It's an injustice to NOT marry girls aged 10, says Saudi cleric

I never heard of such a thing. Most brides are symbolically married to child grooms to tie clans together. It is more of a promise note, no sex.

Other cultures marry, after puberty. Usually youthful marriage is about the possibility of surviving child birth. A girl maybe married off at say 14, she may have several children with half dying before the age of 10 and stop getting pregnant in her mid twenties due to difficulty of sustaining pregnancy to full term. Many countries like Saudi jumped from this situation to the medical advances of the 21st century in less than 50 years.

In the West, some woman can maintain fertility into their late 40s and have babies and childhood has been effectively extended to age 21 in some places.

What you all fail to realize is that...

Everyone speaking out and condemning the beliefs/practices of a sovereign nation are in fact part of the NWO mindset.

Go ahead, admit it. You would like your beliefs enforced upon other sovereign nations because you all have shown that you believe in an absolute right.

Well, you asked for it. You shall receive!

Prepare to meet your overlords.

Why is it when we hear of some heinous act commited by a particular religion - apologists attempt to justify it by childishly saying
"well another religion does it so its OK ".

Perhaps all religions are giving mankind a bad name - it doesn't justify the absence of common decency.

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

reply to post by DisgustedOne

---

Yes in some cultures it is preferable for the bride to be very young. If the girl is older then the dowry will be decreased accordingly.

Younger girls are preferred because they are more easily manipulated and can be psychologically moulded to be an obedient and subservient
wife. Often they are just one of many wives, in Ethiopia anyway.



take care all
res

edit for grammar

[edit on 14-1-2009 by resistancia]

I see your point but there 'are' certain actions or aspects of behaviour which are universaly abhorrent:

YouTube Link

YouTube Link

Why should these people be exempt from criticism and condemnation just because they hide behind their religion (or are that deluded they think a god wants them to beat other people)?

As for keeping with the thread, its telling that a Saudi judge has recently refused the divorce pleas of an '8' year old girl to a 47 year old man -despite the protests by the girl's mother:
www.nydailynews.com...

A human rights watch spokesperson said:


Its good that the public of Saudi Arabia are expressing anger about this practise and rising up against the injustices and outrages of the wahhabi cult mentality.


[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

reply to post by karl 12

---

In reply to the videos... Once more, something we are no longer brought up with...but go back a few decades and it wasn't too dissimilar most places.

A good example is American law, which allows the execution of certain prisoners, something that many people are against, yet America doesn't remove that law...


As to the girl not being allowed to divorce, I can agree there, that is wrong. Lines have to be drawn, regardless of religion or where you come from, if she is being forced completely against her will and not allowed to divorce; then something does need to be done. But even again, things were similar everywhere at some point, though perhaps not always by courts.

The simple fact is this. In Western culture this is being a paedophile.
In Afghanistan tribal elders have boys, i'm not going to describe what happens either, but in western culture it is being a homosexual paedophile...
The media doesn't report this because it is being "racist" ...

reply to post by SKUNK2

---

Go back 100-200 hundred years and your ancestors may well have been paedohpiles by our standards today, the same for me, and many of the people on this board.

The simple fact is we havn't always been against it, and only recently has it been considered as terrible as it is today.

Steven thanks for the reply-I realise domestic abuse did occur (and still occurs) in the West but at least law,government and society now deems it brutish and unevolved.
Its obvious two wrongs don't make a right but this is especialy repugnant behaviour as these individuals are attempting to introduce the idea that 'acting out violence on another human being' is
religiously preferable and expected conduct.



Yes I agree,I was born in England and they did away with capital punishment a long time ago - there is an ongoing debate that it should be reintroduced for certain crimes like paedophilia or seditious treason but thats another discussion altogether.
I found this article interesting where organised religion has insinuated itself that much into the government of Pakistan that it is now an 'executionable offence' for a citizen to not 'mindlessly conform' to the state religion:
www.belowtopsecret.com...



I also agree there but its difficult when religious bigotry,bias and opinion pervades the mentality and objectivity of the judges and courts.
Perhaps this is a very good case for organised religion not being afforded 'any authority whatsoever' in society (outside of its respective temples) and being kept completely separate from public institutions like government,law and education.
I think this is an apt quote:

Cheers Karl


[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

reply to post by masonwatcher

---

I work with a man from India who was "married" before he was two years old. He only recently, at the age of 22, consummated the marriage. I asked him how this was working for him. The two of them are as happy as any couple newly married could be. I am happy for them. But I, like most civilized westerners, consider the marriage of pre-adolescent girls uncivilized at best and criminal at worst. True, our culture is not so far removed from such behavior, but we matured in our thinking. My hope would be that other cultures could follow suite. I do not advocate forcing my morals on others, but hopefully those cultures can be enlightened through example.

reply to post by karl 12

---

What's funny, is that you'll rarely hear THIS side of the story from the media outlets.

reply to post by karl 12

---

I read the belowtopsecret thread you linked to, and I must say that is something I can not agree with. Even if it was specifically the single largest rule of the religious book... if it leads to death, religion must not be a part of it.

You are right the world elsewhere has 'moved on' and it is no longer acceptable. And whilst I agre, and think it is not much of a sacrificce, perhaps things could be done differently. In my opinion the age should be lowered from 16 here in England, after using confidential courts. It should not simply be assumed right as the people in the OPs source do.

People do not all grow up as quick as they used to, and so experts need to decide if a person is mentally/physically ready, since we physically mature differently also.

And...even as a Christian, I agree the Church and State MUST be separate. Religious books and teachings, whatever we think about them are old and from a different time, many simply do not apply any more.

[edit on 15-1-2009 by StevenDye]

I'm just trying to figure out what's wrong with the guys who dig on un-ripened fruit (underage girls) -shudder- seriously I don't see how guys can get into underage or even some 18-19yo's, it's like eating green bananas :p Must be some kind of power trip or something -shrugs-

If it gets rid of men raping screaming terrified ten year olds, then I plan on being in the parade to welcome it.

reply to post by yenko13

---

Oh puhlease.. not 400 hundred years ago Europe was doing the same thing.


This is not so much sick as it is completely alien to western culture today.

I'm not advocating it in any sense of the word, simply saying that let's not act like this is some sort of islamic pedophilia.

Ok... let's get this straight.

The more fundamentalist your religion, the more PRIMITIVE you are. The more PRIMITIVE you are.. the more your values are based on survival of your family lineage and social dominance.


That goes for all religions.


So given the fundamentalist nature of many sects of Islam, this is not unexpected. As I said... 400 years ago Europe was doing the same thing.

I know-I wonder why that is?
I suspect a great many Saudi Arabian citizens are getting thoroughly sick and tired of the increasingly sociopathic (and bizarre) restrictions forced upon them.
Apparently Saudi Arabia's
'Committee for the Protection of Virtue and Prohibition of Vice' (the religious secret police) commit all manner of outrageously bigoted and violent attrocities completely free from legal consequence.

Basic paranoid intolerance:
www.jihadwatch.org...

Mysoginist sexist behaviour:
www.timesonline.co.uk...

Religious homicide:
www.guardian.co.uk...


Decapitating 'witches':
www.youtube.com...

Banning dogs and cats as pets:
www.foxnews.com...

Banning red items on Valentine's day:
www.boingboing.net...

Banning fashion:
www.ft.com...

No wonder normal,everyday Saudi Arabians have had enough and are starting to openly criticise,condemn and denounce the extremist wahhabi regime -good for them.
Cheers


[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

Maybe the USA should have a law that lets me marry a 10 year old , Then I bet the world would see something wrong here , Or better yet go to Utah become a Mormon and marry 25 ten year olds and a few 11-12 -13 year olds while I am at it , it would keep me young any thing wrong with that, I would become a Morman cleric

reply to post by karl 12

---

Did you even watch that first video?

Ok let me get this straight... hes' saying it's ok to beat your wife except...

1. Not in front of the Children
2. Not in her face
3. You can't make her bleed, bruise or in any other way become hurt.

But you can beat your wife...

So it seems to me, it basically means you can get angry, and yell, but not in front of the children. Any other kind of violent contact would seem to break the rules. Sounds kinda like a zen koan of sorts.

Sure you can beat your wife, but you can't hurt her!

I have to disagree with you on your view that all Fundamentalists are primitive in this context. I consider myself a Fundy (Christian) and most of the people I associate with, but we would never, ever condone underage or unmarried girls becoming some perverts property (that really is what this boils down to). And just to clarify, we do not believe that once a woman does marry that she becomes her husbands property. She becomes his partner.

Most of the people I associate with are well educated, professional, intelligent people - accountants, doctors, software programmers, technicians, business owners, etc., and we are all fundamental Christians. But not primitive. Please don't paint with such a broad brush.

reply to post by karl 12

---

I had a look at your videos from MEMRI. The translation is crude and swaps words like admonish spoken as admonisheth (سورة النساء) with the word punish in English. 'Punish' suggests cruel punitive acts.

MEMRI is an Israeli propaganda site designed to be an inverted interlocutor between the English speaking world and the Arabic speaking world.