Shia view on sex with pre-pubertal girls

[JMM159]

Originally Posted by JMM
Let’s say if a non Christran person like you goes to a secular court and wants Court to declare that Pope is an antiChrist and presents his “proof/evidence” from those Christian sources who labled Pope as an antiChrist, then do you think court must accept his evidence/proof as fact/truth and declare Pope an antiChrist? If no, why not?

Is the Christian doctrine of the anti-Christ a religious belief or an historical fact?

You keep on mixing up religious beliefs (which depend on the person’s religion) and historical facts (which do not depend on the person’s religion).

There are Christians out there to whom antiChrist doctrine/idea is more than merely a historical fact that befits their religious scriptures/undertsanding of their Christian scriptures. For them if there was no possibility of an antiChrist figure then they would not have used historical facts to justify their religious belief in such doctrine.

What is a historical fact as opposed to a religious belief for a religious person who believes in such belief?

Have you ever heard “Whore of Babylon” doctrine?

The following is a qoute for you to seperate the “truth” from the falsehood. Let’s see what is in the following is true and what is false in your eyes:

Some pre-Reformation writers and most of the Reformers themselves, from Martin Luther (who wrote On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church), John Calvin, and John Knox (who wrote The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women) identify the Roman Catholic Church with the Whore of Babylon. This opinion influenced several generations in England and Scotland when it was put into the 1599 edition of the Geneva Bible. As a tradition, it continues through Scofield Reference Bible (whose 1917 edition identified “ecclesiastical Babylon” with “apostate Christendom headed by the Papacy”) and pro-Reformation writings such as those of I.M. Haldeman, and it is kept alive by contemporary figures such as Ian Paisley and Jack Chick. The “drunkenness with the blood of saints and martyrs”, by this interpretation, refers to the veneration of saints and relics, which is viewed by the Reformers as idolatry and apostasy. Those who accept this tradition use the phrase “Whore of Babylon” to refer to the Roman Catholic Church.

The Protestant reformers were not the first people to call the Roman Catholic Church the Whore of Babylon. There was a fairly long tradition of this kind of name-calling by opponents of the Papacy. Frederick Barbarossa published missives that called the Papacy the Whore of Babylon, and the Pope the Antichrist, during the course of his protracted quarrel with Pope Alexander III. Dante equated the corruption and simony in the office of the Papacy with the Whore of Babylon in Canto 19 of his Inferno:

Di voi pastor s’accorse il Vangelista,
quando colei che siede sopra l’acque
puttaneggiar coi regi a lui fu vista. . .
(“Shepherds like you the Evangelist had in mind when he saw the one that sits upon the waters committing fornication with the kings.”)
When the Florentine tyrant Girolamo Savonarola also called the Papacy the Whore of Babylon, he meant something closer to the Reformers’ usage. These claims, however, were based chiefly on social and political disagreements with Roman Catholic policy, or at their strongest accuse the Papacy of moral corruption. The Protestant reformers, by contrast, seriously considered the Papacy to be at least potentially the apocalyptic figure mentioned in Bible prophecy, and included the claim in Bible commentaries as well as polemics. They meant something more than to accuse the Roman Catholic Church of political or moral corruption; they claimed that as a church it taught a Satanic counterfeit plan of salvation, one that would lead its faithful to Hell rather than to Heaven.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Uh… please note again the difference between historical facts and religious beliefs.

The fact that some Medieval reformers charged the Roman Catholic Church to be the ‘whore of Babylon’ is an historical fact. I accept that unreservedly.

But the ‘whore of Babylon’ doctrine is religious belief. I accept that the historicity of this religious belief but not the belief in itself.

Got it? Please don’t mistake religious beliefs and historical facts again. It is getting tiresome pointing out the difficiency of your understanding. I am not getting paid to educate you.

 

[pro_universal]

I do stand on my record of debating you - as I have completely demolished every nonsensical assertions you have made.

Oh yes, and it’s so obvious you need to declare it every chance you get, just in case anyone didn’t notice. (I sure didn’t).

Now, where is that post in which you claimed I said there was uniform law on marriage in the US? As a lawyer you should know this principle: Actori incumbit probatio.

Or didn’t they teach you that at Tehran University Law School?

Wow, you really feel threatened this time don’t you? Maybe you’ll lose your readership of one (cestusdei) if you don’t respond with insults and post-mania?

 

[JMM159]

What JMM is basically trying to tell us is that Muslims may bring Islamic historical sources to defend Islam because they are Muslims, while we non-Muslims have no right to bring these same sources to attack Islam because we are non-Muslims.

If Islamic historical sources are that much worthy in your eyes then why only those excerpts which are out of whole Islamic historical context, are “good enough evidence” and the rest which goes against your claims, is not? What criteria/standard/principle you are using to justify your claim? Does your criteria/standard/principle acceptable in a court of law?

What if court asks you to submit an independent impartial verifiable evidence to your claims?

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

pro:

Rodrigo:

I do stand on my record of debating you - as I have completely demolished every nonsensical assertions you have made.

Oh yes, and it’s so obvious you need to declare it every chance you get, just in case anyone didn’t notice. (I sure didn’t).

I know you didn’t seeing that you are the SELF-ACKNOWLEDGED fool that you are. (Note this is merely an acceptance of your own admission of your being a fool and thus is not an ad hominem).

Besides, I’m merely using that as a retort to explain why I don’t care at all for your ‘opinion’ that I have no credibility. After all, if I accept your opinion I would be accepting the opinion of a self-acknowledged fool, even if one with a legal degree.

pro:

Rodrigo:

Now, where is that post in which you claimed I said there was uniform law on marriage in the US? As a lawyer you should know this principle: Actori incumbit probatio.

Or didn’t they teach you that at Tehran University Law School?

Wow, you really feel threatened this time don’t you? Maybe you’ll lose your readership of one (cestusdei) if you don’t respond with insults and post-mania?

I have never felt the slightest threatened by you, pro. Note how I am enjoying posting in reply to you - no hint of your so-called ‘temper’. I’m always respectful.

If you noticed, I only posted multiple times to you yesterday because you forced me to come up with multiple examples of US laws. That, of course, requires multiple postings. But each time I posted yet another US State Statute that debunks you, I and my friends (yes, I have many friends here) have great fun.

Thanks for the laughs, bud. Much appreciated.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

If Islamic historical sources are that much worthy in your eyes then why only those excerpts which are out of whole Islamic historical context, are “good enough evidence” and the rest which goes against your claims, is not? What criteria/standard/principle you are using to justify your claim?

Their sahihness. If you bring evidence that Aisha was not nine, then I will debunk it and show why your evidence is nonsense. I have the right to do so since this is a discussion forum - this is not a lecture where you tell us about Islam and we just accept what you say. Some of us have much knowledge of Islam and have much to add to the discussion.

I noticed you brought some ‘evidence’ that Aisha was not nine. I welcome that and ask you to bring more since I already refuted what you wrote.
JMM:

Does your criteria/standard/principle acceptable in a court of law?

This is not a court of law.
JMM:

What if court asks you to submit an independent impartial verifiable evidence to your claims?

What independent impartial verifiable evidence is necessary? Are you saying that Imam Bukhari and Muslim are not reliable?

 

[pro_universal]

I know you didn’t seeing that you are the SELF-ACKNOWLEDGED fool that you are. (Note this is merely an acceptance of your own admission of your being a fool and thus is not an ad hominem).

Besides, I’m merely using that as a retort to explain why I don’t care at all for your ‘opinion’ that I have no credibility. After all, if I accept your opinion I would be accepting the opinion of a self-acknowledged fool, even if one with a legal degree.

Strange. You’re so sure of your arguments and yourself, yet you feel the need to use insults and then explain yourself even to the very people you’re insulting?

Odd. Because to me, it looks like you’re irritated that someone called you on being wrong, and now you’re dancing around trying to justify yourself and lashing out at the same time in resentment.

I have never felt the slightest threatened by you, pro. Note how I am enjoying posting in reply to you - no hint of your so-called ‘temper’. I’m always respectful.

Oh yes, you’re so respectful that “Muslim liar”, “fool”, “liar”, “muslim lies” are part and parcel of nearly all of your posts. That’s a sure sign of security and intellectual honesty to boot.

If you noticed, I only posted multiple times to you yesterday because you forced me to come up with multiple examples of US laws.

Hey, I must be pretty powerful if I can force you to do something.

That, of course, requires multiple postings. But each time I posted yet another US State Statute that debunks you, I and my friends (yes, I have many friends here) have great fun.

Thanks for the laughs, bud. Much appreciated.

Have you ever read Don Quixote? Because it’s just so…you

 

[JMM159]

The fact that some Medieval reformers charged the Roman Catholic Church to be the ‘whore of Babylon’ is an historical fact. I accept that unreservedly.

But the ‘whore of Babylon’ doctrine is religious belief.

It is good to know that you do accept so easily the fact of Medieval reformers’ charges against the RCC otherwise I don’t know what I had to do to make you realise this fact.

But the actual question now is, do you also agree/accept with those Medieval reformers’ historical proofs which they used to justify their charge against the Roman Catholic Church or was it written in their editions of the Bibles that in the future there will be a Church by the name of Roman Catholic Church and she is the one who is the ‘whore of Babylon’ ?

How did they (Medieval reformers) conclude that the Roman Catholic Church is the ‘whore of Babylon’? What proof/evidence they had?

 

[Cyber_Knight]

Im enjoying my eidul fitr holiday today with this debate. One presenting the evidence, one keep denying it without even bother to bring counter attack evidence. Not enough this one, come up another one who cant make a difference between historical facts and religious belief. Sigh…

Minal aidzin wal faidzin, muslims!

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Strange. You’re so sure of your arguments and yourself, yet you feel the need to use insults and then explain yourself even to the very people you’re insulting?

Did I insult you? No. I don’t think I have.

pro:

Odd. Because to me, it looks like you’re irritated that someone called you on being wrong, and now you’re dancing around trying to justify yourself and lashing out at the same time in resentment.

Of course you wouldn’t know that in a discussion forum it is de rigeur to provide evidence to support one’s contention. That is what is known as having a discussion. Since you forced me to look up the various State child abuse laws, surely you should expect me to produce them one at the time.

But each time I produce one in a separate post, it just makes you a laughing-stock. But it is a non-sequitar to deem my providing evidence to debunk you as any sort of ‘justification’ or ‘lashing out’ or 'resentment. It’s just the way discussion forums work.

But then again, you only seem to issue ad hominems and baseless charges anyway? What do you know about evidence? Nothing, from what I, and no doubt other readers, can see.

So where’s that post in which you claimed I said there was uniform law regarding marriage in the US? You were sure quick to make that charge but so far… not a single shred of evidence.

I therefore, respectfully, ask you again to produce that post.

pro:

Oh yes, you’re so respectful that “Muslim liar”, “fool”, “liar”, “muslim lies” are part and parcel of nearly all of your posts. That’s a sure sign of security and intellectual honesty to boot.

What can I say? You did admit you are a fool with a law degree.

As for you being a liar it is clear that you are since you have not provided a single shred of evidence to support your baseless charge that I said there was uniform law regarding marriage in the US. What are we to think of you when you make baseless charges?

As for you being a Muslim liar: if it looks like a duck, if it waddles like a duck, if it quacks like a duck - then I surely think it is a duck.

pro:

hey, I must be pretty powerful if I can force you to do something.

Well, I’m using the term ‘force’ to imply you made it incumbent on me to respond to your post. Did you not say that I had ONLY presented the Federal laws and 2 state laws as evidence? Hence, it became incumbent on me to produce some more evidence to refute you - and what fun it was to do so.

pro:

Have you ever read Don Quixote? Because it’s just so…you

See what I mean about your pathological inability to stop issuing ad hominems?

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

It is good to know that you do accept so easily the fact of Medieval reformers’ charges against the RCC otherwise I don’t know what I had to do to make you realise this fact.

But the actual question now is, do you also agree/accept with those Medieval reformers’ historical proofs which they used to justify their charge against the Roman Catholic Church or was it written in their editions of the Bibles that in the future there will be a Church by the name RCC and she is one who is the ‘whore of Babylon’ ?

How did they (Medieval reformers) conclude that the Roman Catholic Church is the ‘whore of Babylon’? What proof/evidence they had?

Please don’t mistake historical facts and religious beliefs again. How many times do I have to tell you that?

I accept the historicity of the ‘whore of Babylon’ incident, but I do not accept the religious doctrine of it.

PS: perhaps it might be fruitful for you to look up the term ‘historicity’.

 

[JMM159]

Got it? Please don’t mistake religious beliefs and historical facts again. It is getting tiresome pointing out the difficiency of your understanding. I am not getting paid to educate you.

You mean what Jews say about Jesus Christ based on their historical records and extended religious beliefs are indeed good enough historical facts to reject the Messiahship of Christ?

It is getting tiresome pointing out the difficiency of your understanding. I am not getting paid to educate you.

It is good to know that you are not getting paid to “educate” people here otherwise it would be a total waste of their money to give you because your senseless “education” is not at all serving the purpose of your hiring to defend their Chrsitianity through a person who doesn’t even believe in the very existence of God, leave alone other mindless beliefs such Trinity, death of God, circumcision of 8 days old baby God etc. In fact you are wasting the Web wpace of this forum with your mindless posts and making fool of yourself and those who “hired” or invited you here.

lol

Do you really believe that Catholic God died and his foreskin was removed when he was a baby of 8 days old? Are these historical facts?

 

[Montalban]

If Islamic historical sources are that much worthy in your eyes then why only those excerpts which are out of whole Islamic historical context, are “good enough evidence” and the rest which goes against your claims, is not? What criteria/standard/principle you are using to justify your claim? Does your criteria/standard/principle acceptable in a court of law?

So you keep claiming. The ‘you just don’t understand us’ cry is one you’ve wailed for several days.

Which is also plainly wrong given the fact I’ve cited Islamic support that Aisha was nine.

 

[JMM159]

Please don’t mistake historical facts and religious beliefs again. How many times do I have to tell you that?

I accept the historicity of the ‘whore of Babylon’ incident, but I do not accept the religious doctrine of it.

PS: perhaps it might be fruitful for you to look up the term ‘historicity’.

What new thing you are “educating” here which is not known to the people of knowledge?

By accepting the historicity of the ‘whore of Babylon’ incident, what favour did you really do on those who hold the belief of Roman Cathoilic Church being the ‘whore of Babylon’?

What I am asking you is why the historical facts used by those learned men of Christianty who hold this belief of RCC being the ‘whore of Babylon’ is not acceptable to you as historical facts? Were those men of Christianity too out of their minds like you?

 

[Montalban]

The phrase “he married ‘Aa’ishah” means that the marriage contract was drawn up; the marriage was consummated later on, when she was nine
…
In summary, then, it is permitted to contract marriage with a young girl and to hand her over to her husband to stay with him before she reaches adolescence. As for consummating the marriage, this does not happen until she is physically able for it. Thus the matter becomes quite clear. Do you see anything wrong with a man living with his young wife in one house, bringing her up and teaching her, but delaying consummation until she is ready for it? We ask Allaah to show us truth and falsehood and to make each clear. And Allaah knows best
islamqa.com/index.php?ref=1493&ln=eng

Strange. You’re so sure of your arguments and yourself, yet you feel the need to use insults and then explain yourself even to the very people you’re insulting?

Have you gone after the man again?
:yawn:

I asked you a direct question some days ago. I’ve not seen you response yet.

Here’s another Islamic site that says she was young. You might even want to use some of their arguments.
alinaam.org.za/social/myaaisha.htm

 

[Montalban]

JMM159 and pro_universal, the summary of your argument

You just don’t understand the way we do

I for one have listed about a dozen Islamic web-sites that all agree that Aisha was nine.

You might consider writing to these sites too and letting them know that they are wrong. You won’t say ‘where they were wrong’, because just repeating that they are will suffice.

 

[JMM159]

I for one have listed about a dozen Islamic web-sites that all agree that Aisha was nine.

Do you also agree with the rest of the things those Islamic web sites say? or just the ones that seem to you “interesting”? or they only have what you are qouting from them?

Whatever they agree is intrinsincally related to so many other issues which cannot be discarded in order to see the whole pitcture.

 

[Montalban]

Do you also agree with the rest of the things those Islamic web sites say? or just the ones that seem to you “interesting”? or they only have what you are qouting from them?

I’ve already responded to this re the analogy of Homer. Having already noted that your question is answered, I have one for you.

Do you agree with them? Do you agree Aisha was nine?

Whatever they agree is intrinsincally related to so many other issues which cannot be discarded in order to see the whole pitcture.

That’s not necessarily so, re: answer I’ve already given. But then you never really did address that answer anyway
Your response was

Pay attention to what is being said by others and think carefully before responding. Don’t waste your time with your senslessness as you too are doing the same as Rodrigo Bivar is doing.

Given that I’ve dealt with this; obviously the advice ‘pay attention’ is something you might also consider.

 

[JMM159]

Do you agree with them? Do you agree Aisha was nine?

Whether she was nine or fifteen or sixteen or seventeen or eighteen is to be decided by the Muslims after a carefull investigation of all the reports related to her age. This age issue is not an article of Islamic faith nor it is in the Kuran - which is the only infallible text in the eyes of all Muslims.

Your objection is senseless for Muslims and those who study Islam objectively and sincerely.

From your way of arguing, Pope can be easily declared antiChrist. Why do you think what Jews say about your “God” is not good enough evidence to reject atleast his Messiahship? Or Jewish evidence too is reliable?

How do know that St. Mary was not 12 years when HHoly Ghost came upon her? How old was Holy Ghost when he came upon her? Did he come to her and come upon her as a man or as an angel who looks like a man?

 

[Montalban]

Whether she was nine or fifteen or sixteen or seventeen or eighteen is to be decided by the Muslims after a careful investigation of all the reports related to her age.

You’ve had 1400 years to consider. How old do you think she was?

This age issue is not an article of Islamic faith nor it is in the Kuran - which is the only infallible text in the eyes of all Muslims.

If it’s not an Islamic article of faith you shouldn’t have any problem saying how old you think she was.

If it’s not an “Islamic article of faith” why are all the experts I cited certain she was nine? Why are Moslems now allowed to marry nine year olds, if you’re not really sure how old she was? Are you now wishing to argue that Moslems marry 9 year olds despite what Muhammad did? For shame!

Your objection is senseless for Muslims and those who study Islam objectively and sincerely.

No, you mean it’s senseless because you’ve simply submitted to every argument at once.

Hence you still avoid actually saying how old she was. If it doesn’t matter, logically, it shouldn’t matter. And you could say.

From your way of arguing, Pope can be easily declared antiChrist.

Already dealt with.

Here, I’ll say it slowly.

Comparison claims
Islam: Many sites I’ve cited say she was 9. The Hadith say she was 9. Islamic historians say she was 9
compare that you your claim
“Pope is antichrist”
Disputed by the Catholic church. It is not comparable, because in one case you a non-Catholic is making a claim (albeit hypothetically) to a claim by Moslems about something in Islam.

To be comparable you’d have to find a large consensus of Catholic opinion that he is the anti-Christ. For, I’ve found a large consensus of opinion that Aisha was 9.

How do know that St. Mary was not 12 years when Holy Ghost came upon her? How old was Holy Ghost when he came upon her? Did he come to her and come upon her as a man or as an angel who looks like a man?

Thanks for moving off topic. Start a thread on it. I’ll be happy to join in.