If Mohammad was alive today, and had sex with a kid, would Muslims demand jail time?

Why do people continually try to filter the history of other cultures through their own myopic views? Many cultures throughout history have allowed if not encouraged child marriage, but I don't see you attacking those cultures. If it really matters if an important figure from history that wrote a set of rules that people today still follow, raped women, then I would expect you would be attacking Thomas Jefferson too, but alas, while you have written several posts about Muhammad, you have done none about Jefferson, but maybe it's because Jefferson is considered by many historians to be a secularist.

 

RE: If Mohammad was alive today, and had sex with a kid, would Muslims demand jail time?

• Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by FreedomSeeker,​

※→ et al,

The Talmud does not mention any form of carnal knowledge relative to small children. Again, this is an attempt to cast a shadow on the morals and integrity of a minority group; an intent to incite hatred.

Our friend "DarkDalmon" makes a very applicable point about the "myopic views."

The implication that the Jewish State allows the abuse of very small children is completely absurd. The Age of Consent in Israel is 16 years old; with a close-in-age exemption of three years as a possible defense against prosecution.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

These fantasies are silly -people in the past belong there, not here. Imagine your great-grandparents trying to get to terms with current values!

 

I don't hold a rapist (Mohammad raped captives, and approved of his troops doing so), and a pedophile (Aisha was NINE, and he masturbated on her thighs at SIX, and had his eyes on her for future sex when she was a BABY), as the #1 role model of all time hand-picked by the all-knowing creator of the universe...that's the main difference. The all-knowing Allah would have known to tell his hand-picked #1 role model of all time to not pork a child - instead, untold numbers of little girls have been ejaculated into because of Allah's #1 role model's example.

Can we agree that if YOU were all-knowing like Allah that you'd have told Mo that science (now) shows us that sex with kids often causes mental and/or physical damage to the child, DarkD? Please tell us.

 

We are not talking about the modern state of Israel, we are talking about the barbaric, savage, founders of the belief system who obviously were not knowledgable about how the world works to have their religion followed today by modern, ethical, scientifically-correct people. If the texts of a belief system approve of sex with kids it's not from "god" - clearly. Time to leave those religions.

 

Stop trying to give an indirect, tacit, under-handed, PASS to sex with kids.
Can you condemn Mohammad in no uncertain terms for violating poor little Aisha?

 

I've had people try to DEFEND, yes defend, GENOCIDE on this forum - and now it appears that people are trying to at least DOWN-PLAY pedophilia. Incredible....we've lost our moral compass, I'm afraid. They can't condemn the pedophiles in no uncertain terms. God help us!!

 

Looks like it's time to leave Judaism for Modern Secular Humanism.

 

If I didn't know how utterly evil religions were I'd just think that you were insane and making this all up....but you are not. I still can't believe that people look to pedophiles, murderers, rapists (Moses, et al) for advice on ethics and how the world works. Incredible.

 

it is mostly lies.

Nazis and other Jew-haters have been posting lies about the Talmud for decades

 

why?

Hitler, Stalin and Mao were Secular Humanists

 

So where is Wyrd's post wrong, my friend? Show us exactly.
Thanks.

 

Modern Secular Humanists believe in democracy, big-time. All those others didn't - making a gigantic difference.

 

Can you agree that if I can find any approval of sex with kids in the texts of your religion that you'd leave said religion? I would, because Modern Secular Humanists have the highest ethical standards.

 

thats funny, as Hitler, Mao and Stalin were all Secular Humanists.

 

Not Modern Secular Humanists, big difference. I abhor totalitarianism, and communism.
Jesus approved of monarchies - which are totalitarian, of course. I understand what's best for the world more than Jesus did, then, in this important example.

 

60 years ago they were Modern Secular Humanists

 

I condemn all three of those people. We've grown in Modern Secular Humanism to be disgusted at totalitarian political schemes.....unlike the Bible/Qur'an which were so stupid that they didn't even understand democracy (representative republics.) "Render unto Ceasar"....uh, no, don't give taxes to a totalitarian ruler - instead, try to overthrow him similar to what the Founding Fathers in America did. Don't "turn the other cheek", but rather be willing to fight for what is right - if you have the truth on your side.

 

"Turn the other cheek" is extremely moral.

much more moral than "an eye for an eye"

 

Agree, I hate to say. But unlike religions, we grow our belief system - we are too ethical to bring forward parts of books that teach wife-beating (for example), such as Qur'an 4:34, and too ethical to bring forward the NT where it says: "As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church” (ESV) - First Corinthians 14:33–35 .....true barbarity, and Jesus has had 2000 years to tell us the Bible got it wrong - but he's failed to do the ethically right thing. My mother deserves better, Jesus!

We are willing to change, grow, and improve....unlike the Pope (still has the same Bible, I'm afraid.)

 

are you for real?

sometimes I think you're just lampooning an extremist bigoted Atheist on a very high horse.

 

Too bad they are not ethical enough to not bring forward the "eye for an eye" part.

 

Show me where I'm wrong/misguided, specifically - if you can.

 

can I repeat the message a fellow Secular Humanist posted on your profile?

 

Note: you will indeed find that some MSHists disagree with me. I think they are wrong, however. Let's not get into the True Scotsman argument, instead, try to counter the points I've made, such as telling me where specifically I'm wrong when you replied "are you for real?". You are just into bashing, you are not into substantive debate - for example I mention Mohammad porking a child and you mostly just attack me for being "bigoted", when I'm trying to keep little girls from getting raped by lecherous old men.