It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 6
4
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
The Qur'an teaches that in Muhammed, you have a good example.

Since Muhammed married a child, why would a Muslim cleric say differently?

Muhammed was 53 when he took 6-year-old Aisha as another one of his multiple brides.

How does a child have the experience, intellect, and judgment to consent to such a thing?

Let's see what Muhammed had to say:

"The Prophet (Muhammed) said, 'A virgin should not be married until she is asked for her consent.' One may wonder how a child virgin gives her consent? 'He said, by remaining silent.'

If your Prophet was a pedophile, with multiple wives, concubines, and slaves, then of course your clerics will be compelled to go along with the program.

Muhammed consumated his marriage to Aisha when she was nine.

Aisha says she was married when seven, and the marriage was consumated when she was nine, but the dates don't add up.

Tabari VII: 7 says, 'The Prophet married Aisha in Mecca three years before Hijrah, after the death of Khadija. At the time, she was six.'



Dooper, if all thats true then it is very disturbing indeed.




posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 



ndeed, it happens all over the world and is most prevalent in Christian Africa.


Really, where is your proof of this. We have provided clear proof that this is going on in Muslim countries, but you have yet to provide any proof that this is going on in other countries. Is this really happening in Christian Africa, or Muslim Africa.

Instead of just making up garbage, why don't you provide some evidence to back your claims, I call BS.

There is a huge difference between consensual sex, where the girl/child must consent, which means it rarely happens, and then with boys not must older than them, not forty year old men, and marriage to a forty year old man where the girl has no choice.

Do you have the brains to see the difference? Or is it that you just don't care about the difference between right and wrong.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


You showed no such proof, and you are grossly mis-quoting me. The only thing you proved is that you are an obstinate jerk, who can't see the differnce between marriage in countries where the wife is obligated to have sex with her husband, and consensual sex, where the ten year old girl is not obligated to having sex with a forty year old man.

The fact that you are so willing to turn a blind eye on such activity, even when all evidence shows how wrong it is, and that this type of barbaric behavior hasn't been acceptable in most cultures for centuries.

Do you care about what is right or wrong, or do you just like to make excuses to allow people to do what ever they want to whom ever they want. Yes, you are defending the act of forty year old men raping little girls, with made up nonsense.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   
DUPE

[edit on 25-1-2009 by HunkaHunka]



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


You showed no such proof, and you are grossly mis-quoting me. The only thing you proved is that you are an obstinate jerk, who can't see the differnce between marriage in countries where the wife is obligated to have sex with her husband, and consensual sex, where the ten year old girl is not obligated to having sex with a forty year old man.

The fact that you are so willing to turn a blind eye on such activity, even when all evidence shows how wrong it is, and that this type of barbaric behavior hasn't been acceptable in most cultures for centuries.




Actually only about 1 century.

chnm.gmu.edu...



Laws and regulations based on age were uncommon until the 19th century, and consequently so was possession of proof of age or even knowledge of a precise date of birth.

Near the end of the 18th century, other European nations began to enact age of consent laws. The broad context for that change was the emergence of an Enlightenment concept of childhood focused on development and growth. This notion cast children as more distinct in nature from adults than previously imagined, and as particularly vulnerable to harm in the years around puberty. The French Napoleonic code provided the legal context in 1791 when it established an age of consent of 11 years. The age of consent, which applied to boys as well as girls, was increased to 13 years in 1863.

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.







Do you care about what is right or wrong,



We are not arguing right or wrong here. We are arguing what was legal, and therefore acceptable by western culture up until the late 19th century.

As I mentioned, I wouldn't want my daughter to be given to a man at age 10, but then again I live in an age where we have the longest childhood ever. And so it would be foreign to me.

However I have to assume that if I lived in the 18th and 19th century where children started hard labor at 6 or 7, then I may have seen it differently then.




or do you just like to make excuses to allow people to do what ever they want to whom ever they want.



No, I just don't believe that which offends my sensibilities is someone elses fault. It's relative to the situation and the accepted practices.




Yes, you are defending the act of forty year old men raping little girls, with made up nonsense.


I'm not defending them at all... I have already told you, I believe that to be repugnant.

I'm merely saying you can't base your reason on it being repugnant on a false assumption that the Western culture was somehow better than that throughout history.

You have to base it on the fact that we have matured as a people to understand that it is quite unfair to subject children to everything that goes along with sexuality.

That is why. Not because Western Culture is somehow better... because it wasn't until the late 1800's.

That is all I am saying.

They are not evil muslims.. they are just a throwback to a bygone era which we are no longer in. And the reason why it is in a bygone era is because they are PRIMITIVE FUNDAMENTALISTS which don't allow their people access to progression of thought and action.

That's where freedom comes in. When a society is free it does things. Then it suffers the consequences good or bad... only then does it understand how to move forward correctly... not by limiting itself.

That is ultimately my point.

[edit on 25-1-2009 by HunkaHunka]



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


Once again, you either are incapable of understanding the concept of consent, verses arranged marriage, or you prefer to ignore the major point that proves you wrong, to the point that this has gotten ridiculous. Considering that you are misquoting me, and pretending that I said something that I did not, it seems obvious that your only purpose here is to distort the reality.

It is well established in Muslim countries for old men to marry young girls, and in marriage, these girls become their sexual slaves, with no way out. While other nations had very young ages of consent, it required consent, which an arranged marriage does not. While very young girls are willing to consent to young men, that is their choice. Forcing a young girl into a marriage with an old man is very cruel, and not something that was regularly practiced in European countries, and all evidence provided clearly states this.

No doubt you will continue to ignore the evidence and make your false claims.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Look... The age of consent was set because girls were being married and copulated with earlier than what became acceptable.

The reason why the age of consent was set at any age was because girls were being married at very young ages.

You've already shown Islam has done this for a very long time, do you think that Christendom wasn't also doing this during the time of the crusades?

The difference was the age of enlightenment. The concept of individual freedom soaked into our collective story. So in turn, as our society evolved, our laws became more about preserving freedoms and ending oppression. The same can not be said for the theocracies of Islam past a certain point in history.


Look at this.. and you will see that the age of consent in the history of Western Culture is the same as the age of marriage.



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.


Ok, so here we see that the root of Age of Consent, is the same as Age of Marriage. They are synonymous.

Now at this time in England in 1275 the age was set at 12, much like you mentioned earlier in this thread.

Then we read that



In 1576 ... Jurist Sir Matthew Hale [of England] 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.




So for whatever reason England and the US went a bit lower than Italy and Germany. Perhaps because there were a bunch of perverts writing law... I don't know, but that is the actual case.

Now when did this change? And more importantly WHY did this change? I ask why, because even though this is arguably repugnant to our own sensibilities today, there must have been a something that happened in the WEST to change this which didn't happen in ISLAM.




Near the end of the 18th century, other European nations began to enact age of consent laws. The broad context for that change was the emergence of an Enlightenment concept of childhood focused on development and growth.


So as we can see, we have had a much different philosophical history than Islam, and we have a very interesting turn where the development of children became much more important in the eyes of society.

But with today's sensibilities, we would think that Children were always expected to be protected by society, however the author goes on to say..



This notion cast children as more distinct in nature from adults than previously imagined, and as particularly vulnerable to harm in the years around puberty.


Keep in mind, that "near the end of the 18th Century" was the time Liberty became vogue for the first time, and this began to spread across the continent. Eventually in 1833 England would even outlaw Slavery.

Still we find that...


The French Napoleonic code provided the legal context in 1791 when it established an age of consent of 11 years. The age of consent, which applied to boys as well as girls, was increased to 13 years in 1863.


That's a huge thing to keep in mind as well, the fact that slavery was also part of the context our our culture for a long time, but eventually liberty spread and peoples everywhere have been slowly liberated from their oppressions, whether that be marriage at a young age, or the right to vote... but I digress...

When did this age of consent/marriage finally get to a place firmly on the other side of puberty?



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.

Behind the inconsistency of these different laws was the lack of an obvious age to incorporate into law. Although scientists and physicians had established that menstruation and puberty occurred on average around age 14 in Europe at this time, different individuals experienced it at different ages -- a fluid situation at odds with the arbitrary line drawn by whatever age was incorporated into law.

At the end of 19th century, moral reformers drew the age of consent into campaigns against prostitution. Revelations of child prostitution were central to those campaigns, a situation that resulted, reformers argued, from men taking advantage of the innocence of girls just over the age of consent. W. T. Stead's series of articles entitled, "The Maiden Tribute of Modern Babylon," published in the Pall Mall Gazette in 1885, was the most sensational and influential of these exposés.

The outcry it provoked pushed British legislators to raise the age of consent to 16 years, and stirred reformers in the U.S, such as the Women's Christian Temperance Union, the British Empire, and Europe to push for similar legislation. By 1920, Anglo-American legislators had responded by increasing the age of consent to 16 years, and even as high as 18 years.


And there ya have it. The story of how the West's concept of what age it was acceptable to have sex or marry a girl came to evolve from it's beginnings to now.

The key thing to keep in mind was WHY these attitudes first changed, and then how those new attitudes eventually changed even further.

I for one am glad to have gone through my childhood during the latter portion of the 20th Century when it comes to that.








[edit on 25-1-2009 by HunkaHunka]



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 06:33 AM
link   
Exodus 21:7-11

"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. "


chritian and jewish bible old testament (so relevant to both) advacate the selling of a daughter.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 06:41 AM
link   
The very sad fact about this is.
They can marry a 10yo, have there perverted ways with her.
And then say "I divorce you" 3 times and they are divorced.
Then they can go "Marry" another one.
Sick perverted individuals.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 


Harlequin,yes perhaps at one time all the abrahamic sects/cults were just as bad as one another.

Just because one (or all of them) advocates it doesn't make it right does it?

Its hardly any justifiable excuse for the subjugation/selling of women and old men marrying pre-pubescent girls.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 10:00 AM
link   
totally
- its not right , far from it , BUT i posted that as a balance to all the `nuke islam` style posts - Christianity and Judaism both have similar passges in each`s holy books.

also :

New Hampshire: A female between the age of 13 and 17 years and a male between the age of 14 and 17 years can be married only with the permission of their parent (guardian) and a waiver.

Minnesota: Applicants between the ages of 15 and 18 must have the consent of a parent, guardian or the judge of juvenile court. ²Applicants younger than 15 needs the written consent of a parent of guardian and the consent of a juvenile court judge

Michigan: Applicants 16 years of age may marry with parental or legal guardian written consent. Applicants under the age of 15 with parental consent and probate court permission. 'Marriage of a Minor': The legal marriage of a minor “shall release such minor from parental control.”


and here is a little tit bit:

colarado law


Trial court erred in holding that a 15-year-old girl's marriage to an adult man was void ad initio because they did not obtain judicial consent, the Colorado Court of Appeals held June 15. Pointing out that Colorado recognizes common-law marriage, the court noted that there is no statutory provision indicating that the state does not follow the common-law age of consent for marriage, which is age 12 for girls. Thus, it said that so long as all other elements of a common-law marriage are present, the couple's marriage is valid


why go to saudi arabia? just move to colarado - they LOVE paedofiles there




^^ that picture would get him locked up in the UK.

but apparantly it was `ok` for FLDS spiritual leader Warren Jeffs to kiss that 12 year old girl that way.



[edit on 26/1/09 by Harlequin]



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 


Good post

That photograph is very disturbing.
I had no idea that,in certain parts of modern day America,this kind of practise is tolerated and would not get you imprisoned -it certainly would in the UK.
I think the US Supreme court needs to take a long hard look at that piece of legislation (or just tell Oprah)




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



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

I'm sorry, but it's the case. Fundamentalists, although functional, are primitive.

Let me give you an example of the mind frame which is not primitive.

One that is not tied to a sense of insecurity. One that can assume that everything they know is completely false, and be ok with it.

Someone who does not act or think out of fear.

[edit on 22-1-2009 by HunkaHunka]



My apologies for the delayed response.

Not ALL Fundamentalists are primitive. I might add that "primitive" is probably a relative term, i.e. most people in a western culture consider themselves to be just a little bit progressed beyond primitive, yet there are those in other cultures that consider themselves progressed, but whom we would see as primitive. I am sure that in some cultures, if they view our media, by whatever means, might consider the United States as quite primitive. Sometimes, I think they would be correct.

To answer some of your other points:

What is your definition of "functional"?

Nope, not tied to a sense of insecurity. I am very comfortable in my Fundamentalism, have been wrong before and amended my opinions and beliefs. And I am OK with it. Probably not going to happen this time, though.


No fear here.

But do I pass your test for "non-primitiveness"? I doubt it, since I have admitted my Fundamentalism. Relatively speaking, of course.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by DisgustedOne
 


heh.. well yes. You seem not so much a Fundamentalist, per se, but someone interested in the fundamentals, if you get my drift.




posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 03:59 AM
link   
The nonsense I read is amazing.

Just because some areas of the western nations choose not to throw men in jail for having sex with a willing, consenting girl as young as 12, does not make it alright, or something that should be overlooked, for 8 and 10 year old girls to be sold into sexual slavery to 40 year old men, as is currently being done in Muslim nations.

Over 800 yeas ago, Western nations began making laws against these types of acts. We have every right to be outraged that Muslim nations continue these activities to this day. It should be publically denounced, and claims that Western nations allow sex with girls as young as twelve who are willing to engage in the sexual activity does not excuse the selling of these young girls in marriages that are nothing less than sexual slavery.

Sorry, BUT I think that people who make excuses for there horrible acts have no moral compass. Continue to ignore the difference between consensual sex and sexual slavery, you are only preaching to the choir, in the church of satan.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 04:40 AM
link   
I agree with StevenDye, society changes. Life expectancy, societal behaviour and attitude, surrounding environment - it all contributes to the happenings of the times.

If you've grown up in such a community, you wouldn't know anything different until you've been shown otherwise. Some people are ok with it. But for other people, it would seem completely wrong when they consider their own particular standards and morals.
Not saying that attacking little youngens is a very great thing to do - but it's really all about perception. They wouldn't view it the same way as someone else would. He would see it differently to her, and so on.
Is their a right and wrong?? Or is there only better ways of doing things..?

Yer people do place their dirty deeds under the safety blanket of what is know as "religion", under the assumption that they're untouchable. It's sad how we've let such a thing rule our lives..

But the one thing you can count on is that times will change, and peoples views along with it.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by arnold_vosloo
But catholic priests sexually abusing young boys is ok, right?


Maybe they should change the laws so it is "legal"?


10 year olds don't even have fully developed bodies or sexual feelings. I guess they think it's right to "teach them". And I suppose any form of "consent" is irrelevant also.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
The nonsense I read is amazing.

Just because some areas of the western nations choose not to throw men in jail for having sex with a willing, consenting girl as young as 12, does not make it alright, or something that should be overlooked, for 8 and 10 year old girls to be sold into sexual slavery to 40 year old men, as is currently being done in Muslim nations.



And by "Dirty old men" across the globe... we can't single out Muslim nations here.




Over 800 yeas ago, Western nations began making laws against these types of acts. We have every right to be outraged that Muslim nations continue these activities to this day. It should be publically denounced, and claims that Western nations allow sex with girls as young as twelve who are willing to engage in the sexual activity does not excuse the selling of these young girls in marriages that are nothing less than sexual slavery.



Your right.. it should be publicly denounced.. but Western Culture is no better in this sense. It still permeates our culture. Who do you think is the biggest consumer of sex slaves? Westerners are the ones who have had the money for "sex tourism"




Sorry, BUT I think that people who make excuses for there horrible acts have no moral compass.



Who is making excuses?

It's one thing to make an excuse, it's another to demonize a people as being somehow less than your own people.




Continue to ignore the difference between consensual sex and sexual slavery, you are only preaching to the choir, in the church of satan.


Wow... ok... well I'm not sure what religion has to do with this... but Satan doesn't exist in any form other than human emotions taken to the extreme.



What we fail to realize here is that I believe the problem is that all marriage is at it's root a form of property transaction. Women were originally seen as property.. EVERYWHERE. This isn't a cultural thing. It's a human thing.

Marriage has only recently become about love. Prior to that it was about ensuring the security of the family through providing a bride to a wealthy land owner.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


First of all, you haven't come up with any examples of dirty old men, just young men/boys and young girls. No where have you come up with any examples in the West that begin to compare to what is going on in the Muslim nations were 8 and 10 year old girls are being married off to forty year old men. Lastly, those who do get involved in child prostitution in countries overseas are publicly condemned in the West for such acts. Western culture simply does not approve of child molestation, and you insinuation that it does clearly displays the worst of elite liberalism, where any crimes committed by other cultures are acceptable, and all bad traits of Westerners are over exaggerated. Yeah, I think you might want to re-think the path your beliefs are taking you down.

By the way, Goddess worshiping ancients often gave women considerable amounts of freedom, and respect, and did not treat their women like property. The idea of love has been around for centuries. Your desires to paint all cultures with the same brush lacks any real perspective or insight.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


It's obvious that you cannot have a civil discussion without attacking the person.

I will no longer discuss with you.




top topics



 
4
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join