Did Islam Condone Pedophilia?

Jan 2014
2,333
Westmorland
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.
But I never said they should. It looks from your post as though Sweden has taken a decision to treat 'non-nordics' differently to the indigenes. That isn't what happens here for the reasons I discussed in my last post. I agree that deliberately setting out to foster what one might call a culture of positive discrimination could cause resentment. It seems like a blunt tool for the job, but let's stop to ask ourselves why this is happening? It's very easy to stick our fingers in our ears (not that I am saying you do this, I hasten to add) and trot out the usual conspiracy theories about liberal elites, but might it not be the case that the government is seeking to redress very real social inequality? And is it not social inequality more than anything else which divides us?

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.
Of course I'm not saying that. I never even implied it. I was simply pointing out why it is the case that defamation legislation is insufficient as a tool for dealing with what you term 'hate speech'.

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 Christians. I think it's more a case that they perceive themselves to be subject to more religious discrimination.
Hmm. Your second and third sentences render it pointless for me to respond to your first sentence. If I could substantiate to your satisfaction the claim that there are more religious discrimination claims brought by Muslims than Christians (which there are, in the UK at least), you'd just drop back to the position in your third sentence. Which, incidentally, you haven't substantiated either.

Even if it what you said was true, so what? This is Europe, Europe is not Muslim.
Europe is what Europe always has been - a melting pot of ideas and peoples. Europe is not inherently of one faith. It just so happens that we live in an era where Christian thinking has dominated our spiritual discourse, but that doesn't mean these things are - or should be - set in stone. One hundred years ago, someone could have employed just the same argument as you do now in relation to the enfranchisement of women - "even if it is true that women are under-represented in politics, so what? This is Europe, Europe does not recognise universal suffrage". Or how about This is Europe, Europe is heterosexual or even This is Europe, Europe is white.

You see what I am getting at? You cannot take on the mantle of King Canute and try and turn back the waves. Times change and Europe changes with it.

In Sweden the King has to be Lutheran by law, is that religious discrimination against Muslims? It certainly priviliges one faith over another...
Actually, it is, but I don't suppose anyone is that bothered about it.

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).
Yes, but this only holds water if 'public discourse' is put above all other rights. Why should it be?

No I don't think "the free spreading of white supremacism ideology" would have the same effect on the native European population.
OK. You said a few posts back that the failure to allow people to say what they want when they want about Muslims would be likely to lead to more 'bad behaviour' on the part of Muslims. Yet now you say that white Europeans would be immune from similar bad behaviour. Do you not see the inconsistency?

if Europe's Muslims are unable to live in a society that questions their assumptions of what is sacred, then they should leave.
Once again, you treat all Muslims as a homogeneous group. Is it not just possible that the overwhelming majority of European Muslims are perfectly able to live in our society and already go to great lengths to square their faith with wider society? You talk as though Muslims are all entitled egomaniacs who turn up on our shores demanding that we all subject ourselves to Sharia Law and live according to theri social mores. I don't recognise that picture (although I suspect that is exactly how our colonial forebears behaved once trade had turned to control...).

They being treated as more or less legal equals is far more than most societies in world history would do,
That doesn't make it good enough.
 
Apr 2018
690
Upland, Sweden
But I never said they should. [...] government is seeking to redress very real social inequality? And is it not social inequality more than anything else which divides us?
While the British legislation on this seems much more sympathetic, I still disagree with the principle involved. I think it is unwise, for the reasons I outlined. Groups multiply over time, especially if they have something to be gained by splintering. Just look at the various numbers of and increasing number of acronyms in the HBTQXYZZÅÄÖ movement. Encouraging this process by legislation (which is what hate speech laws do) is not a good idea, as free democracies are dependent upon some kind of natural, organic, unplanned, spontaneous order if they are to be stable enough to survive while free enough to remain free democracies.

Of course there is going to be social inequality between people who are new to the country and people who are not? Why wouldn't there be? Social inequality is natural. It will always exist. It shouldn't be allowed to grow too large, and especially, it shouldn't be allowed to grow in a way that is harmful to the long term common interests of the body politic. Otherwise I have no opinion of social inequality. I find this argument especially unconvincing as we are talking about people who chose to move to Europe only a generation ago. They have no legitimate grounds to expect society to accomodate them. My grandparents (also migrants) were given a grand total of a felt blanket and a salami sandwhich when they arrived in Sweden in 1945. These people are given access to welfare benefits that didn't even exist for the native population in the 40s and also a whole host of specially tailored solutions, grants, programs etc. just for them.

This is what I believe divides people. Coming into a country and behaving with no or little humility, and expecting everyone to accomodate you. My grandparents would never have dreamed of behaving in such an obnoxious manner as many Muslim migrants do.


Of course I'm not saying that. I never even implied it. I was simply pointing out why it is the case that defamation legislation is insufficient as a tool for dealing with what you term 'hate speech'.
Okay. So why wasn't there hate speech legislation up until 1945? Why hasn't the United States implemented hate-speech legislation if it was so important? I'm just saying that it is unimportant nd counterproductive - harmful I would say even, actually. "Positive discrimination" of this kind only causes resentment, as you so rightly pointed out. I don't think it helps anyone, and I especially don't think it's called for in countries with little to no history of large ethnic minorities like my own.


Hmm. Your second and third sentences render it pointless for me to respond to your first sentence. If I could substantiate to your satisfaction the claim that there are more religious discrimination claims brought by Muslims than Christians (which there are, in the UK at least), you'd just drop back to the position in your third sentence. Which, incidentally, you haven't substantiated either.
Not necessarily pointless. If you could convince me that Muslims as a group have the same attitudes and opinions as average Europeans and are not as stingy and easily offended (generally speaking) as I think they are, then I would be convinced you might have a point, and that this greater number of religious discrimination claims would be an accurate description of real social problems. As for my claims, I will substantiate them in my next post.


Europe is what Europe always has been - a melting pot of ideas and peoples. Europe is not inherently of one faith. [...] Times change and Europe changes with it.
This is your opinion, and it is something many people do not agree with, some would even find it offensive. Have the people been asked if they want so radical changes? You write as if these changes that have followed vast numbers of Muslims migrating to Europe are somehow god given, natural phenomena. They are not. Anyway, that is a separate discussion...

If something is always changed then it is not. Things, concepts, nations, peoples are defined by their continuity across space and time. Pretending that the definition of Europe is infinitely flexible is not credible. If it is then it will cease to be Europe. That something changes =/= that it is infinitely change:able.

For the record, Europe is majority heterosexual (just like every place on earth), and it is majority white. Universal suffrage is another debate, let's not have that now, I'm not wearing my reactionary hat today...

Anyway, just because something is a natural norm does not mean that all deviations from that norm are wrong, or should be punished somwhow. It is perfectly consistent to say "Europe is white" (although it's not a very nice phrasing, and I can understand if people feel excluded by it. I could be more diplomatic if I wanted to, but I'm trying to make a point here) but also to admit that one can be black, asian or middle eastern and be European. Just like it is perfectly consistent to say that Europe is Christian, and admit that one can be Muslim and still be European, on the individual level. That doesn't mean that these general norms are undesirable, useless or not descriptive of reality however.


Actually, it is, but I don't suppose anyone is that bothered about it.
Yeah, and why aren't they bothered? Because everyone know that given the unique cultural history of Sweden Lutheranism has a priviliged position compared with other religions in this country. Anything else would be absurd to expect, given our culture and history. Conversely, Islam does not enjoy such a privileged position. Obviously this extends to other spheres as well, and everyone knows this.
 
Last edited:
Apr 2018
690
Upland, Sweden
Yes, but this only holds water if 'public discourse' is put above all other rights. Why should it be?
Why is freedom of speech covered by the FIRST amendment in the US? Because it is the most fundamental right, in a free democracy. Without it everything else ceases to function. Not at once, but eventually. If the public discourse does not work the representatives do not know what the public want, or might even stop caring about what the public wants. If they do not know what the public want they will start living in a different reality. If they stop caring about what the public wants then they will stop caring about the national interest (or get a very strange opinion of what that is) and be more prone to corruption, whether ideological or in other more concrete forms. What this leads to is that you get lots of bad legislation and policy decisions. After you get bad legislation you get social problems. After you get social problems you get an angry populace. An angry populace leads to either sympathetic, afraid or contemptuous politicians - which is more likely, in a landscape when people are not allowed to speak their mind for fear of offending strangers?

This entire process in turn creates more social problems, and increases divisions and strife. Eventually it might blow up.

Feel free to disagree if you want to, but I think this sounds like a pretty accurate description of the state of the Western world Anno 2019.


OK. You said a few posts back that the failure to allow people to say what they want when they want about Muslims would be likely to lead to more 'bad behaviour' on the part of Muslims. Yet now you say that white Europeans would be immune from similar bad behaviour. Do you not see the inconsistency?
No, I don't say white Europeans would be immune to such bad behaviour, I'm saying that it will be less prevalent (at least under current circumstances). When or if such "bad behaviour" occurs it is also probably going to look quite difference from the casual disrespect and habitual delinquency shown by too many European Muslims.

This assumption is only inconsistent if you assume that Muslims in Europe and native Europeans are identical in outlook, attitude, opinions, preferences, values etc. What I am saying is that if a "corresponding force" acts upon native Europeans (in the form of white supremacism) then that would not have the same effects as a "corresponding force" (in the form of Islamic extremism) acting upon European muslims.

Some data to back this up: What British Muslims Really Think (Trevor Philips, former government bureaucrat responsible for some issues pertaining to diversity). [consider my claims substantiated]

How prevalent are similar kinds of attitudes among the native European population? It might be getting more prevalent now, partially as a result of this entire process, but there are still vast differences.


Once again, you treat all Muslims as a homogeneous group. [...]
No, I don't say all Muslims behave that way - I'm saying that they have a much greater tendency to behave that way. There is a difference.

These things only show up in the extremes, most people everywhere are sensible and caring about their families in their day to day lives. That doesn't mean there are not vast differences in underlying attitudes. If there are 10 times as many Muslims who are religious fanatics as among the general population, it also seems reasonable to assume that even non-fanatic Muslims take their religion more seriously than the general population. For example.


That doesn't make it good enough.
I think it does. No one who migrates to a new country can be expected to be treated as an equal in every respect. Does my grandmother expect the Swedish authorities to speak Estonian with her? No. Countries, nations, political communities have established norms and traditions that have evolved over long periods of time. These take precedence over those that are recent or are otherwise not part of the public body.
 
Last edited:
Apr 2018
690
Upland, Sweden
Anyway, I feel we're getting derailed. People should, in a free country, have the right to call Muhammed a paedophile. Just like people have the right to make tasteless art that puts Christ inside a box of urine. Or make jokes about what happened to the Jews in Europe during World War 2. Or make comedy movies that portray buddhist monks as fat apathetic hypocrites. Or make fun of hindus for the way they treat cows. Or pagans for... any number of things, really.

I'm not saying any of these behaviours are good, or desirable, or that people should do these things (and not that there should be no social consequence for behaving in these ways), but I really don't want a government censor after me to verify if I have spoken in a "diverse, inclusive and sustainable" tone of voice.
 
Last edited:
Oct 2011
62
Croatia
Yes, but this only holds water if 'public discourse' is put above all other rights. Why should it be?
Just to butt in, reason why it should be is because we are (supposed to be) living in a democracy. As political textbooks so nicely state, the basis of democracy is informed public. And public can only be informed through open discussion. The moment you start censoring speech, for whatever reason, is the moment you lose democracy.
 
Jan 2014
2,333
Westmorland
Anyway, I feel we're getting derailed. People should, in a free country, have the right to call Muhammed a paedophile.
But people do have that right. Indeed, many people have been exercising that right openly in this thread.

My only point is that free speech is not, and should not be, entirely untrammeled. With rights come responsibilities and all rights have to be measured against competing interests. Like it or not, people get annoyed when they feel they are being attacked or criticised. Just look at all of the Brit-bashing and Russia-bashing that goes on on Historum. Look how quickly the exercise of free speech ends up in a bad-tempered slanging match on thread after thread after thread. None of that should be legislated against, but if it went further and people came on actively advocating violence against Brits for what happened in (for example) India or Ireland in preceding centuries, would you criticise the Mods for banning them? You know how vile social media can be when (for example) the keyboard warriors start advocating that women who want other womens' pictures to appear on banknotes should be raped. Would that be OK if it happened on Historum?

The elephant in the room is that allowing people to behave like this normalises the unacceptable.

I'm not saying any of these behaviours are good, or desirable, or that people should do these things (and not that there should be no social consequence for behaving in these ways), but I really don't want a government censor after me to verify if I have spoken in a "diverse, inclusive and sustainable" tone of voice.
So you are OK with social consequences, but not with legal ones? Is the law not a reflection of society?

Does your system genuinely bring legal charges against those who fail to speak in a "diverse, inclusive and sustainable tone of voice"? Is that genuinely an offence on the Swedish statute book?
 
Jan 2014
2,333
Westmorland
Just to butt in, reason why it should be is because we are (supposed to be) living in a democracy. As political textbooks so nicely state, the basis of democracy is informed public. And public can only be informed through open discussion. The moment you start censoring speech, for whatever reason, is the moment you lose democracy.
How does the deliberate encouragement of violence count as 'open discussion'?

Why is it undemocratic for a democracy to ban certain behaviours?
 
Apr 2018
690
Upland, Sweden
But people do have that right. Indeed, many people have been exercising that right openly in this thread.

My only point is that free speech is not, and should not be, entirely untrammeled. With rights come responsibilities and all rights have to be measured against competing interests. Like it or not, people get annoyed when they feel they are being attacked or criticised. Just look at all of the Brit-bashing and Russia-bashing that goes on on Historum. Look how quickly the exercise of free speech ends up in a bad-tempered slanging match on thread after thread after thread. None of that should be legislated against, but if it went further and people came on actively advocating violence against Brits for what happened in (for example) India or Ireland in preceding centuries, would you criticise the Mods for banning them? You know how vile social media can be when (for example) the keyboard warriors start advocating that women who want other womens' pictures to appear on banknotes should be raped. Would that be OK if it happened on Historum?

The elephant in the room is that allowing people to behave like this normalises the unacceptable.
No, calling for murder is never good. But murder is illegal already. Threats of violence are illegal. (In case I didn't mention it, I also think that is a potent legal barrier against the worst abuses of freedom of speech, along with libel). I absolutely agree that not everyone uses their free speech well, but it is also a matter of asking "what is the alternative"? Western societies are generally, with the exception of East Asian societies, the most peaceful in the world. They are also the most free. Apparently we have been able to handle quite a lot of freedom for quite a lot of time, and interestingly enough, all the counterexamples you mention are recent, from after we have started infringing upon freedom of speech. Perhaps part of the reason why some people (at least in the bank-note example you refer to) are so unreasonably angry and vile is because they feel that the rules of the game or hypocritically applied (or hypocritical to begin with), and therefore don't see any reason why they should respect them, or the people they speak with? I have to admit, on a bad day that particular feeling has certainly crossed my mind...

Why does it normalize anything? Do you seriously think people are going to stop having opinions just because you think they are unacceptable? I have a strong aversion to communists and all kinds of extreme leftists, and I think their opinions and values are harmful to society when taken seriously. So, whenever I meet people with those opinions, I try to remember that they are actual human beings and try to engage with them (unless I ignore them, also happens), sometimes even try to change their mind. It has happened that we have found common ground with each other, and been able to converse in civilized ways. If not, then at least you might convince a bystander, or sow a seed for change in the future.

The internet has made all of these problems more aggravated. But I don't think it is the root cause, instead I think it is a mixture of human nature combined with the very resentment you isolated in your last post, resulting from these attempts at "positive discrimination".


So you are OK with social consequences, but not with legal ones? Is the law not a reflection of society?

Does your system genuinely bring legal charges against those who fail to speak in a "diverse, inclusive and sustainable tone of voice"? Is that genuinely an offence on the Swedish statute book?
I have said that repeatedly... not only am I okay with social consequences, I applaud them. People can only be free in proportion to their ability to excercise self-control. But that's the deal, it's not the business of the state to excercice that control - otherwise the people in question will soon no longer be free. The social consequences are more fluid than the law, more easily changed and more easily adapted to the particular circumstances of each particular case. They also always have legitimacy, otherwise they would not happen in the first place. Ergo, they are a better fit for this problem than the law.

No, not explicitly. In practice, because of the high degree of subjectivity and opinion involved in these judgement calls, that is what happens. We had a case recently of a 70-year old pensioner of no relation to anyone who wrote a few mean things about Muslims on his Facebook page, and he was convicted. You have the whole "count Dankula" episode.

It's also the case that it stifles debate and risks making people irrational, in ways that are not always seen. How many people stop themselves from certain "unacceptable" thoughts on occasion? Have you ever done that? I have. People are not entirely rational, and if they are afraid because of artificially constructed social consequences (which is what this is) then they will eventually either become cowed and passive (and so unable to excercise freedom) or so (rightfully) angry that social stability is threatened long term. All the while the politicians sit and secretely or not so secretely start despising the people they are supposed to govern. Why wouldn't they? The people don't even have the basic dignity to state their mind in public, why should their rulers respect them when they don't seem to respect themselves? What other power does the people have in a representative democracy? Vote once every four years on pre-approved party lists?
 
Last edited:
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.
Sira and Hadiths have been proven to be unreliable and not evidence, lots of it made up centuries after Muhammed's life and Aisha's age isn't even mentioned for over 100 years after her life by people who didn't know anyone that was there.

Your "evidence" is garbage and not worth the paper it isn't even printed on, I already supplied sources showing both the Sira and Hadiths had been doctored, the authors even admitted it.

So again .......... where is your proof.

You continue to embarrass yourself because you already know how this will end and yet you persist with your nonsense.