Topic: Why do islam hates people? - page 107. (Read 437477 times)

Absolutely, therein lies the problem, Muslims refuse to condemn the actions of their prophet and, what is more, I assert that if Muslims agree that it is wholly appalling for a middle-aged man to rape a nine year-old little girl, then they probably need to clarify where they believe their 'god' stands on the subject in that he either was fine with it then and wouldn't be now, which is kinda weird to think that a 'god' would be so fickle on the grounds of human cultural values, or they believe their god was fine with it then and would still be fine with it now.

Which would demonstrate them to be monsters.

I don't think that was the case in Middle-East back then. Even before the spread of Islam, girls used to get married at the age of 6 or 7. It was a heavily tribalized society. The same was the case in most parts of Africa, and South Asia. But those are the things of the past. No one should defend them, and say that girls should get married at the age of six nowadays.

Understood but, given what is asserted about the omnipotent, omniscience of their god, 'cultural values' would not have been a factor in 'His' 'communications' with their prophet on the subject of raping a small child.

So my assertion still stands, either they claim that their god approved of child-rape then but does not now, or they are claiming their god approved of child-rape then and still does now.

Would a "God" today advise a person he was communicating with not to rape a child?

In asking this question we do not establish anything about their 'god' ourselves as atheists, but given that theists claim to have knowledge of WhatGodWants(tm), the question can be directed at them to answer because our questions do not concerns the gods we do not believe in but the dysfunctional delusions they do. Understanding what values they ascribe to their world-view by way of having them explain what their god values and does not is critically important to better understand just how toxic their psychology and their religions are.

We're sort of saying the same thing, but I'm trying to give some allowance for different cultural and different times.

As an aside, the phrase "Child Bride" exists as a term, because historically there were enough cases of it to cause it to be termed distinctly. 

We can apply today's knowledge to man's actions of long ago, and thus be critical of those actions. 

Would a "God" a millennia ago have advised a person he was communicating with not to "rape Aisha?" 

It is not possible for me to answer a question of this sort, since as an atheist I find the premises in error, and therefore the conclusions would be without value. 

For what it's worth, here is the Wikipedia entry on Aisha.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha

Muslims citing, "that's how things were back then", is not only tacit approval of their prophet being a child rapist, it also puts them into the awkward position of knowing that it is *not* appropriate and it is not 'right' for an adult to rape a child and that it both risks children's lives physically as well as causes them numerous neuropsychiatric disorders in adulthood, having to consider the fact that if their prophet was genuinely talking to their god and their god was genuinely communicating regularly with their prophet, wouldn't god have known the harm that child rape does and have advised him not to rape Aisha?

So citing "that's how things were" is to say that either their prophet wasn't actually communicating with god and he was simply making sure he got what he wanted by lying to his deluded followers, or god also approved of child rape back then but doesn't now.

Either that or they have to claim that their god did and still does approve of child rape.

Today we know there are far more miscarriages, and various forms of medical problems for the girl and for the baby, if pregnancy is taken to term for 9-12 year old girls.   What this means is that Zakir is simply ignorant when she propagates the party line that "she was mature."

Regardless of consent, sex and pregnancy at age 9-12 is something only a fool would advocate.

I think it quite likely that a millennia ago, wise elders of the tribe would have known things of this sort.     

Yeah, that's the central issue.  They could just say "We don't do that today because we know better."  But instead there's all this double talk and lying.  Basically meaning, they do do that today because the Prophet did it so it's gotta be okay, la de da de da. 

Ain't life sweet?

Saudi Arabia is a shit hole of a nation, and I don't know why people want to reside there. In this case, this guy (Raif Badawi) had dual Saudi-Canadian citizenship. What was the need for him to stay in Saudi Arabia, when his family was residing in Canada? That said, I am against any interference on the  internal affairs of Saudi Arabia. Let them run that country according to the stone age laws.

I think this thread is way to long and a lot of trolling is happening around here, which is sad for such a serious subject, to answer the initial question : Islam doesn't hate people, people hates people Muslims or not.

Besides, they didn't have Viagra back 1,500 years ago.     

Yes, I agree with you. We have to judge actions based on the norms of the time. We can not say he was acting immorally in his time, but we sure can hold his apologists responsible for maintaining that his actions today would be OK.

I understand what you're saying, but it's not relevant. It's not relevant because 1500 years ago, the idea that kids couldn't consent to sex was not a notion people held. The only thing they based it on was whether someone had begun puberty or not, and we know now this is not appropriate. Your assertion that not all girls attain puberty at the same time has no bearing on cognitive development, and cognitive development, not puberty is what grants someone the ability to consent to sex. Again, there is no correlation between puberty and cognitive development, so your assertion she was "mature" is based on nothing but an uncorrelated coincidence. So you essentially have nothing to conclude she was "mature" except the writings of the guy who has a vested interest in convincing everyone he was not raping a child.

Because the notion that consent comes from cognitive ability and not puberty, there's no way Mohammad or any other Muslim looked at her intelligence or maturity and made the educated conclusion that she was cognitively developed enough to consent. They looked at her and said 'Well, she has shown some signs of beginning puberty. She's legal now.' All your arguments about her intelligence are after-the fact arguments that have been developed recently and in hindsight to counter criticism that your great prophet diddled a child. And if any thing else was the case, you would not be trying to justify his actions with the puberty defense anymore, because it's immoral to make that defense.

Very sad situation. I fell really sorry about that dude when I read the story...

Can think of a few people on here that would qualify for 1000 lashes as well for "insulting Islam through electronic channels".
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33039815

What I am saying is that *all* girls who reached puberty aren't the same. Some girls' can mature at that time and some don't. It doesn't mean *all*. 'Aisha has shown characteristics of a matured girl and prophet won't be a pedophile because of many reasons.


What about same-sex marriage? Is not that stupid?

I would clarify, attitudes toward children have changed over the millennia.  Just one example, consider ancient Greeks and young boys and sex.    But we're not going to go and defend ancient wrong ideas today.  That's just plain stupid.

You are missing one point here: You cannot consent to sex if you do not have the mental capacity to do so, and if you cannot consent, it is rape. It seems the only people who believe that a 12 year old (and I'm using the highest age range to give you the maximum benefit of the doubt) can consent are Muslims. It has nothing to do with physical characteristics, so puberty is irrelevant. Knowing what we know now about cognitive development, nobody today can make a credible case that a 12 year old has the mental capacity to consent to sex. You cannot defend this, the more you try the more Islam looks like a backwards religion. You're unwilling to admit that 1500 years ago, your prophet did things that are unacceptable today. You're stuck trying to justify it, and you're only point (that she reached puberty) is irrelevant. The longer Islam tries to justify child rape, the longer it will be rightly viewed as being stuck in the dark ages.

I've fallen a bit behind on this thread, but this is a great list of bad sentiments I've seen in this thread that some are propagating to explain why Islam isn't violent, or to justify when it is, or just to obfuscate the issue by trying to cast blame on other religions: