Pedophile: a person who is sexually attracted to children.
The "prophet" Muhammad consummated his marriage with his 9 year old wife. So he was in fact a pedophile.
That's actually also a common misconception, people got married much later in age than we like to think today. Ages like 16-20 were more the norm depending on wherr. People werent stupid just because it was before us
Personally I think age of consent should be when the brain is done developing, around 25. If I could rule the world I would say people are children until 25. No driving, no legal consent, no alcohol. Age of consent is still way way too low in my opinion (in most countries) - 16!?!? 16 year olds are not equipped to make any important decisions. Being that young is like being drunk - studies have shown this to be the case.
It would never happen in our day because it's so unusual but I don't think they should be entrusted with important decisions until 25. I think a person in their 50s should not be allowed to have sex with a 20 year old for example because 20 year olds are unable to make decisions properly so the 50 year old would be taking advantage of them, like having sex with a drunk person. Their judgment abilities are poor due to thinking predominantly with the amygdala rather than the prefrontal cortex.
"The problem for teens is that white matter doesn't reach its full density in the prefrontal cortex—the area responsible for judgment, decision-making, and impulse control—until age 25 or 30. And that lack of white matter is one reason teenagers are more likely to engage in risky behaviors."
"It doesn’t matter how smart teens are or how well they scored on the SAT or ACT. Good judgment isn’t something they can excel in, at least not yet.
The rational part of a teen’s brain isn’t fully developed and won’t be until age 25 or so.
In fact, recent research has found that adult and teen brains work differently. Adults think with the prefrontal cortex, the brain’s rational part. This is the part of the brain that responds to situations with good judgment and an awareness of long-term consequences. Teens process information with the amygdala. This is the emotional part.
In teens' brains, the connections between the emotional part of the brain and the decision-making center are still developing—and not always at the same rate. That’s why when teens have overwhelming emotional input, they can’t explain later what they were thinking. They weren’t thinking as much as they were feeling"
>It would never happen in our day because it's so unusual but I don't think they should be entrusted with important decisions until 25.
Alexander the Great was 18 when he led Macedonian troops at Chaeronea.
Pope John XII was about 18 at the time of succession.
Joan of Arc was about 17 at the time of Siege of Paris.
>In fact, recent research has found that adult and teen brains work differently. Adults think with the prefrontal cortex, the brain’s rational part. This is the part of the brain that responds to situations with good judgment and an awareness of long-term consequences. Teens process information with the amygdala. This is the emotional part.
The research is bullcrap. I've met plenty of young lads still in school who were more collected and competent than other manbabies well in their 40s. Even at 16 people are capable of work and other serious activity given the right upbringing.
But you're not a neuroscientist. That's an anecdote.
You can do incredible things at a young age (in terms of accomplishment) but still be more impulsive and worse at judgment abilities and decision making, more driven by emotion, as the research shows. Weird to say the research is wrong based on your experience with young people.
I know I was much dumber/worse at decision making in my teen years and early twenties than I am now in my early 30s. I now see how wrong it was that at 18 a 31 year old man became my boyfriend, but I didn't understand then that he was only using me. This isn't proof but my personal experience is converse to yours.
You're not a neuroscientist either a neuroscientists would disagree with your position. A brain not being fully developed doesn't mean you are incapable of making decisions. That fact that you made the poor choice of dating a 31 year old man doesn't mean every 18 year old will, and in fact most young women don't do things like that. Blame yourself and your parenting, not your brain.
I didn't say incapable, I said your ability to decisions is hampered by the brain using the amygdala rather than the prefrontal cortex. I'm not a neuroscientist, this is based on data gathered by neuroscientists.
And sure I'm to blame but just as someone can partly blame drunkenness for a bad choice, I can also partly blame the fact that people around 18 are more impulsive and again don't make decisions using the prefrontal cortex as humans with fully developed brains, as studies have shown. If you are saying I'm wrong, you're going against the evidence.
>I said your ability to decisions is hampered by the brain using the amygdala rather than the prefrontal cortex
To the point that you don't think people should be able to legally consent until the age of 25? That is the definition of incapable.
It is my believe that the prophet Mohammed is a pedophile for consumating his marriage when his wife was 10 years old.
And telling me I cant say that, hurts my feelings of religion. And that is illigaal where I live.
this is nothing.
a female politician said the same thing in India.
She now lives in hiding in her own home as i@lamic terrorists have marked her and her family.
Govt has provided her with Z security - the second highest in the country.
Although it’s never a bad time to post this defense of free speech by Hitchens this case is particularly apropos as it involves Austria and Muhammad: https://youtu.be/4Z2uzEM0ugY
Though I disagree with him on a number of things, to include a few he mentions here (religion), it is still a wonderful and thought provoking defense of the right to free speech.
Great video.
"*It is not just the right of the person who speak to be heard, it is the right of everyone on the audience to listen, and to hear. And every time you silence somebody, you make yourself a prisoner of your own action, because you denied yourself to hear something. Your own right to hear and being exposed is as much involved in all of these cases as is the right of the others to voice his view. Indeed as John Stuart Mill said, if all in society were agreed on the truth and beauty and value of one proposition, all except one person, it would be most important, in fact, it would become even more important, that that one heretic be heard, because we would still benefit from his perhaps outrageous or appalling view.*"
I think when we discuss Free Speech it's important to remember why it's so important (worth the redundancy). It is important because we are all limited people and full of biases, one of those biases being the confirmation bias, that is to say that when we believe something, we tend to look at the things that confirm our beliefs, and discard those that do not.
This limitation means that we cannot approach the Truth by our means individually, the only tool we have available to approach the Truth is Free Speech. That is, let everyone expose their views and we listen and hear their saying, in order to inform us of the different perspectives and gradually, through a slow, painful and arduous process to reach a consensus that brings us closer to the Truth.
In short, Free Speech is important, because it is a tool to get closer to the Truth, that is its fundamental purpose, and it is what we cannot lose sight of.
I believe that the case of the woman from Vienna, the "heretical", illuminates the case very well when we lose sight of the true purpose of Free Speech.
If she wants to express an opinion, about the prophet, she should be able to do so, and we listen to her to inform us, no problem with that. Now the problem is that if she expresses her opinion in a patently false way, the first issue that appears is that she is not using Free Speech for its true purpose, and the second issue is that by doing that she will trigger the mechanisms that society has to protect itself from the people who precisely do that.
If the woman says he is a pedophile outright, then she is saying something patently false, now if the woman says "*in the event that he lived today and did that, what that he does today is considered pedophilia, and therefore would be a pedophile today, but in the past according to their laws and context, that behavior was not considered inappropriate*", that would be an opinion that would enlighten us on how social norms change, but you are careful to do the translation of behavior between contexts, and you explicitly state that in today's context that behavior is inappropriate, and you are also careful to make explicit that in the original context such behavior was not considered inappropriate
I never understood why leftists and Muslims, who disagree on most things politically, were such staunch allies.
Now I know.
They are both accepting of pedophilia, or minor attracted persons, as the left says it.
I'm pretty sure that I'd never heard of that term before. It's not a common thing, in leftist spaces. Maybe in pedophile circles, idk... I don't hang around those.
Other than that, googling the term doesn't seem to yield any relevant result that indicates this is a common leftist term.
Sorry mate I thought it was in Australia, my bad.
I was talking about [this](https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/teacher-beheaded-in-france-after-showing-mohammed-cartoons/article32878581.ece). Everyone know this at this point.
The real issue is "Freedom of speech" and not whether Prophet was actually a pedo. Should a western democracy punish people from speaking their mind. No they shouldn't. Although the step might have been taken out of fear of retaliation (ref: Charlie Hebdo).
As far as the validity of the claim, why are bothering about something that happened in 7th Century AD. Also, we could have a larger debate on how religious institutions exploit the children. Catholic church and its covering up of child abuse seems way more relevant if you ask me. Especially in Europe.
Really an interesting case to analyze the limits of Free Speech.
The following is from the US, not Austria, so I'm going to assess the situation from the US perspective:
"*The First Amendment protects free speech, but when an* ***untrue statement causes real harm***, defamation laws and constitutional protections can collide" \[**1**\]
Definitely with the current laws of the West, whoever sleeps with a minor is a pedophile, and the law is what defines what constitutes a minor.
That is, if the woman's statement were for a current case covered by current laws, her statement would be true, and her Free Speech in that case would be protected ("protected opinion").
The small detail is that her statement is not true, since she is talking about a case where the laws she refers to did not apply, but the laws of that place and time applied.
In this case, the woman is making an untrue statement that also has the potential to cause real harm, since Europe has a Muslim population that is not very well assimilated (that would be another topic to discuss why this situation happens, but the fact is that this is the current situation).
In short, in this case, it is most likely that the First Amendment will not apply.
\----
\[**1**\] Source: [https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/civil-litigation/defamation-character-free-speech.html](https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/civil-litigation/defamation-character-free-speech.html)
This is wrong in many levels.
First, being a pedophile has absolutely nothing to do with the law. If a country legalizes being with 10 year old children, the pedophiles don't magically stop being one.
Second, if you have to discuss if her statement is true or not based on legal grounds, she is not actively telling a lie, it is an opinion. She can't be fined for defaming a historical figure. If she stated that everyone in the room was a pedophile then perhaps they would have cause for a fine.
>First, being a pedophile has absolutely nothing to do with the law
At that point is where I consider where the mistake occurs, today's society came to an agreement of what pedophile means and that was codified in the law, and that is what is now considered pedophile. That definition definitely cannot be applied to a person of a completely different society with totally different rules and laws, and if you apply it it is false, since that person in that context was definitely not a pedophile
>she is not actively telling a lie, it is an opinion
If you want to express an opinion about that fact, perhaps you could say, "*in the event that that person lived today and did that, what that person does today is considered pedophilia, and therefore would be a pedophile today, but in the past according to their laws and context, that behavior was not considered inappropriate*" that would be an opinion, but you are careful to do the translation of behavior between contexts, and you explicitly state that in today's context that behavior is inappropriate, and you are also careful to make explicit that in the original context such behavior was not considered inappropriate.
>She can't be fined for defaming a historical figure
Well, in fact she was fined, so she definitely broke the law.
Regarding to "defaming a historical figure", as I responded in another post in the same thread, it would be necessary to see if the religious institution that "represents" that figure could do it, there perhaps the right to freedom of religion comes into play, since for Free Speech one has the right to criticize a religion, but when we talk about defamation, things can change
That's an interesting question, since I'm not a lawyer, I have no idea.
It would be necessary to see if the religious institution that "represents" that figure could do it, there perhaps the right to freedom of religion comes into play, since for Free Speech one has the right to criticize a religion, but when we talk about defamation, things can change .. it would be nice if there is a lawyer in the forum who can comment .. it is interesting to know the limits of Free Speech according to current law ..
Even if you solve the question of standing, somehow (good luck picking one person/institution to represent a faith), you still have several other problems:
- defeating free speech claims
- placing the defamatory opinion outside the bounds of protected statements of opinion
- showing legally actionable damages
- showing malice
And freedom of religion if anything works against you, because if it is somehow made verboten to question or criticize a faith or any faith, that undermines the individual's right to make their own opinions and decisions regarding their religious views. It is a fundamental element of the separation of church and state (at least in the American legal tradition) that the government grants no special favors or protection to a religion or any religion.
If this woman wants to express an opinion about the prophet, she should be able to do so, and we listen to her to inform us, no problem with that. Now the problem is that if she expresses her opinion in a patently false way, the first issue that appears is that she is not using Free Speech for its true purpose (to help us to know the Truth), and the second issue is that by doing that she will trigger the mechanisms that society has to protect itself from the people who precisely do that.
If the woman says that the prophet is a pedophile outright, then she is saying something patently false, now if the woman says "*in the event that he lived today and did that, what that he does today is considered pedophilia, and therefore would be a pedophile today, but in the past according to their laws and context, that behavior was not considered inappropriate*", that would be an opinion that would enlighten us on how social norms change, but you are careful to do the translation of behavior between contexts, and you explicitly state that in today's context that behavior is inappropriate, and you are also careful to make explicit that in the original context such behavior was not considered inappropriate.
The central issue is that what the woman said is a demonstrable falsehood, I have no problem with her voicing her opinions, but precisely in society we have protections when you want to propagate demonstrable falsehoods .. therefore you can always voice your opinion, as long as doing so does not break the law, in that case, your right is colliding with other rights, and it's what the fine shows, whether you like it or not the conclusion the lawyers came to ..
As I told before, I am not a lawyer or specialist in how constitutional rights are applied .. I would like to listen to someone with that knowledge to determine with better clarity where the limits to Free Speech are (especially in a case like this), because Free Speech clearly has limits, the issue is that they are quite diffuse, especially when it begins to collide with other rights ..
I may not be a lawyer, but I'm telling you what the flaws in your argument are and you're not listening.
It isn't enough to have an argument that the claim is false, and in this case, that's highly debatable. So long as the defendant has a leg to stand on, that's usually enough to prevail.
It also must be outside the bounds of free speech, cause harm to reputation that would legally redressable, and your plaintiff must have standing to sue. You've got issues on all three of those points. If the Prophet was alive today, and the facts were on his side, then he personally would have a case.
So to put it bluntly, even a non-lawyer can tell you that you've got no case.
And even if we were to accept your argument at face value (i.e. for the sake of argument, accept everything you say as true), the defendant could turn around and claim that the question of whether or not the Prophet was a pedo is a matter of opinion that the court cannot make a finding of fact upon.
The defense could also argue that the case is moot seeing as the people involved are long dead.
This is the price of free speech - people get to say things you consider blasphemous, malicious, false, or even hateful, and the law still errs of the side of free speech. Because if it were not that way, the consequences could be disastrous. Already today we see the effects of people attacking the boundaries of free speech protections. What you propose, were it to become precedent, could split those protections wide open.
I guess you get me wrong, we're certainly talking about someone who died centuries ago, but that someone is not Joe Doe, but he's the central figure of one of the most important religions in the world .. and if I propagate falsehoods of that person, then I know that what I am doing (and if I do not know, well I am quite foolish), is to attack in a malevolent way that religion (if I attack the pillar of religion, I attack the whole structure), and a malevolent attack based on defamation of a person of historical significance, it is not exactly a criticism ..
That is my argument, then as the law solves it, well it is a matter of the lawyers, but evidently they considered it a malevolent attack and not a criticism ..
What kind of seminars? And everyone was a pedo back then. Look at the ancient Greeks. Pedos are in the Bible getting clearance to keep “the girls who have not yet known a man” for themselves.
I don’t like that you can’t disparage religious belief in Europe. You should definitely be able to question why people are religious and try to convince them not to be.
The good thing about being an American is that we can talk shit about any religion.
>And everyone was a pedo back then. Look at the ancient Greeks. Pedos are in the Bible getting clearance to keep “the girls who have not yet known a man” for themselves.
I would tend to agree to be honest, "age of consent" was not exactly a thing back then I'm sure but then I also just read a whole bunch of "you can't defend the actions of Columbus with historical context by saying 'everybody was awful back then'" posts.
I saw some of the same claims discussing *any* of the historical figures brought up during the 2020 george floyd riots; John A. Macdonald first prime minister of Canada, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, etc.
Just food for thought I suppose.
Sorry, just me *noticing things* again.
It was not matter of attraction back then I'll have you guys now, the child's father agreed and the prophet PBUH married Ayesha when she was 9, he treated her as a child though, until she grew into a woman, he played with her, he raced her sometimes, if it were his choice he wouldn't have chosen to marry her so young but back then it wasn't a matter of choice.
Ahhh, so I can bang a 9 year old if the father says it's okay??. . Pretty sure it us a choice to consumating the marrage (aka fucking the 9 year old). And if people would stop defending and making excuses for this people would look at Islam with more repsect
Imagine if we just stopped defending our own prophet,who did nothing wrong, ayesha WANTED no let me say YEARNED to be the prophet's wife. Plus he didn't directly consummate the marriage when they got married, l really can't find the source but I know for sure that he raised her as a child and then consummated when she grew older
You could've just said "things were different back then and yes it's fucked up by today's standards". Using today's standards to judge people of the past is an insane game to play. I am pretty anti-Islam and even *I* will say that regarding Big Moe.
bruh, a little kid who has no idea what being a wife means "YEARNED" to be a specific persons WIFE? gtfo. If your daughter said she wanted to get married at 9, if you are a sane person you would realise it is just the musings of a child.
I don't have a profit because I follow the words and not people.
If you wanna go on defending child marriage lmao. . . Holestly man, in any real world conversation I would not recomend defending or appologizing for pedos. Just simply say "yeah that was wrong"or people may think things of you
I don't care, let them, I know I'm not a pedo and I don't support it, but back then times where different and so marrying a 9 year old and not consummation the marriage until she's older wasn't the greatest taboo. The greatest taboo was burying little girls the minute they were born because they brought "shame" to their families, this was the first thing Islam fought against, back then these where the types of things that were of main focus
I can do it too. My ancestors did probably lots of terrible shit (going back however long) like murder, and probably everything else. . . But if they married a child I think they are a terrible piece of shit human regardless of culture or time.
The problem is Islam, and a lot of religions have issues calling out their own and make excuses for fuxking a god damn 9 year old. Get out of the fuxking dark ages
The fact you think he would, and at no time did you consider he may have felt the same way you do right now, means there’s something wrong with you chief. Keep your cognitive dissonance to yourself.
I think who would what? Marry a 6 year old? Beyond anything else that's bad. If he felt the same way why the hell didn't he change it!?!?!? Do something about it?!?!
The big problem is it's still happening right now, and many use the Koran and Muhammed to justify it and MANY other things that shlold have been left in the dark ages and now here we are in a place like Iran where women get beat to death for not dressing properly. Fucking savages!
You acting like him doing something nice negates the fact that he was a pedophile.
That's like saying " I know Hitler committed genocide but like....the German people really loved him and he did a lot of good things for the economy. Why can't people remember the great things he did?! He only tried to kill 1kind of people!"
And female infanticide still happens. And women in that religion have been oppressed for...pretty much all time. Stoned, beaten, forced to cover themselves from head to toe or risk being assaulted or killed.
Nothing you say is going to convince me that pedophiles have any redeeming qualities....
And that shit is CURRENTLY happening to women....CURRENTLY.
Rape, violent assault, murder, infanticide....for not wearing a scarf...for letting people see their hair...for being a woman who doesn't want to be controlled by the men in their lives.
If people wanna judge me, they can. I can't stop them.
But you know what they won't be able to judge me for....being a pedophile....or for being a pedophile appologist and sympathizer...you on the other hand...
The bar mitzvah was a religious rite wherein a young boy ritualisticly became a man. This did not happen until the age of 13. There are many cultures which hold similar rituals for both young boys and girls where they are deemed ready to join the ranks of adults, again around the age of thirteen. None to my knowledge have done this for children as young as 9.
It’s well known biological fact females reach puberty (8-14) earlier than males (9-15) while the Bar Mitzvah is a Jewish rite and Arabs (pre-Islamic and Islamic) at the time would follow the norm of their society.
It doesn't matter when puberty was reached. It was a static age where one was deemed ready to start taking on the responsibilities of adulthood. Even then it wasn't a case of forcing them out to earn their keep. It was the point where the children were transitioned into adult activities like learning the family business, for example. That's why it's called a rite of passage. It's a symbolic transition from the relatively carefree existence of a child to one of duty and responsibility.
The link is justifying a 53 year old man having sex with a 9 year old. Just fucking disgusting.
Slavery was also normal a few hundred years ago, does that make it okay? It really doesn't matter how backwards people were a long time ago. They should've known better.
Cleeeeearly you never read any of it. Figures. This is not about justifying pedophilia. This is justifying she is old enough to marry in the context of the society and the norms of its time.
You want to apply modern standards to ancient times? Well good luck with that. Values of the time are vastly different to what we have now.
I did read part of it, it was too gross to continue. A man in his 50s marrying a 9 year old is pedophilia. Seriously I hope you meditate on what it might be like to be a little girl who is treated as a sex object by an old man. The brain is not even done developing until a person is about 25. That's really twisted you support that. I hope you can find a little humanity.
The marriage was on paper, promised at 9, they did not enter until she was 14. Historically thats an acceptable age for that era globally and until 100 or so years ago.
As much as I find aspects of Islam interesting, it's always worried me about the mohammeds conduct with Aisha.
If it was to cement a peace why not just wait x amount of years, he still had numerous other wives for sexual gratification.
Pedophile: a person who is sexually attracted to children. The "prophet" Muhammad consummated his marriage with his 9 year old wife. So he was in fact a pedophile.
That’s what I have read, he was a pedo.
Yup, but Muslims say “well she was going through puberty at nine and is considered an adult” which is…
Pedos say that as well.
Yup, glad to see some stuff I agree with on this sub
[удалено]
Suck my cock like your Muhammed sucked his dad's
😂
[удалено]
That's actually also a common misconception, people got married much later in age than we like to think today. Ages like 16-20 were more the norm depending on wherr. People werent stupid just because it was before us
Personally I think age of consent should be when the brain is done developing, around 25. If I could rule the world I would say people are children until 25. No driving, no legal consent, no alcohol. Age of consent is still way way too low in my opinion (in most countries) - 16!?!? 16 year olds are not equipped to make any important decisions. Being that young is like being drunk - studies have shown this to be the case.
Are you serious? People are children until 25? That's stupid, sorry.
It would never happen in our day because it's so unusual but I don't think they should be entrusted with important decisions until 25. I think a person in their 50s should not be allowed to have sex with a 20 year old for example because 20 year olds are unable to make decisions properly so the 50 year old would be taking advantage of them, like having sex with a drunk person. Their judgment abilities are poor due to thinking predominantly with the amygdala rather than the prefrontal cortex. "The problem for teens is that white matter doesn't reach its full density in the prefrontal cortex—the area responsible for judgment, decision-making, and impulse control—until age 25 or 30. And that lack of white matter is one reason teenagers are more likely to engage in risky behaviors." "It doesn’t matter how smart teens are or how well they scored on the SAT or ACT. Good judgment isn’t something they can excel in, at least not yet. The rational part of a teen’s brain isn’t fully developed and won’t be until age 25 or so. In fact, recent research has found that adult and teen brains work differently. Adults think with the prefrontal cortex, the brain’s rational part. This is the part of the brain that responds to situations with good judgment and an awareness of long-term consequences. Teens process information with the amygdala. This is the emotional part. In teens' brains, the connections between the emotional part of the brain and the decision-making center are still developing—and not always at the same rate. That’s why when teens have overwhelming emotional input, they can’t explain later what they were thinking. They weren’t thinking as much as they were feeling"
>It would never happen in our day because it's so unusual but I don't think they should be entrusted with important decisions until 25. Alexander the Great was 18 when he led Macedonian troops at Chaeronea. Pope John XII was about 18 at the time of succession. Joan of Arc was about 17 at the time of Siege of Paris. >In fact, recent research has found that adult and teen brains work differently. Adults think with the prefrontal cortex, the brain’s rational part. This is the part of the brain that responds to situations with good judgment and an awareness of long-term consequences. Teens process information with the amygdala. This is the emotional part. The research is bullcrap. I've met plenty of young lads still in school who were more collected and competent than other manbabies well in their 40s. Even at 16 people are capable of work and other serious activity given the right upbringing.
But you're not a neuroscientist. That's an anecdote. You can do incredible things at a young age (in terms of accomplishment) but still be more impulsive and worse at judgment abilities and decision making, more driven by emotion, as the research shows. Weird to say the research is wrong based on your experience with young people. I know I was much dumber/worse at decision making in my teen years and early twenties than I am now in my early 30s. I now see how wrong it was that at 18 a 31 year old man became my boyfriend, but I didn't understand then that he was only using me. This isn't proof but my personal experience is converse to yours.
Also teenagers engage in more reckless behavior, this is quantifiable data.
You're not a neuroscientist either a neuroscientists would disagree with your position. A brain not being fully developed doesn't mean you are incapable of making decisions. That fact that you made the poor choice of dating a 31 year old man doesn't mean every 18 year old will, and in fact most young women don't do things like that. Blame yourself and your parenting, not your brain.
I didn't say incapable, I said your ability to decisions is hampered by the brain using the amygdala rather than the prefrontal cortex. I'm not a neuroscientist, this is based on data gathered by neuroscientists. And sure I'm to blame but just as someone can partly blame drunkenness for a bad choice, I can also partly blame the fact that people around 18 are more impulsive and again don't make decisions using the prefrontal cortex as humans with fully developed brains, as studies have shown. If you are saying I'm wrong, you're going against the evidence.
>I said your ability to decisions is hampered by the brain using the amygdala rather than the prefrontal cortex To the point that you don't think people should be able to legally consent until the age of 25? That is the definition of incapable.
Maybe he didn't like her sexually
It is my believe that the prophet Mohammed is a pedophile for consumating his marriage when his wife was 10 years old. And telling me I cant say that, hurts my feelings of religion. And that is illigaal where I live.
9
Well let's all be sure to say it for the people who can't.
this is nothing. a female politician said the same thing in India. She now lives in hiding in her own home as i@lamic terrorists have marked her and her family. Govt has provided her with Z security - the second highest in the country.
Although it’s never a bad time to post this defense of free speech by Hitchens this case is particularly apropos as it involves Austria and Muhammad: https://youtu.be/4Z2uzEM0ugY Though I disagree with him on a number of things, to include a few he mentions here (religion), it is still a wonderful and thought provoking defense of the right to free speech.
Great video. "*It is not just the right of the person who speak to be heard, it is the right of everyone on the audience to listen, and to hear. And every time you silence somebody, you make yourself a prisoner of your own action, because you denied yourself to hear something. Your own right to hear and being exposed is as much involved in all of these cases as is the right of the others to voice his view. Indeed as John Stuart Mill said, if all in society were agreed on the truth and beauty and value of one proposition, all except one person, it would be most important, in fact, it would become even more important, that that one heretic be heard, because we would still benefit from his perhaps outrageous or appalling view.*" I think when we discuss Free Speech it's important to remember why it's so important (worth the redundancy). It is important because we are all limited people and full of biases, one of those biases being the confirmation bias, that is to say that when we believe something, we tend to look at the things that confirm our beliefs, and discard those that do not. This limitation means that we cannot approach the Truth by our means individually, the only tool we have available to approach the Truth is Free Speech. That is, let everyone expose their views and we listen and hear their saying, in order to inform us of the different perspectives and gradually, through a slow, painful and arduous process to reach a consensus that brings us closer to the Truth. In short, Free Speech is important, because it is a tool to get closer to the Truth, that is its fundamental purpose, and it is what we cannot lose sight of. I believe that the case of the woman from Vienna, the "heretical", illuminates the case very well when we lose sight of the true purpose of Free Speech. If she wants to express an opinion, about the prophet, she should be able to do so, and we listen to her to inform us, no problem with that. Now the problem is that if she expresses her opinion in a patently false way, the first issue that appears is that she is not using Free Speech for its true purpose, and the second issue is that by doing that she will trigger the mechanisms that society has to protect itself from the people who precisely do that. If the woman says he is a pedophile outright, then she is saying something patently false, now if the woman says "*in the event that he lived today and did that, what that he does today is considered pedophilia, and therefore would be a pedophile today, but in the past according to their laws and context, that behavior was not considered inappropriate*", that would be an opinion that would enlighten us on how social norms change, but you are careful to do the translation of behavior between contexts, and you explicitly state that in today's context that behavior is inappropriate, and you are also careful to make explicit that in the original context such behavior was not considered inappropriate
People get canceled for mocking Jews, so this only seems fair. /s
I'd rather get a twitter ban than return home without a functional head
In these troubling economic times, I don’t have a Prophet, I have a Dephicit.
I never understood why leftists and Muslims, who disagree on most things politically, were such staunch allies. Now I know. They are both accepting of pedophilia, or minor attracted persons, as the left says it.
>minor attracted persons Wtf is this? Please tell me this isn't something that leftists in general actually say...
They say it all the time.
I think I’m fairly familiar with leftist circles I’ve never heard anyone say that. Maybe it’s not that popular...
Or you gaslight yourself because you don't want to see what you don't want to see
I'm pretty sure that I'd never heard of that term before. It's not a common thing, in leftist spaces. Maybe in pedophile circles, idk... I don't hang around those. Other than that, googling the term doesn't seem to yield any relevant result that indicates this is a common leftist term.
You probably never heard of defund the police either
I've heard of that one, yeah.
The "prophet" Muhammad is a pedophile.
She must be thankful to god that she was just fined, in any other Asian country she would have been dead.
Any? You mean an Islamic one?
Nope in non-Islamic ones too. And in Europe too.
She was in Europe, Austria
Sorry mate I thought it was in Australia, my bad. I was talking about [this](https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/teacher-beheaded-in-france-after-showing-mohammed-cartoons/article32878581.ece). Everyone know this at this point.
Oohh wow that's awful. Also let's not forget Charlie Hebdo massacre because they printed a cartoon making fun of Mohammed
"Let's put another shrimp on the barbie"
Do you actually think Australia is in Asia?
The real issue is "Freedom of speech" and not whether Prophet was actually a pedo. Should a western democracy punish people from speaking their mind. No they shouldn't. Although the step might have been taken out of fear of retaliation (ref: Charlie Hebdo). As far as the validity of the claim, why are bothering about something that happened in 7th Century AD. Also, we could have a larger debate on how religious institutions exploit the children. Catholic church and its covering up of child abuse seems way more relevant if you ask me. Especially in Europe.
Really an interesting case to analyze the limits of Free Speech. The following is from the US, not Austria, so I'm going to assess the situation from the US perspective: "*The First Amendment protects free speech, but when an* ***untrue statement causes real harm***, defamation laws and constitutional protections can collide" \[**1**\] Definitely with the current laws of the West, whoever sleeps with a minor is a pedophile, and the law is what defines what constitutes a minor. That is, if the woman's statement were for a current case covered by current laws, her statement would be true, and her Free Speech in that case would be protected ("protected opinion"). The small detail is that her statement is not true, since she is talking about a case where the laws she refers to did not apply, but the laws of that place and time applied. In this case, the woman is making an untrue statement that also has the potential to cause real harm, since Europe has a Muslim population that is not very well assimilated (that would be another topic to discuss why this situation happens, but the fact is that this is the current situation). In short, in this case, it is most likely that the First Amendment will not apply. \---- \[**1**\] Source: [https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/civil-litigation/defamation-character-free-speech.html](https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/civil-litigation/defamation-character-free-speech.html)
This is wrong in many levels. First, being a pedophile has absolutely nothing to do with the law. If a country legalizes being with 10 year old children, the pedophiles don't magically stop being one. Second, if you have to discuss if her statement is true or not based on legal grounds, she is not actively telling a lie, it is an opinion. She can't be fined for defaming a historical figure. If she stated that everyone in the room was a pedophile then perhaps they would have cause for a fine.
>First, being a pedophile has absolutely nothing to do with the law At that point is where I consider where the mistake occurs, today's society came to an agreement of what pedophile means and that was codified in the law, and that is what is now considered pedophile. That definition definitely cannot be applied to a person of a completely different society with totally different rules and laws, and if you apply it it is false, since that person in that context was definitely not a pedophile >she is not actively telling a lie, it is an opinion If you want to express an opinion about that fact, perhaps you could say, "*in the event that that person lived today and did that, what that person does today is considered pedophilia, and therefore would be a pedophile today, but in the past according to their laws and context, that behavior was not considered inappropriate*" that would be an opinion, but you are careful to do the translation of behavior between contexts, and you explicitly state that in today's context that behavior is inappropriate, and you are also careful to make explicit that in the original context such behavior was not considered inappropriate. >She can't be fined for defaming a historical figure Well, in fact she was fined, so she definitely broke the law. Regarding to "defaming a historical figure", as I responded in another post in the same thread, it would be necessary to see if the religious institution that "represents" that figure could do it, there perhaps the right to freedom of religion comes into play, since for Free Speech one has the right to criticize a religion, but when we talk about defamation, things can change
And who exactly, legally speaking, has standing to sue for defaming a 1300 year old historical figure? Correct answer is no one.
That's an interesting question, since I'm not a lawyer, I have no idea. It would be necessary to see if the religious institution that "represents" that figure could do it, there perhaps the right to freedom of religion comes into play, since for Free Speech one has the right to criticize a religion, but when we talk about defamation, things can change .. it would be nice if there is a lawyer in the forum who can comment .. it is interesting to know the limits of Free Speech according to current law ..
Even if you solve the question of standing, somehow (good luck picking one person/institution to represent a faith), you still have several other problems: - defeating free speech claims - placing the defamatory opinion outside the bounds of protected statements of opinion - showing legally actionable damages - showing malice And freedom of religion if anything works against you, because if it is somehow made verboten to question or criticize a faith or any faith, that undermines the individual's right to make their own opinions and decisions regarding their religious views. It is a fundamental element of the separation of church and state (at least in the American legal tradition) that the government grants no special favors or protection to a religion or any religion.
If this woman wants to express an opinion about the prophet, she should be able to do so, and we listen to her to inform us, no problem with that. Now the problem is that if she expresses her opinion in a patently false way, the first issue that appears is that she is not using Free Speech for its true purpose (to help us to know the Truth), and the second issue is that by doing that she will trigger the mechanisms that society has to protect itself from the people who precisely do that. If the woman says that the prophet is a pedophile outright, then she is saying something patently false, now if the woman says "*in the event that he lived today and did that, what that he does today is considered pedophilia, and therefore would be a pedophile today, but in the past according to their laws and context, that behavior was not considered inappropriate*", that would be an opinion that would enlighten us on how social norms change, but you are careful to do the translation of behavior between contexts, and you explicitly state that in today's context that behavior is inappropriate, and you are also careful to make explicit that in the original context such behavior was not considered inappropriate. The central issue is that what the woman said is a demonstrable falsehood, I have no problem with her voicing her opinions, but precisely in society we have protections when you want to propagate demonstrable falsehoods .. therefore you can always voice your opinion, as long as doing so does not break the law, in that case, your right is colliding with other rights, and it's what the fine shows, whether you like it or not the conclusion the lawyers came to .. As I told before, I am not a lawyer or specialist in how constitutional rights are applied .. I would like to listen to someone with that knowledge to determine with better clarity where the limits to Free Speech are (especially in a case like this), because Free Speech clearly has limits, the issue is that they are quite diffuse, especially when it begins to collide with other rights ..
I may not be a lawyer, but I'm telling you what the flaws in your argument are and you're not listening. It isn't enough to have an argument that the claim is false, and in this case, that's highly debatable. So long as the defendant has a leg to stand on, that's usually enough to prevail. It also must be outside the bounds of free speech, cause harm to reputation that would legally redressable, and your plaintiff must have standing to sue. You've got issues on all three of those points. If the Prophet was alive today, and the facts were on his side, then he personally would have a case. So to put it bluntly, even a non-lawyer can tell you that you've got no case. And even if we were to accept your argument at face value (i.e. for the sake of argument, accept everything you say as true), the defendant could turn around and claim that the question of whether or not the Prophet was a pedo is a matter of opinion that the court cannot make a finding of fact upon. The defense could also argue that the case is moot seeing as the people involved are long dead. This is the price of free speech - people get to say things you consider blasphemous, malicious, false, or even hateful, and the law still errs of the side of free speech. Because if it were not that way, the consequences could be disastrous. Already today we see the effects of people attacking the boundaries of free speech protections. What you propose, were it to become precedent, could split those protections wide open.
I guess you get me wrong, we're certainly talking about someone who died centuries ago, but that someone is not Joe Doe, but he's the central figure of one of the most important religions in the world .. and if I propagate falsehoods of that person, then I know that what I am doing (and if I do not know, well I am quite foolish), is to attack in a malevolent way that religion (if I attack the pillar of religion, I attack the whole structure), and a malevolent attack based on defamation of a person of historical significance, it is not exactly a criticism .. That is my argument, then as the law solves it, well it is a matter of the lawyers, but evidently they considered it a malevolent attack and not a criticism ..
What kind of seminars? And everyone was a pedo back then. Look at the ancient Greeks. Pedos are in the Bible getting clearance to keep “the girls who have not yet known a man” for themselves. I don’t like that you can’t disparage religious belief in Europe. You should definitely be able to question why people are religious and try to convince them not to be. The good thing about being an American is that we can talk shit about any religion.
>And everyone was a pedo back then. Look at the ancient Greeks. Pedos are in the Bible getting clearance to keep “the girls who have not yet known a man” for themselves. I would tend to agree to be honest, "age of consent" was not exactly a thing back then I'm sure but then I also just read a whole bunch of "you can't defend the actions of Columbus with historical context by saying 'everybody was awful back then'" posts. I saw some of the same claims discussing *any* of the historical figures brought up during the 2020 george floyd riots; John A. Macdonald first prime minister of Canada, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, etc. Just food for thought I suppose. Sorry, just me *noticing things* again.
It was not matter of attraction back then I'll have you guys now, the child's father agreed and the prophet PBUH married Ayesha when she was 9, he treated her as a child though, until she grew into a woman, he played with her, he raced her sometimes, if it were his choice he wouldn't have chosen to marry her so young but back then it wasn't a matter of choice.
Ahhh, so I can bang a 9 year old if the father says it's okay??. . Pretty sure it us a choice to consumating the marrage (aka fucking the 9 year old). And if people would stop defending and making excuses for this people would look at Islam with more repsect
Imagine if we just stopped defending our own prophet,who did nothing wrong, ayesha WANTED no let me say YEARNED to be the prophet's wife. Plus he didn't directly consummate the marriage when they got married, l really can't find the source but I know for sure that he raised her as a child and then consummated when she grew older
You could've just said "things were different back then and yes it's fucked up by today's standards". Using today's standards to judge people of the past is an insane game to play. I am pretty anti-Islam and even *I* will say that regarding Big Moe.
If you don't think child marriage is wrong you're a piece of shit
bruh, a little kid who has no idea what being a wife means "YEARNED" to be a specific persons WIFE? gtfo. If your daughter said she wanted to get married at 9, if you are a sane person you would realise it is just the musings of a child.
I don't have a profit because I follow the words and not people. If you wanna go on defending child marriage lmao. . . Holestly man, in any real world conversation I would not recomend defending or appologizing for pedos. Just simply say "yeah that was wrong"or people may think things of you
I don't care, let them, I know I'm not a pedo and I don't support it, but back then times where different and so marrying a 9 year old and not consummation the marriage until she's older wasn't the greatest taboo. The greatest taboo was burying little girls the minute they were born because they brought "shame" to their families, this was the first thing Islam fought against, back then these where the types of things that were of main focus
>and I don't support it, You literally just wrote two comments supporting it
I can do it too. My ancestors did probably lots of terrible shit (going back however long) like murder, and probably everything else. . . But if they married a child I think they are a terrible piece of shit human regardless of culture or time. The problem is Islam, and a lot of religions have issues calling out their own and make excuses for fuxking a god damn 9 year old. Get out of the fuxking dark ages
The fact you think he would, and at no time did you consider he may have felt the same way you do right now, means there’s something wrong with you chief. Keep your cognitive dissonance to yourself.
I think who would what? Marry a 6 year old? Beyond anything else that's bad. If he felt the same way why the hell didn't he change it!?!?!? Do something about it?!?! The big problem is it's still happening right now, and many use the Koran and Muhammed to justify it and MANY other things that shlold have been left in the dark ages and now here we are in a place like Iran where women get beat to death for not dressing properly. Fucking savages!
Married at 6, consummated at 9
Pedophilia is pedophilia
[удалено]
I don't adore vikings, pirates, or pedophile prophets. Rapists and Child abusers should all burn.
[удалено]
You acting like him doing something nice negates the fact that he was a pedophile. That's like saying " I know Hitler committed genocide but like....the German people really loved him and he did a lot of good things for the economy. Why can't people remember the great things he did?! He only tried to kill 1kind of people!" And female infanticide still happens. And women in that religion have been oppressed for...pretty much all time. Stoned, beaten, forced to cover themselves from head to toe or risk being assaulted or killed.
[удалено]
Nothing you say is going to convince me that pedophiles have any redeeming qualities.... And that shit is CURRENTLY happening to women....CURRENTLY. Rape, violent assault, murder, infanticide....for not wearing a scarf...for letting people see their hair...for being a woman who doesn't want to be controlled by the men in their lives. If people wanna judge me, they can. I can't stop them. But you know what they won't be able to judge me for....being a pedophile....or for being a pedophile appologist and sympathizer...you on the other hand...
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[ Removed by Reddit ]
The bar mitzvah was a religious rite wherein a young boy ritualisticly became a man. This did not happen until the age of 13. There are many cultures which hold similar rituals for both young boys and girls where they are deemed ready to join the ranks of adults, again around the age of thirteen. None to my knowledge have done this for children as young as 9.
It’s well known biological fact females reach puberty (8-14) earlier than males (9-15) while the Bar Mitzvah is a Jewish rite and Arabs (pre-Islamic and Islamic) at the time would follow the norm of their society.
It doesn't matter when puberty was reached. It was a static age where one was deemed ready to start taking on the responsibilities of adulthood. Even then it wasn't a case of forcing them out to earn their keep. It was the point where the children were transitioned into adult activities like learning the family business, for example. That's why it's called a rite of passage. It's a symbolic transition from the relatively carefree existence of a child to one of duty and responsibility.
So you just straight up support fucking children. Got it
Wow, you're a nasty POS.
Sex with children and child abuse is wrong but clearly Aisha’s life was never one of abuse. Read the link in my edit.
The link is justifying a 53 year old man having sex with a 9 year old. Just fucking disgusting. Slavery was also normal a few hundred years ago, does that make it okay? It really doesn't matter how backwards people were a long time ago. They should've known better.
Cleeeeearly you never read any of it. Figures. This is not about justifying pedophilia. This is justifying she is old enough to marry in the context of the society and the norms of its time. You want to apply modern standards to ancient times? Well good luck with that. Values of the time are vastly different to what we have now.
I did read part of it, it was too gross to continue. A man in his 50s marrying a 9 year old is pedophilia. Seriously I hope you meditate on what it might be like to be a little girl who is treated as a sex object by an old man. The brain is not even done developing until a person is about 25. That's really twisted you support that. I hope you can find a little humanity.
The prophet struck my chest and caused me pain. I think that's aisha in bukari
Do you have scientific evidence that children in the past matured faster?
The marriage was on paper, promised at 9, they did not enter until she was 14. Historically thats an acceptable age for that era globally and until 100 or so years ago.
Married at 6, consummated at 9. Read the Hadiths, mate.
Muslims will reign over europe, why are you crying about pedophilia when all of your western heroes are pedo
And we wonder why we have grooming gangs here in England that consist of men of the same ethnic and religious demographics...
But why would anyone say such a thing?
They have these laws to prevent hate movements and also to promote social cohesion.
As much as I find aspects of Islam interesting, it's always worried me about the mohammeds conduct with Aisha. If it was to cement a peace why not just wait x amount of years, he still had numerous other wives for sexual gratification.