hard2miss Posted November 6, 2010 Share Posted November 6, 2010 Did you really misunderstand this whole situation? Old Mo didn't groom and rape a 9 year old - he didn't shag her for quite a few years, and he was married to her (although he was a bigamist!)... The nonce in the slammer tonight raped kids, that's why he's been sent down... He didn't marry her, he didn't wait til she was of age in the country they both lived in... It's not that difficult to understand - seriously, you need to read more (and not crappy forums that are made up of half propaganda and half fluff) and think things through... Don't allow your mind to be groomed by people who mean you harm - the far right extremists are led by people just as twisted as the muslim clerics who get vunerable, poorly educated numpties to kill themselves for their amusement...If your not denying that Mohamed (PBUH) wed a 9 year old and that these people as Muslims may here and now think that its ok to tamper with 9 year old's, then I don't understand your argument. I'm not talking about grooming, as if I was I would be suggesting that, Mohamed (PBUH) did his grooming prior to the girl being 9. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Star Posted November 6, 2010 Share Posted November 6, 2010 I would not know being a UK citizen. please make a relevant point... Just pointing out that a fairly far right country populated largely by white christians has the same rules and regs - so attempting to show someone who can't see what's happening in the world that this is not a specifically muslim situation... Freaks, pervs and weridos come from all backgrounds, and just cos your culture of origin has form (as the US has) for allowing you to mess with kids legitimately, it bares no relationship to how the majority would behave... In short, this isn't a race issue, the BNP did jack ***** to assist in this conviction (that was social services' role) and now right wing fools are trying to use 5 nonces raping kids in Rotherham as a stick to beat muslims with... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hard2miss Posted November 6, 2010 Share Posted November 6, 2010 Just pointing out that a fairly far right country populated largely by white christians has the same rules and regs - so attempting to show someone who can't see what's happening in the world that this is not a specifically muslim situation... Freaks, pervs and weridos come from all backgrounds, and just cos your culture of origin has form (as the US has) for allowing you to mess with kids legitimately, it bares no relationship to how the majority would behave... In short, this isn't a race issue, the BNP did jack ***** to assist in this conviction (that was social services' role) and now right wing fools are trying to use 5 nonces raping kids in Rotherham as a stick to beat muslims with...Had Christ talked about knocking women on the head with an hammer then maybe Peter Sutcliffe would have had a case here to get away with murder ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Star Posted November 6, 2010 Share Posted November 6, 2010 If your not denying that Mohamed (PBUH) wed a 9 year old and that these people as Muslims may here and now think that its ok to tamper with 9 year old's, then I don't understand your argument. I'm not talking about grooming as if I was I would be suggesting that Mohamed (PBUH) did his grooming prior to the girl being 9. So old mo had a few issues - I have personally always found him a joke as a religious leader, seeing as he tells his followers not to favour one wife over another yet he openly admited to doing this himself, so showing that he was someone who couldn't practice what he preached... But then this is a fairly new faith, and was created as a backlash to the more radical (at the time) Christianity - They even go back to some of the practices seen in Judaism, such as Kosher (halal) and the idea that pigs are forbidden to be used as food... But that is not the point here - we are talking paedoes, and mo was not a paedo in his time and culture... He wouldn't have been in the west at the time either - people used to be married with kids at 13 cos they wouldn't get much older than 30! Things really were totally different then, and so your argument cannot stand... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mafya Posted November 6, 2010 Share Posted November 6, 2010 You mean to say that he/she is wrong in the assumption that Mohammed would not have been found guilty and sentenced accordingly for what he did back then, here in Rotherham today ? I don't personally see much of a difference had it been now and here. And given that this is in the religion they draw on how is it not fair to assume that they consider this sort of behaviour right/correct ? Is this not the problem people are high lighting with Islam in the whole and not just in this isolated case ? In 1859 the age of consent in California USA was 7 In 1889 the age of consent in California USA was 10 According to historical biblical sources Joseph was 90 yrs old and Mary was 12-14 years old when they married. Can't be arsed to get into a long debate so will leave you to research the above points which are correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Star Posted November 6, 2010 Share Posted November 6, 2010 Had Christ talked about knocking women on the head with an hammer then maybe Peter Sutcliffe would have had a case here to get away with murder ? What are you talking about? It just goes to show what they say here in Sheffield is true - You can't educate pork! But God knows I tried Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Star Posted November 6, 2010 Share Posted November 6, 2010 In 1859 the age of consent in California USA was 7 In 1889 the age of consent in California USA was 10 According to historical biblical sources Joseph was 90 yrs old and Mary was 12-14 years old when they married. Can't be arsed to get into a long debate so will leave you to research the above points which are correct. You will be here all day and all night trying to get that gorm to see sense... I hate to see the hard of learning groomed by extremists, but it seems that this one was like shooting a fish in a barrell for them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hard2miss Posted November 6, 2010 Share Posted November 6, 2010 So old mo had a few issues - I have personally always found him a joke as a religious leader, seeing as he tells his followers not to favour one wife over another yet he openly admited to doing this himself, so showing that he was someone who couldn't practice what he preached... But then this is a fairly new faith, and was created as a backlash to the more radical (at the time) Christianity - They even go back to some of the practices seen in Judaism, such as Kosher (halal) and the idea that pigs are forbidden to be used as food... But that is not the point here - we are talking paedoes, and mo was not a paedo in his time and culture... He wouldn't have been in the west at the time either - people used to be married with kids at 13 cos they wouldn't get much older than 30! Things really were totally different then, and so your argument cannot stand...Look you can talk of Islam or Judaism or anything else but you can't knock Christians for having the most comprehensive human rights agenda out of the lot of them and why we here are the most fortunate and most sought after nation bar none for people wanting to gain refuge and citizenship. If you wish to debate and be conflicting in any of those points then I have a whole life time of debate time open to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mafya Posted November 6, 2010 Share Posted November 6, 2010 You will be here all day and all night trying to get that gorm to see sense... I hate to see the hard of learning groomed by extremists, but it seems that this one was like shooting a fish in a barrell for them... I know thats why I put the can't be arsed to debate bit at the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hard2miss Posted November 6, 2010 Share Posted November 6, 2010 In 1859 the age of consent in California USA was 7 In 1889 the age of consent in California USA was 10 According to historical biblical sources Joseph was 90 yrs old and Mary was 12-14 years old when they married. Can't be arsed to get into a long debate so will leave you to research the above points which are correct. If you wish to get into what happens here in the UK then give it a shot. I am betting that Christianity has the upper hand on Islam at every turn of the argument, in or above the argument of consent. If you wish I will start a specific topic up to highlight any arguments you may wish to throw up. I am not a 'as it were' practising Christian, but I am logical in any argument I undertake and I fear nothing Islam can throw my way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.