A) You can’t trust the moral judgement of someone who would rape a nine year old. Therefore, because Mohamed is seen as the ‘moral exemplar’, the rest of Islamic teaching is morally devalued or void.
Thats not how morality should work.
Why do you need to "trust" someone else's morals? You judge for yourself.
Its just a dumbed down way of thinking isnt it? So if someone rapes someone, but they say something universally moral, that moral saying is suddenly immoral because a rapist is uttering it?
Surely the morality or immorality of a paricular quote needs to be construed from the message behind that particular moral itself. If you judge it based on whos uttering it or some "trust" rating then you will get erroneous/illogical results.
So lets say for example, mo says "dont kill innocent people", by your logic this becomes an immoral saying simply because the person saying it is a rapist. Even though not killing people is something moral. Morals are NOT gauged by some "trust" rating of the person uttering them.
I've psychiatrically evaluated convicted murderers lol, even they have uttered some surprisingly positive morals. The meaning behind a moral remains the same, just because it was a convicted criminal who believed in this moral doesnt suddenly make it immoral nor does it mean any other of his behaviour is immoral. Behaviour needs to be judged independently.
I cant remember the exact psychological term for this fallacious logic, but it is fallacious logic.
B) You don’t need to a paedophile to be Muslim, but if you are both it’s ‘acceptable’ because you are just following Mohamed’s example.
Furthermore, they will point to rape-gangs such as those in Rotherham and Rochdale and suggest that they may justify their actions because their Prophet also raped an underage girl.
He "married" and then raped her. (
Not saying the marriage makes it OK!!! Before anyone thinks that). But for your logic to be fair you need to assume rotherham rapists were getting married to their victims first. Which they didnt in almost all cases, and no parents in their right mind would allow such a marriage in this day and age!
So this particular case is a bit half arsed anyway because you cant just ignore half of the story, the marriage part, which never happened and would most likely not happen. And as far as i know sex outside marriage is not allowed in islam so there is absolutely no way these rapists could possibly justify their behaviour as being in line with islam.
If you want to talk about setting mo's example, I think there was one case where one of the rapists held some type of "marriage" but then the vast majority of the cases the girls were being passed around from rapist to rapist and that is clearly not how mo did it. (Again
not saying marriage aspect suddenly makes it right or any less worse!!!, im just saying if youre going to talk about people following mo's example then you cant miss out half of that example)
What these rotherham rapists did was wrong, even by mo's/Islam's standards.
And id reckon they are going to their own hell. You need to keep in mind that islam is just a continuation of the worshipping of the abrahamic idea of god regardless of what some future
prophet warlord came along to write about. I reckon at least 80% of the followers are go to their own idea of hell anyway if it really existed.
.
I dont even know why ive gotten myself into this debate. I dont even care about this warlord or any fairytales, I personally think its all crap. Ive made my points and would like to exit this discussion you guys can continue, its a waste of time talking about ancient rapists and fairytales.
Thank you.
