Page 6 of 10

Re: Hindu leaders for 'fatwa' against 'jihad' in India

PostPosted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 6:29 am
by fudgy
there is nothing to be amazed about son. Although, if you had received your candies then I would have been surprised. Times up. No candies fo you mister.

Re: Hindu leaders for 'fatwa' against 'jihad' in India

PostPosted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 7:23 am
by fudgy
Anyway. In general, the "age of marriage" is not a constant variable to be defined. The Quran never gave a definite age to get married, which makes sense. While back I've read in a feminist book that the lowest age of marriage in the US for example was 10, and over time it has gradually changed to 18 ,or maybe 16 in some states with parent permission. Suppose the Quran defined the "age of marriage" to be 17, which would be more than acceptable by today's standard. However, how would it fare in say some *infinitely* years from now when the age of marriage might be lifted to 30 due to many factors? The Quran is quite aware of the fact that some confused conman/women might try to make a case out of this. Instead, what it does is it gives us a little insight as to when we should get married i.e. when we have a "sound judgment" and are matured enough to handle the responsibilities that comes with marriage. This basically means that even if you are 30, but have retarded mind then you should not get married. This is precisely why Quran is such an awesome book!

Re: Hindu leaders for 'fatwa' against 'jihad' in India

PostPosted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 7:41 am
by Maersk
Fudgy, is your six years old available to be martyr for the Islamic cause - to prove how mature Islam is. M&M, Snickers, Mars? should win over the maturity of a six years old Muslim girl . :worthy:

Re: Hindu leaders for 'fatwa' against 'jihad' in India

PostPosted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 7:59 am
by Pragmatist
Maersk wrote:Fudgy, is your six years old available to be martyr for the Islamic cause - to prove how mature Islam is. M&M, Snickers, Mars? should win over the maturity of a six years old Muslim girl . :worthy:


I think his obsession with sweeties comes about because 'Fudgy" obviously uses these to entice 'young children' in to his clutches. Just like his 20% profit used allah and Islam to get his perverted way with aisha.

Re: Hindu leaders for 'fatwa' against 'jihad' in India

PostPosted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 12:50 pm
by Aksel Ankersen
charleslemartel wrote:Balls_of_whatever,

You are simply spamming and trolling. You are rehashing the arguments of your opponents childishly and it is really making you look more stupid than you really are. Here are some examples from your previous post:

Bot wrote:
Richard_The_Lionheart wrote: No it's not.
YES it is.

Bot seems able to think and speak in one liners, so dissasembles his opponents post to adress it line by line. He persistently fails to grasp the point of anyone's post when taken as a whole. Add to that he doesn't understand the topic of any thread or why "Tu Quoque" and "Ad Hominen" don't constitute valid arguments to discuss issues on the global stage.

In fairness I don't think he does it on purpose.

Re: Hindu leaders for 'fatwa' against 'jihad' in India

PostPosted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 12:56 pm
by Aksel Ankersen
fudgy wrote:Anyway. In general, the "age of marriage" is not a constant variable to be defined. The Quran never gave a definite age to get married, which makes sense. While back I've read in a feminist book that the lowest age of marriage in the US for example was 10, and over time it has gradually changed to 18 ,or maybe 16 in some states with parent permission. Suppose the Quran defined the "age of marriage" to be 17, which would be more than acceptable by today's standard. However, how would it fare in say some *infinitely* years from now when the age of marriage might be lifted to 30 due to many factors? The Quran is quite aware of the fact that some confused conman/women might try to make a case out of this. Instead, what it does is it gives us a little insight as to when we should get married i.e. when we have a "sound judgment" and are matured enough to handle the responsibilities that comes with marriage. This basically means that even if you are 30, but have retarded mind then you should not get married. This is precisely why Quran is such an awesome book!

However, in Sura at-Talaq, verse 4 the Koran gave implicit permission for Muslim men to marry pre-pubescent girls. Pre-pubescent girls should always be considered immature, and a sexual relationship with them is unnaceptable under any circumstances past or present.

Discuss in this thread (and in a few places on the old forum).

Re: Hindu leaders for 'fatwa' against 'jihad' in India

PostPosted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 1:07 pm
by skynightblaze
Aksel Ankersen wrote:

Bot seems able to think and speak in one liners, so dissasembles his opponents post to adress it line by line. He persistently fails to grasp the point of anyone's post when taken as a whole. Add to that he doesn't understand the topic of any thread or why "Tu Quoque" and "Ad Hominen" don't constitute valid arguments to discuss issues on the global stage.

In fairness I don't think he does it on purpose.



You must break the opponents post but they should have logical breaks but again to understand how the response of your opponent can be broken you need to understand the argument of the opponent. He either doesnt understand or he deliberately does that so one reading his response would think the kafir opponent made meaningless statements. I saw the same thing when he debated Khalil.

Re: Hindu leaders for 'fatwa' against 'jihad' in India

PostPosted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 2:22 pm
by KhaliL
fudgy wrote:Anyway. In general, the "age of marriage" is not a constant variable to be defined.


It should be defined and there should definitely be an age limit to avoid consequences. Early marriage and pregnancy is detrimental to the victim’s physical and psychological wellbeing.

fudgy wrote:The Quran never gave a definite age to get married, which makes sense.


Of course, Quran could not have since it was Muhammad’s own making. How can he stipulate an age limit when he married a six year old girl and entered upon her while the girl was only 9?
But Quran stipulated “Waiting period” for divorced prepubescent girls. This makes no sense to me but makes me puke given that the text is considered holy and infinitely relevant.

fudgy wrote:While back I've read in a feminist book that the lowest age of marriage in the US for example was 10, and over time it has gradually changed to 18 ,or maybe 16 in some states with parent permission.


Slavery was official in U.S once in the past. So..? Or did Americans or any sane person over this planet say U.S system is infallible and does not need revision?

No system is infallible. Civilized world has recognized this. That is why we accepted democracy as a governing system.
In a democracy, you can choose representatives and they can revise the existing laws and if necessary make new rules too. Even the concept of democracy can be revised.
Is that possible in your Islam which is stuck in seventh century norms? Is there any law that stipulated by Quran can be revised, changed?

fudgy wrote:Suppose the Quran defined the "age of marriage" to be 17, which would be more than acceptable by today's standard. However, how would it fare in say some *infinitely* years from now when the age of marriage might be lifted to 30 due to many factors?


That is what makes infinite relevance a joke. BTW, what made your god allowing prepubescent marriage and sex? You mean one day we will all come into terms with paedophilia?

fudgy wrote: The Quran is quite aware of the fact that some confused conman/women might try to make a case out of this.


How exactly? Well learned scholars of Islam made case out of your Quran and concluded marrying prepubescent girls and having sex with them is sanctioned by the so-called holy text. There is no room for confusion left in that case.

fudgy wrote: Instead, what it does is it gives us a little insight as to when we should get married i.e. when we have a "sound judgment" and are matured enough to handle the responsibilities that comes with marriage.


Where did you find this in Quran? Just quote the verse.

fudgy wrote:This basically means that even if you are 30, but have retarded mind then you should not get married.


You mean Aisha should not had got married ever because she was always in a disturbed state of mind. But Muhammad married her at the age of SIX..! So, basically Muhammad went against Quran..?

fudgy wrote: This is precisely why Quran is such an awesome book!

I will correct you for free. This is precisely why Quran is such an awful book..!

Regds
KF

Re: Hindu leaders for 'fatwa' against 'jihad' in India

PostPosted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 2:54 pm
by charleslemartel
Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:
charleslemartel wrote:
Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:
Which makes 7/7 a revenge.


So take revenge, and don't cry when you get the whip.


Ok.


Glad that you accepted my advice. If you are prepared for striking out, be prepared of being struck back without complaints.

Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:
charleslemartel wrote:
What Muslim brothers? Those who are killing each other on a daily basis by exploding bombs in each others' mosques?


No. Those who watched in their homes on their TV sets hell brought upon Iraqis - yes, you may remmeber it by the name "shock and awe"!


I remember the scenes of Iraqis dancing with joy at the fall of Saddam. I remember the dismantling of his statue by the Iraqis with the help of ropes.

Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:
charleslemartel wrote:
That is rich coming from a Muslim apologist. Have you read any history of Muhammad and the Caliphs? You are reaping what your uswa hasana has sown.


And 9/11 was your reap. MUCH MORE reap is pending.


One 9/11 was enough to get America in to two Muslim countries and dethrone the tyrants. How many Islamic countries are there in the world you said?

Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:
charleslemartel wrote:
Read the bloody Muslim history of conquests.


Read the bloody European history of conquest. Oh, closer to your home - read the bloody history conquest of Americas by Europeans.


The conquests by Europeans do not justify Muslim conquests in any way. Muslim history of conquests is much older than that of Europe; you started it, remember?

Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:
charleslemartel wrote:Also read your hate manual called Quran which teaches nothing but hatred and violence against other humans.


Read your hate manuals called your constitutions, which teach nothing but suppression of other nations.


Our constitutions get better and better as they get modified and upgraded if required. Quran, on the other hand, cannot be modified. I remember you asserting that "crap" can never be modified. LOL.

Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:
charleslemartel wrote:Thank your stars that India is ruled by dhimmis. And you have proved that you have zero knowledge of history. It was Muslims who demanded partition and got it. As I said, make Britishers pay as much as you want but don't start crying and whining when Brits kick your butt back.


I am not saying partition was wrong. I am not saying Muslims didn't demand it. I think you misunderstood just like the other poster.

I am saying that Britain authorized unfair partition at the very end. Kashmiri conflict arised due British unfairness. Lord Mount Batten accepted fake accession request from Dogra, the ruler of Kashmir, to India - when even if Dogra's request was geniune should not have been accepted given the overwhelming majority of Kashmiris being Muslims and wanting to ally with Pakistan.

Lord Mount Baten, just like many British men, was corrupt. He had relations with the sister of Nehru. Lord Mount Baten's sister was attracted to Nehru.


Muslims demanded the partition from the British for themselves and got it. You should be thankful to them for giving you separate land. Dishonestly and hypocritically, your people stayed back in India even after they had been given their share of land. You Muslims are true parasites. You have no right to remain in India now as you got your share of land.

Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:
charleslemartel wrote: Just as Muhammad attacked the nations which did not believe in Islam, we have the right to remove any Islamic government we choose.


Just as you have the right to remove any government, Muhammad had the right to attack non-Islamic nations.


That we learned from Muhammad, not the other way round; so don't complain. If we emulate Muhammad fully in dealing with enemies, You surely won't have any problems with that, will you?

Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:
charleslemartel wrote: In doing so, we will be only following the footsteps of your uswa hasana. You have any objections to that?


Muhammad did what you want to do and are doing. What problem you have with him?


The problem is that he taught the wrong things and set criminal examples. Muslims wish to emulate him to the letter and hypocritically whine when they are dished out the same medicine.

Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:
charleslemartel wrote:
The words of an imaginary Allah carry no weight; he contradicted himself many times, spoke of silly beliefs of 7th century which Muslims foolishly try to project as scientific miracles.


Words in Qur'an do not matter? Then why does it matter to you when you say Qur'an advocates hate? Are you not the one who is contradicting himself? You should leave this site as you haven no problem with what is said in the Qur'an, right?


Yes, words in Quran do not matter at all. Who would have bothered what crap it taught if you did not take it seriously and disturbed the peace of the world. As Wafa Sultan famously said, "You can believe in any stone as long as you do not throw that stone on us". Quran and the life of Muhammad is being dissected all over because of what Muslim brutes and terrorists do deriving inspiration from the book. It is your behaviour which is the problem.

We mock Quran and Muhammad in order to make you understand that Islam is nothing but poison which is not letting you live in peace which in turn destroys our peace.

Also, the verse you quoted is abrogated. Bring some verse from Sura 9 one of the final chapters in Quran, which was revealed when Muhammad had gained much power, and we shall see how peaceful your book is.

Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:
charleslemartel wrote:
Just like you did by fanning out of the Arabian desert to loot and murder the world? Remember, it was Muslims who attacked the other countries, and not the other way round.


Remember, the Europeans colonized the world, not the other countries.


Who started the mayhem, Europeans or Muslims? Have you ever read any history? Muslims ultimately failed to colonize and Islamize the world because they couldn't even after massacring billions of people. You know why? Because they relied on Allah's army of angels, whereas the Europeans developed kuffar science.

Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:
charleslemartel wrote:
Muslims too are attacked when they are aggressive and plan terror attacks.


Who was planing terror attacks against Britian which led to Britain attack Iraq?

Well, since America is planing attack on Iran, does Iran has the right to attack America in advance, by your logic?


The Britishers got the word that Saddam was planning terror attacks, so it invaded Iraq. Britain was only following the example of Muhammad who used to conduct pre-emptive attacks on the basis of hearsay. So don't come asking for proof for what I have said about Britain.

Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:
charleslemartel wrote: Planning attacks is a big enough crime which justifies a military attack and killings; remember your uswa hasana.


Remember your countries' attitude.


That attitude only party follows Muhammad. Thank your stars that we still do not like to follow Muhammad totally.

Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:
charleslemartel wrote:Heck, Muslims are always aggressive as they plan to hoist the flag of Islam all over the world; that is an act of aggression and Muslims have no rights to complain.


It is you wish to hoist the flag of non-Islam on Muslim countries. YOu have no right to complain.


You argue childishly by rehashing and repeating others' arguments. And obviously you are wrong. No western country has the aim of converting Muslim countries to Christians defined in their constitution. On the other hand, your Quran and Hadith have enough commandments for Muslims to attempt to do so. So I have evidence, and you are just making baseless assertions. You surely can see that, can't you?

Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:
charleslemartel wrote:
Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:This have everything to do with fact that your society is rampant with paedophilia, while Muslim societies are squeaky clean compared to your filth ridden societies.


So why do Muslims hanker for living in the filth ridden societies? Hypocrisy, thy name is Muslim. :lol:


Yes, they go to live in western societies, to enjoy the riches, to get easy employement, to enjoy easy women - for corrupt Muslims - but they DO NOT INTEGRATE INTO YOUR SOCIETIES. Don't you complain about that repeatedly? They do not want their children to be brought up in your culture. Therefore, they effectively make separate "enclaves" to save their culture.


You mean you Muslims enjoy the filth? Are you pigs or what? Can you see your hypocrisy?

Since you consider western society filth ridden, you should do you best to persuade your fellow brothers to move back to Islamic heavens.

Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:
charleslemartel wrote:
Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:There is a big difference then between the above and between a girl getting deflowered at school, parents shockingly finding that their teenage daughter is pregnant (actually, it's no longer a shock in Britain), thoughts about dumping the child or to briniging it to this world, and the resulting tensions. Heck, we cherish that difference.


It isn't any worse than a nine year old getting deflowered by a 56 year old uswa hasana. It isn't any worse than raping a woman the same night you have killed her husband. It isn't any worse than killing the men, capturing the widows and then raping, enslaving and selling them off. Don't come talking to us about morality. Morality and Muhammad have nothing in common apart from the letter "M".


Now you are getting angry. Truth hurts, right?

All the above doesn't change the situation your poor girls are in.


LOL. No, I am not getting angry. And you did not say if what is happening in the west is any worse than what happens in lands ruled by Islam; it was a poor attempt on your part to avoid responding to my statements.

Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:
charleslemartel wrote:
Here I agree with you. Not only you should do that, but you should persuade every Muslim in the western world to move to the Islamic paradises.


I can do one better. I can tell them that even if they live in western societies, they should at least make every attempt to not let the influence of western culture shape their lives or the lives of their children; to protect Islamic culture and ethos wherever they go. Hey, Muhammad's (p) exmaple shows that migration is a noble deed. It's not that I have a big problem with migration itself (personally I have, but that's not the issue), but the main thing is that even if you migrate to a kufar country, where immorality is rampant, you should not integrate into the society.

Not all things in the west are bad. If they have good finiancial system (which is crumbling any way) then you can avail that. If they have good educational system, you can avail that. You can avail goodness wherever you may find it, but you must refrain from evil even if iti s in your home - you must throw it out.

That's what Islam teaches.


You would be advising them to live in the gutter and to try avoiding the stench. Such attempts are bound to fail; the stench is bound to stick. Follow my advice and advise your brethren to move out of the countries you think are filth ridden.

And you seem to be accepting the corruption of great Islamic morals for a few pieces of silver and the useless modern education. After all, all the knowledge worth knowing is already presented to you by Allah in Quran. The education in the west contradicts Quran; it is amazing that you consider it good, LOL.

Living in the west is bound to corrupt the morality of your women, daughters, sisters and sons, and it is already doing that; there is plenty of evidence in the growing numbers of apostates in the west. You should really think about my suggestion a bit harder and start a movement to bring back your brethren to the lands of sublime morality.

Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:
charleslemartel wrote:]Even if you are able to persuade one or two other Muslims, I would be greatly grateful to you. There will be one more benefit to you; you will find it difficult to get a 53 year old groom for your 6 years old daughter in the filth ridden western societies. That kind of moral living is possible only in Dar Ul Islam.


You know that you are speaking nonsense.


No, I am very serious. At least in this matter, you will find it extremely difficult to emulate your uswa hasana in the west. You do need to move to some Dar Ul Islam.

Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:
charleslemartel wrote: So when are you moving?


I am in Pakistan.


Please stay back and try to stop your brethren from moving to the west too. What are a few pieces of silver compared to the hereafter?

Re: Hindu leaders for 'fatwa' against 'jihad' in India

PostPosted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 5:04 pm
by RichardTheLionheart
skynightblaze wrote:
Aksel Ankersen wrote:

Bot seems able to think and speak in one liners, so dissasembles his opponents post to adress it line by line. He persistently fails to grasp the point of anyone's post when taken as a whole. Add to that he doesn't understand the topic of any thread or why "Tu Quoque" and "Ad Hominen" don't constitute valid arguments to discuss issues on the global stage.

In fairness I don't think he does it on purpose.



You must break the opponents post but they should have logical breaks but again to understand how the response of your opponent can be broken you need to understand the argument of the opponent. He either doesnt understand or he deliberately does that so one reading his response would think the kafir opponent made meaningless statements. I saw the same thing when he debated Khalil.


B_O_T must make a habit of it.
His post are just his warped opinion and not backed up with any data to support his claims, may favourite is this statement:


Yes, getting 1 or 1 and a half year in comfortable prison, and getting out to bang more children.
THIS IS YOUR SOCIETY. Majority of paedophiles are NOT even caught.
What matters is effect, not pretense - legal or otherwise.

Peadophilia is the very core of your society. No British girl is brought up without experiencing this special British treat. YUCK!


He's claming every female in the UK has experienced paedophilic abuse as a child!

When he can back this statement up with evidence we might be able to progress. :whistling:

Re: Hindu leaders for 'fatwa' against 'jihad' in India

PostPosted: Fri Feb 13, 2009 2:03 am
by Ram
fudgy wrote:Suppose the Quran defined the "age of marriage" to be 17, which would be more than acceptable by today's standard. However, how would it fare in say some *infinitely* years from now when the age of marriage might be lifted to 30 due to many factors?

The real issue is that Muhammad was 53 when he married a 6 year old girl, old enough to be her grandfather, that makes him a paedophile. We are talking about an old man marrying a child. The question of age of marriage is irrelevant here. If Muhammad were a child of 6 or 7 years age and he married Ayesha then we could talk about age of marriage. Child marriages were accepted in the olden days, in many cultures, between male and female children - my emphasis is on children.

There are enough Islamic sources which prove that Muhammad was a paedophile. All you have to do is to read them. Having sex with children is called paedophilia, in case Muslims don't know. 53 or 56 year old who has sex with a nine year old child is paedophile. What is this so difficult to understand about this, Muslims?

Re: Hindu leaders for 'fatwa' against 'jihad' in India

PostPosted: Sat Feb 14, 2009 11:12 am
by fudgy
KhaliL FarieL wrote:
fudgy wrote:Anyway. In general, the "age of marriage" is not a constant variable to be defined.


It should be defined and there should definitely be an age limit to avoid consequences. Early marriage and pregnancy is detrimental to the victim’s physical and psychological wellbeing.

fudgy wrote:The Quran never gave a definite age to get married, which makes sense.


Of course, Quran could not have since it was Muhammad’s own making. How can he stipulate an age limit when he married a six year old girl and entered upon her while the girl was only 9?
But Quran stipulated “Waiting period” for divorced prepubescent girls. This makes no sense to me but makes me puke given that the text is considered holy and infinitely relevant.

fudgy wrote:While back I've read in a feminist book that the lowest age of marriage in the US for example was 10, and over time it has gradually changed to 18 ,or maybe 16 in some states with parent permission.


Slavery was official in U.S once in the past. So..? Or did Americans or any sane person over this planet say U.S system is infallible and does not need revision?

No system is infallible. Civilized world has recognized this. That is why we accepted democracy as a governing system.
In a democracy, you can choose representatives and they can revise the existing laws and if necessary make new rules too. Even the concept of democracy can be revised.
Is that possible in your Islam which is stuck in seventh century norms? Is there any law that stipulated by Quran can be revised, changed?

fudgy wrote:Suppose the Quran defined the "age of marriage" to be 17, which would be more than acceptable by today's standard. However, how would it fare in say some *infinitely* years from now when the age of marriage might be lifted to 30 due to many factors?


That is what makes infinite relevance a joke. BTW, what made your god allowing prepubescent marriage and sex? You mean one day we will all come into terms with paedophilia?

fudgy wrote: The Quran is quite aware of the fact that some confused conman/women might try to make a case out of this.


How exactly? Well learned scholars of Islam made case out of your Quran and concluded marrying prepubescent girls and having sex with them is sanctioned by the so-called holy text. There is no room for confusion left in that case.

fudgy wrote: Instead, what it does is it gives us a little insight as to when we should get married i.e. when we have a "sound judgment" and are matured enough to handle the responsibilities that comes with marriage.


Where did you find this in Quran? Just quote the verse.

fudgy wrote:This basically means that even if you are 30, but have retarded mind then you should not get married.


You mean Aisha should not had got married ever because she was always in a disturbed state of mind. But Muhammad married her at the age of SIX..! So, basically Muhammad went against Quran..?

fudgy wrote: This is precisely why Quran is such an awesome book!

I will correct you for free. This is precisely why Quran is such an awful book..!

Regds
KF

It was defined as age of "sound judgment." However, there was no numerical definition, which make sense since "age of marriage" is not a constant to be defined. This is what I was trying to show by stating that it has been under constant change since establishment of USA, and it differs from state to state and countries to countries. I wasn't trying to defend someone marrying 9 year old by stating that US had 10 years as marriageable age. Therefore, stuff such as slavery in US history, burning women to stove for witchcraft, and whatnot are completely irrelevant BS. Again, if Quran gave a numerical definition it would still be under scrutiny from non-Muslims-- if not now then years later, or previous years. So, Quranic definition of marriageable age as "sound judgment" is quite good, and makes perfect sense. Inaccurate, the infinite relevance is quite "relevant." The scholars of Quran can say whatever they want. They can even say that women must wear head covering, or (this is my favorite) beat a irresponsible/ignorant wife with a toothbrush. I mean how exactly do you beat someone with a toothbrush? Criminals deserves to get punished anyway. At any rate, it should not make any difference to Muslims. They are also humans and are prone to error.

Well whenever there is the word "orphan" you would usually find something related to marriage there as well. Here is the verse surah 4:6. "Make trial of orphans until they reach the age of marriage; if then ye find sound judgment in them, release their property to them; but consume it not wastefully, nor in haste against their growing up..." What this simply says is that test the orphans until they have attained the age of marriage. Well, what is the "age of marriage"? It defines next, when they have "sound judgment." If when they have "sound judgment" release their property to them. What does this mean? Very simple, this time they are responsible/grown enough to understand and are able to take care of their property. Bingo! Marriageable age = sound judgment + responsibility. It shot two birds with one stone, truly amazing. This is indeed an excellent definition of marriageable age--not the number 16, 18, 21, or 23. My father was married at age 23, and has been carrying the family ever since. I am 22 and there is no way that I would be able to sustain a family of my own. I am just too damn lazy. While the American law permits me to get married, Islamically I should wait until I am ready. Keeping this on mind moving along.

Somewhere there if you are referring to Quranic verse 65:4 then you are wrong. Within the scope of 65:4 its set is women, and its subset are women who have gotten menstruation but has stopped(please do not ask me for medical terms, it has been long time since I took a bio course), women who have not gotten their menstruation, and women who are pregnant, obviously these women have gotten their menstruation. End of case. Combining 4:6 with 65:4 would make it a nobrainer.

Now, about Muhammad consummation of marriage to Aisha at age 9. First, this type of info is not in the Quran. It is irrelevant. Now, lets take the Hadith for the sake of argument. According to it he married wide range of women of 10, 11, or 12 something like that. If you take the average age of his wives it should come out to something in the mid 30's range, with most occurring frequency of women aged 40 or more. Suppose you have a student who took 10 exams or rather quizzes, which is 100% of course grade. His scores are as following:
student_score = {80 30 85 80 93 90 95 73 80 90}, which amounts to avg of 79.6%. Do you think it would be fair to call him a failure because of a 30? Pedophilia is a sexual behavior in which the preferred object of sexuality are children. Since looking at the distribution of Muhammad's wives and realizing that he did not have preferred object of sexuality for children it should be obvious that he should not be characterized as pedophile.

Sorry for being so long. Typically I like to keep things short, but this one needs some mentioning and its Friday, lol. I would want Muslims and non-Muslims to focus on the second paragraph the most since it is the most essential.

Re: Hindu leaders for 'fatwa' against 'jihad' in India

PostPosted: Sat Feb 14, 2009 11:14 am
by Cassie
Pedophilia is not an exam where you can 'average' out the ages. You eff one little girl and you're a pedophile. It doesn't matter that you eff her great-grand-mother as well. You're still a pedophile.

Re: Hindu leaders for 'fatwa' against 'jihad' in India

PostPosted: Sat Feb 14, 2009 11:26 am
by Pragmatist
Cassie wrote:Pedophilia is not an exam where you can 'average' out the ages. You eff one little girl and you're a pedophile. It doesn't matter that you eff her great-grand-mother as well. You're still a pedophile.



Thats a great answer from 'fudgy' I really needed a laugh. I suppose that he is called 'fudgy' because he tries to 'fudge' things and make silly excuses. So if any guy is arrested for screwing a minor all he has to do is make a list of all the other women he has screwed then average their ages and if its above the 'age of consent' he is not guilty. Wow just when you think Mohammedans have reached the bottom of the stupidity barrel trying to defend the paedophile 20% profit along comes another even MORE ridiculous excuse. :prop: :prop: :prop:

Re: Hindu leaders for 'fatwa' against 'jihad' in India

PostPosted: Sat Feb 14, 2009 7:47 pm
by fudgy
Cassie wrote:Pedophilia is not an exam where you can 'average' out the ages. You eff one little girl and you're a pedophile. It doesn't matter that you eff her great-grand-mother as well. You're still a pedophile.

Do you take a moment to think about something or just blurt out whatever comes to your mind? Pedophilia is a medical term and it is simply a sexual preference for children. I wasn't interested about average age of his wives, but was more interested to see if he had sexual preference for children. Looking at the distribution of his wives list it would suggest that his preference was not children. Even if he had averaged like 50, he would have been a pedophile if there were more frequencies of children. But this is not the case his preference was toward women aged 40 or more and not children. End of story.

Re: Hindu leaders for 'fatwa' against 'jihad' in India

PostPosted: Sat Feb 14, 2009 8:30 pm
by Maersk
How could it be end of story ... it is sharia and not all the countries have implemented such ruling yet. Muslims still have some ways to go.

Certainly, age is not consideration but puberty as the benchmark is used in Islam. Don't you agree with this interpretation? - you have to if you want to remain a Muslim.

And as for your assertion Modk managed to Fcuk only one young girl that he lusted and Allah relented hence no proof of Pedophilia, I ask, you now.

Is your young daughter available just for one night. JUST ONCE.. And the next different person that comes along will ask the same of you. JUST ONCE.

It must goes down for mankind that, having to sleep with a six years old Muslim girl is something one has to try just once. Should they bring M&M, Snickers or Mars Bars?? She may choose. :worthy:

Re: Hindu leaders for 'fatwa' against 'jihad' in India

PostPosted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 1:27 am
by KhaliL
___________________

Hello dear Fudgy,

How do you like this post to be addressed? In full or in parts? :lol:

What is this my dear? Does it take to write up a story to answer my post?

fudgy wrote:It was defined as age of "sound judgment." However, there was no numerical definition, which make sense since "age of marriage" is not a constant to be defined. .


"It" means the eligibility of marriage?
If it is so, that is not defined as the age of “sound judgment” in Surah Nisa verse: 6.
There isn’t either a numerical or any definition otherwise.

fudgy wrote: This is what I was trying to show by stating that it has been under constant change since establishment of USA, and it differs from state to state and countries to countries.


Okay, if it is what you meant. But the age of marriage differing from state to state in America does not make prepubescent marriage endorsed. Let the states vary, let the world vary, I think we must have our own judgment in this matter.

fudgy wrote: I wasn't trying to defend someone marrying 9 year old by stating that US had 10 years as marriageable age. Therefore, stuff such as slavery in US history, burning women to stove for witchcraft, and whatnot are completely irrelevant BS.


Then you should have made it clearer in your post. What is it now you lose your temper for?

fudgy wrote: Again, if Quran gave a numerical definition it would still be under scrutiny from non-Muslims-- if not now then years later, or previous years. So, Quranic definition of marriageable age as "sound judgment" is quite good, and makes perfect sense. Inaccurate, the infinite relevance is quite "relevant."


Only if that “sound judgment” is put as a stipulation for engaging in marriage. That is not the case in verse 4:6. But even this "sound judgment" is not making much of sense because it only refers to psychological growth not physical growth. What if a sound person has not yet menstruated or not yet had an emission?

fudgy wrote: The scholars of Quran can say whatever they want.


Just like you can say whatever you want on Quran…, isn’t it dear fudgy? BTW, I do not usually quote modern day scholars but I am with most authentic scholars of Islam as your prophet himself said they are the best after him and his followers.

fudgy wrote: They can even say that women must wear head covering, or (this is my favorite) beat a irresponsible/ignorant wife with a toothbrush. I mean how exactly do you beat someone with a toothbrush? Criminals deserves to get punished anyway. At any rate, it should not make any difference to Muslims. They are also humans and are prone to error.


Arguing in this line will not help you since I can argue Muhammad too was a human and he was prone to error (He often went terribly off-track too as Quran and Sahih sources testify). You have this Quran through Muhammad who should be considered as a fallible human being. How much this line helps your position?

fudgy wrote: Well whenever there is the word "orphan" you would usually find something related to marriage there as well. Here is the verse surah 4:6. "Make trial of orphans until they reach the age of marriage; if then ye find sound judgment in them, release their property to them; but consume it not wastefully, nor in haste against their growing up..." What this simply says is that test the orphans until they have attained the age of marriage. Well, what is the "age of marriage"? It defines next, when they have "sound judgment." If when they have "sound judgment" release their property to them. What does this mean? Very simple, this time they are responsible/grown enough to understand and are able to take care of their property. Bingo!


Bingo… what an acrobatic.

There are many problems for your analysis dear Fudgy.

First of all Surah 4:6 is not meant to dictate age limit for marriage. It just talks about orphans and when the custodian’s wealth should be released to them, if you read the verse in context that would be clear:

Give not unto the foolish (what is in) your (keeping of their) wealth, which Allah hath given you to maintain; but feed and clothe them from it, and speak kindly unto them.[Quran 4:5]

Then it goes on when to when to release property to orphans under one’s care. “Balagha Al-Nikah” reaching the stage of Nikah PLUS having a sound mind is required for orphans to get their wealth released. Or it is when the guardian has to release their property, but remember two prerequisites are mentioned separately in Quran. First it talks of reaching the stage of marriage, (not mentioning any age), then another requirement is “having a sound mentality”. If an orphan has acquired this both, then his/her property can be given to him/her.

What makes Quran mention reaching the stage of Nikah and then again say “If you find them in sound judgment”? That means reaching the stage of marriage does not mean reaching the stage of having “sound judgment”. Is it clear for you now?

One more thing: “Reaching the stage of marriage” stated as in the verses is just an idiomatic expression. It does not necessarily mean there is an age to have marriage because the verse does not speak about marriage at all. It is of how and when an orphan is entitled his share of wealth. Not his/her spouse.

Alternatively, we have evidences from the same Quran (65:4) there is Iddah (waiting period stipulated for divorced women) stipulated for immature girls too who has not menstruated.
Read your book in context dear friend.

fudgy wrote: Marriageable age = sound judgment + responsibility. It shot two birds with one stone, truly amazing.


Nothing amazing at all because “sound in judgment” is not considered as “marriageable age” in the verses you brought. Besides, it has its flaws too as I pointed out above.

fudgy wrote: This is indeed an excellent definition of marriageable age--not the number 16, 18, 21, or 23. My father was married at age 23, and has been carrying the family ever since. I am 22 and there is no way that I would be able to sustain a family of my own. I am just too damn lazy. While the American law permits me to get married, Islamically I should wait until I am ready. Keeping this on mind moving along.


You are indeed a funny person. I like your sense of humor but unfortunately, that does not contribute to an argument in your case. Reason is: your first premise is faulty, and you are deducing all from a faulty premise. It does not work that way my friend.

fudgy wrote: Somewhere there if you are referring to Quranic verse 65:4 then you are wrong. Within the scope of 65:4 its set is women, and its subset are women who have gotten menstruation but has stopped(please do not ask me for medical terms, it has been long time since I took a bio course), women who have not gotten their menstruation, and women who are pregnant, obviously these women have gotten their menstruation. End of case. Combining 4:6 with 65:4 would make it a nobrainer.


Great show but nothing noteworthy after all..,

Quran verse 65:4 is carefully analyzed in this forum many times and conclusion has always been “those females who never had menstruation” too are bound with Iddah (waiting period for divorced women). You should not go back to any medical term, do not burn your fuel for nothing because the obvious and interpreted meaning of the phrase in the verse is “those who are not menstruated”. You can not have this group as “menstruated once in lifetime and stopped”. Sorry, the phrase “Wallaee Lam Yahidhna” as found is not having such a connotation at all. It strictly means “those who did not menstruate”. End of story..?

fudgy wrote: Now, about Muhammad consummation of marriage to Aisha at age 9. First, this type of info is not in the Quran. It is irrelevant.


Quran alone does not give you the name of Muhammad’s father or mother. At the same time, it tells you Muhammad is not the father of any believer. There are many things missing in Quran so trash not what you do not find in your Quran. It is too ambiguous a text as the author himself confirms.

fudgy wrote: Now, lets take the Hadith for the sake of argument. According to it he married wide range of women of 10, 11, or 12 something like that. If you take the average age of his wives it should come out to something in the mid 30's range, with most occurring frequency of women aged 40 or more. Suppose you have a student who took 10 exams or rather quizzes, which is 100% of course grade. His scores are as following:
student_score = {80 30 85 80 93 90 95 73 80 90}, which amounts to avg of 79.6%. Do you think it would be fair to call him a failure because of a 30?


I am very bad in Maths, can you speak in other terms please?

fudgy wrote: Pedophilia is a sexual behavior in which the preferred object of sexuality are children. Since looking at the distribution of Muhammad's wives and realizing that he did not have preferred object of sexuality for children it should be obvious that he should not be characterized as pedophile.


And Unfortunate for you; Muhammad had this problem. Well, we in this forum have discussed and discussed and discussed this matter many times with many and I am not going to repeat the same over and over and over again. Instead, I would give you a link to a thread in our old forum where you can see this matter discussed in details. All it takes is just to click the link below:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=53380

fudgy wrote:Sorry for being so long. Typically I like to keep things short,


Lengthy posts guarantee lengthy responses too. There is this problem for you to face if you make posts tedious.

Regards
KF

Re: Hindu leaders for 'fatwa' against 'jihad' in India

PostPosted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 4:06 am
by Aksel Ankersen
fudgy wrote:
Cassie wrote:Pedophilia is not an exam where you can 'average' out the ages. You eff one little girl and you're a pedophile. It doesn't matter that you eff her great-grand-mother as well. You're still a pedophile.

Do you take a moment to think about something or just blurt out whatever comes to your mind? Pedophilia is a medical term and it is simply a sexual preference for children. I wasn't interested about average age of his wives, but was more interested to see if he had sexual preference for children. Looking at the distribution of his wives list it would suggest that his preference was not children. Even if he had averaged like 50, he would have been a pedophile if there were more frequencies of children. But this is not the case his preference was toward women aged 40 or more and not children. End of story.

You're forgetting that Aisha was Muhammad's favourite wife, his preference was for a pre-pubescent girl:

Narrated Abu Musa Al-Ash'ari:

Allah's Apostle said, "Many amongst men attained perfection but amongst women none attained the perfection except Mary, the daughter of Imran and Asiya, the wife of Pharaoh. And the superiority of 'Aisha to other women is like the superiority of Tharid (a stew of meat and bread favoured by Muhammad) to other meals."

Sahih Bukhari, Companions of the Prophet, Number 113

Re: Hindu leaders for 'fatwa' against 'jihad' in India

PostPosted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 12:01 pm
by Cassie
fudgy wrote:
Cassie wrote:Pedophilia is not an exam where you can 'average' out the ages. You eff one little girl and you're a pedophile. It doesn't matter that you eff her great-grand-mother as well. You're still a pedophile.

Do you take a moment to think about something or just blurt out whatever comes to your mind? Pedophilia is a medical term and it is simply a sexual preference for children. I wasn't interested about average age of his wives, but was more interested to see if he had sexual preference for children. Looking at the distribution of his wives list it would suggest that his preference was not children. Even if he had averaged like 50, he would have been a pedophile if there were more frequencies of children. But this is not the case his preference was toward women aged 40 or more and not children. End of story.

Where did you get your medical degree? We at FFI go by the most authoritative psychiatric body - the American Psychiatrists' Association. There is nothing about 'sexual preference' for children. You eff a child - you're a pedophile. End of story.

Re: Hindu leaders for 'fatwa' against 'jihad' in India

PostPosted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 12:44 am
by sunshine
I wonder what these people will do next. they will probably order other hindus not to eat publicly during RAMADAN so it will not offend the feelings of muslims. :sly: