- Girl can be raped after the age of 8 - you are absolutely nuts and a Dark Web pervert. This only exists in your fantasies and you very likely have viewed such content on the dark web.
You are clearly quite well versed in Jewish law, because a quick search reveals your dark sayings to be lifted from the Talmud:
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/5fg317/according_to_the_talmud_how_old_does_a_child_have/?rdt=33432
QUOTE:
According to Rabbi Joseph (M.Nid. 5:4): Come and take note: A girl three years and one day old is betrothed by intercourse.
**According to this, if a Jewish pedophile were to molest a 3 year and 1 day old girl, she is automatically married to him. Should a non-Jewish pedophile molest her, they are to be executed and she shall never be permitted to marry into the priestly cast. **
Rabbi Hiyya, however, disagreed and argued that a gentile child should only be protected from rape after they attain the age of 9 years and 1 day, whereupon they are pronounced “unclean” for intercourse.
Upon consideration of the argument presented by Rabbi Hiyya, Rabbi Nahman bar Isaac later changed his opinion and agreed that gentile infants were not to be protected from rape by the law until they attained the age of 9 years and 1 day.
See: Abodah Zarah 36B-37A and infidels.org —> library —> modern —> guido_deimel
It seems then that the dominant opinion espoused by the Talmud is that Jewish children (girls at least) can be raped only by Jewish men from the age of 3 years and 1 day, while gentile children (boys and girls) can be raped from the moment they are born up until the age of 9 years and 1 day.
[/END QUOTE]
- Girl can be sodomised up to 8 years old - you are absolutely nuts and a Dark Web pervert. This only exists in your fantasies and you very likely have viewed such content on the dark web.
- Apostasy has been discussed extensively. Abu Amina Elias sums it up here, spoiler: it’s not necessarily a death penalty, but when the apostate attacks the State it is, and bear in mind the Law of the Land for a religious state is Religion, so it’s identical to the concept of Treason, which still carries the death penatly in some form in many nations, and if not, then those nations only recently abandoned the death penalty.
- Men can have up to 4 wives and woman can have only 1 husband, is not evil, and seeing as you are not even female l imagine this is one of the things you are into as you do project insecurity a lot, e.g. the case for prostitution that is the very subject of this thread. Moreover, if a woman had multiple husbands then inheritance laws would become unworkable, and in secular law, inheritance law is already a minefield with monogamy and anybody that’s faced having to deal with disposal of an estate will surely agree. Moreover, the man is the microcosm of the state. Just as you cannot have multiple sub-states within one state, as that would weaken the state, you cannot have multiple husbands in one marriage. Also it’s not so sweet when they’re all old. It’s comical and looks like a bunch of old bums having a communal baglady.
- The penalty for theft being amputation in a welfare state is justified because thievery is absolutely unjustifiable, it is motivated purely by vice. It is done under Islamic law for repeat offences above a specific monetary threshold. Muslims had the first welfare state in the sense we recognise it today. Only the guilty detest it. Those ridden with vice, e.g. people that would also like prostitution, which they see to think isn’t evil exploitation at all.
- Female hijab: it’s noneya business. Males also have hijab rules. You’d like women to literally dress as whores, as per this thread itself.
- I’m unsure of the law about women needing a male guardian to leave home but l do think it’s necessary because many of our women are attacked on the streets. This is not some evil we do. We don’t abandon our women, we stand by them through all hardships. They are not “belles dames sans merci” aka whores to us.
- Forced marriage: i’ve already told you that is forbidden. Marriage is organised through representatives of the female and often of the male too. The female’s representative is almost always her father, brother, or other near male relative. There’s no psyche trickery, there’s no set of female tests, which the male already knows how to bypass, and thus we don’t have marriages built on lies and anger about the mindgames that led up to it, marriages which quickly fall apart when one partner gets their fill then leaves, saying haha tricked ya, you shouldn’t have played me in the early stages. No, we have courtship under auspice.
- Child marriage: we observe the laws on age of consent in whatever land we are in. However, Islam per se encourages us to marry when we are young as soon as we attain to adolescence (and l’m not trying to fuel your dark-web abuse video addiction when l say this, you have taken a very wrong turn in life). We are discouraged from sitting around m*****bating, fornicating, and so forth - that leads to a wild goose chase for elusive lasting casual love that only ends in our 50s when we’re too tired to play around and only then do we make compromises and marry someone out of sheer resignation.
- Honour killings: we have honour yes. Our religion requires us to execute for sexual offences e.g. rape. These executions can only be done judicially, via law courts. Honour isnt a crime, Mr. Prostitution Campaigner.
- Homosexuality: this is against our religion and God punished Sodom and Gomorah for it. However, as above, any executions must be done judicially, via law courts, not personally. Homosexuality was only legalised in secular nations within the past 50-70 years.
- Non-Muslim marrying Muslim woman - this marriage isn’t permitted and is anathematised. However l’m unaware of any legal ruling on it, in fact the Qur’an has made some comments on it that seemingly do not support what you have said, in an extreme case e.g. the woman is an adulteress / fornicator.
- Girls’ clitorises: Okay it’s clear now you are just making crap up ad hoc. I may have know you’d do this as your are Mr. Prostitution / Mr. Dark Web porn hunter. We do not believe in clitoris removal circumcision, we do not have a tradition of practising it. It is more common in scattered Christian and Pagan cultures. However, l have discovered that our Prophet did approve of a pre-existing form of female circumcision which was carried out to improve sensation in that area - much like male circumcision, it involved removal of a layer of skin, except in the female’s case, that layer of skin would either be thick and blockling clitoral sensations or it would be an outer small flap of skin prone to fungal infection causing an unpleasant smell with some susceptible individuals. Whatever it was, it was NOT removal of the clitoris, which is equivalent to circumcision by removal of the entire penis, it’s absolutely wrong - that is something a small number of Christian and Pagan cultures do today.
- Female rape victims cannot testify in court: 1. Who said they cannot testify in court? 2. It is the court that determines rape, not you, Mr. Dark Web.
- Muslim men have sexual rights to any women not wearing a hijab: again more madeup nonsense from Mr. Prostitution who created this thread to explain why he wants the right to sex with women if he can pay.
- “Should l continue” - for you sake, best not. You are a liar, you cannot stop lying, the lies apply to your own sick mind, not Islam.
For the third time, l will state:
You who continually frantically falsely accuse Muslims of rape and paedophilia, are in truth projecting and the accusation falls back on you
I swear by Allah: you have viewed sick paedophile rape images, at least online if not done in real life. Your eyes and mind have been cursed by it and it is evident in your acts, evil has sezied you and drives you to frantically attack Islam because Islam is truth and virtuous I doubt you’d do it in real life as you have some physical problem and thus would only attempt paid sex in a controlled situation where the prostitute is paid not to laugh at you, rather than grab a boy or girl off the street. If l am wrong about you having viewed paedophile rape imagery (two things you repeatedly accused Muslims of whilst following me around from thread to thread without any provocation, before l finally concluded you were guilty of those very things), then may l burn in a car crash. You are welcome to take the same oath denying it. This is the third time l’ve challenged you to this oath and you have declined each time. I am surely right about you, l know your type, you are demon-possessed, you became possessed by viewing perverted imagery.