Muhamed was a child molester.

a reply to: Phage
The correct and objectively valid ethical code? It's a code wherein your actions facilitate and foster the survival and wellbeing of you, your family and friends, your community, your country, humanity ,and the planet. Remind me where child molestation fits into that picture?

a reply to: paraphi

To be honest, this happened hundreds of years ago. Attempting to judge the past through the cold microscope of the present is fraught with dangers.

If you are supposed to be a being with superior moral value should you not the ideas you say be timeless?

Yeshua, Nanak, Buddha, Socrates and Plato are still valued today for their contribution since they where advanced. If Muhammad cannot handle the scrutiny then both him and his followers should not make the claim that he is the epitome of morality.

And this is not the only place where Muhammad fail to follow the golden rule.

a reply to: Thetan

Remind me where child molestation fits into that picture?

Did I say that it is acceptable behavior?

Show me where the practice was unusual or unacceptable according to the mores of the time. Show me where Muhammad was an aberration in his society.

Is discrimination now acceptable? Was it in the past?

originally posted by: OpenEars123

originally posted by: Thetan
a reply to: OpenEars123
Yes. I know what a red herring is, which is why I identified your post as such. I'd appreciate it if you'd stay on topic.

OK, as you asked so nicely.

Was Muhammad a child molester?

- In today's society and laws? Yes.
- Back then? Probably not.

All religion has extremities, and all religions have hypocrites, including your own one.
This is what I was pointing out, your moral high ground is very shaky.

My moral high ground? If considering child molestation to be unethical is a "moral high ground," then your sea level is terribly low.

a reply to: Phage

Do you have a daughter Phage?

If so would you be willing to see her married at 9?

Would you be so ok with knowing she would be having sex with a grown man?

Is this society that shapes your opinion or is it your common sense and decency?

a reply to: 5StarOracle
To your first question, yes.
The rest are not relevant. Had I been alive 1,000 years ago my thinking would not be the same as it is.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Thetan

Remind me where child molestation fits into that picture?

Did I say that it is acceptable behavior?

Show me where the practice was unusual or unacceptable according to the mores of the time.

Is discrimination now acceptable? Was it in the past?

No. You never said anything about it being acceptable. I don't think we're disagreeing, Phage. If the point you're trying to make is that social mores evolve then the point is fully understood and agreed upon by me. My contention is that no matter what the social standards of any time are, there is still right and wrong independent of their considerations. What Mohamed did was unethical, regardless of what his or any other civilizations considerations on the matter were.

a reply to: Thetan

What Mohamed was unethical, regardless of what his or any other civilizations considerations on the matter were.

I disagree. Ethics are a societal construct. They are what facilitate one's survival within a given society.

Is it immoral to eat dog? Some people think so. Some people think they are delicious. Who's right?

The Christian god shagged a 10-11 year old Mary...

originally posted by: Thetan

originally posted by: OpenEars123

originally posted by: Thetan
a reply to: OpenEars123
Yes. I know what a red herring is, which is why I identified your post as such. I'd appreciate it if you'd stay on topic.

OK, as you asked so nicely.

Was Muhammad a child molester?

- In today's society and laws? Yes.
- Back then? Probably not.

All religion has extremities, and all religions have hypocrites, including your own one.
This is what I was pointing out, your moral high ground is very shaky.

My moral high ground? If considering child molestation to be unethical is a "moral high ground," then your sea level is terribly low.

Oooookaaaay... I see what's happening here, I'm clearly wasting my time. Putting words into people's mouths, and twisting their point is weak, I'm assuming you are quite young?

ETA - You know what? I'll just go ahead and say it.
You're a scientologist, therefore you shouldn't be making threads that subtly bash other religions.
To me, and no doubt others in this thread, your point and your OP is moot.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Thetan

What Mohamed was unethical, regardless of what his or any other civilizations considerations on the matter were.

I disagree. Ethics are a societal construct. They are what facilitate one's survival within a given society.

Is it immoral to eat dog? Some people think so. Some people think they are delicious. Who's right?

I make a distinction between "moral" and "ethical." Morality is merely consideration. If a society considers that eating dog is immoral, then it is; likewise, if you're Muslim or Jewish then eating pork is immoral. You see? It's merely consideration. Ethics however is a different story and is completely independent of anyone's considerations. No matter how many people consider that the holocaust or 9/11 was moral, it was still unethical. A thousand years ago it was considered fine to rape the women of a conquered city, however it was not fine. If you disagree with what I'm saying, phage, then you do not practice what you preach. Your innate decency would not permit you to believe that torturing babies was ethical at any time period, regardless of your communities considerations.

a reply to: Phage

The rest are only irrelevant because the truth would destroy your stance and show you do not agree with this practice...
And for the first time I would be witness to you acting as a troll...
However I do understand what you are getting at for one thing lifespans were shorter and men were ok with sleeping with whores but wished to have a virgin for a wife...
Now I suppose if a Man back then took a child bride and waited until she was physically ready to engage in sexual relations and did love and respect her than this would not be wrong in the eyes of the Lord...
But as you said this is not thousands of years ago and like I said earlier for this union to be based in respect and his wife to have been considered an equal Mohammed must have therefore had the mind of a child to have met his equal in her...
And because we live in the now our standards in fact say he was indeed a pedophile...
And or was a mental midget who found his equal in a 9 year old girl and that his manhood must have also have been that of a mere boy...

a reply to: MysterX

The conclusion is basically, it's not really anyone's business how middle eastern people treat their own people but their own...if the people don't like it, they can rise up and kill their oppressors and change their own systems...it's not any of our business.

It is my business when the people keep migrating to my country with their backward ideas and Saudi Arabia builds Mosques to spread Wahabism. Either we are allowed to fully intervene or we are not allowed to intervene at all.

If not then shut the borders and let them evolve at their own pace without any science/technology/resources from the rest of the world.

This is not just western culture vs political Islam. Even the Buddhist and Chinese are getting pissed off and cracking down on Islam.

Would there be a cultural divide between Islam and the rest if all Muslim was Sufi? I think it would have been very small. All support to those who wish to reform Islam like Maajid Nawaz.

a reply to: Thetan

I make a distinction between "moral" and "ethical."

Good for you.
Some people think it is unethical to eat meat. Does that mean it is?

A thousand years ago it was considered fine to rape the women of a conquered city

Not by the women it wasn't.

Your innate decency would not permit you to believe that torturing babies was ethical at any time period.

Right. Where did torturing babies come from? What are you talking about?

a reply to: Sublimecraft

We're taliking about this topic - "Muhamed was a child molester" - and not this - "what abuse can and has ensued - and that's a mainly Hindu nation".

So what do you have to say about the prophet in this instance to stay on topic.

Kind regards,

Bally.

a reply to: zazzafrazz

Wow,

I see you've backed up your statement there.

Kind regards,

Bally

a reply to: Phage

Dog must be delicious...
Because I had a guy from Thailand working for me his name was Jai anyway everyday at lunchtime he would ask me... "You ever eat black dog?"
Sometimes he would ask if I ever ate monkey brains or snake... But most often it was all about black dog...

a reply to: Phage
I'm talking about Ethics, phage. You said ethics is a societal construct and that's nonsense. Torturing babies is unethical, regardless of anyone's considerations on the matter. Your personal innate decency would compel you to find torturing babies unethical no matter what time and place you lived.

originally posted by: Thetan
Moral relativism is false.

Are you able to back up that statement using sound reasoning? Do you believe in moral absolutism by any chance?

It's very easy to judge the actions of past historical figures through a modern mindset that is not conditioned by the same culture, social norms and views on morality as the subject was at the time. But by doing so, you are ignoring the context of the behaviour. Ignoring context is one of the most counter-productive decisions you can make when attempting to deny ignorance.

a reply to: ntech

You have a point that Mohammad lived from 570 when it was the custom to take or buy very young girls- but that doesn't mean it was a good custom.

Today Muslims live in 2016 and are happy to embrace this era's customs which differ considerably from Mohammads' where it suits them. They have embraced technology, medical care etc so if you change for the better a lot of things then child marriage should be on the top of the list. They can't say its ok b because the case below shows everyone its not.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

The attitude that just because Mohammad did this so its all ok for us to keep doing it is what needs to be addressed. The trouble is that this position isn't appeasable between Muslims who want to practise this and things such as female circumcision etc with Westerners. There is no middle ground on it. Neither is there middle ground when we are expected to take a lot of children some, pregnant girls - to be followed by husbands who sent them on ahead in order tho gate crash the West.

Westerners have the right to their opinions on this practise whether it offends Muslim sensibilities or not. However openness about sexual practices and especially people who claim to be very religious and use these sensitivities as blackmail needs to be addressed now.

Our Human Rights legislation needs to take into account these different cultural problems and be tailored to Western values and not compromise them. With the next inflow the problem is only going to get worse and needs dealing with now.