Would "the world be happier without Islam"?

You have already admitted you would not condemn it!

 

I would indeed condemn pedophilia, because I'm more ethical than Mohammad and Muslims and Allah.

 

Not if a Muslim was stood in front of you, unless you had all the protection you required!

 

"Got any evidence" demands the person who believes religious texts that have a talking snake in them! That's rich.

 

You have your priorities COMPLETELY screwed up! Your priority is whether someone will RISK DEATH (you appear to think that's a GOOD thing!) while making an argument about pedophilia, and NOT condemning said PEDOPHILIA! The barbarity of Muslims accepting Mohammad having sex with a child is far far more of a priority, my friend, then whether the mere MESSENGER (me) does it online or in person. Wow!

 

I'm not going to bother because you couldn't condemn him if he had sex with a child anyway - might be because the Jewish texts allude to having sex with kids, so you don't want pedo religions exposed at all, not at all.

 

I value life more than you do, obviously. There is no virtue in getting killed by a Muslim - there would be no virtue if Geert Wilders kicked his body guards to the curb and then got killed shortly after that, for being pretty stupid. Machismo is less of a virtue than staying alive to fight another day.

 

No, you do not understand, stopping paedophilia is much more important than condemning it, but that requires the courage of your convictions.

 

So you cannot condemn paedophilia as I said!

 

9 year-olds, whether "pre-pubescent" or not, are so young that they suffer mental and physical damage often when having sex with a 54 year-old man (like in Mohammad's case.) A better way is for the old horn-dog to keep it in his pants for a lot more years. You seem to be trying hard to run interference for this activity, which I find disturbing.

 

But you would not condemn it if confronted by a Muslim face to face! Very telling

 

Of course I do. I condemn Mo, do you?

 

No you cannot.

 

I understand that Islam has the DEATH penalty for questioning their prophet. You obviously don't understand that at all.

 

Do you support safe sex teaching on the basis that abstinence only doesn't work?

I mean, it is true that abstinence would be better (in terms of preventing STDs and unwanted pregnancies, let's disregard the freedom-of-sexuality argument for now), but in practice, teaching it doesn't work. People have sex, and if you don't teach them how to do it safely, they end up with even more STDs than if you teach them safe sex.

The reason I ask is that I find that the Islam situation is similar. Blanket criticism of Islam because it doesn't in itself do anything to rectify the situation, but does paint an us-vs-them situation which can be problematic. It's not a matter of whether it's actually better.

Clearly, if you go with this argument, the severity of the problems of Islam does not change the logic. Listing more things that are wrong with Islam, or capitalising death, as if we somehow weren't aware, is completely missing the point.

Of course, there are many sides to this debate, there are those who argue that people will leave Islam if we point out bad things about them (4000 years of rhetoric philosophy seems to disagree) there are those who say we should call a spade a spade (which is like the abstinence only people, they value their feeling of integrity over actual results) and so on. I'm not saying I'm presenting the ultimate solution to the debate, I'm just saying if you think that people defend Islam because maybe paedophilia is right or maybe it isn't in the history, then you're missing the entire point of the debate.

 

People "need" sex, people don't "need" Islam - look at the billions throughout history who haven't needed Islam. So you present a faulty example.

 

Nonsense - I just did.

 

That's because I have this strange medical condition known as "wanting to keep my head and my body contiguous"! Muslims tend to want to separate the head and body from critics of Islam - sort of encouraged by the sentiment in the Allah-approved "strike them at their necks" verse in the Qur'an, arguably.

 

The best way to stop it, well long-term, is to get people to not believe that a pedophile is "The Perfect Man", selected by god as the final prophet.

 

Considering the biggest mass-murderers were Atheist (Stalin and Mao), maybe we should ban Atheism.

 

I find that to be beside the point, not only because people can get by without sex, but because Islam is here whether we want it or not.

That being said, I gave an entire argument, not just the sex example, go back and reconsider the post.

 

My only reply is to say it's not worthy and if you don't wish disrespect for Allah then don't disrespect other religions or even atheism.

 

You may wish to restate your reply to clarify it.

 

It pays to remember that the cultural prohibition against pedophilia even in America is only a little over 100 years old. It was perfectly acceptable before that. And the Jewish Babylonian Talmud teaches that it's normal and not a big deal. And don't forget about all of the baby raping in the Bible. So in relationship to American practices Mohammed was actually more conservative since Aisha was 9 years old while the age of consent was just 7 in Delaware in 1895. And there was no mimimum age in slavery times. Maybe the slavers were fighting for more than States' Rights.

 

that is a bigoted lie.