The first one is with regards to Hamza Tzortzis and his views on sex with 9 year old brides. Having sat in front of an audience and told them that under the right circumstances it is okay for an adult male to have sex with his 9 year old bride he now seems very coy about discussing the issue. The only brief correspondence we had on this subject involved Hamza emailing me privately to tell me he has the right to take down unauthorised copies of the footage, and suggesting I “do the right thing” and take the video down “before things get messy on youtube”. Of course in public he claimed he'd do no such thing. He did, at one point on Twitter, say that the video clip does not represent his views on the matter and that he was “currently writing a paper” to clarify, since then all has gone quiet and no such paper has appeared.
The second one is with regards to Adam Deen. He uses the following (borrowed) arguments against the problem of evil which he is satisfied with peddling:
- Allowing humans to do evil things is a necessary part of giving us free will to choose not to do evil things.
- Without God there is no such things as objective good and evil, nor morality and immorality, so there.
- Humans suffer of natural ailments as a test.
However if you remove humans from the equation in order to remove the “it’s a test” claim, and instead of using words such as “immoral” or “evil” we simply point out that there is a horrendous amount of animal suffering in the world caused by other animals, suddenly Mr Deen likes to drop the subject.
This animal suffering includes male otters holding the heads of baby seals under water while they force them to ensure sexual acts, a practise which often leads to the seal pups drowning; Kimono dragons injecting their prey with a slow acting poison which takes days for the animal to die, and giving the Kimonos the opportunity to start dinner before their victim is actually dead; and certain types of wasps which inject caterpillars with their eggs which then eat their way out of the caterpillar over time; traumatic conception; and countless other examples of animal suffering that could easily be avoided by an all-powerful entity or, in many cases (such as the slow death of Kimono dragons’ prey), a mere human with a gun.
And so once establishing that compensating these poor animals after they are dead is not a form of mercy we ended up at a simple question
- If animals do suffer and Allah is all-powerful and the most merciful, then why does Allah allow animals to suffer due to the actions of other animals when simple alternatives are possible (e.g. fast acting venom).
- If animals do not suffer, then why should we keep the RSPCA (Royal society of prevention of cruelty to animals) or various other charities that are set up to heal stray animals injured in accidents or by other animals?
So if ever you are in a public forum with either of these religious apologists and have the opportunity to ask a question you may want to consider using one they dislike answering.
Hamza Tzortzis: How does one objectively determine if a 9 year old girl is “physically capable” of receiving an adult sized penis without the test damaging or traumatising her?
Adam Deen: If Allah is the most merciful then why is there so much unnecessary animal to animal suffering in the world, and if there is no such thing as animal suffering then why did you say we should keep the RSPCA?
Yeah, good luck with getting an answer to one of those...
*Update: I've collected all of Adam's responses to me regarding this subject. I've read through them and do not see an answer to my question. I've asked him to give me the number of the response he feels answers my question but so far no response. Adam's responses are here.