Before we can begin I need to make a few things clear.
The segment I'm about to show you is incredibly disturbing.
It's not only disturbing in its content, but also in the fact that this was uploaded
to the YouTube channel EFDawah under the title 'Lies, Damn Lies & Statistics' where the
viewers of said channel are heralding what was stated as 'brilliant' and 'well
said'.
Now the clip originally came from an LBC Radio interview, LBC radio being a London based
station.
During the segment a Dawah apologist by the name of Abbas who regulars Speakers Corner
mentioned the charge of Islam being a death cult but focused mainly on the fact that prophet
Muhammad was a child rapist, at least according to popular Hadiths.
Said segment was uploaded without comment as with many soundbites that are supposedly
'gotcha' moments so I wasn't sure at first as to whether EFDawah were taking issue
with what Abass stated rather than heralding it.
But upon further review of the evidence, the way the EFDawah community has reacted, and
the close if not professional relationship both Abass and EFDawah seem to share I have
come to the conclusion that this video was uploaded in celebration of what Abass stated.
Now it's a short video so I'll play it in its entirety before returning to comment
on it per usual.
[Presenter] "03456060973."
[P] "Err, let's get back to your calls and comments."
[P] "This is on thee, well, is there a gravitational pull to right wing politics in this country?"
[P] "One survey seems to suggest so."
[P] "Abass is in Redbridge, what are your thoughts?"
[Abass] "Hi there, it's just a comment that Gerard Batten made about err, Islam being
a death cult and the Prophet Muhammad, piss be upon him, being a paedophile."
[A] "He said it was a matter of fact."
[A] "Err, it's not a matter of fact."
[A] "It's his opinion."
[A] "Err, th-the fact that people raise the issue about the Prophet Muhammad, piss be
upon him, marrying Aisha under the age of 16 and saying therefore that's paedophilia."
[A] "You cannot apply the err, social consensus which is how morality is governed within a
secular society, of 20th or 21st century, and apply it retrospectively in the 7th century,
and then call it paedophilia."
[P] "I thought- I thought the whole point about the teachings of Islam was that it was
the one religion that didn't change."
[P] "It didn't alter its core beliefs and systems to appease the age."
[A] "It doesn't but the reality here is this."
[A] "There are lots of caveats in terms of marrying ah-a young woman."
[A] " So for example the social consensus for that time, the err, the the the..."
[A] "The governing law in terms of err, marriage in Islam and Judaism in fact, is puberty."
[A] "Puberty becomes the age in which you may consummate the marriage."
[A] "Now that does not mean to say that is when you should marry."
[P] "Okay..."
[A] "But that is the minimum that is set."
[P] "So your contention is that Gerard Batten, alright (Abass keeps interrupting, inaudible)
Gerard Batten should have made a distinction between his opinion which you don't have any
truck with even though you disagree with it, but you believe he's entitled to it, erm what
he called fact."
[A] "Exactly, I-I talk to lots of people and they say to me 'oh this is paedophilia' when
I explain to them that within a secular society morality is governed by social consensus.
[A] "It's the social consensus for example even in the 21st century today
[P] "Okay, well on that point Abass we hit the clock, thank you."
So let's just deal with the bed-sheet clad elephant in the room, the fact that Abbas
is responding specifically to Gerard Batten who is the white nationalist piece of shit
that currently leads UKIP.
If you don't know who UKIP are, they're the vile far right British party that recently
gained the favour of none other than Carl Benjamin.
That guy who likes to send British politicians thinly veiled rape threats between roleplaying
as a figure of authority.
Now I feel this relevant considering certain comments made by Mr Benjamin back in 2014.
[Justicar] "Of course one of the reasons that age of consent laws came about was because,
it is sometimes hard to get prosecutions for actual wrongful conduct."
[J] "And I, as much as anyone else, I think, doesn't want people who are really err, predatory
and-an-and manipulating and exploiting young people into doing things that the young people
don't wanna do but they're too naive to have the tools to say 'no', you don't want those
people to go free.
[J] "I don't either."
[J] But the way that you make those people not go free is not by saying that all the
people who are engaging in perfectly harmless conduct should go to prison instead."
[Carl] "Yes, this kind of war on drugs mentality, erm."
[J] "Yeah, and one of the difficult things, I haven't played this card with people much
until about the last year now I've kinda getting up peoples faces when they talk about age
of consent, I was well under the age of err, eleven when I started having sex."
[J] "So what I like to do is put people on the err, on the other side of the argument
it's like what you have to do is you have to say that someone like me, not anybody else,
but me, that I was too stupid to appreciate the nature and quality of what I was- of what
I was doing at the time."
[J] "Please convince me I didn't know what I was doing."
[C] "Yeah I think I err."
[C] "I think it's, yeah, depends on the child really doesn't it."
[C] "Because some kids mature faster than some of us."
[C] "Well it's true! You know, it's true though, you know."
[C] "It really should be a case by case basis, but I can see why the whole thing."
[C] "It's not really something I've ever put too much thought into to be honest."
So after recording my original video I became aware of the fact that this month Carl Benjamin
had gone on to defend his position on the age of consent as having a 'scientific justification',
for the exact same reason as offered by Dawah apologists like the one shown at the beginning.
[C] "I, look Jim, you can carry on interrogating teenagers about the size of their boyfriends
penises all you want, I- just..."
[Jim] "Oh hey Carl, don't get upset, I mean I love how you tried black PR and it blew
up in your face because you're fucking REDACTED.
[C] "Black PR!
[J] "Black PR yeah, oh I don't get the conversation Jim is having and oh I'm getting accused of
the same shit that I tried using."
[J] "It depends on the child doesn't it Carl?!"
[C] "Okay Jim, it was..."
[J] "Does it depend on the child Carl, does it depend on the child?"
[J] "It's all by a case by case basis so you're cool, it's all by a case by case basis."
[J] "We get you chap, we know what you're talking about."
[C] "It is scientifically verifiable that people hit puberty on a case by case basis."
[J] "Oh no, please tell me about your genius ideas about 10 year olds and 12 year olds
having sex."
[J] "You're so smart, you're so smart Carl."
[C] "Thanks Jim, I appreciate that."
So Mr Batten's comments are rather hypocritical.
In my eyes he as well as the rest of the sleazebags that make up the UKIP party can all go fuck
a blender for all I care, Benjamin included.
But that does not diminish the accuracy of what was stated here in any way.
Namely the fact that the beloved prophet of Islam is not only a paedophile but was in
fact a child rapist.
Now if you don't know the difference between the two, a paedophile is someone who is attracted
to children with some of them actually seeking help to handle said feelings as they understand
and respect the human right to bodily autonomy.
A child and a young teen cannot give informed consent on the topic of sex and unlike medical
procedures sex is not a functional necessity, meaning that neither they nor their guardians
can make that choice.
Meanwhile a child rapist is someone who actually goes out and rapes a child.
And the prophet of Islam does indeed fall into the latter category.
According to some of the most popular and trusted hadiths, the books upon which the
vast majority of Islam as practiced is based upon as the Qur'an contains relatively few
details in that regard, Aisha was aged six when she was forced into marriage and only
nine when the prophet raped her.
I feel the need to specify the ages since Abass' mention of 'under 16' here seems
to be positioned to give the impression that Aisha may have been in her mid teens rather
than her childhood which still would not be justifiable, but perhaps more palatable to
certain sorts of people.
Muhammed was supposedly 53 at the time for proper context.
Now I thought the radio presenter crushed Abass in simply noting the fact that Muslims
hold to a supposedly objective and unchanging moral code and therefore historic based relativism
fails as any sort of a get-out clause.
On top of this Muslims view their child raping prophet as not only god's messenger but
the pinnacle of human goodness.
Muhammad is the standard all Muslims are told to try and emulate.
They don't present him as a flawed messenger held down by the times but a man whose example
extends throughout the ages to this very day.
This as well as the apparently all powerful and all knowing nature of god make any excuse
the Muslim presents an instant failure that dies on delivery.
If the Muslim accepts that child rape is wrong then the only way this excuse could work,
giving the Muslim that said god does exist merely as a hypothetical thought experiment,
is if one alters the definition of god as presented by the faith of Islam.
God must either lack a timeless moral standard, lack knowledge of all things, or lack power
over all things, or lack a mixture of the three.
How can I say this?
Well if god truly were all knowing and all powerful and child rape has always been wrong,
his course of action could have been incredibly simple.
Tell his chosen prophet that child rape is wrong.
It really is that simple if what the Muslim claims about god was true.
Hell, I'd argue one further and say such a god would not only step in to prevent Mohammed
raping a child, but would actively set a law that prohibited child rape and set a clear
age of consent.
But that's not what we see at all.
I the humanist meanwhile can and do say in no unclear terms that child rape, as with
all forms of rape, is wrong, that it has been wrong, and will always be wrong no matter
what.
Which leads me onto how Abass tries to bullshit his way out of the terminal blow he was just
dealt by the presenter.
Abass panics, goes into this stuttering mess about all the 'caveats' to child rape
that apparently make it permissible such as puberty which was the societal standard at
that time.
Not seeming to realise that we do not care.
The historical context does not lessen the atrocity.
And I urge anyone viewing to be weary of those who tell you that you cannot apply modern
standards of morality to historical context.
I'd argue these people don't understand the first thing about history and why it's
so vital to us as a species.
It's not simply a way to tell future generations about where we came from, but warn them of
places humanity could lead.
Unless we can openly look back and identify for example, that colonialism was atrocious,
we run the risk of repeating said horror in the near future.
When a historian warns you of moralising about the past, they're not on about retrospectively
assessing what happened from a modern perspective but rather avoiding this desire to simply
cast our ancestors as mindless monsters, people who's kind we'll never see again because
we've evolved beyond that.
Sadly that's not the way society works and we'd do very good to remember that.
But I can and I shall judge the child raping prophet of Islam along with all those who
would defend him.
That is my right not only as a secular humanist but as a survivor.
Time does not lessen atrocity whether it be a day, a year, a decade, a century, or millennia.
And we have come to a modern understanding on the age of consent by a careful assessment
of the damage caused by childhood rape and a bettering grasp of when one typically has
the faculties to make such a decision.
The fact that the religion of Islam gets said standard so horrendously wrong is not an argument
in defence of what it says but rather an admission that said book has no right to be taken seriously
in any ethical discourse.
Now the only thing I find funny this whole situation, was the fact that the video is
titled 'lies' and Abass asserts that the statement that the prophet of Islam was a
paedophile, putting aside the fact that they were also a child rapist, is a matter of opinion,
nowhere did Abass even begin to address that.
Abass didn't demonstrate how the classing of his 53 year old prophet's rape of a 9
year old child was paedophilia was wrong, all Abass did was argue that it isn't morally
vile because 'look at the time period'.
Even if his argument had been successful, which it wasn't, that still wouldn't stop
his prophet from being a paedophile or a child rapist.
And it really is sad to see such filth being lauded by Muslim apologists including organisations
such as EFDawah.
Then again I'm hardly surprised.
I've dealt previously with EFDawah's main face, Hamza Myatt who not only attempted to
victim blame victims of grooming gangs which existed not only in primarily Muslim areas
but actually included Imans of the faith who stood in court and attempted to justify their
rape using the religion of Islam.
But Hamza Myatt then attempted to threaten me into removing my response, a threat that
was given amongst a barrage of ableist and potentially homophobic slurs.
Now compare this to iERA, that's the Islamic Education and Research Academy who I've
also had previous run-ins with in the past.
After responding to a video titled 'Why Do Atheists Preach?' as well as 'If Darwinism
Is True, Atheists Shouldn't Preach!' uploaded to two different channels hence the two names,
I contacted iERA about the fact that said video contained homophobic statements.
And just like that both uploads of the video disappeared and it was replaced with a re-recording
of an interview on the same topic, only this time with Hamza Tzortzis rather than the white
convert from the original.
Now don't get me wrong, both iERA and EFDawah consist of vile people.
After all they're two fronts of the same machine.
The only difference is their strategies are very distinct from one another.
iERA attempts to give the outwardly appearance of being a community based establishment,
building coherency and understanding whilst routinely pandering to people who have publicly
defended the beheading of apostates, i.e. ex-Muslims, such as Hamza Tzortzis to mention
a single example.
EFDawah meanwhile take what may be classed as the Trump Approach.
They're there to maintain the radical base whilst indoctrinating the newer adherents
to the faith into a more fanatical and fundamentalist type.
They're proudly unapologetic and come across as vile to anyone on the outside.
But given time their hollow nature infects others and empties them of their humanity,
repeating again and again.
iERA is the Jordan Peterson of organisations, funnelling people towards EFDawah which is
honestly indistinguishable from the far right in many ways, and I'm not just on about the
topic of consent.
iERA is the front, EFDawah is the endgame.
That's why they can promote the rape of children so openly.
And that fact that fucking terrifies me.
For more infomation >> Live PD: Talking Nonsense (Season 3) | A&E - Duration: 3:57. 
For more infomation >> Машинки видео для мальчиков – Все серии. Про машинки! Развивающие мультики с игрушками. Мультфильмы - Duration: 10:22. 
For more infomation >> 2019 New Kawasaki Ninja 250 / 400 Fi Black Carbon Green | Mich Motorcycle - Duration: 2:06. 
For more infomation >> Маша и медведь все серии подряд без остановки! Самые смешные серии. Большой сборник мультфильмов - Duration: 16:58. 
For more infomation >> Como Criar Aplicativo Web Radio em Multiplataforma com Ionic 4 Part 01 - Duration: 8:32. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét