[quote]egyptianBulk wrote:
yes the issue is to get the words written to arabic first like Fitna is
�??�?�ª�??�??
then go to google translator and the result would be " Sedition"
Sedition is a term of law which refers to overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel. A seditionist is one who engages in or promotes the interests of sedition.
Which refers in Islam to the strife that God told prophet Mohamed will happen in his life and death amongst Muslims, and that he should fight to make sure that the real islam prevailed, not whatever Sloth has written up there…[/quote]
[quote]Chushin wrote:
Ok, since we’re going down this path: What about his taking a child for a “wife?” What was she, 13, when he had sex with her?
EDIT: Apparently the concensus is she was 9 years old.[/quote]
How old was Mary when the Holy Spirit visited her?
My problem with this line of thinking is twofold: The marriage and consummation therof between Mohammed and Aisha is horrifying by modern standards because a) it makes Mohammed a pedofile and b) It counts as statutory rape. Setting aside the legal issues (as, if you’re Mohammed you’re probably concerned with things more important than civil authorities), the real damage of statutory rape is the horrible impact it has on its victims.
So really, the implication is that Mohammed is a pedofile and he scarred this young girl for life.
Yet, we don’t see a pattern of pedofilia. It’s really just Aisha, whose father happened to be an important political ally, and to whom marriage would aid greatly in the spread of Mohammed’s religion. I have difficulty believing that a man who posses a sexual attraction to children would formalize this intent with marriage and then stay faithful to it, instead of seeking out newer and fresher buds. I don’t buy the idea that Mohammed’s a pedofile.
And Aisha grows up to be a relatively well-adjusted member of society. So if she was scarred for life, she carried on pretty well.
Not that this means this behavior is acceptable today. I think mankind has developed far superior ways of child-rearing in the last thousand some-odd years. But 6th century actions should probably be judged by 6th century standards, and as far as I can tell, the morality introduced by Mohammed was amazingly progressive for his time.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
Ok, since we’re going down this path: What about his taking a child for a “wife?” What was she, 13, when he had sex with her?
EDIT: Apparently the concensus is she was 9 years old.[/quote]
How old was Mary when the Holy Spirit visited her?
My problem with this line of thinking is twofold: The marriage and consummation therof between Mohammed and Aisha is horrifying by modern standards because a) it makes Mohammed a pedofile and b) It counts as statutory rape. Setting aside the legal issues (as, if you’re Mohammed you’re probably concerned with things more important than civil authorities), the real damage of statutory rape is the horrible impact it has on its victims.
So really, the implication is that Mohammed is a pedofile and he scarred this young girl for life.
Yet, we don’t see a pattern of pedofilia. It’s really just Aisha, whose father happened to be an important political ally, and to whom marriage would aid greatly in the spread of Mohammed’s religion. I have difficulty believing that a man who posses a sexual attraction to children would formalize this intent with marriage and then stay faithful to it, instead of seeking out newer and fresher buds. I don’t buy the idea that Mohammed’s a pedofile.
And Aisha grows up to be a relatively well-adjusted member of society. So if she was scarred for life, she carried on pretty well.
Not that this means this behavior is acceptable today. I think mankind has developed far superior ways of child-rearing in the last thousand some-odd years. But 6th century actions should probably be judged by 6th century standards, and as far as I can tell, the morality introduced by Mohammed was amazingly progressive for his time.[/quote]
since you’re going down this path, what about bombing Utah first ?
what consensus ? Wikipedia ?
today historians do NOT agree on this topic.
some say she was actually 9, some say she was 14, some say she was between 19 and 24.
Especially while defending the Religion of Peace! [/quote]
oops, my bad
i thought this forum was dedicated to finding “reasons” to bomb peoples.
[quote]Oh, and some say she had really big tits, and buck teeth, I hear.
(Not really, but since “some say” is now a valid argument, why not?) [/quote]
my argument wasn’t about Aisha age. it was about the so-called consensus.
if “some (historians) say” different and opposite things on a topic, then, there’s currently no “consensus” on this topic.
[quote]pat wrote:
How many religion threads can we run simultaneously? Life is absurd, people are absurd. If the bible is absurd then it fits us perfectly.
If you think the bible is imperfect and you deserve perfection, be perfect first, then demand perfection. No point in doing it the other way around.[/quote]
its easier to demand perfection from someone else than yourself, cause then you dont have to make excuses for not acheiving it. besides, tits