muslims prove they're not backwards lunatics; leaglise child marriage (1 Viewer)

[wannaspoon]

Is this not a political problem... seems more of a political problem than a religious one...

Obviously the legislation is being is being push forward by a minority who clearly have a skewed view on the Islamic religion... they are no different to the plebs on talk back radio who think: western Sydney is the centre of the universe; who give the "fuck off we're full" rhetoric; pedal rhetoric that disrespects aborigines, etc...

Only difference is, the radio is not the tool in Iraq... they pedal their malignant views through an AK47 (think they mean business)... clearly, Andrew Bolt, et al views are not a reflection of Australian society; the same can be said here... it is no different to suggest that Australia should be judged by our: xenophobic tendencies, etc... clearly not a reflection of Australia...

 

[Crobat]

Prefacing this with the fact that I'm agnostic and couldn't care less about the subject material actually being argued over. I'm only commenting because the pathetic quality of arguments trying to be passed as intelligible in this thread has forced me to cringe so hard I have to say something about it.

paedophilia didn't exist back then. It was perfectly normal ....

The fact that the word "paedophilia" didn't exist at the time doesn't mean the condition of paedophilia and its associate acts didn't exist. The word "feminism" didn't exist until the last 100 years or so, but that doesn't mean the ideologies of feminism didn't exist. This is a poor argument and to say that it was socially accepted is all the more meaningless and irrelevant to your argument. In some societies, human sacrifice has been acceptable. In others, genital mutilation is still acceptable. In recent fucking history it has been acceptable to degrade coloured people and to enforce a patriarchy and still today a patriarchy and xenophobia is pretty fucking acceptable. Why should the fact that it's the norm or acceptable at the time justify its existence? If it's fucking stupid, it's fucking stupid and the fact that it's acceptable means you have a society of fucking idiots, not that it's actually okay. If you're not happy with the brief historical recount, see CURRENT FUCKING SOCIETY'S OPINION ON WOMEN, ASYLUM SEEKERS, AND FOREIGNERS FOR EXAMPLE.

This is the same for morals and why morals aren't sacred and safeguarded from criticism just because some idiot fucking believes in them.

Where are the capitals for the beginning of the sentences? Where is the full stop for the last sentence? Does that have anything to do with your English language skills?

#poned

Right because punctuation all of a sudden makes your argument all the more better. This is most favourite ad hominem because it's so logically flawed

"Terrorist kiddy-fiddler" sounds a lot more illiterate than an irrelevant mistake. I seriously don't see where you're getting at by picking up on a minor mistake.

Both of those terms exist and are used regularly with obvious definitions. What's illiterate about that? It's not a minor mistake because he technically changed the meaning of his sentence to something incoherent.

wow this is the funniest justification ever.

So you're saying because the word originates from two separate words that have greek roots, then that word too must have originated at the same time?

The word "magnetic" originates from latin, the word "levitation" originates from latin. Does that mean maglev trains existed back in the 17th century? Literally lold so hard at this. Knowing the origins of two components of a word, does not suggest the origin of the whole word is of the same time period hahahaha.

That was the dumbest leap in logic I've ever seen. "Hey, let's apply something physical in the place of something that's ideological and expect the same outcome."

 

[FlyingKanga]

There was NO pedophilia in the prophet's life. We know that pedophilia is a mental disorder already assigned from birth hence you can't love people older than you and then suddenly become a pedophile. His first and most beloved wife was FIFTEEN YEARS OLDER THAN HIM. Does that make him a gerontophile and will this discussion arise again if it fails to align with future society's values?

Apart from Ayesha, all the rest were not of child age either. The only reason he married Ayesha was to strengthen his ties with a powerful man called Abu Bakr and even then, he treated her with love and respect leading her to be one of the first educated women in Arabia.

The issue some Muslims have today is that they have failed to accept today's values and morals which can easily be incorporated into normal Islamic culture.

 

[SylviaB]

In fact, the amount of catholic sex abuses globally, must mean that significant numbers of Catholics support it then.....

no you moron. like I said, child sex absue has to be covered up precisely because no one supports it. No priest is claiming that that child sex abuse is permissible under their faith and trying to get laws allowing it.

There are millions of Muslims on the world .... and less than 1000 of them commit terrorist acts like the Boston bombings.

I said support, not commit. Millions of muslims support terrorist acts without committing them themselves.

but no one is sewing a scarf onto my head, it is not being forced upon me.

yeah, because you live in an enlightened western country

The law allows for child marriage. The law does not allow for sexual abuse.

Except its not sexual abuse to have sex with your 'wife".

Of course, the law is driven by Islamic teachings, however what people decide to do following that law, and how people use this new permission, has absolutely nothing to do with Islam, but solely the mind of the people.

If islam wasn't backwards nonsense then this law wouldn't exist in muslim countries.

Child marriage, on the other hand, is not something compulsory, it is simply allowed. Just like under normal law, man and woman may wed, but man and woman do not HAVE to wed.

look you fucking retard, have you considered that nine year old girls aren't really fucking able to stop themselves being married to adult men

"oh no, you see, that 9 year old CHOSE to marry the 60 year old man, it was completely her choice...."

If man and woman were to be forced to wed, we don't blame the law for the torture they must go through, we blame those who forced them.

children are not women you imbecile

"Yeah, I disagree with this. People being extreme again.

People? This is the law of an Islamic monarchy.

However, she isn't being punished for getting raped, she's getting "punishment for riding in a car with a man who was not a relative" She made the choice to go against the law and this is the punishment prescribed in the law."

I rest my fucking case.

 

[SylviaB]

Its obvious you despise Muslims in general. This article is an excuse to vent your anger out.

What's with this overall, constant hate towards Muslims? What... did some Muslims bully you during school or intimidate your family in your neighbourhood or some shit like that?

muslims are backwards lunatics and they're bringing their filth to white countries

gee why would I possibly be opposed to that

If you really want to vent your anger on Muslims, I dare you to go out and do it....

thank you for proving that muslims are violent retards

 

[SylviaB]

there are factors behind "muslim" countries being shitholes that have nothing to do with religion

really? they execute homosexuals because of the weather or something, hmm?

and what about turkey? that's a pretty well functioning country apart from recent developments

"well functioning" if you're not a woman or not a homosexual

and its so "well functioning" that they're all trying to move to europe.

lol also that is off-topic too, it has nothing to do with the actual point of this thread plus where is your evidence that a significant number of muslims support paedophilia

it has everything to do with the thread. people claim that islam has nothing to do with crazy oppressive shit, and yet every muslim country is full of crazy oppressive shit and this is meant to be some grand coincidence.

 

[buriza]

Prefacing this by stating I have no allegiance to any religion or group being discussed here. I usually do not participate in these threads but to be honest, sexual violence is a touchy subject to me and some of the things that have been stated here really abrade against my moral fibre.

Child marriage, on the other hand, is not something compulsory, it is simply allowed. Just like under normal law, man and woman may wed, but man and woman do not HAVE to wed. If man and woman were to be forced to wed, we don't blame the law for the torture they must go through, we blame those who forced them.

I believe you are missing the point that punishment could not be enforced against such people, because by the law their behaviour would be allowed. Therefore, to blame such people would be redundant. Also, I do not know where you get the idea of "man and woman." These are potentially female children being forced to wed, by their guardian, much older men.

The law allows for child marriage. The law does not allow for sexual abuse.

To quote the article, as this is what we are meant to be talking about in the first place:

"Marital rape is condoned by a clause that states women must comply with their husband's sexual demands. Men are given guardianship rights over women and the law also establishes rules governing polygamous relationships."

How does the law not allow for sexual abuse? By this law, a female's right to consent is ignored. Even if they have no desire to engage in intercourse, they cannot deny their husband. Leading on from that, if a female does not give consent to intercourse, it is by all means rape. Furthermore, since marriages will usually involve many of these sexual engagements, continual rape = sexual abuse.

Yeah, I disagree with this. People being extreme again. However, she isn't being punished for getting raped, she's getting "punishment for riding in a car with a man who was not a relative". She made the choice to go against the law and this is the punishment prescribed in the law.

Frankly, I am appalled if you agree with the punishment instilled upon this woman, who is a legitimate victim, just because "the law says so." I hope you do not.

The fact that the word "paedophilia" didn't exist at the time doesn't mean the condition of paedophilia and its associate acts didn't exist. The word "feminism" didn't exist until the last 100 years or so, but that doesn't mean the ideologies of feminism didn't exist. This is a poor argument and to say that it was socially accepted is all the more meaningless and irrelevant to your argument. In some societies, human sacrifice has been acceptable. In others, genital mutilation is still acceptable. In recent fucking history it has been acceptable to degrade coloured people and to enforce a patriarchy and still today a patriarchy and xenophobia is pretty fucking acceptable. Why should the fact that it's the norm or acceptable at the time justify its existence? If it's fucking stupid, it's fucking stupid and the fact that it's acceptable means you have a society of fucking idiots, not that it's actually okay. If you're not happy with the brief historical recount, see CURRENT FUCKING SOCIETY'S OPINION ON WOMEN, ASYLUM SEEKERS, AND FOREIGNERS FOR EXAMPLE.

This is the same for morals and why morals aren't sacred and safeguarded from criticism just because some idiot fucking believes in them.

Could not have said it any better.

 

[Kiraken]

lol sylviab everyone has asked you to provide statistics instead of bandying around words like "majority", "significant number", "millions" etc. to prove it isn't a minority, and yet you magically ignore or forget to read these posts

go ahead, back it up with stats

 

[Kiraken]

Prefacing this by stating I have no allegiance to any religion or group being discussed here. I usually do not participate in these threads but to be honest, sexual violence is a touchy subject to me and some of the things that have been stated here really abrade against my moral fibre.



I believe you are missing the point that punishment could not be enforced against such people, because by the law their behaviour would be allowed. Therefore, to blame such people would be redundant. Also, I do not know where you get the idea of "man and woman." These are potentially female children being forced to wed, by their guardian, much older men.



To quote the article, as this is what we are meant to be talking about in the first place:

"Marital rape is condoned by a clause that states women must comply with their husband's sexual demands. Men are given guardianship rights over women and the law also establishes rules governing polygamous relationships."

How does the law not allow for sexual abuse? By this law, a female's right to consent is ignored. Even if they have no desire to engage in intercourse, they cannot deny their husband. Leading on from that, if a female does not give consent to intercourse, it is by all means rape. Furthermore, since marriages will usually involve many of these sexual engagements, continual rape = sexual abuse.



Frankly, I am appalled if you agree with the punishment instilled upon this woman, who is a legitimate victim, just because "the law says so." I hope you do not.



Could not have said it any better.

i agree with pretty much all you say here except for that part just because in Surah 65:6 it states

"do not harm them in order to oppress them" when referring to your wife

the clause in question has nothing to do with marital rape, particularly when you consider that Islam forbids you to harm your wife to oppress them (via the above Surah). The point of that quote is to indicate that sexual pleasure within marriage isn't a bad thing, and it is encouraged that you get pleasure out of it, which was important to point out considering how sex is treated in a very taboo way by other passages, so if anything it was good for clarifying the positive nature of sex in a marred environment

 

[buriza]

i agree with pretty much all you say here except for that part just because in Surah 65:6 it states

"do not harm them in order to oppress them" when referring to your wife

the clause in question has nothing to do with marital rape, particularly when you consider that Islam forbids you to harm your wife to oppress them (via the above Surah). The point of that quote is to indicate that sexual pleasure within marriage isn't a bad thing, and it is encouraged that you get pleasure out of it, which was important to point out considering how sex is treated in a very taboo way by other passages, so if anything it was good for clarifying the positive nature of sex in a marred environment

Well, that is good to hear and thank you for providing a passage from the Qur'an, since I am obviously not the most knowledgeable when it comes to Islam. With that said, my main problem with the whole issue was if the law implicitly allows sexual abuse of any kind. But as you have pointed out, given individuals do act as by the Qur'an suggests, such should not occur.

 

[Kiraken]

Well, that is good to hear and thank you for providing a passage from the Qur'an, since I am obviously not the most knowledgeable when it comes to Islam. With that said, my main problem with the whole issue was if the law implicitly allows sexual abuse of any kind. But as you have pointed out, given individuals do act as by the Qur'an suggests, such should not occur.

the main problem with the Qu'ran and laws like these is that it's not about what is in the Qu'ran, it is about what it is missing.

For example, paedophilia is never endorsed or encouraged in the Qu'ran however the issue is that it never explicitly prohibits it either, which means that people can take advantage of it as "legal". Imo this says less about the immorality of Islam and more about how certain people take advantage of what is missing to do unethical things for their own self interest

I guess the case for these people is that they are so dependent on their religion that they assume it is the be all and end all and common sense things not covered in the Qu'ran don't apply, which is quite frankly stupid

 

[hawkrider]

The fact that the word "paedophilia" didn't exist at the time doesn't mean the condition of paedophilia and its associate acts didn't exist. The word "feminism" didn't exist until the last 100 years or so, but that doesn't mean the ideologies of feminism didn't exist. This is a poor argument and to say that it was socially accepted is all the more meaningless and irrelevant to your argument. In some societies, human sacrifice has been acceptable. In others, genital mutilation is still acceptable. In recent fucking history it has been acceptable to degrade coloured people and to enforce a patriarchy and still today a patriarchy and xenophobia is pretty fucking acceptable. Why should the fact that it's the norm or acceptable at the time justify its existence? If it's fucking stupid, it's fucking stupid and the fact that it's acceptable means you have a society of fucking idiots, not that it's actually okay. If you're not happy with the brief historical recount, see CURRENT FUCKING SOCIETY'S OPINION ON WOMEN, ASYLUM SEEKERS, AND FOREIGNERS FOR EXAMPLE.

Agree with what you said, but seriously - calm the frick down bro.

 

[buriza]

the main problem with the Qu'ran and laws like these is that it's not about what is in the Qu'ran, it is about what it is missing.

For example, paedophilia is never endorsed or encouraged in the Qu'ran however the issue is that it never explicitly prohibits it either, which means that people can take advantage of it as "legal". Imo this says less about the immorality of Islam and more about how certain people take advantage of what is missing to do unethical things for their own self interest

I guess the case for these people is that they are so dependent on their religion that they assume it is the be all and end all and common sense things not covered in the Qu'ran don't apply, which is quite frankly stupid

I do agree. It is more about how certain individuals can take advantage of what religion does not explicitly prohibit, hence why I do not believe that religion should be the absolute basis in legal affairs and subsequently how one can act by the law. Transference of principles in religion to politics can be problematic and easily misconstrued, as we clearly see here. Really, I am more a supporter of basic human rights being the foundation of law — whether this can be achieved universally is another matter altogether.

 

[Crobat]

Agree with what you said, but seriously - calm the frick down bro.

i don't know if you can tell, but dumb arguments make me angry

 

[hawkrider]

i don't know if you can tell, but dumb arguments make me angry

I can see that, but there's no need to rage man. Even if you try to 'correct' them, they're not gonna change.

 

[Crobat]

I can see that, but there's no need to rage man. Even if you try to 'correct' them, they're not gonna change.

and that's one of the parts that make me angry because stupidity in arguing shouldn't go unpunished

 

[Graney]

itt: Arabs in 600 a.d. didn't speak greek, therefore pedophilia didn't exist.

 

[Sy123]

the main problem with the Qu'ran and laws like these is that it's not about what is in the Qu'ran, it is about what it is missing.

For example, paedophilia is never endorsed or encouraged in the Qu'ran however the issue is that it never explicitly prohibits it either, which means that people can take advantage of it as "legal". Imo this says less about the immorality of Islam and more about how certain people take advantage of what is missing to do unethical things for their own self interest

I guess the case for these people is that they are so dependent on their religion that they assume it is the be all and end all and common sense things not covered in the Qu'ran don't apply, which is quite frankly stupid

It is well established in the Shari'a that consummation of marriage cannot take place until the wife/husband is sexually mature.

There is a difference in definition of a child in the Western world and the Shari'a. In the Western World, someone is considered an adult once they pass an arbitrary age number, such as 16, 18 or even 21. However in the Shari'a a person is considered to be responsible for their actions once they are sexually mature, this has been the case on consensus for the past 1400 years with explicit mention in the hadith tradition.

"I guess the case for these people is that they are so dependent on their religion that they assume it is the be all and end all and common sense things not covered in the Qu'ran don't apply, which is quite frankly stupid"

I do think it is quite stupid indeed. However that is why Islamic jurisprudence exists, it is to provide a common sense verdict using evidences from the Qur'an and Sunnah.

Example: Phone plans, these types of financial contracts did not exist in the time of the Prophet (pbuh), however in the modern day, fiqh (jurisprudence) scholars, using a common sense approach to Islamic economics have produced the fatwa that it is permissible to take phone plan contracts.

In the Sunni tradition, if the scholars reach a consensus (ijma'), then it is incumbent on every practicing layman to adhere to this law.

 

[Sy123]

I do agree. It is more about how certain individuals can take advantage of what religion does not explicitly prohibit, hence why I do not believe that religion should be the absolute basis in legal affairs and subsequently how one can act by the law. Transference of principles in religion to politics can be problematic and easily misconstrued, as we clearly see here. Really, I am more a supporter of basic human rights being the foundation of law — whether this can be achieved universally is another matter altogether.

What do you mean what does "religion" not explicitly prohibit?

If by religion you mean your layman willy-nilly flick through the Bible/Qur'an, then that is a very weak religion.

But if by religion you mean an entire Orthodoxy built upon the Qur'an and Sunnah, then you will find a source for law in every single aspect of human life, falling into 5 categories:

Prohibited, Disliked, Permissible, Recommended, Compulsory.

If you believe that you can stray away from the orthodoxy, then you have created a heterodoxy and this is condemned in the Qur'an and Sunnah.

 

[Sy123]

ITT: People who have no idea how Islamic law is formulated