Female Christian activist attacked at ‘Speakers Corner’ (London)...

[antaeus]

Funny how that logic is always applied to Islam and never to nationalism.

What do you mean? I can't put a nationalist on trial for thinking or believing idiotic stuff - Only for doing idiotic things. I can certainly personally judge that I don't like or agree with them, but their thoughts and beliefs are theirs - which is the sole point I'm arguing in this thread.

Explain your lazy arguing without weasel words Heathen.

[Heathen Hammer]

Because if you don't blame Islam for Islamic attacks, then nationalism shouldn't be blamed in similar situations as well. It seems that there is a strong double standard, depending on which ideas allegedly motivated this or that act of violence, which is kinda hilarious if you ask me.

[antaeus]

Because if you don't blame Islam for Islamic attacks, then nationalism shouldn't be blamed in similar situations as well. It seems that there is a strong double standard, depending on which ideas allegedly motivated this or that act of violence, which is kinda hilarious if you ask me.

Baseless (and in this case entirely illogical) attempted whataboutery aside... (as usual)

I don't blame nationalism for nationalist attacks. I charge individuals for breaking the law. Certainly people's beliefs come into the charge as far as providing motive - but the motive is their personal choice/reasons on turning ideas into action. One nationalist might read a call to arms and see it as something they have to act on and kill someone. Another might read a call to arms and use it as inspiration to debate others. Nationalism isn't to blame, the choices of the individuals are.

People can think what they want.

[Knight of Heaven]

If we don't seek to contextualise and interpret the intent of their writers thousands of years ago, we're left with literalist interpretations of written behaviours suggested by things like Bibles and Korans and Talmuds and Torahs and Sutras etc all of which tell us to do what we might now subjectively consider to be abhorrent things to each other - leaving us with no moral alternative but to start banning the ideas contained in those books (banning the books alone doesn't work)... (or the more high school approach favoured by Axalon - peer pressure them away)

As we have discovered through our Wars on Terror... ideas are very difficult to combat through direct action - particularly when they promise an afterlife. Only actions can be combatted or judged directly. Ideas can only ever be debated with. It doesn't matter if someone thinks the Bible gives them the right to commit murder under certain circumstances - what matters to society is that they committed murder - motive alone doesn't make someone guilty.

leaving us with no moral alternative but to start banning the ideas contained in those books

I would say there is plenty of alternatives to that. Again very disingenuous.

After all The bible and mein kampf are not banned, and society were able to contextualize the ideas of this books.

One of the alternatives is obviously to contextualize the ideas on the Koran. And for that you have to fight the idea. And in order to do that you cant dissociate the action with the idea.
Just like one dont dissociate the holocaust with Nazism.
Its that simple.

I honestly resent the attempt of apologism, towards Islamic terrorism, because it is somehow politically correct thing to do nowadays, all in the name to combat the ghost called Islamophobia. I think Islam and its dogmas have done more harm then the supposedly phobia of it.

Nationalism isn't to blame, the choices of the individuals are.

If a certain idea drives an individual to a certain action, then its more then legitimate to have critical thought of that idea. So yes , because individuals and ideas dont exist in a vacuum, bad ideas are also to blame.

[antaeus]

Just like one dont dissociate the holocaust with Nazism.

Resent all you like. I'm not here to coddle you.

To address your analogy directly - can you please tell me which Nazis were put on trial at Nuremberg simply for being Nazis?

Nazis weren't put on trial for their ideology, they were put on trial for committing atrocities, and those atrocities were identified and catalogued in detail. With there being literal millions of Germans in the party, being a member was never enough to ensure a guilty verdict. In fact, for example, Germany continued to pay war pensions to former SS members, including foreign SS veterans after the war. Being a Nazi might be subjectively abhorrent, but for some literal millions of Germans who never shot a gun, and when confronted with injustice, ducked for cover and buried their heads in the sand, it was also a survival strategy. Ideology is complicated, as are individuals.

Either way. Perhaps you have mistaken my purpose here. I am not saying "you can't have critical discussions and debates about ideas" or "you can't challenge the teachings of religious leaders where you see them as abhorrent" That is a perhaps knee-jerk or skim-read assessment of the point I'm making, or perhaps you have mistaken me for being a cartoon critical theorist? Which would be grossly incorrect. What I am concerned about, is when we blame a collection of ideas such as a religion for the actions of individuals - when to confront individuals about why they commit violence, we must look at their individual justifications for committing it - their interpretation. When judging them in court, we can only look to them as individuals. Their belief structure might inform the case, but it is the crime itself that is judged.

This conversation has gone a long way from being about the random guy who insulted/attacked a preacher. You can associate violence with ideology all you like, you can hate it all you like. You can dislike Muslims all you like and hate the teachings of Mohammed. What ever. That's your prerogative. But you can't charge someone with believing in an ideology. That's a bad precedent for society. In this I am responding to Axalon. Who openly stated "I would gladly abolish Islam yesterday and never look back… But the world is not quite ready for that, unfortunately. " - A direct statement of desire to ban/block/abolish a collection of ideas.

[Knight of Heaven]

To address your analogy directly - can you please tell me which Nazis were put on trial at Nuremberg simply for being Nazis?

Am i advocating for jailing people because they are Muslims? That wasn't my analogy. Again very disingenuous.....

Your argument in a nutshell resumes itself, to, we cant blame the idea only the action, because otherwise it would lead to the banning of ideas. And im telling you that is a very disingenuous argument, because there is alternatives. You just have chosen to ignore them.

Im saying it is valid to blame and critique an ideology for the actions of the proponents of that ideology. Its that simple.

Of course legally you punish the action if its punishable, critically we are free to blame religion and ideology.

So yes In context, and in good measure im going to blame Islam for Islamic terrorism. And as i mentioned before the alternative is to contextualize such ideologies. You are the one talking about banning, and arresting people for their beliefs not me.

Resent all you like. I'm not here to coddle you.

No apparently you are here to put arguments in my mouth.

[Infidel144]

Christian apologist "Jay Smith gets slapped" at Speakers Corner

At the same talk, a woman who is part of Hatun Tash's group gets punched (after the 22:30 mark):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8l7GU-tvkw

(Which looks as though it ends with the police taking the woman away, rather than whoever attacked her).

[Heathen Hammer]

British police are nothing but cowards. Imagine essentially apprehending a victim, only because if you do something to the assailant some journo will call you racist for doing your ing job. I literally have more respect for daytime strippers then I have for British low enforcement.

[Infidel144]

Christian at Speakers Corner shouting about "Muhammad the pedophile" gets slapped several times:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQdYeupk3wE

[PointOfViewGun]

Christian at Speakers Corner shouting about "Muhammad the pedophile" gets slapped several times:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQdYeupk3wE

Boy, that was a good laugh. Thank you.

[Cyclops]

Boy, that was a good laugh. Thank you.

What a wretched little man, roaring like he was drunk and trying to upset people. Fancy holding a bible why you try to incite bigoted violence, that angry little fella is a disgrace to good Christians everywhere. Perhaps he was an atheist trying to make Christians look bad?.

[Bande Nere]

"Your imaginary friend is worse than my imaginary friend"

[Prodromos]

Boy, that was a good laugh. Thank you.

I don't see what's funny about it. Isn't "Speakers' Corner" supposed to be a place where people can speak their thoughts without being assaulted for it?

[PointOfViewGun]

I don't see what's funny about it. Isn't "Speakers' Corner" supposed to be a place where people can speak their thoughts without being assaulted for it?

A seemingly drunken man yells "Mohammad the pedophile" among a crowd of dozens and gets slapped by two men who try to avoid him after being warned and stopped by others while the seemingly drunken man continues to pursue one of them. It's not exactly the ground breaking content you'd want to use to necro this thread. I find it funny that people have to resort to such bread crumbs to further a narrative.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Um, just so we’re clear, Mohammed was a pedophile.

[Infidel144]

The first person to slap the man shouting "Muhammad is a pedophile", does not try to avoid him, but literally approaches the man, lays hands on the man, who turns his back. Said person then shoves the man from behind. Man comes back to where he was and turns away. Said person shoves him again, harder. Man comes back to where he was then the slapping occurs (once from the side and once from behind). The second person to slap the man does so while the man is moving away from the person who first slapped him and the man is half or more turned away from the second assailant, who then tries to "avoid" the man by moving away. Then the man "pursues" him asking "why did you hit me?".
Approaching someone, then laying hands on him, then shoving him (twice) is not trying to avoid him.

[PointOfViewGun]

Um, just so we’re clear, Mohammed was a pedophile.

Except multiple different accounts don't put Aisha at 6 year when she was betrothed to Muhammad with various ones putting her at her late teens. The fact that none of Muhammad's wives after Khadija, save the last rumored one, got pregnant (despite Muhammad having multiple children with Khadija) shows that Muhammad viewed them as nothing more than political unions and didn't really touch them. Moreover, Aisha was known to be very jealous of Khadija as she often noted Muhammad's devotion to her and Muhammad often put her in her place noting that no other have existed for her after Khadija. If you went just a little bit of down in that Google search you'd see the contradicting accounts but you chose to pick a line that represents her as a 6 year old betrothed to Muhammad. So, just so we are clear, you tried to deceive people.

[Infidel144]

All Sunni accounts that mention Aisha's age, including those transmitted from Aisha herself, state Aisha was 6 or 7 at marriage and 9 at consummation (that is when Muhammad had sexual intercourse with her). Aisha reports that she would even scrape the semen stains off of Muhammad's clothing with her fingernails. There are no accounts in which Aisha is said to be older. The reports of Aisha's age are mutawatir (mass-transmitted), and denial of mutawatir is kufr (unbelief).
Some or most Shia accounts (not all) have Aisha as being substantially older. This has nothing to do with concerns over Aisha's young age at the time of Muhammad marriage and consummation of that marriage with her (the Shia tend to put Aisha in a poor light due to her opposition to Ali). The Shia hold that Fatima, Muhammad's daughter (and per most Shia accounts only child at the time, holding that Muhammad's other children via Khadija were actually Khadija's from a prior marriage) was ca. 10 years old at the time Muhammad married her off to Ali.
The pretense that Muhammad was celibate with his wives (whom he married after the death of Khadija) until he received the coptic slave-girl Maria (whom he impregnated and she may have become a wife after that) is not borne out in the literature. (Muhammad, at some point, kept the coptic slave girl Maria housed away from his wives.) In the event, celibacy is at the least frowned upon in Islam, and even forbidden in the sahih. (https://www.erfan.ir/english/72044.html https://islamqa.info/en/answers/8799...ge-for-himself https://nikahforever.com/blog/celibacy-in-islam/)

The modern attempts to deny the age of Aisha, as reported in the 'historical' material, seem to initially stem from the heterodox or even heretical Ahmadiyya who were embarrassed when questioned about it a century or so ago, but has been taken up by more modern apologists who use weak hadith, mistranslations and dishonest attempts at interpretation to try and cover up for their embarrassment, ignoring Surah Al Jathiya 45.7 "Woe unto each sinful liar".

There are modern apologists and scholars who fully acknowledge the reality of what the sources say and even tell their fellow believers:
'There are muslims who try to deny this, 'oh he did not marry Aisha as a young girl' akhi look, that is not the way forward, we don't lie for the sake of our religion...'.
Shaykh Yasir Qadhi

Then there are also the apologists and pseudo-apologists who, sometimes tentatively, acknowledge that Aisha was 9 when Muhammad engaged in sexual intercourse with her, but then try to distract away from that by claiming things such as 'the Bible says Mary was 12 and Joseph was 90' (it does not, but being ignorant they do not know that, although lately after being called out on it enough, these apologists have started to actually know what the source for that is, but are, as usual, still to ignorant to know what else these sources maintain), or 'the Bible states Rebecca was 3 when Isaac married her' (which again it does not, and anyone reading the story can see why).

[Lord Thesaurian]

A mainstream Sunni source:

How could an adult man—declared a moral exemplar among his followers—marry a child? Such questions have resulted in people either dismissing Islamic primary sources as inauthentic or condemning Islamic morals altogether as barbaric. Some Muslims have become so traumatized by the moral implications of these traditions that they’ve argued that the hadiths about Aisha’s age are spurious and have offered in their stead convoluted rationalizations that she was far older when she married (i.e., 18 years of age)

Due to the complex conditions of the contemporary period, young people not only have the option of waiting before engaging in intimate relationships, but should do so for the sake of minimizing any potential harm to their lives. When examining the marriage between the Prophet and Aisha (ra), we not only find an example of this nuance being put into practice, but can also glean some of the Divine Wisdom for humanity—a moral code that anticipates the fluctuations of human development over time. By extension, it should be undeniable now that the Prophet Muhammad was perfectly within his moral rights to marry and love Aisha (ra). Unfortunately, some Muslims have become ignorant of their own tradition and have succumbed to interpreting Islamic Law in an uncompromising ahistorical fashion, much the same as critics of Islam.

https://yaqeeninstitute.org/read/pap...inary-approach

In conclusion, the assumption that the ḥadīth of ʿĀʾisha’s age can be disputed based on the indecency of child marriage is invalid because the concept of childhood did not exist during their time, the age of puberty for some girls was the age of nine, and their culture was simply different. The claims that she was in her teens when she got married do not provide enough strong evidence to discard two explicit ḥadīth in Bukhārī and Muslim, but rather represent attempts to legitimize our own insecurities.

https://yaqeeninstitute.org/read/pap...t-presumptions

The only counterarguments I found don’t actually challenge the theological scholarship, but simply appeal to emotion: Mohammed was a good dude and so Aisha must surely have been older because otherwise he was gross and that can’t be. So this isn’t a case of anti-Islamic rhetoric but of apologist revisionism. If people are ashamed of Mohammed’s pedophilia, maybe they shouldn’t be Muslim. That seems like a healthier choice than attacking people in the street for telling the truth.

[Cyclops]

I don't see what's funny about it. Isn't "Speakers' Corner" supposed to be a place where people can speak their thoughts without being assaulted for it?

Its a place for political free speech not roaring and jostling. If you go there looking for a fight I guess like anywhere its possible to find one. That silly little man wasn't preaching the word of God, he was yelling specific insults and kept making physical contact with the young fellow, I have no sympathy for people who try to incite religious hatred like that.

Except multiple different accounts don't put Aisha at 6 year when she was betrothed to Muhammad with various ones putting her at her late teens. The fact that none of Muhammad's wives after Khadija, save the last rumored one, got pregnant (despite Muhammad having multiple children with Khadija) shows that Muhammad viewed them as nothing more than political unions and didn't really touch them. Moreover, Aisha was known to be very jealous of Khadija as she often noted Muhammad's devotion to her and Muhammad often put her in her place noting that no other have existed for her after Khadija. If you went just a little bit of down in that Google search you'd see the contradicting accounts but you chose to pick a line that represents her as a 6 year old betrothed to Muhammad. So, just so we are clear, you tried to deceive people.

BTW the OED defines a paedophile (lets use the correct spelling shall we) as "an adult who is sexually attracted to children". You'd assume someone making such a claim has proof, or faith that the Quran is true.

Don't the law codes in the Bible allows a man to have sex with his grandmother, niece, I think in some cases daughters and step daughters? The myths therein tacitly condone Abraham's incest with his half sister and Seth having sex with his full sister as well as a lot of other now disturbing examples. All religions have antiquated and now revolting practices studded in their accounts. I imagine bigots love to rave about them because they get a rise, like the fellow in the video.

I guess if someone making these sort of trollish gibbering outburst isn't a bigot they'd be making the same strident exclamations about the shame of Christians and Jews and their alleged heritage of incest? It'd be rank hypocrisy and shameful bigotry if they didn't.