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

reply to post by HunkaHunka



You don't try to prove a negative.

If you claim that marrying and having sex with 10 year olds was acceptable in Western nations, you have to prove this with examples. By the way, no wiki links, they prove nothing. 12 is the earliest that was acceptable, but even then it was highly looked down upon, and especially when the man was forty something.

By the way, this practice of marrying 10 year old girls is done legally, and fairly regularly in a few of the Muslim nations. Isn't Saudi Arabia the birth place of Islam? Seems hard to buy that marrying ten years olds isn't an acceptable practice in the Muslim religion, when the holy land of Islam approves of such behavior.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by HunkaHunka

 

You don't try to prove a negative.

yes.. and you don't make an assertion without evidence supporting it.

If you claim that marrying and having sex with 10 year olds was acceptable in Western nations, you have to prove this with examples.

Oh and you don't have to prove your data either?

I'm not asking you to prove a negative... I'm asking you to show me data supporting your position... that's all.

Originally posted by poet1b
Isn't Saudi Arabia the birth place of Islam? Seems hard to buy that marrying ten years olds isn't an acceptable practice in the Muslim religion, when the holy land of Islam approves of such behavior.

All of Earth is made holy, not just one area. The Saudis do not speak for all Muslims. There is not a single voice for Islam present in the world today, because the religion is made to adapt for any culture, race, country. What you see in a religious ruling in one country (Taliban-led era Afghanistan, where women couldn't even work), is completely something different (Iran where women are allowed to work, vote, and go to school).

Yes, Arabia is the birth place of Islam as it is today, but Islam exists all over the world. You will find that the birth place of many of the world religions today have little ruling over the religion as a whole in current days.

reply to post by HunkaHunka


You claim that marrying 10 years old girls was acceptable in Western nations in the past. Where is your proof? I say that is nothing but nonsense that you have made up. Unless you can provide some proof of your claim, then you are the one who has posted made up nonsense.

reply to post by DJMessiah


Yeah, but shouldn't religion have some continuity? Especially if that religion claims to represent God. What is the true face of Islam?

Being that Muslim choose Muhammad as their prophet, and you must state this daily in your prayers as a Muslim, it seems like this difference would create some problems. Now, the Shiite has histories that say that Muhammad wed and slept with a childhood bribe, but supposedly, Sunnis don't, but Sunnis practice the marrying of child bribes, so there seems to be some disconnect

Could there be a protestant movement in the religion?

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by HunkaHunka

 

You claim that marrying 10 years old girls was acceptable in Western nations in the past. Where is your proof? I say that is nothing but nonsense that you have made up. Unless you can provide some proof of your claim, then you are the one who has posted made up nonsense.

Fair enough...

Here ya go...


womenofhistory.blogspot.com...

For many noble-born or royal women, marriage could and often did take place at a young age. There are many instances or very young girls being betrothed and married under the age of 10 years old. This did not necessarily mean that the marriage was consummated. However, there was a perception that once a girl began her period that she was considered to be of marriageable age. And so the male could begin his almighty pursuit for an heir.

So, typically, when did a young medieval girl embark on the road to “womanhood”:

*
Puberty is the process of change that takes place as you grow up and become physically mature and capable of having children.
*
Puberty (and thus menstruation / periods) usually takes place between the ages of 10yo and 16yo.
*
"Most girls start their first periods at about 12 or 13; however some girls may have periods by the age of 8 and still others may not have a period until they are 14 or 15."(Source: About Women's Health).
*
At the time when we have our first period or "menarche", we are crossing the line from girlhood to womanhood.

Now, marriages of noble and royal women were usually for political and dynastic consideration. So, at what age did a young noblewoman enter into marriage.

Now granted... that may not be as great a reference as this one...

www.pflagsanjose.org...

Throughout most of the 19th century, the minimum age of consent for sexual intercourse in most American states was 10 years. In Delaware it was only 7 years.

Oh.. and there is this one as well

chnm.gmu.edu...

Like France, many other countries, increased the age of consent to 13 in the 19th century. Nations, such as Portugal, Spain, Denmark and the Swiss cantons, that adopted or mirrored the Napoleonic code likewise initially set the age of consent at 10-12 years and then raised it to between 13 and 16 years in the second half of the 19th century. In 1875, England raised the age to 13 years; an act of sexual intercourse with a girl younger than 13 was a felony. In the U.S., each state determined its own criminal law and age of consent ranged from 10 to 12 years of age. U.S. laws did not change in the wake of England's shift. Nor did Anglo-American law apply to boys.

India even went on to raise the age of consent to 12, and left the marriage at 10.

...from the same source as above...

In addition to class, the intersection of race and age also gave the law a regulatory character. In India, for example, the prevalence of the custom of child marriage among Hindus led the British colonial authorities to apply the age of consent to married as well as unmarried girls, thereby creating a crime of marital rape that did not exist in British law. The 1860 Indian Penal Code set the age at 10 years; in 1891 the age of consent but not the age of marriage was raised to 12 years. As a result, the age of consent regulated the consummation of marriage, ensuring that it was delayed until an age when Indian girls were considered likely to have begun menstruating.

So to sum it up... yes, there is a very strong history of marriage of 10 years old for quite a long time into the 19th century, and in the US even longer.

Once again... I'm NOT advocating marriage at a young age. Merely proving to popeye (poet1b) here that it was not historically uncommon, and was very legal, in Western Culture.

And once again, I also rest my case on the fact that it is only primitive peoples who engage in these kind of behaviors out of a sense of insecurity.

Keep in mind that the mortality rates during these times were MUCH higher than today. As the mortality rates dropped off, the legal age of marriage rose.



[edit on 23-1-2009 by HunkaHunka]

reply to post by HunkaHunka


Age of consent does not mean that the practice was common, or that society approved of forty something men marrying 10 year old girls. All you provided was that it was legal in some nations for marriage, although from the websites you provided, there were restrictions. You didn't provide any evidence of forty year old men marrying 10 years girls with societies approval. That was not acceptable.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by HunkaHunka

 

Age of consent does not mean that the practice was common, or that society approved of forty something men marrying 10 year old girls.

No no.. age of consent was for having sex... the age for marrying was a different matter...

Seriously... read those pages I posted... they are enlightening.

All you provided was that it was legal in some nations for marriage, although from the websites you provided, there were restrictions.

It was legal in Deleware for a girl to be married at age 7.

In most states the age was 10.

You said it wasn't allowed. I showed it was legal... what don't you get about this?

You didn't provide any evidence of forty year old men marrying 10 years girls with societies approval. That was not acceptable.

Yes.. if you read those links you will find that it was most common for the young girls to marry 30 year old men.

40 occurred as well, but why would they marry a girl to someone who was already a few years from death given the mortality rate?

I proved everything I came to do.

What else do you want, actual records? I already showed it was legal in the United States, Europe, and India ever since 1200.

[edit on 23-1-2009 by HunkaHunka]

reply to post by HunkaHunka


I didn't read anything about it being common for thirty year old men to marry ten your old girls, or that this was known to happen regularly. Just because it was legal doesn't mean that it was socially acceptable. Edgar Allen Poe married a 13 year old, and it has always been considered on the scandalous side. Lewis Carrol's obsession with little girls was always looked upon with suspicion. Just because they didn't put men in jail for having sex with consenting girls as young as ten, or in Delaware, 7, doesn't mean that society found it acceptable. The big key here is consent, with a ten your old bride, consent isn't necessary. See the difference?

From you own source, marriage was considered legal at the age of 12, not ten. I guess if you were a forty year old man, and you found a ten year old girl who consented to intercourse all the way through the act, you were all right, but unless she was a very mature 10 year old, chances are that it wouldn't be pleasurable to her, and therefore, no consent.

An age of consent statute first appeared in secular law in 1275 in England as part of the rape law. The statute, Westminster 1, made it a misdemeanor to "ravish" a "maiden within age," whether with or without her consent. The phrase "within age" was interpreted by jurist Sir Edward Coke as meaning the age of marriage, which at the time was 12 years of age.

A 1576 law making it a felony to "unlawfully and carnally know and abuse any woman child under the age of 10 years" was generally interpreted as creating more severe punishments when girls were under 10 years old while retaining the lesser punishment for acts with 10- and 11-year-old girls. Jurist Sir Matthew Hale argued that the age of consent applied to 10- and 11-year-old girls, but most of England's North American colonies adopted the younger age. A small group of Italian and German states that introduced an age of consent in the 16th century also employed 12 years.

An underage girl did not have to physically struggle and resist to the limit of her capacity in order to convince a court of her lack of consent to a sexual act, as older females did; in other words, the age of consent made it easier to prosecute a man who sexually assaulted an underage girl.

In other words, your own source proves you wrong, as I pointed out in the previous post. Now I have gone the extra lengths to quote where in your own sources that what you claim is wrong.

Originally posted by poet1b


Age of consent does not mean that the practice was common, or that society approved of forty something men marrying 10 year old girls. All you provided was that it was legal in some nations for marriage, although from the websites you provided, there were restrictions. You didn't provide any evidence of forty year old men marrying 10 years girls with societies approval. That was not acceptable.

I'd like to throw your post right back at ya with a few edits;


Age of consent (as told by this Muslim cleric) does not mean that the practice was common (in Islam), or that society (most Muslims) approved of forty something men marrying 10 year old girls. All you (or, the OP) provided was that it was legal in some nations for marriage (Saudi Arabia), although from the websites you provided, there were restrictions. (Like the government and the people don't have to follow this "cleric") You (or the OP) didn't provide any evidence of forty year old men marrying 10 years girls with societies (Muslims majority) approval. That was not acceptable. (In the majority of Muslims eyes)


[edit on 24-1-2009 by geek101]

Originally posted by masonwatcher
Any adult in the EU can have sex with a 12 year old and they don't have to marry them either. Garry Glitter didn't need to go to Cambodia for his thrills. The fairy just needed to hope on a ferry.

You know I wonder how quickly somebody would be an outcast in the west if he went around saying he is hunting for a 10 year old bride?

reply to post by geek101


They posted a video of a cleric saying it was acceptable, and if I remember right, they posted links on this thread of an 8 year old girl being refused a divorce. If you want, do a search on google. There is considerable evidence out there, which I have even provided on several threads on the subject.

Sorry, but the evidence is clear that this is practiced regularly in a few Muslim countries, and of course the historical story of the Muslim prophet marrying a young girl and having sex with her when she was 9. In the 21st century.

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by masonwatcher
Any adult in the EU can have sex with a 12 year old and they don't have to marry them either. Garry Glitter didn't need to go to Cambodia for his thrills. The fairy just needed to hope on a ferry.

You know I wonder how quickly somebody would be an outcast in the west if he went around saying he is hunting for a 10 year old bride?

Its accepted in some places but you dont see it out in the open because its taboo in other places

Originally posted by yenko13
Its a broad brush they paint with and the deeper you look the fater the brush gets , they have girls as young as 3 being married , how much broader can you get, The Muslim Clerics are the educated class of Muslim legal scholars,they are most powerful in the Shi'a tradition of Islam, I will not condone that type of behavior,

Firstly, Intrepid has a point about generalising about all Islam when Saudi actually practices an extreme sect called Wahabbism.

This brings me on to my second point, which is that Saudi isn't Shi'a, so excuse me if I don't lend any weight to what your saying.

Lastly, this is a comoon practice the world over, mainly in less developed countries where poverty is rife, life is short and people need to marry their kids off as soon as possible.

As has been pointed out, marriages under 16 in the UK were quite common not so long ago. In the US, child marriages take place even today. It's very hard to take the moral high ground when everyone has been at it, or still is.

It is not just Saudi wahibists, it happens in several countries, and women have no rights. It is common in these countries for women to marry much older men at very young ages twelve and earlier, especially girls who have poor families, third and fourth wives of old men, used as sexual slaves. Stop ignoring the facts

The evidence provided is clear, while girls in the west could marry as young as twelve, it was never common, follow the links, sixteen was the most common. Any sex outside of marriage had to be consensual, which means it was probably rare, and usually with boys much more close to their own age, or young men that the girls wanted.

Originally posted by poet1b

It is not just Saudi wahibists, it happens in several countries, and women have no rights. It is common in these countries for women to marry much older men at very young ages twelve and earlier, especially girls who have poor families, third and fourth wives of old men, used as sexual slaves. Stop ignoring the facts

Indeed, it happens all over the world and is most prevalent in Christian Africa. I am not ignoring the facts, I am merely correcting erroneous assumptions made by the above poster.

Originally posted by MischeviousElf
The evidence provided is clear, while girls in the west could marry as young as twelve, it was never common, follow the links, sixteen was the most common. Any sex outside of marriage had to be consensual, which means it was probably rare, and usually with boys much more close to their own age, or young men that the girls wanted.

The nobility of Europe used to marry their "women" off at a variety of ages. The youngest ever wedding was between a girl aged about 4 and a boy of only about 7. I cannot at the moment remember who exactly it was, but it did happen. You're right though, between the ages of 10-12 was normal and usually to men not much older than themselves.

The youngest ever person to give birth was in Peru, a girl called Lina Medina, who was 5!

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by poet1b

It is not just Saudi wahibists, it happens in several countries, and women have no rights.

Yep just like in the US. Where it happened up through the 19th Century.

It's true that this is more likely to occur when women do not have rights, as they did not have in the US until the womens suffrage act, and even then not until the 60's.

Originally posted by The Last Man on Earth
And, just to reiterate: you cannot be racist against a religion. I wish people would stop trying to do their job as the thought-police by attempting to tie the two together.

Very well said
Organised religion is just an 'opinion' and not a geographical location.
I suspect some would like to blur the two together in a vain attempt to court victimhood and/or engage in paranoid persecution complexes to further their cause/agenda but thats another discussion altogether.

I think the bottom line is no group of people,whatever their opinion about any subject (especialy non provable superstition) should be exempt from open criticism and condemnation of their words or actions.

Abrahamic priests or imans promoting/advocating/condoning/encouraging/excusing certain attitudes or actions against young children should be regarded as equaly disgusting,abhorent and reprehensible as any other person doing it.



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

reply to post by HunkaHunka


Do you know what year it is? I'll give you a hint, 2009. Welcome to reality. The year is now and the situation is now. It is not only stupid but a logical fallacy to quote something from the past as a 'disproof' to a current situation. What is still funny is that you have not provided any evidence of the consent of young girls in western countries was socially acceptable. Still, if you had been able to it would not have mattered at all. What is going on in Saudi Arabia is a crime against humanity. There is no way you can justify the their actions by condemning past western actions. Two wrongs don't make a right, remember that.

Originally posted by Founding
reply to post by HunkaHunka

 

Do you know what year it is? I'll give you a hint, 2009. Welcome to reality. The year is now and the situation is now. It is not only stupid but a logical fallacy to quote something from the past as a 'disproof' to a current situation. What is still funny is that you have not provided any evidence of the consent of young girls in western countries was socially acceptable. Still, if you had been able to it would not have mattered at all. What is going on in Saudi Arabia is a crime against humanity. There is no way you can justify the their actions by condemning past western actions. Two wrongs don't make a right, remember that.

I never said I advocated what's going on there.

I said, that it happens often in primitive cultures.

Then, poet1b stated that it was never allowed in western culture anywhere for a 10yo girl to be married.

I stated it was, and showed proof of its legality and occurrences up until the 19th century.

That's all... Just proving my point that it happens in primitive cultures.