Was muhammad a pedophile
YES HE WAS A PEDO
Side Score: 227
|
 |
No things were different then
Side Score: 64
|
|
According to common practice, islamic laws dictate that female must have her Menzies in order to have sex with her. HOWEVER, muhammad was the prophet of islam, he could do no wrong as evidenced in the koran, (his testimonies) and the hadiths. (testimonies about him) He married his 3rd wife at 6, canceling a marriage in place, this was illegal. At Aysha's house when she was 9, her mother took her from her swing and friends to give her to the prophet and he bedded her later. NO mention of menzies were made, only Ayshas testimony in hadith that the prophet did so because there was but a single blanket between them. MUD MAN WAS A PEDO DEBATE FAITH 24/7 412 days ago
Just because you copy-pasted some text out of a web page somewhere doesn't mean that it's true. There have always been sick twisted folks who have given their best shot at defaming one of the greatest personalities of all times, who swayed the hearts of all the people around him with no more than an offering of the truth, without dazzling miracles. The arrangement with Ayesha was not a marriage of consumation. She is rejected by dedicated followers of Islam who pledged their alleigiance with the Prophet's true successors, not the corrupts political caliphs of the time who turned tables against the prophet's family to take power into their own hands. And Ayesha was the daughter of one of these political caliphs. Her true history is not so readily available, especailly on the internet, but she is considered one of the true villains in Islam, who attempted several times to destroy it. And because of her, and these political caliphs, the world does not know the true face of Islam without making much effort. Facts have been distored and ignored to suit the whims of the fatwa-making clerics that unfortunately represent the Islamic majority today. While they have been successful in tarnishing its image and in manufacturing a dynasty of fanatical misled Islamists, they could never completely destory it. Islam in all its purity exists till today. Unfortunately for you, you probably may never know it. 412 days ago
I will agree that the marriage with A'isha was a political marriage, but Muhammad still took advantage of her at a young age - 9 years old, if I'm right. If I may say, only someone with a strong Shi'ite background makes comments like yours. You place very high emphasis on the Prophet's family who, according to Shi'ite doctrine, are the true successors to the caliphate. And yes, A'isha was the daughter of Abu Bakr, good friend of the Prophet and first of the "political caliphs". I can only assume that one of her "attempts to destroy" Islam occurred during the Battle of the Camel where Ali ibn Abu Talib, the first Shi'ite imam and cousin of Muhammad, took victory and spared A'isha's life. Yes, I'm showing off a little, but it makes your inherent bias more apparent. Who's to say that your facts aren't just as distorted as those of the Sunni? No one can really say, but both sides hold the above facts as true, seeing as that they are historical and actually occurred and all. It's all a matter of spin after that. But I digress again. Having sex with a nine-year-old girl constitutes pedophilia in the modern sense of the word. 391 days ago
"Pedophilia or paedophilia is the sexual preference of an adult for prepubescent children, or, according to the DSM, a form of paraphilia in which a person either has acted on intense sexual urges towards children, or has sexual urges towards and fantasies about children that cause distress or interpersonal difficulty. A person with this attraction is called a pedophile or paedophile." Muhammed had sex with a greater number of women then prepubescent girls, so his preference was not for the latter. You quite clearly read no further than the first paragraph of the link you cited. In fact, the wiki link actually gets in to the Krafft-Ebbing categorization which outlines the 3 proper types of pedophilia, each of which have quite different definitions. These 3 "types" are A) Preferential, which is the "classic" laymen definition of pedophilia. B) Surrogate, which in short could be summed up as "taking what you can get." Of course its not quite as simple, but its generally a form of "settling" for a girl who is of the "proper" age of pedophilia desires. Finally, C) is Sadistic, which is of course fairly self explanatory. Basically about power and control and such more than sexual attraction. But again, to be clear thats simple in the interest of time (or more accurately, space). So we get to your claim. A man, Muhammed in this case, had sex with as you say women both of what we might think of as "proper" age, and also young girls of what we would consider not. This fits definition A fairly well. Definition A pedophiles often live "normal" lives with proper aged girlfriends, boyfriends, husbands, or wives. However, an outside observer would have no right or ability to properly claim which of these aspects of his or her sexuality was indeed their "preference." In fact quite the opposite of what you suggest, it is usually found after some study that someone who has relationships with both of age and not of age individuals usually has a "preference" for the latter. But i digress. Number of sexual encounters is of little evidence either way. There is no correlation to be drawn there. It matters not which "way" is more common for the individual in question. This is not the way which you diagnose such a "disorder." Finally, my purpose for defining more properly. Even barring what we might in this context call "Type A Pedophilia," the argument you have put forth says nothing against "surrogate pedophilia" where an adult will have relations with a child in abstentia of a more proper mate. This has NOTHING to do with actual "preference" as it is most commonly considered, however it is still very much legitimately referred to as "pedophilia." I know i have run on, i hope i have shed some light on the faultiness of the logic you have employed :] 412 days ago
At that time people might have thought getting busy with a child was permissible, but we know this practice today as pedophilia. He was a man over 50, she was only 9. Cultural backwardness or not, we MODERN humans think of this as --pedophilia. I am sure that all pedo's can't be fit into a neat one-size-fits-all stereotype. 412 days ago
The definition of "pedophilia" is harshly challenged, and the definition provided by the DSM-IV is considered null, backed by very little evidence, and purely political (see Green, 2002; Moser & Kleinplatz, 2003; Spitzer, 2005). If we are to define pedophilia solely as one's internal sexual desires, we have absolutely no way of testing this since no empirical evidence about Mohammad's sexual orientation (pedophilia or lack thereof) exists. Therefore we have only the "prophet's" actions to go by. And if we are to consider his rape of a nubile, defenseless child: Yes, Mohammad was a pedophile. Even though he had other wives, this does not somehow outweigh these obviously pedophilic acts (if we go are defining "pedophilia" on one's actions, the only empirical evidence afforded to us in this situation). We are forced to choose one or the other in this scenario, pedophile or not, and defining him as a "pedophile" is the most intellectually honest choice in the situation. 412 days ago
We have NOW, in 2008, some 40 000 "active-religions" on Earth. Some of them "very old", the original "ancestor-religion" having a lot of "daughter-religions". Around the same amount of 40 000 religions "died" through humanity history. -- I have studied DEEPLY some 400 "active-religions" in 30 years. -- The invention of a religion is quite always the same : the delirium of the inventor, that he transmits to his "believers". The delirium is quite simple: there is a god, and the inventor is the only person (very humble modest suffering person) that is/was in contact with god. -- The inventor, so elected by god, as a very difficult task (given by god of course...) : to guide humanity to the "laws" invented... by the inventor. The inventor being "just a human", he convinces only some people around (the believers), and not the whole humanity (where other inventors and believers are at work). -- -- The task of the believers is simple: - create other believers - add more brain to the invention - mainly, mainly, increase the "godness level" of the inventor; because if (shitt...) the inventor is seen as a fool/idiot/criminal/liar, all this religion and believers are are... the same. -- It may be said that the nazism is the religion invented by Hitler. It may be said that the islam is the religion invented by muhamamad It may be said that the christianism is the religion invented by PAUL. etc. -- As the inventor (and believers) are in reality simple limited humans, it is very easy to laugh/criticise the "invention". The inventor and believers invent rather fast the mystery/anathema/excomunication/sin tool to kill (by words or by sword, bullet...) the so called... unbelievers. -- In humanity the TWO "religious books" that teach to the believers that they must deeply hate unbelievers are "Mein Kampf", ant the "Kuran". -- When studying DEEPLY the real biography of the muhammad guy, it is evident that he belongs to the most criminal inventors... Absolutely no respect of life, delirium a high level, superiority complex, etc. etc. -- Criminals have a way to see reality rather differently : what they do IS NOT A CRIME, it is the only correct behaviour. Unbelievers/police/judges do not understand the criminal, who (see Hitler) has the "mission" to fulfil his mission. -- And, as his power increases, in his brain, the word "crime" does not apply to him. Muhammad's biography is the highest example of a criminal "religion inventor". He was (as Hitler) above anybody, above any law, just following the "law of god" dictated by his own brain. -- It was for him easy to impress any children; mainly children whose parents where believers. To be "near the prophet" was an honour. To be in his bed... a blessing. As Hitler, the muhammad guy showed permanently that the only think he respected... was himself, and his invention. So for him, to fuck children was as normal as drinking water. His profile is the one of the criminal pedophiles we see. -- He was a pedophile... -- And in a lot of regions where the charia is applied, women and children are merely tools/toys. Just totally respecting.. the religion... 409 days ago
I am sure he was... Muslims can do whatever to justify it.. but Mohd. was the most barbarian pedo ever born... His followers are the most dangerous people on this earth.. a danger for all civilizations... Stop them or get killed... Islam is the only religion in the world that was build on the foundation of hatred and hate is a way of life for muslims... Please see this video on you tube and get enlightened... 10 days ago | Tagged As: He was a pedophile among other things
If Muhammad took his THIRD wife, who was only 6 and bedded with her that night what does that make him, A PEDOPHILE. And no where in his book states that this is wrong because HE wrote about how his life. Making it seem like it was not a bad thing to bone a 6 year old. what a sick fuck 407 days ago
Actually there is reference to this being a wrongful act. Playing with dolls is for children, before menzies and there are passages that suggest you're not supposed to have sex with them. Ayshas testimony says she had a doll in hand when her mother got her from her swing to present her to the prophet. So this explicity says that she didnt have her menzies and the consumation shouldnt have taken place. This adds even more to the crime of which muhammad did. 329 days ago | Tagged As: islam pedophile muhammad lies koran
Well, in any case he's a fucking pedophile, it isn't an excuse for saying dat it's alright back then.Come on ppl, anyone should feel disgusted to have sex with a nine yr old,especially a "Prophet", but dat "prophet" was happy to bone the kid, therefore he is a fucking pedophile 376 days ago
I just read a series of apologetics articles about Mohamed. Something I've always find quite evident about Islam strike me while I was reading. We know very little about the culture in which Mohamed was living. Saying it was a common practise for a mature man to marry a young girl is very presumptuous. I am more incline to think that most human society do abide to natural taboos - that make incest and paedophilia outrageous and deviant. An immature girl is much more likely to die in labour as her body is not ready to deliver a baby, making this a very unproductive marriage. Unless there are serious historical or archaeological data in favour of a pre-islamic culture that made paedophilia a normative behaviour, I would tend to believe that Mohamed behaved more or less like a cult leader. He might have adopted unnatural behaviour to increase/maintain his stature and power toward his community. More important is how modern Muslims interpret this behaviour. Do they reject it as immoral in a modern society that has shown evidences of psychological and physical trauma linked to an underage girl being forced into sexual intercourse or do they abide to the example of their prophet as part of his perfection that should not be dismissed - in fear of dismissing Islam as a whole. The point with Islam nowadays always come down to this: how modern do Muslim want to be? Other religions are more coherent about this issue though they all go through a strong resistance from their radical wing. 372 days ago
The girl was 8.5 year old and was practically raped and couldn't have children afterwards because of the damage. Mohammad had twenty women in his harem but preferred the child and the other women used to comment they weren't getting too much attention. It is wrong to say the things were different than because before islam women had equal rights and some even had male harems even if many will deny this. Islam was enforced by sword and it is no wonder arabs and other islamic pople converted forcibly, once very advanced in algebra and philosophy never made any scientific advances. After islam, male harems and slavery also spread and it began with mohammad and passed as a legacy to latter caliphs and ottoman sultans too. 187 days ago | Tagged As: He was a pedophile among other things
|
Mohammad (pbuh) lived in a time when people were more divided into small groups; tribal allegiances were incredibly important, and marriage was a way of cementing that. A ceremony involving two groups, followed by a symbolic joining of the two would speed diplomacy and prevent immediate hostilities. Mohammed's marriages were mostly planned to help him spread Islam; his first marriage was one of love, and he had no other wives until Khadijah's death. I could rant a bit more, but I'll sum up why I feel the answer here is a "no": The 'Mohammad was a paedophile" argument is most often wielded by those who wish to discredit Islam in order to further their own religion's standing, and is only taken at face value in communities where any attack on a foreign religion would succeed no matter what. I'm not for any religion, but this argument is one I see as a bit of a low blow. If you wish to discredit a person's beliefs, examine their personal beliefs; taking the actions of a past member, no matter how important, and attacking them out of context is not sound and shows desperation and an inability to find weaknesses in the individual's convictions. 395 days ago
No one is trying to discredit Islam. You are obviously trying to side track the discussion of whether or not he was pedophile, by introducing emotional sentiment that has nothing to do with the topic in discussion. He had sex with children, therefore he was a pedophile. 132 days ago | Tagged As: YES HE WAS A PEDO
No. The word pedophile wasn't coined until the 1800's, Muhammad was alive in the 500-600's. So technically he wasn't a pedophile, just a man who had sex with children, which back then wasn't as frowned upon as it is now. (Keep in mind this argument isn't totally serious, he is a pedophile for our time) 410 days ago
Was Maria artificially impregnated?? I mean come on how else could a virgin have a child. That angel from Bible must have been a messenger from the future that performed the operation. Ye keep judging religious texts literally and based on modern morale and stuff. That makes a lot of sense. 410 days ago
Mary could have gotten pregnant in a couple of ways and still have been a virgin. No god thing needed. However what is more believable is that she was knocked up before marriage and that the whole thing was covered up with the BS of this god thing making her pregnant so she wouldnt be STONED TO DEATH. Stop by the DEBATE FAITH rooms for more if you like.
Supporting Evidence:
Find the DEBATE FAITH rooms in the chat area at Stickam
(www.stickam.com)
408 days ago
And once again. Faith - is not the best thing to debate on. It is a question of Faith. You either believe - and this means that debating over if there is God meaningless. Or you don't believe and then again how do you discuss something you believe does not even exist? There was a nice anecdote in soviet russia. A lesson of atheism (there was a course of it in soviet schools and universities) takes part. The teacher asks children to show a rude gesture towards the sky to God. And one of them asks - Teacher why do we have to do this. If the God doesnot exist whom are we making gestures for. And if he does - why do we try to fuck with him. 408 days ago
The facts are taken from the koran and hadiths, not from Daniel Pearl. Islamic sources were used to come to the logical conclusions that have been represented. However you seem to be taking an emotional slant to this, your religion is shown to be wanting, wanting of morality and you cringe. Appeal to popularity is a fallacy, appeal to a god is pathetic. We learn of islam through the deeds of islamics, one has already threatened the life of a poster, good job religion of piece ... Really? Do you understand Arabic, then? Or have you lived in the time of the Prophet and seen this for yourself? You 'sources' are crap. I'm not being emotional, I'm trying my best to coldly explain something. Here's a great analogy: If someone (a polularly known 'source' of information) said your mother was a whore, would you believe him/ her? Please, I'm not insulting your mother (since you're not really insulting the prohet either), and neither do I ever really intend to punch you in the face. 412 days ago
|
