[kirklancaster]

Farhad, I am a Christian, so some of your tenets are the same as mine, but I am genuinely concerned that you seem to be issuing statements 'Robot-Fashion' as though you have been 'pre-programmed', 'pre-coached on doctrine'.

[farhad]

Originally Posted by Livia

Mohammed married his wife Aisha when she was just six years old and consummated the marriage when she was nine years old. He was an old man at this time, he died nine years later. What a tremendous example of goodness and purity.

Oh lets not forget his first wife was 25 years older than him

[Livia]

Originally Posted by farhad

Oh lets not forget his first wife was 25 years older than him

And you think in some way, that cancels out having sex with a nine year old child?

[farhad]

I don't have to preach them, we have strong faith in god so we don't have to end our lives to prove his existence, we have our proof, but to those who question it, perhaps that's their best piece of, because no matter what proof we give you, it wouldn't sufficient to you.

[farhad]

show me where anyone is forced into marriage, and I want a proper references from law of the creator and not examples from what some third world countries example.

[InOne]

Originally Posted by farhad

show me where anyone is forced into marriage, and I want a proper references from law of the creator and not examples from what some third world countries example.

Did you not watch Panorama last night?

[T*]

Originally Posted by farhad

show me where anyone is forced into marriage, and I want a proper references from law of the creator and not examples from what some third world countries example.

In countries like Niger, Chad, Bangladesh, Guinea and the Central African Republic (CAR), the rate of early and forced marriage is over 60 per cent. Child brides are particularly prevalent in South Asia and in sub-Saharan Africa.

(thanks google)

[Tom4784]

This Zakir seems like a bit of a twat.

[farhad]

I said show from the quran that women are forced into marriages. Customs and cultures differ from country to country, but in the theological doctrine can you point out if islam forces marriage, so far I couldn't find in statements.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by farhad

I said show from the quran that women are forced into marriages. Customs and cultures differ from country to country, but in the theological doctrine can you point out if islam forces marriage, so far I couldn't find in statements.

why are you more worried about the words than the actions? You should be judging muslims based on their actions, not based on the fairy tale book they use to justify their actions.

actions are always more important than words.

based on ACTIONS, there is a HUGE problem with forced marriage, and child marriage in muslims countries.

[Nedusa]

Originally Posted by lostalex

why are you more worried about the words than the actions? You should be judging muslims based on their actions, not based on the fairy tale book they use to justify their actions.

actions are always more important than words.

based on ACTIONS, there is a HUGE problem with forced marriage, and child marriage in muslims countries.

Perfectly summed up Alex.........ACTIONS speak louder than words, always

There is little point in advocating your peaceful loving religion and then engaging in blood soaked terrorist savagery.

Walk the Walk dont just talk the talk.





.

[Udanax]

this tthread is so uplifting

[farhad]

Coming to your question, your comparing something that happened1000 of years ago to todays standard. The fact that he consummated the marriage after she passed her puberty which in ancient times was meant you were ready to an adult shows he wasn't a pedophile as such, and neither the quran says that you should marry children. if you couldn't show any reference from the quran then you failed in your accusation.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by farhad

Coming to your question, your comparing something that happened1000 of years ago to todays standard. The fact that he consummated the marriage after she passed her puberty which in ancient times was meant you were ready to an adult shows he wasn't a pedophile as such, and neither the quran says that you should marry children. if you couldn't show any reference from the quran then you failed in your accusation.

All the teachings of the Quran are 1000 years old. You seem to be able to equate them to today's standard.

And really, asking non-Muslims to quote from the Quran in support of their argument is rid-ic-u-lous.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Livia

All the teachings of the Quran are 1000 years old. You seem to be able to equate them to today's standard.

And really, asking non-Muslims to quote from the Quran in support of their argument is rid-ic-u-lous.

True Liv.

I have however, actually owned a copy of the Quran for years, just as I have the Book of Mormon and the Bhagavad Gita, among other books, so I was really looking forward to a debate with Farhad, but alas, 'nos mas'.

[farhad]

Originally Posted by Livia

All the teachings of the Quran are 1000 years old. You seem to be able to equate them to today's standard.

And really, asking non-Muslims to quote from the Quran in support of their argument is rid-ic-u-lous.

well teachings in the quran doesn't speak about child marriage first all, as he failed to point out if Allah ordainr child marriage or sex with a child. Marriage to Aisha had many relevance and aspects and wasn't done for sexual purpose as this poster is trying to say. You go back in history and look at the age of marriage in Ancient Rome, Ancient Greek and world over, it was the norm. Things change as time elapses, with incorporation of Schools, and medical advancement, laws has changed, people live longer now then they did previously, arab live expectancy in Arabia at that time was 35 to 40. Its absurd and ignorant from the perspective of historical standpoint to judge upon todays world.

[farhad]

Originally Posted by Livia

All the teachings of the Quran are 1000 years old. You seem to be able to equate them to today's standard.

And really, asking non-Muslims to quote from the Quran in support of their argument is rid-ic-u-lous.

with logic like dr zakir naik provides, Quran will always be applicable in any time. Also many of the laws that came to pass in European countries, many of these laws and principal was taken from the Islamic constitution, such as abolition of racism, that principal came from islam where no black and whites or ethnicity are superior or inferior to one another, manumission of slavery, prophet practised this and preached it. Not to harm any non-combatant civilians in war, that means an elderly, women, children, men who are not part of the army, mean the oppositions side. It was Islamic philosophy that had inspired John Locke.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by farhad

It was Islamic philosophy that had inspired John Locke.

...I spent an entire University semester studying Locke quite extensively, and have literally never heard this? In fact, Locke was a firm advocate of Christianity, and was well documented as being against Muslims living in the West.

I personally am unconvinced about his own level of belief... I think he considered a religious population to be "key" to the functioning of his theories on social contracts, i.e. religious adherence is what would ensure that most people would consider the contract to be "binding" (someone is always watching, you can't break the contract just because no one else is around to see it, God will always see, etc etc) and more importantly he believed that the population would be best served by being under ONE religion, truth and freedom be damned. But anyway, I've gone off on a bit of a tangent.

It's seen as a major contradiction in his liberal philosophy, because he actually seems to suggest "keeping certain faiths out".

[Islam] can have no right to be tolerated by the [government] which is constituted upon such a [foundation] that all those who enter into it do thereby ipso facto deliver themselves up to the protection and service of another prince [i.e. a foreign ruler]… It is ridiculous for any one to profess himself to be a Mahometan [a Muslim] only in his religion, but in everything else a faithful subject to a Christian government, whilst at the same time he acknowledges himself bound to yield blind obedience to the "Mufti of Constantinople", who himself is entirely obedient to the Caliph and frames the feigned oracles of that religion according to his pleasure. - John Locke

...not that I agree with Locke - he also wasn't a big fan of Atheists, the big ol' hypocrite, he just liked Christians and was mostly OK with Jews.

Anyway, yeah, I don't know where you've read that John Locke was inspired by Islamic philosophy... it seems very unlikely, given his stance with Christianity. That said, having just written what I have above (regarding the "key" etc.), I can see a few parallels in the philosophy. I would imagine they are more coincidental than "inspired by", though. Social control via religion is a tale as old as time, not attributable to John Locke or Islam or even the most ancient written religions. It's been going on since we were raising our hands in appreciation to the Rain Gods, wailing in despair at the sound of thunder, and howling at the moon.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by farhad

Coming to your question, your comparing something that happened1000 of years ago to todays standard. The fact that he consummated the marriage after she passed her puberty which in ancient times was meant you were ready to an adult shows he wasn't a pedophile as such, and neither the quran says that you should marry children. if you couldn't show any reference from the quran then you failed in your accusation.

Farhad, it is most helpful when debating, either to identify the specific member you are referring to in your response, or to actually quote the post you are responding to.

If it is me who you are referring to, I did not accuse anyone of anything - especially not your prophet of paedophilia.

It is best not to confuse a statement as any kind of attack, when the author of that statement sincerely believes it to be the truth, and when the absence of any type of malice in the statement is so patently clear.

I deal strictly in facts, and it is an irrefutable fact that Muhammad married Aisha when she was a child and that he consummated that marriage when she was 9 years old. I have quoted my source for believing this statement to be true; none other than Aisha's own testimony in the Hadith of Bukhari, volume 5, #234, and as a devout Muslim, you should have no trouble accepting the testimony of your prophet's beloved, or in the collated truths of Muhammad himself - especially since the Bukhari Hadith is widely regarded by most Islamic scholars as the most reliable collection. Unless you are a Sunni Muslim of course, but even if this is the case, there is plenty of other evidence from Islamic sources that attest to the truth of my statement.

I agree with you that we should not judge ancient practices which were the accepted norm 1400 years ago by today's standards, but there does seem to be a lot of 'double standards' being applied by you in your assertions, and this issue of Muhammad and Aisha is one of them.

To illustrate just why I say the above, I will return to your claim on a recently closed thread, that Christ mentioned the word "Muslim" in Luke 6.40 of the Judeo Christian Bible:

"Jesus using the word "Muslim" in Luke 6:40:
"Ein talmeed na'leh 'al rabbo; shekken kal adam she'MUSHLAM yihyeh k'rabbo."


And my response:

"Sorry Farhad, but your claim is highly contentious.

The actual words Christ said were: "A student is not above his teacher, but everyone who is fully trained (katertismenos) will be like his teacher." Luke 6:40.

The actual Greek word used: ‘katertismenos’ is at the root of the Muslim claim because Muslim polemicists maintain that translated into Hebrew, the word becomes ‘Mushlam’ which they state equates to the Arabic word Muslim.

However, in Luke 6:40 Jesus did not use a proper noun meaning "those who submit." He used the participle ‘katertismenos’, which means "being made ready, prepared, or trained”.

In any event, whichever sense Christ used the word ‘Katertismenos’ in, it is nonsensical for anyone to claim that Jesus used the word Mushlam to actually mean ‘Muslim’ 600 years before Islam was even founded.

To claim as much is known as ‘Chronological Fallacy’ or when somebody ascribes to an historical word a later definition or meaning. It is as ridiculous as saying that Jesus referred to me as ‘blessed’ on the Sermon on The Mount, because my name is Kirk Meek and he said; “Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth”.

Now you cannot claim a 'truth' - as in the 'Luke 6:40' example above - by the the tactic of ascribing the current definition of a word to an ancient historical use of it, then denounce others for applying todays criterion of improper sex with a child to the historical acts of Muhammad with Aisha.

I hope to continue sensible debate with you and look forward to your response.

[farhad]

Even for the sake of the argument you want vilify from todays standard, then how do we know she was 6, arabs and many did not keep their birth certificate and generally did not know their birthdate.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by farhad

Even for the sake of the argument you want vilify from todays standard, then how do we know she was 6, arabs and many did not keep their birth certificate and generally did not know their birthdate.

yes and at that time many did not know there arse from their elbow but hey lets forget that and worship some book they wrote way back then


jesus h christ




and get a better camera

[user104658]

Originally Posted by farhad

Even for the sake of the argument you want vilify from todays standard, then how do we know she was 6, arabs and many did not keep their birth certificate and generally did not know their birthdate.

LOL I just noticed this post. "honest, officer, I didn't know she was 6, she said she was 25! I just thought she was really short."

[farhad]

(24:4)And those who accuse honourable women but bring not four witnesses, scourge them (with) eighty lashes and never (afterward) accept their testimony - They indeed are evil-doers -

That means even if you throw insults like you freely do here with using words such as "*****s", "sluts", then these people get 80 large spanks in public. However its perfectly ok here to do so, call thems names for insult and jokes.

[Kizzy]

That kind of thing would never happen in the west...

Reforms in the 19th and 20th century[edit]
A general great shift in social and legal attitudes toward issues of sex took place in the modern era and beliefs on the appropriate age below which girls should not be permitted to engage in sexual activity drifted toward adulthood. While ages from 10 to 13 were typically regarded as acceptable ages for sexual consent in Western countries during the mid-19th century,[1] by the end of the 19th century changing attitudes towards sexuality and childhood resulted in the raising of the age of consent.[4]


Several articles written by investigative journalist William Thomas Stead in the late 19th century on the issue of child prostitution in London led to public outrage and ultimately to the raising of the age of consent to 16.
The English common law had traditionally set the age of consent within the range of 10 to 12, but in 1875 the age was raised to 13. After intense sensational media revelations about the scourge of under-age prostitution in London in the 1880s caused respectable middle-class outrage, the age of consent was raised to 16 in 1885. Early feminists of the Social Purity movement such as Josephine Butler and others, instrumental in securing the repeal of the Contagious Diseases Acts, began to turn towards the problem of child prostitution by the end of the 1870s.

The investigative journalist William Thomas Stead of the Pall Mall Gazette was pivotal in exposing the problem of child prostitution in the London underworld through a publicity stunt. In 1885 he "purchased" one victim, Eliza Armstrong the 13-year-old daughter of a chimney sweep, for £5 and took her to a brothel where she was drugged. He then published a series of four exposés entitled The Maiden Tribute of Modern Babylon, which shocked its readers with tales of child prostitution and the abduction, procurement and sale of young English virgins to Continental "pleasure palaces". The "Maiden Tribute" was an instant hit with the public. Victorian society was thrown into an uproar about prostitution. Fearing riots on a national scale, the Home Secretary, Sir William Harcourt pleaded in vain with Stead to cease publication of the articles. A wide variety of reform groups held protest meetings and marched together to Hyde Park demanding that the age of consent be raised. The government was forced to pass the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 that raised the age of consent to 16 and clamped down on prostitution.[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent


Yes yes I'm aware it's wiki, but I'm sure it wouldn't take long to corroborate the information.

[farhad]

Due to work in the morning I can't reply now in depth, but definitely will get back to. Also it's not good to copy paste things.