|
|
Post by zanygame on Sept 29, 2024 14:48:47 GMT
Yes he was. End of . See I can do that … Doesn't make it true. Only evidence would do that and I happen to know the false evidence you would have to present as we've all been here before and I've done the research. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Sept 29, 2024 14:51:40 GMT
Yes he was. End of . See I can do that … Doesn't make it true. Only evidence would do that and I happen to know the false evidence you would have to present as we've all been here before and I've done the research. Well if your research on nut zero is any indication to rejoice carry on. You couldn't have been any further from the truth if you tried.. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Sept 29, 2024 14:57:28 GMT
Yes he was. End of . See I can do that … Doesn't make it true. Only evidence would do that and I happen to know the false evidence you would have to present as we've all been here before and I've done the research. No you haven’t . You are an apologist and excuser to a dark age misogynistic, elitist cult that actually believes the ramblings of a paedophile war lord . End of . |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Sept 29, 2024 15:01:36 GMT
Mohammed was not a Paedophile, that old Chestnut is long dead. Was he not? I mean he had sex with a 9 year old (Aisha) having married her when she was just 6 or 7, according to the renowned Islamic scholar Ibn Hisham. I think that is a pretty much cut and dried case of paedophilia (in the strictest sense of the word) wouldn't you? There is the argument I guess that as there was no legal age of consent, other than consent granted by the father of the bride, then there was not strictly a criminal offence of paedophilia. But that is just playing Moral Relativism and is spurious. Is there any civilised nation or religion on Earth that condones 60 year old men having sex with 9 year old girls? I can't think of one, can you? All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Sept 29, 2024 15:48:50 GMT
Mohammed was not a Paedophile, that old Chestnut is long dead. Was he not? I mean he had sex with a 9 year old (Aisha) having married her when she was just 6 or 7, according to the renowned Islamic scholar Ibn Hisham. I think that is a pretty much cut and dried case of paedophilia (in the strictest sense of the word) wouldn't you? There is the argument I guess that as there was no legal age of consent, other than consent granted by the father of the bride, then there was not strictly a criminal offence of paedophilia. But that is just playing Moral Relativism and is spurious. Is there any civilised nation or religion on Earth that condones 60 year old men having sex with 9 year old girls? I can't think of one, can you? All The Best Well indeed.
And given the current fashion, chiefly among the left, of judging history by todays standards then big Mo was absolutely a paedo.
And he claimed to have heard the literal word of God. Anyone claiming that these days would likely be sectioned.
So not just a paedo but mental to boot.
Which, it could be argued, would explain much of Islamic extremism to this day.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Sept 29, 2024 15:51:28 GMT
Doesn't make it true. Only evidence would do that and I happen to know the false evidence you would have to present as we've all been here before and I've done the research. Well if your research on nut zero is any indication to rejoice carry on. You couldn't have been any further from the truth if you tried.. They're not linked. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Sept 29, 2024 15:52:36 GMT
Doesn't make it true. Only evidence would do that and I happen to know the false evidence you would have to present as we've all been here before and I've done the research. No you haven’t . You are an apologist and excuser to a dark age misogynistic, elitist cult that actually believes the ramblings of a paedophile war lord . End of . What's to apologise for, your wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Sept 29, 2024 15:53:46 GMT
She is actually one of the few Tories I actually respect. Probably because she's not far right. She does seem to have been fighting quite a battle in the last few years. Probably because she's not actually a Tory. So as a matter of interest who is actually a Tory? |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Sept 29, 2024 15:54:44 GMT
Which begs the question of why in Earth should lefties pretend that he wasn’t ?
What next ? All Muslim women love the veil? Forced marriages are a right wing false construct ?
Fundie Muslims leave a net for homosexuals to fall into when they throw them from buildings ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Sept 29, 2024 15:57:14 GMT
No you haven’t . You are an apologist and excuser to a dark age misogynistic, elitist cult that actually believes the ramblings of a paedophile war lord . End of . What's to apologise for, you’re wrong. Apologist ..person who offers an argument in defence of something controversial. Nope . You seem to think that if you bullshit enough times it stops being bullshit . You’re wrong . |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Sept 29, 2024 16:01:30 GMT
Well if your research on nut zero is any indication to rejoice carry on. You couldn't have been any further from the truth if you tried.. They're not linked. Did I state they were? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Sept 29, 2024 16:01:41 GMT
Mohammed was not a Paedophile, that old Chestnut is long dead. Was he not? I mean he had sex with a 9 year old (Aisha) having married her when she was just 6 or 7, according to the renowned Islamic scholar Ibn Hisham. I think that is a pretty much cut and dried case of paedophilia (in the strictest sense of the word) wouldn't you? There is the argument I guess that as there was no legal age of consent, other than consent granted by the father of the bride, then there was not strictly a criminal offence of paedophilia. But that is just playing Moral Relativism and is spurious. Is there any civilised nation or religion on Earth that condones 60 year old men having sex with 9 year old girls? I can't think of one, can you? All The Best That was not paedophilia at the time, it was common practice to marry orphans as there was no other protection. Across the Christian world puberty (around 12 years) was considered the right time for sex. You cannot compare different centuries with today, its just plain stupid. If you are arguing that laws made over a thousands years ago should not apply now you'd be right, but then you'd have to agree that in modern Muslim Pakistan the age of consent is upon marriage aged 16 years. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Sept 29, 2024 16:06:11 GMT
Was he not? I mean he had sex with a 9 year old (Aisha) having married her when she was just 6 or 7, according to the renowned Islamic scholar Ibn Hisham. I think that is a pretty much cut and dried case of paedophilia (in the strictest sense of the word) wouldn't you? There is the argument I guess that as there was no legal age of consent, other than consent granted by the father of the bride, then there was not strictly a criminal offence of paedophilia. But that is just playing Moral Relativism and is spurious. Is there any civilised nation or religion on Earth that condones 60 year old men having sex with 9 year old girls? I can't think of one, can you? All The Best That was not paedophilia at the time, it was common practice to marry orphans as there was no other protection. Across the Christian world puberty (around 12 years) was considered the right time for sex. You cannot compare different centuries with today, its just plain stupid. If you are arguing that laws made over a thousands years ago should not apply now you'd be right, but then you'd have to agree that in modern Muslim Pakistan the age of consent is upon marriage aged 16 years. What a load of shit . If that’s the case then we should be seperate ourselve away a cult that takes it morals and guidance from a barbaric culture made up by a warlord that would be considered ( rightly) a kiddie fiddler today. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Sept 29, 2024 16:18:14 GMT
Was he not? I mean he had sex with a 9 year old (Aisha) having married her when she was just 6 or 7, according to the renowned Islamic scholar Ibn Hisham. I think that is a pretty much cut and dried case of paedophilia (in the strictest sense of the word) wouldn't you? There is the argument I guess that as there was no legal age of consent, other than consent granted by the father of the bride, then there was not strictly a criminal offence of paedophilia. But that is just playing Moral Relativism and is spurious. Is there any civilised nation or religion on Earth that condones 60 year old men having sex with 9 year old girls? I can't think of one, can you? All The Best it was common practice to marry orphans as there was no other protection. Across the Christian world puberty (around 12 years) was considered the right time for sex. You cannot compare different centuries with today, its just plain stupid. If you are arguing that laws made over a thousands years ago should not apply now you'd be right, but then you'd have to agree that in modern Muslim Pakistan the age of consent is upon marriage aged 16 years. So you are playing the moral relativism card. So, by that token, historical slavery was perfectly fine, because everyone was doing it, and there is therefore no need for reparations? I have an issue with the "marrying to protect as there was no other protection for orphans" bullshit; adoption would clearly be the more effective and less problematic route there, and there are clear guidelines for adoption in Islamic culture, going back to the founding of Islam . But there is still the very real major issue of consummating a marriage with a 9 year old girl. Some girls at 9 years old would be going through puberty, but it would be almost unheard of (except the very rare cases of precocious puberty) for a 9 year old to be post-pubescent (meaning biologically sexually mature). So there is no "biological imperative" to be consummating a marriage with a 9 year old. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Sept 29, 2024 16:22:05 GMT
...You cannot compare different centuries with today, its just plain stupid... Oh, so you're okay with slavery and child labour then? |
|
