1. We have moved to a new forum system. All your posts and data should have transferred over. Welcome, to the new Serebii Forums. Details here
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
    Dismiss Notice
  3. If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders
    Dismiss Notice

Muhammed and Pedophilia

Discussion in 'Debate Forum' started by Woobatgirl, Oct 1, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Woobatgirl

    Woobatgirl Number 1 Poke Girl

    Firstly, this is in no way abuse, it's a logical and reasoned note to think about:

    Pedophilia - Sexual feelings directed toward children

    This can qualify as a relationship, sexual contact (including kissing), and all the way up to full intercourse with a child.

    A person who does any of these things is classed as a pedophile simply by definition, just as a person who has feelings for the same sex is classed as homosexual by definition, and just as a person who studies is classed as a student by definition. My first point is to clarify that calling someone a pedophile is NOT in any way an insult, especially when that is what they are!

    Next I want to mention that pedophilia is generally looked down upon. It's quite sick minded because it exposes children to sexual things, particulalry when these children are too young to make such decisions themselves. I shouldn't even have to exlain why pedophilia is wrong, you should all (unless you have some kind of illness or disability) know exactly why pedophilia, especially ACTING on it, is one of the most vile and disgusting things.

    Now let’s move onto muhammed, prophet of islam:

    muhammed was in a relationship with Aisha from the age of 6, had sex with her at 9 and EVEN if he has sex with her at 14 (which he didn’t, she was 9) he would STILL be classed as a pedophile by definition. Even if he didn't have sex at all, being in a relationship with a child would still count as pedophilia. However he went a step further and fondled her, kissed her and even had full intercourse with her.

    This makes muhammed by sheer definition a pedophile.

    Now as mentioned most people are against pedophilia. Saying this, whilst most muslims would agree with this, they STILL condone the actions of muhammed. Why? Well you see the majority of muslims are very ignorant, and they will blindly defend their religion regardless of any double standards and hypocrisy that they will inevitably have to use.

    Logically if you hate pedophila, you hate pedophiles, and seeing as muhammed was a pedophile, logically hating pedophilia = hating muhammed.

    However muslims do the opposite! They "Love" muhammed and try to follow and be like him? It just makes you wonder how deluded you'd have to be to love the thing you hate. It's illogical.
    It's like hating knife crime but joining a gang.

    There are two things a muslim will do when faced with the allegations of muhammed's pedophilia

    A ) Deny it. Refuse to believe it ,illogically so, seeing as they believe he had a 9 year old wife, yet they refuse to believe he was a pedophile (that's like acknowledging that your father killed a man but refusing to believe he is a murderer. Complete logic fail!). Some will even just ignore it or skip over that particular part of islam.

    B ) Attempt to justify it, and in doing so they end up trying to justify pedophilia itself. Some excuses are "it was a different time". So? How does this make it any more just? Some even claim that 9 years old is adult according to physical changes in the body. ********! Aisha even played with dolls at 9! She clearly had the mindset of a child. Some will try to say she was 14 (usually with little to no evidence), and yet whilst it's better than her being 9, it's STILL pedophilia. However she was definitely 9 as you can check out for yourself in the links and quotes I provide below.

    In conclusion muslims seems to be in a battle with themselves as the life of muhammed and aisha cause a great conflict in their minds (I hate pedophilia > muhammed had a 9 year old wife > deny/justify). Subliminally all muslims who hate pedophilia, are going against the life of their own prophet.


    See some of these links for a further reading:

    http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/Aisha's_Age_of_Consummation

    http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Muhammad/myths-mu-pedophilia.htm

    http://www.faithfreedom.org/challenge/pedophile.htm

    Note: Many muslims will also ignore links or refuse to refute them properly simply because they are against islam. This is illogical seeing as if you ignore everything against islam, you only have sources which a FOR islam, and then you have a biased selection of sources. A truly logical person looks at both sources for and against islam, and I have read many pro islamic sources in debates (however I refuse to do so if the muslim is A ) refusing to look at my own sources in return or B ) the muslim is simply posting links rather than actually debating with their own words. You need to have a good mix - posting all links shows a lack of individual input)

    Additional Note: One muslim recently tried to justify muhammed as not being a pedophile using the following logical fail:
    “muhammed can’t have been a pedophile as he had mature wives as well, and if he was attracted to them, how can he have been attracted to children?”

    These are clearly the words of someone who doesn’t quite know what pedophilia is or typical pedophile behaviour. A pedophile can and is USUALLY attracted to adults as well as children as can be seen in this quote:

    “Pedophiles can be married, single, male, female, bisexual, heterosexual, or homosexual. No matter what their sexual preferences are, pedophiles are often also attracted to adults. A pedophile that is attracted to both children and adults is called a Regressed Offender because they bounce back and forth between an adult sexual relationship and criminally assaulting children. There are two main types of pedophiles, the situational and the preferential. Situational Pedophiles will go after any group that is defenseless, such as the elderly, the mentally-challenged, the handicapped etc. This type prefers children, but will go after another group if they feel stressed. Preferential Pedophiles like children in a distinct age group and they typically do not deviate from this age group.”

    http://childsafetips.abouttips.com/pedophiles-and-their-characteristics.php

    “Non-exclusive pedophiles are attracted to both children and adults”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

    It is a completely ridiculous to try and say that a person isn’t a pedophile just because they have adult relationships too. A gay person can also be attracted to the same gender (bisexuality) just as a pedophile can be attracted to children and adults, and ANY good source will tell you the same – even do a google search if you can’t be bothered to do too much research.

    ---------------

    Minor point :

    Attraction to a 14 year old would actually be either Ephebophilia or Hebephilia, depending on whether the individual in question was an early-bloomer or late-bloomer.

    Pedophilia: generally age 13 years or younger (depending on the onset of puberty)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

    Hebephilia: generally ages 11 to 14 (depending on the onset of puberty)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia

    Ephebophilia: generally ages 15 to 19
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia

    CLEARLY it is still pedophilia when a 51 year old man thigh-****s a 6 year old girl, and when a 54 year old man has vaginal intercourse with a 9 year old girl.
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2011
  2. pokemonmaster3.0

    pokemonmaster3.0 Stop laughing...

    This was THOUSANDS of years ago. It's not like it was the same as now. Polygamy was normal. Girls were married at like 12, 14. And Pedophilia was definitely not a word. This is overanalysis.

    Besides, who really cares?
     
  3. BigLutz

    BigLutz Banned

    I think it was 600 years ago but I could be wrong. My first thoughts like yours was that people had shorter life spans back then, thus you did have to make a family starting 12. But then again the counter argument was A: Muhammad was already married thus he did not need to start a family with some one that age. And B: She was clearly underage when he first married her, and he waited until she was just on the cusp of puberty, which was before the 12 - 14 year mark.
     
  4. ~Nidoking~

    ~Nidoking~ Team Aqua Admin

    People didn't live as long in those times, hell, 14 was middle age!
     
  5. Shuam

    Shuam righteous

    No it was not, scientific genius.
    The bible speaks of pedophilia as well, and praises it.
     
  6. Geekachu

    Geekachu _____________

    Following on from Shuam, various religious texts condone many other things which we'd deem ridiculous or vulgar in modern society. It doesn't mean that we should read everything as being relevant to today. I'm not a religious person, but I can respect what religions teach, and also acknowledge that there are a lot of outdated things in the original texts which are irrelevant in today's society.
     
  7. Paradoxe

    Paradoxe not actually psychic

    Muhammed was supposedly born in 570. Only 1400 years ago.

    I'd also like to refer to pederasty in Ancient Greece that was happening in 600 B.C. I'm surprised you didn't refer to that, unless you were trying to make a direct attack on muslims and Muhammed?
     
  8. Moneyy

    Moneyy INACTIVE

    Like the most of the other replies in this thread say, things are not the same as they used to be. What may seem abnormal to you right now may have been completely all right back then.
     
  9. Auraninja

    Auraninja Try to understand.

    Funny how the wiki source is the most reliable source compared to the BS sites possibly created by Christian lunatics that just smite Islam.

    Overall, it seems to draw a pretty simplistic picture of Muhammad using modern societal definitions. ParadoxWithinAParadox did bring up the homosexuality of Athens long before Roman times. The older men would set up relationships with younger boys, but this was considered homosexuality, not pedophilia. The scare today is possibly caused by longer living, but we also have presumably normal people that attack children, and the predator would be considered very egregious in his methods.
     
  10. Muhammed was not a very nice man.

    I am somewhat worried by the attempts to justify paedophilia on this thread.
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2011
  11. Charizardfan900

    Charizardfan900 Charizard King!

    Well, I believe he was a nice man. And I'm Christian.

    Also, I am a history maniac and, as someone else already said, people didn't live as long. Most children were dead before their first or fifth birthday (I forget which one it is). 9 years old was like 20 years old. 20 was like 40. 60 was like a 100 in Muhammed's time.

    also, they are not 'justifying' pedophiles. They are backing the fact this was acceptable back then, but out of the question now.
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2011
  12. If you think that ordering the deaths of a lot of people is nice or peaceful, then great. I'm willing to put these actions into the mindset of a man at war fighting for survival, but I'm not willing to declare these actions as nice.

    There are strong suggestions he had sex with a nine year old. I feel those actions are unjustifiable for one who seeks to be a moral leader of men.
     
  13. Moneyy

    Moneyy INACTIVE

    No one is trying to justify that now, but it was justifiable back then. There are differences between the world of today and the world of yesterday. This is not the only time where someone in the past did something that people now would think is unacceptable.
     
  14. CAH

    CAH Calm And Hyper

    So what if it was acceptable back then? Does this make it right? Does this justify it?

    What if Hitler existed in a time before murder was deemed a bad thing? Would he be less evil?

    The point is that its a disgusting action regardless of what time period its in. There is a reason why it's not longer acceptable, because people KNOW that its wrong.

    Surely a real prophet of "God" would be able to tell right and wrong regardless of what time he was in.

    The fact is that muhammed did some pretty messed up stuff, including this, enslaving people, beheading people, rape etc.
     
  15. Moneyy

    Moneyy INACTIVE

    Yes, it does justify it back then.

    Yes, he would be less evil. Too bad that time never existed though.

    People back then didn't think it was disgusting.

    There is no proof Mohammad was a real prophet of God. Also, the Bible also has some things in it that aren't acceptable in today's world.
     
  16. Yami_Wheeler

    Yami_Wheeler Stay forever young.

    Proof of this? Also, did Jesus or his prophets partake in the pedophillia that the Bible apparently praises? Random men having wives below what our age of consent is being included in the Bible is different from the Bible "praising" or even condoning it. Muhammed was a (supposed) Prophet, and yet committed these atrocities.

    Yet, modern society follows these religions to a T. Islam itself is the perfect definition of a religion that is outdated in its "teachings", yet is followed dangerously close to these irrelevant dictations.

    As for pedophillia being more acceptable in the past, the people of the past not yet grasping the psychological reasons for why it is wrong is not an excuse. While the stigma of pedophillia is predominantly a social issue of our time, there is no doubt that a child is not intelligent enough to consent or know what they are consenting to, period.

    Muhammed was in fact a pedophile, among a myriad of other less-than-Prophetly things.
     
  17. bel9

    bel9 n3w 2 sppf :3

    It is about as difficult to classify Muhammad by our psychological definition of pedophile as it is to classify Greek elites as homosexual.

    alleviate, your rather poor argument operates under the idea that we can analyze stories of a man from the past with modern day psychology terms such as pedophilia. Back to the Greek example, we know that the Greeks did not have words like "homosexual" and "heterosexual" and such distinctions simply did not exist. Like their views on race, their views on sexuality were completely different from the modern day American view.

    I would also like to echo Carl Sagan, "It is a little unfair, I think, to criticize a person for not sharing the enlightenment of a later epoch, but it is also profoundly saddening that such prejudices were so extremely pervasive."

    Sagan is referring to Broca, who despite the making groundbreaking brain research, was also bound to the racism and sexism of his time.

    Nice attempt at trolling. I just don't see any reason to take the bait.

    I am much more concerned with the modern Catholic Church; the handling of the current problem of pedophiles as priests has been terrible. I believe criticism should be aimed at modern institutions that need change rather than trying to attack figures of history.
     
  18. Yami_Wheeler

    Yami_Wheeler Stay forever young.

    Islam is a very modern institution that needs change. The entire basis of their religion was founded on the word of a rapist, murderer and pillager, even if you disregard the pedophillia.
     
  19. CAH

    CAH Calm And Hyper

    No it doesn't justify it at all. How can you actually believe that? Killing people for their race (jews) like hitler did or having sex with children like muhammed are both disgusting acts regardless of the time period. You can't justify acts like this and I'm sickened that you're attempting to.

    Regardless of what "people back then" thought its still disgusting and just plain wrong. You can't justify past actions because in that time it was acceptable. Slavery was once acceptable. Black people were treated like animals, but this was acceptable back then. Does that make it right? Of course not. Women couldn't vote in the past. It was accepted back then. does this mean it's ok? Hell no. Seriously, don't be so ignorant.
     
  20. If a man seeks to be a moral leader he should adopt a moral approach. I understand the context of time and place, but in any age the act of essentially grooming a pre-pubescent child and then ****ing them is vile. Times and attitudes have changed, and I probably wouldn't have so much of an issue if Muhammed was a prophet. However, he is, and as such should be held to higher moral standards. Is that unfair of me? Yes.


    This is certainly true.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page