Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by luminarychild)
    Neither do we, we worship Allah not the prophet pbuh

    Yet you let these people walk free and act like they're your own
    You're deflecting. We're talking specifically about islam and its pedo prophet.

    I don't want anything to do with him, islams abhorrent practices or islams magic man. Thats why I won't be indoctrinated into islam or any other crack pot religion.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leavingthecity)
    Someone who uses the word 'feminise' in an attempt to be derogatory in 2016 is not worth any attention
    Depends what you mean by "feminise" though, if its genuine concerns for women then I agree... but if its some Tumblr Anita Sarkeesian crap (e.g. sexism in video games), then maybe not.

    Edit: if you're talking about him, then he is trying to brand fighting for equal rights as derogatory (because Jesus!) so I guess yeah.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by King Scorchy)
    It would make everyone stop fighting, and then we can get on with things.
    CONVERT OR DIE SCUM!
    But ISIS mainly kill Muslims 😕
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hxfsxh)
    How about people stop hating against Islam, and focus their hate on the people killing in the name of Islam, instead?
    Finally someone said it 👏🏾
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chemting)
    Depends what you mean by "feminise" though, if its genuine concerns for women then I agree... but if its some Tumblr Anita Sarkeesian crap (e.g. sexism in video games), then maybe not.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I'm pretty sure you are overestimating his awareness of the world around him and it's progression.

    I think he is referring to the acceptance of women into government and Christian organisations and/or the resulting change in how they operate as they have modernised ie recognised women.

    Since joining TSR I've noticed that most students experiences of feminism and women's rights come from purely cerebral debate and are often informed by these....Tumblr nobodies.

    When they graduate into the real world, many will notice, most women will notice, that all kinds of residual inequality still exist in our society and needs to be taken seriously. Now, I don't play video games, but I have previously worked in financial markets trading technology where none of the women were expected or believed to have any understanding of how the technology worked. Such things exist and for this guy to dismiss the progression of women toward being equal with men in our society in using 'feminise' only tells us of his historical, social and corporate world ignorance.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Amina.S16)
    Finally someone said it 👏🏾
    You need to allow us to ask WHY though.

    If you mean people should not hate Muslims who are a diverse group of people, I agree.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Life under an Islamic State isn't all bells and whistles famalamadingdong, didn't you get the memo? :erm:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by King Scorchy)
    It would make everyone stop fighting, and then we can get on with things.
    Why doesn't everyone just convert to Buddhism? It would make everyone stop fighting, and then we can get on with things.

    Besides, there's no way in hell I'm following the orders of a medieval genocidal warlord.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by luminarychild)
    You're point is irrelevant! He was not a pedo and nor can you prove it

    Go piss off and have a **** in your v8 fatty
    Sorry to burst your bubble but, he married a six year old girl. He then had sex with her when she was 9. He then raped her when she was 14. Pedo doesn't even cut it.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by luminarychild)
    You're point is irrelevant! He was not a pedo and nor can you prove it

    Go piss off and have a **** in your v8 fatty


    The actions of a prophet are supposed to transcend the boundaries of time. Citing that it was OK when the holy mo was alive means he's not a prophet - just some dirty cave dweller having his way with a child.
    So, if you want to argue that the holy mo is a prophet you have to accept that he is both a prophet AND a dirty pedo. The more likely conclusion is he's not a prophet - just some dirty old man getting his rocks off cave-man style.

    Point proven.

    p.s The first person to start name calling loses the argument.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    Why doesn't everyone just convert to Buddhism? It would make everyone stop fighting, and then we can get on with things.

    Besides, there's no way in hell I'm following the orders of a medieval genocidal warlord.
    Myanmar is why
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    Sorry to burst your bubble but, he married a six year old girl. He then had sex with her when she was 9. He then raped her when she was 14. Pedo doesn't even cut it.
    The age of consent in England used to be 12, does that mean all english people are descendants of pedos? It was accepted at the time. When did he ever rape her? please provide proof
    Also people used to sell/giveaway their daughters in england not that long ago too (after Islam was revealed obviously) and they were at a young age (14) to old english men. Sick
    Look at king John of england
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by luminarychild)
    The age of consent in England used to be 12, does that mean all english people are descendants of pedos? It was accepted at the time. When did he ever rape her? please provide proof
    Also people used to sell/giveaway their daughters in england not that long ago too (after Islam was revealed obviously) and they were at a young age (14) to old english men. Sick
    Look at king John of england
    "It was accepted at the time" is the worst excuse ever. The prophet is supposed to be timeless, "ahead of his time" progressive, a bastion of morality for all of time. He wasn't supposed to have been influenced by culture and time, unless you admit he wasn't the "apostle of allah", just another fallible Arab who achieved things politically?

    People don't take 16th century England as a basis for all morality & way of life, and King John as the most perfect person to have ever lived. Muslims do.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by luminarychild)
    So you lost then? as you proceeded to call the prophet a pedo and are doing so once again and on top of that you cannot justify this you just extend on a lie with your sick imagination. Wouldn't be surprised if you touched kids too.

    Please explain the dirty non muslim pedos in society today and the pope? the english pedos today reflect on the society we dwell in and the members in it like you.
    I've proved the holy mo is a disgusting individual with logic - something those with religion addled brains cannot get their minds around.

    All religion is nonsense. Islam just happens to be particularly abhorrent, but you'd like to deflect the discussion onto other religions to disguise the fact that the poster child for islam is a scumbag.

    If you want to pray to a dirty cave dweller and an imaginary magic sky man, you rock on. Those of us with a brain between our ears have worked out religion is just a convenient man-made means to controll the vulnerable and those with a weak mind.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hellodave5)
    I'm not so sure I understand entirely what you mean; I don't think I agree with what you said as far as I understood it. Though I appreciate the effort of the post.

    Care to explain what you mean further, and with reference to those countries/ideologies (France, Nazi's, USSR, and USA)?

    Cheers
    Thanks for your reply.

    As a matter of broad explanation:

    Royalist France was aristocratic, highly inegalitarian and religious in the 18th century. It was also the strongest country in Europe, at many points taking on everyone else. The legacy of Royalism meant that Napoleonic France was able to dominate all of Europe for a short time. Royalist France could have done so too, but kings are too wise to expend their nation's wealth for unnecessary and counterproductive wars of personal glory (unlike petty corporals). The aftermath of the revolution saw an irreversible egalitarian malaise set in, which culminated in the election of socialists in the 30s and the defeat to the Nazis.

    Russian history followed the same story.

    This video should give you a good starting point, if you are interested:

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFyIzoBwXVk
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 41b)


    Thanks for your reply.

    As a matter of broad explanation:

    Royalist France was aristocratic, highly inegalitarian and religious in the 18th century. It was also the strongest country in Europe, at many points taking on everyone else. The legacy of Royalism meant that Napoleonic France was able to dominate all of Europe for a short time. Royalist France could have done so too, but kings are too wise to expend their nation's wealth for unnecessary and counterproductive wars of personal glory (unlike petty corporals). The aftermath of the revolution saw an irreversible egalitarian malaise set in, which culminated in the election of socialists in the 30s and the defeat to the Nazis.

    Russian history followed the same story.

    This video should give you a good starting point, if you are interested:

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFyIzoBwXVk
    I have to say I strongly disagree with the notion that the video suggests, and I'm not sure there is any credible basis for what is suggested that I can think of.

    I feel that what I heard in the video was rather abhorrent and unfounded, putting a face of credibility on something which has none - particularly by citing sparsely related studies and a single professor without giving citation.
    This doesn't allow the viewer to evaluate them to check that findings haven't been twisted or even just invented (like politicians often like to do).
    Seemed also to be somewhat emotive at points, despite trying to appear unbiased and 'collected'.

    It seems that the viewpoint is based primarily on a fear of a takeover, particularly from Islam.
    But interestingly, that video suggests that we should give up our free society, and become somewhat like a strict Islamic society; in other words, if you can't beat them, join them. To me, this doesn't make sense at all.

    Though I don't agree with it from what I have seen; it is an interesting notion that more egalitarian societies become in some way, militarily, and perhaps even culturally weaker. Something that I have not considered before.

    Of course, if one is to instantly shoot down and fail to consider everything that is disagreed with, then no one would learn anything... so I appreciate the discussion!

    P.S. Just an observation of the other videos of that poster (Thought Police and Political Correctness) says that for there to be quality of life there must be freedom; which I sort of feel goes against that one I watched prior which suggested less freedom and participation in society of women.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JC.)
    I've proved the holy mo is a disgusting individual with logic - something those with religion addled brains cannot get their minds around.

    All religion is nonsense. Islam just happens to be particularly abhorrent, but you'd like to deflect the discussion onto other religions to disguise the fact that the poster child for islam is a scumbag.

    If you want to pray to a dirty cave dweller and an imaginary magic sky man, you rock on. Those of us with a brain between our ears have worked out religion is just a convenient man-made means to controll the vulnerable and those with a weak mind.
    Weak mind? I'm pretty sure there is a lot more intelligent muslims than there are of people like you, and that's a fact. Maybe you need to understand the religion a lot better before you go charging ahead with your basic insults. It is not a matter of deflection it was merely a comparison of my religion and the dirty elements of your background which you seem to accept even though we are in the 21st century. Magic man? I take it you have not endorsed the science in the quran either, but I guess someone with a logic like yours would think science is magic too :lol: as for the cave.... what time was ISlam revealed? I'm pretty sure the likelihood of caves were pretty common
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chemting)
    "It was accepted at the time" is the worst excuse ever. The prophet is supposed to be timeless, "ahead of his time" progressive, a bastion of morality for all of time. He wasn't supposed to have been influenced by culture and time, unless you admit he wasn't the "apostle of allah", just another fallible Arab who achieved things politically?

    People don't take 16th century England as a basis for all morality & way of life, and King John as the most perfect person to have ever lived. Muslims do.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    No they don't, There are many prophets, we don;t all glorify muhammad pbuh like we do when we worship Allah. He was the last messenger and the quran was revealed through him is why muslims follow his way of sunnah. King john ruled over england and therefore people had to look up to him and worship him, so all english people must be looking up to a pedo then? and how is a human being meant to be timeless? he is not a time traveller nor does he posses the power to avoid the culture back then because he was trying to ammend it with the commands of Allah. And how many modern day muslims take muhammad pbuh way of life like they do their own? times have changed so it isn't possible for events like this to occur as they did back in 16th century england or when the quran was revealed. but the worship of Allah is the main thing and that has remained the same.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by Amina.S16)
    Finally someone said it 👏🏾
    It's part of your religion whether you like it or not and denying it won't make it go away.

    The pacifists in your religion, the passivity of hiding terrorists in the midst of the Islamic congregations, the tacit approval of abhorrent practices in the name of Islam, claiming it's cultural and not Islamic all scream out that huge numbers of Muslims are in denial.

    Stop living in the 7th century and acknowledge the fallacies and flaws in a 1200 year old text.
    Better still, face the truth and actively do something to purge your religion of the words in the Qur'an that give terrorists their legitimacy.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chemting)
    "It was accepted at the time" is the worst excuse ever. The prophet is supposed to be timeless, "ahead of his time" progressive, a bastion of morality for all of time. He wasn't supposed to have been influenced by culture and time, unless you admit he wasn't the "apostle of allah", just another fallible Arab who achieved things politically?

    People don't take 16th century England as a basis for all morality & way of life, and King John as the most perfect person to have ever lived. Muslims do.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    PRSOM

    Yeah....let's not go back to that.

    We tend to go off people who are found to have had sex with minors, we don't really uphold them as examples
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.