Iraqi Idol

[The Linuxator]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: The Linuxator
OH COME ON !!!

No, I refuse to believe that having sex with little 9 year old girls is an appropriate course of action for any old men in today's time. It might have been acceptable back then, but times have changed now.

I agree 100 % now can we end this delima. My problem here is that what you are saying is that God can be right a 1000 years ago but now he is wrong !? The Muslims used this law and it worked for a thousand years after it it only failed when they failed to apply it again and turned to terrorisim as a substitute. You have to research the history of Islam to understand me, I have done alot of reading about Islam and I saw accomplishments beyond any other nation in history.

Not even Alexander the great would have been able to do the same. They had spread their relegion from Moroco till Indonesia and even in Europe and some parts of southern africa, stopped slavary, gave women their rights, spread peace wherever they where ruling, gave people the freedom of beleif, So as one of many examples form history, if you read the works of some Jewish scholars in Spain it will tell you literaly that when Muslims where is Spain it was the golden age for Jews by which for the first time in their history they weren't being harrassed for their beleif system, so these are Muslims that people portray as Jew haters. Women were given the right of inheritence owning property ( a right of which in Europe they didn't get until after the French reveloution) , become heads of state, keep their own names if they want to after marriage...etc the examples are too many to list.

These are the barberic people that you portray in your posts and in your sig, you obviously know nothing of, by simply judging them for capital punishment. No Nuclear weapons are barberic yet in the other thread you were completley fine with our country having them.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: The Linuxator
I agree 100 % now can we end this delima.

My GOD (ironically)! Look at what I said earlier:

I believe that common argument is that she was around 6-7 years old when married and 9 years old when the marriage was consumated.

This may have been fine a long time ago and I don't necessarily have a problem with it when taking into the context of the era. However, it's disgusting if done in modern times.

I've been saying that for a while.

My problem here is that what you are saying is that God can be right a 1000 years ago but now he is wrong !?

I don't care if you choose to believe in some 1000+ year old 'laws' and 'teachings'. Times have evolved and if you have not evolved accordingly, then you are outdated. I don't care what your 'God' says or what Blloraq the Supreme Alien Overlord said 1000-3000 years ago. We live in the year 2005, not in some year when people were wallowing around in mud and acted like savages.

The Muslims used this law and it worked for a thousand years after it it only failed when they failed to apply it again and turned to terrorisim as a substitute. You have to research the history of Islam to understand me, I have done alot of reading about Islam and I saw accomplishments beyond any other nation in history.

That's nice - it might have been a decent system when people were uncivilized and savages, but again times have changed. The system is now outdated, cruel, and barbaric. It is simply an inferior system.

Not even Alexander the great would have been able to do the same. They had spread their relegion from Moroco till Indonesia and even in Europe and some parts of southern africa, stopped slavary, gave women their rights, spread peace wherever they where ruling, gave people the freedom of beleif, So as one of many examples form history, if you read the works of some Jewish scholars in Spain it will tell you literaly that when Muslims where is Spain it was the golden age for Jews by which for the first time in their history they weren't being harrassed for their beleif system, so these are Muslims that people portray as Jew haters. Women were given the right of inheritence owning property ( a right of which in Europe they didn't get until after the French reveloution) , become heads of state, keep their own names if they want to after marriage...etc the examples are too many to list.

And now it is barbaric and cruel. The past is the past and it's over. Times have evolved beyond such a system that has cruel, barbaric, and inhumane parts. It is inferior to current systems.

These are the barberic people that you portray in your posts and in your sig, you obviously know nothing of, by simply judging them for capital punishment. No Nuclear weapons are barberic yet in the other thread you were completley fine with our country having them.

Capital punishment is barbaric. Capital punishment via stoning is cruel, barbaric, and inhumane. It is a plague.

Using nuclear weapons on innocent people would be barbaric as well. I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

The bottom line is that the times have changed. If you're unwilling to live in 2005 and want to live in the year 700 or whatever, then you're probably going to be some sort of savage barbarian when compared to the rest of civilized society.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: magomago
I understand your conern Rabid Mongoose, but in some thing you are overstepping a boundry.

Ultimately there will always be people against current music for whatever reason. I can easily find them here among friends who only listen to classical and christian music. This does not make them crazy nuts, or people who are bad and barbaric because they think my listening to the occaisonal eminem song will doom me to hell. But because of the lawlessness over there, it opens up opporutnies for people to try to enforce their world view on things.

And considering the occupation of Iraq right now, it can be understandable why people maybe insecure about being too "american" whether it spans from notion of the destruction of Iraqi identity. Things like thse can and will fade overtime. No doubt Iraqi Society will get a little bit more westernized (Though argueably they were already pretty western atlesat under the rule of Saddam), but at the same time it won't be anywhere near something like Japan.

Just remember how the world sees us and our culture: baywatch, promiscious sex, bla bla bla. I think it happens everywhere (every culture has these things, even if they are smaller elements) but it sounds like people are too scared that it will turn Iraq into some playboy country people act too American.

Ultimately it just boils down to people's natural insecurities about things that are different...not some crazy spiel about barbaric laws. And considering this type of insecurity is happening on the level of a country, I'm not really all that suprised

Quoting myself because apparantly no one heard anything...

Originally posted by: dahunan
Cultural Identity gone too far might be like the Taliban?

Depends. Culture is always changing (even if its slow), so you can't say exactly WHAT defines an Iraqi identity down to specific criteria, no? But with that said, there are clear differences between cultures. So personally I just think that the entire situation right now in Iraq contributes to what is going on...but ultimately some changes will be made~

 

[RabidMongoose]

I understand your conern Rabid Mongoose, but in some thing you are overstepping a boundry.

How so?

Ultimately there will always be people against current music for whatever reason. I can easily find them here among friends who only listen to classical and christian music. This does not make them crazy nuts, or people who are bad and barbaric because they think my listening to the occaisonal eminem song will doom me to hell. But because of the lawlessness over there, it opens up opporutnies for people to try to enforce their world view on things.

I wasn't really speaking in regards to the general people of Iraq. Obviously due to the extraordinary circumstances in Iraq, we cannot expect an ideal situation.

And considering the occupation of Iraq right now, it can be understandable why people maybe insecure about being too "american" whether it spans from notion of the destruction of Iraqi identity. Things like thse can and will fade overtime. No doubt Iraqi Society will get a little bit more westernized (Though argueably they were already pretty western atlesat under the rule of Saddam), but at the same time it won't be anywhere near something like Japan.

Just remember how the world sees us and our culture: baywatch, promiscious sex, bla bla bla. I think it happens everywhere (every culture has these things, even if they are smaller elements) but it sounds like people are too scared that it will turn Iraq into some playboy country people act too American.

Ultimately it just boils down to people's natural insecurities about things that are different...not some crazy spiel about barbaric laws. And considering this type of insecurity is happening on the level of a country, I'm not really all that suprised

Sure, Iraq may go through some transitional period. However, if they have barbaric laws and rules, then they should be criticized for such barbaric laws and rules. However, a transitioinal period is to be expected, IMO.

 

[mOeeOm]

Listening to terrible American Idol-type music is a sin regardless of what religion you belong to.

:laugh:

 

[mOeeOm]

RabidMongoose, its not barbaric or inhumane . If you are just gonna keep throwing in your opinion, I'll counter with mine. So then everyone is happy . Ok?

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: mOeeOm
RabidMongoose, its not barbaric or inhumane . If you are just gonna keep throwing in your opinion, I'll counter with mine. So then everyone is happy . Ok?

That's pretty much the point of this entire forum - to discuss opinions.

But, hey, if you want to think that bashing someone's head in with a rock or changing religions deserves death or a 50 year old man having sex with a 9 year old girl and so on is cool, then go ahead and think that.

 

[The Linuxator]

See that's exactly my point you keep bringing in the Aisha issue, even though that I have justified it and you have clarefied yourself, now you are just contradicting yourself again.

 

[The Linuxator]

And I have explained to you that back in those days people weren't exactly uncivilized, but they were educated and they were far more advanced than any ogf theior time, and they lived hteir life with the goal of spreading peace and tranquility upon the land, yet you keep calling them barberic why ? people in your standard are not civilized nowadays, we still have wars going on for greed, we have so called democratic governments which are actually imperialistic and oppressive, we now have WMDs developed and maintained by those who call thmeselves civilized, how do we not live in barberic times according to your point of view ?

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: The Linuxator
And I have explained to you that back in those days people weren't exactly uncivilized, but they were educated and they were far more advanced than any ogf theior time, and they lived hteir life with the goal of spreading peace and tranquility upon the land, yet you keep calling them barberic why ? people in your standard are not civilized nowadays, we still have wars going on for greed, we have so called democratic governments which are actually imperialistic and oppressive, we now have WMDs developed and maintained by those who call thmeselves civilized, how do we not live in barberic times according to your point of view ?

Spreading peace and tranquility? lol

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: The Linuxator
See that's exactly my point you keep bringing in the Aisha issue, even though that I have justified it and you have clarefied yourself, now you are just contradicting yourself again.

How so? By repeating my position or repeating an act of barbarity in the modern times, I don't see how I am possibly contradicting myself.

 

[The Linuxator]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: The Linuxator
And I have explained to you that back in those days people weren't exactly uncivilized, but they were educated and they were far more advanced than any ogf theior time, and they lived hteir life with the goal of spreading peace and tranquility upon the land, yet you keep calling them barberic why ? people in your standard are not civilized nowadays, we still have wars going on for greed, we have so called democratic governments which are actually imperialistic and oppressive, we now have WMDs developed and maintained by those who call thmeselves civilized, how do we not live in barberic times according to your point of view ?

Spreading peace and tranquility? lol

Do you considre it not so, just because they beleived that whomever commits a crime should be punished ?

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: The Linuxator

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: The Linuxator
And I have explained to you that back in those days people weren't exactly uncivilized, but they were educated and they were far more advanced than any ogf theior time, and they lived hteir life with the goal of spreading peace and tranquility upon the land, yet you keep calling them barberic why ? people in your standard are not civilized nowadays, we still have wars going on for greed, we have so called democratic governments which are actually imperialistic and oppressive, we now have WMDs developed and maintained by those who call thmeselves civilized, how do we not live in barberic times according to your point of view ?

Spreading peace and tranquility? lol

Do you considre it not so, just because they beleived that whomever commits a crime should be punished ?

No.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: The Linuxator
And I have explained to you that back in those days people weren't exactly uncivilized, but they were educated and they were far more advanced than any ogf theior time

That's nice, but that's under an old system that is now outdated and obviously barbaric under the modern times.

and they lived hteir life with the goal of spreading peace and tranquility upon the land

Pure BS.

yet you keep calling them barberic why ?

In the context of their time, they may have been civilized and nice. However, in the context of modern times, their actions would be inhumane, cruel, and barbaric. Islamic Law is now archaic and useless. The same would be of any other set of laws strictly derived from any other religious ideas made 1000+ years ago.

people in your standard are not civilized nowadays, we still have wars going on for greed, we have so called democratic governments which are actually imperialistic and oppressive, we now have WMDs developed and maintained by those who call thmeselves civilized, how do we not live in barberic times according to your point of view ?

In comparison to people 1000+ years ago, the modern times are infinitely more civilized, tolerant, and acceptable than a time when people wallowed around in mud, murdered indiscriminately, raped and killed nearby civilizations indiscriminately, and os on.

There are obviously some barbaric acts happening today, even in the most advanced and successful society/country today - the US. Examples would be capital punishment, which have already been mentioned. There are others, such as the existence of murder and rape and so on. However, in comparison to the long ago past, it's NOTHING compared to the barbarity of society and civilizations at the time.

Again, the bottom line is that any set of laws largely derived from 'religion' made up 1000+ years ago will end up archaic and out of date today. We see this now with Islamic Law, where people are killed for adultery through stoning and people are murdered through apostasy. Perhaps these made sense or were acceptable when people were basically at the level of apes and monkeys, but it is cruel and barbaric today. It is against the basic ideas of human rights.

 

[RabidMongoose]

I'd like to see you simply explain how strict interpretation of Islamic Law is not outdated in today's modern time. How is death through stoning due to adultery not barbaric today? Are you seriously saying that bashing someone's head in with a rock is not barbaric? How is death due to apostasy not wrong? Do you really support this in the modern time? What about different taxes (even if it's in name) for people of different religions? Do you actually support all of this crap in the context of modern times? Please, just answer the questions.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
How so?

Because a huge portion of this thread is off topic. It has boiled down to "bash Islamic Laws" at this point...as if the way they must be applied is the strictest and literal interpreation. As if that the ONLY reason people are getting screwed on Iraq Idol is because of these laws. I've read most of this thread, and parts of it don't even seem slightly relevant to the topic at hand.
I agree with you, Islamic laws are not needed to the literal level because society has advanced to where the severity of punishments (if someone stole your property back then, that could put your life at risk...especially if you relied on something like a cow to provide milk to your family...today if someone steals a cow I doubt your life is threatened) are not needed in order to survive in society. Ultimately people will have different ways of how they should apply these laws. You are looking at them at a very strict basis, calling them "barbaric" in their 7th century form...
Then again I guess we are saying the same thing...but I'm saying it in a much softer manner

I wasn't really speaking in regards to the general people of Iraq. Obviously due to the extraordinary circumstances in Iraq, we cannot expect an ideal situation.

Agree totally, and at the same time would add a note that we we can't expect an ideal situation.

Sure, Iraq may go through some transitional period. However, if they have barbaric laws and rules, then they should be criticized for such barbaric laws and rules. However, a transitioinal period is to be expected, IMO.

Agreed. Makes no sense why they want to apply the Sharia in such an old form.

Our ultimate difference is you view Islamic Laws in their "pure" form as 7th century "barbaric" laws whereas I see Islamic Laws in their pure form as laws that can be applied to any century, but must consider the times in which people live in.

Anyways have a good night RabidMongoose :moon:

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: magomago
Because a huge portion of this thread is off topic. It has boiled down to "bash Islamic Laws" at this point...as if the way they must be applied is the strictest and literal interpreation.

Actually, I've often mentioned in this thread about 'strict' Islamic Law. A 'loose' interpretation could be fine for Islamic Law and laws made from other religions.

As if that the ONLY reason people are getting screwed on Iraq Idol is because of these laws. I've read most of this thread, and parts of it don't even seem slightly relevant to the topic at hand.

I think it's actually slightly related, but the conversation has also evolved.

I agree with you, Islamic laws are not needed to the literal level because society has advanced to where the severity of punishments (if someone stole your property back then, that could put your life at risk...especially if you relied on something like a cow to provide milk to your family...today if someone steals a cow I doubt your life is threatened) are not needed in order to survive in society. Ultimately people will have different ways of how they should apply these laws. You are looking at them at a very strict basis, calling them "barbaric" in their 7th century form...
Then again I guess we are saying the same thing...but I'm saying it in a much softer manner

Yes, I think that we basically agree in regards to this. Note that while I have called 'strict Islamic Law' barbaric, I've also called any set of laws largely based off of religious ideas from thousands of years ago will likely also be outdated and barbaric.

Agree totally, and at the same time would add a note that we we can't expect an ideal situation.

Absolutely - an ideal situation is almost never achieved in the real world at the global stage.

Agreed. Makes no sense why they want to apply the Sharia in such an old form.

Our ultimate difference is you view Islamic Laws in their "pure" form as 7th century "barbaric" laws whereas I see Islamic Laws in their pure form as laws that can be applied to any century, but must consider the times in which people live in.

Anyways have a good night RabidMongoose :moon:

Actually, if you take these laws in their 'pure form' and change them to apply to today's times, then it may be acceptable. However, I'm not sure how it would handle such issues as apostasy. But a system could be largely based on these 'reformed' Islamic Laws and be acceptable. I'm really arguing against a strict and literal interpretation of these laws - and laws that could be based off of other religions. We generally seem to agree, but I'm probably a little acerbic in my responses.

Goodnight.

 

[The Linuxator]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: The Linuxator
And I have explained to you that back in those days people weren't exactly uncivilized, but they were educated and they were far more advanced than any ogf theior time

That's nice, but that's under an old system that is now outdated and obviously barbaric under the modern times.

and they lived hteir life with the goal of spreading peace and tranquility upon the land

Pure BS.

yet you keep calling them barberic why ?

In the context of their time, they may have been civilized and nice. However, in the context of modern times, their actions would be inhumane, cruel, and barbaric. Islamic Law is now archaic and useless. The same would be of any other set of laws strictly derived from any other religious ideas made 1000+ years ago.

people in your standard are not civilized nowadays, we still have wars going on for greed, we have so called democratic governments which are actually imperialistic and oppressive, we now have WMDs developed and maintained by those who call thmeselves civilized, how do we not live in barberic times according to your point of view ?

In comparison to people 1000+ years ago, the modern times are infinitely more civilized, tolerant, and acceptable than a time when people wallowed around in mud, murdered indiscriminately, raped and killed nearby civilizations indiscriminately, and os on.

There are obviously some barbaric acts happening today, even in the most advanced and successful society/country today - the US. Examples would be capital punishment, which have already been mentioned. There are others, such as the existence of murder and rape and so on. However, in comparison to the long ago past, it's NOTHING compared to the barbarity of society and civilizations at the time.

Again, the bottom line is that any set of laws largely derived from 'religion' made up 1000+ years ago will end up archaic and out of date today. We see this now with Islamic Law, where people are killed for adultery through stoning and people are murdered through apostasy. Perhaps these made sense or were acceptable when people were basically at the level of apes and monkeys, but it is cruel and barbaric today. It is against the basic ideas of human rights.

At the level of apes and monley's !! So people like Mohammad, Jesus, Moses and Abraham are considred by you like apes and monkeys they just ate bananas all day and and made no diffrence around them I feel sorry for you.

Goodbye.

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Sultan
Your 'opinion' is not subscribed to by over a billion people. Thanks and have a nice day.

That's nice. Your opinion is not subscribed to by almost the rest of the entire world. Thanks and have a nice day. Try not to stone anyone.

Besides, that has no bearing on my view (and likely most of the civilized world) that strict and total adherence to Islamic (and other religions) law is barbaric, inhumane, and cruel.

I'm sure that there are millions upon millions of people that feel fine with their own racist views. That doesn't make it OK under any circumstances.

Actually, your opinions are not even supported by the majority of others in this forum. So your opinions are baseless. There are hundreds of millions of adherents to Islamic Law. Your nonsensical claim does nothing to change their beliefs and adherence.

Actually, your opinions are not even supported by almost 99.9% of others in this forum. You see, I don't think that 99.9% of this forum is willing to murder their child by bashing the kid's head in with a rock. Oh, and there's also that thing with old men having sex with young pre-teen girls. I don't think that would go too well here either.

It doesn't matter if there are 10, hundreds of millions, or billions of people that support barbarism. It's simply wrong.

You can try to play a numbers game all you want, but in the end there will almost always be more people that will not believe in any one set of barbaric acts. You'll lose almost every time. But thanks for playing!

My opinion is Islamic Law, and since 99.9% of the people on this forum are non-Muslims, I am not surprised by your statistic.

A punishment of an adulteror is not equal to murder. Idiot.

You're crossing the line with your next comment. You're no judge on the maturity - physical, mental or emotion - of a 9 year old. You yourself are pretty immature at your age.

Your wrongs are not the wrongs of others. I think you're wrong. That doesnt make me universally right. Your wrong is not equal to the wrongs of over a billion Muslims.

Further immaturity is evident by your suggestion of a few posts as a contest. Grow up kid.

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
I do find many parts of Islam to be barbaric and cruel if they are practiced in today's time. It is the 21st century, not the 7th. Just because someone did stuff in the 7th century doesn't mean you should do it nowadays. I think oppressing other religious minorities based upon your religion is cruel. I think requiring the deaths of people who no longer believe in Islam is cruel - why should they be judged under Islam when they are no longer Muslim? I think it's extremely barbaric to have entire cities restricted to people of one religion.

We have members on this forum who believe that it's ok for a grandpa to have sex with children because Mohammed had a child wife. In the 7th century! It's the 21st now. Just because some guy did it over a thousand years ago does not mean that it is still normal to do. Mohammed was also illiterate. Why didn't you stay illiterate? Oh, because you choose your own beliefs.

This is incorrect. Some Islamic Laws are held for all times. Others are left open to interpretation and are subjected to current times. Therefore, Islamic Law by definition is comprised of four sources: Quran, Sunnah, Ijma (scholarly opinion) and Qiyas (analogy). Muslim scholars issue fatwas - good fatwas relating to social issues, not jihad fatwas - all the time in the Islamic world to deal with a social issue which is not completely dealt by the Quran and Sunnah. Hence, Islam in essence is a progressive religion and its laws are not 'stuck' in the 7th Century.

A person who no longer believes in Islam and practices another religion/no religion in private is not subject to any punishment. In an Islamic state, if he declares himself to be a non-Muslim, that is analogous to treason, and is therefore liable for punishment. Since many countries in the world subscribe to the death penalty for treason, you cant honestly say this is a barbaric punishment. The subject whether the death penalty itself is barbaric is another issue.

I dont know where you got the grandpa to have sex with children bit. Hazrat Mohammad (S.A) was indeed illiterate, but his marriage to Hazrat Aisha (R.A) is far from him wanting sexual pleasure. Hazrat Aisha (R.A) was known for her maturity; she provides the largest amount of hadith and sunnah (sayings and teachings of the Prophet) and her intellect was renowned. The issue of marriage between the Prophet and Aisha (R.A) has been raised time and time again, and explainations have been provided by scholars, but those who want to keep a closed mind will continue to do so.

You can refer to the following links for some further information "if" you wish to explore the subject with an open mind:
Link1
Wikipedia link

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: The Linuxator

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: The Linuxator

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
I do find many parts of Islam to be barbaric and cruel if they are practiced in today's time. It is the 21st century, not the 7th. Just because someone did stuff in the 7th century doesn't mean you should do it nowadays. I think oppressing other religious minorities based upon your religion is cruel. I think requiring the deaths of people who no longer believe in Islam is cruel - why should they be judged under Islam when they are no longer Muslim? I think it's extremely barbaric to have entire cities restricted to people of one religion.

We have members on this forum who believe that it's ok for a grandpa to have sex with children because Mohammed had a child wife. In the 7th century! It's the 21st now. Just because some guy did it over a thousand years ago does not mean that it is still normal to do. Mohammed was also illiterate. Why didn't you stay illiterate? Oh, because you choose your own beliefs.

Who said he had a child wife can you lgive me a proof. Islamic law indicates that for two to get married they should both have reached the age of pubirty ( usually around 14~15) and the man shoud have the conscent of his parents and the woman should have the conscent of her parents for the marriage to be considered legte under Islamic law. And just becasue our laws say that you have to be 18 to get married doesn't make it a universal law, though a girl getting married at the age of 14 isn't something common even in Muslim countries.

From what I recall Mohammed married Aisha (Mohammed's favorite wife) when she was 9 but waited until her first period to consummate with her. To most in this day and age that's pretty disgusting but back in the 7th century when the average life span was about 40 yrs, it was fairly common to marry very young women.

That's exactly what I am talking about he might have signed the marriage when she was 9 but under Islamic law she cannot have intercourse with him untill she have reached her period.

I believe that common argument is that she was around 6-7 years old when married and 9 years old when the marriage was consumated.

This may have been fine a long time ago and I don't necessarily have a problem with it when taking into the context of the era. However, it's disgusting if done in modern times.

Hence, you dont find Muslims marrying 9 years old. Marrying a 9 year old is not part of Islamic Law. Where do your weird arguments? Do you see every Muslim marrying a 9 year old or a 40 year old (as in Hazrat Khadija's marriage to the Prophet (S.A))?

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
I'd like to see you simply explain how strict interpretation of Islamic Law is not outdated in today's modern time. How is death through stoning due to adultery not barbaric today? Are you seriously saying that bashing someone's head in with a rock is not barbaric? How is death due to apostasy not wrong? Do you really support this in the modern time? What about different taxes (even if it's in name) for people of different religions? Do you actually support all of this crap in the context of modern times? Please, just answer the questions.

These questions have already been answered ad nauseum. Since you already maintain a position with respect to the answers to the above questions, attempting to provide the answers again is an exercise in futility.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: The Linuxator
At the level of apes and monley's !! So people like Mohammad, Jesus, Moses and Abraham are considred by you like apes and monkeys they just ate bananas all day and and made no diffrence around them I feel sorry for you.

Goodbye.

Sort of - I wasn't being literal. People that lived 1000+ years ago lived at a primitive level when compared to the modern times.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Sultan
My opinion is Islamic Law, and since 99.9% of the people on this forum are non-Muslims, I am not surprised by your statistic.

At least you finally realize that if you try to play any sort of numbers game, you'll always lose.

A punishment of an adulteror is not equal to murder. Idiot.

Death for having sex is barbarism. But this probably explains why you're so cranky all of the time. :laugh:

You're crossing the line with your next comment. You're no judge on the maturity - physical, mental or emotion - of a 9 year old. You yourself are pretty immature at your age.

I'm crossing the line for saying that old men shouldn't have sex with little 9 year old girls? You have got to be kidding me! This is absolutely disgusting.

Your wrongs are not the wrongs of others. I think you're wrong. That doesnt make me universally right. Your wrong is not equal to the wrongs of over a billion Muslims.

I've already said that 'wrong' is subjective. Saying 'slavery is wrong' is subjective. Saying 'it's not right not bash a child's head in with a rock' is subjective. Saying '50 year old men shouldn't have sex with 9 year old girls is subjective'. They're all subjective to a certain extent.

Further immaturity is evident by your suggestion of a few posts as a contest. Grow up kid.

I'd rather be immature than support whatever barbaric acts that you support.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Sultan
Hence, you dont find Muslims marrying 9 years old. Marrying a 9 year old is not part of Islamic Law. Where do your weird arguments? Do you see every Muslim marrying a 9 year old or a 40 year old (as in Hazrat Khadija's marriage to the Prophet (S.A))?

Wow, congratulations on not reading my posts again. Idiot.

Try reading the thread before you post. It might help you out some. Actually, it probably won't. You're beyond help. I pity you.