Page 2 of 2

Re: "dancing" boys...

PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2018 3:16 pm
by Nosuperstition
manfred wrote:We do have enough food to feed everybody. We also have political institutions like the EU that choose to horde food in silos to keep the prices high.


viewtopic.php?f=22&t=18173&p=237612&hilit=horde#p237612

Fernando wrote:Thus the "green revolution" brought about by chemical fertilisers caused a massive increase in the world populaton: this outgrew even the new abundance and children began to starve. More children than were then starving than before the green revolution


viewtopic.php?f=22&t=18173&p=237748#p237748

The above two statements seem to be inconsistent with one another.

Re: "dancing" boys...

PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2018 4:59 pm
by Fernando
I think perhaps the surplus of food is in the developed nations, the famines elsewhere. I must admit that it's difficult to assess the causes of famine in general - some of it is man-made by war, not overpopulation.
Incidentally, the EU agricultural policy was supposed to ensure food security as well as enrich farmers but despite the wine lakes and butter mountains of yore, there's recently been a butter shortage. Maybe the Eurocrats ate it all - will Junker soon prove to have emptied the wine lakes too?

Re: "dancing" boys...

PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2018 6:37 pm
by manfred
Some part of the world, such as Europe, have a HUGE surplice of food stuffs. In other parts of the word, people starve. So it is not that we are overall short of food, it is that politicians prefer to create shortages by stock piling things , to keep prices high.

Some, it seems, rather see people die than have their politics undermined.

But this is unrelated to this particular topic.

Re: "dancing" boys...

PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2018 6:08 am
by Nosuperstition
manfred wrote:And given that Mohammed himself abused children, at least one girl and two boys, according to Islamic sources, does it surprise you that child abuse is institutionalised in Muslim societies?


manfred wrote:Also, notice how Mohammed mentions two MEN.... not a man and boy, for example... Sucking a boy's penis is just fine, for example, as Mohammed did just that, to two different boys.


Are these Islamic sources the Quran or the Hadith?If from the Hadith are they from those hadiths that are considered authentic?Or are they from the hadiths considered corrupted?

Re: "dancing" boys...

PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2018 11:04 am
by manfred
There are hadith, obviously. As to Muslims dismissing them, of course they do, they always dismiss anything damaging to Mohammed.

But instead of listening to that kind of argument you should apply the same standards you would apply to every other historical source.

Who wrote that? A MUSLIM. Someone who followed Mohammed and elevated him to a semi-devine status. Someone who believed that saying anything about him that was untrue deserved death as punishment. Someone who knew if his fellow Muslims took offence to his comment he would die a horrible death. So it is obvious that the author certainly believed he was correct in his description. He staked his life on it. Given that he was not executed at the time, suggests that his comments were generally accepted. In fact hadith are full of descriptions of Mohammed's sexual depravity, so much so that it makes people shuddder to read it.

It is only MODERN Muslims, being embarrassed by Mohammed's behaviour, who are trying to cover things up and trying to blacken the names of Mohammed's companions or their sons, to save the non-existent reputation of an utterly depraved cult-leader.

Re: "dancing" boys...

PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 2:19 pm
by Nosuperstition
Someone who believed that saying anything about him that was untrue deserved death as punishment. Someone who knew if his fellow Muslims took offence to his comment he would die a horrible death. So it is obvious that the author certainly believed he was correct in his description. He staked his life on it. Given that he was not executed at the time, suggests that his comments were generally accepted


It is said that the Islamic world was fairly accepting of free speech etc until they decided to consciously do away with it with conservatism after the invasion of the Mongols.So might be those who wrote such things lived in an era when punishments were not so severe.And therefore could take the liberty to justify the depravities of their rulers by assigning such things even unto Muhammad,thus justifying things by means of ipso moto.

Re: "dancing" boys...

PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 9:01 pm
by manfred
"It is said"???
Well, Mohammed himself had also something to say on this subject:

This is the hadith of Buraydah, a story from Mohammed's days in Medina:

A clan of Banu Layth in Madeenah was of two minds. A man had proposed marriage to one of their womenfolk during the Jaahiliyyah but they did not accept his proposal. He came to them wearing a hullah (a suit of clothing) and said: “The Messenger of Allaah gave me this hullah to wear and told me to rule over your wealth and your blood.” Then he went and stayed with that woman whom he loved. The people sent word to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and he said: “The enemy of Allaah is lying.” Then he sent a man and said: “If you find him alive – although I do not think that you will find him alive – then strike his neck (kill him). And if you find him dead then burn him with fire.”


So some man wanted to marry a woman, but her kinsfolk said no. He then went back to then saying that Mohammed had given him power of them, effectively appointing him as their ruler. He had put on some kind of clothing to make it look more authentic. Then he simply went and had sex with the girl he had chosen. But the tribe was suspicious, and they sent some people over to Mohammed to check the truth of the story. It turned out he had lied, and Mohammed explicitly ordered him to be killed.

Mohammed did not under any circumstances tolerate anything that undermined him.

This hadith has been since early days the basis upon which those who "insult the prophet" are killed. Mohammed specified even the manner of execution, something still followed to this day in some Muslim countries.

So somehow the idea that ON THIS ISSUE Muslims were ever in any way tolerant is a myth. They cannot be nor ever could be, because Mohammed's example and words expressly forbid that.

Re: "dancing" boys...

PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 11:33 am
by sum
Qur'an (33:57) - "Lo! those who malign Allah and His messenger, Allah hath cursed them in this world and the Hereafter, and hath prepared for them the doom of the disdained"

Qur'an (33:61) - [continues from above] "Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter."

sum

Re: "dancing" boys...

PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2018 8:16 am
by Nosuperstition
manfred wrote:"It is said"???


I have only quoted from what I remember a forum member THHuxley say with regards to how Islam had shut down free-thinking after 12th century or so and while the Western world picked it up and progressed and prospered a lot.

one cannot help feel amazed at the fact that the Islamic thinkers of the 10th century had the freedom to discuss and publish their "unorthodox" ideas, while the Islamic world now cannot, or will not, deal with any form of intellectual dissent.


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2010/may/10/islam-freedom-expression

On the eve of the Mongol invasion, the spiritual state of the Muslim world was pathetic. Corruption, disunity, and materialism were rampant
.

http://www.islamicity.org/3184/when-the-light-of-islam-almost-vanished/

That can only be possible when free thinking is allowed prior to Mongol invasions.

Initially the godless Umayyads, allowed Hindus dhimmi status – possibly because of their large numbers, resistance to Islam and their value as a source of tax income. This violates Islamic text and law which demands death or conversion for idolaters and polytheists.


http://islammonitor.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3312:islams-indian-slave-trade-part-i-in-islams-genocidal-slavery-&catid=170&Itemid=67

For people to be godless they must have an exposure to atheism and free-thinking.It is not possible by any other means unless one is highly intellectual.

Re: "dancing" boys...

PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2018 3:43 pm
by manfred
There is a case that for just a short time in Islamic history the seeking of knowledge and the discussion of ideas first voiced outside Islam was tolerated, to a fair degree. This, however, was soon discouraged, later even outlawed, because it could threating many assumptions Muslims have about the world they live in. However, even then, there were some "red lines" nobody, not even then, would dare to cross. One such line is to "disrespect" Mohammed by "insulting the prophet" or by making up lies about him, or even by associating him with anything "unclean". This was never acceptable at any time in Islamic history.

The hadith I quoted for you pre-dates this period and it help to form a fundamental tenet in Islamic law... Mohammed is not to be criticised in any way, and making about stories about him are a capital offences, and that has been the case even in the most tolerant periods.

There is a very good book on the period you mention by Robert R. Reilly, called "The Closing of the Muslim Mind"
you can download it here:
https://archive.org/details/TheClosingOfTheMuslimMind

Suggesting that Muslims could produce fables about Mohammed without facing serious consequences is somehow "proven" by the fact that for a few decades Muslim were allowed to read Aristotle and such really is a very poor argument. One is absolutely not the same as the other.

About hadith in general, the rule should be much the same as it is for any other historical source... First establish when it was written and by whom. Then find out why. Some hadith will simply be "edifying" stories, which may have a kernel of truth or be even completely accurate, and others entirely "made up". However, when someone records something about Mohammed that is controversial, at severe risk to his very life, you should not be as quick to dismiss it as Muslims do, who simply sweep all inconvenient bits under the carpet and in effect ceeate their own idealised Mohammed with little semblance to the real man. Why would a believing Muslim write things about Mohammed that are not complementary, risking his life in doing so? The only rational explanation I can think of is he was an honest man who wanted nothing to be hidden. Can you explain it any other way?