He *has* a mind?

you are to be congratulated on putting up, for so long, a fine effort at reason and rationality. Please don’t be frustrated at the intransigence of omer: he’s been programmed not to acknowledge anything critical of Islam, no matter what. It is his touchstone, his raison d’etre; his whole existence is founded on Koranic-based intellectual dishonesty. As I said, there’s no arguing with bigots, especially religious fanatics.

Only in your own mind.

there is a crap load of other things that are ‘natural’ in the animal kingdom, which the humans do not practice

Whether that’s true or not isn’t the point. He made the assertion: that we shouldn’t practice homosexuality, because it’s unnatural; faced with evidence that it IS natural, he changes his position, and says it doesn’t matter if it’s natural or not, because there are things in nature that we shouldn’t emulate. If he had any balls, he’d admit the cogency of the evidence (which is even photographic). But there is no possible evidence that he would admit, under any circumstances. This is the effect of the mind control aspect of Islam: you mustn’t question the veracity of the Koran, which is FULL of errors, no matter what. If you do, you’re subject to a death sentence.
It’s a shithole of a religion, and there is good evidence for this too: Islam has made shitholes out of many places on Earth, where women are often forced into marriages, STONED to death for adultery, where homosexuals and nonbelievers are EXECUTED. Even so, they delude themselves into believing it’s the ‘religion of peace.’

The best thing is just to ignore omer; it’s a shame, I know, what damage he and others like him will do, especially to those who DARE to challenge Islam, but there is no arguing with him: there are no circumstances where he would admit error, especially about his sick hero.

if i were married and had a daughter and the prophet mohammed was alive today, i would marry her to him at 5 in a heart beat and this is what every muslim will tell you.

yuck.

anyway, i seriously doubt that’s true, but i do suggest you mention this to anyone you are interested in marrying. i’m sure they’ll be delighted.

b’shalom

bananabrain

It seems that you are a little dull. I will go over it again to ease your stupitidy.
1)I have already explained to you that according to Islam, marriage is perfectly allowed when the girl reaches puberty, which Aisha RA had reached at the time of marriage.
2) pedophilia is a modern term and it entails abuse; there was no abuse done upon Aisha RA; she was perfectly healthy and normal. infact, she never once complained about the Prophet SAW, not even after his death. was she acquiesced too?!?
3) if the western society is defining an age bracket for marriage, i dont really care. my bracket for permissibility of marriage is defined by the biological definition given to me by islam. according to islam, the prophet was well within what islam defined. no one can disprove the islamic point of view on this.
4) homosexuality is forbidden explicitly in islam because not only is it abnormal, its truly disgusting. what Prophet Mohammed SAW did was not opposed by anyone ever, until now, which shows how shallow and worthless your arguement is that the only way you can make it is by choosing a dumb nickname and from sitting behind a computer, hiding.

so you see, i have won this argument and you have lost, because you have not addressed a single point of mine.

if i were married and had a daughter and the prophet mohammed was alive today, i would marry her to him at 5 in a heart beat and this is what every muslim will tell you. you cant beat us. many like you have come and gone; but islam has prevailed and it will.

bring it on loser.

Tell us the facts behind how Prophet Mo married at 50 or the little girl Ayesha at 5, please.

If it was permissible then and the Prophet practiced paedophilia, it does not mean it is legal today. Hindus have reformed their religion such that the practice of burning widows at the pyre of their dead husbands has long been banned. The same should apply to child marriage in Muslim countries which are still backward enough to practice this institutionalised act of peversion.

And like I said, if what was permissible in the 7th century should make things acceptable today, then surely what is persmissible in our society today should also be regarded as acceptable today.

So you see, you cannot win the argument on the basis that homosexuality should be banned but paedophilic marriage should be permissible by law just because Prophet Mo was a practioner of the latter and eschewed the former. Sorry!

I have already made it clear to you that just because the Prophet SAW did something PERMISSIBLE(not OBLIGATORY) does not mean that the entire Muslim population will do it(these are two separate matters). There are still Muslim families today in the middle east, afghanistan, indo-pak area, indonesia that marry their girls off after they reach puberty. its probably as uncommon as men who take more than one wife. whether the greater number of muslims practice something or not, doesn’t determine its permissibility. there is no pushing or shoving. its a very, very simple statement.
i told you; you cannot win this.

You see, you will defend the perversion but when push comes to shove, not many Muslims – no matter how deluded they are – will agree to marry off their 5 year old daughter to an adult male just for the sake of following a Tradition which, they truly know, is firmly rooted in the perverse.

Most Muslims know exactly what perversion is which is why they fully understand that no one wants to marry their children off at the age of 5. This was a dispensation given to Prophet Mo, who made his best friend, Abu Bakr, to aquiesce to this perverted arrangement.

My definition of sexual maturity is the biological definition of sexual maturity which trumps any secular or modern concept of sexual maturity(and i can back this claim up using your so called modern science). Obviously, the consequences of the marriage between aisha RA and mohammed SAW prove you very wrong and prove me very right, because Aisha did not suffer from any effects that someone who experiences pedophilia suffers from. why is that? ask yourself that.

Show me anywhere in history, where Aisha seemed to have suffered or there were symptoms of her suffering or any evidence that she had any negative effects of the marriage.

My point is that the Quran (and the Chruch in the past) define marriage-ability at the age of puberty; thats the defining line. whether your secular government (obviously, you are not smart enough to have developed the sexual consent age concept o on your own) defines pedophilia at below 13 or below 18; i frankly dont really care.

Neither did Aisha suffer from any post-pedophile effects, not was she abused or raped. she entered into a most respectable form of relationship in terms of a marriage and if you were so smart as to read the accounts of the two, you would be surprised. but you havent done that have you?!!! of course not. you have been brain washed by the western secular propaganda machine.
give it up guys. you cant take this one.

Actually, that is exactly what you are doing. You are taking a 9 year old girl and saying she is sexually mature because this was the social norm in 7th century Arabia (which in itself, is a debatable claim).