I was galled by Falah's hypocrisy on this issue:

- by accusing me of being deceptive then insisting that under Islamic law a dirty old pedophile is not allowed to live with his prepubescent wife 'as man and wife.'

- by having a go at our society while we root out abusers from the church when Islamic law pretty much institutionalises pedophilia.


falah wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 10:39pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2012 at 9:56pm: falah wrote on Apr 20th, 2012 at 7:33pm: freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2012 at 6:03pm: falah wrote on Apr 20th, 2012 at 5:22pm: Frances wrote on Apr 20th, 2012 at 4:47pm: Seeing as how he enjoys stories about abuse of children, here's another one for falah: You don't seem too adverse to them yourself. But Opus Dei (or Frances or whatever your name is) you haven't adressed the incredible fact that children were molested in every Catholic Church in a country that bothered to do a full investigation. Not one or two, but every church! Would similar results be found in the Catholic churches of Australia? These days though, one would hope that Catholics have woken up and realised that it is not safe to leave their children with men who belong to a cult that teaches them that they shouldn't be married. Falah, do you think that the vow of celibacy causes the abuse? The article you posted was about entire congregations over a long period of time. I put it to you that it would not even be possible to conduct that same process of information gathering in a Muslim congregation. Many Muslims, including Abu and probably yourself, still equate the low rate of reporting of sex crimes in Islamic communities with low rates of offence. For example, does it make more sense that a legal and social system that permits old men to marry multiple prepubescent wives and requires these woman to wear tents and relies on the men's 'honour' not to rape them reduces the incidence of child sex abuse? Deceptive of you to bring that up. I have already explained that in Islam, a man is not allowed to live with the bride as husband and wife, until they have both reached puberty. How is it deceptive? Are they allowed to live together? Or is it deceptive of me to describe it that way? And can you give a straight answer to the question I posed? I have never heard of any Muslim man living with a prepubesecent wife.

Is it illegal under Islamic law for an old pedophile to live with his prepubescent wife? Can you give a straight answer to this question? Is the situation in any way different from how I initially suggested - and you described as deceptive?


Quote:

I have met thousands of Muslims and have travelled through 6 Muslim countries, living for extended periods of time in 3 of them.

Don't you and Abu always complain when people use modern Muslim countries as example of Islamic law because the west has prevented them from institutionalising Islamic law properly?

Do you think Islamic law somehow gets rid of pedophilia? Or would it merely cover it up and institutionalise it?

The churches stance is much better on the topic

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 21^st, 2012 at 3:10pm:

The churches stance is much better on the topic

Why? Are Christian children more deserving of protection from perverted old men than Muslim children?

How does Islam define puberty in girls?

Are you asking me?

Menstruation, I believe.

freediver wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 10:37am:

How does Islam define puberty in girls?

Did you know that the Vatican has the worlds lowest age of sexual consent?

Quote:

A group fighting for womens rights in Saudi Arabia condemned a judge on wednesday for refusing to annul the marriage of an 8 yo girl to a 47 yo man. http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/12/24/saudi.arabia.child.bride/index.html

So, by the time a girl is somewhere between 9 and 13 (or maybe even earlier for some) she can be married off and live with a man as his wife? (which presumably means they will be having sex regularly)

She can be married off and live with a man well before that. Just not as 'man and wife'. Muslims are honourable and would wait until the child bleeds to have sex with her. Or is it the other way round?

Each country has its own laws and "age of consent". We consider that we have the true one obviously. The problem is the forced marriages.

Before that person says im "supporting" pedos im not. I dont agree with it in any way. However islam hasnt moved as fast as xtianity in accepting changes in societies. I think that in most cases it is not really accepted behaviour anymore but it is a religion. Thier deity did it. They have to employ doublethink. The xtian relgion has a god that kills even though the first commandment is do not kill.

SOB

It is obvious that the Catholic Church is the pedophile's paradise


An investigation found children were molested in every Catholic Church in Belgium


Quote:

'No Belgian church escaped sex abuse', finds investigation ..."We are talking here about anal and oral abuse, forced and mutual masturbation," said Peter Adriaenssens, the psychiatric specialist in paedophilia who chaired the commission. "None of us was prepared for the severity of some of the accounts of abuse that we were given. All of us at one time questioned our faith in God, the Church and humanity."... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/belgium/7994705/No-Belgian-church-escaped-sex-abuse-finds-investigation.html

Quote:

Hundreds of sex abuse victims have come forward in Belgium with harrowing accounts of molestation by Catholic clergy that reportedly led to at least 13 suicides and affected children as young as two, an independent Belgian commission said Friday. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2010/09/10/belgium-church-abuse-victims.html

If you were a pedo,
tell me you wouldnt work for the church

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 11:53am:

If you were a pedo, tell me you wouldnt work for the church

I am afraid there are plenty out there that dont work for a church. they just dont have it as easy as their supposedly religious counterparts.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 11:56am:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 11:53am: If you were a pedo, tell me you wouldnt work for the church I am afraid there are plenty out there that dont work for a church. they just dont have it as easy as their supposedly religious counterparts. SOB

Of course there are, but we all know the smart ones will go to the church.
Its like choosing between two jobs exactly the same, except one has health care and the other doesnt.
You are going to pick the health care.
Just like you are going to pick protection from prosecution over no protection for prosecution.

Read: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1334798505

Frances wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 10:48am:

So, by the time a girl is somewhere between 9 and 13 (or maybe even earlier for some) she can be married off and live with a man as his wife? (which presumably means they will be having sex regularly)

Aisha was 6 when she was married to Mohammad and the marriage was consummated when she was 9.
The Quran tells you 91 times to follow the example Mohammad set.

There is a practice called "thighing" where a man rubs his penis between the closed legs of a child to get off which is considered acceptable in Islam if she is too young for intercourse.
Mohammad did this with Aisha before he comsummated their marriage.

Baronvonrort wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 12:12pm:

Frances wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 10:48am: So, by the time a girl is somewhere between 9 and 13 (or maybe even earlier for some) she can be married off and live with a man as his wife? (which presumably means they will be having sex regularly) Aisha was 6 when she was married to Mohammad and the marriage was consummated when she was 9. The Quran tells you 91 times to follow the example Mohammad set. There is a practice called "thighing" where a man rubs his penis between the closed legs of a child to get off which is considered acceptable in Islam if she is too young for intercourse. Mohammad did this with Aisha before he comsummated their marriage.

So does it bother you when the bible says basically the same stuff?

Girls are able to become pregnant before their bodies are ready for childbirth.  Anyone who suggests that girls can marry and bear children once they attain puberty is heartlessly condemning many of them to complications and deaths during childbirth - and with frequent pregnancies from a very young age, a complete breakdown in health by the time they enter adulthood

Baronvonrort wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 12:12pm:

Aisha was 6 when she was married to Mohammad and the marriage was consummated when she was 9. The Quran tells you 91 times to follow the example Mohammad set.

More than 90% of his wives were either widows or divorcees.

His favourite wife, Khadeejah, was 15 years older than he was. They married when he was 25, and she 40.

Aa'ishah, herself, said:

"I did not feel jealous of any of the wives of Prophet as much as I did of Khadeejah though I did not see her, but the Prophet used to mention her very often, and when ever he slaughtered a sheep, he would cut its parts and send them to the women friends of Khadeejah. When I sometimes said to him, "(You treat Khadija in such a way) as if there is no woman on earth except Khadeejah" he would say, "Khadeejah was such-and-such, and from her I had children."
[Bukhari]




The rest of what you write is lies, and does not merit an answer.

Frances wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 10:48am:

So, by the time a girl is somewhere between 9 and 13 (or maybe even earlier for some) she can be married off and live with a man as his wife? (which presumably means they will be having sex regularly)

This has been the case for most of human history. Women were married upon reching puberty.

Islam gave women the protection of being able to refuse a marriage.

This was not the case in Christian Europe until fairly recently. For most of Christian history, European marriages were arranged, and women had no say in her they married.

John McLaughlin, PhD, writes in his article MEDIEVAL CHILD MARRIAGE: ABUSE OF WARDSHIP:


Quote:

in 1396, Richard II of England was joined in marriage to young Isabel of France, who had been 7 years old when their engagement was announced the previous year in Paris... A social practice which entered the written record in the 12th century, but which seems to have had roots in the barbaric past, that extended from the royal abattoirs down to the lives of neighboring fishmongers and shop-keepers in medieval London, yet that seems to have received little more than passing notice in canon law beyond exhortation to limit it to age seven...

In Chaucer's English classic, Canterbury Tales, the wife of Bath claims to have been married five times since the age of 12.

Islam allows things to happen which in the developed world we would see as child abuse.

That is a fact.

Avram Horowitz wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 1:34pm:

Islam allows things to happen which in the developed world we would see as child abuse. That is a fact.

So does Judaism.
Now what?

Frances wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 1:01pm:

Girls are able to become pregnant before their bodies are ready for childbirth.  Anyone who suggests that girls can marry and bear children once they attain puberty is heartlessly condemning many of them to complications and deaths during childbirth - and with frequent pregnancies from a very young age, a complete breakdown in health by the time they enter adulthood

Quote:

Mom in Spain happy that her 10-year-old gave birth A Romanian Gypsy woman whose 10-year-old daughter just gave birth in Spain says she's delighted to have a new granddaughter and doesn't understand why the birth has shocked anyone - let alone become an international sensation... ...There were no complications during the birth, and the 10-year-old and her baby are doing fine, her mother said. "She's doing well and is very happy with her daughter," the woman said.

People who deny young women the right to marriage are denying human biology:


Quote:

The latest statistics show that 177 girls under the age of 15 gave birth in Spain in 2008. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11684854

Marrying upon reaching puberty is still common in Europe amongst the millions of Christian Roma people

Quote:

The legal age for marriage in Romania is 18, but the law allows Romanians to marry at 16 with parental consent. The country generally tolerates arranged child weddings among Gypsies, also called Roma, whose ancient traditions call for the marriage of children once they reach puberty. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-02-28-romanian-gypsies_N.htm

Avram Horowitz wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 1:34pm:

Islam allows things to happen which in the developed world we would see as child abuse. That is a fact.

Rabbi charged with raping 12-year-old girl

Netanya rabbi tells minor she's fated to be 'messiah's mother,' must have sex with him to atone for sins

A Netanya rabbi was charged on Monday with raping a 12-year-old girl. David Hafuta, 64, who prayed at the same synagogue as the minor, allegedly assaulted her on several occasions between July 2010 and May of this year.

According to the indictment, the girl asked Hafuta questions about religious matters. In response, he told her that he wants to "reveal her purpose in the world," and for that she has to meet him.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4081490,00.html

U.S. rabbi arrested for raping girl

Rabbi Bryan Bramley, 45, was arrested outside Temple Beth Shalom Synagogue Tuesday morning by the Child Predator Apprehension Team of the U.S. Marshals and detectives with the New York Police Department.

Bramley is accused of raping a 7-year-old girl in March 2000 in New York City.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/u-s-rabbi-arrested-for-raping-girl-10-years-ago-1.265330

IDF colonel-rabbi implies: Rape is permitted in war

Answering a question from a concerned reader regarding the Torah’s position on rape during war, Colonel Eyal Qarim of the Military Rabbinate wrote nine years ago – out of uniform – that ‘prohibitions against immorality’ are removed during war.

Is it permitted for a Jewish soldier to rape a gentile woman during wartime? This question – based on the biblical mitzvah of Eshet Yefat Toar (“a comely woman”) – was referred to nine years ago (Hebrew) by Rabbi Eyal Qarim. The questioning party seemed anxious and worried, and wanted to know whether the iron-age mitzvah (religious deed) is applicable to IDF soldiers today.

UPDATE: Following comments doubting whether rape was the issue of the Rabbi’s answer, I post here the question that he was asked:


Quote:

Is it allowed in our days [sic] for an IDF soldier, for example, to rape girls during a fight, or is such a thing forbidden?

Rabbi Qarim answered thus:


Quote:

“The wars of Israel […] are mitzvah wars, in which they differ from the rest of the wars the nations wage among themselves. Since, essentially, a war is not an individual matter, but rather nations wage war as a whole, there are cases in which the personality of the individual is “erased” for the benefit of the whole. And vice versa: sometimes you risk a large unit for the saving of an individual, when it is essential for purposes of morale. One of the important and critical values during war is maintaining the army’s fighting ability […]     As in war the prohibition against risking your life is broken for the benefit of others, so are the prohibitions against immorality and of kashrut. Wine touched by gentiles, consumption of which is prohibited in peacetime, is allowed at war, to maintain the good spirit of the warriors. Consumption of prohibited foods is permitted at war (and some say, even when kosher food is available), to maintain the fitness of the warriors, even though they are prohibited during peacetime. Just so, war removes some of the prohibitions on sexual relations (gilui arayot in the original – YZG), and even though fraternizing with a gentile woman is a very serious matter, it was permitted during wartime (under the specific terms) out of understanding for the hardship endured by the warriors. And since the success of the whole at war is our goal, the Torah permitted the individual to satisfy the evil urge (yetzer ha’ra in the original  -YZG), under the conditions mentioned, for the purpose of the success of the whole.”

Wow. Herein lies a hornet’s nest. The first is that according to Qarim, the rape of female prisoners is not just permitted, it is also essential to war; the success of the whole at war relies on it. Even Genghis Khan, who (according to tradition) said that the best thing in the world is “to crush your enemies, to see them fall at your feet — to take their horses and goods and hear the lamentation of their women. That is best” – even he, who excelled at rape, did not see it as essential to warfare, just a satisfactory outcome. Stalin, likewise, dismissed complaints about rapes carried out massively by the Red Army by saying “a soldier has urges,” but he did not see it as an essential element of military life.

Qarim came up with a new military doctrine, which replaces Napoleon’s: an army marches on its phallus. According to this logic, perhaps the IDF should appoint to each unit not just a supply officer, but also a Comely Woman Officer (CWO), to make certain no soldier is left unsatisfied.

Another problem is that Qarim invokes here the usual apologetics of those who speak of “Jewish morality”: he claims war is a conflict between nations, not individuals, and that the individual has no importance at war. The raped woman is not a woman, is not a person, has no feelings and if she feels pain it is unimportant: she is not a woman or a person, just an individual of an enemy tribe whose misfortune was to be captured. Furthermore, Qarim says that rape during wartime is immoral if carried out by a rival tribe – but all Jewish wars are, by definition, mitzvah wars. If the rape of the defenseless is part and parcel of “Jewish morality,” it’s not hard to reach the conclusion it is inferior to all modern morality systems. It is also worth noting (Hebrew) that “Jewish morality” is a by-product of German blood and iron romanticism.

Yet a third problem is that, essentially, Qarim says there is nothing which may be prohibited in war, if it is done “for the success of the whole.” We know that the killing of armed combatants is permitted (this is, after all, the essence of war), and we now learn that, for His Blessed Name, the rape of women is also permitted. Then we must ask ourselves whether it is also permitted, for the sake of victory, to also kill unarmed people. Children, for instance, who we have good reason to think may seek one day vengeance for the death of their fathers and brothers and the torturing of their mothers and sisters. The notorious book “Torat Ha’Melekh” answered in the affirmative; it would be interesting to know what Qarim thinks, and whether there is anything he thinks a Jewish soldier ought not to do for victory.

But the real problem here is that Eyal Qarim is an IDF colonel (Aluf Mishneh), and is a senior officer in the Military Rabbinate, i.e. is in a senior position in the IDF religious edicts apparatus.

http://972mag.com/idf-colonel-rabbi-implies-rape-is-permitted-in-war/39535/

Baronvonrort wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 12:12pm:

Frances wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 10:48am: So, by the time a girl is somewhere between 9 and 13 (or maybe even earlier for some) she can be married off and live with a man as his wife? (which presumably means they will be having sex regularly) Aisha was 6 when she was married to Mohammad and the marriage was consummated when she was 9. The Quran tells you 91 times to follow the example Mohammad set. There is a practice called "thighing" where a man rubs his penis between the closed legs of a child to get off which is considered acceptable in Islam if she is too young for intercourse. Mohammad did this with Aisha before he comsummated their marriage.

Of course we see that as wrong being human beings. Remember though that this is religion we are dealing with here. This could seen to be "metaphorical" somehow. Who knows. Religion should be done away with everywhere. Xtianity and islam alike are being used as excuse for atrocities. However if we did away with the relgiion they would find another way.

SOB

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 12:15pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 12:12pm: Frances wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 10:48am: So, by the time a girl is somewhere between 9 and 13 (or maybe even earlier for some) she can be married off and live with a man as his wife? (which presumably means they will be having sex regularly) Aisha was 6 when she was married to Mohammad and the marriage was consummated when she was 9. The Quran tells you 91 times to follow the example Mohammad set. There is a practice called "thighing" where a man rubs his penis between the closed legs of a child to get off which is considered acceptable in Islam if she is too young for intercourse. Mohammad did this with Aisha before he comsummated their marriage. So does it bother you when the bible says basically the same stuff?

It doesn't bother me. We don't live in a theocracy and we are not agitating for one. We have a clear separation of state and church. Regardless of what the Bible says, you will be punished if you frig yourself with a child.


Mohammedans, on the other hand, want to live in a theocracy and want to live like Mohammed and wank off on small kiddies as a matter of being rightly guided by Mohammed and his god.

Can you see the difference?

Probably not.

Soren wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 2:37pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 12:15pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 12:12pm: Frances wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 10:48am: So, by the time a girl is somewhere between 9 and 13 (or maybe even earlier for some) she can be married off and live with a man as his wife? (which presumably means they will be having sex regularly) Aisha was 6 when she was married to Mohammad and the marriage was consummated when she was 9. The Quran tells you 91 times to follow the example Mohammad set. There is a practice called "thighing" where a man rubs his penis between the closed legs of a child to get off which is considered acceptable in Islam if she is too young for intercourse. Mohammad did this with Aisha before he comsummated their marriage. So does it bother you when the bible says basically the same stuff? It doesn't bother me. We don't live in a theocracy and we are not agitating for one. We have a clear separation of state and church. Regardless of what the Bible says, you will be punished if you frig yourself with a child. Mohammedans, on the other hand, want to live in a theocracy and want to live like Mohammed and wank off on small kiddies as a matter of being rightly guided by Mohammed and his god. Can you see the difference? Probably not.

So it is ok to rape kids as long as their is seperation of religion and state?
How come the majority of priests are never punished then?

If the church had its way society would be exactly like that as well.

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 2:43pm:

So it is ok to rape kids as long as their is separation of religion and state? How come the majority of priests are never punished then? If the church had its way society would be exactly like that as well.

It's not OK, you cretin. That's why they are tried and sentenced to prison. No cleric is above the law in our society.

The majority of priests are not acting against the laws of the land.

The church and the state are separate, moron. Have been for generations. Do you understand what that means? It means that the church has no parliamentary representation. Canon law is irrelevant when parliament makes the laws for everyone, including priests. The executive is separate from the church, too. So is the judiciary. Secular law trumps canon law.

Gawd you are an insufferable dudge.

Why is it that Soren's posts seem so similar to Avram's and Baronvonrort's?

Soren do you think we cannot tell that you are pretending to be many people?

Soren wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 3:22pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 2:43pm: So it is ok to rape kids as long as their is separation of religion and state? How come the majority of priests are never punished then? If the church had its way society would be exactly like that as well. It's not OK, you cretin. That's why they are tried and sentenced to prison. No cleric is above the law in our society. The majority of priests are not acting against the laws of the land. The church and the state are separate, moron. Have been for generations. Do you understand what that means? It means that the church has no parliamentary representation. Canon law is irrelevant when parliament makes the laws for everyone, including priests. The executive is separate from the church, too. So is the judiciary. Secular law trumps canon law. Gawd you are an insufferable dudge.

So if you believe they should be punished, why do you support the church trying to stop that from happening?
Priests work for an organisation that supports paedophiles and the onus is on them to take action. They are aiding and abetting paedophiles and for this they should be imprisoned.

When did I say the church and state were not separate?

falah wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 4:36pm:

Why is it that Soren's posts seem so similar to Avram's and Baronvonrort's? Soren do you think we cannot tell that you are pretending to be many people?

How many times now do you suggest people are many people?
It is silly.

Actually on my first week here soren has send to me a kind message of welcome.
This was nice to do I think.

Avram Horowitz wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 5:28pm:

falah wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 4:36pm: Why is it that Soren's posts seem so similar to Avram's and Baronvonrort's? Soren do you think we cannot tell that you are pretending to be many people? How many times now do you suggest people are many people? It is silly. Actually on my first week here soren has send to me a kind message of welcome. This was nice to do I think.

Well Im convinced

You were banned for your behaviour.

Avram Horowitz wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 5:28pm:

falah wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 4:36pm: Why is it that Soren's posts seem so similar to Avram's and Baronvonrort's? Soren do you think we cannot tell that you are pretending to be many people? How many times now do you suggest people are many people? It is silly. Actually on my first week here soren has send to me a kind message of welcome. This was nice to do I think.

Sounds like the schizophrenic sort of thing Soren would do.

You defend stoning to death of 13. Year old rape victim.

Disgusting Muslims.

Avram Horowitz wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 5:36pm:

You were banned for your behaviour.

Can’t take it then don’t dish it maestro

Avram Horowitz wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 5:46pm:

You defend stoning to death of 13. Year old rape victim. Disgusting Muslims.

Would it be acceptable to drop a bomb on her?

No we do not do this?
Answer me why do they send their teenagers to throw rocks to us?

Are they responsible?

Avram Horowitz wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 5:49pm:

No we do not do this? Answer me why do they send their teenagers to throw rocks to us? Are they responsible?

Because you are scum

Avram Horowitz wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 5:46pm:

You defend stoning to death of 13. Year old rape victim. Disgusting Muslims.

You are a liar Soren.

I showed you reports that the convicted person confessed to adultery and was 23 years old.

Then you said you trust an Amnesty International report that says she was 13 and a rape victim.

I will ask you again. Is Amnesty International a credible source of information?

Do you accept Amnesty's reports of war crimes by Israel?

Another stupid comment. You learn nothing from bans I can see

Avram Horowitz wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 5:58pm:

Another stupid comment. You learn nothing from bans I can see

You learnt nothing from the holocaust I can see

Her father say she was 13.
Amnesty say she was 13.

Instead you believe some useless bias old islamic who deserves a bullet from us.

Barbaric Islamic animals.

Avram Horowitz wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 6:00pm:

Her father say she was 13. Amnesty say she was 13. Instead you believe some useless bias old islamic who deserves a bullet from us. Barbaric Islamic animals.

I havent believed anything.
Im sorry the girl wasnt you

How many lessons must we Israeli give to the Muslim aggressors before they will learn not to argue with we brave Jews?
How many times must we come and give you this hard lesson?

Remember I was infantry division in Cast Lead and they run like girls from me and my comrades!

Avram claims to be a Labor-voting Jew. But he doesn't actually sound like one. Most of the left-leaning Jews I know sound a lot more rational than Avram.

Avram sounds more like the rabid extremist Zionists you find in radical Zionist movements.

falah wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 6:09pm:

Avram claims to be a Labor-voting Jew. But he doesn't actually sound like one. Most of the left-leaning Jews I know sound a lot more rational than Avram. Avram sounds more like the rabid extremist Zionists you find in radical Zionist movements.

Rubbish!!
You support a 13 year old stoned to death for the crime of being rape by group of men.

This is more extreme Muslim than any other any one has say!

Mean while i say

I vote for Barak
I support two state solution
I support talk to Abbas
I support no more settlement builds

Now look at you extremist
Support stoning to death a child rape victim
Support marriage of children to men
Support Hamas terror
Support those who want to destroy my country


You are lunatic Muslim not ones who we can speak

Falah, can you tell the difference between Islam legalising a practice and westerners going to jail for the same thing? Why is it you cannot give a straight answer about Islam and can only get on google and try to find an illegal act that somehow compares to what is legal in Islam?


Quote:

There is a practice called "thighing" where a man rubs his penis between the closed legs of a child to get off which is considered acceptable in Islam if she is too young for intercourse. Mohammad did this with Aisha before he comsummated their marriage.

Is this true Falah?


Quote:

It doesn't bother me. We don't live in a theocracy and we are not agitating for one. We have a clear separation of state and church. Regardless of what the Bible says, you will be punished if you frig yourself with a child. Mohammedans, on the other hand, want to live in a theocracy and want to live like Mohammed and wank off on small kiddies as a matter of being rightly guided by Mohammed and his god. Can you see the difference? Probably not.

Exactly.

falah wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 1:41pm:

People who deny young women the right to marriage are denying human biology

They are not women, they are girls.  A 10 year old would not have finished primary school.  Not allowing little girls of this age to marry is about protecting them, it is not about denying them anything.  Their bodies are not fully ready for pregnancy and childbirth, nor are they likely to have matured enough to satisfactorily fulfil the duties of a mother.  Only a sexual deviate would see nothing wrong in having sex with girls that young.

falah wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 1:41pm:

Frances wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 1:01pm: Girls are able to become pregnant before their bodies are ready for childbirth.  Anyone who suggests that girls can marry and bear children once they attain puberty is heartlessly condemning many of them to complications and deaths during childbirth - and with frequent pregnancies from a very young age, a complete breakdown in health by the time they enter adulthood Quote: Mom in Spain happy that her 10-year-old gave birth A Romanian Gypsy woman whose 10-year-old daughter just gave birth in Spain says she's delighted to have a new granddaughter and doesn't understand why the birth has shocked anyone - let alone become an international sensation... ...There were no complications during the birth, and the 10-year-old and her baby are doing fine, her mother said. "She's doing well and is very happy with her daughter," the woman said. People who deny young women the right to marriage are denying human biology: [quote]The latest statistics show that 177 girls under the age of 15 gave birth in Spain in 2008. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11684854

Marrying upon reaching puberty is still common in Europe amongst the millions of Christian Roma people

Quote:

The legal age for marriage in Romania is 18, but the law allows Romanians to marry at 16 with parental consent. The country generally tolerates arranged child weddings among Gypsies, also called Roma, whose ancient traditions call for the marriage of children once they reach puberty. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-02-28-romanian-gypsies_N.htm

[/quote]

Is that really the best you can do in response to my question - copy and paste a few items about Spanish Gypsies?

Gypsies can hardly be said to be representative of any culture other than that of the Gypsies themselves, nor can they be said to be representative of the religion the profess to follow.  Historically the Gypsies were Goddess worshippers, more akin to Wicca than anything else but, for convenience sake, many years ago converted (in name at least) to the main local religion. Whether they profess to be Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant or Muslim, they usually retain their traditional beliefs.

Apparently news articles about non-Muslims is the only explanation Falah needs to give about Islam.

falah wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 6:09pm:

Avram claims to be a Labor-voting Jew. But he doesn't actually sound like one. Most of the left-leaning Jews I know sound a lot more rational than Avram. Avram sounds more like the rabid extremist Zionists you find in radical Zionist movements.

Where do you find rabid extremist Islamist jihadis like you? A particular mosque or all of them? Do you have a family service at quarter past and a rabid jihadi service at quarter to the hour and rainbow service after lunch?  Or how does it work? You recognise the rabid jihadis by their beard or is there some other way of you guys checking each other out as 'bruvvers'?

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 21^st, 2014 at 9:04am:

nice flawed logic there FD - but then again that is your specialty.

Gandalf, you attempt to read an awful lot into the fact that no-one mentions whether she had hit puberty. The fact is that Muhammed and the early Muslims allowed it to become established that she was 9 years old, and did not record a single reference to when she actually hit puberty, despite other references to her menstruating later in life, and the use of puberty in other areas of Islamic law to mark age of majority (legal adulthood for the purpose of property rights). The most likely explanation for this is that she was pre-pubescent when Muhammed had sex with her. It is extremely unlikely that Muhammed waited till she reached puberty, but left no trace of his moral rectitude, and even more unlikely that Muhammed intended that other Muslims wait until their child brides reach puberty. You are interpreting the absence of evidence in the least rational way possible. It would have been highly unusual at the time for a 9 year old to have reached puberty, so the assumption on everyone's mind would have been that she was pre-pubescent - an assumption that no-one made any effort to change.

freediver wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2014 at 7:34am:

Gandalf, you attempt to read an awful lot into the fact that no-one mentions whether she had hit puberty.

umm no , there are multiple references to her hitting puberty. I guess that just renders the rest of your rant null and void.

.

Can you quote some of these references?

Let me guess, they all just happen to leave out whether this happened before or after Muhammed had sex with her?

well you could always reference the 100 times I mentioned it before. I'm sure the master of necroposting should be able to do that.

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2014 at 9:03am:

well you could always reference the 100 times I mentioned it before. I'm sure the master of necroposting should be able to do that.

Was Muhammad a pedophile or not?

I honestly don't recall them Gandalf. I am especially intrigued by your claim that they contradict my argument.

FD will happily spend all day digging up obscure quotes from 5 years ago, but somehow he is incapable of finding one reference to an issue that has been discussed ad-nauseum throughout the last 18 months or so.

I presume I cannot recall it because it is not in fact what you claim it to be.

But please, prove me wrong.

freediver wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2014 at 10:15am:

I presume I cannot recall it because it is not in fact what you claim it to be.

No problem then - as I just *KNOW* you are now going to try and prove that. Off you go now, start digging....

I'll give you a start:

google: Aisha consummation before puberty baronvonrort gandalf freediver site:ozpolitic.com

Google: taqiyya

Bobby. wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2014 at 9:49am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 9:03am: well you could always reference the 100 times I mentioned it before. I'm sure the master of necroposting should be able to do that. Was Muhammad a pedophile or not?

By the standards of the day?   Most probably not.   Social mores were very different and marriages were entered into for many reasons other than just merely "love", Bobby.   Often, considerably older men married considerably young women, even children as a consequence.   The "age of consent" either didn't exist or was often considerably lower than today's.   Even until quite recently, some European nation-states had ages of consent set at 12, whereas in the United States some states had them as low as 9 at the turn of the 20th century.

Judging what occurred 1400 years ago by the social mores of today is fraught with difficult and rather naive IMHO.   As L.P.Hartley puts it, "The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there".   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2014 at 3:24pm:

Bobby. wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 9:49am: polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 9:03am: well you could always reference the 100 times I mentioned it before. I'm sure the master of necroposting should be able to do that. Was Muhammad a pedophile or not? By the standards of the day?   Most probably not.   Social mores were very different and marriages were entered into for many reasons other than just merely "love", Bobby.   Often, considerably older men married considerably young women, even children as a consequence.   The "age of consent" either didn't exist or was often considerably lower than today's.   Even until quite recently, some European nation-states had ages of consent set at 12, whereas in the United States some states had them as low as 9 at the turn of the 20th century. Judging what occurred 1400 years ago by the social mores of today is fraught with difficult and rather naive IMHO.   As L.P.Hartley puts it, "The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there".   ::)

Don't weasel out of it:

ramming a 9 year old is pedophilia.

freediver wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2014 at 10:15am:

But please, prove me wrong.

That's asking too much, good sir. Gandy's a spin-doctor, not a miracle worker.


Bobby. wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2014 at 4:01pm:

ramming a 9 year old is pedophilia.

+1. It doesn't help to say that according to some sources she was 12, either.

MumboJumbo wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2014 at 4:05pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 10:15am: But please, prove me wrong. That's asking too much, good sir. Gandy's a spin-doctor, not a miracle worker. Bobby. wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 4:01pm: ramming a 9 year old is pedophilia. +1. It doesn't help to say that according to some sources she was 12, either.

Maybe Gandalf can tell us how old the child was that Muhammad rammed?

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2014 at 3:24pm:

Bobby. wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 9:49am: polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 9:03am: well you could always reference the 100 times I mentioned it before. I'm sure the master of necroposting should be able to do that. Was Muhammad a pedophile or not? By the standards of the day?   Most probably not.   Social mores were very different and marriages were entered into for many reasons other than just merely "love", Bobby.   Often, considerably older men married considerably young women, even children as a consequence.   The "age of consent" either didn't exist or was often considerably lower than today's.   Even until quite recently, some European nation-states had ages of consent set at 12, whereas in the United States some states had them as low as 9 at the turn of the 20th century. Judging what occurred 1400 years ago by the social mores of today is fraught with difficult and rather naive IMHO.   As L.P.Hartley puts it, "The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there".   ::)

sounds very much like the  the Mormans or Seventh Day Adventists...

Warren Jeffs is doing time in jail but he is still in control of children being "married"..TODAY I have read a book on his capture...and I am amazed how one person has this much control..

how does anyone believe these men are GOD.???

Bobby. wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2014 at 4:01pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 3:24pm: Bobby. wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 9:49am: polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 9:03am: well you could always reference the 100 times I mentioned it before. I'm sure the master of necroposting should be able to do that. Was Muhammad a pedophile or not? By the standards of the day?   Most probably not.   Social mores were very different and marriages were entered into for many reasons other than just merely "love", Bobby.   Often, considerably older men married considerably young women, even children as a consequence.   The "age of consent" either didn't exist or was often considerably lower than today's.   Even until quite recently, some European nation-states had ages of consent set at 12, whereas in the United States some states had them as low as 9 at the turn of the 20th century. Judging what occurred 1400 years ago by the social mores of today is fraught with difficult and rather naive IMHO.   As L.P.Hartley puts it, "The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there".   ::) Don't weasel out of it: ramming a 9 year old is pedophilia.

You are judging what happened 1400 years ago, Bobby by modern standards.  As I keep pointing out, women were often married off, as they were after all, essentially chattels to be done with as one wished, for strategic and financial alliances.  This occurred often at very young ages:

Æthelwulf, King of Wessex from 839 CE until his death in 858 CE, married Judith of France, 12 years old, the daughter of Charles the Bald, King of the West Franks when he was 58.   His own daughter, from a previous marriage, Æthelswith (c. 838-888 CE)  became Queen Æthelswith when she married King Burgred of Mercia in 853 CE, when aged 12.

Henry VII's mother, Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond and Derby (31 May 1443 – 29 June 1509)  was 12 when she married the 24-year-old Edmund Tudor on 1 November 1455 CE.  When Edmund died in 1456 CE of the plague in captivity at Carmarthen the following November, leaving a 13-year-old widow who was seven months pregnant with their child.   However, that wasn't even her first marriage.  Her first marriage occurred when she was was perhaps a year old but certainly no more than three. However, there is more evidence to suggest they were married in January 1450 CE after Suffolk was arrested and looking to secure his son's future. Papal dispensation was granted on 18 August 1450 because the spouses were too closely related and this concurs with the later date of marriage.

Isabelle D'Angoulême, married King John of England in 1200 CE,  her exact date of birth is uncertain, and estimates place her between at most 15 and more probably towards nine years old at the time of her marriage.  John was 34.

Isabella of Valois, queen of Richard II of England, was six years old when she became queen consort.  When he died, she was only 10, in 1400 CE.

At the age of seven, Margaret of Luxembourg was married in 1342 CE to Louis I of Hungary.

Henry the Young King of England, born 1155 CE, married Margaret of France, born 1157 CE, in 1160! Their only child, William was born in 1177 CE.

Margaret I, Countess of Burgundy (aged 10 at the time of marriage)
The daughter of Philip III of France, she married Louis I, Count of Flanders in 1320 CE, aged just 10.

Joan I of Navarre (aged 10 at the time of marriage) The daughter of Henry I of Navarre and Blanche of Artois (and Queen Regnant of Navarre herself), she married Philip IV of France in 1284 CE, aged just 10. She had her first child at 14.

Isabella of France (aged 12 at the time of marriage) The daughter of Philip IV of France married Prince Edward, the Prince of Wales (future Edward II of England) in 1308 CE, aged just 12. They had become engaged in 1303  CE, when she was 7 and married by proxy in 1305 CE.

Margaret of Provence (aged 13 at the time of marriage) The eldest daughter of Ramon Berenguer IV, Count of Provence and Beatrice of Savoy, she married Louis IX of France aged just 13 in 1234 CE.

The list of dynastic marriages is rather long, Bobby, were they all Paedophiles as well?   ::)

Bobby. wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2014 at 4:01pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 3:24pm: Bobby. wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 9:49am: polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 9:03am: well you could always reference the 100 times I mentioned it before. I'm sure the master of necroposting should be able to do that. Was Muhammad a pedophile or not? By the standards of the day?   Most probably not.   Social mores were very different and marriages were entered into for many reasons other than just merely "love", Bobby.   Often, considerably older men married considerably young women, even children as a consequence.   The "age of consent" either didn't exist or was often considerably lower than today's.   Even until quite recently, some European nation-states had ages of consent set at 12, whereas in the United States some states had them as low as 9 at the turn of the 20th century. Judging what occurred 1400 years ago by the social mores of today is fraught with difficult and rather naive IMHO.   As L.P.Hartley puts it, "The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there".   ::) Don't weasel out of it: ramming a 9 year old is pedophilia.

Not if she tells you she’s over 16.

Quote:

The list of dynastic marriages is rather long, Bobby, were they all Paedophiles as well?

Plugging a 9 year old is pedophilia.

Face facts.

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2014 at 5:42pm:

Bobby. wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 4:01pm: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 3:24pm: Bobby. wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 9:49am: polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 9:03am: well you could always reference the 100 times I mentioned it before. I'm sure the master of necroposting should be able to do that. Was Muhammad a pedophile or not? By the standards of the day?   Most probably not.   Social mores were very different and marriages were entered into for many reasons other than just merely "love", Bobby.   Often, considerably older men married considerably young women, even children as a consequence.   The "age of consent" either didn't exist or was often considerably lower than today's.   Even until quite recently, some European nation-states had ages of consent set at 12, whereas in the United States some states had them as low as 9 at the turn of the 20th century. Judging what occurred 1400 years ago by the social mores of today is fraught with difficult and rather naive IMHO.   As L.P.Hartley puts it, "The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there".   ::) Don't weasel out of it: ramming a 9 year old is pedophilia. You are judging what happened 1400 years ago, Bobby by modern standards.

When Muslims are called out for being barbaric today, you immediately say that the Jews did worse 2000 years ago or Christians 1800-300 years ago.



bvgger orf, dishonest hypocrite.

Yes Soren,

to Brian Ross,

pedophile sympathisers will be exposed .

what reaction are you alluding to .....

these beings are divine feminine beings

transforming into adolescence

this is not for dribbling old fools to leer

and take ungranted liberties .

to think there is a reaction wanting from

an old predatory male looking to take advantage

of this critical stage in a females evolutionary

process is not of a divine nature .

your programming has had an effect it would seem

however

in the divine realms all your predatory thought

are revealed yes and in Muhammad's case

its a systematic pedophilic intent

from a collective group of elite satanic

freemasonic pedophiles and the network

supporting the delivery of innocent victims

from the social services police magistrates

courts the UN all all kingpin elite world

governments collecting the photographs

to be used for blackmail , they all watch each

other and have the dirt ,and as such

the freemasonic oath

binds them unto a collective agenda

and through the courts on the appeal process

these usually get let off or buy off

whomever is the victim ... simply pay to rape

this is by the order of the jesuit vatican

and the recent papal bull announcing it

to be a criminal offence to expose any of it .

this is what brought down the peadophile

ratzinger and ushered in pope francis

both are members of the ninth circle ...

and as such they have both witnessed and

participated in satanic child sacrificial rites .

consequently these are both black magicians ,

satanic paedophiles and minions of the dark .

if any are in confusion , one such as I am

exposes the darkness without permission

or approval yes this work is not for the faint

hearted beloved ones ... and this is why and

from the energy in which I emanate in whom I am

as a humble servant in the divine

and sacred LIGHT as we continue

to monitor all thoughts word

and deed ,and so it is

namaste



ॐ

Soren wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2014 at 10:26pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 5:42pm: Bobby. wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 4:01pm: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 3:24pm: Bobby. wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 9:49am: polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 9:03am: well you could always reference the 100 times I mentioned it before. I'm sure the master of necroposting should be able to do that. Was Muhammad a pedophile or not? By the standards of the day?   Most probably not.   Social mores were very different and marriages were entered into for many reasons other than just merely "love", Bobby.   Often, considerably older men married considerably young women, even children as a consequence.   The "age of consent" either didn't exist or was often considerably lower than today's.   Even until quite recently, some European nation-states had ages of consent set at 12, whereas in the United States some states had them as low as 9 at the turn of the 20th century. Judging what occurred 1400 years ago by the social mores of today is fraught with difficult and rather naive IMHO.   As L.P.Hartley puts it, "The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there".   ::) Don't weasel out of it: ramming a 9 year old is pedophilia. You are judging what happened 1400 years ago, Bobby by modern standards.  When Muslims are called out for being barbaric today, you immediately say that the Jews did worse 2000 years ago or Christians 1800-300 years ago. bvgger orf, dishonest hypocrite.

You really don't want to face the reality of history, do you, Soren?  Nothing Muslims do today is as unique as you keep claiming.    ::)

Bobby. wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2014 at 10:21pm:

Quote: The list of dynastic marriages is rather long, Bobby, were they all Paedophiles as well? Plugging a 9 year old is pedophilia. Face facts.

Quote:

I found a comment made by a historian in a documentary on the subject of young girl/old man marriages amusing. She was discussing an 18th century Russian diplomat and nobleman who met a 15 year old Spanish girl in California and he proposed marriage. They couldn't get married without a papal dispensation and he had to complete his mission first, so, if everything worked out for them, they would be married in about three years (when she would be 18 and he would be in his mid-40's). The historian made some comment about the man being a pervert who liked young girls. I found this amusing because it's such a modern notion and wasn't at all the view of the people actually involved in the transaction. We see a female 15 years old as a girl, and so a man in his 40's must be a pedophile. But in that day and age--and in the middle ages too--15 years old was considered an adult and she was of perfectly marriageable age. It would be like someone today saying that a man who is 40 should not marry a woman who is 23 (incidentally, the ages of my husband and myself when we started dating). No one considered my husband a pedophile because of our age difference, because I was an adult, legally and socially, with a college education and a job of my own; I was not a child. People in the middle ages (and 18th century California) did not consider a woman 15 years old to still be a child either. You have to be careful, when looking at the past (including the middle ages) that you do not apply your own social conventions to the time and judge based on that; girls were considered mature at a younger age in the middle ages, and it didn't have anything to do with a bunch of old men wanting their way with them.

[url=http://themedievalnun.hubpages.com/hub/medieval_children]Source[/url]

9 years old was considered a child, Bobby, no doubt about it BUT marriages were conducted for many reasons in the period we're discussing.

BTW, I heartily recommend that webpage, if you really want to try and understand medieval, particularly European attitudes towards children and childhood.

The reality is we don't know that Mohammed married Aisha for reasons of Paedophilia.  Such marriages were, as I've shown, quite commonplace even in Europe.   Therefore, to try and claim he was a Paedophile is wrong IMO.  You have no evidence as to what his motivations were or even if the story as to her age was accurate, Bobby.   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2014 at 10:52pm:

The reality is we don't know that Mohammed married Aisha for reasons of Paedophilia.  Such marriages were, as I've shown, quite commonplace even in Europe.   Therefore, to try and claim he was a Paedophile is wrong IMO.  You have no evidence as to what his motivations were or even if the story as to her age was accurate, Bobby.   ::)

We do not hold it up as God's final message to man for all eternity - diddle 9 year olds - 12 year olds -  as long as they have bled.

You horrible, dishonest apologist.

Soren wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2014 at 11:10pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 10:52pm: The reality is we don't know that Mohammed married Aisha for reasons of Paedophilia.  Such marriages were, as I've shown, quite commonplace even in Europe.   Therefore, to try and claim he was a Paedophile is wrong IMO.  You have no evidence as to what his motivations were or even if the story as to her age was accurate, Bobby.   ::) We do not hold it up as God's final message to man for all eternity - diddle 9 year olds - 12 year olds -  as long as they have bled. You horrible, dishonest apologist.

Pedophile sympathisers will be exposed.
one such as I am

exposes the darkness without permission

or approval yes this work is not for the faint

hearted beloved ones ... and this is why and

from the energy in which I emanate in whom I am

as a humble servant in the divine

and sacred LIGHT as we continue

to monitor all thoughts word

and deed ,and so it is

namaste

Soren wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2014 at 11:10pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 10:52pm: The reality is we don't know that Mohammed married Aisha for reasons of Paedophilia.  Such marriages were, as I've shown, quite commonplace even in Europe.   Therefore, to try and claim he was a Paedophile is wrong IMO.  You have no evidence as to what his motivations were or even if the story as to her age was accurate, Bobby.   ::) We do not hold it up as God's final message to man for all eternity - diddle 9 year olds - 12 year olds -  as long as they have bled. You horrible, dishonest apologist.

Er, you do.

Your dear Virgin Mother was 12 when she was consumated by your Lutheran god.

There there.

Bobby. wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2014 at 11:12pm:

Soren wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 11:10pm: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 10:52pm: The reality is we don't know that Mohammed married Aisha for reasons of Paedophilia.  Such marriages were, as I've shown, quite commonplace even in Europe.   Therefore, to try and claim he was a Paedophile is wrong IMO.  You have no evidence as to what his motivations were or even if the story as to her age was accurate, Bobby.   ::) We do not hold it up as God's final message to man for all eternity - diddle 9 year olds - 12 year olds -  as long as they have bled. You horrible, dishonest apologist. Pedophile sympathisers will be exposed. one such as I am exposes the darkness without permission or approval yes this work is not for the faint hearted beloved ones ... and this is why and from the energy in which I emanate in whom I am as a humble servant in the divine and sacred LIGHT as we continue to monitor all thoughts word and deed ,and so it is namaste

That's enough fapping.

Mattyfisk wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2014 at 11:27pm:

Soren wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 11:10pm: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 10:52pm: The reality is we don't know that Mohammed married Aisha for reasons of Paedophilia.  Such marriages were, as I've shown, quite commonplace even in Europe.   Therefore, to try and claim he was a Paedophile is wrong IMO.  You have no evidence as to what his motivations were or even if the story as to her age was accurate, Bobby.   ::) We do not hold it up as God's final message to man for all eternity - diddle 9 year olds - 12 year olds -  as long as they have bled. You horrible, dishonest apologist. Er, you do. Your dear Virgin Mother was 12 when she was consumated by your Lutheran god. There there.

You are making it up as you go.
Have another sh!t sandwich. Have three.

Soren wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2014 at 11:33pm:

Bobby. wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 11:12pm: Soren wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 11:10pm: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 10:52pm: The reality is we don't know that Mohammed married Aisha for reasons of Paedophilia.  Such marriages were, as I've shown, quite commonplace even in Europe.   Therefore, to try and claim he was a Paedophile is wrong IMO.  You have no evidence as to what his motivations were or even if the story as to her age was accurate, Bobby.   ::) We do not hold it up as God's final message to man for all eternity - diddle 9 year olds - 12 year olds -  as long as they have bled. You horrible, dishonest apologist. Pedophile sympathisers will be exposed. one such as I am exposes the darkness without permission or approval yes this work is not for the faint hearted beloved ones ... and this is why and from the energy in which I emanate in whom I am as a humble servant in the divine and sacred LIGHT as we continue to monitor all thoughts word and deed ,and so it is namaste That's enough fapping.

But I doth agreeth with thee.

namaste

Bobby. wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2014 at 11:36pm:

Soren wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 11:33pm: Bobby. wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 11:12pm: Soren wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 11:10pm: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 10:52pm: The reality is we don't know that Mohammed married Aisha for reasons of Paedophilia.  Such marriages were, as I've shown, quite commonplace even in Europe.   Therefore, to try and claim he was a Paedophile is wrong IMO.  You have no evidence as to what his motivations were or even if the story as to her age was accurate, Bobby.   ::) We do not hold it up as God's final message to man for all eternity - diddle 9 year olds - 12 year olds -  as long as they have bled. You horrible, dishonest apologist. Pedophile sympathisers will be exposed. one such as I am exposes the darkness without permission or approval yes this work is not for the faint hearted beloved ones ... and this is why and from the energy in which I emanate in whom I am as a humble servant in the divine and sacred LIGHT as we continue to monitor all thoughts word and deed ,and so it is namaste That's enough fapping. But I doth agreeth with thee. namaste

Yet you fapethy fapeth.

Soren wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2014 at 11:38pm:

Bobby. wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 11:36pm: Soren wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 11:33pm: Bobby. wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 11:12pm: Soren wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 11:10pm: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 10:52pm: The reality is we don't know that Mohammed married Aisha for reasons of Paedophilia.  Such marriages were, as I've shown, quite commonplace even in Europe.   Therefore, to try and claim he was a Paedophile is wrong IMO.  You have no evidence as to what his motivations were or even if the story as to her age was accurate, Bobby.   ::) We do not hold it up as God's final message to man for all eternity - diddle 9 year olds - 12 year olds -  as long as they have bled. You horrible, dishonest apologist. Pedophile sympathisers will be exposed. one such as I am exposes the darkness without permission or approval yes this work is not for the faint hearted beloved ones ... and this is why and from the energy in which I emanate in whom I am as a humble servant in the divine and sacred LIGHT as we continue to monitor all thoughts word and deed ,and so it is namaste That's enough fapping. But I doth agreeth with thee. namaste Yet you fapethy fapeth.

Admittedly - some words were borrowed from master Light.   :-[

Tell him to stop fapping, then. He's setting a bad example to the likes of you......

Soren wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2014 at 11:10pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 10:52pm: The reality is we don't know that Mohammed married Aisha for reasons of Paedophilia.  Such marriages were, as I've shown, quite commonplace even in Europe.   Therefore, to try and claim he was a Paedophile is wrong IMO.  You have no evidence as to what his motivations were or even if the story as to her age was accurate, Bobby.   ::) We do not hold it up as God's final message to man for all eternity - diddle 9 year olds - 12 year olds -  as long as they have bled. You horrible, dishonest apologist.

You really do have problems with being objective about Muslims and Islam, don't you, Soren?   Nope, no bigotry there at all.   ::)

Soren wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2014 at 11:36pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 11:27pm: Soren wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 11:10pm: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 10:52pm: The reality is we don't know that Mohammed married Aisha for reasons of Paedophilia.  Such marriages were, as I've shown, quite commonplace even in Europe.   Therefore, to try and claim he was a Paedophile is wrong IMO.  You have no evidence as to what his motivations were or even if the story as to her age was accurate, Bobby.   ::) We do not hold it up as God's final message to man for all eternity - diddle 9 year olds - 12 year olds -  as long as they have bled. You horrible, dishonest apologist. Er, you do. Your dear Virgin Mother was 12 when she was consumated by your Lutheran god. There there. You are making it up as you go. Have another sh!t sandwich. Have three.

Training to be a vicar, are we?

Bobby. wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2014 at 11:12pm:

Soren wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 11:10pm: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 10:52pm: The reality is we don't know that Mohammed married Aisha for reasons of Paedophilia.  Such marriages were, as I've shown, quite commonplace even in Europe.   Therefore, to try and claim he was a Paedophile is wrong IMO.  You have no evidence as to what his motivations were or even if the story as to her age was accurate, Bobby.   ::) We do not hold it up as God's final message to man for all eternity - diddle 9 year olds - 12 year olds -  as long as they have bled. You horrible, dishonest apologist.

Pedophile sympathisers will be exposed.
one such as I am

exposes the darkness without permission

or approval yes this work is not for the faint

hearted beloved ones ... and this is why and

from the energy in which I emanate in whom I am

as a humble servant in the divine

and sacred LIGHT as we continue

to monitor all thoughts word

and deed ,and so it is

namaste

For all those insisting that the past in a foreign country and we move on to more politically correct discussions, remember that child brides are still a massive problem in parts of the world, and in many of them Islam is the main barrier to change. It can even happen here in Australia.

freediver wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 8:41am:

For all those insisting that the past in a foreign country and we move on to more politically correct discussions, remember that child brides are still a massive problem in parts of the world, and in many of them Islam is the main barrier to change. It can even happen here in Australia.

mainly Hindu India is the big offender for this type of thing yet they get a free pass. Child slavery too, free pass for India. Why is this?

freediver wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 8:41am:

For all those insisting that the past in a foreign country and we move on to more politically correct discussions, remember that child brides are still a massive problem in parts of the world, and in many of them Islam is the main barrier to change. It can even happen here in Australia.

Or India, who have the most child brides in the world.

Of course, you blame Hinduism, no?

Mattyfisk wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 10:39am:

freediver wrote on Nov 23rd, 2014 at 8:41am: For all those insisting that the past in a foreign country and we move on to more politically correct discussions, remember that child brides are still a massive problem in parts of the world, and in many of them Islam is the main barrier to change. It can even happen here in Australia. Or India, who have the most child brides in the world. Of course, you blame Hinduism, no?

Yes, Hinduism is to be blamed, too. Islam  however doesn't get a free pass just because others also do despicable things.

Soren wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 10:48am:

Mattyfisk wrote on Nov 23rd, 2014 at 10:39am: freediver wrote on Nov 23rd, 2014 at 8:41am: For all those insisting that the past in a foreign country and we move on to more politically correct discussions, remember that child brides are still a massive problem in parts of the world, and in many of them Islam is the main barrier to change. It can even happen here in Australia. Or India, who have the most child brides in the world. Of course, you blame Hinduism, no? Yes, Hinduism is to be blamed, too.

Good grief, you can’t say that, old boy. FD will get offended.

Still, they’re not decent white people, so.I think you’ll be okay.

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2014 at 8:00am:

freediver wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 7:34am: Gandalf, you attempt to read an awful lot into the fact that no-one mentions whether she had hit puberty. umm no , there are multiple references to her hitting puberty. I guess that just renders the rest of your rant null and void. .

Gandalf never did get round to revealing any of these references.

;D FD really is the master of selectivity when it comes to digging up what other people have written.

I confess I have trouble digging up the ones that do not exist.

Perhaps you will have more luck Gandalf?

MumboJumbo wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2014 at 4:05pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 10:15am: But please, prove me wrong. That's asking too much, good sir. Gandy's a spin-doctor, not a miracle worker. Bobby. wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 4:01pm: ramming a 9 year old is pedophilia. +1. It doesn't help to say that according to some sources she was 12, either.

What sources say she was 12 can the Islamic apologists cite them?

The Islamic texts all say Aisha was 6 when married and 9 when marriage was consummated-
sunnah.com/search/?q=aisha+consummated+marriage

Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 2:00pm:

What sources say she was 12 can the Islamic apologists cite them?

Quote:

Ibn Khallikan, as well as Ibn Sa'd al-Baghdadi citing Hisham ibn Urwah, record that she was nine years old at marriage, and twelve at consummation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha#Age_at_marriage

Gosh that was difficult...

From that article:

Aisha's age at the time she was married to Muhammad has been of interest since the earliest days of Islam, and references to her age by early historians are frequent.[6] American historian Denise Spellberg has reviewed Islamic literature on Aisha's virginity, age at marriage and age when the marriage was consummated.[6] Spellberg states, "Aisha's age is a major pre-occupation in Ibn Sa'd where her marriage varies between six and seven; nine seems constant as her age at the marriage's consummation." She notes one exception in Ibn Hisham's biography of the Prophet, which suggests the age of consummation may have been when Aisha was age 10, summarizing her review with the note that "these specific references to the bride's age reinforce Aisha's pre-menarcheal status and, implicitly, her virginity.

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 2:27pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 23rd, 2014 at 2:00pm: What sources say she was 12 can the Islamic apologists cite them? Quote: Ibn Khallikan, as well as Ibn Sa'd al-Baghdadi citing Hisham ibn Urwah, record that she was nine years old at marriage, and twelve at consummation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha#Age_at_marriage Gosh that was difficult...

Are you saying the sahih ahadith is wrong about Aisha's age?

Do you think a rational person will believe what is written in the Islamic texts or what is written in some other unknown books that are not recognised by the bearded nutjobs who preach Islam?

;)

freediver wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 8:41am:

For all those insisting that the past in a foreign country and we move on to more politically correct discussions, remember that child brides are still a massive problem in parts of the world, and in many of them Islam is the main barrier to change. It can even happen here in Australia.

No denying that, FD but the problem with trying to hound Mohammed is that the poor old blighter is dead, buried and rotted away.  Bit hard to dig him up and hang him for any crimes he may have committed, isn't it?

Further, as I keep pointing out, he didn't commit the crime of Paedophilia.  Child marriage was common when he was alive.   Consummation of marriages at a young age was not unknown either, as the examples I posted showed.  Admittedly, I only touched on European nobility but I'm sure if I dug enough, I could find examples from other societies.

You and the other Islamophobes' problem is that you lack any objectivity.  Any at all, as far as Islam and it's history goes.    ::)

By all means, bang on about child brides today, I'll join the chorus of condemnation.  However, condemning Mohammed for something that may have happened 1400 years ago?  Really?    ::)

Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 2:34pm:

Are you saying the sahih ahadith is wrong about Aisha's age? Do you think a rational person will believe what is written in the Islamic texts or what is written in some other unknown books that are not recognised by the bearded nutjobs who preach Islam?

Gosh Baron, you really do create a lot of strawmen from a simple answer to a simple request.


freediver wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 2:32pm:

"these specific references to the bride's age reinforce Aisha's pre-menarcheal status

Speaking of strawmen...

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 2:48pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 23rd, 2014 at 2:34pm: Are you saying the sahih ahadith is wrong about Aisha's age? Do you think a rational person will believe what is written in the Islamic texts or what is written in some other unknown books that are not recognised by the bearded nutjobs who preach Islam? Gosh Baron, you really do create a lot of strawmen from a simple answer to a simple request. freediver wrote on Nov 23rd, 2014 at 2:32pm: "these specific references to the bride's age reinforce Aisha's pre-menarcheal status Speaking of strawmen...

Please answer the questions Gandalf-

Do you think the sahih ahadith is wrong about Aishas age?

I don't know Baron - but I always think its generally wise to take the authenticity of a 3rd or 4th (and often even more) hand account of what someone said or did over 200 years prior with a grain of salt.

Also I'll point out once again your hilarious double standards of treating Sahih Hadith as gospel truth when it suits, but otherwise trash the whole idea that accounts of events written over 200 years after could ever be believed.

eg - this is the high regard Baron has for the authenticity of Sahih Hadith:


Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 11^th, 2012 at 2:15pm:

The hadith is a collection of sayings from Mohammad passed down like a series of chinese whispers over 200 years before someone made it into a book. If more than one person heard the same chinese whispers it becomes legitimate for muslims.

Quote:

Further, as I keep pointing out, he didn't commit the crime of Paedophilia.  Child marriage was common when he was alive.

So having sex with children is not pedophilia if everyone else is doing it? Are you you saying that Muhammed was indeed a pedophile, but not a criminal?


Quote:

Speaking of strawmen...

It's from the article you used Gandalf. The most logical conclusion from the available evidence is that Muhammed had sex with the little girl before she reached puberty.

freediver wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 3:23pm:

Quote: Further, as I keep pointing out, he didn't commit the crime of Paedophilia.  Child marriage was common when he was alive. So having sex with children is not pedophilia if everyone else is doing it? Are you you saying that Muhammed was indeed a pedophile, but not a criminal?

As I keep pointing out, FD you cannot judged events from Arabia, 1400 years ago through a prism of Western modern, 21st Century moral beliefs.   Its stupid to do so.   Such events cannot be divorced from the individual's milieu, which is essentially what you're attempting to do.

We have no idea what Mohammed's motivations were and the crime of "Paedophilia" depends not only on the act but understanding the motivations behind it as well, as Gandalf keeps pointing out.

Further, we have no idea as to how accurate the stories about these events are.   You're asking Mohammed to be judged on what are essentially second or more handed accounts.

Finally, the question comes up, why the endless pursuit of a man who's been dead for 1400 years?   ::)

BTW, FD will you start giving the correct attribution to the comments you're replying to?   It's bloody annoying how you mix up messages you're replying to and expect the readers to sort them out and understand them.   ::)

Sheesh!  You still banging on with this crap, freediver?


Quote:

So having sex with children is not pedophilia if everyone else is doing it? Are you you saying that Muhammed was indeed a pedophile, but not a criminal?

It is now ~ it was not then, no matter who else was doing it.  I'm not buying your 'Mo the Pedo' argument either.  He did what was nothing unusual at the time, so he was neither.  You are applying today's standards where they are totally inapplicable.

Quote:

As I keep pointing out, FD you cannot judged events from Arabia, 1400 years ago through a prism of Western modern, 21st Century moral beliefs.   Its stupid to do so.

Yet that is exactly what you are doing, insisting Muhammed did not "commit the crime of pedophilia". I was merely asking what you meant by this. I hope you were not trying to claim he didn't have sex with children (not that there's anything wrong with that).


Quote:

We have no idea what Mohammed's motivations were and the crime of "Paedophilia" depends not only on the act but understanding the motivations behind it as well, as Gandalf keeps pointing out.

So it is legal to have sex with children for the right reason?


Quote:

Further, we have no idea as to how accurate the stories about these events are.   You're asking Mohammed to be judged on what are essentially second or more handed accounts.

That's what history is all about Brian.


Quote:

Finally, the question comes up, why the endless pursuit of a man who's been dead for 1400 years?

Because so many children are suffering today because of him, and so many bend over backwards to apologise for it and deny the link.


Quote:

It is now ~ it was not then, no matter who else was doing it.  I'm not buying your 'Mo the Pedo' argument either.  He did what was nothing unusual at the time, so he was neither.  You are applying today's standards where they are totally inapplicable.

Aussie, are you saying that having sex with children is not pedophilia because everyone else was doing it?

Aussie wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 3:36pm:

It is now ~ it was not then, no matter who else was doing it.  I'm not buying your 'Mo the Pedo' argument either.  He did what was nothing unusual at the time, so he was neither.  You are applying today's standards where they are totally inapplicable.

Mo first wife Khadija was in her 40's and Mo was in his early 20's when they married, it was when he found a sock puppet called Allah he became attracted to the daughter of his neighbor Abu Bakr who was the first convert to Islam.

There is no evidence of any of Muhammad's family marrying children before Mo invented Islam

freediver wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 3:23pm:

It's from the article you used Gandalf.

Correct - and it says she was wed at age 6, a point that no one disputed


Quote:

The most logical conclusion from the available evidence is that Muhammed had sex with the little girl before she reached puberty.

um no.
.

freediver wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 3:42pm:

Quote: As I keep pointing out, FD you cannot judged events from Arabia, 1400 years ago through a prism of Western modern, 21st Century moral beliefs.   Its stupid to do so. Yet that is exactly what you are doing, insisting Muhammed did not "commit the crime of pedophilia". I was merely asking what you meant by this. I hope you were not trying to claim he didn't have sex with children (not that there's anything wrong with that).

I have no idea if he had sex with children or not, FD.   Your entire reasoning is framed in your own moral milieu.    You have to first determine what Arabian society 1400 years ago considered a "child".  Then you have to determine if that same society believed having sex with them was immoral.  Finally you have to determine if it was forbidden by their laws, FD.   You've done none of that, all you've done is decided 'cause it's now forbidden and considered immoral and that people under the age of consent today, are to be considered "children", what Mohammed did then was wrong.   ::)


Quote:

[quote]We have no idea what Mohammed's motivations were and the crime of "Paedophilia" depends not only on the act but understanding the motivations behind it as well, as Gandalf keeps pointing out.

So it is legal to have sex with children for the right reason?
[/quote]

No, today it isn't in Australia to have sex with someone below the age of consent.  Your question however, if directed to what Mohammed did 1400 years ago, is pointless, FD.   It wasn't illegal, it wasn't even, as far as I can tell, considered immoral - THEN.

If Muslims TODAY, in Australia, attempt to justify doing this through reference to what Mohammed did then, they are acting immorally and illegally according to the laws and milieu of TODAY.   They are not exempt from those laws and should be judged accordingly.    My concern is with trying to judge some who lived 1400 years ago, in a completely different society by our views TODAY.    ::) 


Quote:

[quote]Further, we have no idea as to how accurate the stories about these events are.   You're asking Mohammed to be judged on what are essentially second or more handed accounts.

That's what history is all about Brian.
[/quote]

History is about many things.  Occasionally it's about the truth as well, FD.


Quote:

[quote]Finally, the question comes up, why the endless pursuit of a man who's been dead for 1400 years?

Because so many children are suffering today because of him, and so many bend over backwards to apologise for it and deny the link.
[/quote]

Yet you remain silent about the child brides of India, FD.    ::)

Moreover, how can children today, suffer because of a man who died 1400 years ago?    ::)

As I keep pointing out, by all means condemn the Muslims of today for their crimes but stop this silly crusade against Mohammed over his marriage to Aisha.    ::)

Quote:

How can children today, suffer because of a man who died 1400 years ago?

Because muslims today invoke the example of muhammad as their vindication for child brides (child sex = rape).

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 4:41pm:

Moreover, how can children today, suffer because of a man who died 1400 years ago?    ::)

Impossible  to tell if you are disengenuos or a dill. Probably a combination of both. 

moses wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 4:56pm:

Quote: How can children today, suffer because of a man who died 1400 years ago? Because muslims today invoke the example of muhammad as their vindication for child brides (child sex = rape).

But it is the Muslims of today who commit this crime who must be found guilty of it, Moses, not a man who's been dead 1400 years...   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 5:19pm:

moses wrote on Nov 23rd, 2014 at 4:56pm: Quote: How can children today, suffer because of a man who died 1400 years ago? Because muslims today invoke the example of muhammad as their vindication for child brides (child sex = rape). But it is the Muslims of today who commit this crime who must be found guilty of it, Moses, not a man who's been dead 1400 years...   ::)

So what is the minimum age for marriage in Saudi Arabia, do they even have one?

Do muslims face Mecca in Saudi Arabia when they tap their heads on the ground with their asses in the air?

Is one of the 5 pillars of Islam called Hajj, where do you go for that is it Saudi Arabia?

moses wrote:
Quote:

[quote] How can children today, suffer because of a man who died 1400 years ago?

Because muslims today invoke the example of muhammad as their vindication for child brides (child sex = rape). [/quote]

Brian Ross wrote:
Quote:

But it is the Muslims of today who commit this crime who must be found guilty of it, Moses, not a man who's been dead 1400 years...

So we've run away from **How can children today, suffer because of a man who died 1400 years ago?** and the obvious answer:Because muslims today invoke the example of muhammad as their vindication for child brides (child sex = rape).

To: **we must find muslims who commit the crime of raping child brides today, guilty**

YOU apologist's are right on top of it aren't you?

Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 5:23pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 23rd, 2014 at 5:19pm: moses wrote on Nov 23rd, 2014 at 4:56pm: Quote: How can children today, suffer because of a man who died 1400 years ago? Because muslims today invoke the example of muhammad as their vindication for child brides (child sex = rape). But it is the Muslims of today who commit this crime who must be found guilty of it, Moses, not a man who's been dead 1400 years...   ::) So what is the minimum age for marriage in Saudi Arabia, do they even have one?

We aren't discussing Saudi Arabia today, Baron but Australia today.

A more pertinent question might be, "what was the minimum age for marriage in Saudi Arabia 1400 years ago?"

I have no idea, I admit.  If you can shed any light on it, it would be most welcome.

Of course it raises the question, if they had no minimum age, what did Mohammed do which was illegal or even perhaps immoral by the milieu of the day?

moses wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 5:42pm:

moses wrote: Quote: [quote] How can children today, suffer because of a man who died 1400 years ago? Because muslims today invoke the example of muhammad as their vindication for child brides (child sex = rape).

Brian Ross wrote:
Quote:

But it is the Muslims of today who commit this crime who must be found guilty of it, Moses, not a man who's been dead 1400 years...

So we've run away from **How can children today, suffer because of a man who died 1400 years ago?** and the obvious answer:Because muslims today invoke the example of muhammad as their vindication for child brides (child sex = rape).

To: **we must find muslims who commit the crime of raping child brides today, guilty**
[/quote]

But, as I've pointed out, Mohammed did not apparently commit any crime then and he definitely did not commit any crime now, so who is to be held responsible for these alleged crimes, Moses?

Why keep pursuing this man long dead except to satisfy your Islamophobic urges?    ::)


Quote:

YOU apologist's are right on top of it aren't you?

Where have I "apologised" for anything, Moses?

I am being critical of this crusade against a man who's been dead for 1400 years.  I have not made excuses for any crimes committed today, Moses.   ::)

Hiding from your question **How can children today, suffer because of a man who died 1400 years ago?**

and the obvious answer: Because muslims today invoke the example of muhammad as their vindication for child brides (child sex = rape).

moses wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 6:35pm:

Hiding from your question **How can children today, suffer because of a man who died 1400 years ago?** and the obvious answer: Because muslims today invoke the example of muhammad as their vindication for child brides (child sex = rape).

No, Moses you're playing the same card that the Muslims of today who commit these alleged crimes do - you're blaming a man who's been dead 1400 years for what they have done.  You're actually providing them with an excuse.  It is you who is being the apologist.    ::) ::)

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 4:39pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 23rd, 2014 at 3:23pm: It's from the article you used Gandalf. Correct - and it says she was wed at age 6, a point that no one disputed

And broken at 9.


Quote:

[quote]The most logical conclusion from the available evidence is that Muhammed had sex with the little girl before she reached puberty.

um no.
.[/quote]

OK you got me there Gandalf.


Quote:

I have no idea if he had sex with children or not, FD.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, right Brian?


Quote:

Your entire reasoning is framed in your own moral milieu.

Tell me Brian, if I joined NAMBLA, or traveled to Thailand or some Muslim country where everyone else is doing it, would it then be OK for me to have sex with children?


Quote:

You have to first determine what Arabian society 1400 years ago considered a "child".

No I don't. We are speaking English Brian. She was 6 years old when she was married off to the 50 plus year old man next door. She was a child, by any definition, despite the protestations from Muslims such as Gandalf that the marriage was based on mutual love and respect.


Quote:

Finally you have to determine if it was forbidden by their laws, FD.   You've done none of that

Yes I have. It just flew right over your head. Muhammed made the laws. He made it legal to rape children. Therefor it was legal. All good eh Brian?


Quote:

No, today it isn't in Australia to have sex with someone below the age of consent.  Your question however, if directed to what Mohammed did 1400 years ago, is pointless, FD.

So why have you been rabbiting on about Muhammed's motivations for having sex with children? What was your point?


Quote:

Moreover, how can children today, suffer because of a man who died 1400 years ago?

 

I know you can figure this one out for yourself Brian, being a genius and all (not that there's anything wrong with that).

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 6:38pm:

moses wrote on Nov 23rd, 2014 at 6:35pm: Hiding from your question **How can children today, suffer because of a man who died 1400 years ago?** and the obvious answer: Because muslims today invoke the example of muhammad as their vindication for child brides (child sex = rape). No, Moses you're playing the same card that the Muslims of today who commit these alleged crimes do - you're blaming a man who's been dead 1400 years for what they have done.  You're actually providing them with an excuse.  It is you who is being the apologist.    ::) ::)

He is not just a man dead these 1400 years.
he is Allah's final and definitive messenger. And there are hundreds of million of people today who actually believe that.

Soren wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 7:42pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 23rd, 2014 at 6:38pm: moses wrote on Nov 23rd, 2014 at 6:35pm: Hiding from your question **How can children today, suffer because of a man who died 1400 years ago?** and the obvious answer: Because muslims today invoke the example of muhammad as their vindication for child brides (child sex = rape). No, Moses you're playing the same card that the Muslims of today who commit these alleged crimes do - you're blaming a man who's been dead 1400 years for what they have done.  You're actually providing them with an excuse.  It is you who is being the apologist.    ::) ::) He is not just a man dead these 1400 years. he is Allah's final and definitive messenger. And there are hundreds of million of people today who actually believe that.

And so they are all Paedophiles, Soren?

All ready at a moment's notice with their axes behind their back?

Sorry, you're just displaying how really much of an Islamophobe you are, Soren.

Next you'll be back to talking about faeces again.   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 12:02am:

Soren wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 11:10pm: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 10:52pm: The reality is we don't know that Mohammed married Aisha for reasons of Paedophilia.  Such marriages were, as I've shown, quite commonplace even in Europe.   Therefore, to try and claim he was a Paedophile is wrong IMO.  You have no evidence as to what his motivations were or even if the story as to her age was accurate, Bobby.   ::) We do not hold it up as God's final message to man for all eternity - diddle 9 year olds - 12 year olds -  as long as they have bled. You horrible, dishonest apologist. You really do have problems with being objective about Muslims and Islam, don't you, Soren?   Nope, no bigotry there at all.   ::)

I am objective.

Islamic doctrines are disgusting and despicable on women, Jews, nonMuslims; stupid on most other things. It is a stupid AND dangerous ideology. You are free to choose it or reject it in the West.

Not so in 'Muslim lands' - another despicable thing about it.

Islam is an ideology FREELY chosen, embraced, propagated and FREELY rejected, mocked and dismissed. It has NO special claim for special treatment, respect, protection.

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 8:34pm:

Soren wrote on Nov 23rd, 2014 at 7:42pm: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 23rd, 2014 at 6:38pm: moses wrote on Nov 23rd, 2014 at 6:35pm: Hiding from your question **How can children today, suffer because of a man who died 1400 years ago?** and the obvious answer: Because muslims today invoke the example of muhammad as their vindication for child brides (child sex = rape). No, Moses you're playing the same card that the Muslims of today who commit these alleged crimes do - you're blaming a man who's been dead 1400 years for what they have done.  You're actually providing them with an excuse.  It is you who is being the apologist.    ::) ::) He is not just a man dead these 1400 years. he is Allah's final and definitive messenger. And there are hundreds of million of people today who actually believe that. And so they are all Paedophiles, Soren?

Insofar as they accept Mohammed's example - yes.

Soren wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 8:45pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 23rd, 2014 at 12:02am: Soren wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 11:10pm: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 10:52pm: The reality is we don't know that Mohammed married Aisha for reasons of Paedophilia.  Such marriages were, as I've shown, quite commonplace even in Europe.   Therefore, to try and claim he was a Paedophile is wrong IMO.  You have no evidence as to what his motivations were or even if the story as to her age was accurate, Bobby.   ::) We do not hold it up as God's final message to man for all eternity - diddle 9 year olds - 12 year olds -  as long as they have bled. You horrible, dishonest apologist. You really do have problems with being objective about Muslims and Islam, don't you, Soren?   Nope, no bigotry there at all.   ::) I am objective.

I think you don't know the meaning of the word, Soren.   ::)

Soren wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 8:45pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 23rd, 2014 at 12:02am: Soren wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 11:10pm: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 10:52pm: The reality is we don't know that Mohammed married Aisha for reasons of Paedophilia.  Such marriages were, as I've shown, quite commonplace even in Europe.   Therefore, to try and claim he was a Paedophile is wrong IMO.  You have no evidence as to what his motivations were or even if the story as to her age was accurate, Bobby.   ::) We do not hold it up as God's final message to man for all eternity - diddle 9 year olds - 12 year olds -  as long as they have bled. You horrible, dishonest apologist. You really do have problems with being objective about Muslims and Islam, don't you, Soren?   Nope, no bigotry there at all.   ::) I am objective.

You, objective?   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Thank you, Soren, I needed a laugh to start my day.  Ever thought of a career in comedy?  I mean the build up to the punch line has been slow but it's been worth the wait!   ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D

Brian Ross wrote:
Quote:

No, Moses you're playing the same card that the Muslims of today who commit these alleged crimes do - you're blaming a man who's been dead 1400 years for what they have done.  You're actually providing them with an excuse.  It is you who is being the apologist.

Are you saying that muhammad is not an example for modern muslims to follow?

If you are, then why are you against exposing the deeds of muhammad which should not be followed, so that muslims may see the error of their child sex?

Exactly where do you stand?

moses wrote on Nov 24^th, 2014 at 2:34pm:

Brian Ross wrote: Quote: No, Moses you're playing the same card that the Muslims of today who commit these alleged crimes do - you're blaming a man who's been dead 1400 years for what they have done.  You're actually providing them with an excuse.  It is you who is being the apologist. Are you saying that muhammad is not an example for modern muslims to follow?

Are you?

Muslims follow the prophesies and ideas allegedly revealled to Muhammed by the Archangel Gabriel.

I know of no Muslim who advocates marrying children because Mo did it. In fact, all the Australian Muslim leaders came out to condemn child marriage when a student from Pakistan recently married a 14 year old Australian girl.

Muhammed's 7th century lifestyle choices are not an example for modern Muslims to follow. If you ask, they'll tell you things were a little different in 7th century Arabia. The idea that all Muslims have paedophilic tendencies because one of Muhammed's wives was a child is so out there it could only be argued here.

If you want to hear the most surreal and fantastical leaps of logic, come to this board. Personally, I do, and I am always given a jolly good chuckle.

It is a jolly world, after all.

So muslims don't invoke the example of muhammad when they marry / rape children?

moses wrote on Nov 24^th, 2014 at 4:02pm:

So muslims don't invoke the example of muhammad when they marry / rape children?

Good question, Moses. Perhaps someone can provide an answer to this important question.

After all, we recently had a child marriage epidemic in Australia. It turned out all the statistics were "defacto" marriages, and strangely in rural (and largely Aboriginal) areas.

Stranger still, none of them invoked the example of Muhammed on their Census forms.

Google: taqiyya.

You could probably take the qur'an as some sort of adjudicator re the age of marrying for muslims.

sura 65 (the divorce) is a chapter dealing with required times for divorced muslim wives to wait before remarrying etc.

65.4:And those who no longer expect menstruation among your women - if you doubt, then their period is three months, and [also for] those who have not menstruated. And for those who are pregnant, their term is until they give birth. And whoever fears Allah - He will make for him of his matter ease. 

This verse seems very clear to me:

no longer expect menstruation, would mean change of life.

who have not menstruated, would mean little prepubescent girls

And for those who are pregnant, means exactly that pregnant females

Child marriage/rape of little girls is covered in islamic doctrine.

Mattyfisk wrote on Nov 24^th, 2014 at 4:15pm:

Good question, Moses. Perhaps someone can provide an answer to this important question. After all, we recently had a child marriage epidemic in Australia. It turned out all the statistics were "defacto" marriages, and strangely in rural (and largely Aboriginal) areas. Stranger still, none of them invoked the example of Muhammed on their Census forms.

True K, but thats not the point. The point that FD demonstrated in that discussion was that muslims expose themselves for the pedophile-loving child abusers that they are by what they don't say.

|dev|null wrote on Nov 24^th, 2014 at 11:47am:

You, objective?  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D :D :D :D

WOW?

What a truly uninspiring piece of human excreta, do you defecate in public often?   

moses wrote on Nov 24^th, 2014 at 2:34pm:

Brian Ross wrote: Quote: No, Moses you're playing the same card that the Muslims of today who commit these alleged crimes do - you're blaming a man who's been dead 1400 years for what they have done.  You're actually providing them with an excuse.  It is you who is being the apologist. Are you saying that muhammad is not an example for modern muslims to follow?

No, I am saying that Muslims may follow what they believe is the example of Mohammed but that still does not excuse them breaking the law.  They can point all they like to the (supposed) example of Mohammed but it won't amount to much of a defence in an Australian court.


Quote:

If you are, then why are you against exposing the deeds of muhammad which should not be followed, so that muslims may see the error of their child sex? Exactly where do you stand?

I'm not against exposing any deeds but such deeds must be considered in the context of the legal, social and moral milieu of the day, Moses.  Just as the events surrounding Jesus Christ should be considered in the context WRT to Roman occupied Palestine.   They cannot be judged through the lense of  21st Century Western morals.

I've provided a long list of European marriages from the same period.  Were they all committed by Paedophiles, Moses?

We have at best, circumstantial evidence about Mohammed's relationship with Aisha.   You can't provide any definitive proof nor can you actually show what he did was immoral or illegal by the standards of those days, 1400 years ago.

By all means, condemn Muslims who marry child brides today.  You won't get an argument from me.

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 11:40pm:

Soren wrote on Nov 23rd, 2014 at 8:45pm: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 23rd, 2014 at 12:02am: Soren wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 11:10pm: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 10:52pm: The reality is we don't know that Mohammed married Aisha for reasons of Paedophilia.  Such marriages were, as I've shown, quite commonplace even in Europe.   Therefore, to try and claim he was a Paedophile is wrong IMO.  You have no evidence as to what his motivations were or even if the story as to her age was accurate, Bobby.   ::) We do not hold it up as God's final message to man for all eternity - diddle 9 year olds - 12 year olds -  as long as they have bled. You horrible, dishonest apologist. You really do have problems with being objective about Muslims and Islam, don't you, Soren?   Nope, no bigotry there at all.   ::) I am objective. I think you don't know the meaning of the word, Soren.   ::)

Objective truths:


Islamic doctrines are disgusting and despicable on women, Jews, nonMuslims; stupid on most other things. It is a stupid AND dangerous ideology. You are free to choose it or reject it in the West.

Not so in 'Muslim lands' - another despicable thing about it.

Islam is an ideology FREELY chosen, embraced, propagated and FREELY rejected, mocked and dismissed. It has NO special claim for special treatment, respect, protection.

Quote:

The idea that all Muslims have paedophilic tendencies because one of Muhammed's wives was a child is so out there it could only be argued here. If you want to hear the most surreal and fantastical leaps of logic, come to this board.

Can you quote someone actually saying that?


Quote:

I'm not against exposing any deeds but such deeds must be considered in the context of the legal, social and moral milieu of the day, Moses.

I notice you avoided the question about that Brian. If I joined NAMBLA, or traveled to Thailand or some Muslim country where everyone else is doing it, would it then be OK for me to have sex with children?


Quote:

We have at best, circumstantial evidence about Mohammed's relationship with Aisha.   You can't provide any definitive proof nor can you actually show what he did was immoral or illegal by the standards of those days, 1400 years ago.

Which is of course, completely irrelevant.

Soren wrote on Nov 24^th, 2014 at 6:57pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 23rd, 2014 at 11:40pm: Soren wrote on Nov 23rd, 2014 at 8:45pm: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 23rd, 2014 at 12:02am: Soren wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 11:10pm: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 10:52pm: The reality is we don't know that Mohammed married Aisha for reasons of Paedophilia.  Such marriages were, as I've shown, quite commonplace even in Europe.   Therefore, to try and claim he was a Paedophile is wrong IMO.  You have no evidence as to what his motivations were or even if the story as to her age was accurate, Bobby.   ::) We do not hold it up as God's final message to man for all eternity - diddle 9 year olds - 12 year olds -  as long as they have bled. You horrible, dishonest apologist. You really do have problems with being objective about Muslims and Islam, don't you, Soren?   Nope, no bigotry there at all.   ::) I am objective. I think you don't know the meaning of the word, Soren.   ::) Objective truths: Islamic doctrines are disgusting and despicable on women, Jews, nonMuslims; stupid on most other things. It is a stupid AND dangerous ideology. You are free to choose it or reject it in the West.

True but there is effectively no difference between Islam and Christianity as far as the things you've just claimed.  Christianity has oppressed women, Jews and non-Christians, doing them onto death just as happily, Soren.  If you were truly objective you'd know and understand that.  That you keep turning a blind-eye to it, in order to persecute Muslims alone suggests what about your motivations?   It certainly isn't objectivity.   ::)

moses wrote on Nov 24^th, 2014 at 4:36pm:

You could probably take the qur'an as some sort of adjudicator re the age of marrying for muslims. sura 65 (the divorce) is a chapter dealing with required times for divorced muslim wives to wait before remarrying etc. 65.4:And those who no longer expect menstruation among your women - if you doubt, then their period is three months, and [also for] those who have not menstruated. And for those who are pregnant, their term is until they give birth. And whoever fears Allah - He will make for him of his matter ease.  This verse seems very clear to me: no longer expect menstruation, would mean change of life. who have not menstruated, would mean little prepubescent girls And for those who are pregnant, means exactly that pregnant females Child marriage/rape of little girls is covered in islamic doctrine.

Good point, Moses. How many Muslims are defending their marriage to children, pregnant women and old ladies based on your chapter? 

I think that was your question.

I note you haven’t raised Leviticus on this issue. What do you think of the Jewish laws?

Soren wrote on Nov 24^th, 2014 at 6:57pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 23rd, 2014 at 11:40pm: Soren wrote on Nov 23rd, 2014 at 8:45pm: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 23rd, 2014 at 12:02am: Soren wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 11:10pm: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 10:52pm: The reality is we don't know that Mohammed married Aisha for reasons of Paedophilia.  Such marriages were, as I've shown, quite commonplace even in Europe.   Therefore, to try and claim he was a Paedophile is wrong IMO.  You have no evidence as to what his motivations were or even if the story as to her age was accurate, Bobby.   ::) We do not hold it up as God's final message to man for all eternity - diddle 9 year olds - 12 year olds -  as long as they have bled. You horrible, dishonest apologist. You really do have problems with being objective about Muslims and Islam, don't you, Soren?   Nope, no bigotry there at all.   ::) I am objective. I think you don't know the meaning of the word, Soren.   ::) You are free to choose it or reject it in the West.

This is exactly the sort of idiotic, handwringing, spineless apologist fappery you’re an expert in, OB.

Have another Valium. Have two!

You’ve earned it.

Pedophile sympathisers will be exposed.


one such as I am

exposes the darkness without permission

or approval yes this work is not for the faint

hearted beloved ones ... and this is why and

from the energy in which I emanate in whom I am

as a humble servant in the divine

and sacred LIGHT as we continue

to monitor all thoughts word

and deed ,and so it is

namaste

freediver wrote on Nov 24^th, 2014 at 6:57pm:

Quote: The idea that all Muslims have paedophilic tendencies because one of Muhammed's wives was a child is so out there it could only be argued here. If you want to hear the most surreal and fantastical leaps of logic, come to this board. Can you quote someone actually saying that?

Sure, FD.


Quote:

If I joined NAMBLA, or traveled to... some Muslim country where everyone else is doing it, would it then be OK for me to have sex with children?

Bobby. wrote on Nov 24^th, 2014 at 7:28pm:

Pedophile sympathisers will be exposed.

Who are these "Pedophile[sic] sympathisers", Bobby that you keep claiming will be exposed?  There aren't any here that I can see.    ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 24^th, 2014 at 9:09pm:

Bobby. wrote on Nov 24th, 2014 at 7:28pm: Pedophile sympathisers will be exposed. Who are these "Pedophile[sic] sympathisers", Bobby that you keep claiming will be exposed?  There aren't any here that I can see.    ::)

Maybe he means that it's the paedophile sympathisers that'll be exposed - just not in the way you think ;)

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 24^th, 2014 at 9:09pm:

Bobby. wrote on Nov 24th, 2014 at 7:28pm: Pedophile sympathisers will be exposed. Who are these "Pedophile[sic] sympathisers", Bobby that you keep claiming will be exposed?  There aren't any here that I can see.    ::)

Just look in the mirror & repeat what you wrote:


Quote:

Brian Ross The reality is we don't know that Mohammed married Aisha for reasons of Paedophilia.  Such marriages were, as I've shown, quite commonplace even in Europe.   Therefore, to try and claim he was a Paedophile is wrong IMO.  You have no evidence as to what his motivations were or even if the story as to her age was accurate, Bobby.

forgiven

namaste

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Still waiting for Gandalf to reveal all those Koran verses about Aisha hitting puberty....

freediver wrote on Nov 24^th, 2014 at 9:28pm:

Still waiting for Gandalf to reveal all those Koran verses about Aisha hitting puberty....

You'll find it in the same place as "all those Koran verses" about stoning and executing prisoners - and all that other crap you made up about the Quran.

Is this you backpedaling Gandalf?

Sure FD - as long as you can quote me saying my references came from the Quran.

You made them up, didn't you?

yup  :P

any luck with the google search I gave you the search string for? I promise you the references are on the first page - I checked myself

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 24^th, 2014 at 7:01pm:

Soren wrote on Nov 24th, 2014 at 6:57pm: Objective truths: Islamic doctrines are disgusting and despicable on women, Jews, nonMuslims; stupid on most other things. It is a stupid AND dangerous ideology. You are free to choose it or reject it in the West. True but there is effectively no difference between Islam and Christianity as far as the things you've just claimed.  Christianity has oppressed women, Jews and non-Christians, doing them onto death just as happily, Soren.  If you were truly objective you'd know and understand that.  That you keep turning a blind-eye to it, in order to persecute Muslims alone suggests what about your motivations?   It certainly isn't objectivity.   ::)

Which Christian doctrine says that women are worth half a man in law or that Jews must be killed off as are those who leave Christianity, non-Christians to be killed or taxed extra and humiliated? Which Christian doctrine teaches deception?
I am not aware of such Christian doctrines.  Nor are you. They do not exist. 
As the emperor said to the Muslim: ""Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."


Differences between the Western and Muslims world are genuine and obvious, in law, family relations, politics, outlook, regard to reason, art, science. These differences stem from huge differences between Christianity and Islam.

Mendacious or stupid? Stupid or mendacious?

I can’t decide.

Mattyfisk wrote on Nov 24^th, 2014 at 11:10pm:

Mendacious or stupid? Stupid or mendacious? I can’t decide.

Why not accept both?  That way you get twice the value!   ;)

Mattyfisk wrote on Nov 24^th, 2014 at 7:33pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 24th, 2014 at 6:57pm: Quote: The idea that all Muslims have paedophilic tendencies because one of Muhammed's wives was a child is so out there it could only be argued here. If you want to hear the most surreal and fantastical leaps of logic, come to this board. Can you quote someone actually saying that? Sure, FD. [quote] If I joined NAMBLA, or traveled to... some Muslim country where everyone else is doing it, would it then be OK for me to have sex with children?

[/quote]


FD, when you asked for a quote, did you deliberately write one in the same post?

Or did you just forget? I'm curious.

Remember, failure to answer is taqiyya.

Gandalf, at what age do these references say Aisha went through puberty? 15?

Karnal wrote:
Quote:

Good point, Moses. How many Muslims are defending their marriage to children, pregnant women and old ladies based on your chapter?  I think that was your question. I note you haven’t raised Leviticus on this issue. What do you think of the Jewish laws?

How many muslims are defending their child marriage / rape?: I would say every muslim that engages in child marriage and every muslim who says the verse referring to prepubescent wives is infallible and perfect and final.

Why haven’t I raised Leviticus on this issue?: Your selective memory kicking in again? You fail to remember that I (from a secular western point of view) have on numerous occasions stated that ancient Judaic law was superseded 2014 years ago.

What do I think of the Jewish laws? In 2013, the minimum marriage age in Israel was raised to 18, from a previous age of 17, for females and males.Previously, the marriage age was 18 for males and 17 for females,before they were equalised at 17 years.

moses wrote on Nov 25^th, 2014 at 2:53pm:

Karnal wrote: Quote: Good point, Moses. How many Muslims are defending their marriage to children, pregnant women and old ladies based on your chapter?  I think that was your question. I note you haven’t raised Leviticus on this issue. What do you think of the Jewish laws? How many muslims are defending their child marriage / rape?: I would say every muslim that engages in child marriage and every muslim who says the verse referring to prepubescent wives is infallible and perfect and final. Why haven’t I raised Leviticus on this issue?: Your selective memory kicking in again? You fail to remember that I (from a secular western point of view) have on numerous occasions stated that ancient Judaic law was superseded 2014 years ago. What do I think of the Jewish laws? In 2013, the minimum marriage age in Israel was raised to 18, from a previous age of 17, for females and males.Previously, the marriage age was 18 for males and 17 for females,before they were equalised at 17 years.

What?  For the Jews as well?  What about Yadda?  He quotes extensively from the Old Testament.  Were they superseded for him and his fellow Christian fundamentalists?   ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D

As you claim to be an expert on Yadda.

Can tell us whether he believes present day Israeli laws override ancient Mosaic law?

I really don't know.

moses wrote on Nov 25^th, 2014 at 2:53pm:

Karnal wrote: Quote: Good point, Moses. How many Muslims are defending their marriage to children, pregnant women and old ladies based on your chapter?  I think that was your question. I note you haven’t raised Leviticus on this issue. What do you think of the Jewish laws? How many muslims are defending their child marriage / rape?: I would say every muslim that engages in child marriage and every muslim who says the verse referring to prepubescent wives is infallible and perfect and final. Why haven’t I raised Leviticus on this issue?: Your selective memory kicking in again? You fail to remember that I (from a secular western point of view) have on numerous occasions stated that ancient Judaic law was superseded 2014 years ago. What do I think of the Jewish laws? In 2013, the minimum marriage age in Israel was raised to 18, from a previous age of 17, for females and males.Previously, the marriage age was 18 for males and 17 for females,before they were equalised at 17 years.

Good point. So why - if all those Muselmen are child marriers/rapists based on the advice of their sinister prophet - do the Israelis have a minimum age for marriage despite what their prophets said and did?

I'm confused. Is there any way you could set me straight on this?

Remember, your entire argument about the dastardly deeds of the Muselman is based on the example of his sinister prophet, which you say the Muselman needs to condemn.

Why are the Jews exempt from very similar orders by their equally sinister prophets?

Remember, the Jewish Mother of God consumated her virgin marriage at age 12. Was Joseph a paedophile based on the teachings of his prophets, peace be upon them?

I'm keen to know what you think.

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 25^th, 2014 at 12:21am:

Mattyfisk wrote on Nov 24th, 2014 at 11:10pm: Mendacious or stupid? Stupid or mendacious? I can’t decide. Why not accept both?  That way you get twice the value!   ;)

Thanks, Dodgy Bros.  Why not tell us that there are obvious doctrinal differences - self-correcting by Christianity is a crucial one - and be honest for once?

Which Christian doctrine says that women are worth half a man in law or that Jews must be killed off as are those who leave Christianity, non-Christians to be killed or taxed extra and humiliated? Which Christian doctrine teaches deception?
I am not aware of such Christian doctrines.  Nor are you. They do not exist. 
As the emperor said to the Muslim: ""Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."


Differences between the Western and Muslims world are genuine and obvious, in law, family relations, politics, outlook, regard to reason, art, science. These differences stem from huge differences between Christianity and Islam.



If any of this is incorrect, why not present the corrective facts?

Karnal wrote:
Quote:

Good point. So why - if all those Muselmen are child marriers/rapists based on the advice of their sinister prophet - do the Israelis have a minimum age for marriage despite what their prophets said and did?

In 2013, the minimum marriage age in Israel was raised to 18, from a previous age of 17, for females and males.Previously, the marriage age was 18 for males and 17 for females,before they were equalised at 17 years.

The Jews seem perfectly capable of living according to modern day standards.

muslims who still practice child marriage / rape and their supporters who claim the doctrine which urges this child abuse is perfect and final, are unable to modernize. So their children suffer


Quote:

I'm confused. Is there any way you could set me straight on this? Remember, your entire argument about the dastardly deeds of the Muselman is based on the example of his sinister prophet, which you say the Muselman needs to condemn.

Do you have any other way they can realize that the example they are following today is wrong?



Quote:

Why are the Jews exempt from the same orders?

Because they have instituted laws which are modern and relevant, not based on ancient text.


Quote:

Remember, the Jewish Mother of God consumated her virgin marriage at age 12. Was Joseph a paedophile based on the teachings of his prophets, peace be upon them? I'm keen to know what you think.

Give me some doctrinal proof of her age.

What was the age of Henry V111 youngest bride?

moses wrote on Nov 25^th, 2014 at 4:19pm:

As you claim to be an expert on Yadda. Can tell us whether he believes present day Israeli laws override ancient Mosaic law? I really don't know.

Let me answer that one, Moses.

Y is what he calls a "Karmic Christian", by which Y means that people's words and actions have harsh consequences.

Y is against turning the other cheek in most instances, preferring instead to mete out what the Jews called an "eye for an eye". Y does not believe in showing grace to those who offend against Gud's laws. In his words here, Y shows very little grace at all.

I'm not sure what Y thinks about forgiveness. I've never seen him mention this, or quote any passages about it. Most of Y's quotes are Old Testament passages that wreck vengeance against Y's "enemies of Gud", a "jealous" Gud, a "vengeful" Gud, an "awesome" Gud.

Y does not believe Israeli laws override ancient Jewish laws and prophesies. On international and domestic matters, Y believes Israel has a divine get-out-of-jail-free card. He does not believe Israel is subject to any international treaties or laws Israel is signatory to. What matters to Y is his literal interpretation of what was written in the Bible a few thousand years ago. To Y, all other deals are off.

Except when it comes to the words of prophet Yeheshua, the son of Gud. Y doesn't have much to say on them.

moses wrote on Nov 25^th, 2014 at 4:51pm:

Karnal wrote: Quote: Good point. So why - if all those Muselmen are child marriers/rapists based on the advice of their sinister prophet - do the Israelis have a minimum age for marriage despite what their prophets said and did? In 2013, the minimum marriage age in Israel was raised to 18, from a previous age of 17, for females and males.Previously, the marriage age was 18 for males and 17 for females,before they were equalised at 17 years. The Jews seem perfectly capable of living according to modern day standards. muslims who still practice child marriage / rape and their supporters who claim the doctrine which urges this child abuse is perfect and final, are unable to modernize. So their children suffer

So what makes the Muselman unable to modernize?

Is it genetic? His level of tintedness? Correlation not causation? What?

So far, your entire argument is it's the example of a sinister prophet. Jews also have sinister prophets, and much harsher ancient laws than the Muselman.

What makes the Jews able to change their ways and not the Muselman?

I'm curious.

moses wrote on Nov 25^th, 2014 at 4:19pm:

As you claim to be an expert on Yadda. Can tell us whether he believes present day Israeli laws override ancient Mosaic law? I really don't know.

No idea, why don't you ask him?  He's the one always quoting the Old Testament.  I don't think he's Jewish or Israeli so whats your point?   ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D :D

moses wrote on Nov 25^th, 2014 at 4:51pm:

Karnal wrote: Quote: Why are the Jews exempt from the same orders? Because they have instituted laws which are modern and relevant, not based on ancient text.

Do you mean like Indonesia? Egypt? Turkey? And pretty much every Muslim country in the world who have almost identical age of consent laws to Israel?

Are they the sort of laws you mean, Moses?

I'm still curious.

Karnal wrote:
Quote:

Let me answer that one, Moses. Y is what he calls a "Karmic Christian", by which Y means that people's words and actions have harsh consequences. Y is against turning the other cheek in most instances, preferring instead to mete out what the Jews called an "eye for an eye". Y does not believe in showing grace to those who offend against Gud's laws. In his words here, Y shows very little grace at all. I'm not sure what Y thinks about forgiveness. I've never seen him mention this, or quote any passages about it. Most of Y's quotes are Old Testament passages that wreck vengeance against Y's "enemies of Gud", a "jealous" Gud, a "vengeful" Gud, an "awesome" Gud. Y does not believe Israeli laws override ancient Jewish laws and prophesies. On international and domestic matters, Y believes Israel has a divine get-out-of-jail-free card. He does not believe Israel is subject to any international treaties or laws Israel is signatory to. What matters to Y is his literal interpretation of what was written in the Bible a few thousand years ago. To Y, all other deals are off. Except when it comes to the words of prophet Yeheshua, the son of Gud. Y doesn't have much to say on them.

I've seen many posts where Yadda quotes the love of Y.H.W.H.

Maybe you've got a set against him because he uses islamic doctrine and speeches to show the degeneracy of islam.

I mean come on, Brian showed us where even muslims them selves are asking for Government spy cameras and censorship of their speech, to combat the evil of islam

Methinks you might be bigoted against Yadda.


Quote:

So what makes the Muselman unable to modernize? Is it genetic? His level of tintedness? Correlation not causation? What? So far, your entire argument is it's the example of a sinister prophet. Jews also have sinister prophets, and much harsher ancient laws than the Muselman. What makes the Jews able to change their ways and not the Muselman? I'm curious.

Yet the Jewish societies around the globe, are light years ahead of the muslims.

I blame the muslim's total inability to separate islamic doctrine from their daily affairs.

It has got them nowhere. They are stuffed, in order to modernize they have to be critical of their doctrine, criticize their doctrine, no more islam. Truth will destroy islam eventually.

Karnal wrote:
Quote:

Do you mean like Indonesia? Egypt? Turkey? And pretty much every Muslim country in the world who have almost identical age of consent laws to Israel? Are they the sort of laws you mean, Moses? I'm still curious.

I'm curious also as to why apologists try to avoid mentioning the muslims who do practice child marriage / rape because their doctrine and prophet says it's O.K., plus the muslims who defend the doctrine and prophet's example as final, everlasting and perfect.

it's curious all right.

Mattyfisk wrote on Nov 25^th, 2014 at 5:14pm:

moses wrote on Nov 25th, 2014 at 4:51pm: Karnal wrote: Quote: Good point. So why - if all those Muselmen are child marriers/rapists based on the advice of their sinister prophet - do the Israelis have a minimum age for marriage despite what their prophets said and did? In 2013, the minimum marriage age in Israel was raised to 18, from a previous age of 17, for females and males.Previously, the marriage age was 18 for males and 17 for females,before they were equalised at 17 years. The Jews seem perfectly capable of living according to modern day standards. muslims who still practice child marriage / rape and their supporters who claim the doctrine which urges this child abuse is perfect and final, are unable to modernize. So their children suffer So what makes the Muselman unable to modernize? Is it genetic? His level of tintedness? Correlation not causation? What? So far, your entire argument is it's the example of a sinister prophet. Jews also have sinister prophets, and much harsher ancient laws than the Muselman. What makes the Jews able to change their ways and not the Muselman? I'm curious.

Muslims are able to modernise to the extent they abandon Islamic doctrine. Same goes for the Jews, it's just easier for them given fundamental doctrinal differences such as the diaspora and the affect this has on their attitude towards separation of church and state. Islamic doctrine knows only brutal military, political and social superiority. It cannot cope with anything else, except by destroying it.

The Inquisition knew what to do with Muslim heretics:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3g76LwvbBEI

freediver wrote on Nov 25^th, 2014 at 6:47pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Nov 25th, 2014 at 5:14pm: moses wrote on Nov 25th, 2014 at 4:51pm: Karnal wrote: Quote: Good point. So why - if all those Muselmen are child marriers/rapists based on the advice of their sinister prophet - do the Israelis have a minimum age for marriage despite what their prophets said and did? In 2013, the minimum marriage age in Israel was raised to 18, from a previous age of 17, for females and males.Previously, the marriage age was 18 for males and 17 for females,before they were equalised at 17 years. The Jews seem perfectly capable of living according to modern day standards. muslims who still practice child marriage / rape and their supporters who claim the doctrine which urges this child abuse is perfect and final, are unable to modernize. So their children suffer So what makes the Muselman unable to modernize? Is it genetic? His level of tintedness? Correlation not causation? What? So far, your entire argument is it's the example of a sinister prophet. Jews also have sinister prophets, and much harsher ancient laws than the Muselman. What makes the Jews able to change their ways and not the Muselman? I'm curious. Muslims are able to modernise to the extent they abandon Islamic doctrine. Same goes for the Jews, it's just easier for them given fundamental doctrinal differences such as the diaspora and the affect this has on their attitude towards separation of church and state. Islamic doctrine knows only brutal military, political and social superiority. It cannot cope with anything else, except by destroying it.

What makes you say the diaspora/s changed Jewish laws, FD? What change in Jewish doctrine occurred?

Do you have anything to support your claim? I’ve never heard of it.

Quote:

Do you have anything to support your claim? I’ve never heard of it.

Sure. Like I already explained, there is the example of Jews using Jewish doctrine to argue against the existence of Israel on religions grounds. This is pretty much the polar opposite of Islam's approach to separation of church and state. Jews tend to be over-represented in politically progressive movements.

moses wrote on Nov 25^th, 2014 at 5:41pm:

Karnal wrote: Quote: Do you mean like Indonesia? Egypt? Turkey? And pretty much every Muslim country in the world who have almost identical age of consent laws to Israel? Are they the sort of laws you mean, Moses? I'm still curious. I'm curious also as to why apologists try to avoid mentioning the muslims who do practice child marriage / rape because their doctrine and prophet says it's O.K., plus the muslims who defend the doctrine and prophet's example as final, everlasting and perfect. it's curious all right.

Now you’re changing the subject, but I can see why. I did this too.

My question is an opportunity for you to explore your position, Moses. If you continue to avoid it, you’ll just stay locked into the same old argument, and you’ll just keep repeating yourself for more years.

Feel free to consider what I’ve asked. The purpose of discussion boards like this is a thrashing around of ideas and points of view. They’re a form of peer review. If you take up the offer, your argument can become more persuasive and have more depth and scope.

Feel.free to explore my question, Moses. I agree that it’s curious. We should be curious.

This is true freedom, not the caricatured, Orwellian conceit we know and love as Freeedom.

freediver wrote on Nov 25^th, 2014 at 7:58pm:

Quote: Do you have anything to support your claim? I’ve never heard of it. Sure. Like I already explained, there is the example of Jews using Jewish doctrine to argue against the existence of Israel on religions grounds. This is pretty much the polar opposite of Islam's approach to separation of church and state. Jews tend to be over-represented in politically progressive movements.

True - you provided the example of a tiny Jewish sect to counterbalance the existence of the state of Israel, FD, but I’m not asking about Jewish states.

I’m asking about the Jewish diaspora representing a turning point in Jewish theology and overturning the laws of Moses, as you claim. Do you have any articles or links?

You’ve clearly read something on this idea. What was it?

moses wrote on Nov 25^th, 2014 at 5:41pm:

Karnal wrote: Quote: Do you mean like Indonesia? Egypt? Turkey? And pretty much every Muslim country in the world who have almost identical age of consent laws to Israel? Are they the sort of laws you mean, Moses? I'm still curious. I'm curious also as to why apologists try to avoid mentioning the muslims who do practice child marriage / rape because their doctrine and prophet says it's O.K., plus the muslims who defend the doctrine and prophet's example as final, everlasting and perfect. it's curious all right.

The countries which do have laws against child marriage encompass the vast majority of Muslim people in the world. Why this determination to insist that the majority of Muslims practise this when clearly it is not the case?

moses wrote on Nov 25^th, 2014 at 5:31pm:

Karnal wrote: Quote: Let me answer that one, Moses. Y is what he calls a "Karmic Christian", by which Y means that people's words and actions have harsh consequences. Y is against turning the other cheek in most instances, preferring instead to mete out what the Jews called an "eye for an eye". Y does not believe in showing grace to those who offend against Gud's laws. In his words here, Y shows very little grace at all. I'm not sure what Y thinks about forgiveness. I've never seen him mention this, or quote any passages about it. Most of Y's quotes are Old Testament passages that wreck vengeance against Y's "enemies of Gud", a "jealous" Gud, a "vengeful" Gud, an "awesome" Gud. Y does not believe Israeli laws override ancient Jewish laws and prophesies. On international and domestic matters, Y believes Israel has a divine get-out-of-jail-free card. He does not believe Israel is subject to any international treaties or laws Israel is signatory to. What matters to Y is his literal interpretation of what was written in the Bible a few thousand years ago. To Y, all other deals are off. Except when it comes to the words of prophet Yeheshua, the son of Gud. Y doesn't have much to say on them. I've seen many posts where Yadda quotes the love of Y.H.W.H. Maybe you've got a set against him because he uses islamic doctrine and speeches to show the degeneracy of islam. I mean come on, Brian showed us where even muslims them selves are asking for Government spy cameras and censorship of their speech, to combat the evil of islam Methinks you might be bigoted against Yadda. [quote]So what makes the Muselman unable to modernize? Is it genetic? His level of tintedness? Correlation not causation? What? So far, your entire argument is it's the example of a sinister prophet. Jews also have sinister prophets, and much harsher ancient laws than the Muselman. What makes the Jews able to change their ways and not the Muselman? I'm curious.

Yet the Jewish societies around the globe, are light years ahead of the muslims.
[/quote]

I’ll give you one take on the success of Jews in business, science and the arts: money.

There’s a crucial reason for this. Until the 16th century, ursury was illegal for Christians. In many places, it was punishable by death. Only Jews were permitted to lend money with interest, and this established hugely influential European financiers, including the Rothschilds and others. This money became the foundation for the modern banking system. The foundation of capitalism in Europe and the world was Jewish money. Such wealth financed victory in a range of European wars and Empires, including the rise and fall of Napoleon and the Hapsburgs.

Innovation always follows finance. Individual Jews are successful in finance, patents, film, music, law, education, medicine, and a range of other high capital fields and businesses because they are members of social networks with money to invest.

Alongside this, Judaism places a huge value on education, success and what is known as being a "mensche" - a good man. These ethics are important, but they would amount to nothing without the historical ban on ursury in Europe and the centuries-old role of Jews in mediating global capital.

In Islam, ursury is prohibited. There are ways around this, but making profit from interest is banned in traditional Islamic society.

Economic development is facilitated by economic growth, which can only occur with savings and interest from those savings. Walt Rostow called modern development "the march of compound interest". A Keynesian economist, Rostow had a formula for this. India, Egypt, Indonesia and a range of countries were heavily influenced by this theory. All are now important economies. Two are in the G20.

This is just one view on economic advancement and the role of religious laws/ethics. To me, it makes some sense.

Feel free to add your own.

ian wrote on Nov 25^th, 2014 at 8:15pm:

moses wrote on Nov 25th, 2014 at 5:41pm: Karnal wrote: Quote: Do you mean like Indonesia? Egypt? Turkey? And pretty much every Muslim country in the world who have almost identical age of consent laws to Israel? Are they the sort of laws you mean, Moses? I'm still curious. I'm curious also as to why apologists try to avoid mentioning the muslims who do practice child marriage / rape because their doctrine and prophet says it's O.K., plus the muslims who defend the doctrine and prophet's example as final, everlasting and perfect. it's curious all right. The countries which do have laws against child marriage encompass the vast majority of Muslim people in the world. Why this determination to insist that the majority of Muslims practise this when clearly it is not the case?

Soren wrote on Nov 24^th, 2014 at 11:03pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 24th, 2014 at 7:01pm: Soren wrote on Nov 24th, 2014 at 6:57pm: Objective truths: Islamic doctrines are disgusting and despicable on women, Jews, nonMuslims; stupid on most other things. It is a stupid AND dangerous ideology. You are free to choose it or reject it in the West. True but there is effectively no difference between Islam and Christianity as far as the things you've just claimed.  Christianity has oppressed women, Jews and non-Christians, doing them onto death just as happily, Soren.  If you were truly objective you'd know and understand that.  That you keep turning a blind-eye to it, in order to persecute Muslims alone suggests what about your motivations?   It certainly isn't objectivity.   ::) Which Christian doctrine says that women are worth half a man in law or that Jews must be killed off as are those who leave Christianity, non-Christians to be killed or taxed extra and humiliated? ~2,000 years of Christianity's history, Soren, where Christianity was used to oppress women, non-believers, Jews.  You have St.Paul's misogyny, you have the Churches' anti-Semitism, you have the churches advocating and promulgating it's doctrine of "holy war" against the inhabitants of the New World.  Soren, Christianity has a long, long, long, history of doing exactly the things you claim it doesn't and it did it often with the contrivance and cooperation of the Church.  ::) Quote: Which Christian doctrine teaches deception? Christianity accepts that deception is sometimes required for survival, Soren. Deception is acceptable, if the circumstance calls for it, to protect oneself or others.  Taqiyya is  akin to the dissimulation practised by Abram (later Abraham) regarding the identity of his wife (Genesis 12:11-13), the deliberate deception by the Egyptian midwives to protect Hebrew infants targeted for government-mandated slaughter (Exodus 1:15-20), and Rahab’s use of the old “They went that-a-way” routine to conceal the Hebrew spies in Jericho (Joshua 2:1-7). [quote] I am not aware of such Christian doctrines.  Nor are you. They do not exist.

Why then am I am to quite chapter and verse from The Bible, Soren?


Quote:

As the emperor said to the Muslim: ""Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

Ah, the comment from the Regensburg lecture of Pope Benedict XVI.  What a shame you, like the Muslims who took what was said out of context didn't read the rest or both to understand the context of that statement and of course, how ironical it was, considering Christianity's bloody history of spreading it's faith by the sword.   However, I'm not surprised because such subtleties are beyond you, Soren.  Your Islamophobia blinds you to them.   ::)


Quote:

Differences between the Western and Muslims world are genuine and obvious, in law, family relations, politics, outlook, regard to reason, art, science. These differences stem from huge differences between Christianity and Islam.

The differences are, as I keep pointing out, smaller than you actually understand, Soren.   Why don't you ever notice the similarities?  Does your bigotry blind you to them?   ::)

Mattyfisk wrote on Nov 25^th, 2014 at 8:47pm:

[ I’ll give you one take on the success of Jews in business, science and the arts: money. There’s a crucial reason for this. Until the 16th century, ursury was illegal for Christians. In many places, it was punishable by death. Only Jews were permitted to lend money with interest, and this established hugely influential European financiers, including the Rothschilds and others. This money became the foundation for the modern banking system. The foundation of capitalism in Europe and the world was Jewish money. Such wealth financed victory in a range of European wars and Empires, including the rise and fall of Napoleon and the Hapsburgs. Innovation always follows finance. Individual Jews are successful in finance, patents, film, music, law, education, medicine, and a range of other high capital fields and businesses because they are members of social networks with money to invest. Alongside this, Judaism places a huge value on education, success and what is known as being a "mensche" - a good man. These ethics are important, but they would amount to nothing without the historical ban on ursury in Europe and the centuries-old role of Jews in mediating global capital. In Islam, ursury is prohibited. There are ways around this, but making profit from interest is banned in traditional Islamic society. Economic development is facilitated by economic growth, which can only occur with savings and interest from those savings. Walt Rostow called modern development "the march of compound interest". A Keynesian economist, Rostow had a formula for this. India, Egypt, Indonesia and a range of countries were heavily influenced by this theory. All are now important economies. Two are in the G20. This is just one view on economic advancement and the role of religious laws/ethics. To me, it makes some sense. Feel free to add your own.

some people think the success of the jews is largely due to genetics, its a good arguement. There is  a big difference in brain size and intellectual capacity between racial groups and there is a lot of theory as to why this is so . I will lay some facts on the table. The Neanderthal skull with the largest brain capacity was found somewhere near Israel by anthropologists. The African negroes who have since been found to have the lowest average IQs never interbred with Neanderthal, it appears the interbreeding occurred after mans migration out of Africa if we believe the DNA evidence. Jews tend to marry within their faith keeping their racial and cultural ldentities intact. Jews are successful wherever they are regardless of ursury laws.