Having sex with his wife does not make her not a child. Plus you have not provided any proof that they sold it to him. The only thing we know is that Mohammad pushed for it after seeing the 6 year old girl in a dream. And we can impose our morals in the past if the immoral act was so horrible that they deserve to be vilified.
-
Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.
However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.
We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure. -
Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
Muhammed and Pedophilia
- Thread starter Woobatgirl
- Start date
- Status
Having sex with his wife does not make her not a child. Plus you have not provided any proof that they sold it to him. The only thing we know is that Mohammad pushed for it after seeing the 6 year old girl in a dream. And we can impose our morals in the past if the immoral act was so horrible that they deserve to be vilified.
Oh no christians say we cant as long as god told them to... Was killing the caininites bad... NO GOD TOLD THEM TO
Is Incest between Cain and wife/sister bad... No God told them to
Is killing you son for being bad, bad... NO God told them to
As long as a god is involved morals mean nothing. Also Mohomad did marry the girl before sex, and to marry back then you had to pay a dowary.
Sadib
Time Lord Victorious
Having sex with wife =/= molestation
You're the one who's trying to make change the subject by changing the facts. I don't even know why you're trying to claim someone cannot be a prophet of God, because those claims can never be proven since we no one actually knows for certain what a prophet of God actually is.
CSolarstorm
New spicy version
Pointing out that he married her first doesn't help the fact that she was 6, and then 9 at the time of consummation. Science can be imposed onto the past because facts are not changed by culture. As long as she's a child:
a) She has no sexual instincts yet
b) Her brain is seriously underdeveloped and lacks the ability to think critically that develops with puberty
c) Her lack of development and young age makes it easy for 'consummation' to seriously hurt her.
These reasons establish that not only can she practically not give her consent, which indeed makes it molestation, but it's also not healthy for her to be sexually active yet. And there is no evidence that she has developed more than our 6-9 year olds, and actually evidence to the contrary, that our 6-9 year olds reach puberty earlier, so don't go down that road again.
Last edited:
lol
I guess slave owners in the south weren't doing anything wrong because they were within their legal rights at the time. hahaha sorry bro.
If she's a 9yo.[img139]http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS8H5dM2Bmh5OHYH5ynzN4EEOmzZKyRW8VZVbRLrrDJnOGjDwzDVQ[/img139]Yes.
You seem to have this weird if not sad fascination of wanting to avoid any discussion about Mohammad.
Which does not mean they sold the girl off, to say so implies that their only reason for giving Mohammad the child was for money.
Yeah that excuse did not work for the child molesters caught at the Mormon complex in Texas a few years back. If she is a child, it is still molestation period.
Last edited:
Only because law dictates so. Not that I don't agree with the majority here but if in that time there was no law (and I honestly haven't followed this thread closely enough to know or care, if there were laws against sex with children.) then the excuse is not so easily dismissed. Now if in the last however many pages this thread is, it has been stated with proof that there were laws against child molestation then w/e i just said can be ignored.
Back then you had a largely tribal society and as such they probably saw no need for laws governing child marriage, because logically a child cannot reproduce, nor can they do things a wife would usually be trained to do, so there was no real epidemic of pedophilia to cause a law to be made.
Respectfully, whether something is illegal at the time or not does not make it morally acceptable or unacceptable. Slavery is an easy example. Just because it was legal in the South at one point in time does not mean it was right. Same goes for Mohammed touching little girls inappropriately. If it's wrong it's wrong, regardless of what the law says.
Then use metaphysical measurements. D:
Its completely possible. There are many things we can look at to tell if he was a prophet or not. Did the things he predicted come true? What was his lifestyle like? What evidence did he present? on and on
Being a child molester doesn't bode well for his prophethood.
Sadib
Time Lord Victorious
Are you saying prophets are supposed to be able to see into the future? You can't just say someone is probably not prophet because they did something you didn't like. History doesn't work that way. Religion is one of those things we won't know what's correct until the end. Perhaps not even then. Finding evidence for or against someone being a prophet is ultimately futile.
CSolarstorm
New spicy version
Um, no. Religion is one of those things that by its own standards, has one certain end. That's what Revelations is all about. Jesus was fortelling the future when he was explaining to his disciples what the end times were going to be like.
Sadib
Time Lord Victorious
I have a similar picture.
Why does everything have to compared to Hitler? I don't think Hitler ever claimed to be a prophet. He very well might have been though. Who knows? If people believe that God got himself killed and came back to life three days later, why can't Adolf Hitler be a prophet?
Sadib
Time Lord Victorious
That actually sounds more ridiculous. It's also a contradiction. How could and why would an omnipotent God willingly sacrifice himself? I thought suicide was frowned upon in Christianity.
Let's get back on-topic. So no one else after Muhammad married 9 year old girls?
Point one. Molestation is not a issue if Mohamad owned the girl. He has all rights to his proporty. Wifes were proporty (under houses value btw) in Biblical time (Quran times???)
Point 2 For whatever reason the second he married her he had full rights over her. Thats like saying I dont have the right over my vcr?
Point 3 today we have laws against it, back then there were no laws. Laws are the schoolmaster and teachs us good from evil. If there were no laws there would be no sin. (Strait from paul of the bible
)CSolarstorm
New spicy version
Point one. Molestation is not a issue if Mohamad owned the girl. He has all rights to his proporty. Wifes were proporty (under houses value btw) in Biblical time (Quran times???)
Point 2 For whatever reason the second he married her he had full rights over her. Thats like saying I dont have the right over my vcr?
Point 3 today we have laws against it, back then there were no laws. Laws are the schoolmaster and teachs us good from evil. If there were no laws there would be no sin. (Strait from paul of the bible
Wow. That was bereft of any morality whatsoever. You just compared a little girl to a VCR...
Laws are to serve the good of us, not vice versa. We don't serve the law. If playing Pokemon were punishable by death, would you say, "Oh well, I should be killed, it's the law!" No, you would say how obviously effed up that law is because it doesn't serve the good of us and you would refuse to obey it.
Last edited:
7 tyranitars
Well-Known Member
a law doesn't necaserily mean it is okay. That being said, because it was 'normal' at that time people saw it as less of an issue, therefor they didn't really care. Those people say: Oh it is a prophet. Instead of: muhammed is a pedophile nobody should listen to him!
Ofcourse it was terrible what he presumably did to that girl, sadly it was social acceptable at that time, and still is in some parts of the world.
Also ebilly, how dare you justify it because she was his property, she was a human being not a piece of furneture. Molestion is still molestion no mather what, in a mariage molestion is still molestion, and bringing up the 'he owns' her doesn't justify it at all!
Ofcourse it was terrible what he presumably did to that girl, sadly it was social acceptable at that time, and still is in some parts of the world.
Also ebilly, how dare you justify it because she was his property, she was a human being not a piece of furneture. Molestion is still molestion no mather what, in a mariage molestion is still molestion, and bringing up the 'he owns' her doesn't justify it at all!
I am opposed, but I started this reply b/c Mattj was saying Christianity was Supperior to Islam. I used laws in the old testament that showed there was nothing wrong with what mohammed did. I think it was wrong, but not b/c a book tells me it is.
- Status