You denying things with a smug attitude isn't "truth", and so far you've only run away from opportunities to show us anything real. You've got all day to act like a subversive hooknose, but run away from the thread when someone asks you something you can't answer.
You don't know what backpedaling means and you're intentionally ignoring the comments that aren't mine that you've ignored. Then there's the comment chain I referred to that we had in another thread, which you're also ignoring. Don't project your dishonest tactics onto me.
Sorry, you're right. The Quran doesn't say she was 6. It was she herself who said she was 6, which was recorded in the Sahih al-Bukhari (hadith) - Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234.
It means that Austria has blasphemy laws (and has had them forever) and that according to Austrian courts calling Muhammed a pedophile violates those laws. The EHRC decided that this Austrian law did not violate EU laws on free speech, therefore the ruling was upheld.
If the EU overrules national laws, they're evil. If the EU upholds national laws, they're still evil. People just can't get their narrative straight.
But the ECHR didn't uphold the conviction because she broke the law. According to the ECHR asking questions like, "... A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? ... What do we call it, if it is not pedophilia?"
could only be understood as having been aimed at demonstrating that Muhammad was not worthy of worship
The ECHR didn't uphold the conviction because she broke Austrian law. Instead they upheld the conviction because what she asked could only be...... "understood as"..... "been aimed at"...... "demonstrating that"..... she was breaking the law.
When people say quran or bible I loosely interpret this to mean vaguely religious rules, laws. Islamic law is based on these accounts too, obviously you know that better than most. I don't think mistating corrected facts is enjoyable or enlightening in a conversation, but I also haven't brought up the origins of / missing scriptures / books for a long while in life because it's usually moot.
I do think arguing, say, "Islamic Law is a meddlesome farse" makes sense, and I'd honestly stick to just not banning anything so we can evolve and nurture critical thought. Muslims have a sordid history here.
But Hisham did basically get to Iraq then spilled the beans in old age. Yeah, so that guy, praise be upon him blah, fuckered kids. Real dirty.
There wasn't even denial of this then. He named names, like Aisha -- one of his 4 children. He fucked his own kids?
Now people arbitrarily or politically decide that was wishful thinking. Sure was an oddly enchanting story for a long time though. Porn usually is, but I've never been pissed if the wrong issue of Playboy is mentioned in relation to some specific exploits.
There wasn't even denial of this then. He named names, like Aisha -- one of his 4 children. He fucked his own kids?
What? Where did you get that from? You know that there is more than one person in the world named Aisha, right? I have never heard of any scripture that would imply Aisha was his own daughter, especially since it contradicts the ahadith saying that she lived with her parents after their initial betrothal.
Now people arbitrarily or politically decide that was wishful thinking. Sure was an oddly enchanting story for a long time though. Porn usually is, but I've never been pissed if the wrong issue of Playboy is mentioned in relation to some specific exploits.
It's like when people claim the bible talks about the fall/rebellion of satan or that the devil is lucifer according to the bible. None of those things are in the bible, they're part of some medieval christian fanfiction called "paradise lost". It's still part of the mainstream christian myth, but especially when someone says "we should ban book X because it says something", it's idiotic.
People can hate islam without read the koran or the ahadith, they have plenty of reason to do so. But when you attempt to make factual statements about the contents of those books without ever having read at least part of them, it just makes the person look like a drooling retard who has never actually read the things he criticizes.
view the rest of the comments →
Saufsoldat ago
It's not. Boy, that was easy.
Sgt_Boomer ago
Go back to reddit, kike. All you do is preach your unwanted faggotry here.
Saufsoldat ago
Is truth not wanted here, rabbi?
Sgt_Boomer ago
You denying things with a smug attitude isn't "truth", and so far you've only run away from opportunities to show us anything real. You've got all day to act like a subversive hooknose, but run away from the thread when someone asks you something you can't answer.
Saufsoldat ago
What are you talking about? I've answered every question truthfully when asked.
Source?
Sgt_Boomer ago
The comment chain you're responding to me in. I've talked to you before as well. What kind of sources do you expect me to have? You lazy fuck.
Saufsoldat ago
I looked through the comment chain and there is no question that I didn't answer.
So you lied and now you're trying to backpedal. That's okay, have a nice day.
Sgt_Boomer ago
You don't know what backpedaling means and you're intentionally ignoring the comments that aren't mine that you've ignored. Then there's the comment chain I referred to that we had in another thread, which you're also ignoring. Don't project your dishonest tactics onto me.
Saufsoldat ago
Which one have I ignored? You refuse to point to any comment that I've supposedly ignored.
Your lies don't work here, rabbi.
birds_sing ago
Sorry, you're right. The Quran doesn't say she was 6. It was she herself who said she was 6, which was recorded in the Sahih al-Bukhari (hadith) - Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234.
Then what does all this mean then?
Saufsoldat ago
It means that Austria has blasphemy laws (and has had them forever) and that according to Austrian courts calling Muhammed a pedophile violates those laws. The EHRC decided that this Austrian law did not violate EU laws on free speech, therefore the ruling was upheld.
If the EU overrules national laws, they're evil. If the EU upholds national laws, they're still evil. People just can't get their narrative straight.
birds_sing ago
But the ECHR didn't uphold the conviction because she broke the law. According to the ECHR asking questions like, "... A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? ... What do we call it, if it is not pedophilia?"
The ECHR didn't uphold the conviction because she broke Austrian law. Instead they upheld the conviction because what she asked could only be...... "understood as"..... "been aimed at"...... "demonstrating that"..... she was breaking the law.
Saufsoldat ago
They did uphold the conviction because they found that the Austrian law at the basis of it did not violate EU law.
That is literally all they can do. There is literally no way for them to sentence anyone outside of upholding or striking down state legislation.
PapShamir ago
When people say quran or bible I loosely interpret this to mean vaguely religious rules, laws. Islamic law is based on these accounts too, obviously you know that better than most. I don't think mistating corrected facts is enjoyable or enlightening in a conversation, but I also haven't brought up the origins of / missing scriptures / books for a long while in life because it's usually moot.
I do think arguing, say, "Islamic Law is a meddlesome farse" makes sense, and I'd honestly stick to just not banning anything so we can evolve and nurture critical thought. Muslims have a sordid history here.
But Hisham did basically get to Iraq then spilled the beans in old age. Yeah, so that guy, praise be upon him blah, fuckered kids. Real dirty.
There wasn't even denial of this then. He named names, like Aisha -- one of his 4 children. He fucked his own kids?
Now people arbitrarily or politically decide that was wishful thinking. Sure was an oddly enchanting story for a long time though. Porn usually is, but I've never been pissed if the wrong issue of Playboy is mentioned in relation to some specific exploits.
Saufsoldat ago
What? Where did you get that from? You know that there is more than one person in the world named Aisha, right? I have never heard of any scripture that would imply Aisha was his own daughter, especially since it contradicts the ahadith saying that she lived with her parents after their initial betrothal.
It's like when people claim the bible talks about the fall/rebellion of satan or that the devil is lucifer according to the bible. None of those things are in the bible, they're part of some medieval christian fanfiction called "paradise lost". It's still part of the mainstream christian myth, but especially when someone says "we should ban book X because it says something", it's idiotic.
People can hate islam without read the koran or the ahadith, they have plenty of reason to do so. But when you attempt to make factual statements about the contents of those books without ever having read at least part of them, it just makes the person look like a drooling retard who has never actually read the things he criticizes.