Did Islam Condone Pedophilia?

Apr 2018
738
Upland, Sweden
Nor is there such a ban here. [...]
Right.

I disagree with you. [...].

Although anti-discrimination legislation is relatively new - [...]

Secondly, [...].
You are right, that's not what I meant at all. What I meant was that this kinds of legislation was an overreaction done after the particular trauma of the second world war. An understandable overreaction given how barbaric it was, but an overreaction nonetheless. I also think it is unproductive: shutting down speech will only drive it underground. Normal libel legislation is sufficient. If a legal system purports to protect individual rights and freedoms and have the individual as the lowest denominator then it does not make any sense to give groups rights, as is effectively done by this kind of "Hate speech" legislation. It is a step backwards, before the reforms of the 1850s (on most of the continent, in Britain before that) back into corportatist semi-feudal Europe.

Now I am fine with such a system in theory (in practice I'd rather not have it) but then groups should be priviliged either 1) equally, and then we should have separate protective legislation - or widen existing "Hate speech" legislation to encompass indigenous Europeans as well (which it certainly does not in practice today). Or 2) privilege groups in proportion to their importance for the national interest and social cohesion.

I disagree with you when you say that this legislation is about protecting individuals. It most certainly is not. It is about "protecting" (some would say privileging...) certain minority groups in certain respects, because some people consider them to be threatened or deserving of special treatment. I don't believe it is up to the government to legislate on that basis - especially not when done on the grounds we do today - doing so opens a can of worms, and it does not fullfill it's states purpose. Either you can have a society where the government treats everyone as free individuals or you can have a society where the groups or the particlar kinds of individuals get privilieges according to their social importance. Doing what we are doing now - pretending that our governments are "liberal" and treats everyone as free individuals while simultaneously privileging various supposedly disadvantaged minorities in various ways (a kind of upside down aristocracy, in the formal if not entirely the real sense) is bound to blow up, at least that's what I think.

Freedom of speech is extra vital, because it forms the basis for our public discourse, which in turn forms the basis for our free societies. If people are afraid to state their opinion then the legitimacy of the entire liberal democratic order is put under risk. Of course, many liberals don't really seem to believe this, but instead believe it is only people who think like them that should be allowed room to speak...


You are conflating the outcome with the process. [...]
The system can be as adversarial and precedence based as it likes, it is still a matter of fact that the law, any law, is a blunt instrument. Social norms are often much more important. Not all kinds of bad behaviour deserve to be punished by THE law...


I agree, but I'd argue that caution dictates that we put social inclusion and common courtesy higher than protecting the rights of the nutters and racists to spout their bigoted filth unchallenged.
I agree but I'd argue that we put social stability and the dignity of the host population, with actual ties and sense of loyalty to the country with the natural right to be masters of their own house over the feelings of ungrateful tax-subsidized foreigners or unassimilated children of said foreigners who ulyimately chose to move here themselves, and can leave if they dislike our ways.

Both sides can play the game of using subjectively defined terms and percieved legitimate emotion as grounds for social policy.

It's no more a threat to free society than making people wear seatbelts [...]?
Are seatbelts vital for the public discourse? Do they form the grounds for what our elected representatives discuss, and therefore which laws are made or unmade?

I'm not sure 'they' do expect that. [...]
There have been numerous examples of Christians being treated just as poorly by atheists in Europe without either lawsuits or government intervention. It's not the case that all muslims want the same thing, it's rather that there seem to be more Muslims who behave like spoiled children who can't stans whenever people disagree with or provoke them without dragging said people into court (or on the extreme end of the spectrum, committing terrorist acts).

Okay, and I think this entire debate should be had like we're having it now, without government intervention. People should be as provocative as they like, provided it is not an outright attack on an individuals livelihood or something else that falls under libel.

Also, Churchill is not a founder of a religion.

Otherwise I see your point.

[...]
So do you think that the free expression of white supremacist ideology would or would not have the same effect on the white population?
Is bigotry illegal? I don't think it is up to the government to punish people for being bigots whatever that means. I have this wild feeling that a judge who votes for the Greens might have a different view of what bigotry is from a right wing judge. Just like a Black or White jury might have different opinions. The very act of asking the judiciary (and therefore indirectly the government) to partake in these kinds of judgements threatens its status as a neutral observer, which in a liberal framework is what it is supposed to be.

No, I don't think neither white supremacism nor bigotry are desirable, but these are also not objective nor empirically easily defined terms. "Oh I went out into the forest and found a bit of White suoremacism". They need to be mediated by social norms rather than harsher legal norms, that is my view.

There is also a difference here because Islam is quintessentially foreign, at least in Sweden (given your colonial heritage might arguably make things different). In practice Muslim extremism is much more foreign than nazism. That doesn't make it morally inferior, but the situation is different.
 
Last edited:
Jan 2014
2,337
Westmorland
Normal libel legislation is sufficient. If a legal system purports to protect individual rights and freedoms and have the individual as the lowest denominator then it does not make any sense to give groups rights, as is effectively done by this kind of "Hate speech" legislation.
Libel (or defamation, as it is known over here) legislation is entirely insufficient for these purposes. The aim of defamation legislation is to give individuals a remedy when someone tells an untruth about them which causes them serious loss. That might be financial or reputational loss in the case of an individual, but there is no mechanism in our system by which defamation legislation can be used for the purposes you envisage. I doubt your system would be much different?

Now I am fine with such a system in theory (in practice I'd rather not have it) but then groups should be priviliged either 1) equally, and then we should have separate protective legislation - or widen existing "Hate speech" legislation to encompass indigenous Europeans as well (which it certainly does not in practice today). Or 2) privilege groups in proportion to their importance for the national interest and social cohesion.
OK - this is possibly another difference between our respective situations, but our system does privilege all groups equally. Of course, the far right narrative maintains that only certain groups are protected (non-white ones, generally) and that other groups (white ones, generally) have lesser rights in order to foment outrage and a sense of grievance, but it just isn't true.

I disagree with you when you say that this legislation is about protecting individuals. It most certainly is not. It is about "protecting" (some would say privileging...) certain minority groups in certain respects, because some people consider them to be threatened or deserving of special treatment.
See above. A society in which men can bring equal pay claims as easily as women, in which a racially aggravated crime can be committed by any race to any other race and in which every religion or belief has equal protection (as is the case here) cannot fairly be accused of protecting only minority groups. The objective is equality for all and the legislation is drafted accordingly. In reality, more women than men bring equal pay claims. More non-white people are subject to racially aggravated crimes than white people. Muslims are subject to more religious discrimination than Christians. This may be a measure of ongoing social and cultural inequality, but it is not the consequence of a legal system slanted to certain groups, no matter how much the far right like to pretend that it is.

The system can be as adversarial and precedence based as it likes, it is still a matter of fact that the law, any law, is a blunt instrument. Social norms are often much more important. Not all kinds of bad behaviour deserve to be punished by THE law...
This is a straw man. Not all bad behaviour is punishable by the law.

No, I don't think neither white supremacism nor bigotry are desirable, but these are also not objective nor empirically easily defined terms. "Oh I went out into the forest and found a bit of White suoremacism". They need to be mediated by social norms rather than harsher legal norms, that is my view.
That doesn't really answer my question.
 
muhammad did not consummate the marriage when she was 6 rather when she was 9/10....and yes the view of child marriage is very much looked down upon,but it depends on specific culture and area,but islamic justification for the practice will surely make it harder to fight this idiotic practice though.
Still pedaling this garbage are you Zanis.

For those who don't know we had like a 50 page thread on this and there is no proof at all that Aisha was 9 yrs old when they married or consummated.

We dragged up and looked over various sources for weeks on this and her age was added in 100's of years later by people of the Abbasid Caliphate, two Caliphates removed from Muhammed's life time.

Its also only stated in the Haddiths, again which were only compiled and "filled in" at this later time.

Other muslims outside of the Sunni don't even believe she was of that age, there is a conspiracy reason that we un-earthed as to why the Sunni wanted to promote this young age and it was because there were rumours that Aisha wasn't a virgin and she was around 21 yrs old which was an issue because she was the main promoter of Islam after Muhammed died hence why they pushed her age back from 9 to even 6 yrs old ........... why? because they wanted her as the custodian of Islam to be pure, a virgin, their version of Mary basically.

When we discussed this previously even the ones with Islamaphobia (and there was a few of them, Zanis included) had to back down and admit there was absolutely no credible evidence of Aisha's age from the time of Muhammed.

Personally I don't care but one thing I hate is the acceptance of mis-information, especially when its used by bigots to promote hatred.

Unfortunately because the Sunni created and backed this age of Aisha its very hard to fight this mis-information among the public however not every Muslim is Sunni and they shouldn't be ignored just because Sunni has better propaganda.
 
For anyone interested in seeing what was researched or discussed this is tale end of the discussion.

Aisha's age

On these pages is where a lot of the sources are discussed, I listed in this post from that thread the pages and post numbers of the info.

"The earliest written works of a Hadith which are provable only go as far back as Malik (795 AD) who has admitted to making major edits and doctoring of his works, the Hadith also hasn't survived in its entirety to know exactly what this edited piece contains, his edited work was also compiled around 100 years after Muhammed, we have no proof it contains anything regarding Aisha's age - page 40 - post #397 / page 51 - post #510

Ibn Ishaq's Sira is lost and the only surviving version of it which has also been edited and doctored survives in Hisham's Sira in around 820 AD, Ibn Ishaq's original works were also questioned and disputed by other Islamic scholars of his time. - Page 39 - Post #381

No written Sira or Hadiths exist that have not been heavily altered or doctored and none of them save for a few snippets have external 3rd party evidence to cross reference their claims. Page 39 - Post #381 & #382"
 
Apr 2018
1,562
Mythical land.
Still pedaling this garbage are you Zanis.

For those who don't know we had like a 50 page thread on this and there is no proof at all that Aisha was 9 yrs old when they married or consummated.

We dragged up and looked over various sources for weeks on this and her age was added in 100's of years later by people of the Abbasid Caliphate, two Caliphates removed from Muhammed's life time.

Its also only stated in the Haddiths, again which were only compiled and "filled in" at this later time.

Other muslims outside of the Sunni don't even believe she was of that age, there is a conspiracy reason that we un-earthed as to why the Sunni wanted to promote this young age and it was because there were rumours that Aisha wasn't a virgin and she was around 21 yrs old which was an issue because she was the main promoter of Islam after Muhammed died hence why they pushed her age back from 9 to even 6 yrs old ........... why? because they wanted her as the custodian of Islam to be pure, a virgin, their version of Mary basically.

When we discussed this previously even the ones with Islamaphobia (and there was a few of them, Zanis included) had to back down and admit there was absolutely no credible evidence of Aisha's age from the time of Muhammed.

Personally I don't care but one thing I hate is the acceptance of mis-information, especially when its used by bigots to promote hatred.

Unfortunately because the Sunni created and backed this age of Aisha its very hard to fight this mis-information among the public however not every Muslim is Sunni and they shouldn't be ignored just because Sunni has better propaganda.
keep your nonsense to yourself,last i remember you had to run like a damn coward when backed into corner,aisha is not mentioned in any source other than those mentioned,therefore if anything one who was embarassed was you,infact you have to back out of your blalant and dishonest cherry picking and dishonesty which was exposed by me quite evidently in that thread,lol AFAIK you then invented the whole crap about muhammad not existing which was never my point anyway.
 
Apr 2018
1,562
Mythical land.
the end of discussion was that nothing about muhammad is known other than he existed,and if anything can be said about his life with then it must come from same sources which mention age of aisha in the first place.
 
keep your nonsense to yourself,last i remember you had to run like a damn coward when backed into corner,aisha is not mentioned in any source other than those mentioned,therefore if anything one who was embarassed was you,infact you have to back out of your blalant and dishonest cherry picking and dishonesty which was exposed by me quite evidently in that thread,lol AFAIK you then invented the whole crap about muhammad not existing which was never my point anyway.
I see the scars of that conversation are still fresh.

You got embarrassed, its there for everyone to see in that link to the thread, people can read the evidence and make up their own minds.

I never said Muhammed didn't exist and I spent about 30 pages trashing you with sources to boot ........ that's hardly running is it?

I only left the conversation after I had routed you completely to the point that you had no legs to stand on so why would I keep discussing? the discussion was had and done, as were you.
 
the end of discussion was that nothing about muhammad is known other than he existed,and if anything can be said about his life with then it must come from same sources which mention age of aisha in the first place.
That's not true either.

Been there, done this convo.

What was established was that nothing about Aisha could be confirmed, hence why you running around talking like she was 6 years old is garbage, I just find it amusing that even after you had to admit you could never prove her age I still find you running around a year later spouting off your nonsense to anyone who'll listen like we never had that debate.

It just goes to show you can't educate the bigotry out of people, they're not there for knowledge, they're there for their own pet hatred / bias.
 
Likes: Ashoka maurya

kandal

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,578
USA
Personally I don't care but one thing I hate is the acceptance of mis-information, especially when its used by bigots to promote hatred.
Personally you do care, since one can sense it in your writings. Whether one is a religious or not, it is understandable that ones of Muslim background take that heritage seriously and don't want to see it tainted. But fabricating history to prop up Aisha's marriage age for the purpose has only fantasy value.