Muhamed was a child molester.

a reply to: bally001

I used an analogy to demonstrate that judging Muhammad's behaviour at the time of his existence by today's standards of morality is illogical.

originally posted by: Thetan
Because of your espousal of moral relativism. For example ISIS. They do not consider all cases of raping a woman to be unethical.

And if ISIS managed to conquer the world and we were all under their control (heaven forbid), would it still be considered "unethical" to rape?

Can you not still not see that nothing can be "objectively" wrong in the moral sense?

a reply to: Thetan

He actually married Aisha when she was six years of age, the early islamic writing's talk about her taking her doll's with her and on her wedding night at the age of Six all her hair fell out so this child was severely traumatized, according to the law's he himself had preached as her hair had fallen out she was then seen as unclean so he could not have copulation with her AGAIN until it grew back at the age of Nine but he did practice what is known as Thighing with the child, putting her leg's together and using the pressure of her two thigh's to climax himself.

I don't know but I think Aisha never had any children, probably destroyed by the dirty old man.

About two years before he died he also showed an interest in another followers daughter whom was not yet able to walk and was crawling around, he is said to have said that she was most beautiful and he would marry her when she was a little older, thankfully he died before he could do so.

In the murder of Um Kirfa the leader of the Kufiri tribe whom his men raped then tore apart by tying her while still alive between camel's he also took her small daughter captive and GAVE that child to his Uncle as a PLAYTHING - sex slave for abuse.

He never heard the voice of God, he NEVER made a true prophecy and he told his followers that they could worship idol's at the Kaaba which was a pagan temple before he invaded Mecca but then backtracked on what he had said since his followers became confused by his contradictory message and they then explained it as him being possessed by the devil for a time, HE WAS THE DEVIL as far as I am concerned and of course if there is an afterlife and this bunch are still believing his lies over there then they will still be practicing slavery there as well so how many demonic spirits are really islamic slave traders on the other side?.

originally posted by: GreenGunther
Animals would still eat animals, even if the human race abstained.

If I decided to murder my neighbour, would other people still get murdered tomorrow? Yes they would. Does that mean I ought to just murder my neighbour since other people will meet the same fate tomorrow? No it does not. And you are essentially trying to argue that it does.

I am an animal who needs meat. I really do, and I'm not afraid of killing and cleaning my own meat.

Do you need meat to survive as an animal? If not, how do you explain the existence of vegetarians?

Respect your food, know where it comes from and respect it for nourishing your body. I believe you should always have balance, this relates to balance in your diet.

Agreed, but that still doesn't negate my post before.

We are omnivores, our genetics clearly dictates that.

What does that have to do with morality, though?

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Does not matter if it is the majority saying it or not. Profiting from suffering is objectively unethical. One of the reasons some vegans are interested in creating artificial meat so that the meat eaters can eat meat while causing less suffering to animals. . And I do eat meat and I know it is unethical and I am a hypocrite in that context.

You can look at any behavior and see how the environment respond to that the action. If the action brings suffering then it is objectively unethical. This should not be confused with subjective morality where dogma tells you what is right and wrong behavior.

Objective ethics:
To be monogamous with a person who prefer monogamy is ethical.
To be polyamorous with a person who prefer polyamorous is ethical.
To manipulate and force either to be the opposite of preference is unethical.

As pointed out countless times, by many others, and myself --- this whole discussion becomes pointless, since the hadith you are basing your premise on cannot be right, when analyzed in connection with many other hadith, which talk about the age of Aishas sister, specific events before and after the prophethood, etc.
After comparing all this, you will get the result which says that Aishas age when she consummated the marriage must have been somewhere between 19 and 26 years, and not 9 or 6.

Now, you could say why would we trust these other hadith and not the ones talking about her age of "9" ... and I could say the same thing, just the other way around.

If you then say that hadith are unreliable (which is a valid premise) since they are "alleged" sayings of Muhammad written hundreds of years after him - and you want to dismiss them as a whole - then we are left with the Qur'an.

And in the Qur'an, there is not a single verse mentioning Aisha's age as 9 or whatever.

The Qur'an explicitly says that a person can marry when he/she is mature --- the implication, based on the wording and the context, is that the person has to be physically AND mentally mature, i.e. to understand the ramifications of his own decisions. And that is right so.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Girls this same age (and younger) are still pushed into arranged marriages today - this goes well beyond Wahhabism. Look at India for instance, female child brides (to adult men) is common practice among many families and in many of these cases it's horrific what abuse can and has ensued - and that's a mainly Hindu nation. IMO, there is no lower act of disgusting filth than an adult usurping the innocence of a child.

Sorry buddy, You are wrong about India. That is not a common practice in India. It is illegal here and punishable by law.

en.wikipedia.org...

Child Marriage Restraint Act was enacted in 1930.

But in some very rare cases in rural areas, child marriages may be occuring, but they are null and void. Minimum legal age for boys is 21 and for girls is 18.

en.wikipedia.org...

Not to sound rude but many western people have the wrong misconception about India. India is not "all villages and snake charmers". Please confirm your facts before spreading them further, as a humble request. Thanks.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Do you need meat to survive as an animal? If not, how do you explain the existence of vegetarians?

This comment intrigued me. How do you explain the existence of incisor and canine teeth in humans?

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Fair enough, I read it wrong. Sorry if there was any discourse.

Kind regards,

Bally

originally posted by: LittleByLittle
You can look at any behavior and see how the environment respond to that the action. If the action brings suffering then it is objectively unethical.

What do you mean by "environment" exactly? Society as a whole? Humans? A group of organisms within the area that the action took place?

You assume that any form of suffering is intrinsically bad, can you demonstrate your reasoning for this? For example, would it not be classified as "suffering" if Hitler were captured and consequently jailed for his crimes? The deprivation of freedom would be considered a form of torture.

This should not be confused with subjective morality where dogma tells you what is right and wrong behavior.

Subjective morality has nothing directly to do with dogma. What subjective morality in the broad sense means is that we cannot determine what is right or wrong without knowing the context in which the action took place.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
a reply to: bally001

I used an analogy to demonstrate that judging Muhammad's behaviour at the time of his existence by today's standards of morality is illogical.

It may be. It's also absolute proof that the qu'ran didn't come from God and is redundant as he didn't condemn the practice while giving mohamed all the other rules to follow...unless God that's supposed to exist infinitely outside of time didn't care that in less than 1500 years humanity would have more morals than he did.

Different culture, different time. Isn't that what Christians always say when the slaughter of women and children is brought up from the OT?

I'm not condoning marrying a child or having sex with them but I don't see how it's any worse than killing them. Both are disgusting and both Islam and Christianity rationalize the irrational.

iSIS is an aberration, not the norm of any society, and use rape as a weapon of terror.

a reply to: Phage

Rape done by any person ISIS or anyone else is a weapon of terror not when just done by isis.

I have not disagreed with any of your post in this thread just this little bit.

Cheery days

a reply to: Dark Ghost

To have a perfect measurement of suffering it would be the whole of creation and the propagation thru all space time coming after the moment of the behavior.

But when you cannot have perfect measurement you will have to limit the group/environment you are measuring while understanding that your measuring is localized in both place and time.

Jailing Hitler will have to be the suffering of Jailing him vs the suffering of letting him be free.

There is a price in suffering in creation for doing all actions even doing seamlessly nothing. Sometimes it is wise to tolerate some insane behavior. Sometimes the cost of doing seamlessly doing nothing is too great and souls like Arjuna have to act against insanity and cause suffering to in the end decrease the suffering of creation.

So was Elvis, Priscilla was 13. Who is worse considering the times?

a reply to: Thetan

Fundlementalist literalist Islamists, and liberal apologists are a cancer, that is all.

Doesn't matter wether Muhammad was a child rapist, its not about Muhammad the person (which we know significantly differs from Jesus and Buddha and other "enlightened" people, he was a war lord and massacred people in ways they are still being massacred by, like the removal of ones head) anyway, it's about Muhammad the legend and in the eyes of many believers (not all) he was a child molestor among other things, therefor, they use it as a justification in keeping with their tradition to emulate their prophet. So, the religious justification for immorality starts there, this whole argument is retarded, and this is the point that is going over so many heads.

originally posted by: damwel
So was Elvis, Priscilla was 13. Who is worse considering the times?

Don't forget Rolling Stone's Bill Wyman and Mandy Smith...1983 she was 13 and Wyman was then 47. She claimed Wyman 'seduced her'. She claimed they began their sexual relationship a year later, when she was 14. They married (briefly) in 1989, divorced in 1991.

Mandy Smith was brought up apparently as a strict Catholic, and now writes for a Christian lifestyle magazine.

So really...they're all at it. Stated and proclaimed morality is often completely different to the reality in practice.

originally posted by: Vector99
This comment intrigued me. How do you explain the existence of incisor and canine teeth in humans?

What I meant to say, but didn't word it so well it seems, is that vegetarians are able to live normal lives and survive without eating meat, therefore non-vegetarians could technicality also survive if they chose not to eat meat. So why do non-vegetarians still eat meat?

ETA: For those curious: I am NOT a vegetarian. So although it might seem strange that I am arguing "in favour" of vegetarianism while I'm not even one myself, I am merely using the topic of Vegetarianism to demonstrate a point.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

By ignoring the morality of the issue because it's how they were raised, and they enjoy the experience of eating meat.

I too am guilty of a kind of schitso morality on this issue...i was brought up eating meat at every meal, examined my own ethics on the treatment of animals, became a vegetarian for years because of how i felt about ending animals lives so i could eat their meat, then returned to eating meat.

I justify it quite badly, without the burdon of ethical constraints that spurred me to stop eating meat in two ways...the first is that i enjoy eating meat, the second is that we all die, including the animals we're eating.

Hypocritical? Probably, but as this thread is showing...we Humans are a very hypocritical bunch as a species, if it suits us we will build weapons that obliterate innocents, including many hundreds of thousands of children, but are quite happy to skip off to the treasury counting our profits from the sales of the weapons used to slaughter them...but seem to get quite upset when topics such as underage sex rears it's ugly head...hypocritical?

Of course it is...as i say, we all are in one way or another.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: Vector99
This comment intrigued me. How do you explain the existence of incisor and canine teeth in humans?

What I meant to say, but didn't word it so well it seems, is that vegetarians are able to live normal lives and survive without eating meat, therefore non-vegetarians could technicality also survive if they chose not to eat meat. So why do non-vegetarians still eat meat?

ETA: For those curious: I am NOT a vegetarian. So although it might seem strange that I am arguing "in favour" of vegetarianism while I'm not even one myself, I am merely using the topic of Vegetarianism to demonstrate a point.

If you stop eating meat you compromise your livers ability to digest meat proteins thus turning meat onto actual poison for your body (but the chances are slim) also, if you eat meat without any fat you will also get a form of protein poisoning. Meat amd fat go hand-in-hand. Not to mention the dietary supplements vegetarians have to take to stay healthy (although I'm sure they have found ways around this to justify their diet)