SHE LEFT HER HOUSE AT THE AGE OF 13-14, and she still HAD THE DESICION at that age(13-14)... ...geeze ive sed it like 30 times, now you tell me that that is not old enough of an age to make his/her own desicions....
YES, all she had to do was say No, and it would be like it never happened... lets just say they were engaged, its kinda like that. then at age 13 she was married.
1) No, it is still not old enough. 2) Isn't the whole point of being married that a decision has already been made? You just say that she could have reversed the decision from when she was 9 when she was 13 (duh) because you think it makes it look better.
1. well then lets put a spin on it, now you wont let a teenager make their own desicions, what an oppressive person you are, cultures are different, in some 13 is old enough to be independent, and in many south asian countries 13 was and still is the age that girls get married at, that is totally a cultural thing, see this is why americans have issues, they need to stop imposing their point of view on others, we aren't perfect, NEITHER ARE YOU. and a person getting married to someone much younger than himself has nothing to do with any of his political/religious teachings. 2. IN your culture yes, in ours no, happy... I dont just say it, i know its true because its happened in many homes before, and it still does. I have a cousin that has been engaged since she was 15 and now at age 21 she decides she doesnt want to get married to that guy, she said it to her parents and walaa, she isnt married to that guy. maybe in your culture a woman cant break a commitment as such, but in ours we value them and respect their desicions...
I'm not American... Do you realize there is a difference between "getting engaged" at age 9 and at age 15...what about that cousin - I assume SHE decided to get engaged at 15...not her parents for her?
would you consider murdering people b/c they are gay an imposition of your point of view? christians may not be perfect, but at least they dont go around killing in gods name.
SJC and outlaw, you just don't get it. If necessary, she would, through her own will, lie down on the floor and let him walk on her like he would a carpet. We're talking about the messenger of God. He may not be YOUR prophet, but you have to understand his status to Ayesha and her father. She was BLESSED to be given the opportunity to become the wife of a man whom God chose as his messenger out of AAAAAAALLLL the people in the world. Again, I know he's not your messenger. But get it through your heads that he's the messenger of Islam and one of the greatest men to ever live on this earth.
If they impose on our LIVES, then we can begin to ponder. As in, they are seriously negatively afftecting our lives and our children's lives, and corrupting OUR society and are forcing their way of life into our lives. But no one is going to seek out gays and slaughter them one by one the as you're suggesting.
Nope, not most, you're wrong there. There are some, but not most. I remember someone even posted an article in the D&D once that showed historical, non-religous, evidence of this event. Some stuff written on walls in a cave and on animal skin or stuff like that. Does anyone know where I can find that?
Well, since my faith says that pretty much everything you mentioned is false, I will refrain from arguing with you because it will take too damng long and will require me quoting scripture (which you don't believe in) and you quoting Buddhist beliefs (which I don't believe in).
Clearly, you used all the loaded terms you could to sway the story in your favor. I wasn't there, but IMO from the texts I've personally read, what you wrote doesn't clearly state what happened and the way it happened and the reasons they happened.
I said "according to Islam". "Inna Al Yom Akmaltu lakom Deenukum" Translation: "Today, I completed your religion." It's repeatedly cietd that there will not be another prophet after Muhammad, Jesus, Moses, etc.. I explain it by concluding that men need sex, and a lack of it will cause different reactions from different people. "All religions" was bad wording, I definitely admit that. Howver, most religions are against it, and since pretty much ALL religions exist as some sort of guideline on how to be a good person (morally), then it's a strong indication to me that being homosexual is wrong. Have you ever thought about the fact that if all people were gay, everyone would die? Artificial insemenation will not populate the earth. Whatever my religion says is ok, is ok with me. But slavery in the sense that you're wrongly portraying is not ok in Islam. Muhammad had a "slave", but he ate with him, shared the same shelter, wore the same clothes. It's basically someone to do chores for you IF, for some reason, you're unable to do it. In Muhammad's case, I believe the boy lost his father and the mother asked Muhammad to take him in and raise, and in exchange for that, the boy would help Muhammad around the house. I'm not exactly sure ofthe details, but it's something like that. Don't forget that it was the atheists and polytheists (multiple Gods right?) that enslaved people. The homosexual people of Lot as well. It was the Muslims that freed the slaves of Quraysh by "buying" them and releasing them immediately.
Sane, you are truly blinded and indoctrinated. I am glad that the circumstances are not such that you would go to such extremes as some others, but the way you post makes it easier to comprehend what happened to these people.
SJC, youare truly blinded and indoctrinated. I am glad that the circumstances are not such that you would go to such extremes as some others, but the way you post makes it easier to comprehend what happened to Western society. You have never mentioned your religion... Have I missed it or do you not want to share it (fully respect that)?
You mean the way you attack Muhammad's marriage rather than his message? You're right. I was wrong to say "are you kidding." Doesn't change the fact that God killed a city full of homosexuals, which is proof of how much God hates them. It also doesn't change the fact that you worded your post to sway it in your direction, and the goal which you seeked to achieve by doing that was unethical.
what about Joseph Smith? In your eyes, what makes him a false prophet compared to Muhammad, since both are considered mortal, not divine prophets by their followers. why do you lump atheists with polytheists? wouldn't monotheists like yourself be closer in position to them? which atheists are you referring to? A well-treated slave is still a slave no matter how you justify it. Islamic countries in Africa were major players in the European and American slave trades. Slavery was legal in Saudi Arabia until 1962 and is still practiced in Islamic countries today (Sudan, Mauritania)
Buddhism is about understanding, not faith. Can you even try to prove me wrong with something other than faith? Nothing I stated is nothing beyond human rational, no faith is neccesary. Can you even attempt to do the same? Can you rationally agure that things have an independent permanent essence? Please name one instace (besides god ) Is it possible for you to truly think for yourself? Can you express a single thought without quoting "scripture"?
