Did Islam Condone Pedophilia?

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.
Ahhh and here's the other one.

You two always seem to pop up when this stuff is mentioned.

I'm not muslim so keep on missing the mark.

As I said, I only care about the spreading of misinformation ........... this is a history forum, for historical facts, not a propaganda machine for people with Islamaphobia.

As far as Muhammed himself ........... I couldn't care less, I am not religious, if Islam were to end tomorrow it wouldn't bother me at all.
 
Dec 2017
611
-------
I don't know about Islam but sex practice between older men and young boys exists in Afghanistan and Tajikistan to these days. These boys are known as 'Bacha Bazi' . There are newspaper articles on the subject.



Bacha bāzī (Dari: بچه بازی‎, lit. "boy play"; from بچه bacheh, "boy", and بازی play, "game") is a slang term in Afghanistan for a wide variety of activities involving sexual relations between older men and younger adolescent men, or boys. The practitioner is commonly called bacha baz (meaning "boy play" in Dari) or simply bach. It may include to some extent sexual slavery and child prostitution.[1] Bacha bazi has existed throughout history,[2] and is currently reported in various parts of Afghanistan.[3][4][5][6][7] Force and coercion are common, and security officials state they are unable to end such practices because many of the men involved in bacha bazi-related activities are powerful and well-armed warlords.[8][9][10]


Bacha bazi - Wikipedia
 
Apr 2018
1,562
Mythical land.
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.
Lying to escape the fact that you were embarassed, very cute and childish nothing new though, this much expected from people like you.

You claimed that i claimed muhammad didn't exist and started showing sources of him existing, rofl you were essentially figjting yoirslef and declared yourself as the winner against me, i knew you were immature and dishonest from that point only
 
Apr 2018
1,562
Mythical land.
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.
Nothing about any of muhammad's story can ever be confirmed including his percieved persecution which you supported before i trashed you to gutter and exposed your nonsensical double standard,hypocrisy and plain old intellectual dishonesty

As far as you are concerned aisha didn't exist and nothing about muhammad is known. Thats however is not true for anybody claiming to know anything about muhammad, earliest and most authentic of islamic sources mention aisha and her age, you to disregard every single islamic sourcr about muhammad to discard aisha's age.
 
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.
i dont think there is even a denial, few replies into it and one realizes what he is getting into.

im not also surprised why this thread is not locked, given islamophobia is as big phenomenon in europe/west as it is in lets say India so predisposition towards it esp since refugee influx into europe

ultimately we are discussing history and its subjective to political/media controlled narrative, and a part of the politics and history is to use it as a weapon in favour of one's agenda, conservative/neo nazis in europe/ islamophobia, RSS in india etc are all part of the parcel as far as history goes.

regards
 
Likes: MamlukWarrior
Apr 2018
739
Upland, Sweden
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?
My point is that I don't think the government should - in a free democracy - legislate in such a way that you treat citizens differently explicitly from each other. Now I think there are some exceptions to this (if you are not native born for example), and I do very much understand that there are ethnic and social divisions in society. I am very mindful of explicitly addressing them by law though, as I think that will only polarize people and cement group identites rather than build bridges.

Defamation and libel legislation is not at all "entirely insufficient". All of the Western world did very well without hate-speech laws for 100 years or more. Or are you saying that if the Nazis would not have been "allowed" (like that will stop anyone if they're motivated enough...) to talk openly about things then somwhow Hitler wouldn't have come to power (and therefore we all have to punish ourselves for some reason, even though the Nazis were a uniquely German phenomenon...)? I disagree strongly if that's what you're saying.

There's also the case that at the very least one Western country with laws similar to what I'm advocating already exists: it's called the United States of America. They did not do what we did after World War 2 and tightened free speech restrictions (probably because they couldn't not because they didn't want to). Is the US an "evil far right dictatorship"?




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.
Well, I think there is some truth to that supposedly "far right" (once again with the value judgements...) narrative. Here in Sweden there is even a court decision from the early 2000s mandating that "only minorities" (defined as "non-nordics") are protected by Hets mot folkgrupp. The political slant of judges, politicians and the media is another question though so let's not touch on that...

Even if you're right, my point wasn't that "it's unfair because my group is not included", my point was that this is a very stupid system to begin with (which is why I said I'd rather not have it in practice). Because in practice there is just going to be an endless spiralling of more and more victim groups being artificially created. Everyone is a member of multiple groups. Groups are fluid. This is precisely why in a free society, it is problematic that the law explicitly recognizes any other category than "citizens"/ "non-citizens".


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.
Okay, and my point is that this is a stupid system. Liberalism arose in the 1800s precisely as a way to eliminate legal corporativism that had been prominent in Europe ever since the Middle Ages. This is also why Liberalism (it's first incarnation anyway) was national in all of Europe, because liberalism doesn't make sense unless you have some kind of pre-political homogeneity.

As for all your claims, you haven't substantiated any of them (although some are probably true, I agree). I don't believe for a second that Muslims are subject to more religious discrimination that Chrsitians. I think it's more a case that they percieve themselves to be subject to more religious discrimination. Even if it what you said was true, so what? This is Europe, Europe is not Muslim. There can be no perfectly neutral society, any kind of norm is a value judgement. This ideal of neutrality (which I find is good, generally - in the legal sphere) is only possible if people are reasonable and there is an underlying pre-political commonality of some kind.

In Sweden the King has to be Lutheran by law, is that religious discrimination against Muslims? It certainly priviliges one faith over another...


This is a straw man. Not all bad behaviour is punishable by the law.
No, it is not a straw man. The spirit of my post was obviously that this kind of behaviour should not be punishable by law, as it infringes on the public discourse (and in this case, because of a lot of other reasons as well).


That doesn't really answer my question.
No I don't think "the free spreading of white supremacism ideology" would have the same effect on the native European population. Most native Europeans dislike Nazism very strongly, at least that is the case in Sweden. The social dynamics are very different, and the situation is very different. Fundamentally the difference is this: Islam is foreign to Europe (Nazism, unfortunately is not). Large amounts of Muslims is something that is foreign to Europe. That doesn't mean you can't be Muslim and be European (you can), but Europe as a continent is not Muslim.This is fundamentally about who is boss, at the risk of being very reductionistic - if Europe's Muslims are unable to live in a society that questions their assumptions of what is sacred, then they should leave. They being treated as more or less legal equals is far more than most societies in world history would do, I see no reason why we should adapt our pulic discourse or our tacit rules and implicit social norms just to accomodate values entirely foreign to our history and culture.
 
Nov 2015
1,678
Kyiv
Apr 2018
739
Upland, Sweden
I am not strong in the Koran. And for Russian oil workers on the Yamal Peninsula masturbation and acts of sodomy are officially banned . And even a special journal was brought up with signs of the workers for confirmation that they are familiar with the order.



Ямальским вахтовикам запретили мужеложество и мастурбацию

This applies mainly to those workers who live in hostels on the northern peninsula
This is hilarious
 
Nothing about any of muhammad's story can ever be confirmed including his percieved persecution which you supported before i trashed you to gutter and exposed your nonsensical double standard,hypocrisy and plain old intellectual dishonesty

As far as you are concerned aisha didn't exist and nothing about muhammad is known. Thats however is not true for anybody claiming to know anything about muhammad, earliest and most authentic of islamic sources mention aisha and her age, you to disregard every single islamic sourcr about muhammad to discard aisha's age.
lol

You can writhe and squirm as much as you want but the conclusion is not going to be any different than it was last time.

There are external sources about Muhammed, there are none about Aisha not from 3rd parties or from the muslims / arabs alive at the time of her life.

Aisha is mentioned but not her age.

There are scarce 3rd party details about Muhammed but there is 3rd party Byzantine and Anatolia sources about Muhammed and there is also no denial of the Quran or the stories of his life by the Ummayad's or the Rashidun's who even though they feature in the these stories they never denied them, they even promoted them even though Khalid and Abu Sufayan are at one time the villain's of the piece, also the conquering of Mecca is locally well known and never denied as is Muhammed taking over Medina, these are direct family and tribe members of the whole of the Hejaz who were there when the Quran was written and nobody has ever denied any of the stories.

............ however Abbasid, Persian speaking foreigners who wrote the Hadith's 200 years or so after Muhammed's life and even admitted doctoring their works to "fill in the blanks" are trying to tell us they know what time of day Muhammed used the bathroom.

........... anyway, you know all this, you've been served before.

Do you really want me to do it all over again because copy and paste is a mofo.

............ or we could just cut straight to the chase "Is there any solid proof about Aisha or her age?".

No there isn't, and don't side step by trying to discuss Muhammed, we're talking about Aisha.

....... and when you admit there is no evidence, why are you still running around promoting her as a minor when you know better?
 
Last edited:
Apr 2018
1,562
Mythical land.
lol

You can writhe and squirm as much as you want but the conclusion is not going to be any different than it was last time.

There are external sources about Muhammed, there are none about Aisha not from 3rd parties or from the muslims / arabs alive at the time of her life.

Aisha is mentioned but not her age.

There are scarce 3rd party details about Muhammed but there is 3rd party Byzantine and Anatolia sources about Muhammed and there is also no denial of the Quran or the stories of his life by the Ummayad's or the Rashidun's who even though they feature in the these stories they never denied them, they even promoted them even though Khalid and Abu Sufayan are at one time the villain's of the piece, also the conquering of Mecca is locally well known and never denied as is Muhammed taking over Medina, these are direct family and tribe members of the whole of the Hejaz who were there when the Quran was written and nobody has ever denied any of the stories.

............ however Abbasid, Persian speaking foreigners who wrote the Hadith's 200 years or so after Muhammed's life and even admitted doctoring their works to "fill in the blanks" are trying to tell us they know what time of day Muhammed used the bathroom.

........... anyway, you know all this, you've been served before.

Do you really want me to do it all over again because copy and paste is a mofo.

............ or we could just cut straight to the chase "Is there any solid proof about Aisha or her age?".

No there isn't, and don't side step by trying to discuss Muhammed, we're talking about Aisha.

....... and when you admit there is no evidence, why are you still running around promoting her as a minor when you know better?
aisha is a fictional character as per you,isn't she?now will you accept it or do i need to trash you to gutter again before to go round back and accept it?

so yeah aisha remains a minor at her age of marriage,your stand is that she is fictional,mine is that oral transmission can't be dismissed solely because they were transmitted orally for generations.

and again with your pathetic excuses,do i need to remind you that you cowered and ran with tail between your legs last time you tried defending the stories from same goddamn sources you discarded in relation to aisha's age?boy,you love getting embarrassed,don't you?
and how do you know quran is written or said by muhammad without same islamic sources?
and besides,not just hadiths,all islamic sources from sirah to hadiths,have this story with aisha's age mentioned in them.
 
Last edited: