Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14

Thread: The Child Wife of the "Prophet". Was Muhammad a Pedophile?

  1. #11
    Senior Member Uwe Jens Lornsen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Last Online
    1 Day Ago @ 06:34 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Jutland
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    Schleswig-Holstein Schleswig-Holstein
    Gender
    Age
    47
    Zodiac Sign
    Taurus
    Family
    Widowed
    Politics
    cons. old fashion worker class
    Religion
    Philosophical Archaic Christian
    Posts
    455
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    268
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    134
    Thanked in
    111 Posts
    This shows , that the focus on politicians is false ,
    sjnce the main traitors sit in courts , protected by "individual freedom of expression" .

    It is absolutly correct , if governments try to limit the power of jugdes !

    There is said , that there are 20'000 judges employed in Germany ,
    and they can judge whatever they like by "explaining" their decisions .


    People should learn to think like judges , and put some explanaitions into their sentences .

    Simple sentences like " Islam is Child molesting " need some " according to the usual impression of the current law " attached .
    This could prevent some Muslim prosecutors in their offices of their host countries taking action ( or not ) .

    If the Austrian Prosecutor "Ali ben Ibrahim" complains somewhere , he likely will have success ,
    since the court judges are old , and want some press scandal free retirement .
    Mk 10:18 What do you call me a good master, no-one is good .

  2. #12
    Moderator "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    GroeneWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Dutch
    Subrace
    Don't know
    Country
    Netherlands Netherlands
    State
    Utrecht Utrecht
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Family
    Single adult
    Religion
    Germanic Heathendom
    Posts
    2,817
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    73
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    66
    Thanked in
    38 Posts
    Now lets take this Sunni tasfir of verse 65:4

    65:4 And for such of your women as despair of menstruation, if ye doubt, their period (of waiting) shall be three months, along with those who have it not. And for those with child, their period shall be till they bring forth their burden. And whosoever keepeth his duty to Allah, He maketh his course easy for him.
    And see what it has to say about it.

    (And for such of your women as despair of menstruation) because of old age, (if ye doubt) about their waiting period, (their period (of waiting) shall be three months) upon which another man asked: “O Messenger of Allah! What about the waiting period of those who do not have menstruation because they are too young?” (along with those who have it not) because of young age, their waiting period is three months. Another man asked: “what is the waiting period for those women who are pregnant?” (And for those with child) i.e. those who are pregnant, (their period) their waiting period (shall be till they bring forth their burden) their child. (And whosoever keepeth his duty to Allah) and whoever fears Allah regarding what he commands him, (He maketh his course easy for him) He makes his matter easy; and it is also said this means: He will help him to worship Him well.
    Funny thing that there are those who defend this verse by referring to rare medical conditions and that it does not use the word for child. Even though the tasfir makes it clear it referring to women who are so young that they have not yet beginning to menstruate. So that would mean prepubescent, so the quran indirectly in this verse implies that it is ok to marry such girls. Which of course also means that it has no problem with pedophilia.

    No for the case of Aisha. Defenders of this marriage really try to twist and turn everything to turn her from a prepubescent in to a girl who had already menstruated. Or claiming that the laws of other people also approved of these things. Alto that does not seem to be the case. In least when one considers the laws of the pagan Europeans that typically describe the death penalty for those who engaged in sexual relations with prepubescent girls, let alone marry them. So this court ruling comes down to that one is not allowed to call a spade a spade in order to prevent religious violence. So in order words double think of the level of 1984 is required when one talks about Islam according the ECHR.
    Last edited by GroeneWolf; 2 Weeks Ago at 10:53 AM. Reason: used a wrong name
    The sense of honor is of so fine and delicate a nature that
    it is only to be met with in minds which are naturally noble or
    cultivated by good examples and a refined education.
    - Sir Richard Steele

  3. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GroeneWolf For This Useful Post:


  4. #13
    Senior Member velvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    38 Minutes Ago @ 06:39 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Northern Germany
    Subrace
    Faelid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    North Rhine-Westphalia North Rhine-Westphalia
    Gender
    Age
    44
    Zodiac Sign
    Sagittarius
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Sardonic Misanthrope
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Religion
    Fimbulwinter
    Posts
    4,466
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    376
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    362
    Thanked in
    180 Posts
    Legally it is not possible to marry a child under 16, and over 16, but under 18 only with the parents' and an official authority's (Jugendamt in Germany) consent.

    Sex with children under 14 is rape by default, because a child under 14 cannot give legal consent.

    Such acts by parents warrant in Germany to take away the child and possible siblings from the parents because that environment endangers the childrens' wellbeing. It's called Kindeswohlgefährdung and can even come with a prison sentence for the parents.

    Well, for Germans anyway. Not for the "goldnugget" Merkel-guests, who can rape children, indulge in likewise illegal polygamy, knife down people and walk free because the perpetrator explained that "he did not know that knifing down people is illegal in Germany" (real case, no joke) and what not, and no law applies to them.

    "Human rights" have been invented as a weapon against nations, and so was "freedom of religion" invented as a weapon against nations, against the nation's laws and values, and ultimately, its people. Along with the EU, EHRC, UN and all the other anti-national globalist institutions. It's war and we have been deprived of all legal means to defend ourselves.
    Ein Leben ist nichts, deine Sprosse sind alles
    Aller Sturm nimmt nichts, weil dein Wurzelgriff zu stark ist
    und endet meine Frist, weiss ich dass du noch da bist
    Gefürchtet von der Zeit, mein Baum, mein Stamm in Ewigkeit

    my signature

  5. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to velvet For This Useful Post:


  6. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Last Online
    8 Hours Ago @ 10:20 PM
    Ethnicity
    Celto-Germanic
    Ancestry
    Irish, Scottish
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    Location
    North Ireland
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Politics
    National Socialist
    Religion
    Ethnic Catholic
    Posts
    270
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    226
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    322
    Thanked in
    180 Posts

    ECHR twisted logic: You can insult Christian but not Muslim religion


    Two recent rulings by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) demonstrate not only that it's a political and hypocritical organization. They also show the severe structural defects of human rights law in general.


    On October 25, the ECHR found in favor of Austria and against a claimant, Frau S., who had been prosecuted for saying in 2008 that the Prophet Mohammed "was a pedophile" because he had married a six-year-old girl. The applicant had claimed that the criminal sentence she received violated her right to free speech, enshrined in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court found against her and in favour of Austria, which had convicted her of inciting religious hatred.


    On July 17, the same ECHR, by contrast, had found in favour of Russian applicants from the now famous 'Pussy Riot' band, and against the Russian state, which convicted them for having incited religious hatred by staging a performance of a 'punk prayer' in Moscow's Christ the Saviour cathedral in 2012. This case was considered under three different articles of the European Convention on Human Rights but it made two judgements under the same Article 10 which the judges later said could not protect Frau S. In the Pussy Riot case, the court found that the girls' right to freedom of expression under Article 10 had been violated.


    In other words, according to the Strasbourg court, you are allowed to insult the Christian religion but not the Muslim religion. It is difficult to think of a more obvious case of double standards than this. Worse, and as Gregor Puppinck of the European Centre of Law and Justice in Strasbourg has pointed out, it is clear that the court justified finding in favour of Austria, and against Frau S., purely out of fear of Muslims. In numerous paragraphs of the ruling, it defends Austria's conviction of the woman in the name of the goal of protecting "religious peace." This can mean nothing else other than that peace might be threatened by Muslims if Austrians insult the prophet of Islam. In other words, the court is failing in its primordial role, which is surely to uphold the right of speech against threats of violence against them.


    READ MORE: Russia appeals €37,000 European fine over Pussy Riot case


    The double standards are all the more shocking because Frau S. was discussing facts. The Austrian courts ruled that the fact that Mohammed had married a small girl, and consummated that marriage when the girl was nine, did not justify her calling him a pedophile. By contrast, there are no facts at issue in the Pussy Riot case, whose action in the cathedral was purely designed to shock. In other words, the intentionality of the Pussy Riot girls cannot be in doubt, whereas it requires a speculative leap about her motives to say that Frau S. was deliberately trying to incite hatred.

    The upholding of the conviction of Frau S. is also in contradiction with another ruling by the ECHR, in this case concerning Lithuania. In January of this year, the court ruled in favour of a clothing company which had used irreverent images of Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary to promote its sales. This too was defended in the name of freedom of speech under Article 10. So, the ECHR is prepared to protect blasphemous or offensive freedom of speech even if the goal is purely commercial and not political – but only if the offence is against Christians and not against Muslims.


    These gross inconsistencies show the structural defects of human rights law. The European Convention on Human Rights is a series of generalized statements about what sort of rights people should enjoy. Because they are necessarily general statements, these "rights" only become law after a ruling by a judge in a particular case. Because the judge has only these general statements to go on, and not a specific legislative act, he or she can more or less decide the case according to his or her personal opinion. It is in the very nature of such "human rights" courts that they give grossly excessive power to judges.


    In proper legal systems, the law consists of detailed national legislation and specific rulings (jurisprudence). The role of the judge is to apply the law as it is: he or she has no room for personal manoeuvre. By contrast, in human rights courts, as in the Supreme Court of the United States, it is effectively judges who make the law. This is a very bad state of affairs because it turns courts into political instruments and judges into politicians, as we see every time there is a new appointment to the US Supreme Court.

    The situation in Strasbourg is worse than in the US because a large majority of the judges at the ECHR had never been judges before. They may have a law degree but they have usually never sat on a bench before going to Strasbourg. Very often, they have been government employees. This means that they come to the job without the very specific training and experience which all judges should have. Instead, they often approach their job with a political agenda: this was, for example, the case of a Belgian judge who became vice-president of the court and who took up her appointment with an avowed determination to implement progressive policies.


    This is why the ECHR has been so easily hijacked by political progressives who have pushed through a raft of political issues which should be decided by national parliaments after public debate and in accordance with public opinion. A large number of practices which either did not exist, or which were illegal, when the Convention was drawn up in 1950 have now been enforced by the ECHR against national legislation – abortion; in vitro fertilization; pre-implantation screening (in a ruling which promulgates the right to eugenics by declaring the applicants' "right to bring a child into the world which is not affected by the illness that they carry"); the right to practice violent sado-masochism; the right for transsexuals to marry; the right to surrogate motherhood; the right to suicide (under Article 8 on respect for private and family life); and conscientious objection to military service. In this last ruling, the ECHR judges specifically gave themselves the right to change the law by saying that "it should have a dynamic and evolutive approach."


    Three things are clear from this list. First, these sorts of rights are clearly not the core human rights which the authors of the European Convention in 1950 thought needed protecting against dictatorial states. They are instead modish lifestyle choices. Second, the fact that these social changes have been pushed through by the ECHR means that we live under a government of judges – unelected judges who make the law in place of elected legislatures. Third, if the ECHR continues along the same path it has adopted for decades, then Europe will effectively have a law forbidding blasphemy against Islam but not against Christianity. The Court will thereby have decisively betrayed its claim to be acting in the name of universal values. Under such circumstances, it should be closed down.

    The word "islamophobia" has been coined by the Globalists to protect, promote and expand Islam in Western countries. In the same way the word "homophobia" was coined to protect, promote and expand homosexuality in Western societies. There is a globalist will to foment a mutually destructive "civilisational clash" between Christians and Muslims. Bernard Lewis has prepared the conceptual and ideological ground for it. We are now in the implementation phase.

    R T, 05 Nov 2018.
    Definition of a judge – a politician with a wig and gown.

    If you worship your enemy, you are defeated.
    If you adopt your enemy’s religion, you are enslaved.
    If you breed with your enemy, you are destroyed. Polydoros of Sparta (reigned from c. 741 to c. 665 BC).

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to jagdmesser For This Useful Post:


Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: Monday, March 12th, 2018, 11:37 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Saturday, September 23rd, 2017, 06:50 AM
  3. The Pedophile Jewish Billionaire Jeffrey Epstein
    By The Aesthete in forum The United States
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Tuesday, March 1st, 2011, 01:48 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •