Debate Poa.st user DK on whether Muhammad was a pedophile

Overpriced Osama

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Aug 28, 2023
DK2.png
 
I believe the historical Muhammad wasn't a pedophile because Aisha wasn't underage; later (pedophilic) editors of the Quran wrote that she was, to make Muhammad be more of a "chad" in their opinion. (I personally have little knowledge of the Quran, I saw someone otherwise reliable post this on twatter.)

I also believe Elagabalus wasn't a troon, he was just the figurehead of one of the factions his grandma was playing against each other, and the batshit real-person troon porn propaganda was the winning faction doing its victory lap.

edit: oh, and the character Achilles wasn't initially a faggot, the faggotry was invented by later (faggot) authors during the decline and fall of Ancient Greece -- apparently, "reimagining" popular heroes as degenerate niggerfaggots is a longstanding historical tradition.
 
Last edited:
I believe the historical Muhammad wasn't a pedophile because Aisha wasn't underage; later (pedophilic) editors of the Quran wrote that she was, to make Muhammad be more of a "chad" in their opinion. (I personally have little knowledge of the Quran, I saw someone otherwise reliable post this on twatter.)
religious people should stop treating their texts as immune from chinese whispers, even if we assume that they originally came from god
 
  • Agree
Reactions: timewave0
religious people should stop treating their texts as immune from chinese whispers, even if we assume that they originally came from god
Reasonable concern until you realize that Christian and Muslim texts have been preserved in opposite sides of the planet and still been (apart from translation errors) accurate to each other. Not sure about other religions though.
I believe the historical Muhammad wasn't a pedophile because Aisha wasn't underage; later (pedophilic) editors of the Quran wrote that she was, to make Muhammad be more of a "chad" in their opinion. (I personally have little knowledge of the Quran, I saw someone otherwise reliable post this on twatter.)
If you have evidence then I'd like to see it, but even if you did it wouldn't change the fact that 99.999% of Muslims believe in the version of the text that paints Muhammad as a pedophile. There's also no way you could convince a staunch Muslim that their text has been edited in such a grievous way, especially when the Muslim scholars have a long tradition of fact checking and comparison between copies since the the medieval times.

Edit: I forgot to answer the main question, probably because the poa.st in the OP is pretentious word-salad chewed up and spat out from who I can only assume is some form of socialist, which already makes it hard for me to take them seriously. If somebody would be so kind as to relay to me what the fuck DK was getting at with this one, I'd be happy to reply.
 
Last edited:
he was a violent pedophile sandnigger, exactly the same as the arabs today are.
Shia saint Ali also repeatedly raped a slave girl taken in one of their wars of aggression and Muhammad was A-OK with it.

The hadith are really fun to read, they show you just how backward and ignorant this joke of a religion really is. Thank God heroic crusaders sacrificed their lives to drive these savages back in Spain and the rest of Europe.
 
Yes, I imagine even the most charitable reading ("different times" etc) is that he was also a contemporary degenerate, not just by modern sensibilities. Even in medieval times men didn't normalize relations with girls that young, at least not whites.
 
Didn't he have a flying horse or some such? The followers of the main monotheism's really are a special type of stupid.
 
Back