8-year-old Saudi girl divorces 50-year-old husband

I'd give a shit regardless if religion was used as the justification for the rape of a child or not... unfortunately, for you, in this instance it happens to be religion.

The fact remains, if you believe mohammad was a prophet from god he should surely have known how disgusting we, well, I, would find having sex with children is. Like i said, you can't have it both ways. You can't claim he is a prophet one second and the next claim he is oblivious to the fact that having sex with children is vile and repulsive.

You do think having sex with children is vile and repulsive, right?

 

First: no, you wouldn't give a shit if it isn't about religion. I still remember your hate posts about Ireland and jokes about femine in past century.

Second: I never claimed that Mohammed was prophet and I don't believe in that but I do respect those who believe thatand I don't find them intelectually retarded like some members here.

I do think having sex with children is vile and repulsive but that's not point here and you know it. It's just that you are full of hate and you'll grab every single oportunity to tell us how much you hate all religions.
Now go and tell us more jokes about 1000s of starving people who just happened to be members of nation you hate...

 

Ah, it kinda is actually!

 

oh right, so you remember me criticising something which had nothing to do with religion and use that as your reason to conclude that i only criticise religious things... that makes sense. oh, wait, no it doesn't!

some advice: try reading your posts before hitting he reply button. You know, just to make sure it's not just contradictory garbage.

But you did claim he wasn't a paedophile. Which was incorrect.

for you this poses just one problem. The problem of explaining how a man who supposedly had sex with a child is not a paedophile. For the believers it poses a more troubling question. How could a prophet not know how disgusting we would think sex with children is?

lol yes i will.... and i love how easy they make it for me

 

You have serious issues... Making jokes about 1000s people died from starvation you call criticism!
Can you explain to me how the hell is that criticism?!?

Again, you can't aplly todays values to that time. If we do that almost all of worlds ancstors were paedophiles too. Want me to drwa it for you so you can understand?
Roosevelt is always on top of any lists of greatest US presidents but if we apply todays moral values and judge him by that he would be seen as war criminal.

Again, you can't apply todays moral values to that time. Read some history and you'll see that your ancestors probably were pedos too.

The sad thing is that DP doesn't apply their own rules which means that they support hate.

 

Are you putting Mohammad's values together in one package with the ordinary people's values? As everyone knows presidents, kings, ministers are not considered to be "messengers of God", and everyone knows they are not saints, but Muhammad is considered by muslims to be a prophet and as such he is an example to his followers. He should well know that whatever he does will be repeated by his followers over and over and over for as long as people believe he was doing things perfectly right.

BUT MANY DON'T BELIEVE HE DID EVERYTHING PERFECTLY RIGHT! Including his marriage to the 6 year old Aisha and his marriage to his step son's wife. Plus a number of other things he did.


Muslims now have a tough choice. If they denounce child marriage, they will be denying Muhammad's marriage to Aisha as immoral act. Now if they accept as something normal and OK with God they will have the world's public opinion against islam.
So the easiest way to preserve the prophet image of Muhammad is just to say "Times and values now are different than those of 1600 years ago". That's true, but for us, the ordinary people. Prophets are supposed to set morals that won't change over time, just as God does not change and stays the same so are the moral codes He has given.
Just my opinion.

 

it was a criticism of the fact that they throw petrol bombs at kids with one hand and ask for charity with the other.

Again, you can if the person in question was supposed to be a prophet.

I know what you mean, it's disgusting how some people are allowed to openly defend paedophilia....

 

Someone have to be 100% retarded to buy crap you post. When I catch some time I'll find your hate post we talk about and thna you can repat your crap.
Like you care about kids yet you make fun out of kids died from starvation... And you have balls to call it criticism! I am still waiting of explanation how the hell is making fun out of people (including kids and woman) who died from starvation is criticism!

If he was a prophet than he was a right in what he was doing and we are those ones who are wrong.

And someone doing that? Where? Can you quote that?
Btw your ancestors probably were pedos too but I do see you have problem with that.

 

your feigned outrage is wasted in here. All you are doing is trying to do is negate the fact that you openly defended a paedophile who happened to live some years ago by saying waa waa, stOx said something in a completely unrelated thread about a completely unrelated subject and i'm going to pretend to be outraged about it, waa waa.

Really? having sex with children? We would be wrong for not doing it? have a sit down and think about what you just said, Then come back and apologize for making such a disgusting comment.

If mohammad was a prophet, then god has no morality. Simple as that.

It was you. You first made the ludicrous claim that a man who had sex with a child was "not a pedo" and then went on, after partially acknowledging that he was a paedophile, to trivialise it by claiming we can't apply today's morality to the past.

My my, what a hole you have dug for yourself in your defence of child rape.

 

He's not the first one here to run around and defend this behavior, and I'm fairly certain he won't be the last. There are a lot of sick people in the world.

 

I will always show outrage when someone openly showing racism and hate and you don that and got away with it. Even in this thread you are proud of your hate. You care about children? Yeah, right... Maybe you do if we aren't talking about Irish kids...

Ahahahahahahahahahahaha are you serious?!?
You are the who should sit back and think about what you post. Like people can't takje it both ways but you can: you don't believe he was prophet yet you judge him like he was! So which is it? Is he or is he not prophet?
And again and again and again until you get it: read some history. learn something about that time and what have your ancestors doing.

So make up your choice and judge him by that: was he a prophet or not? As simple as that.

And we can't apply today's morality to the past. Period. If we do that all of our ancestors were pedos too. And the rest... phewwwwwwwww

You are becoming annoying... I'm a parent and you post is insulting to me but that's nothing new coming from you. The guy who is able to make fun of 1,000,000 people died from starvation is not worth single breath.

I never defended any behavior. I would like you to quote me where I even suggegsted that kind of behavior is acceptable or good or defendabe.
You won't find it but likes of you don't care about facts as long and you can post your crap here.

 

Let me get this right Moreplayerz... and I am serious when I ask this, not trying to walk you into a corner, I really want to understand your thoughts on this:

1) You identify yourself as a traditional Muslim
2) You do not deny Muhammad, the Prophet, had sex with a child
3) You do not feel Muhammad did anything wrong
4) You feel adults having sex with children is bad by today's standards
5) You believe sex with pre-pubescent children in the time of Muhammad was common and accepted worldwide and is one reason you excuse it happening.

This is what I gather from your posts without putting any judgment or spin to put you in a bad light.

So, with that said... you being an intelligent person, you surely understand why non-Muslims who don't agree having sex with children was ever accepted would be speaking out against this, correct?

Do you feel having sex with children should be against the law today?

 

You hardly got anything from what I have posted... Where did I indentify myself as a Muslim at all?

 

What is happening in Muslim world , I can't understand.

 

ok, so if you're not Muslim, here's a non-Muslim version:

1) You are NOT Muslim
2) You believe Muhammad, the Prophet, had sex with a child
3) You do not feel Muhammad did anything wrong
4) You feel adults having sex with children is bad by today's standards
5) You believe sex with pre-pubescent children in the time of Muhammad was common and accepted worldwide and is one reason you excuse it happening.

This is what I gather from your posts without putting any judgment or spin to put you in a bad light.

So, with that said... you being an intelligent person, you surely understand why those who don't agree having sex with children was ever accepted would be speaking out against this, correct?

Do you feel having sex with children should be against the law today?

 

1) Yup
2) I don't see him as Prophet at all and I am not convinced that he had sex with a chile but it's highly possible
3) Where did I said anything like that? I've only said he wasn't pedo just like as Roosevelt was not war criminal and the same Roosevelt WOULD be war criminal if he do TODAY what he did during WWII. Is that more understable?
4) Is that serious question? Sounds more like insult to any intelligent person
5) I don't "believe" anything. I read history and you should do it too:
marriage. It's just starting point to start researching. Unless you consider 12 to 14 yo kids adults I would say that sex with kids were more than common and accepted at that time.

 

In reality, Peter's just a kid that likes to argue. It's pretty evident that he is no more a Muslim than Barney Frank is intelligent.

 

Yeah and your outrage just so happens to obfuscate the fact that you defend paedophilia... how convenient.

Like i have already said, I think he was a paedophile, not a prophet. And, like i have also already said, the problem of a supposed prophet having sex with a child rests solely on the shoulders of the people who DO believe he was a prophet.

Are you actually saying that raping a child differs in severity depending on the year that it happened? what a repulsive opinion.

Feel free to be insulted. Your precious sensitivities aren't going to stop me telling you what i think.

How about a few line up in that very post when you said "we can't apply today's morality to the past".

dear oh dear, what a mess you have created for yourself.

 

I never defended paedophilia but I guess that's something that likes fo you doesn't care about so there's no "fact" as you claim.
Your hatred was clearly showed right here:

And you want us to beleieve that you care about children? Riiiiiight!
The whole thread is full of your hatred:
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=1026023
Criticsm? Care about children? Gimme a break! Nothing but hate and you even admit it in this thread!

You are free to think what ever you want. So do I.

Are you actually saying that almost all of our ancestors were child rapist? How about WWII? Were leaders of your country war criminals?

Unfortunatly you are free to post your garbage here...

And we can't and that doesn't mean that I defend paedophilia in any way. If you ever read history books you would know that.
What you suggesting that almost of all our ancestors were sick pedos. Well, forgive me to argue with you about that.

Waaaaa waaaaaaa. Seriously, are you serious? lol
Who gives a fuck what you think anyway lol

 

If any of them had sex with children, like mohammad did, then yes they were.

Actually it does. You are essentially saying the crime of raping a child 1500 years ago wasn't the same as it is now on the grounds that we can't apply today's morality to the past. That is defending the rape of a child.