no matter when or who is commiting them.

Yeah. They say hindsight is always 20/20.


Exactly..and looking back. A big percentage of them were monsters.

Yes. Except for the Christians, of course.
/sarcasm


edit on 5/15/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: Thetan
Yikes, this should be interesting:

All cases of an adult having sexual relations with a nine year old child is a case of child molestation.
Muhamed was an adult who had sexual relations with nine year old child.
Therefore, Muhamed was a child molester.


This is the argument. The only way to prove the conclusion wrong is to show that one or both of the premises is false.

www.thereligionofpeace.com...



Well let's be fair...if you go back 700+ years , everyone's ancestors were pediaphiles. Including nearly every major figure from the bible.

Now I personally am in the camp that thinks we SHOULD NOT be excusing nor glorifying the immoral acts of previous generations.

Sure the founding fathers created America, but they were also mainly slave owning rapists.

That said I am quite sure the Jesus being transgendered is an insane stretch. About to read the site now.


According to YOUR INTERPRETATION. Biologically WHEN you hit puberty you are not a child anymore. SO its actually dishonest to call them pedophiles or child molestors.

Also Not all the founding fathers were slave owners. And Do you got any proof of them being rapist? Back that up.



Tomas Jefferson had children with his 15 year old slave. DNA has even verified his modern decendents....

2/3 of the founding fathers kept slaves, and the majority of slave owners banged them. I mean come on...you have a in house female who (upon pain of beating or death) has to do whatever you tell her... It isn't hard To guess how that went most of the time..


All thought anyone not a white male, was a second class citizen, and women and children were property.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: Thetan
Yikes, this should be interesting:

All cases of an adult having sexual relations with a nine year old child is a case of child molestation.
Muhamed was an adult who had sexual relations with nine year old child.
Therefore, Muhamed was a child molester.


This is the argument. The only way to prove the conclusion wrong is to show that one or both of the premises is false.

www.thereligionofpeace.com...



Well let's be fair...if you go back 700+ years , everyone's ancestors were pediaphiles. Including nearly every major figure from the bible.

Now I personally am in the camp that thinks we SHOULD NOT be excusing nor glorifying the immoral acts of previous generations.

Sure the founding fathers created America, but they were also mainly slave owning rapists.

That said I am quite sure the Jesus being transgendered is an insane stretch. About to read the site now.


According to YOUR INTERPRETATION. Biologically WHEN you hit puberty you are not a child anymore. SO its actually dishonest to call them pedophiles or child molestors.

Also Not all the founding fathers were slave owners. And Do you got any proof of them being rapist? Back that up.



You do realize you just said it was ok to have sex with a child, as long as they had entered puberty, right.....


Back in the past they were raised this way and they didnt see it as rape due to SURVIVAL OF THE SPECIES. Death was very high back then. Youre not getting the distinction between Pre pubesent and pubesent.

Back in biblical times lifespans were very short due to disease,war,and social standing. To overcome the death rate it was each persons duty to procreate. Your people back then were way way smarter than todays versions. A 12 year old of intelligence back then will be mentally older if they were tested by todays standards.

You are so hung up on the laws of today you refuse to see. THEY DID NOT SCREW AROUND WITH GIRLS WHO WERE NOT BIOLOGICALLY READY BACK THEN. (caps for easy comprehension)

In MODERN TIMES though its NOT OK. but your saying it was wrong back then is just wrong because times and circumstances were not equal.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: Thetan
Yikes, this should be interesting:

All cases of an adult having sexual relations with a nine year old child is a case of child molestation.
Muhamed was an adult who had sexual relations with nine year old child.
Therefore, Muhamed was a child molester.


This is the argument. The only way to prove the conclusion wrong is to show that one or both of the premises is false.

www.thereligionofpeace.com...



Well let's be fair...if you go back 700+ years , everyone's ancestors were pediaphiles. Including nearly every major figure from the bible.

Now I personally am in the camp that thinks we SHOULD NOT be excusing nor glorifying the immoral acts of previous generations.

Sure the founding fathers created America, but they were also mainly slave owning rapists.

That said I am quite sure the Jesus being transgendered is an insane stretch. About to read the site now.


According to YOUR INTERPRETATION. Biologically WHEN you hit puberty you are not a child anymore. SO its actually dishonest to call them pedophiles or child molestors.

Also Not all the founding fathers were slave owners. And Do you got any proof of them being rapist? Back that up.



Tomas Jefferson had children with his 15 year old slave. DNA has even verified his modern decendents....

2/3 of the founding fathers kept slaves, and the majority of slave owners banged them. I mean come on...you have a in house female who (upon pain of beating or death) has to do whatever you tell her... It isn't hard To guess how that went most of the time..


All thought anyone not a white male, was a second class citizen, and women and children were property.




If i recall jefferson MARRIED his House slave,and treated her very well as a woman should had been treated. Also... There was no age of consent laws back then for women. Once again this woman(not a girl since she was biologically grown up) was not a child.

ALso your 2/3rd slaves being used for sex in un verifiable. thats your guess.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 07:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: JoshuaCox




I am consistently against atrocities, no matter when or who is commiting them.

Yeah. They say hindsight is always 20/20.


Exactly..and looking back. A big percentage of them were monsters.

Yes. Except for the Christians, of course.
/sarcasm



Oh no they were monsters too ...


I think those on the left and atheists, sometimes forget the forest for the trees....


We are not defending Muslim insanity, we are pointing out the hypocrisy of the Christians who vilify them while having very similar beliefs...

We are not trying to "tax the Ritch" we are trying to protect the social programs..taxing the rich is the means, not the end result.

Feel me?



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 07:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: Thetan
Yikes, this should be interesting:

All cases of an adult having sexual relations with a nine year old child is a case of child molestation.
Muhamed was an adult who had sexual relations with nine year old child.
Therefore, Muhamed was a child molester.


This is the argument. The only way to prove the conclusion wrong is to show that one or both of the premises is false.

www.thereligionofpeace.com...



Well let's be fair...if you go back 700+ years , everyone's ancestors were pediaphiles. Including nearly every major figure from the bible.

Now I personally am in the camp that thinks we SHOULD NOT be excusing nor glorifying the immoral acts of previous generations.

Sure the founding fathers created America, but they were also mainly slave owning rapists.

That said I am quite sure the Jesus being transgendered is an insane stretch. About to read the site now.


According to YOUR INTERPRETATION. Biologically WHEN you hit puberty you are not a child anymore. SO its actually dishonest to call them pedophiles or child molestors.

Also Not all the founding fathers were slave owners. And Do you got any proof of them being rapist? Back that up.



Tomas Jefferson had children with his 15 year old slave. DNA has even verified his modern decendents....

2/3 of the founding fathers kept slaves, and the majority of slave owners banged them. I mean come on...you have a in house female who (upon pain of beating or death) has to do whatever you tell her... It isn't hard To guess how that went most of the time..


All thought anyone not a white male, was a second class citizen, and women and children were property.




If i recall jefferson MARRIED his House slave,and treated her very well as a woman should had been treated. Also... There was no age of consent laws back then for women. Once again this woman(not a girl since she was biologically grown up) was not a child.

ALso your 2/3rd slaves being used for sex in un verifiable. thats your guess.


He never married her, but did continue banging her and having children..which he took some steps to aid and support, if not actually legitimize them.

What makes something rape, is when you can't say no. A 15 year old slave who's master says "do me." Can't say no...

If you rape a child, but then marry them later. You are still a rapist.

A 12 year old is not a woman..she has just STARTED puberty...not even finished it...


Laws do not make what is right and wrong..
Laws can be wrong..

That is saying that everyone who taught their daughter to read in that time period a criminal, because it was against the law...


No they weren't criminals, the establishment was @$$ holes..



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox



We are not defending Muslim insanity, we are pointing out the hypocrisy of the Christians who vilify them while having very similar beliefs..

I think the OP has a different outlook.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 08:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: JoshuaCox



We are not defending Muslim insanity, we are pointing out the hypocrisy of the Christians who vilify them while having very similar beliefs..

I think the OP has a different outlook.


I'm sure, when I said "we" I meant other atheists on the left...not the OP.


I really hate propaganda...especially the way the right has created buzz words that cause republicans to hate something instinctively, without ever applying any logic to it...

"That's socialism!" Rather than actually debating the policy in question.

Just trying to keep people pointed in the right direction.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 02:16 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
Ok, so if a grown man sleeps with your 12 year old, it's cool????

Today, when we have such a high average lifespan that people in their mid 20s are still immature and unprepared for the world? No.

1500 years ago, when the average lifespan was around 30, and people were participating in battles at 14-15? Yeah, I probably wouldn't think it odd back then.

As a question to you, in terms of morality, what exactly is your issue here? That the average 12 year old (not sure why we're picking this number, but lets go with it, assuming they were past puberty) over 200 years ago in some rural area (or at least not closed-off or protected like royalty) was not mentally an adult, so it is immoral?



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 04:24 AM
link   
She was married at 6...
Before Muhammed could penetrate her he would rub his member on her...
6 years old when he took her from her family she brought her dolls with her...
At 9 years old her penetrated her...
Not 12 or older...
I am not saying all Muslims practice pedophilia now or then...
But Muhammed did...
By today's standards even 12 is not an age acceptable to many at all...
Sure back then people are said to have a shorter life span....
People can make all kinds of excuses for why it was acceptable...
The most popular seems to be that she was 12 years old...
But she was married at 6 and had been penetrated at 9... Not 12 years old...
In waring cultures this average age was greatly determined by war I'm sure starvation and disease played their part...
But in these waring cultures that would kill looking into the eye of their enemies they overtook the domain of those who were successfully beaten in war....
There goes the majority of the healthy men of mature age... That would mostly leave the old and the young....
Perhaps the land was suitable for capture as a functioning new trade route or was suitable for desired habitation... That is if it was not destroyed in the war most likely by fire... Or if it was not simply destroyed after the battle as further sign of dominance and further insult or symbol of the Victor's power...
That leaves the young and the old and the riches...
You can be sure the riches were not destroyed except for written records these too were destroyed for many reasons but to rob someone of the treasured past to remove all traces of them was absolutely something that was done foolishly by all...But everything and anything else of value was taken as treasure...
The young and the old remain... Unless the old person was from a wealth or powerful bloodline or had a valued skill or great knowledge... Well they were not useful as slaves they were too old to even fight...They were then destroyed like the written history...
So the young remained...Now they could still be formed as the young mind is pliable and young they would have been... Far too weak to fight so they were no physical threat...
They would have been treasure in the form of slaves or possible future soldiers... And a good many of the enslaved would have been used sexually...
At any rate people bought slaves that were capable most wanted something in particular for their money... So these young children were raised for a time before sale... And the girls sold for sex slaves were sold also as breeding stock...And would therefore have been wanted to be fertile capable of giving birth...
This would be highly uncommon for the majority of 9 year old girls... Then even if the 9 year old was capable her body would have to be considered for if she was tiny she would most likely die in childbirth...
This would be seen as a waste of money and aside from the loss of the mother who could have numerous other children the child too may die from trauma...
Make no mistake they were savages in many ways but they were not retarded and the had their own beliefs of what was acceptable...
9 year old girls were not favorable for sexual relations except for by the those whom would be considered depraved even then...
What I'm saying is he was just as sick then as he is now...
Like I said I'm not calling all Muslims child molesters I don't see why everybody is lumping all the Christians from then into the same light...
Because sexual maturity was the passage to adulthood back then 12 years old is a good approximation...
Most muslims and Jews and the sparse christians would have been doing what was right for that time and taking 12 and up...
But not Muhammad and other sick individuals of the Era... Be they muslim Jew or Christian not to mention any other religions....Nope they were practicing pedophilia just like Muhammad...


edit on 16-5-2016 by 5StarOracle because: Word



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 06:38 AM
link   
Muhammad & Aisha never even had children so there is no proof that the marriage was consummated at all.

Aside from a shaky Hadith that came two hundred and fifty years later, what have you got???



I'll wait.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 07:28 AM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle
I think you've been missing what made this thread last 20 pages till now. That the single narrative (from a single narrator) is considered suspect by a large number of muslims and non-muslims alike (with very reasonable reasons). So yeah, it isn't established that he married her at 6 and consummated the marriage at 9.

Also, the whole "thighing" stuff is absolute and complete rubbish. It isn't sourced in any of the Islamic Scripture anywhere at all, the only reference I could ever find for it are anti-islam blogs and a shaky and unsourced audio file purported to be a discussion by some Islamic scholar and a questioner in arabic, usually hosted on said anti-islam sites. EVEN if that is what it is, it still doesn't make it true.
Despite my constant requests for a source (and if such a ridiculous story is true, it obviously would be sourced from SOME hadith or even a shaky medieval book or something), but no such thing exists.

edit on 16-5-2016 by babloyi because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 08:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: Thetan
Yikes, this should be interesting:

All cases of an adult having sexual relations with a nine year old child is a case of child molestation.
Muhamed was an adult who had sexual relations with nine year old child.
Therefore, Muhamed was a child molester.


This is the argument. The only way to prove the conclusion wrong is to show that one or both of the premises is false.

www.thereligionofpeace.com...



Well let's be fair...if you go back 700+ years , everyone's ancestors were pediaphiles. Including nearly every major figure from the bible.

Now I personally am in the camp that thinks we SHOULD NOT be excusing nor glorifying the immoral acts of previous generations.

Sure the founding fathers created America, but they were also mainly slave owning rapists.

That said I am quite sure the Jesus being transgendered is an insane stretch. About to read the site now.


According to YOUR INTERPRETATION. Biologically WHEN you hit puberty you are not a child anymore. SO its actually dishonest to call them pedophiles or child molestors.

Also Not all the founding fathers were slave owners. And Do you got any proof of them being rapist? Back that up.



You do realize you just said it was ok to have sex with a child, as long as they had entered puberty, right.....


Back in the past they were raised this way and they didnt see it as rape due to SURVIVAL OF THE SPECIES. Death was very high back then. Youre not getting the distinction between Pre pubesent and pubesent.

Back in biblical times lifespans were very short due to disease,war,and social standing. To overcome the death rate it was each persons duty to procreate. Your people back then were way way smarter than todays versions. A 12 year old of intelligence back then will be mentally older if they were tested by todays standards.

You are so hung up on the laws of today you refuse to see. THEY DID NOT SCREW AROUND WITH GIRLS WHO WERE NOT BIOLOGICALLY READY BACK THEN. (caps for easy comprehension)

In MODERN TIMES though its NOT OK. but your saying it was wrong back then is just wrong because times and circumstances were not equal.


I'm hung up on laws?!?!

I'm the one saying that the law is irrelevant, and that right and wrong persist reguardless of whatever random laws were the flavor of the month....

Your the one saying since it was legal, it was cool...

We haven't needed to bang 12 year olds (some women start before then, some as young as 8 or9...some earlier than that.)
"For the survival of the species" since cave man days. Yet we continued having sex with children until what? 100/150 years ago???

So banging children for the "survival of the species" stopped 10,000 plus years ago, but it was still cool if you did last century.????


Oh and how do we know Mohammad's wife wasn't an early bloomer? According to you "if she bleeds, she breeds". So what if she had already started at 9? Then it's absolutely cool, huh?

Oh nope, it was cool for all your ancestors to rape children, but if the Muslims do it, they are evil and must be destroyed..

The hypocracy of some people is truly astounding...at least be consistent in your beliefs...



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 08:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: babloyi
a reply to: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
Ok, so if a grown man sleeps with your 12 year old, it's cool????

Today, when we have such a high average lifespan that people in their mid 20s are still immature and unprepared for the world? No.

1500 years ago, when the average lifespan was around 30, and people were participating in battles at 14-15? Yeah, I probably wouldn't think it odd back then.

As a question to you, in terms of morality, what exactly is your issue here? That the average 12 year old (not sure why we're picking this number, but lets go with it, assuming they were past puberty) over 200 years ago in some rural area (or at least not closed-off or protected like royalty) was not mentally an adult, so it is immoral?



The average life span was 30, because of the insanely high infant mortalliry rate, not because most people died by 30... It's called an average, because you are factoring people who lived one year, with those that lived 60. Coming to an average of a 30 year life expectancy.

We haven't needed to have sex with children "for the species" since caveman days AT LEAST 10,000 years ago. By then you already had farming, cities and kings.

Most females have started puberty by 12. My daughter did, some start far earlier, rare cases can start as early as 3 or 4.

So by some peoples only measuring stick "she started her period" that 4 year old is ready to be a wife.

The facts are our ancestors consider females property and did what they wanted to to them.

I'm sure there were more than a few people who always knew it was horrible...if people weren't trying to teach their daughters to read. There would be no need to have a law restricting it.

We should be glorifying and remembering those who swam against the tide, and did what was right.

Not excusing monsters who raped children because they were slaves or second class citizens.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 08:32 AM
link   
a reply to: babloyi


I think the far more interesting question is :

Should it have ever been ok to have sex with children?

I personally don't doubt that the Islamic leaders participated in such things, because pretty much every other culture in the planet did as well.

Reguardless of weather Mohammad himself did, all the Old Testament "hero's" did, and they persist across all the big 3 religions.

So all of the big 3 religions were spawned by pediaphiles. All of us have pediaphile great grand ancestors....

The question is , should we be glorifying them, and excusing the atrocities of the past because "everyone else was doing it?"


Or should we take a realistic look at history and try to avoid the mistakes of the past?



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 08:38 AM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle




At six years old up until the age of 9 mohammed would "thigh" her rubbing himself on her thighs and her child sized private area which was to small for him to penetrate...


you people are sick,

Like I said, it seems you people screaming with pitch forks have a real sick fascination with this what you and others keep posting, trying to paint a picture for the audience.




This life of his was filled with all kinds of depravity not limited to pedophilia and rape...


So what, look at your own life, painting word pictures on the internet of how a child is used sexually.


Oh My.... Not even going quote any of your post on page 20.

You need help, your obsession can lead no where good



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox
But again, you're defining them as "children". Were they children according to the time they were born?
Also, 'paedophilia' is a sexual preference for prepubescents, something hopefully everyone agrees is not good. But that isn't what we're talking about here.

I'm just trying to dig into your reasoning. It is bad because they're children, and they're children because they're a specific age?

Is it simply a matter of a number in your mind? It can't be.
Or is it that "I consider a person of age 12 today to be too immature or childish to even possibly be capable of making a decision regarding such a thing, so it must have been the same throughout history"?

Let me put it another way- if we had some magical way of knowing, regardless of age, if a person had already hit puberty, and was of sound mind to such an extent so as to be able to validly consent to marriage/sexual intercourse, would it be immoral still?
edit on 16-5-2016 by babloyi because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
51
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join