Is the following fight in an Islamic spirit?
-
Peace.
And I wasn't rationalising my crimes. I was telling you a story of how it hapened, thats all. You brothers and sisters have sugested that I am rationilising wich tells me that YOU THINK it can be ratiniliosed what I have done.
Let's assume for argument's sake that you weren't rationalizing it. Why go around telling people your motive at the time? Who cares? What is the point of that, at all? You don't commit a crime and then re-enact your thoughts at the time, UNPROVOKED, if you are truly sorry. You act remorseful, not 'meh i thought she deserved it at the time, NOT NOW THOUGH, but I will just let you know about these thoughts of god knows how long ago, just in case you were wondering'. You also don't word it in a way that makes HER the victim when you were the aggressor.
When I was in prison I had pedophile friends and if I go to prison again I won't discriminate against the because I am not a vigilante coward like Daren Hinch who just goes with the popular opinion.
What is a vigilante coward?
So you won't judge pedophiles and happily befriend them (which shows a lot about your character, tbh), but not Daren Hinch (who admitted to committing an act of pedophilia) ? Aren't you the one discriminating?To those who feel that vigilante aproach is waranted I feel sory for you.
Really? Stop playing the victim. You are not the victim. You have never been the victim. You have been the aggressor. If this was one time thing where you made a mistake, once, sure you could play the 'one time mistake' card. But you have repeatedly committed violent acts, acts that make you a danger to society. I am sorry, that's the way of the world. All these people who come in here support of you would really allow you around their kids? A man that has admitted to a) raping a prostitute b ) soliciting RANDOM 17-year-olds for sex c) assault d) breaking and entering e) plus, possibly more! Okay, no, no, you have 'changed', I shouldn't forget that part. But you still have UNDERAGE people on your facebook! Why would a person whose name is on a registrar do something that stupid? Oh right, you don't want to comply because you want to rebel against 'the man'. Textbook example of those who manufacture imaginary enemies to 'rationalize' their own previous actions. If you are not "discriminated"against, the past will just go away, won't it?
-
No one has used the word "pedophile" anywhere. Are you on the right planet?
Someone did mention it in the second page, but looks like I misunderstood
-
Peace.
In Australia where I live, specificaly in Melbourne Victoria the age of consent is 16 years old. So legally I am not a convicted pedophile. An adult of 18 years or older can have consentual sex with a person thats 16 years or above.People who are known as an adult sex offenders get put on aregistar that treats them as pedophiles. There is only one sex ofenders reister, same for wheter you have ofended against 6 year olds or 35 year olds wich to me doesn't make sense.
And I wasn't rationalising my crimes. I was telling you a story of how it hapened, thats all. You brothers and sisters have sugested that I am rationilising wich tells me that YOU THINK it can be ratiniliosed what I have done.
When I was in prison I had pedophile friends and if I go to prison again I won't discriminate against the because I am not a vigilante coward like Daren Hinch who just goes with the popular opinion.
Anyway, You believe and do what you do.
Thanks everyone who hasen't judged me for what I USED TO BE. For what I am not any more. To those who feel that vigilante aproach is waranted I feel sory for you.
Thanks
But it totally doesn't matter what the laws are wherever you live. Those laws are totally man-made, thus stupid and non-divine. Punishing someone ( and who gave people the right to punish each other for stuff like that in the first place ) for asking a 17 year old girl, who, unless is very unique, does have the mental and physical maturity for sex, age doesn't matter, but then again, the majority is stupid.
@Nurmuhammed, he didn't do adultry.
-
Those laws are actually based on strong statistical evidence. While they are not divine, they are not exactly arbitrary, either.
But it totally doesn't matter what the laws are wherever you live. Those laws are totally man-made, thus stupid and non-divine. Punishing someone ( and who gave people the right to punish each other for stuff like that in the first place ) for asking a 17 year old girl, who, unless is very unique, does have the mental and physical maturity for sex, age doesn't matter, but then again, the majority is stupid.
@Nurmuhammed, he didn't do adultry.
-
Those laws are actually based on strong statistical evidence. While they are not divine, they are not exactly arbitrary, either.
No, it's not at all. It doesn't even make sense. A 17 year old doesn't differ to much from a 18, yet you would be put to jail even if she was a month younger, just because man-made laws say so. What you're doing is taking humans as your lord, agreeing with their awful methods that are just a lie for greedy people to lead the world. Did Allah say you can't have sex with let's say, a 16 year old? Or even a 15? They have a lot of lust and their body becomes able to seduce men for a reason. Yet man goes and say they need to be 18 for blah blah blah stupid reasons. It's just not right. They are so by Nature, and that's why the Natural Law with the guidance of Allah is the only right law there is.
-
No, it's not at all. It doesn't even make sense. A 17 year old doesn't differ to much from a 18, yet you would be put to jail even if she was a month younger, just because man-made laws say so. What you're doing is taking humans as your lord, agreeing with their awful methods that are just a lie for greedy people to lead the world. Did Allah say you can't have sex with let's say, a 16 year old? Or even a 15? They have a lot of lust and their body becomes able to seduce men for a reason. Yet man goes and say they need to be 18 for blah blah blah stupid reasons. It's just not right. They are so by Nature, and that's why the Natural Law with the guidance of Allah is the only right law there is.
ok astaghfirullah you talk like you directly spoken to allah about in which age a girl can have sex.. how nasty... so in which age can a girl have sex according to allahs law?
-
ok astaghfirullah you talk like you directly spoken to allah about in which age a girl can have sex.. how nasty... so in which age can a girl have sex according to allahs law?
Gtfo troll. As if I would feed a troll like you.
-
Gtfo troll. As if I would feed a troll like you.
i always thought that you was the troll wallah lol. Anyway go ahead and continue to talk about sex with small girls, you horney kafir.
-
i always thought that you was the troll wallah lol. Anyway go ahead and continue to talk about sex with small girls, you horney kafir.
Ok, let's pretend you're not a troll but just a really stupid sunni, then what about Muhammad? You idiots believe Muhammad married Aisha at 6 years old and consumed the marriage at 9. Hypocrite aren't you?
-
Ok, let's pretend you're not a troll but just a really stupid sunni, then what about Muhammad? You idiots believe Muhammad married Aisha at 6 years old and consumed the marriage at 9. Hypocrite aren't you?
just f++k off, okay? I really dont wanna waste more time on you, so stay away from me you perverse trolling kafir. Or I will contact the moderator.
-
I don't know about most other places, but some states here have a parental waiver for the period of time between 16-18 years old, where they have the ability to say that they consent to not having charged pressed against the person over 18. The law is in place in order to prosecute illicit relationships that may be based on some means of exploitation. Statistically, a person who engages in this kind of behavior with girls around late teens (15-17) is engaging in predatory behavior much the same way as a pedophile. While we emotionally find a pedophile more disgusting, an older adult who preys on teen girls is just as predatory and exploitative.
In other words, prosecutors often make exceptions for "Romeo and Juliet" situations, and use the statutes to put those who exploit teen girls in jail. It isn't black-and-white. Prosecutors can use aggravating and mitigating circumstances to determine a reasonable course of action.
Frankly, as someone who has worked with youth in juvenile systems, most 16-17 year old girls are not emotionally ready for the potential results of a sexual relationship - particularly one with an adult who just wants to make use of her body for a few times of fun. Perhaps you disagree, and that's fine. Just how I see it.
Peace,
JoelNo, it's not at all. It doesn't even make sense. A 17 year old doesn't differ to much from a 18, yet you would be put to jail even if she was a month younger, just because man-made laws say so. What you're doing is taking humans as your lord, agreeing with their awful methods that are just a lie for greedy people to lead the world. Did Allah say you can't have sex with let's say, a 16 year old? Or even a 15? They have a lot of lust and their body becomes able to seduce men for a reason. Yet man goes and say they need to be 18 for blah blah blah stupid reasons. It's just not right. They are so by Nature, and that's why the Natural Law with the guidance of Allah is the only right law there is.
-
Stay on topic and stop with the insults. Consider this a warning.
No, it's not at all. It doesn't even make sense. A 17 year old doesn't differ to much from a 18, yet you would be put to jail even if she was a month younger, just because man-made laws say so. What you're doing is taking humans as your lord, agreeing with their awful methods that are just a lie for greedy people to lead the world. Did Allah say you can't have sex with let's say, a 16 year old? Or even a 15? They have a lot of lust and their body becomes able to seduce men for a reason. Yet man goes and say they need to be 18 for blah blah blah stupid reasons. It's just not right. They are so by Nature, and that's why the Natural Law with the guidance of Allah is the only right law there is.
Did Allah say man cannot have any 'non-divine' laws? This argument is invalid.
Just because a 15 year old may be physically mature, doesn't mean they are mentally mature enough to deal with a sexual relationship and it's consequences. In most cases when a couple is ready to get married and are able to shoulder the responsibility of doing so, they are of an age that is older than 15. You won't find many men or women capable of getting married at 15. The sex part is moot then.
Obviously some will now raise the argument dude, my grandma was 12 when she got married, she had 16 kids and did just fine thanks. My response to that is sure, my grandpa worked in a coal factory since he was 6, other than the black phlegm he coughed up on his plate just before we had dinner, he did just fine thanks. Just because people adjust to crap, doesn't mean it's right and/or beneficial in the long run and for everyone because the 'success' stories in such cases are usually exceptions.
Bringing in 'natural law' and phrases such as 'by nature' is a dangerous thing. There is no such thing as she's hit puberty, that's it then. Do what thou wilt. 46 gives us an age of marriage, there are other verses calling it a solemn bond = serious business. How many teens would you say understand the nature of such contracts if they haven't even had much experience of living life yet? When they are in the adolescent stages of just starting to deal with their bodily changes and adjusting to what's around them? There's a reason why adolescents are termed as being in an unstable inbetween state and to undertake a serious commitment like marriage that might involve a consequence of dealing with a child? That's just heaping it on, no other way around it.
We gauge the age of marriage if the person is under our care and whether they are able to understand what it means and agree to it etc etc, if they are independent, they are obviously not as young. Hence, this entire issue of sex with 15 year old teens should be laid to rest.
-
But it totally doesn't matter what the laws are wherever you live. Those laws are totally man-made, thus stupid and non-divine.
False dichotomy. Just because a law is 'man-made' or 'un-divine', doesn't make it bad/wrong.
Punishing someone ( and who gave people the right to punish each other for stuff like that in the first place ) for asking a 17 year old girl, who, unless is very unique, does have the mental and physical maturity for sex, age doesn't matter, but then again, the majority is stupid.
Are you claiming all 17 year olds are physically and mentally mature for sex, irrespective of upbringing, experiences, etc? Irrespective with whom they are getting involved with? Please cite studies for this.
The majority of the world's age of consent is closer to 16 (and many much closer to 13) than it is to 18 with usually a loophole (i.e. both parties must be within a couple of years of each other). So your lust for 'rebelling against the majority' falls flat on the face of this quasi-hipster thing called "reality".
-
We should all be encouraging sex in wedlock. That is the upright way. And people do change when they find God. We are all born to different circumstances/societies which does affect our initial standards of morality (subjective, product of upbringing). Only when you find the truth do you align to the true balance - if you believe.
494 O you who believe, if you go forth in the cause of God, you shall investigate carefully. And do not say to those who greet you with peace "You are not a believer!" You are seeking the vanity of this world; but with God are many riches. That is how you were before, but God graced you, so investigate carefully. God is expert over what you do.
-
Peace.
I am going to fight this injustice with or without any moral and or other suport by any of you. I have agood legal team already engaged. I am njot a danger to children, I never have been and I am not going to confirm to laws that treat me like I am.
By the way, the the junky street hooker who tried to rip me of that I raped didn't change a year later. She was still doing drugs and prostituting. Maybe some of you guys can really in suport of them. St kilda is the place
Thanks
-
We should all be encouraging sex in wedlock. That is the upright way. And people do change when they find God.
We are all born to different circumstances/societies which does affect our initial standards of morality (subjective, product of upbringing). Only when you find the truth do you align to the true balance - if you believe.Gross oversimplification, that is not the point. It is not even about the fact that people may change, which they can, sure. It's about those people admitting to "change" and justifying violent, unforgivable acts. If you are unsure, hey check out his latest post! Oh look she was still prostituting a year later! You don't support me? Oh you must support prostitutes! Textbook George Bush, 'you are either with us or you're with the terrorists' logic.
Again, a gross oversimplification; the world isn't black and white. It's not us vs them, peaceful vs disbeliever, nor rapist vs prostitute. I don't see anywhere where Ervin is being called a 'disbeliever', can you please find this reference for me?
I listened to the recording you posted of him with his psychiatrist(s) and frankly I was unequivocally creeped out. As previously pointed out, lots of 'you are all out to get me' stuff which is typical from schizophrenics and a very aggressive, self-serving attitude to match. When they ask him how he knows he is healed, of course he has no real answer; no independent observation necessary. If you justify heinous acts in any way, you have not changed, sorry. You don't go around talking about them, unprovoked, either and coming up with ridiculous excuses to rationalize them.
You are right, there is a balance to surmise at the truth and that balance doesn't involve having infinite blinders on.
-
Peace.
I am njot a danger to children, I never have been and I am not going to confirm to laws that treat me like I am.
Seem to be living in denial. Well, good luck with that.
By the way, the the junky street hooker who tried to rip me of that I raped didn't change a year later. She was still doing drugs and prostituting. Maybe some of you guys can really in suport of them. St kilda is the place
Thanks
It's not you vs THEM, the world doesn't revolve around you, nor is it you vs prostitutes/druggies. If you are truly sorry, stop rationalizing your unforgivable behavior. It doesn't matter who she was or what she did, you wronged her. Own up to it and stop coming up with excuses. Just because somebody doesn't 'support' you doesn't mean they support prostitutes. This is, seriously, elementary logic and we are somehow supposed to trust your self-diagnosis? Okay, man. Okay.
-
Yea I would have to agree with Jack there. If you go on rationalizing something like that, there is something seriously wrong with you mentally and spiritually, I am still heart broken over mistakes i made disrespecting my parents. And trying to rationalize rape after the fact is just twisted.
-
False dichotomy. Just because a law is 'man-made' or 'un-divine', doesn't make it bad/wrong.
Are you claiming all 17 year olds are physically and mentally mature for sex, irrespective of upbringing, experiences, etc? Irrespective with whom they are getting involved with? Please cite studies for this.
The majority of the world's age of consent is closer to 16 (and many much closer to 13) than it is to 18 with usually a loophole (i.e. both parties must be within a couple of years of each other). So your lust for 'rebelling against the majority' falls flat on the face of this quasi-hipster thing called "reality".
I see no reason why man made laws are right either. No reason whatsoever. Even if they are, who you believe in? Allah or man?
-
This isn't a competition between belief in God or man. Get that straight please. This is about the need to have some sort of structure; usually the end result of consensus and research as to the pros and cons for its growth, safety and benefit etc; to deal with the practical application of general principles which may be 'divine' in nature additionally. I don't see what the issue is that causes it to be such an outrage.