95Theses wrote:

questioner121 wrote:

95Theses wrote:

questioner121 wrote:

95Theses, you're a really nasty person. I really do hate the way you say some of the things you have said. I don't mind your questioning and debating the issue but just the way you say it really does annoy me. Why are you deliberately trying to piss ppl off?

The same goes for the rest you ppl who have been commenting the way 95Theses has.

What annoys you is probably me pointing out that the accepted version of events, by Islamic scholars, is that muhammed had sex with a nine year old girl.

I actually commend you for being one of the few muslims to accept that mohhamed was in the wrong when he did that, and that he has no excuse for his vile actions.

I've made no attacks on you personally, implied or otherwise.

And BTW if you think I'm being harsh on your ludicrous pedophile prophet, or your even more absurd invisible magic sky fairy Allah (Shit be upon him) you clearly haven't seen me get started on the catholics.

I'm not annoyed with whatever you accuse the prophet of or whatever you call or think of god. They are your understandings and you can feel or do whatever you like. However it's the way you say it when debating the issue with someone else who you know may get offended with your views. By all means question the issue of rape, paedophilia, morality, etc. But it would have been better to say that according to your understanding the prophet wasn't a good person, he had sex with an underage child because the texts say so, god doesn't exist, heaven and hell are invented ideas, etc. The prophet and God don't need defending, ppl can believe and do whatever they feel like, but it's manners to not offend ppl who you are debating with. If you don't have manners then fine be insulting you're only putting yourself down.

I can well understand the need for a derail here on your part, and I'm most reluctant to allow it, but I'm genuinely interested to know what it is that has upset you if it isn't what I've said about either muhammed or allah?

I say these things because I think that all religion gets a free pass generally, because as soon as someone brings the words faith or belief into a conversation it is assumed that that opinion should be all of a sudden accorded great respect despite how ludicrous it may be.

I am attempting to convey just how ludicrous and ill founded I think your beliefs are, and that I don't think they deserve the slightest shred of respect. Just because you 'Believe' something, or it is 'your faith' doesn't mean it deserves respect. Your ideas need to stand or fall on their own two feet without any of this special protection the credulous so desperately try and assert is their right.

Edited for grammar and speelunk.

Like I said, I'm annoyed over the language you use. I'd be annoyed if some religious nut started having a go at atheists and condemning them to eternal hell fire simply for saying that there is no god. That's not right, and if the religious nut used bad language it would be even more wrong. The same goes for atheists.

I do think that ppls beliefs should be respected. You may not agree with it but it's their right to have it. Just as atheists should be respected for their non-belief the religious ppl should respected for theirs. Otherwise you are just going to get ill feelings between the parties and there won't be any debate at all, just foul language and ridicule thrown from one end to the other.

Again, evasion maneuver.
You still didn't answer: do you think all those Hadiths are lying or did Muhammad fuck a 9 years old girl?


Edit: Do yourself and your dignity a favor and answer the question next post.

Questioner121

Do you read Arabic?

If so could you please give me a literal translation of the below text from the koran?


واللائي لم يحضن" فعدتهن ثلاثة أشهر

If you don't then I can provide a literal translation bit by bit, i suspect you aren't going to like where this is headed though, because I distinctly remember that you said something about the koran does not explicitly permit older men having sex with pre-pubescent children, and I am about to show that in fact it does.

95Theses wrote:Questioner121

Do you read Arabic?

If so could you please give me a literal translation of the below text from the koran?


واللائي لم يحضن" فعدتهن ثلاثة أشهر

If you don't then I can provide a literal translation bit by bit, i suspect you aren't going to like where this is headed though, because I distinctly remember that you said something about the koran does not explicitly permit older men having sex with pre-pubescent children, and I am about to show that in fact it does.

Please do translate it.

95Theses, as I said before, it's not what we debate it's the language used in the debate which is annoying. If you have some evidence of something which you feel is wrong or abhorrent then let's debate it.

I don't think I have ever said the koran does not explicitly permit older men having sex with pre-pubescent children. If I have pls quote me to remind me. But please do show me what you have found. I could learn something new to change my views.

questioner121 wrote:So would you use this language if you were debating this issue with a group of ppl in person?

I do all the time. Perhaps that's why none of my credulous friends want to chat their absurd beliefs with me.

InDeoRideo wrote:Again, evasion maneuver.
You still didn't answer: do you think all those Hadiths are lying or did Muhammad fuck a 9 years old girl?


Edit: Do yourself and your dignity a favor and answer the question next post.

so?

InDeoRideo wrote:

InDeoRideo wrote:Again, evasion maneuver.
You still didn't answer: do you think all those Hadiths are lying or did Muhammad fuck a 9 years old girl?


Edit: Do yourself and your dignity a favor and answer the question next post.

so?

You said a bad word, so you don't get an answer.

paarsurrey wrote:Hi friends

A single sentence or a verse without the text and the context could be sometimes misleading.
One cannot correctly understand the meaning of a word unless one knows the whole sentence in which it has been used; the value of a sentence could be best understood in a passage, and of a passage is best understood in a chapter. The reference to the context is therefore most essential for a useful discussion.

This is nothing but a common sense; everybody must agree to it, in my opinion.

Are there any differences to it or exceptions?

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

Hi,

I think you left out a couple of levels of context.
So a passage is best understood in a chapter, but it doesn't stop there. A chapter is best understood in a book. A book is best understood in the context of its author(s) motivation. Which in turn are best understood in the context of their time and situation... Which is in turn in the context of the society they live in... etc...

Why do you stop looking at the chapter as a "final" context? Why don't you take the personal psychology and goals of the people writing the chapter as a context influencing the contents of the chapter? Why do you arbitrarily stop at a specific context?

Thx.

questioner121 wrote:it's not what we debate it's the language used in the debate which is annoying.

Oh, for fuck's sake.

questioner121 wrote:

95Theses wrote:Questioner121

Do you read Arabic?

If so could you please give me a literal translation of the below text from the koran?


واللائي لم يحضن" فعدتهن ثلاثة أشهر

If you don't then I can provide a literal translation bit by bit, i suspect you aren't going to like where this is headed though, because I distinctly remember that you said something about the koran does not explicitly permit older men having sex with pre-pubescent children, and I am about to show that in fact it does.

Please do translate it.

95Theses, as I said before, it's not what we debate it's the language used in the debate which is annoying. If you have some evidence of something which you feel is wrong or abhorrent then let's debate it.

I don't think I have ever said the koran does not explicitly permit older men having sex with pre-pubescent children. If I have pls quote me to remind me. But please do show me what you have found. I could learn something new to change my views.

you said :

Hadiths are not holy. They can be wrong. The only holy text which is considered to be true without any doubts in islam is the Quran.

I took this to meant that you believed that whatever the koran says is acceptable is acceptable.

The arabic I quoted you above translates literally as :

"and those who never had menses" (because they are underage)

This is important because as I'm sure you know the koran lays down specific rules for how long a woman has to wait after a marriage ends before she remarries, the Iddah

However in koran 65:4 it further clarifies these rules for how long to wait in different situations in which a woman has had sex with her husband, such as if she is pregnant (she must wait until the birth before remarrying) and if the 'wife' is pre-pubescent (3 months)

I assumed that as muslims believe the word of the koran is inerrant this was at odds with your statement that it is never permissible for a man to have sex with a nine year old girl, because the koran lays down specific time scales that the girl must wait to remarry if she is prepubescent and has had sex with her 'husband'

If allah thinks it is never right for men to have sex with prepubescent children why does he makes rules for how long these children have to wait to remarry if they have had sex with their husbands?

Anyway, i'm off to bed, I'm working in the morning, feel free to read the article below and offer any apologetics you can dredge up. I'll be sure to look them up tomorrow.


http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Pedophilia_in_the_Qur'an

questioner121 wrote:
I do think that ppls beliefs should be respected. You may not agree with it but it's their right to have it. Just as atheists should be respected for their non-belief the religious ppl should respected for theirs.

In some places it may be a right to hold any particular religious belief, but even in those places there is no right to have the belief respected. Tolerated yes, respected no.

Shrunk wrote:

InDeoRideo wrote:

InDeoRideo wrote:Again, evasion maneuver.
You still didn't answer: do you think all those Hadiths are lying or did Muhammad fuck a 9 years old girl?


Edit: Do yourself and your dignity a favor and answer the question next post.

so?

You said a bad word, so you don't get an answer.

lets check...

questioner121, do you think all those Hadiths are lying or did Muhammad have a sexsual intercourse with a 9 years old girl?

Question,

I see you dodged my question. If it could be established beyond all reasonable doubt that Mo did it, what would disgust you the most? That he fucked a 9 year old or that someone might use the word "fuck" to describe it?

UnderConstruction wrote:Question,

I see you dodged my question. If it could be established beyond all reasonable doubt that Mo did it, what would disgust you the most? That he fucked a 9 year old or that someone might use the word "fuck" to describe it?

Yeah but this is the Prophet who can do no wrong we're talking about, he wouldn't fuck a 9 year old, he probably made sweet gentle consensual love to her instead

paarsurrey wrote:

Paula1 wrote:Ok, not having read it in full I'll give you

Hi friend Paula1

I thank you for admitting that. Please quote the verses from Quran where it is mentioned .

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

Anyone else find it ironic that the OP made a post about context being important and then immediately quote mined someone?

num1cubfn wrote:

paarsurrey wrote:

Paula1 wrote:Ok, not having read it in full I'll give you

Hi friend Paula1

I thank you for admitting that. Please quote the verses from Quran where it is mentioned .

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

Anyone else find it ironic that the OP made a post about context being important and then immediately quote mined someone?

I expected it sooner or later.

Millefleur wrote:

UnderConstruction wrote:Question,

I see you dodged my question. If it could be established beyond all reasonable doubt that Mo did it, what would disgust you the most? That he fucked a 9 year old or that someone might use the word "fuck" to describe it?

Yeah but this is the Prophet who can do no wrong we're talking about, he wouldn't fuck a 9 year old, he probably made sweet gentle consensual love to her instead

After several years of squirting between her thighs first.

Do all atheists have this mentality where they deliberately like to insult and antagonise ppl rather than contribute to a debate in a civilised way?

I'm sure that if the ppl who have commented in such a vile way were doing this in public they would shit their pants and dare not insult the person/ppl they were debating with. This just shows the personality of these ppl who hide behind computers screen's and mock idiotically, whereas if they were in public they would behave so nicely as if to show that they are so polite and intelligent.

To the vile atheists, read thru your comments and pat yourself on the back for showing how intelligent you non believers are.

questioner121 wrote:Do all atheists have this mentality where they deliberately like to insult and antagonise ppl rather than contribute to a debate in a civilised way?

I'm sure that if the ppl who have commented in such a vile way were doing this in public they would shit their pants and dare not insult the person/ppl they were debating with. This just shows the personality of these ppl who hide behind computers screen's and mock idiotically, whereas if they were in public they would behave so nicely as if to show that they are so polite and intelligent.

To the vile atheists, read thru your comments and pat yourself on the back for showing how intelligent you non believers are.

I have yet to hear a cogent argument out of you. So far all of your points have been to the effect that "atheists are big meanies."

Now you make an ex recto blind assertion that we wouldn't call bollocks bollocks if we saw it in the real world. Despite the fact you've never met any of us and have zero evidence to support your assumption. I'm sure years of blindly accepting that fairy tales are real can make it difficult for people to know the difference between imagination and reality, but come on. At least have SOME evidence to back up your assertions.

num1cubfn wrote:

questioner121 wrote:Do all atheists have this mentality where they deliberately like to insult and antagonise ppl rather than contribute to a debate in a civilised way?

I'm sure that if the ppl who have commented in such a vile way were doing this in public they would shit their pants and dare not insult the person/ppl they were debating with. This just shows the personality of these ppl who hide behind computers screen's and mock idiotically, whereas if they were in public they would behave so nicely as if to show that they are so polite and intelligent.

To the vile atheists, read thru your comments and pat yourself on the back for showing how intelligent you non believers are.

I have yet to hear a cogent argument out of you. So far all of your points have been to the effect that "atheists are big meanies."

Now you make an ex recto blind assertion that we wouldn't call bollocks bollocks if we saw it in the real world. Despite the fact you've never met any of us and have zero evidence to support your assumption. I'm sure years of blindly accepting that fairy tales are real can make it difficult for people to know the difference between imagination and reality, but come on. At least have SOME evidence to back up your assertions.

Are you saying that you would make the vile comments in the way you ppl have been making it in public too?