[MERGED]-Debmey: SHOW PROOF THAT PROPHET MOHAMMAD IS A PAEDOPHILE?

Debmey

Was Margaret a prophet in Christianity like Mo is prophet to Muslims?

Originally posted by Debmey at 2005-3-22 12:25 PM:
Was Margaret a prophet in Christianity like Mo is prophet to Muslims?

Our "Nabi" (loosely translated to English using the latin term 'prophet' due to the limited English vocabulary) has much much more significance in God's eyes than your mere christian so-called similarity.. We have had no female 'Nabi' and will never have. Do you have female 'prophets'?  

[ Last edited by KENNKID on 22-3-2005 at 12:48 PM ]

Ah, I see, you only have a problem with Mohammad as a prophet but not with ACTUAL paedophiles eh?  

So, in this case can I confirm that you have a problem with Moses too?  The same one that Jesus said who's laws he was upholding?

Debmey

Originally posted by KENNKID at 2005-3-22 12:46 PM:

Our "Nabi" (loosely translated to English using the latin term 'prophet' due to the limited English vocabulary) has much much more significance in God's eyes than your mere christian so-called similarity.. We have had no female 'Nabi' and will never have. Do you have female 'prophets'?  

So was Margaret a nabi of Christianity like mo was nabi of Islam?

Does Christainity say that Margaret is a model of mankind like Islam says Mo is model for mankind?

Thats what we wnat to know.

If you think Margaret was bad, so was Aisha. Anyway, Margaret was 10 years old, still older than poor Aisha.

What else?

Originally posted by Debmey at 2005-3-22 12:55 PM:

So was Margaret a nabi of Christianity like mo was nabi of Islam?

Does Christainity say that Margaret is a model of mankind like Islam says Mo is model for mankind?

Thats what we wnat ...

We have nothing to be ashamed of that Nabi Muhammad (peace be upon him) married Lady Aisha when she was that age. 1400  years ago it was perfectly  acceptable from all aspects. Margaret's marriage when she was aged ten in the year 1363 to King Haakon VI of Norway, approximately 642 years ago was comparatively recent... and christendom accepted it, hailed it in fact.

[ Last edited by KENNKID on 22-3-2005 at 01:29 PM ]

Debmey

1400 years ago OK? Today not OK?

That means Mo cannot be model for mankind lah.

Thank you.

Originally posted by Debmey at 2005-3-22 01:34 PM:
1400 years ago OK? Today not OK?

That means Mo cannot be model for mankind lah.

Thank you.

Don't be stupid la Debmey. He has not just got married today. Nabi Muhammad (peace be upon him) is not equivalent to your false claim 'Jesus is God' thingy you know. He was a human being.  The perfect model for a human being is a human being... not your fairy tale invented cock n bull myth.

[ Last edited by KENNKID on 22-3-2005 at 01:43 PM ]

Kid, he is not being one, he is one!

First he said it was a paedophile act eventhough  it was 1400 years ago, then he acknowledged that the land laws is best suited for time and place where the people live, and now he says not suitable model for mankind which in his argument he failed to show that in this 21st century there are Muslim men marrying 9 years olds.

Like I said, he does not have any problems with ACTUAL paedophiles, only with Mohammad the prophet of Islam.

[ Last edited by samerosie on 22-3-2005 at 01:53 PM ]

Debmey

Correction, I said principles apply thru all ages, but the laws of the land will suit the times and place best. The laws must reflect the principles to be holy.
Paedophilia is still paedophilia no matter what the age or the laws of the land.

Muslims by claimning that Mo is a model of mankind will have a hard time reconciling his paedophilia.

Mo had sex with a 9 year old, Mo was a paedophile regardless of time and laws.

What else?

Originally posted by Debmey at 2005-3-22 02:13 PM:
Correction, I said principles apply thru all ages, but the laws of the land will suit the times and place best. The laws must reflect the principles to be holy.
Paedophilia is still paedophilia no ...

You cannot think rationally. Your thinking is clouded with hatred and prejudice. I consider all your opinions on this subject as disqualified.

[ Last edited by KENNKID on 22-3-2005 at 02:22 PM ]

That's where you are wrong.  1400 years ago, their principles are different to now.  1400 years ago the greek word paedo-phile was to mean "a likehood to children", now paedophile is meant by sexually attracted to children.

1400 years ago people get married as young as 9, the principle was that people live a shorter life and heir continuation is vital, now, people get married as old as 90 for companionship.

Debmey

Principles changing huh?  Allah changes also. Ahahahahahahahaha...............

With shifting proinciples, it sno wonder muslism are so confused today.

People used to live till their 40s and 50s, even 80s, there is no need to have sex at 9 at all.

One way or another, Mo was still a paedophile.

What else?

You never said Islamic principles, you just said principles in general and you did say laws of land will suit the times and place best.  Don't twist and turn Debmey.

What else..?  You should be out of this forum already.

Originally posted by samerosie at 2005-3-22 02:50 PM:
That's where you are wrong.  1400 years ago, their principles are different to now.  1400 years ago the greek word paedo-phile was to mean "a likehood to children", now paedophile is mean ...

Your opinions are based on research, logic, sensibility  and rationality, Samerosie. I respect you for that.

For Debmey, it was right for margaret of denmark's parents  to marry her off at age  10 just 642 years ago but not right for Syedina Abu Bakr to marry Aisha off at age 9,  1400 years ago.

Debmey's  main target of lashing his bedevilled hatred is of course our beloved Nabi Muhammad (peace be upon him), Rasullullah.  

Debmey just imposes his redneck closed views in the only way that he has  been trained to, based on hatred and jealousy at his intended target & the assumption that he is right even if he is wrong -  we know where that comes from. And from the onset it is already disqualified. People like that should not interact with other human beings. They should live alone.

[ Last edited by KENNKID on 22-3-2005 at 03:15 PM ]

Debmey

Principles applies across time, but laws such as enforcement and punishment can vary across culture and times.

In other words, Mo was a paedophile regardless of when he did it, today or 1400 years ago.

If islam shifts principles like yu said, then it is not a good religion. Indeed, muslism do shift principles across time and place, atshwt why its full of double satnbadrds, tahst why it is immoral.

Thanks Kenkid.  I much prefer a discourse with an atheist/agnostic anytime to a rabid ignorant bigot like Debmey.

Orang melayu cakap, pandai tak leh di ikut, bodoh tak leh di ajar.

Debmey

Aiyah! Muslims stuck already ah in denying Mo's paedophilia. Start to use malay now.

There you go.

From Bukhari vol. 7, #65:

            "Narrated Aisha that the prophet wrote the marriage contract with her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old.  Hisham said:  "I have been informed that Aisha remained with the prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death).""


Bukhari vol. 7, #88:
            "Narrated Urwa:  "The prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).""


peace to all

Originally posted by Debmey at 2005-3-22 03:14 PM:
Principles applies across time, but laws such as enforcement and punishment can vary across culture and times.

In other words, Mo was a paedophile regardless of when he did it, today or 1400 ye ...

Only a redneck would make statements like that... and he's not even an ang moh. Thats the training he gets from an Ang Moh religion.  

[ Last edited by KENNKID on 22-3-2005 at 03:24 PM ]

Principles applies across time, but laws such as enforcement and punishment can vary across culture and times.

In other words, Mo was a paedophile regardless of when he did it, today or 1400 years ago.
---------
If so, please provide me with this paedophile principle that was frown upon 1400 years ago.  Can you give us proof that this marriage was against the principles then.  Better still can you tell us what was the principles back then.

I have given you proof that it was not, queen margaret was one.

I dont think that its only his neck that is red...