Muhammad: Legacy of a Prophet

reply to post by ManOfGod267

Even Atheism is not perfect

Atheism is not a religion so you cannot compare it on that basis. It is perfect in that there is no belief in anything and therefore nothing to be compared to.

I am personally not convinced by the OPs view of Islam through rose-tinted glasses, but I do appreciate the word that has been put in, and applaud the OP for that. (ETA: Sorry - should have said you there rather than the 3rd party)

I am also personally not convinced by the rose-tinted view of Christianity. Both Islam and Christianity have been responsible for many atrocities, many against each other, and both 'books' are in my opinion the work of man and not of God.

I have no time for any religion that takes another's life in the name of their God, whatever the reason.

IF I was to adhere to any religion I think I would be more swayed by Buddhism.

reply to post by PuterMan


Well, thanks. When I mentioned Atheism I mean the people who feel or seem to me make Atheism a religion or something more then it should be. Message me on my PM if you like to discuss it more.

Islam is the easiest religion to dismiss

The claim is that an angel was passing information on to mo from the creator of the universe

Information such as

67:5 And we have, (from of old), adorned the lowest heaven with Lamps, and We have made such (Lamps) (as) missiles to drive away the Evil Ones, and have prepared for them the Penalty of the Blazing Fire.

Stars for lamps – wrong

Sura 18:83-86 And he followed a road Till, when he reached the setting-place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring, and found a people thereabout. We said: O Dhu'l-Qarneyn! Either punish or show them kindness.

Sun sets in a muddy pool – wrong

There are many more of these kinds of errors – these are not the kind of errors a creator of a universe would make – but they are the kinds of errors a man 1700 years ago would make – since they are based on the science as it was understood back then

Mo was a charlatan who created a cult to get himself power and women

reply to post by Nosred

Edit: More than 3/4 of all women at that time were married before they were 19.

That is not 6 or 9. 12 was a common age to get married, but 19? There are a huge number of people married by that age even now so that is no criterion at all.

Originally posted by Nosred

Originally posted by Q:1984A:1776
reply to post by ManOfGod267

 

Let me repost what I said earlier, as a mod thought that it was inappropriate for me to show my distaste for the promotion of a religion founded by a pedophile. I feel that it is important that this point be made, so people don't get the wrong idea and think that the man the OP is talking about is anything but a child molester. This time I will leave out anything that can be taken as a personal attack.

"
You forgot to add how the man was a pedophile who married a girl when she was 6 and had sex with her when she was 9. Anyone who can follow the teachings of a man who was so obviously sick in the head, deserves nothing but contempt from any decent person. How, as a nonbeliever, can you show such respect to a religion that has plagued the earth with violence and the subjugation of women since its inception? You don't even have the excuse of being blinded by faith that was forced on you from an early age, using fear and coercion...

You realize that everyone did that back then right? The life expectancy for a woman was like, 20-30 years which is why so got married early. It wasn't considered pedophilia then, it was considered marrying a woman before she got killed so you could continue the species.

edit on 22-8-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)

Would I get another post removed for being "ill mannered" if I were to call this guy a few names that he just might deserve for making excuses for old men screwing 9 year olds?
9 year olds are not ready for sex! They never were! In ANY time period! Especially since they didn't have bovine growth hormones in their food to make them develop at 9. How can you say such a thing?

Edit to add: It is really hard for me to not attack you personally, instead I will try to enlighten you as far as "average life expectancy" goes. The key word here is average. People lived just as long back then as they do now. The reason why the AVERAGE was around 40 is because CHILD MOLESTERS screwed little girls, got them pregnant, and they died giving birth. Therefore, two people died at a very early age, due to their sick sexual practices, and lack of medical knowledge when it came to child-bearing. This, when observed statistically, makes the AVERAGE life-span decrease. Your argument has been destroyed.
I hope this makes you condone rape of children a little bit less now. Care to apologize?

Originally posted by Q:1984A:1776
Would I get another post removed for being "ill mannered" if I were to call this guy a few names that he just might deserve for making excuses for old men screwing 9 year olds?
9 year olds are not ready for sex! They never were! In ANY time period! Especially since they didn't have bovine growth hormones in their food to make them develop at 9. How can you say such a thing?

Any girl who has gone through puberty is considered "ready for sex" by nature. "Age of consent" restrictions are a rather recent invention, people were marrying children that young until as late as the 19th century - even in industrialized nations like America. It's a bit foolish to criticize someone for not having the foresight to see that a common practice in their day will be looked down upon by society 1000 years in the future, especially when there are so many better things you can criticize the man for.

Your point sounds about as stupid as someone in 3000 A.D. going "How dare those sick perverts wear cotton on Wednesdays? Those uncivilized cotton wearing bastards!"

Edit to add: It is really hard for me to not attack you personally, instead I will try to enlighten you as far as "average life expectancy" goes. The key word here is average. People lived just as long back then as they do now. The reason why the AVERAGE was around 40 is because CHILD MOLESTERS screwed little girls, got them pregnant, and they died giving birth.

40? 40 years old in the Middle East at that time was roughly the equivalent of living to 120 now. Up until the Islamic renaissance medical practices and sanitation in the area were about as effective as you'd expect them to be in the ancient desert. If you caught the flu, there was a pretty good chance you weren't going to survive much longer. Not to mention the constant tribal warfare in the area which killed a good many young people. If you lived to even 30 back then, you were one lucky person.

Therefore, two people died at a very early age, due to their sick sexual practices, and lack of medical knowledge when it came to child-bearing. This, when observed statistically, makes the AVERAGE life-span decrease. Your argument has been destroyed.
I hope this makes you condone rape of children a little bit less now. Care to apologize?

And if they hadn't had children at that age there was a good chance they'd die before ever being able to reproduce. Keep in mind that this was the desert. You also need two children to replace the father and mother, so it was important to start having children as early as biologically possible. Making sure the species survives is kind of important.

Also, chances are if you're of European descent (which I'm guessing you are) then it's likely that your ancestors engaged in these "sick sexual practices" and were "pedophiles", everyone in Europe at that time did. Hypocritical much?