9 ms·

> His marriage to her was never based on a contract How many times do I need to point out references to the "agreement" in the text that is constantly talked a

by waps 11y ago

> His marriage to her was never based on a contract How many times do I need to point out references to the "agreement" in the text that is constantly talked about ? > it is sufficient to know that she had already been engaged to another person prior to her marriage to the Prophet Do you like to tell yourself that that justifies the rape of a 6 year old ? Do you have a daughter ? Do you think an agreement with the girl's father makes paedophilic rape moral ? Because your religion clearly is of that opinion. Note that your prophet has a lot of opinions on what he, personally, should be given, and something to fuck is often among the things he "gets" from his invisible friend, this is not a lone occurence. So answer this simple question : was Muhammad an immoral paedophilic rapist ? Or not ... And to be honest, since Abu Bakr is a "rightly guided caliph" and made this agreement with the prophet, that means that BOTH the prophet AND the first ever muslim where paedophilic rapists. One organising the rape, one committing it. Muhammad, of course, claims this agreement was blessed by allah : so you can't even make the pathetic argument that it was just him, "not allah". Note that not even Aisha believed the revelations [1]. To be honest, actually reading the hadith you find a lot of that : verses that make it crystal clear none of the muslims with the prophet believed in his revelations. You should try it, reading those texts around book 60. > I fail to see where it says that the death penalty is involved here. Please point out explicitly where it says that the penalty for living in a non-Muslim country is death. The penalty for consistently refusing to comply with sharia, when you know the law and how it applies to you, is death. As you very well know. Believe it or not, you do not just get to violate sharia whenever you want according to islam. The punishment for violating something haram knowingly, repeatedly or continuously ... is death, because this constitutes apostasy. I can't say I recall the full set of requirements, but do you seriously argue otherwise ? Knowingly not following sharia is considered apostasy, advocating not following sharia is proselytizing. Do you disagree with that ? Do I really have to dig up fatwas saying so ? > We point out these bad things, and we do not follow their footsteps. Reading this in a post that starts off by justifying the rape of a 6 year old girl, that is very reassuring. [1] http://www.sultan.org/books/bukhari/060.htm#006.060.248 http://www.sultan.org/books/bukhari/060.htm#006.060.248

azth 11y ago
> How many times do I need to point out references to the "agreement" in the text that is constantly talked about ? You haven't pointed out any references so far. > Do you like to tell yourself that that justifies... You should hear what today's scholars say about this issue. Marriage is not to be forced upon the girl, and if a person (male or female) is not able to tolerate it (physically and mentally), then the marriage contract cannot go through. Back in the day, marriage at a young age was a norm, and the Prophet Peace be upon him did not commit anything foreign to the culture in this regards. Other people at that time, Muslims and non-Muslims, married young. Even in Western cultures up to a few hundred years ago, we see similar behavior. I take it it is clear now that Islamically, the ruler is to be elected, and not passed down as you were trying to imply before. > Note that not even Aisha believed the revelations[1] The link you pasted was about Fatimah and Ali, Peace be upon them. Please link to the appropriate Hadith. > verses that make it crystal clear none of the muslims with the prophet believed in his revelations Claim needs citation. It is quite an absurd claim, as if that were indeed the case, then Islam would never have caught on. > penalty for consistently refusing to comply with sharia, when you know the law and how it applies to you, is death. Again, citation needed. This is beyond a doubt not the case. Please cite your reference. A Muslim person can, for example, drink alcohol, knowing that it is not permissible, and knowing that there is a punishment if he is caught (lashing). The death penalty will never come into action here, regardless of how many times he repeats this sin. > I can't say I recall the full set of requirements, but do you seriously argue otherwise ? I do. Citation needed. > Knowingly not following sharia is considered apostasy There are different degrees of apostasy (Kufr), and only one or two of them have the death penalty (e.g. Treason). Furthermore, not any action that constitutes apostasy will result in the person automatically becoming a non-Muslim (much less get the death penalty). For instance: http://quran.com/5/44 http://quran.com/5/44 The last part of the verse is: "And whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such are the Kafirun" (i.e. disbelievers - of a lesser degree as they do not act on Allah's Laws).
- waps 11y ago
  It is funny to see you squirm in your arguments. Again you don't answer the arguments, you beat around the bush. How much more squirming before you admit the truth ? > You should hear what today's scholars say about this issue. Marriage is not to be forced upon the girl, and if a person (male or female) is not able to tolerate it (physically and mentally), then the marriage contract cannot go through. Hey now you just implied that the prophet did something wrong, despite wurming your way around saying so, and failing miserably. Was the prophet justified in raping a 6 year old ? Do you agree with that act or not ... I would also like to point out that marriage at 6 years, or even 9 was very much not a common occurance. For obvious reasons, most cultures (including islam, when the prophet is not trying to rape a young girl) find that marriage should occur no earlier than 12 (we both know what is meant here, let's just say earlier results in "damages to the body" and leave it at that), and generally happened around 14. Romans generally married later, if they married at all (like in Judaism at the time, marriage was a contract, which implied among other things that it couldn't be entered into before adulthood, and can't be entered into by parents on their children's behalf. A roman contract was between equals, so for it to make sense for a man and a woman to get married, this implied that both had significant assets (like a store, a caravan, for example, something)). Oh and if you wish to be truly and completely disgusted by islam, google for the word "thighing", which is related to Aisha's wedding according to the highest religious authorities in Saudi Arabia (but I'm sure you know more about islam, right ?). Why don't you defend the meaning of that word ? (extremely NSFW, and frankly, just NS). In 1500 years of English there was no need for that word in the language. But now we have muslims speaking English. Feel proud, man, feel very proud. To be frank, if you find yourself in a situation where you would have to admit Romans responded more moral than you did, you are a very immoral human being indeed. These are the people that lined the road between 2 major cities with crosses and nailed (upper estimates) almost 5000 people to those crosses, and let them die from hunger and thirst, feeding them acid when they asked for water (and if they were lucky enough). Yet those people are far better human beings than your paedophilic massacring prophet. And if you are a decent human being and find the sale and barter in human beings despicable, never mind "agreements" about having sex with 6 year olds, what does that tell you about islam itself ? > The last part of the verse is: "And whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such are the Kafirun" (i.e. disbelievers - of a lesser degree as they do not act on Allah's Laws). You squirm you way around this don't you ? It specifically mentions that these people are like the Jews. Do tell, if a muslim becomes a Jew, which is what this verse compares knowingly violating sharia compares to, what is to happen to them ? And if you want, we can go over the story of the group of muslims that "accepted islam", then moved away against the wishes of the prophet. He had them massacred. You know this story, or at least, I've heard too many young muslims say that it was told to them in school. Don't you think someone making a religious judgement might take that sort of story into account ? I'm behaving like your paedophilic prophet here : http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/082-sbt.php#008.082.809 http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/0... After all, if religious people avoid killing for their religion, what does your prophet do ? Well he points out they really should kill, and threatens them (unless you call surrounding them with an execution squad of muslims something other than a threat). I love that story, because it reveals true morality, and the very essence of what is good in the world : > So both of them were stoned at the Balat and I saw the Jew sheltering the Jewess. Of course it is the sinner, who is put to death, who shows us the true meaning of good. I hope that I am capable of showing such greatness at some point, but to be frank, I doubt I am half as moral as that Jew. Islam's prophet is the one inciting muslims and Jews to kill very moral people, even when they don't want to. Are you proud of your religion ? It is despicable. I know of course that islam is not based on rational reasoning like Christianity and to a lesser degree Judaism is, but you're pathetic. You keep defending paedophilic rape, should we next start discussing Khaybar and what happened there perhaps ? How it is "totally" different from massacring, raiding and stealing. How "allah" declared peace treaties invalid, which of course made the massacre A-ok ? Or should we talk about how entire tribes should be massacred over a lover's quarrel ? How islam agrees with all that ? Or should we simply agree that islam is a despicable, disgusting and immoral ideology ? > Claim needs citation. It is quite an absurd claim, as if that were indeed the case, then Islam would never have caught on. http://www.sultan.org/books/bukhari/060.htm#006.060.311 http://www.sultan.org/books/bukhari/060.htm#006.060.311 Why don't you interpret for me what she meant here ? Or should we discuss one of the "it was then that the revelaton X was sent down" verses perhaps ? I remember reading one that mentions laughter went around the muslims when the timing of revelations was mentioned. Or how about we revisit the whole "allah has 3 daughters" saga ? It'd be funny to hear your response to the timing of the revelation that that verse of the quran was wrong, or the mere fact that quran says about itself that it is wrong, or at least, can and has been improved ... It is only truth as long as the paedophilic prophet feels it convenient according to hadith.

by waps 11y ago

azth 11y ago

> How many times do I need to point out references to the "agreement" in the text that is constantly talked about ? You haven't pointed out any references so far. > Do you like to tell yourself that that justifies... You should hear what today's scholars say about this issue. Marriage is not to be forced upon the girl, and if a person (male or female) is not able to tolerate it (physically and mentally), then the marriage contract cannot go through. Back in the day, marriage at a young age was a norm, and the Prophet Peace be upon him did not commit anything foreign to the culture in this regards. Other people at that time, Muslims and non-Muslims, married young. Even in Western cultures up to a few hundred years ago, we see similar behavior. I take it it is clear now that Islamically, the ruler is to be elected, and not passed down as you were trying to imply before. > Note that not even Aisha believed the revelations[1] The link you pasted was about Fatimah and Ali, Peace be upon them. Please link to the appropriate Hadith. > verses that make it crystal clear none of the muslims with the prophet believed in his revelations Claim needs citation. It is quite an absurd claim, as if that were indeed the case, then Islam would never have caught on. > penalty for consistently refusing to comply with sharia, when you know the law and how it applies to you, is death. Again, citation needed. This is beyond a doubt not the case. Please cite your reference. A Muslim person can, for example, drink alcohol, knowing that it is not permissible, and knowing that there is a punishment if he is caught (lashing). The death penalty will never come into action here, regardless of how many times he repeats this sin. > I can't say I recall the full set of requirements, but do you seriously argue otherwise ? I do. Citation needed. > Knowingly not following sharia is considered apostasy There are different degrees of apostasy (Kufr), and only one or two of them have the death penalty (e.g. Treason). Furthermore, not any action that constitutes apostasy will result in the person automatically becoming a non-Muslim (much less get the death penalty). For instance: http://quran.com/5/44 http://quran.com/5/44 The last part of the verse is: "And whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such are the Kafirun" (i.e. disbelievers - of a lesser degree as they do not act on Allah's Laws).

waps 11y ago
It is funny to see you squirm in your arguments. Again you don't answer the arguments, you beat around the bush. How much more squirming before you admit the truth ? > You should hear what today's scholars say about this issue. Marriage is not to be forced upon the girl, and if a person (male or female) is not able to tolerate it (physically and mentally), then the marriage contract cannot go through. Hey now you just implied that the prophet did something wrong, despite wurming your way around saying so, and failing miserably. Was the prophet justified in raping a 6 year old ? Do you agree with that act or not ... I would also like to point out that marriage at 6 years, or even 9 was very much not a common occurance. For obvious reasons, most cultures (including islam, when the prophet is not trying to rape a young girl) find that marriage should occur no earlier than 12 (we both know what is meant here, let's just say earlier results in "damages to the body" and leave it at that), and generally happened around 14. Romans generally married later, if they married at all (like in Judaism at the time, marriage was a contract, which implied among other things that it couldn't be entered into before adulthood, and can't be entered into by parents on their children's behalf. A roman contract was between equals, so for it to make sense for a man and a woman to get married, this implied that both had significant assets (like a store, a caravan, for example, something)). Oh and if you wish to be truly and completely disgusted by islam, google for the word "thighing", which is related to Aisha's wedding according to the highest religious authorities in Saudi Arabia (but I'm sure you know more about islam, right ?). Why don't you defend the meaning of that word ? (extremely NSFW, and frankly, just NS). In 1500 years of English there was no need for that word in the language. But now we have muslims speaking English. Feel proud, man, feel very proud. To be frank, if you find yourself in a situation where you would have to admit Romans responded more moral than you did, you are a very immoral human being indeed. These are the people that lined the road between 2 major cities with crosses and nailed (upper estimates) almost 5000 people to those crosses, and let them die from hunger and thirst, feeding them acid when they asked for water (and if they were lucky enough). Yet those people are far better human beings than your paedophilic massacring prophet. And if you are a decent human being and find the sale and barter in human beings despicable, never mind "agreements" about having sex with 6 year olds, what does that tell you about islam itself ? > The last part of the verse is: "And whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such are the Kafirun" (i.e. disbelievers - of a lesser degree as they do not act on Allah's Laws). You squirm you way around this don't you ? It specifically mentions that these people are like the Jews. Do tell, if a muslim becomes a Jew, which is what this verse compares knowingly violating sharia compares to, what is to happen to them ? And if you want, we can go over the story of the group of muslims that "accepted islam", then moved away against the wishes of the prophet. He had them massacred. You know this story, or at least, I've heard too many young muslims say that it was told to them in school. Don't you think someone making a religious judgement might take that sort of story into account ? I'm behaving like your paedophilic prophet here : http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/082-sbt.php#008.082.809 http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/0... After all, if religious people avoid killing for their religion, what does your prophet do ? Well he points out they really should kill, and threatens them (unless you call surrounding them with an execution squad of muslims something other than a threat). I love that story, because it reveals true morality, and the very essence of what is good in the world : > So both of them were stoned at the Balat and I saw the Jew sheltering the Jewess. Of course it is the sinner, who is put to death, who shows us the true meaning of good. I hope that I am capable of showing such greatness at some point, but to be frank, I doubt I am half as moral as that Jew. Islam's prophet is the one inciting muslims and Jews to kill very moral people, even when they don't want to. Are you proud of your religion ? It is despicable. I know of course that islam is not based on rational reasoning like Christianity and to a lesser degree Judaism is, but you're pathetic. You keep defending paedophilic rape, should we next start discussing Khaybar and what happened there perhaps ? How it is "totally" different from massacring, raiding and stealing. How "allah" declared peace treaties invalid, which of course made the massacre A-ok ? Or should we talk about how entire tribes should be massacred over a lover's quarrel ? How islam agrees with all that ? Or should we simply agree that islam is a despicable, disgusting and immoral ideology ? > Claim needs citation. It is quite an absurd claim, as if that were indeed the case, then Islam would never have caught on. http://www.sultan.org/books/bukhari/060.htm#006.060.311 http://www.sultan.org/books/bukhari/060.htm#006.060.311 Why don't you interpret for me what she meant here ? Or should we discuss one of the "it was then that the revelaton X was sent down" verses perhaps ? I remember reading one that mentions laughter went around the muslims when the timing of revelations was mentioned. Or how about we revisit the whole "allah has 3 daughters" saga ? It'd be funny to hear your response to the timing of the revelation that that verse of the quran was wrong, or the mere fact that quran says about itself that it is wrong, or at least, can and has been improved ... It is only truth as long as the paedophilic prophet feels it convenient according to hadith.