[satjas]

Hey Mbajuni

>Thanks for the warning coach. No worries...I don't believe in
>arguing over ignorance. I did notice that Satjas comments are
>based on assumptions on what I think.

ditto Mbajuni.......just because I do not publicise what i do does not make me ignorant. It is common practise to conclude a writer is ignorant especially when one does not agree with the other. Forget about me, just read the content.

> However, I will not post
>in on the other board because I think this a fruitless and
>pointless argument and don't wat to start another pot boiling.

Very good, because you already have too mant pots boiling and left unattended. It will only be fruitless if you choose it to be.

>Instead I would like to state my own personal stance here and
>clarify this "round the circle" discussion in this board and
>hopefully never have to return and witness such ignorance.

If you read what you said above about 'assumptions' then like you've said here, I also state my own personal stance. And ofcourse i am ignorant and you are clever....but please educate me.


>I believe the hadith about the prophet.
>I believe the Quran.

Me too, and that's why i think it cannot have been written by allah, or perhaps allah and MooHamMad are the same personality. 'I believe the kooran' does not mean anything.....its like ' i believe the santa clause'....duuuuuhhhhhhh!!!!!!

>But my point was that, just because Allah does not say
>something against an act in the Quran, it does not mean he is
>saying you MUST do it.

how convinient for allah to turn a blind eye when the 52 yr old is sleeping with the 9 yr old ayesha.

>GET THE DIFFFERENCE????? Passiveness is
>NOT equal to ADVOCATING...Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh!!!
>That my dear satjas is what I was saying.

and that is why evil grows when good men and women do/say nothing. For any sensible person, passiveness is as good as accepting.


>However, I was not saying that I think the prophet was wrong
>either. NO...As a matter of fact I have nothing wrong with
>that act on the basis that it happened hundred of years ago
>when everyone did that and it was the norm.

and thats where i am saying we should leave that ideology....back in hundreds of years since we cannot apply it in this day and age.......your words above not mine!!!Duuuuhhhh!!


> Pedophilia is a
>term that only came about when western definitions of
>psychopathology. If the Prophet lived in today’s world then
>perhaps it would be a totally different situation.

>Pedophilia is a mental disorder.

I have looked at those two statements above and you say pedophilia is a mental disorder, and then you say that that term only came about after the west mentioned it.....are you saying it never existed before? The fact that we have not discovered many things in life does not mean the do not exist.....we simply have not found names for them. Any rational man, regardless of the aspect of time will find it almost a task to stick their penis in a small girl.........small things are designed to take small stuff not humongous penises. And that is why it is a mental disorder.....your words, not mine duuuhhhhhhh!!!!

>I actually talked to a prof
>about this just last week when talking about sexually deviant
>behaviour. In Psychology, Pedophilia is diagnosed only based
>on cultural contexts and what is the norm. If it is norm in
>society, then it is not considered pedophilia. So just by
>definition itself, the Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) was not a
>pedophile.

Go on suit yourself if it makes you feel good............in this day and age when people are being killed left right and center by suicide bombers, let's not call them that since it is the norm......so by definition suicide bombers are not suicide bombers.....Get a grip girl!! Duuuuhhhhh!! i am quite getting used to this duuuuhhhhh!! thanks to you.

>The same thing to bulimia nervosa. If there
>hypothetically was a society out there where 99% of the girls
>poked fingers in their tongues to throw up after eating so
>that they would be thin, then it is not considered a mental
>disorder since "statistical" rarity is one of the qualifiers
>for a mental disorder.

hmmm....pedophilia, bulimia nervosa? they don't rank in the same category now do they??

>In the 15th/16th century where women didn't go to
>school/didn't get jobs etc then even I would personally find
>it normal if one got married at that age...kweni I would have
>hit puberty, I can get pregnant and the norms in that society
>then, the only role left for me is to get married and be a
>mother.

Ok you know what some tribes are still living in that century, go to the north of kenya, papua new guinea , the congo. Even these people know that very old men should not sleep with a nine yr old. Mbajuni, i have no problem if MooHamMad took ayesha as a wife for the sake of abu bakr even if she was only 6 at the time but please don't sleep with her Old Man???!!! duuuuuhhh!!!!

> However, today I and many of us are blessed with
>education and know better if someone did the same thing. Today
>I would be appalled and angry if a 52 yr old married a 9 year
>old, but at the same time, I would not call him a pedophile or
>pervert.

And that is why Islam is a great religion for you can do anything and not be guilty of it. Girl, call a spade a spade. Ofcourse you would not call him a pervert because he could turn round to you and say ' but the prohet did it' and you would have nothing to say. That is why it suits you to be angry and yet do nothing about it. It's a pity they don't teach some stuff to psychologists.

>Calling one a pedophile based on MY construct of
>womanhood is like calling one who comes from another culture
>mentally retarded based on my notion of intelligence through
>the IQ.

hey hey hey.....do you wanna break that down a little bit more for clarity's sake? what is your construct of womanhood???

>According to the layman's rather than medical definition, a
>pedophile is "an adult who is sexually attracted to children".
>Even in the west today we can't decide the defnition for
>girl/woman. Some say up to 16, others 14 etc. So if we can't
>draw a line today when we are in the same era, how can we draw
>that thin line to others in a totally different era and
>culture??

It doesn't matter......let us also at the same time consider an age for men too, shall we say 18? I know it's on the higher side but it will do. Then let's say when the girl matures...even at your modest attempt of 9/10 yrs (as below) Then that makes a difference of 9 yrs. The world can accept that. 9 yrs? not bad! but 40+ yrs??????????? c'mon! DUUUUUHHHHHH!!!!

>To some cultures young girls of 9/10 are considered
>as to be women after initiation in...then how can we penalize
>them for that based on our own definitions??

like i said choose any figure for the men too and consider them compatible.

>In countries such as Kenya where in some places isolated from
>the wider society such as Northern Marsabit where it is norm
>for girls to get married at 9/10/11 I wouldn't call them
>pedophiles either...I would just say that their culture is not
>educated on western definitions of womanhood.

Ooops! didn't realize you had mentioned this.......umm, you wouldn't call them stupid though now would you Mbajuni????

>Kweni if I were
>to call them pedophiles the that means 99% of Africans before
>colonization were pedophiles too i.e. your great great great
>great great great great... grandfather or mine were perverts
>too.

hey speak for your not mine.......i can follow my lineage way back than that and NONE of them were perverts None of them at the age of 52 slept with a 9 yr old

> But to THEM they are not attracted to a child but a
>woman. To THEM pedophilia would be if the girl was 6/7. If one
>is educated on this concept today, knows of the broader
>definition of child/woman, lives in 'modern' society and STILL
>chooses to marry a 9/10 yr old girl...THEN they are a
>pedophile.

Are you now using that concept here??? A few words ago you said you couldn't call the guys from Up north pedophiles.......oh yeah, those guys are not educated or modern right? Mbajuni, i have told you before i am in that group of uneducated 'un modern people' to coin a phrase. Please do not patronise us like this!!!!!!


>Basically my point is that culture varies and changes over
>time and geography as do definitions such as intelligence,
>mentally retarded, woman/girl etc Based on defitions of
>intelligence TODAY do you know that over 50% of the population
>from the 19th century would be considered mentally retarded??

could you also provide us with statistics for the 7th century???? In the same way, religions should also vary and change, old customs and barbaric ways trashed.

>So it is stupid for you to argue about who was a pedophile
>then, back in the day, whensoever, based on a definition that
>has not only dynamically changed in the past decade but were
>also created post-western civilization.

when exactly did 'post-western civilisation' start??? Or perhaps should i ask- based on your modern educated definition, would you in this century consider MooHamMad a pedophile if he slept with ayesha today??????

>Satjas, that is just
>biased, misinformed, one-sided, indiscriminate, insensible,
>plain ignorant hogwash. And that is why I think arguing if
>Joseph or the prophet Mohammed (PBUH) were pedophiles is
>pointless!!

It can be all that you said if you want it to be, the choice is yours. When one is so immersed in shyte like the bluefly is then even a pot of honey next to is considered poison, the bluefly will never abandon the shyte. You will continously say that i am misinformed, insensible and ignorant. You have that freedom. And so is mine, to speak the truth, rationally, plainly and consistently.

Any choosen leader (or self appointed as in your case) has to have credentials which will be scrutinized even beyond the grave. It is only fair and just to the followers of their ideologies to know that they were/are not duped, especially because they have blind unquestionable faith.

-the paradigm shifter......God's friend.