awww come on FD, you've had a few days off to think up a half-decent reply, and thats the best you can come up with? You disappoint me. Still cut up over your spam thread being deleted perhaps?

Know you of such a defense FD? Any examples at all?

Perhaps if you could demonstrate that this is indeed what muslims do, then you will have a better case. Until then, you are simply putting words into muslims mouths.

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2014 at 7:32pm:


Because we are talking about contemporary society - you know like the thread title says?

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2014 at 7:32pm:


Because there is no evidence that he married her because of what Muhammad did.

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2014 at 7:32pm:


Because that has nothing to do whether or not muslims who marry kids do it because Muhammad did it.

Incredible that you can lose track of the question in such a short time.

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2014 at 7:21pm:


So what if a narcissistic Karmic Khristan declares that, "marriages of brothers and sisters, mothers and sons and even fathers and daughters were very common in ancient times and not even considered incestuous, much less illegal".

David Moses did so, of course, to promote sex with children, and within families - between families. His cult, the Children of God, had thousands of members. Children were sent from country to country to evade child protection authorities. David Moses’ own adopted son, Davidito, murdered one of his sexual abusers and took his own life.

In my opinion, such a cult bears no resemblance to Christian beliefs, but it’s an example of what can happen when people get caught up in fundamentalist, cultist, and even liberatory, thinking.

But it shows that Muslims and Christians alike can use the example of their prophets to justify what, in Moses’ case, was a personal fetish.

The notion that child marriage is unique to followers of Muhammed is patently absurd.

Nearly every Muslim on this board has attempted to justify pedophilia in some way Karnal, including Gandalf. It was not an entirely hypothetical question.

Quote:


Muhammed had sex with a 9 year old girl. Muslims are always attempting to justify pedophilia in some way.

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2014 at 7:56pm:


Then allow me to do the same. It’s not paedophilia when the average age of your population is 30. People in agrarian societies marry young. Australia was unique in the world in the early 20th century for having a minimum.age for marriage.

A minimum.age of 12.

This is not paedophilia. In lifespan terms,  it’s called making hay while the sun shines. In pre-modern Australia, marrying girls young was believed to save them from predatory males and sex - and childbirth - outside marriage.

Queen Victoria famously stated that the purpose of civilization is to protect the chastity of girls. You find exactly the same arguments in traditional societies and Islam itself. After all, what other purpose does the burqa serve?

Paedophilia is a modern phenomenon. It was unheard of in pre-modern societies, simply because child marriage was the norm.  You don’t justify paedophilia by denying its existence, but paedophilia certainly did not exist - as a philia - prior to the late 19th century. It certainly didn’t exist in the paranoid, tabloid sense it does today in the English-speaking world until the 1980s.

This isn’t justifying "paedophilia", it’s putting sex and reproduction in the pre-modern world into perspective. I read some of Abu’s responses to the Muhammed-as-paedophile tag, and this is exactly what he was getting at. He wasn’t "justifying paedophilia" at all. He was placing child marriage into its historic perspective.

It seems that you’ll say or do anything to point the ugly stick at Islam, FD, but try to do it with a little style. It doesn’t help your case when you come across like a little old lady calling up Alan.

That’s all very nice, old boy, but you haven’t actually said anything. If this isn’t flailing to the gallery, what is?

Address the points or get off the pot.

Miam miam.