|
Tendai posted:I think it has to start at that level. I mean, it shouldn't be "I think this guy might have DANGEROUS THOUGHTS" but if someone is making credible threats like "I'm going to go shoot up some poo poo" or even "those people who shot up some poo poo had the right idea," things get a little more intense. I don't think this is anything American Muslims haven't already been doing. I've heard a few stories of an imam calling the cops about a suspiciously militant newcomer, only to eventually find out the guy in question was an undercover FBI agent.
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 10:59 |
|
|
P-Mack posted:I don't think this is anything American Muslims haven't already been doing. I've heard a few stories of an imam calling the cops about a suspiciously militant newcomer, only to eventually find out the guy in question was an undercover FBI agent. I think this kind of 'sting' was really common after 9/11.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
Interesting and informative thread, Tendai. I've been learning more and reading up on some of the concepts you've noted. One thing I've been looking are the terms "moderate," and "radical / extremist." I had suspected that these terms were created by the (mostly secular) West and do not come from muslims nor the Islamic world. (I found a good article on this.) So my question to you or anyone: do muslims in the islamic world use these terms (in their own languages or Arabic for example)? The terms "moderate" or "radical" or "extremist."
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:I don't think this is anything American Muslims haven't already been doing. I've heard a few stories of an imam calling the cops about a suspiciously militant newcomer, only to eventually find out the guy in question was an undercover FBI agent. Positive Optimyst posted:Interesting and informative thread, Tendai.  Okay. So for general, orthodox Muslims, as far as I know, the word moderate might be used but it is used with an incredible amount of disdain or outright dislike, at least on every mainstream Muslim forum I have been on. The Islam subreddit is a good example of this; in order to be able to obliquely present a progressive viewpoint in a meaningful way without my posts disappearing, I have had to be very, very careful not to refer to myself as a progressive or moderate. In terms of the hatred hierarchy on mainstream Muslim, English-primary forums, it goes something like this, from least to most hated group: - Progressives. We are seen as Western apologists at best and innovators (a seeerious sin to the orthodox) at worst, so it ranges from scorn to outright "you are a disbeliever who is trying to change Islam and lead us astray." Generally, online that I've seen, it tends to be more disdain. - Apostates. This will surprise a lot of people, but the views expressed on English-speaking Muslim sites are generally pretty tolerant of this and follow the interpretation that I mentioned earlier in this thread, about it being more about treason than religion based on the historical context. I can't really think of an instance that wasn't an obvious troll, stating outright that they believed apostates should die. That might be self-editing because it's public, but I've seen some pretty horrible things in other regards so I tend to be skeptical that those people are that bothered by it. - Shi'a. It goes without saying that most media is predominantly Sunni, because most Muslims are. Depending on where you are, Shi'a will be looked at in much the same way as progressives: "They're wrong and kind of dumb but whatever" all the way up to "they are apostates, let's bomb the poo poo out of them," as we've seen in recent months. - Qur'anists. This is another area where I have basically edited what I say on other websites because any hint of anything that leans towards Qur'anism gets slammed fast. Things edge out of being mostly disdain to being pretty hateful. Even questioning the historicity and validity of the sahih hadith that just about all orthodox Muslims accept is met with pretty harsh responses. - Ahmadi. Yeah, these guys get absolutely poo poo on, which is really sad because I have yet to meet an Ahmadi online who wasn't really chill and interested in talking rationally. From what I can tell, most mainstream Muslims on English-speaking media will simply say they're not Muslims. I differ on this and so do almost all progressive/moderate types that I know of. Okay that was kind of a segue, sorry. The TL;DR of that is that terms like moderate or progressive are used by mainstream Muslims but generally-speaking, from what I've seen, they will be used with a whole lot of disdain and scorn, as well as outright hate from more conservative types. Anything that could be bid'ah, innovation, gets clamped down on pretty fast. Tendai fucked around with this message at 15:32 on Dec 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 03:36
|
|
|
ashgromnies posted:How do you feel about the Obama administration's plea to American Muslims for self-policing and self-reporting of people believed to be flirting with radicalism? I think it was entirely appropriate. I know Muslims who believe that it isnt their business to confront radicalism or report about it since it has nothing to do with them. I had this discussion just last night with an old friend and Im afraid my opinion just scarred the relationship, and he (being Pakistani) turned it into a reverse racist thing asking me if I should be responsible to report on every extremist white supremacist. I told him, hell yes. If we learn of extreme behaviour we have a religious and civic duty to stop it before they fricken kill someone, otherwise we are culpable. I strongly disagree with being "passive" on radicalisation. I believe it is our civic and religious duty to confront radicalism from confronting their ideology to reporting (and even aiding) the authorities and promoting de-radicalisation programmes P-Mack posted:I don't think this is anything American Muslims haven't already been doing. I've heard a few stories of an imam calling the cops about a suspiciously militant newcomer, only to eventually find out the guy in question was an undercover FBI agent. FBI agents cannot infiltrate Mosques legally. It is a violation of civil rights and can jeopardize their case. It would have to be a Muslim working as an undercover informant for the FBI. The only other possibility is that some Muslims are FBI agents, some who I have known personally. A case using such an agent inside of a Mosque can be dicey. It is good that the Imam would report it. It just shows he is diligent and serious about confronting extremism. IMO, from my personal experiences, Muslim communities have a lot of work to do. We woke up on 9/11, but in the short months later, buried our heads in the sand hoping that it would go away. A few of us did all of the hard work while everyone else relaxed thinking it was all over. In every case of radicalization, there are people close to the individuals who know something is amiss. Some Muslims (like the underwear bombers father) do call authorities when this happens, but many others (like the San Bernardno shooters mother) do not. Its frustrating but Muslims need to get over their distrust of the government and avert these things from happening. "O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice, witnesses for Allah , even if it be against yourselves or parents and relatives. Whether one is rich or poor, Allah is more worthy of both. So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be just. And if you distort [your testimony] or refuse [to give it], then indeed Allah is ever, with what you do, Acquainted." Qur'an 4:135 Anyhow.... end of rant. Sorry. Amun Khonsu fucked around with this message at 13:31 on Dec 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 13:24
|
|
|
Amun Khonsu posted:(like the San Bernardno shooters mother)
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
Tendai posted:This honestly baffled me; if the reports on how openly they were loving around with explosives and leaving guns around are close to true, there is no way someone should have just been all "Oh this is a normal amount of weaponry and activity." Was she scared or was she "meh, not my business?" about it, is the question that tends to come up for me. I don't know. It was also her son. She would not be the first mom to turn a blind eye to crazy poo poo. This is why parental testimony is never valid for character witnesses.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
Amun Khonsu posted:FBI agents cannot infiltrate Mosques legally. It is a violation of civil rights and can jeopardize their case. It would have to be a Muslim working as an undercover informant for the FBI. The only other possibility is that some Muslims are FBI agents, some who I have known personally. A case using such an agent inside of a Mosque can be dicey. It is good that the Imam would report it. It just shows he is diligent and serious about confronting extremism. Just a point, I don't know the exact conditions but I definitely listened a This American Life episode (566 iirc) that was about an FBI informant who worked in several different locations including a mosque. He may have been officially Muslim though and wasn't technically an FBI agent. In practical term there's no difference and the dude he was basically entrapping ended up being arrested and serving time for firing a handgun on a range while on parole because there was nothing else they could find on him. Personally I understand the need to fight radicalisation, in any ideology, but I still feel uneasy about being required to report people for voicing dangerous thoughts. I say this not feeling it's wrong to do so but I don't really feel it should be another individual's responsibility either. I worry about what that does to relations within a community and to us as a society.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 01:28
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:Just a point, I don't know the exact conditions but I definitely listened a This American Life episode (566 iirc) that was about an FBI informant who worked in several different locations including a mosque. He may have been officially Muslim though and wasn't technically an FBI agent. In practical term there's no difference and the dude he was basically entrapping ended up being arrested and serving time for firing a handgun on a range while on parole because there was nothing else they could find on him. Here is the dichotomy. One one hand, if we do not report dangerous ideas and an investigation ensues involving a load of agents that dont know the people, culture, faith or religious idea and even the meaning of Arabic words, there is a greater chance of the government getting it wrong and building a case against a person out of ignorance or misunderstandings. On the other hand, if we do report it, members of our community will look at us as government spies who was only there to "entrap" innocent Muslims, nevermind that they were out training in jihadi camps, had radicalized online, had tons of evidence against him/her. A few points to touch on: 1. The Muslim community in the US (since I am from the US), is largely distrustful of law enforcement. 2. Most convictions in the community are not entrapment, esp ones involving Muslim agents/informants. If they are entrapped, then the convictions can be overturned. 3. People around those individuals who have been convicted or carried out a terrorist plot all report seeing signs of radicalism but few report (apathy or distrust of authorities) and the cases (or attacks) could have been averted. 4. De-radicalization programs are relatively new and most people (Muslims and FBI) rarely look at those as options, if they even know about them. IMO, especially in this climate of fear and mistrust of Muslims, we need to embrace a pro-law enforcement view rather than a distrustful one (not just pay lip service to it). We need to police our own communities otherwise people who dont know our faith will trample it trying to solve the problem of extremism which leads to attacks, a problem that only we can solve. If we all dont take a part, even if it be against our own flesh and blood, then the system fails, mistrust grows and more idiots call for Muslims to be banned, rounded up, interned or even "ethno-religiously" cleansed through mass deportation. In the end, clowns like ISIS will win through our apathy. We need to be diligent and proactive. Our reactive behaviour that has been our modus since 9/11 is creating huge problems for us, imo. Our survival depends on it. Amun Khonsu fucked around with this message at 04:03 on Dec 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
Any recommendations for a write up on pre-Islamic Arabian religion and its possible influences on Islam? I imagine there's a lot of "Nothing happened before the seventh century" from Islamic fundamentalists and "Moon god???" From Christian fundamentalists so I'd like to find something dry and scholarly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:Any recommendations for a write up on pre-Islamic Arabian religion and its possible influences on Islam? I imagine there's a lot of "Nothing happened before the seventh century" from Islamic fundamentalists and "Moon god???" From Christian fundamentalists so I'd like to find something dry and scholarly. I think I've recommended this before, but read "In the shadow of the sword". It's a write up of the first decades of Islam by a western historian. But as far as I remember, he argues that pre-Islamic paganism has had relatively little influence on Islam, which takes most of its content from Judaism and Christianity, and some of its traditions from Persian religion. Something both the moon god people and Muslims will tell you is that the Kaaba used to be a pagan shrine to some Arab goddesses. Apparently the Prophet once thought about including these goddesses into his new religion as daughters of Allah, but the angel who brought him revelations struck that idea right down.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
A lot of Sharia law, however, is steeped in pre-Islamic Arab custom, which is why so much of it has no basis in the Quran.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
Fuzz posted:A lot of Sharia law, however, is steeped in pre-Islamic Arab custom, which is why so much of it has no basis in the Quran. But a lot of Sharia law is based on the Sahih Hadith, correct? I'd be interested in more information on this topic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
Positive Optimyst posted:But a lot of Sharia law is based on the Sahih Hadith, correct? Almost all of the dominion over women stuff is heavily steeped in ancient Arab customs. If you actually read the Quran Islam was pretty revolutionary for its time in how it empowered women. Excluding the 4 wives thing since that's all anyone ever wants to talk about. 
Fuzz fucked around with this message at 00:46 on Dec 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 00:42
|
|
|
Fuzz posted:Excluding the 4 wives thing since that's all anyone ever wants to talk about. Nine-year-olds, dude. I kind of think loving children is a bigger deal than having multiple adult wives, personally. Lassitude fucked around with this message at 05:34 on Dec 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
Lassitude posted:Nine-year-olds, dude. Now you are delving into the "science of hadith" and if you dont understand the historical and cultural context, isnad (chain of narration), and the nature of the hadith, jurisprudence regarding Isnad and how to apply them then it's best not to make such assertions. You are assuming the many hadith about her age is correct. In fact, many hadith are not accurate and contain errors. They after all, were written some 200-300 years after the Prophet's death. Hadith are basically "hearsay evidence" and have many classifications of authenticity of isnad, not accuracy of content. Despite the most authentic hadith being considered "authentic", it doesnt change the fact that they were written 200-300 years after the fact and are secondary to Quranic verses which were written immediately during the time of the Prophet who saw and authorized Quranic verses himself. Keep in mind that although Muslims believe in the Bible (New Testament), we don't rely on it for our belief system because the earliest writings are from 132AD (in aramaic) and wasnt cannonized until 325AD (in greek). Furthermore it has no isnad. Yes, 100 to over 300 years after Jesus. The Prophet never saw our books of hadith and Jesus never saw the Bible to authorize it. We draw truths based on them but understand that there may be errors. Aisha's marriage was arranged by her father Abu Bakr and it was not consummated until she was of age to legally accept the marriage. The age is highly debatable due to the errors highlighted by true historical events recorded in the Quran and other hadith that make contradictions. To arbitrarily say 9 years old without taking into account the many other hadith that contradict this is a serious error. http://www.discoveringislam.org/aisha_age.htm Amun Khonsu fucked around with this message at 17:07 on Dec 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
Just curious, when you say you "believe in the New Testament" what do you mean exactly?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
Amun Khonsu posted:Now you are delving into the "science of hadith" and if you dont understand the historical and cultural context, isnad (chain of narration), and the nature of the hadith, jurisprudence regarding Isnad and how to apply them then it's best not to make such assertions. A casual look at Wikipedia makes it clear that there's some real debate on the issue. Indeed, she may in fact have been as old as 12 when he started banging her. Whew! Anyway, truthfully I don't really care. People during that time period loved marrying children if they could. Certainly Muhammad would be no different. And none of the other religions are devoid of this kind of reprehensible garbage, either. So don't think I'm picking on Islam here. But I certainly place Muhammad having multiple wives far, far, far below aspects of the Islamic religion such as death to apostates, the sexism, Muhammad being the inspiration for Walder "Tight Fit" Frey, and so on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
Lassitude posted:A casual look at Wikipedia makes it clear that there's some real debate on the issue. Indeed, she may in fact have been as old as 12 when he started banging her. Whew! Anyway, truthfully I don't really care. People during that time period loved marrying children if they could. Certainly Muhammad would be no different. And none of the other religions are devoid of this kind of reprehensible garbage, either. So don't think I'm picking on Islam here. But I certainly place Muhammad having multiple wives far, far, far below aspects of the Islamic religion such as death to apostates, the sexism, Muhammad being the inspiration for Walder "Tight Fit" Frey, and so on. How old do you think most European girls were when they were having kids in the Middle Ages, a full 500 years later? Guess what, around 12-15. As soon as a girl hit puberty, she was fair game and her parents would sell her off like expensive cattle. That was practically universal in how it cropped up in so many different cultures. 18 being considered an 'adult' is a super modern concept... Barely 150 years old, on a global scale. But hey, white people can do no wrong, amirite? When OTHER people do it it's filthy and barbaric, let's just say it like it is. tl:dr: Selectively bashing a culture you clearly know little about does you no good when what you're bashing wasn't even very unique to that culture. Fuzz fucked around with this message at 22:02 on Dec 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
As I rather clearly said,Lassitude posted:People during that time period loved marrying children if they could. Certainly Muhammad would be no different. His behaviour is completely unsurprising to me. I mean, the Greeks had, by modern standards, a disgusting habit of pederasty, too. Our modern sensibilities are exceptionally recent in human history. So I don't begrudge Muhammad or the Greeks the fact that they were men of their time. Now, obviously if I thought Muhammad were meant to be a divinely inspired figure I'd hope that perhaps he'd be beyond the baser needs of men, and would do things designed to stand the test of time, things which would inspire humans through the ages. But I don't. So obviously he's just going to do what is appropriate at the time. And that's fine. I'm not casting aspersions on him or the culture he existed in, because I know he was just another human like everyone else in his age, and it's silly to judge things like marrying a six-year-old in the 7th century by 21st century standards. But to the original point, marrying four (adult) wives is far less scandalous by today's standards than ploughing a nine-year-old. Lassitude fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Dec 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
Cultural and historical relativism is normally a defensible position, but it doesn't really work with religious figures. Why didn't God tell Muhammad to not have sex with children?
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 02:59
|
|
|
Fuzz posted:How old do you think most European girls were when they were having kids in the Middle Ages, a full 500 years later? Like I agree with the sentiment here, but I think most recent scholarship on the middle ages has actually been pointing towards a much older typical marriage age, with marriages under 16, while legal and not necessarily remarkable, being distinctly in the minority. Even in those cases first children are very rarely seen until late teens.at the earliest. (I suspect even if Aisha's actual age at time of marriage was unusually young, the marriage probably would have conformed to this pattern of deferring consummation and children until weird but not super-creepy by modern standards.) Let's not fight dumb misconceptions about Islam with dumb misconceptions about medieval history.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 03:32
|
|
|
Fuzz posted:How old do you think most European girls were when they were having kids in the Middle Ages, a full 500 years later? It was a little wonkier within the nobility, but average age at marriage for medieval Europeans was low-to-mid 20s. You're not doing yourself any favours by trying to pass off a false myth as true. Neither do I like it when nutters harp on about the precise age of Aisha like it's a gotcha. Corvinus fucked around with this message at 06:21 on Dec 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 06:18
|
|
|
Lassitude posted:A casual look at Wikipedia makes it clear that there's some real debate on the issue. Indeed, she may in fact have been as old as 12 when he started banging her. Whew! Anyway, truthfully I don't really care. People during that time period loved marrying children if they could. Certainly Muhammad would be no different. And none of the other religions are devoid of this kind of reprehensible garbage, either. So don't think I'm picking on Islam here. But I certainly place Muhammad having multiple wives far, far, far below aspects of the Islamic religion such as death to apostates, the sexism, Muhammad being the inspiration for Walder "Tight Fit" Frey, and so on. Yes because Wikipedia is a reliable source written by scholars of arabic, Islam and arab and Islamic history. Plz spare me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 09:27
|
|
|
Konstantin posted:Cultural and historical relativism is normally a defensible position, but it doesn't really work with religious figures. Why didn't God tell Muhammad to not have sex with children? He didnt have sex with children. Read my post again. I explained it well enough.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 09:29
|
|
|
On the topic of Aisha, I think it's fair to say that basically we don't know the exact ages as we lack much definitive information about Mohammed's life in general but the actual marriage and consummation seem to have been in line with the common practice of the times and those were generally not as crazy as we tend to think (i.e. super young marriages tended to be more for political/financial reasons and if they were consummated super early it was probably more to do with concern over producing an heir rather than people back then just being into kids everywhere).pidan posted:I think I've recommended this before, but read "In the shadow of the sword". It's a write up of the first decades of Islam by a western historian. But as far as I remember, he argues that pre-Islamic paganism has had relatively little influence on Islam, which takes most of its content from Judaism and Christianity, and some of its traditions from Persian religion. I actually like In the Shadow of the Sword but I'd be very wary of taking any of Holland's points at face value. He writes great stuff on Roman history and I think his thesis is interesting but he seems to take most of his information from some pretty anti-Islamic thinkers and basically starts from the premise that academic historians need to discount everything that can't be 100% verified by outside facts. By the standards he applies to the Hadith we should probably be throwing Herodotus, Livy and many other ancient historians. Now in fairness the hadith are probably closer in terms of veracity to the Gospels but it seems like you can still extract some ideas of Jesus' life from them. Holland just blanket rejects them without, in the texts at least, offering any arguments against the more strongly considered ones or anything similar. I also think Holland himself is arguing against a fundamentalist view of Islam and its history that many Muslims don't really subscribe to. Amun and others might be able to offer more but for instance I don't think it would be unthinkable that early Islamic forces would be made up of people that hadn't fully understood or accepted Mohammed's message, that there were still cultural and religious practices from polytheistic Arab religions being practised by individuals and groups within the original Islamic armies, something Holland makes a big deal about. Basically his argument is that Islam, as a human institution, formed in much the same way others did: messily and inconsistently. I think that's a fair point, it might undermine simplistic fundamentalist type understandings of Islam (that the religion as practised, probably by them primarily, is the exact set of beliefs, rituals and scripture as was told to Mohammed by God and was practised originally by all Muslims and it was only later with the spoils of Empire and Abbasids/Umayyads/take your pick of unpopular dynasty, that things started to get changed) but ultimately it just puts the historicity of Islamic scripture under the same doubts as Christian or Jewish texts. He goes on to them address some pretty out there theories (the whole thing of the Qur'an originally not being Arabic or Mohammed actually coming from somewhere near Palestine) and, since he's left everything open to doubt, seems to think that giving a lot of space to pretty dubious ideas is perfectly justified.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 11:22
|
|
|
Amun Khonsu posted:He didnt have sex with children. Read my post again. I explained it well enough. The last time there was an Ask/Tell thread about Islam the op and other muslims did agree that Aisha was a child by modern standards when she was married and when the Prophet started to gently caress her.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 13:51
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:The last time there was an Ask/Tell thread about Islam the op and other muslims did agree that Aisha was a child by modern standards when she was married and when the Prophet started to gently caress her. Have some tact. "By modern standards" is a dubious statement and maybe you should link the thread so we can analyse it instead of making a vague reference. If this is the case, it is wrong. No one knows the exact time when they had the "nikkah" (marriage ceremony) and no one knows when the marriage was "consummated", the estimations are vastly different "Modern standards" in the United States alone very greatly but all are very early regarding marriage. According to various US state law, a girl with her parents consent can marry and have sex in that marriage in her early to mid teens. Check it out and lets talk modern standards in relation to the ancient marriages of the Prophet Muhammad: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_marriage_in_the_United_States Specially note the ages: Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Texas Amun Khonsu fucked around with this message at 15:50 on Dec 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
Can we just agree that people did stuff back in the day that would not be socially acceptable today without debating the merits or accuracy of child-loving for like 30 posts, and also without some weird attempt to discredit a dude because obviously god would have made him act in a way we find ok right at this exact moment in time or whatever? This poo poo is retarded and both sides come off creepy obsessed with the exact definition of child-loving. I just wanna read about the actual religious beliefs and expand my understanding of spiritual thought, not this poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 05:25
|
|
|
Amun Khonsu posted:He didnt have sex with children. Read my post again. I explained it well enough. Holy poo poo, yes he did. The indulgence of historical revisionism among religious apologists is hilariously onerous these days, especially w/r/t to Islam.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 06:17
|
|
|
Immortan posted:Holy poo poo, yes he did. The indulgence of historical revisionism among religious apologists is hilariously onerous these days, especially w/r/t to Islam. Idk it sounds like it was at most one child, and her age is disputable. Unless you have some conclusive evidence you can share?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 07:37
|
|
|
ashgromnies posted:Idk it sounds like it was at most one child, and her age is disputable. Unless you have some conclusive evidence you can share? Wow, at least you're open about condoning pedophilia. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 08:05
|
|
|
Immortan posted:Wow, at least you're open about condoning pedophilia. lmao you're fuckin' dumb my point is that you're wrong about basically everything you've been saying ("has sex with children" when it is only aisha in question, and you think her age is conclusively settled), so i am calling attention to that fact to create more uncertainty around anything else you might say if you think that's "condoning pedophilia" you're really really stupid so, again, if you want to come in here and act like an authority, how about you behave like the other people acting as authorities and actually post some supporting evidence? if you can't substantiate your claims with any evidence then how can you expect to convince anyone? ashgromnies fucked around with this message at 08:19 on Dec 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 08:13
|
|
|
ashgromnies posted:lmao you're fuckin' dumb Why would I substantiate my claim when you already acknowledged it was true? It seems to me that you're attempting to censor yourself now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 08:22
|
|
|
Immortan posted:Why would I substantiate my claims when you already acknowledged it was true? what on earth are you talking about? i haven't acknowledged poo poo that you've said. try reading again. i said that the question of her age seems not settled -- she may or may not have been a "child", from what i can glean from this thread, and it may or may not have been acceptable practice at the time to marry "children" of such an age. that's hardly conclusive. and besides, i am not the only person here who could benefit from the fruits of your scholarship. please, share your research with us.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 08:27
|
|
|
ashgromnies posted:what on earth are you talking about? i haven't acknowledged poo poo that you've said. try reading again. i said that the question of her age seems not settled -- she may or may not have been a "child", from what i can glean from this thread, and it may or may not have been acceptable practice at the time to marry "children" of such an age. that's hardly conclusive.  It's widely accepted among anyone other than ideological driven apologists such as yourself that he engaged in pedophilia. He certainly had and promoted a heavily patriarchal worldview that oppressed women to begin with. I'm not even getting into the abhorrent massacres of apostates and nonbelievers. You could at least modify your tone into less of a casual and carefree one when discussing pedophilia, it isn't a laughing matter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 08:33
|
|
|
okay so if it's "widely accepted" why haven't you posted any evidence? it should be easy to find edit: is this your schtick? making wild claims and then being unable to back them up and being insulting? ashgromnies fucked around with this message at 08:42 on Dec 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 08:37
|
|
|
The onus is on the apologist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 08:42
|
|
|
Immortan posted:The onus is on the apologist. surprise, they've posted enough evidence in here that any reasonable person, based solely on the material in this thread, would come to the conclusion that knowing aisha's exact age is very difficult
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 08:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 10:59 |
|
|
ashgromnies posted:surprise, they've posted enough evidence in here that any reasonable person, based solely on the material in this thread, would come to the conclusion that knowing aisha's exact age is very difficult It doesn't have much merit because an ideological apologist for Muhammad isn't outright going to acknowledge or admit he engaged in pedophilia verbatim. Objectively it's an open question, which by definition means he shouldn't be held as a moral figure at least.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 08:48
|
|