Did Islam Condone Pedophilia?

Oct 2011
336
Croatia
There are some crucial differences between Middle Eastern Imperialism and its European counterpart:
Of those three you mention, the Muslim Arabs have not invaded anyone since the 7th century, the Assyrians have not invaded anyone in 2500 years, and the Persians have not invaded anyone in 300 years. Hence these invasions are all forgiven and forgotten. No one in the Middle East have any problem with the Mongols today bcos they invaded the region only once some 800 years ago and likewise with the exception of the Turks no one in the Middle east have any problem with the Greeks bcos Alex the Great invaded the region only once some 2300 ago. Western Imperialism in the region has lasted 100 years with invasions upon invasions non-stop.
Besides Middle Eastern empires were in no shape or form merely "empires". From Sumer to the Ottomans they were all civilizations. British civilization?? Is that even a thing?
Also, with the exceptions of the Ottomans and Moors of North Africa, Middle Eastern Imperialsim/civilizations were confined to the region. They were locals who invaded their neighbors and they didn't change the culture of the region. For instance the Assyrians made Aramaean the lingua franca of the reigion which wasn't even their own language and it evolved into local dialects implying that it wasn't forced upon anyone the same way Spanish was forced upon South America.

Even Islam admits to the fact that it is a continuation of old religions brought by Jesus, Moses, and Abraham who themselves were Middle Easterners. Hence it isn't foreign to the region. The Arabic language is not some uniform language but merged with local languages which are mistakenly called "dialects" again implying that it evolved organically. If you think some bedouins from Najd could just magically force the entire region into submisssion, you give waaaaay too much credit to those bedouins. Islam exists not bcos of those bedouins but despite of them. Even today these bedouins are the greatest burden on the Middle East with their alliance with the Americans.
1) Muslims have been invading everybody they could reach, including each other, from 7th century until today. (Western) Europeans only started invading others in 15th century... admittedly, that was largely because they were too busy being invaded by Muslims until then.
2) Western civilization is a thing, and I do not think that having civilization limited to one country is a good thing. And you could say there was "Byzantine" civilization for a time.
3) Arabs had invaded Roman Empire, Persian Empire, entire North Africa, Spain, France, India and China. Turks had later invaded Roman Empire, Balkans and IIRC China as well. Muslim imperialism is one of geographically largest in history, spreading - sometimes peacefully, far more often not - from Spain to Indonesia, and from Russia to Central Africa. Admittedly, West still managed to top that, but only thanks to industrial revolution.
4) Islam says it is a continuation of old religions, but Muhammad didn't know enough about Christianity for Islam to truly be a continuation of Christianity. He believed that the "Holy Trinity" was "Father, Son and Virgin Mary": "And when Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah?". That is such a fundamental mistake about Christian theology that... it is kinda like somebody believing that Brazil is a type of fish, or that Sol is an ice giant from Sumatran mythology. If anything, Islam was based on one or more Christian heresies of Arianistic stock, and maybe some more - Collyridians apparently believed in Mary as a part of Trinity. It also has significant elements of earlier Arab pagan religions, so at least it is true that Islam is not foreign to the region.
 

kandal

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,767
USA
The ones who claim that Mohammed didn't have sex with a 9 years old Aisha are simply trying to whitewash his reputation, so Islam could look better. There is no historic evidence supporting their claim.
 
Likes: Picard
Arabs had invaded Roman Empire, Persian Empire, entire North Africa, Spain, France, India and China. Turks had later invaded Roman Empire, Balkans and IIRC China as well. Muslim imperialism is one of geographically largest in history, spreading - sometimes peacefully, far more often not - from Spain to Indonesia, and from Russia to Central Africa. Admittedly, West still managed to top that, but only thanks to industrial revolution.
i think you are making mountain out of a mole

there was no such thing as western civilization in medieval period, it is largely a modern construct

secondly arabs were forced to invade, im not very much learned on middle eastern history but some videos of arab conquest i saw was talking about sassanids provoking arabs after they saw their tribes getting united in their borders, arabs didn't want to invade and conquer sassanids, after few wars, sassanids again provoked which led to arab conquest of the entire territory

arabs also didn't want to conquer NW india, it were the chachs who gave shelter and arms to shia people who fled from umayyad's rule and sent them back to fight them, it is largely due to political reasons arabs captured the chachs of sindh and defeated raja dahir. the turks were invading and conquering even before they were muslims, they also invaded arab lands not to mention, so you are just trying to manipulate history here. what was the reason for mercilessly butchering the native american people, you simply cannot justify the colonialism with what happened prior, the things the colonists perpetrated has no parallels in the world, we can still see european govts trying to arm militants in syria, libya etc, and then muslims are terrorists and how their religion is violent blah blah.

regards
 
Last edited:
Oct 2011
336
Croatia
i think you are making mountain out of a mole

there was no such thing as western civilization in medieval period, it is largely a modern construct
Irrelevant. And there definitely was Christian civilization based on Greco-Roman roots. So yes, there was no "Western" civilization, it was a Mediterranean one - up until the Arab invasions.

secondly arabs were forced to invade, im not very much learned on middle eastern history but some videos of arab conquest i saw was talking about sassanids provoking arabs after they saw their tribes getting united in their borders, arabs didn't want to invade and conquer sassanids, after few wars, sassanids again provoked which led to arab conquest of the entire territory
Why did they invade Roman Empire, then? There was no "provocation" from Roman side, and even Sassanian "provocation" was only a result of Arab raids on their territories, which had intensified after Islam stopped them from fighting each other.

arabs also didn't want to conquer NW india, it were the chachs who gave shelter and arms to shia people who fled from umayyad's rule and sent them back to fight them, it is largely due to political reasons arabs captured the chachs of sindh and defeated raja dahir. the turks were invading and conquering even before they were muslims, they also invaded arab lands not to mention, so you are just trying to manipulate history here. what was the reason for mercilessly butchering the native american people, you simply cannot justify the colonialism with what happened prior, the things the colonists perpetrated has no parallels in the world, we can still see european govts trying to arm militants in syria, libya etc, and then muslims are terrorists and how their religion is violent blah blah.
Funny how all those "unwanted" conquests happened. And I have never even attempted to justify colonialism, so don't twist my words. I merely pointed out that Europeans are not the only ones guilty of colonialism and colonialist politics.
 
Why did they invade Roman Empire, then? There was no "provocation" from Roman side, and even Sassanian "provocation" was only a result of Arab raids on their territories, which had intensified after Islam stopped them from fighting each other.
i dont think they invaded romans/byzantines, they freed their arabian lands from the byzantines. it were the romans who invaded arab lands and occupied it for hundreds of years, one of their province was even given the name of arabia.

regards
 
Last edited:
Dec 2015
510
Middle East
1) Muslims have been invading everybody they could reach, including each other, from 7th century until today. (Western) Europeans only started invading others in 15th century... admittedly, that was largely because they were too busy being invaded by Muslims until then.
2) Western civilization is a thing, and I do not think that having civilization limited to one country is a good thing. And you could say there was "Byzantine" civilization for a time.
3) Arabs had invaded Roman Empire, Persian Empire, entire North Africa, Spain, France, India and China. Turks had later invaded Roman Empire, Balkans and IIRC China as well. Muslim imperialism is one of geographically largest in history, spreading - sometimes peacefully, far more often not - from Spain to Indonesia, and from Russia to Central Africa. Admittedly, West still managed to top that, but only thanks to industrial revolution.
4) Islam says it is a continuation of old religions, but Muhammad didn't know enough about Christianity for Islam to truly be a continuation of Christianity. He believed that the "Holy Trinity" was "Father, Son and Virgin Mary": "And when Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah?". That is such a fundamental mistake about Christian theology that... it is kinda like somebody believing that Brazil is a type of fish, or that Sol is an ice giant from Sumatran mythology. If anything, Islam was based on one or more Christian heresies of Arianistic stock, and maybe some more - Collyridians apparently believed in Mary as a part of Trinity. It also has significant elements of earlier Arab pagan religions, so at least it is true that Islam is not foreign to the region.
They did invade all those places, but they didn't act like the Europeans. Turks ruled half Europe for 5 centuries without forcing them into Islam or even force upon them the Turkish language. Even in the Middle East, no one speaks Turkish besides the Anatolians. In comparison when the French invaded the Levant no one was allowed to speak Arabic in the public schools. They would kick the kids if they did. When the Spanish invaded South America they forced up them both their language and their religion. Add to that all the native North Armericans who were wiped out. Who did the Arabs and Turks wipe out completely? Although the Turks were brutal against the Assyrians and the Armenians both are still around and were not wiped out. If the Europeans had acted the slightest like the Arabs and Turks, the world would have a much better place!

Earlier Arab pagan religions are still Middle Eastern and so Islam is not foreign to the region which is what matter to me.
 
Dec 2015
510
Middle East
Irrelevant. And there definitely was Christian civilization based on Greco-Roman roots. So yes, there was no "Western" civilization, it was a Mediterranean one - up until the Arab invasions.
Christianity and Greco-Roman are not Western.. The Romans considered themselves to be from Troy in Anatolia. Also, Etruscans were from inner Anatolia. Last but not least Marqes Antony considered his forefathers to be Antony son of Herqel whose forefathers in turn were the Persieds (Persians).
Mark Antony - Wikipedia
Antonia (gens) - Wikipedia
Heracles - Wikipedia
Mycenae - Wikipedia
 
greeks today even eat like arabs, their music is like arabs, the greeks even wore turbans like arabs, they even look like western arabs/levant people, their sophists are depicted as arabs/eastern people, how many people from europe could claim they ate souvlaki like kababs, they only ate sausages and probably steak.

greek sophist

1555658750901.png

muslim scholar

1555658869000.png

regards
 
Oct 2011
336
Croatia
i dont think they invaded romans/byzantines, they freed their arabian lands from the byzantines. it were the romans who invaded arab lands and occupied it for hundreds of years, one of their province was even given the name of arabia.

regards
If that was so, why did they continue onto invading North Africa and Anatolia? As well as other areas that were never Arab?

They did invade all those places, but they didn't act like the Europeans. Turks ruled half Europe for 5 centuries without forcing them into Islam or even force upon them the Turkish language. Even in the Middle East, no one speaks Turkish besides the Anatolians. In comparison when the French invaded the Levant no one was allowed to speak Arabic in the public schools. They would kick the kids if they did. When the Spanish invaded South America they forced up them both their language and their religion. Add to that all the native North Armericans who were wiped out. Who did the Arabs and Turks wipe out completely? Although the Turks were brutal against the Assyrians and the Armenians both are still around and were not wiped out. If the Europeans had acted the slightest like the Arabs and Turks, the world would have a much better place!

Earlier Arab pagan religions are still Middle Eastern and so Islam is not foreign to the region which is what matter to me.
1) You are goalpost shifting. You originally wrote that "Muslim Arabs have not invaded anyone since the 7th century". That is patently false, even more so if we include Muslims that were not Arabs. Second, they did "act like Europeans". African slave trade was Muslim in origin IIRC. And as noted by African Holocaust Society, "But in terms of external trades, and forced exodus of Africans, the Arab trade is the oldest, as far as Africa is concerned. And its influence is still responsible for the social status of some African groups especially in Chad, Sudan and Mauritania. And it is during the Arab slave trade that we see the first clear evidence of a racist attitude in history towards African people. [note] ". Further: "Because Islamic Sharia had laws pertaining to slavery it was seen by the opportunist as a natural God sanctioned feature of life. Conveniently, the numerous laws of manumission were given a social back seat. So where theory meets reality we see that Islamic belief did not halt slavery. But because it did not halt slavery, while expanding in influence it actually caused an increase in slaving. According to Patrick Manning, Islam by recognizing and codifying the slavery seems to have done more to protect and expand slavery than the reverse it." (emphasis mine)
2) Turks have ruled half the Europe and had tried to convert people there to Islam. Reason why there are few Muslims in Balkans today is that they were mostly expelled during area's liberation from Ottoman rule. But you know who "Bosniaks" are? They are ethnic Croats who had been converted - sometimes peacefully, sometimes not - to Islam during Ottoman rule.
3) Islam is a religion, not a language. Of course it would not force other people to speak a certain language. However, that did happen during early phases of Islamic expansion. As you can see from the maps, the spread of Arabic language more-or-less corresponds (with the exception of Spain and Iran) to the extent of (early) Arab Muslim conquests. Also, the reason why colonial countries speak languages of their masters is simply convenience. Much like is the case of India, languages of colonial conquerors are merely official-administrative languages. Spoken languages are still native languages of domestic societies. In fact, European colonization - in Africa at least - likely had less impact on language map than Arab conquests did. Americas were a different thing, largely because population there was devastated by diseases; but I am not aware of any systematic effort to impose colonial languages there. In Roman Africa, both Latin and native languages had been displaced by Arabization.
4) Native Americans, South and North both, were largely wiped out by diseases. Now, there were also quite a few genocides - including the deliberate use of diseases as a form of biological warfare - but I do not think it would be incorrect to say that epidemics had much greater impact. Consider this, for example.
5) Arabs and Turks did not have diseases on their side, and never enjoyed anywhere as great technological advantage as Europeans did in Americas. Never confuse lack of ability with lack of will.

Christianity and Greco-Roman are not Western.. The Romans considered themselves to be from Troy in Anatolia. Also, Etruscans were from inner Anatolia. Last but not least Marqes Antony considered his forefathers to be Antony son of Herqel whose forefathers in turn were the Persieds (Persians).
Mark Antony - Wikipedia
Antonia (gens) - Wikipedia
Heracles - Wikipedia
Mycenae - Wikipedia
As I said, there never was Western civilization until Islamic conquests, it was a Mediterranean civilization. It only became "Western" civilization after Islam had conquered eastern and southern shores of the Mediterranean. So everything you wrote correct but also irrelevant.

EDIT: And how did we end up discussing this from pedophilia anyway?
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,645
Portugal
secondly arabs were forced to invade, im not very much learned on middle eastern history but some videos of arab conquest i saw…
While reading this thread I noticed this sentence of yours, and I found it quite odd and disturbing and in some way a picture of the instant history net experts that today we have not only in this forum but in a wide view in the internet.

The thing is that seeing “some videos” is among the worst sources of knowledge. Mostly because, usually, this means seeing on “Youtube” or similar sites, that are full of garbage made by people that rarely or never saw a source in their life and much less a primary source. And even when they saw a source they didn’t analyse it under the scrutiny of the historical method. So unless you saw an academic video or a video made by some person that really knew about the theme (and there aren’t that many out there) I really think (and now this is my personal opinion) that you should abstain to mention a “video that I saw” as a source of knowledge. I have 12 years old students publishing “history” (in comas) videos on Youtube, because they want to be Youtubers.
 
Likes: Picard

Similar History Discussions