THE VOICE OF REASON Solon, (born c. 630 BCE—died c. 560 BCE), Athenian statesman, known as one of the Seven Wise Men of Greece (the others were Chilon of Sparta, Thales of Miletus, Bias of Priene, Cleobulus of Lindos, Pittacus of Mytilene, and Periander of Corinth). Solon ended exclusive aristocratic control of the government, substituted a system of control by the wealthy, and introduced a new and more humane law code. He was also a noted poet.
Friday 29 May 2020
If Henry VIII had been Muslim and allowed to practise polygamy
2:00 Streaming Marathon 1, The NHS is evil.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxTbDs1GCBo
4:00 Patriarchy
5:00 Secular Koranism could do with female validation.
6:00 Men have to take women as they come.
7:00 A slut is a woman who made a bad bargain with a man.
8:00 Marriage, eugenics and Romantic poets
9:00 Secular Koranism is a New School of Sharia.
10:00 quran.com/2/256 is the basis of the First Amendment drafted by Thomas Jefferson who had read the Koran
11:00 Christian on Christian religious persecution.
12:00 US Supreme Court frieze
http://religiousreader.org/a-sculpture-of-muhammad-has-sat-in-the-u-s-supreme-court-since-the-1930s/
13:00 Jefferson Bible http://pattonhq.com/links/uccministry/jeffbible.pdf
14:00 The advantages of a theocracy
15:00 Rabbi Kahane
16:00 The Koran
17:00 A theocracy can be surprisingly low tax and libertarian.
18:00 No need for a pre-nuptial agreement if marriages are expressed as marriage contracts.
19:00 Culture is downstream of law and religion/political ideology.
21:00 European monarchs, Catholicism, Protestantism
22:00 An Archbishop of Canterbury burned at the stake
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Cranmer
23:00 Sluts or chaste women?
24:00 Wives and mothers
25:00 The National Interest
27:00 Dominic Cummings
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/19/sabisky-row-dominic-cummings-criticised-over-designer-babies-post
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/25/attorney-general-faces-calls-to-resign-defends-dominic-cummings-suella-braverman?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_News_Feed&fbclid=IwAR1Pc5wvOwhal3RUCYdg6BQuluxh2W_-X7tk9wqev2L1y5czXkcoDgswzA0
29:00 Right-wing mascot
30:00 Protecting your followers
34:00 The IQ of the working classes of the same race are likely to be lower than the middle classes.
35:00 Misfits and weirdos
36:00 The antithesis of the metrosexual male
37:00 Brexit
38:00 Is Claire Khaw after Cummings' job?
40:00 Marriage is eugenic.
41:00 Allow women to choose their husbands.
42:00 The Penguin N J Dawood translation of the Koran
43:00 Polygamy
44:00 Every family becomes a conference
45:00 Replenishing your population after a ruinous war
46:00 Koranic principles of warfare
47:00 The English Reformation
48:00 If Henry VIII had been Muslim, he could have taken up to four wives without beheading any of them.
49:00 Bloody Mary
50:00 The Wives of the Prophet
51:00 The Last Emperor of the China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puyi
52:00 Israel had already begun to decline after the death of King Solomon.
53:00 The rules of succession
54:00 A one party theocracy governed by Secular Koranism based on the organisation and hierarchy of the Chinese Communist Party
55:00 A Caliph is a constitutional dictator.
56:00 Summary
57:00 No more gig economy
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
Why do Christians not follow the morality of the Bible? Because the Church itself does not follow Biblical principles and is only interes...
-
Key: CK = Claire Khaw CD = Claudia Dalgleish EB = Eddy Butler MC = Mark Collet TC = Tess Culnane CD on Facebook This past month... -
Beta males will never get female attention if it is OK for women to have premarital sex. If you want beta males to have a reasonable ...
49 comments:
Polygamy is evil.
How so?
It deprives otherwise capable men of wives for the benefit of wealthier men, leading them to engage in greater levels of rape and other forms of sexual predation.
Islam does not require polygamy, it only tolerates it. The ideal for Islam remains monogamy.
Toleration of an evil seems only slightly less virtuous than embracing it. It's not much of a difference.
I could go on about why polygamy is in nearly all circumstances is a terrible thing. There are many good reasons. A monogamous husband who loses his job or position or wealth will have a much easier time covering the shortfall than a polygamous man with many wives and children to support. Especially in today's easy come-easy go economy, this is a poignant concern.
Islam's embrace of polygamy is an embrace of a system that may have worked well for (elite) Arab males in the seventh century. And it certainly worked very well for Muhammad, who claims to have received special dispensation to take more than four wives - how terribly lucky. But we are no longer in the seventh century, and most of us are not Arabs.
Henry's marriages produced one reasonably ok successor, one bad but short-lived successor, and one glorious successor. Before the throne passed to his sister's descendant who was a good king. That's a pretty good outcome, and I am grateful that most of the Tudor successors did a good job.
A lot of people died during the English Reformation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Reformation
But they wouldn't have died if there had been no need for it. That was the point I was making.
https://uran.com/4/3 is evidence that monogamy remains the ideal and polygamy is only tolerated.
May I know your religion?
My religious beliefs are evolving and I do not wish to disclose them as they are not settled.
1. A lot of people would have died in England during the Reformation whether or not Henry VIII sought a divorce. The Reformation was a popular idea which had a lot of valid points. In fact, in England it was preceded by the Lollard movement centuries earlier which argued one of the key points of the Reformation (the right for common people to read holy texts in their own language). The Reformation would have spread to England whether Henry VIII welcomed it or not, and violence was the likely result.
2. Muhammad is considered the most excellent person who has ever lived by Muslims. His life is considered the exemplar for all Muslims, so much so that most Europeans referred to Muslims as 'Mohammedans'. And this is justified, for no European so adores another human being except Jesus Christ as Muslims adore Muhammad.
So when Muhammad personally takes four wives, and then exceeds this through a special (and awfully convenient) dispensation that applies only to him personally, a pious Muslim cannot ignore the earthly example of the most perfect human in existence (according to Islam) and must consider his example as holy and valid.
Yes, some religious tracts may advise against polygamy. But the far more powerful life example of the prophet of Islam trumps these mild admonitions.
You do know that Muhammad is the final prophet of the Abrahamic God, don't you?
I know that is what Muslims believe.
It seems you are still trying to find a religion. Or are you making one up from scratch because you are an antisemite and an Islamophobe who, for reasons of chauvinism, refuses to see that Christianity is kaput?
If you don't think Christianity is not kaput, why are you in the process of cooking up a religion to replace it?What makes you think your cooked-up religion is going to defeat Judaism and Islam?
Or are you dithering between the Eastern religions of Hinduism and Buddhism ie idolatry and atheism?
Did you reject Christianity when you became aware of its illegitimacy, idolatry, blasphemy and absurdity?
Did the discovery that your parents, grandparents and ancestors had been forcibly converted into the illegitimate, idolatrous, blasphemous cooked up shit of Christianity traumatise you so much that you felt you had to flee to Eastern religions or cook up your own pagan pile of piffle?
Do you think you're being subtle? Honestly. I look at the many, many, many posts you make on this page. Most of them don't even get a reply or react because people consider you irrelevant. (and they're right).
The fact is most people do understand what you are here to do - issue demoralising propaganda as part of some weird judeo-islamic agenda. But the high point for this agenda has come and gone, ordinary people are waking up to it every day.
The only reason I replied to you is because I like history and thought I'd test your fairly weak suggestion that somehow England would have turned out better if Henry VIII were a Muslim. You didn't provide a good defense of either your original thesis, or polygamy, or your faith's founder's embrace of this practice. In fact, you didn't do a good job of arguing any of your points.
As for your crude claims of triumphalism over the European people and our civilisation, I think this is pretty premature. There's a billion of us, and more of us wake up every day to the aggressors who wish to hurt us. People like you. And I thank you for being so open and so vulgar in your aggression, because it helps individuals like me create solidarity among my own people.
I put my points simply and boldly because I am confident of my case.
You didn't put them persuasively because they weren't much good. Which is why they won't persuade people of quality.
It's nice to have faith if that's a personal thing. But if you aren't persuasive, it'll only be for you.
I want to be first understood. People's reaction is a measure of their character. What makes you think you are a person of quality? Thanks for admitting that you are an atheist, by the way. Now I know what line to take with you. I am a moral and political philosopher and there is no need for you to believe in God to support Secular Koranism.
No. What you're doing is crowing about your own people's triumph against what you consider to be a foreign enemy. And this crowing is very much pre-mature. In years to come this illusory triumph will turn to ash in your mouth.
I am a person of quality. Certainly when dealing with you. After all, I have easily surpassed yourself in quality of argumentation. Thus far you have refuted none of the points I have made.
Instead you have confined yourself to bad-faith claims (such as the one you just made about my religious beliefs), which you then believe entitles you escape from the serious arguments I have made.
What points have you even made? I must have missed them.
There's the points on the negative impact of polygamy, the inconsistency between minor tracts of theology of Muhammad's life example, the fact the Tudor dynasty turned out pretty well despite the turmoil of the Reformation... you ignored all of that to go into a long attack of Christianity while proclaiming the triumphalism of judeo-islam.
Plus all the hints I made about Muhammad essentially being a fraud who made things up on the spot to suit his own personal convenience.
On the question of polygamy, I have already pointed out to you that the Koran prescribes monogamy as an ideal and only tolerates polygamy.
I am saying that all the war and turmoil of securing the Protestant succession would not have happened if Henry VIII had already been a Muslim monarch wanting a wife of child-bearing years when he realised that Katherine of Aragon was too old to bear him the son he wanted.
I am pointing out that Christianity is kaput though I am not sure if you agree.
You've said a lot more than that.
You've tried to justify Islam as an alternative to Christianity. That was your true opening point. But it doesn't hold water. It is a foreign and unacceptable religion to the bulk of the English people.
You've claimed Christianity is 'kaput'. I don't believe so. Europeans can use Christianity and older forms of paganism in the same way you use Islam, as a means to advance their own ethnic interests. We have no problem doing that. And as the defending party, our religious fervour is greater.
Let's be honest, I think the religious language is just a veil or justification for ethnic aggression. We can defend ourselves against such aggression in religious terms of not. But I will not be surprised if the response includes Christ.
The only reason you reject Islam is because of your racism and chauvinism demonstrating that some sins are their own punishment.
Personal attacks are so silly. I can't be blamed for rejecting your religion when you do such a poor job of promoting it. I will accept Lord Christ or even ancestral Lord Mars over what you have offered me. Like the glorious Emperor Constantine, who is of my people, I can honour both for at least a time.
But like the glorious Charles Martel and Leo III of Byzantium, I shall defend my people against your insane pedophile prophet to my last breath.
Thank you for confirming your racism and Islamophobia.
You don't have to like me or my religion or even be Christian to recognise that Christianity is kaput.
You don't have to be a Christian to recognise that sex with a pre-pubescent child is a form of rape and is disgusting to most civilised people on the planet.
And your labels of racism and islamophobia don't work on me. You are inferior. You are barbaric. And your cultural practices are disgusting to me.
You don't seem aware that Muslims treat marriage as a contract. Only persons of full legal capacity can enter into legally enforceable contract. Under this system, no fault divorce would be abolished. How would you feel about that?
Are you denying the fact your prophet penetrated a 9 year old with his penis?
I wouldn't know, not having been present. Muhammad was only a messenger, not the message, which was the Koran. The Koran does not prescribe child marriages. You mistake me for a Muslim.
Lies. You're now being dishonest about your religion (which no Christian is permitted), because you know the truth and understand it is wrong.
Muhammad broke up the engagement of his step son with a six year old. He then married that six year old and performed sex acts with her. And he vaginally penetrated her when she was 9.
Absolutely revolting. No civilised person looks at this and approves. You worship Satan. Only a disciple of Satan would rape a child and demand you rely on him for access to God.
There is nothing in the Koran about this incident. When your postman delivers to you an important document, do you enquire into his morals before deciding on the truth of that document?
The most authoritative Islamic sources agree that he had sex with a 9 year old in the fullest sense.
Again, you're just lying. I can see the evasion in your answer instantly. All honest Islamic scholars agree with my recounting of what happened.
That fact is that my people will always love Christ and the Old Gods more than we will ever love the man who raped a little girl.
You are so ignorant of Islam you think Muslims worship Muhammad in the same way Christians worship an executed revolutionary as the co-equal of the supreme and eternal Abrahamic God who created the Universe and now exists outside it as pure spirit.
Secular Koranism is a legal system, not a belief system. It is a legal system that guarantees freedom of belief with https://quran.com/2/256 and is the basis of the First Amendment. You do know there is a White House Koran owned by Thomas Jefferson, don't you?
So now you've given up contesting the fact your prophet smashed open the hymen of a 9 year old girl? Ok. I'll take your silence and withdrawal as some weird form of pseudo-honesty.
Let's have your link to a respectable Islamic source that the prophet was a paedophile then.
Sure, here you go:
Sahih al-Bukhari 51.33
that the prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).
https://sunnah.com/bukhari/67/69
Bukhari is one of the most authoritative Islamic sources.
Sounds like she did OK in life then.
So at the end of this long discussion where you have repeatedly tried to deceive me, I present you with real research demonstrating your prophet had sex with a pre-pubescent child. And you try to excuse it and trivialise it. Outrageous and absurd.
You people are simply dishonest. You lie. And support the most horrendous human beings as heroes. And then you think you have moral authority over us.
It's not just your religion we reject. It's the garbage tier people like yourself who follow it that we want nothing to do with.
What have I lied about?
About your prophet being a pedophile, and then when I presented you with proof from the best quality source you trivialised this fact.
People who have religious principles are superior to people who don't. You don't even have a religion.
Muhammad was the Messenger and his message was the Koran which says nothing about marrying or having sex with children.
People who adore pedophiles are inferior to those with proper morals. A pedophile apologist like yourself has no moral authority to proclaim what other people should think.
I am not Muslim nor do I worship Muhammad.
I don't care. You're acting as an apologist for a pedophile who raped a little girl. You're a monster, no matter your religion.
I understand that the postman's morals have no relevance to the integrity of the document he delivered. You don't.
You're a liar who changes their point and what they say depending on how smart you think their opponent is.
Earlier you were crowing about the funeral of Christianity. And now look at you. You lied about Muhammad being a pedo, and when presented with irrefutable proof to the contrary you're pretending to argue a totally different position.
You have failed to defend one single point convincingly, and have demonstrated to everyone what a shameless liar you are.
I made the point quite early on that Muhammad was just a messenger who delivered the message that was the Koran, which says nothing about having sex or marrying children.
The Koran isn't the only source of historical/theological authority in Islam (and you know this). You're just pretending not to understand my quoting of al-Bukhari, as he is one of the best sources. If the Koran is silent on it, al-Bukhari's writings then become one of the most authoritative source for Muslims.
You also understand perfectly well that Muhammad is more than just a messenger in Islam, his life and behaviours are considered that practical ideal for Muslims to emulate.
Even when I point out to you your error, you go back to repeating old arguments I have already addressed and refuted. You're either too low IQ or dishonest to understand how bad you look using these sorts of tactics against someone arguing in good faith and using good sources.
Secular Koranism is a New School of Sharia as interpreted by me, an agnostic non-Muslim ex-feminist ex-Liberal known for my long track record of political activism. You don't have to be Muslim to support Secular Koranism as long as you want to restore the patriarchy.
Changing the subject. I wasn't discussing secular-Koranism, and I have no interest in that topic.
It doesn't change the fact you lied about Muhammad having sex with a little girl.
You weren't able to argue your original point advocating polygamy in Tudor England at all convincingly and quit the topic upon the first rebuttal.
And what followed were non-sequiturs, bad faith arguments, and generally deceitful discussion tactics by you.
Go ahead and have the last word if you like. My last message to you is this: "You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies."
By your lies, I know whom you serve.
I didn't say Muhammad did or didn't have sex with a girl and merely pointed out that he was only a messenger and his message was the Koran which says nothing about having sex or marrying girls under the age of consent which was a concept that did not exist in the time of Muhammad.
I have no idea where you got that quote from or why you think my own dear papa has anything to do with our discussion.
Who do you think I serve?
Muhammad's marriage to Aisha was more than 1442 years ago in which the age of consent/ marriage was age 9 or 10. The age of marriage in England before 1275 was age 10 as well.
People in ancient times had a shorter lifespan, they were a few inches short and they would have matured at an early age.
Age 16 has only been legal for the last 136 years, ten years before then it was 13 and six hundred years before then age 12 and before 1275 age 10.
The Byzantines under Gratian lowered the age of marriage from age 12 to 7 before Muhammad.
In fact across 19th century America the age of marriage/ consent was between ages 13 to 7. Delaware being a state in which the age of consent/ marriage was age 7 in the late 19th century.
So if Muhammad was a pedophile then everyone else was as well. Including your beloved heroes like Constantine and Charles Martel.
Since mesontology suggests that people reached maturity at an early age, so Muhammad was an ephebophile, he was in love with someone who had passed puberty.
Post a Comment