Utopia Talk / Politics / Seb being absurd, Mohammed rapes kids 2

Habebe Member	Mon Mar 06 00:11:21 I have some catching up to do. Sen still has not grasped the concept of "literal". He also thinks calling Mohammed a pedophile for having sex with a 9 year old is not literally calling someone a real name, and in his mind/universe that is not only LITERALLY calling someone a mean word with a negative connotation, he thinks it's dishonest. Yes, I realize that when a leader/emulated figure is spoken of in a bad manner it can reflect upon the followers. Again, that just seems arbitrary. Call one guy or a group something mean. Watch, "Ghandi is a faggot whore". If I said this to a group of devout Ghandi followers, my intent may be yo provoke. I probably would not get a similar response as stating a potential fact about Mohammed and insinuating that Muslims support child rape. People intentionally provoke Christians all the time, but Seb beleives that not hurting peoples feelings is more important than having people freely express themselves. Again, that's fine. We all agree there are limits on where free speech/expression. Being permitted to express your displeasure with certain person and or groups seems pretty fundamental to why freedom of speech must be guarded in a free society. As for the actual statement, no one really knows if he fucked his 9 year old wife. I beleive he did have a 9 yr old wife though (is that disputed?). Honestly, I don't really care , different times, different customs, people died young, whatever. Jesus drowned, burned alive and tortured people in the hopes they would follow him and his teachings. Saying that may provoke Christians, but it's their book that literally* says all that.
Seb Member	Mon Mar 06 04:14:22 Habebe: If you recall it was I who said literally, and you who took advantage. She literally said that Muslims *must* venerate paedophilia because they venerate everything Muhammed did, and muhammed was a peadophile. It can be true that she literally called Muhammed a paedophile. Indeed, it must be the case for the other thing to be true. The problem is you are trying to say that ALL she did was call Muhammed a paedophile. If that had been the case, she would not have been convicted and the court said that explicitly. So I think it is actually you that perhaps do not understand the meaning of the word literally.
Seb Member	Mon Mar 06 04:15:41 Habebe: "Watch, "Ghandi is a faggot whore"." Nope, not equivalent, you would need "All Indians are" ... "because all Indians seek to emulate Ghandi"... "and Ghandi did X"
Seb Member	Mon Mar 06 04:17:14 "my intent may be yo provoke" - yup, but generally we don't think people should be provoked by offence to a third party. Here, the offence is given to any and all Muslims.
Seb Member	Mon Mar 06 04:17:56 "People intentionally provoke Christians all the time" It may surprise you to know that there are hate crimes against christians that are prosecuted. Often the people prosecuted are Islamic extermists.
Seb Member	Mon Mar 06 04:21:17 *I who used the word literally and you who took exception to it
Rugian Member	Mon Mar 06 04:21:44 Seb seems to be royally twisting what was actually said. The actual quote was: "One of the biggest problems we are facing today is that Muhammad is seen as the ideal man, the perfect human, the perfect Muslim. That means that the highest commandment for a male Muslim is to imitate Muhammad, to live his life. This does not happen according to our social standards and laws. Because he was a warlord, he had many women, to put it like this, and liked to do it with children. And according to our standards, he was not a perfect human. We have huge problems with that today, that Muslims get into conflict with democracy and our value system … The most important of all Hadith collections recognised by all legal schools: The most important is the Sahih Al-Bukhari. If a Hadith was quoted after Bukhari, one can be sure that all Muslims will recognise it. And, unfortunately, in Al-Bukhari the thing with Aisha and child sex is written… I remember my sister, I have said this several times already, when [S.W.] made her famous statement in Graz, my sister called me and asked: ‘For God’s sake. Did you tell [S.W.] that?’ To which I answered: ‘No, it wasn’t me, but you can look it up, it’s not really a secret.’ And her: ‘You can’t say it like that!’ And me: ‘A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? What do you call that? Give me an example? What do we call it, if it is not paedophilia?’ Her: ‘Well, one has to paraphrase it, say it in a more diplomatic way.’ My sister is symptomatic [sic]. We have heard that so many times. ‘Those were different times’ – it wasn’t okay back then, and it’s not okay today. Full stop. And it is still happening today. One can never approve something like that. They all create their own reality because the truth is so cruel..." In no society where free speech is tolerated should it be illegal to point out manifestly true things, like how a grown man dating a six year old is an instance of pedophilia.
Seb Member	Mon Mar 06 04:31:31 The legal tests here are, approximately: 1. Could what was said reasonably be interpreted to give offence to a person? 2. Was the intent to provoke that person? 3. Was the thing true? It is true in Islam that Muhammed consummated marriage to a 9 year old. It is NOT reasonable to take personal offence from someone calling Muhammed a paedophile. So simply calling Muhammed a Paedophile would not be considered hate speech. It is NOT true that Islam considers paedophilia a virtue. And any reasonable person would conclude that she knew or should have known that not to be true. A reasonable person would consider it personally offensive to be accused of considering paedophilia a virtue. A reasonable person would think that her intent was to provoke (as she knew, or should have known, her statement was untrue, so why say something).
Seb Member	Mon Mar 06 04:33:22 Rugian: I wasn't on the court. I am relating how three courts interpreted it. I happen to agree with the interpretation - and I can see why you would like a lot of room for dog-whistling etc. but neither of our opinions matter here.
Rugian Member	Mon Mar 06 04:34:52 What?! This is a political debate forum; all we have is our opinions.
Rugian Member	Mon Mar 06 04:36:50 Let me ask you this Seb. If someone were to make a near-identical quote but swapped out Muhammad for Jesus Christ, what is the likelihood of him being prosecuted for that?
jergul large member	Mon Mar 06 06:01:46 Mary was like 12 when she was impregnated. For another child rape that should be highlighted from one of the Muslim holy books.
Seb Member	Mon Mar 06 06:49:31 Rugian: There is no point accusing me of royally twisting the text when we are discussing what the court interpreted the text to mean and therefore what precedent has been set. "what is the likelihood of him being prosecuted for that?" It happens - as I have pointed out. Most of the examples are more extreme so conveyed by e.g. graffiti. Cf. sectarian conflicts in Ireland. They tend to get custodial sentences rather than a small fine. Not many people set out intentionally to provoke a violent reaction by edge-lording as close as they can to blanketing Christians overall. And Christians in Europe are rather more secure and not facing systemic abuse as a bunch of people try to affirm their right to free speech in the wake of Charlie Hebdo and taking it way too far. Cf. also left wing folk that seek to affirm their support for Palestine and end up going way into the realms of anti-Semitism.
Seb Member	Mon Mar 06 06:51:46 Bottom line you have freedom of expression constitutionally guaranteed, but as with the US the state also has rights and duties that allow it to limit that freedom in certain circumstances for certain purposes - but that can be challenged to an independent body. A far more independent body, as it happens, than the SCOTUS which is now clearly a party political junket.
Pillz Member	Mon Mar 06 07:22:06 Seb is mad he prays to a pedophile lol
Seb Member	Mon Mar 06 07:33:42 Seb prays to nobody. Seb is a long standing atheist.
murder Member	Mon Mar 06 07:33:55 "Mary was like 12 when she was impregnated." The Christian "God" is clearly a pedo.
murder Member	Mon Mar 06 07:36:31 Or more likely some jew did.
murder Member	Mon Mar 06 07:38:42 Probably her father.
jergul large member	Mon Mar 06 08:27:02 Murder Dont blame the Jews or Christians. The bible is 2nd only to the Quaran as a Muslim holy book.
murder Member	Mon Mar 06 09:32:12 It doesn't matter. The list of suspects excludes muslims, their prophet, and their god, on account that they didn't exist yet.
Seb Member	Mon Mar 06 11:01:06 Murder: Arguably they did
Pillz Member	Mon Mar 06 11:04:08 Seb: Muslims could have raped Mary
Seb Member	Mon Mar 06 11:41:00 Pillz: Christian god and Muslim god (and many of the Jewish and Christian prophets) are of course the same.
jergul large member	Mon Mar 06 12:11:53 Proto-muslims raped Mary!
Pillz Member	Mon Mar 06 13:38:04 Very progressive guys, congrats
murder Member	Mon Mar 06 17:49:37 "Christian god and Muslim god (and many of the Jewish and Christian prophets) are of course the same." Very clearly not the same. If they were we'd only have one holy book. One set of religious instructions.
Seb Member	Tue Mar 07 16:26:04 Murder: We would be such a disappointment to Him if He existed.
murder Member	Tue Mar 07 16:41:41 And to them if they existed. And maybe I just they/them'ed god.
jergul large member	Tue Mar 07 16:59:39 Murder The bible consists of 66 books. The big difference between the Abramic sects relate to prophet accreditation.
murder Member	Tue Mar 07 17:43:18 What they have in common is that they all appropriated what came before them.
jergul large member	Wed Mar 08 02:29:53 Like the diety itself and holy books like the old testament or the complete holy bible. Its the same thing, silly. Sects disagreeing on prophet accreditation.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Mar 08 02:48:25 12 > 9 Even by jergul’s chronology Islam is worse, compounded by the fact that Mary isn’t the object of emulation that Muhammed is and that Jesus fulfilled a new covenant and thus no need to repeat things seen as mistakes. Jesus was a new chance to do it right! You guys suck at religion study so bad, you have failed completely in understanding the most basic things about the world’s largest religions. You guys remember arab/muslim? Uhm we did not lile each other, but not a single fucking time did he correct me about the facts. The problem is that you guys (with limited/zero interaction with a muslim community) think arab/muslim was ”extreme” and not what I know him to be, your average muslim.
Habebe Member	Wed Mar 08 03:14:05 "We would be such a disappointment to Him if He existed"_Seb Don't worry, I'm sure you disappoint plenty of people. "*I who used the word literally and you who took exception to it" I took you to use it it as the word is defined. It's sort of an exceptional word to not use literally. "1. Could what was said reasonably be interpreted to give offence to a person? 2. Was the intent to provoke that person? 3. Was the thing true?" I tale offense to such silly pointless questions. Who cares of it offends someone? How is that even a reasonable question? Provoke, depends on the situation. Calling all followers of blank religion pedos doesn't rise to anything that should provoke violence. How many people have publicly said similar things about Catholics? Im sure I offended my mother in law when I told her, her religion was too rapey for me.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Mar 08 03:22:25 This is a classic topic where seb and jergul really only have access to Christian analogs or Abrahamic reductios. They can thus not get a full spectrum view of anything and appreciate any of it. This will not stop them from fumbling in the dark. Just pointing out this is a waste of time. None of these people live near or interact with an Islamic community.
Seb Member	Wed Mar 08 03:39:55 Habebe: "I took you to use it it as the word is defined. It's sort of an exceptional word to not use literally." I was using it as defined. We've been over this. "I tale offense to such silly pointless questions." Well you would - you are a convicted criminal and so are expected to not really like the law. "Provoke, depends on the situation." Indeed, and there have been at least three whole court cases looking into that, and the states assertions on provocation were a key part of her fine. "Calling all followers of blank religion pedos doesn't rise to anything that should provoke violence." "How many people have publicly said similar things about Catholics? Im sure I offended my mother in law when I told her, her religion was too rapey for me." You said her religion was rapey. That is different from accusing her of being rapey, citing her religion as evidence for your claim.
Seb Member	Wed Mar 08 03:42:16 Nim: "This is a classic topic where seb and jergul really only have access to Christian analogs or Abrahamic reductios." Again Nim, this is court proceedings we are talking about. Also I live in fucking London. There are 1.3 million Muslims out of a population of 7m, the mayor is a Muslim and they teach about the religion in RE class alongside Christianity and Hindu. Stop making parochial assumptions.
Seb Member	Wed Mar 08 03:42:19 Nim: "This is a classic topic where seb and jergul really only have access to Christian analogs or Abrahamic reductios." Again Nim, this is court proceedings we are talking about. Also I live in fucking London. There are 1.3 million Muslims out of a population of 7m, the mayor is a Muslim and they teach about the religion in RE class alongside Christianity and Hindu. Stop making parochial assumptions.
Seb Member	Wed Mar 08 03:43:48 Seb - lives in a city with as many Muslims as the total population of the largest city in Sweden. Nim: "you have no access to Muslims"
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Mar 08 03:52:32 Ok if you feel living in one of Europes largest metropolitan areas together with millions of people counts towards something (not the proximity I was thinking about)*, it is scary that you get so many things wrong. You lost the plot on this topic years ago, no improvement. *Just shows how correct I am :-) I know you people like the hand I jerk off with!
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Mar 08 03:56:39 Why don’t you go to that park where the muslims debate and talk, what is it called? Anyway go there and explain Islam for them.
jergul large member	Wed Mar 08 05:08:08 Nimi There are lots of crazies everywhere. Just talk to murder about how he thinks Ukraine is worth calling Russia's bluff in regards to nuclear weapons and that Nato should just start fighting Russia immediately if not before. Or US support of Israel by American fundies justifying it in the need to rebuild the temple as a premise for the rapture? We are all three missed meals away from savagery. Many muslims have missed more meals than we have. You think it would have been better if western psyops had not fostered religious fanatism to undermine arab nationalism? Or if Communist rule had continued in Afghanistan? Lowering the per capita goat ratio and stuff like literacy may undermine cultural savagery, but then you and up with fascist technocracies like Iran.
jergul large member	Wed Mar 08 05:11:49 In sum: Muslim radicalism is a Western design feature, not a bug. We could have left what are currently fundy countries alone to pursue nationalist agendas if we wanted to. We prefer radical muslims to viable nation-states in muslim areas is all.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Mar 08 05:29:29 Yes yes, everything is by the design of the White European. All powerful white people, everyone else a slave before their might and have no will or agency. It’s like the Elder’s of Zion, but white people are the Jews. Heard it before. Crazy is not sufficient or necessary. It has even less explanatory power for religiousity than “abrahamic” faith.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Mar 08 05:41:14 In general it is best to try and understand people in their own language, history and cultural tradition. You lose a lot with analogies and watching them through reductive lenses e.g Fascism, Nazi. We don’t need to repeat the discussions a year ago abiut Putin/Russia being Hitler/Nazi because [reasons].
jergul large member	Wed Mar 08 06:54:57 Nimi Western meddling and its role in the rise of muslim radicalism is well known. Perhaps the shah's coup as an intermediate step in the name of defeating communism has you somewhat confused. Putting him in place ultimately lead to the Iranian revolution. Still, I bet many think that worth it as the coup got rid of a socialist. Fascism is a brand of authoritarian nationalism with strong state involvement in national industries. Technocracy describes a type of government dominated by expert input. Remind me what % of Iran's parliament have engineering degrees. 2/3ds or something ludicrous like that. So if the shoe fits, then wear it.
Seb Member	Wed Mar 08 07:11:40 Nim: Sure, ok, you believe Muslims revere paedophilia - and I am failing to understand them in their own language. Why not go and record yourself making that statement at your local mosque. Let's see if they in fact agree with that statement. Because I'm absolutely confident that while they revere Mohammed, agree he consummated marriage to Aisha at the age of 9, they don't think paedophilia is revered even if that makes them hypocritical. You yourself are full of such incoherences and get extremely angry when they are pointed out as a means of undermining the integrity of your argument. But sure, let's see you make the argument the court attributes to this lady and see if it actually holds water.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Mar 08 09:43:03 Jergul Thank you for the summary, I am familiar with the conspiracy theory and how “meddling” starts at some arbitrary point in history. Seb Just going to ignore the rest of your drivle :-)
Seb Member	Wed Mar 08 10:57:52 That's the sound of Nim realising he's just spent two threads arguing for the idea that Muslims believe paedophilia is a virtue because he feels the reflexive need to disagree with me.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Mar 08 11:13:49 No, I just lack the medical expertise to help you with whatever mental illness you suffer from. I don’t want to exacerbate whatever it is, so I ignore you. But every thread is a new chance for you to make progress and become healthy.
Seb Member	Wed Mar 08 11:50:19 A man with a truly stunning grasp of biology extends his 'mastery' to the field of medicine.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Mar 08 13:52:03 My dear seb, if you find someone with a bleeding head wound, you don’t need to be a doctor to realize they need help, but you need medical expertise to help them. You not being well is the trivial/obvious part, like a broken legs or and open head wound. You keep overthinking buddy. Get well.
Seb Member	Wed Mar 08 15:28:35 Nim: The problem is you are clearly don't know your arse from your elbow, so what appears to be a bleeding headwound to you is actually someone taking a giant dump on you.
Pillz Member	Wed Mar 08 16:40:46 Seb supports Muslim pedophilia pretty strongly wow
jergul large member	Wed Mar 08 17:55:04 Nimi You have an odd definition of CT. Most correctly, the West had meddled always, then lost a significant chunk of its population in a 30 year long war, so agreed meddling was bad and nothing good would come of it. But did not apply that lesson much outside of Europe and had sporadic failures in Europe too. Westphalia :).
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Mar 09 03:51:19 Anything sufficiently oversimplified is indistinguishable from CT. But what you propose is even more straight forward, “we” made it all by design. Suffice to say it is the most common CT in The ME left. Look “they” even let khomeini orchestrate the revolution from Paris. Heard them all, they are compelling in as far as you are convinced by the underlying ideological framework. Evil colonial powers *shakes fist*. But none of this (conflict) is new, the reign of Europe over ME not even long (decades), certainly not unique etc etc we can go over the tomes of reasons, but it makes a compelling grievance narrative. It explains things and stuff in a mannner you can easily teach children: Walid your life sucks because if Israelis/USA. Muslim, communist and nationalist alike can (and have) rallied behind such slogans. Powerful narratives provide meaning and direction.
jergul large member	Thu Mar 09 04:19:16 Nimi The shah and the revolution are seeds from a poisoned fruit. Iran had a democratic government the US overthrew, then the US installed the shah. Khomeini is a consequence of a CIA supported Savak focusing on secular threats to the regime. Leaving no alternative for change but relatively untouchable clergy radicalizing populations with no other outlet for change than through religion. It is ultimately the same problem as every time. Westphallian principles are not followed. Shitstorm ensue.
jergul large member	Thu Mar 09 04:26:38 What meddling has done since 1920 is block most muslim countries from the social democratic reforms that saved us from communist uprising. At home we compromised and shared prosperity with the working class to defeat communism. Abroad we supported a hardline approach to crush any secular threat that could be manhandled to fit the domino theory with an unpredictable outcome. Crazy clergy ended up dominating unacceptance of status quo. A status quo we changed peacefully in the West because it would be skin off the ruling classes teeth if thing went south. We could afford to be way more hardline in other countries because ultimately, we do not live there.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Mar 09 04:37:27 Iran is a 2500 year old culture that has had many kings and rulers who had foreign allies. The point I think people like you are missing is that the only unique thing today is that you are alive right now and it makes you feel the events have a special pattern. Then the fatal mistake is to attach your identity to this narrative where you and your entire nation are victims of some evil people. This has all happened before and it too shall pass.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Mar 09 04:42:15 But this is all a long long way from Muhammed consumating a marriage with a 9 year old. Was that because of Roman and Persian meddling in Arab affairs? The proping up of puppets in Aksum and colonization of Yemen?
jergul large member	Thu Mar 09 04:49:59 Nimi That was probably because of the bible and an angel impregnating and underaged girl. Good for goose, good for gander. The narrative is actually more that for as long as we are following a westphallian nation-state model such as the one the UN is based on, then we should follow it. For you countrymen on their way to prayers, they might ponder on why that is important to them instead of say dedicating time to secular political activity. What in their 2500 year history dictates that they cannot enter the modern era? What besides a Western imposed fear of communism ahead of radicalized religion that erradicated most secular resistance to the shahs regime back in the day, but allowed religion to flourish in the vacuum. The Kurds get it.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Mar 09 05:04:42 It has no relationship with the bible, the impregnation of Mary is an important point of the Jesus story, Aisha being 9 is a matter of fact, likely honoring pre-Islamic tradition. “What in their 2500 year history dictates that they cannot enter the modern era?“ The choices are wrong/false. They are not joing the _west_ and living by western values, because they have a 2500 year long history fighting the west as another alternative civilization. It’s pretty easy. The kurds are not burdened by 2500 years of hegemony. They live decentralized and fragmented. My point which I think is perfectly obvious is that it is much more complex than European master race CT.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Mar 09 05:18:05 “What besides a Western imposed fear of communism” This is a perfect example of the type of ahistorical oversimplified narrations I am talking about, the entire theory in a nutshell. There is a inherent conflict between communism and religion, making certain groups and nations natural allies based on their shared theism against the godless. I mean the scriptures fortold this stuff. You need to read more things and stuff :-)
jergul large member	Thu Mar 09 05:33:37 Nimi So, Persians are culturally pedophiles and Mohammed was not influenced at all by what would be his most holy book until he wrote the Quran? The idea of a nation-state as a building block for international relations is a Western CT, so it follows that Westphallia is also a Western CT, and that of course, violating Westphallian principles is a CT too. But all these CTs are the current meta, its fine that you want to delve into the minutae of culture and explain how the Muslim world follows a different paradigm. I will stick to analysing this based on our nation-state system and how the integrity of the Muslim world has been violated systematically at least since 1920. As a result, secular driving forces for change have been seriously weakened and religious activism allowed to flourish. Why? Because communism scared us more than radical religion. But neither scared us enough to think social democratic methods of defeating both were nessessary when we could just have strongmen instead. The shah as one such strongman we installed. Until he fell to religious fevour. The Kurds managed to hold on to secular change as a driving national ideal. Good for them. I should definitely read up on how they survived while Arab and Persion secular nationalism failed.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Mar 09 06:44:54 I honestly have no idea what you are on about. You can’t just string these things together and say there is a pattern. I mean the common pattern is that young girls were handed off in marriage at a young age, it was fairly common. In Muhammed’s case Aisha is the daughter of Abu Bakr, one of Muhammed’s closest confederates, the first _free_ man and nobleman to become muslim, a major win for Muhammed, Abu Bakr would go on to become the first Caliph. Make of that what you will, but it was clearly a political union that had value for both parties. These things are not out of place in the 7th century, the problem starts when you start idolizing a 7th century war lord. Which I raised in the first thread. That is where Muslims need to start and reform their religion. What moral lessons are relevant for the 21th century in the biography of Djingis Khan? “The idea of a nation-state as a building block for international relations is a Western CT“ No, Iranians and greeks were the first to consolidate their culture/nation and view the world as “us and them” as a matter of imperial/institutional policy. Persian dualism inherent in zoroastrianism of dividing everything in good or evil is a source. You are still stuck in the model of the world where things started a little over a 100-200 years ago, I am for obvious reasons aware things are at least 2500 years in the making :-)
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Mar 09 06:54:28 “I will stick to analysing this based on our nation-state system and how the integrity of the Muslim world has been violated systematically at least since 1920.” Well make sure to read about the Ottoman incursions into the Christian world for several 100’s of years before 1920. Read all the way back to the reign of Abu Bakr of all people (lol), where Muslims steam rolled the Christian world. But I understand that things are easier if they start in 1920.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Mar 09 07:04:15 “As a result, secular driving forces for change have been seriously weakened and religious activism allowed to flourish.” You are betting on linear progress where each generation there are fewer and fewer people who follow the godless secular religion you believe in. You have a fertility problem, god’s people are more fruitful.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Mar 09 07:36:34 “fine that you want to delve into the minutae of culture and explain how the Muslim world follows a different paradigm.” When I start a movie I don’t start watching the 10 last minutes. That isn’t an obsession with minutae, it is for the sake of coherency. Tsk, it is pretty straight forward, I’m rejecting the classical leftist analysis that you are voicing, as simplistic. The different paradigm I guess is not viewing the world as a series of analogies and reductive analysis that start around 18-19 century.
jergul large member	Thu Mar 09 07:45:55 Nimi I am fine with you viewing the world though a pre-westphallian, nothing special about nation-states, or city states perspective. I am looking at it though the prism of a Westphallian world where international relations are based on the principle of the sanctity of the nation-state. You know, the UN Charter. Now, if you think that nation states and democracy are failed or misguided experiments, then good for you. But it still remains an extremely useful way of analysing stuff. About 25% of all humans that have ever existed have lived in the period after 1920. So yah, what happens now is more important than what happened before. There are more of us making things happen. I am not betting on anything in particular. I am just noting that Muslim radicalism was given a vaccuum to expand in due to Western policies. I admire people with the mentality of goatherders. It shows grit. Iran's population growth is below the rate of replacement btw. Not by much, but birth per woman continue to trend downwards as it has for decades and decades. Funny what happens when women learn to read, eh?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Mar 09 07:46:15 Oh what I forgot to ad about rhe Abu Bakr back story, Joseph and Mary are not by any stretch of the imagination held as a perfect couple to be emulated. People seem to forget the important issue, as we have gotten stuck on this one thing around a 9 year old, but the biography is FULL of problematic pieces of information like that. The problem starts by thinking a 7th century war lord is an infallible person to be emulated.
jergul large member	Thu Mar 09 07:49:21 "The problem starts by thinking a 7th century war lord is an infallible person to be emulated." Or any literal reading of books holy to the Abramic sects really.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Mar 09 07:59:28 Whatever labels you want to put on them, it is obviously an incomplete understanding thay can be improved. You can be fine and still incomplete in your understanding. ”Funny what happens when women learn to read, eh?” No no I am talking about women who can read. You have to face reality, all the people who think like you barely have 1 let alone 3, you are an outlier, a dinosaur in their eyes. This modern stuff is pretty new and it is all very unclear how much of it, if any, is stable.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Mar 09 08:05:22 ”Or any literal reading of books holy to the Abramic sects really.” Like I said earlier, a degree of literalism in unavoidable, but in Islam we have moved beyond simpelton literal readings, there are entire schools and institutions that read and interpret hadith and scripture into Sharia. I already covered this, every major Sharia school has the age of consent at: *drum roll* nine. It’s almost as of you have no idea what you are talking about :-)
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Mar 09 08:09:22 the connection, sharia has governed or been present in the ME to varying degrees for a long long time, some places more than others. Laws shape culture, especially laws that govern the social sphere, when to fuck, who to fuck, how to fuck etc.
jergul large member	Thu Mar 09 09:09:11 "There is no age of consent in Iran, as all sexual activity outside of marriage is illegal. The minimum age of marriage for men is 18, and is 16 for women. Iran does not have a close-in-age exemption." Haram then? Or just you being grossly misleading? A degree of literalism is indeed unavoidable if all secular resistance has been crushed due to Western fears and the domino theory. Fostering radical Islam by giving it vacuums to operate in remains a bad idea. Time will tell what comes out ahead, but social democracy certainly has the most to offer masses and elites acting in their own best interests. No accounting for stupid of course. We will see how it plays out.
Seb Member	Thu Mar 09 09:31:05 Nim: "The problem starts by thinking a 7th century war lord is an infallible person to be emulated." In what way is this problematic in this instance - do you think that Muslims think paedophilia is to be emulated? I think here the issue is confected. Muslims do not generally seek to emulate paedophilia, they do not consider Mohammed a paedophile, nor do they think having sex with 9 year olds is a worthy thing to be doing. They just quietly fail to reconcile all of these things and move on. Much as you do with pretty much everything you profess to believe in. The "problem" in this instance is confected and made up.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Mar 09 09:36:19 Consent is used as a broad term, marriage would be consent. It is 15 for boys and 13 for girls, with the caveat that they can be younger with if the father consents. Plenty of girls get married away before they are 13 in Iran.
Seb Member	Thu Mar 09 09:42:21 It is like going after Catholics for ritualised cannibalism. Yes, they hold that the bread and wine are, at the instant of consumption, transformed into the literal body and blood of Jesus. They do not consider this cannibalism; and they do not pose a potential cannibal threat; and it would be dishonest to say that Catholics advocate for weekly cannibalism rituals.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Mar 09 09:46:42 Seb Against better judgment. Pedophilia isn’t a universally agreed upon definition, in Islamic lore this would be below the age of 9. You guys don’t seem to understand that these types of laws and rules while often practiced by a majority creates the extremes of tolerance levels. Had Aisha been 15 the law would say 15, hade she been 8 it would say 8. Beliefs have consequences for society and culture, specific beliefs have specific consequences.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Mar 09 09:50:14 “It is like going after Catholics for ritualised cannibalism“ Literal 9 year old girls and younger are handed off for marriage, it is a pervasive problem in Islamic countries in 2023. Is literal cannibalism a problem im catholic countries? Ok I am ignoring you again.
Seb Member	Fri Mar 10 02:06:05 Nim: "in Islamic lore this would be below the age of 9." In traditional Islamic law, it's puberty. "Literal 9 year old girls and younger are handed off for marriage," As they are in Hindu tradition. Marriage and consumation are not the same thing. "it is a pervasive problem in Islamic countries in 2023" Which I note you've said "Islamic countries" but the defendant is talking about Islam on Western societies. You seem to be carefully dodging around the question. Does Islam suggest fucking 9 year olds is a virtue to emulate? Its a simple question, and if you can't answer it simply I think you need to accept that the defendant's statement was reductionist to the point of dishonesty as even you can't agree to it without so many caveats and careful redefinitions. And then you will have arrived at the position the court did.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Mar 10 03:48:53 I am not a Muslim you idiot. Go and ask a muslim scholor your straight yes and no question and listen to them go on for 5-10 minutes as they provide the simple answer “should a muslim man consumate a marriage with a 9 year old girl”. Go to Muslim park in London and ask. I will wait. I am telling you you do not know what the fuck you are talking about, that you have no experience with these things and these people and with every fucking post you prove to me that I am right. Every. Fucking. Post.
Seb Member	Fri Mar 10 05:05:42 Nim: "I am not a Muslim you idiot" Nothing I have said implies you are or requires you be one. "Go and ask a muslim scholor your straight yes and no" Like I said way back in my first post on this - whether or not Mohammed had sex with a 9 year old and if he did is a theological matter best left to theologians. I am glad that after two threads you have come to your senses on this point. HOWEVER we are talking not of Islam, we are talking of human rights law. If you think only a Muslim Scholar can reasonably answer that question - then it follows that the defendants claim was reductionist to the point of dishonesty. There is no clear and obvious factual basis for claiming that Muslims revere and seek to emulate intercourse with a 9 year old and this causes a big problem when they live in western societies. And that's what the court found. "I am telling you you do not know what the fuck you are talking about" We are talking about human rights law. I know exactly what I am talking about - it is you who is confused. Pretty much the only way you can dispute the courts findings on this point is if you think the issue of Muslims seeking to emulate paedophilia is cut and dried and obvious. I know enough about Islam, as do you, to know that it is not remotely as the defendant implied. To assert it as true is an obviously a claim that cannot reasonably be made honestly, and in context was intended to provoke religious hatred. That leaves the question as to whether that was the meaning of her words. But again, she's on thin grounds.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Mar 10 05:33:44 Then stop implying straight answer are not forthcoming, because I am keeping them from you. Your question is stupid. To my knowledge, not a single specific thing Muhammed does is explictly spelled out as worthy of emulation. Yet that is the doctrine and so every hadith and story is an example of him providing solutions to practical problems and moral dilemmas that Muslims can use as guidance. Yet like a retarded fucking child seb thinks he has figured out something no one else has, does it literally say you should rape children?!?” Does it literally say you should emulate him by having sex with a 9 year old. Imbecile is a carbon copy of his Cathy Newman self that was yapping “so you are saying every muslim rapes all the time”.
Seb Member	Fri Mar 10 05:48:48 Nim: "Then stop implying straight answer are not forthcoming, because I am keeping them from you" Then stop implying there's a straight answer available and the defendant's claim was honest. Stop diving down a theological rabbit hole. Islam does not anywhere demand Muslims emulate sex with nine year olds, and it is not a point of major difference in standards of behaviour that Muslims have problems adapting to in the West. This is a fucking easy question to answer and you've spent two threads arguing about the relative merits of the Quor'an Vs the Hadiths when the conclusion is undeniable. If the defendant's claims were remotely true, you wouldn't need to resort to a theologian for a nuanced discussion.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Mar 10 07:12:45 Just as a footnote: I have yet to read a single article or detail about this supposed court case. The court that finds it an offense to recite hadiths nested in the doctrine that muhammed is infallible and to be emulated, is shooting the messenger and actively standing in the way of Islam being dragged into the 21th century. You people are another brick in the wall of uneducated idiots reaponsible for forcing children to marry old men. From your “Abrahamic faith” relativism, to “does it literally say” atomized model of the world. Fuck you all. You are not being clever, you are clueless and glib. For the rest of us not infected with the brain melting virus it is straight forward, we confront barbaric dogmas without prejudice. We don’t confront them just because they are in a book, when no one actually practices them, we don’t conflate dogmas with real world consequences with ritual that isn’t actually a thing. We confront the shitty ideas that are actually stinking up the world.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Mar 10 07:20:24 “Then stop implying there's a straight answer available and the defendant's claim was honest.” 1. Pedophilia has no universal definition 2. All schools of Islamic jurisprudence plave the age of consent at 9 3. The age 9 comes from Al Bukhari and the example of Muhammed with his wife Aisha 4. Child marriage is a big problem in Islamic countries. Children younger than 9 are married away. It isn’t a human right to not be offended by the doctrine of your own religion. Pretty straight forward.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Mar 10 07:46:38 Staright answers are not forthcoming because you are clueless, you have zero experience with these people. Should you fuck a 9 year old? The answer is fucking No. The fact that so many Muslims, leaders, scholars and the lay people can not give a straight answer and will meander on if, but, however for 15 minutes IS PART OF THE FUCKING PROBLEM. You have zero experience for how these things actually play out in an Islamic society/community. You remember I am the guy whose mother in law was married away at 13 to a 48 year old dude? Remember I actually lived in a system like this I have an endless stream of real lived experience stories from family? Use your fucking brain and be creative as to how the norms around marriage/sex are affected in a society where the majority religion, whose laws govern this society, (at best) can not give a straight fucking answer, should you fuck a 9 old girl? But as reality of child marriage being normalized in large parts of the ME shows, it isn’t nearly that good. Frequently and systematically girls the same age as your own child and younger are married to grown men. huR bUt i cARe Abut hooMAn rites!
Seb Member	Fri Mar 10 08:14:24 Nim: "I have yet to read a single article or detail about this supposed court case." Then what the fuck are you doing arguing the toss about it? "The court that finds it an offense to recite hadiths" That isn't what is happening and you are stupid to be arguing that it is with someone who has told and explained exactly why that isn't happening, having gone and looked into it, when you haven't even bothered to do so yourself. "1. Pedophilia has no universal definition" Then it is highly dishonest to suggest that Muslims revere it. "2. All schools of Islamic jurisprudence plave the age of consent at 9" https://archive.nyu.edu/bitstream/2451/62827/3/Age_of_Consent_in_Classical_Islamic_Law.pdf https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Child_Marriage_in_Islamic_Law And most Islamic states place it at 16 or 18 for girls. So, we come back to the point. The defendants argument is that Muslims seek to emulate Mohammed. This causes them to come into conflict with western standards when living in the west. An example of this is Muhammed being a paedophile. It matters not one jot what sharia law might say about the age of consent - though it does not, as it happens, universally say it is 9. 9 is clearly phrased in some of the interpretations above as a necessary not sufficient condition and puberty and having a body able to do so matters. It is very very clear given the fact that there are fucking EU states with lower ages of consent than most Islamic countries - CLEARLY the defendants statement is not only wrong, but deliberately so. "4. Child marriage is a big problem in Islamic countries. Children younger than 9 are married away." As they are in Hindu and some other cultures that practice child marriage/betrothal - Child marriage is not the same as paedophilia by the way - as you half acknowledged above. But all of this is getting away from the question at hand, which has NOTHING to do with experience with "these people" as you put it. It is not a subjective question. It is an objective one: Is it true, or could a reasonable person believe that the defendant thought it to be true: that Paedophilia is an example of behaviour that Muslims in the west seek to emulate, contrary western values. Even taken all of your nonsense above, the answer is again: No.
Seb Member	Fri Mar 10 08:15:07 Human rights abuses in other countries do not give you a licence to spread religious hatred in the west. Period.
Seb Member	Fri Mar 10 08:15:33 Nor do freedom of expression rights give you protection if you seek to do so.
Seb Member	Fri Mar 10 08:19:44 If you are too stupid to be able to articulate a case against child marriage in the middle easy without arguing that all Muslims hold paedophilia to be a virtue; you probably aren't really in a position to help address that problem any more than than left wing pro-Palestinian activists that start abusing every Jew they encounter as being a zionist. Or ever racist that looks at someone with brown skin and starts screaming about terrorism.
Rugian Member	Fri Mar 10 08:45:05 "do not give you a licence to spread religious hatred in the west." What an absolutely bizarre statement for an atheist of all people to make. The statement "God doesn't exist" is, after all, the quintessential example of religious hatred. As evidenced by the fact that you can be executed simply for saying it in many parts of the world.
Seb Member	Fri Mar 10 08:55:21 Rugian: "What an absolutely bizarre statement for an atheist of all people to make." Really? I can only assume that is because you identify as atheist, lack any kind of compassion, and imagine that religious hatred is something an atheist would direct to someone with a religion rather than the other way around. "The statement "God doesn't exist" is, after all, the quintessential example of religious hatred." No it isn't. "As evidenced by the fact that you can be executed simply for saying it in many parts of the world." You have these two things exactly reversed. The first person is expressing a religious belief "God does not exist". The second person is discriminating and persecuting them for their religious belief because they hate people who hold that belief.
Rugian Member	Fri Mar 10 09:27:32 Seb Ah, so you do see. "Hate speech" is an inherently subjective concept that can encompass completely different things to different people. If we banned all speech that was considered to he hateful to various religious/irreligious groups, then questioning the fundamental supremacy of an eternal God would absolutely be verboten.
Seb Member	Fri Mar 10 12:14:26 Rugian: Nope. You being wrong doesn't make it subjective. Hate speech is defined in law. Arguing that a theocrat could call blasphemy "religious hatred" doesn't mean that the concept in EHRC and jurisdictions that those words refer to is nebulous and open to being confused with blasphemy.
Seb Member	Fri Mar 10 12:18:43 "considered to he hateful to" nope. Its language considered by a reasonable person to be encouraging hated *of* people based on their religion. So it doesn't matter if Muslims consider an atheist saying "god doesn't exist" something they hate to hear, no reasonable person would consider it as suggesting Muslims (generally or specific) should be hated because the atheist doesn't believe in God. You seem to not to understand the concept. Your own rhetoric about "saying rude words" has only succeeded in confusing you into making a category error.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Mar 11 14:36:58 Rugian You are talking to a guy who thinks Islam, a set of idea accepted by choice wherby you call yourself a ”muslim”, is an ethnicity. By his moronic understanding of the world social democrat and conservative are races. His world view is more fluid than mercury and lives in the cracks of grammer and the gaps of knowledge. It became obvious when he without batting an eyelash called the letter from feb 2020 condemning lab leak hypothesis as conspiracy theories “science”. Litterally I asked is this science, and he said Yes. Didn’t even bother with a more palatable nuanced, “no, but”. Litterally nothing he will not say, nothing he will not twist and warp. Look where it has led him, he thinks it is a moral imperative to protect grown human beings from the barbaric reality of their own religion, than to have them confront the very religious norms that allows child marriage. Not obscure passages or fringe interpetations that no one takes serious or puts into practice like the nonexistant cannibalism of the sacrament gone wrong (fucking lol), but that is systematically put into practice across the Islamic world with little girls made into brides. There is no foundation for a dialogue with such a ghoulish creatures. The reality is that people like seb just have to be defeated. Politicially, physically whichever come first really.
Seb Member	Sat Mar 11 14:56:29 Nimatzo: Ethnicity "the quality or fact of belonging to a population group or subgroup made up of people who share a common cultural background or descent." "By his moronic understanding of the world social democrat and conservative are races" No they aren't. "His world view is more fluid than mercury" It really isn't. "called the letter from feb 2020 condemning lab leak hypothesis as conspiracy theories “science” " A claim you make only by grammatical slight of hand - an interesting approach from someone who just denounced living "in the cracks of grammer and the gaps of knowledge." "Litterally nothing he will not say, nothing he will not twist and warp." Says the manchild who just claimed I think conservatism is a race based on nothing whatsoever but an extrapolation based on a failure to understand what an ethnicity is. "than to have them confront the very religious norms that allows child marriage" We've been over this a million times - there's nothing wrong with addressing cold marriage and Muhammed marrying and having sex with a 9 year old. What you can't do is say "Muslims seek to emulate paedophilia contrary to Western norms". That's a lie, and you should know, because you've just repeated the same pattern of dishonesty at least three times in the last few paragraphs. "There is no foundation for a dialogue with such a ghoulish creatures." Ghoulish is the moral quality of a manchild like yourself that makes light of paedophilia to try and score internet points. "The reality is that people like seb just have to be defeated, Politicially, physically whichever come first really." And so does Nimatzo complete his radicalisation journey - seeking to exterminate those whose views he cannot reconcile himself to.
Seb Member	Sat Mar 11 14:59:53 Nim is revealed for what he is: deeply dishonest, fundamentally hypocritical political extremist who would seek to impose his ideology by political violence.
	show deleted posts