Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/27/05 03:37 PM, SaintMonoceros wrote: My eyes would definitely be wide open; in SHOCK!

Nay, rather, in awe at how far we've come. You think we do seriously disgusting shit, when it would actually be something normal if you look much deeply.

And I wouldn't trust EVERYTHING I read on the internet, if I were you.

At 11/27/05 03:40 PM, arab_freak wrote: And I wouldn't trust EVERYTHING I read on the internet, if I were you.

Or holy writings.

At 11/27/05 03:40 PM, Luxury_Yacht wrote: Or holy writings.

Yes, because over the years holy writing has been tampered with and fabricated.

This topic is filled with so much hatred that I feel bad that I laugh at most of it.

GARGOYLES!!!!!

lol that awesome

At 11/27/05 03:43 PM, -wwwyzzerdd- wrote: GARGOYLES!!!!!

I've seen that woman so many times before. Who is she?

At 11/27/05 03:35 PM, arab_freak wrote: That's because you were brought up in a society that has different opinions on them. If you were to spend some time in my country, I bet your eyes would be opened quite a bit.

Meh, I guess. One's perception of morals depends on the society he was brought up in. But sleeping with men when you're an adult is a choice whereas I doubt nine-year olds choose to sleep with old men. That's what I view as a fundamental difference between the two.

But you didn't answer my question (if you know the answer). Can the words in the Sahih Bukhari that were translated to 'consume' or 'consummate' mean something else than intercourse?

At 11/27/05 03:43 PM, arab_freak wrote: Yes, because over the years holy writing has been tampered with and fabricated.

Why would they want to make it look like he slept with a child?

At 11/27/05 03:47 PM, lapis wrote: But you didn't answer my question (if you know the answer). Can the words in the Sahih Bukhari that were translated to 'consume' or 'consummate' mean something else than intercourse?

Link plz.

Why would they want to make it look like he slept with a child?

Well, until this day there are 'rumours' saying that several Israelis have taken copies of the Qu'ran and tampered with it's words, then releasing it on the net as an insult to Islam. Some also say that the current Bible was tampered with in Arameic times.

At 11/27/05 04:09 PM, arab_freak wrote: Link plz.

Here, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236:

Narrated Hisham's father:

Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married 'Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she was nine years old.

This part was translated from Arab, but unfortunately I can't read that language. So I'm asking you: can the word consumed/consummated be translated to something that's not necessarily sexual?

Look, a few posts ago I was still trying to defend Muhammad so I want to hear that he didn't necessarily sleep with her. But if it's in the Sunnah then I can't argue with it. It's a relevant issue here in Holland because a local Somalian politician (who broke with Islam) called Muhammad a paedophile and the entire muslim community was pissed. They said that he married her, but did not consummate the marriage. But if these excerpts were correctly translated then there's little arguing about it.

Well, until this day there are 'rumours' saying that several Israelis have taken copies of the Qu'ran and tampered with it's words, then releasing it on the net as an insult to Islam.

Hmm, it sounds a little far-fetched to me.

At 11/27/05 04:21 PM, lapis wrote: This part was translated from Arab, but unfortunately I can't read that language. So I'm asking you: can the word consumed/consummated be translated to something that's not necessarily sexual?

From what I see, and from a reliable source, the words "consumed the marriage" could also be compared to human digestion. When you eat something, and it goes into your stomach, you could not say that you have "extracted the energy [glucose]" from it. I guess you can say the same about the marriage. They weren't "officially" together until she turned 9.

And while the question was a bit embarassing for me to ask, the answer was no. He did not get intimate with her, and treated her like any of his daughters.

Hmm, it sounds a little far-fetched to me.

Most of the un-educated population believes it.

:o

LOL, I saw that on abstruse yesterday. What a one sided blind faithed story. One more reason to escape from organized religion.

last time I checked Muslims had the same god I do.

I agree. People shouldn't make other religions look bad.

That's dark sided.

At 11/27/05 03:12 PM, arab_freak wrote: Hell no. Like I said before, people developed and grew much faster than us now. You see it as a mere child marrying an old man. But in reality, it is much different.

Ludicrous! If anything people developed (physically) more slowly. In the 1800s it was unusual for a woman to begin menstruation earlier than age 16, nowadays girls are getting their periods as young as 9 or 10.

On the other hand, people certainly didn't live as long as today but that was mostly due to death by illness or injury, the lucky and healthy could easily reach age 60 or more but most died before age 40 so it was necessary to marry young and breed as soon as it was physically possible. 9 years old is extremely young though and more than a little disturbing (it's no less pedophilia simply because it's a girl from a non-western culture).

That said, it's important to remember that women in those days were seen as little more than breeding stock and property, concerns over their "rights" simply didn't exist.

And you're thinking of Lot and Soddom and Gemmorah. If god doesn't smite San Fransisco, I think he owes someone an apology.

Just because he married someone of that age, doesn't neessecarily mean he had sex with her. We don't know the circumstances of that marriage, maybe he was trying to protect the girl by bringing her into his family. There is some contreversy as to her actual age at marriage. But again, even if she was 9 she could have been post-puberty, they could have also never had sex.

At 11/27/05 03:45 PM, arab_freak wrote: I've seen that woman so many times before. Who is she?

There was an episode of a reality TV show called "Trading Spouses" (where you do what the name implies), and this woman, Marguerite Perrin, who is a highly religious person, literally refused to do much on the show because she was paired with a family that practiced Astrology. Not just did she refuse to do anything, but at the end, all the families are given $50,000 that the other parent tells them how to spend. She flipped out so much that she threw the money away because she thought it was evil. She later took the money because it was going to pay for a surgery that she needed.

At 11/27/05 06:42 PM, capn_g wrote:

At 11/27/05 03:12 PM, arab_freak wrote: Hell no. Like I said before, people developed and grew much faster than us now. You see it as a mere child marrying an old man. But in reality, it is much different.

Ludicrous! If anything people developed (physically) more slowly. In the 1800s it was unusual for a woman to begin menstruation earlier than age 16, nowadays girls are getting their periods as young as 9 or 10.

Seriously arab_freak...... there's nothing wrong with your religion but there's definitely something wrong with the education you're receiving and your faulty logic.

Of course holy scriptures have been tampered with over time. You're not going to get the originals. It's almost a given that copies have flaws.

Even if they weren't flawed, if you base your life blindly on faith without critically appraising anything then you're just as bad as the people who attack your religion.

You say 'don't believe everything you read on the Internet' as a ploy to discredit anything that doesn't match what you believe in.

It doesn't matter if it's on the Internet or in a book. If the information can't be held up logically, then it can be disregarded.

All of your pro-Muslim arguments so far can be used in the same way in anti-Muslim arguments. You are doing a horrible job of defending your own beliefs. All I have to do is change Muslim to Christianity in your sentences.

Jack Chick is horrible in this way as well.

At 11/27/05 07:06 PM, Shrapnel wrote: All I have to do is change Muslim to Christianity in your sentences.
Jack Chick is horrible in this way as well.

So if I switched the fictional 80-foot Adam with Goliath, and changed Muhammed and his slaves with King Ramses, I could negate an arguement?

At 11/27/05 07:18 PM, -wwwyzzerdd- wrote:
So if I switched the fictional 80-foot Adam with Goliath, and changed Muhammed and his slaves with King Ramses, I could negate an arguement?

I'm not following that at all. Goliath was supposedly somewhere around 15ft tall, which while seemingly fantastic is still within the realm of possibilty. A 60-80ft man is not. As for Ramses, nobody is following a religion based on his teachings, so the comparison is void.

Oh those poor muslims.

I think the real question on our minds should not be how tall adam was, but how similar grandpa and Harvey Birdman's Phil Ken Sebben look alike..

At 11/27/05 10:26 PM, SuperRadd wrote: I think the real question on our minds should not be how tall adam was, but how similar grandpa and Harvey Birdman's Phil Ken Sebben look alike..

Or Bizarro Murphy minus the 'stashe.

I find the resemblence of the three mildy disturbing.

At 11/27/05 11:12 PM, SuperRadd wrote: I find the resemblence of the three mildy disturbing.

I find christianity mildly disturbing.

At 11/27/05 10:38 PM, -wwwyzzerdd- wrote:

At 11/27/05 10:26 PM, SuperRadd wrote: I think the real question on our minds should not be how tall adam was, but how similar grandpa and Harvey Birdman's Phil Ken Sebben look alike..

Or Bizarro Murphy minus the 'stashe.

Ha ha....resemblence

At 11/27/05 10:38 PM, -wwwyzzerdd- wrote:

At 11/27/05 10:26 PM, SuperRadd wrote: I think the real question on our minds should not be how tall adam was, but how similar grandpa and Harvey Birdman's Phil Ken Sebben look alike..

Or Bizarro Murphy minus the 'stashe.

Thats awesome, man.

religious propaganda is too funny.

This made to 8 pages!?!

rofl

At 11/28/05 01:22 AM, Mad-Cow wrote: This made to 8 pages!?!

9 now.