| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Matt" |
| Date: |
14 Jan 2008 11:31:09 PM |
| Object: |
Mohammed and Aisha - The Perfect Love Story |
On Jan 15, 3:31 pm, Kangarooistan <kangarooistan@gmail.com> wrote:
Let us examine the Holy record of the Prophet Mohammed and his darling
bride, Aisha (Peace Be Upon Them Both):
SAHIH BUKHARI Volume 7, Number 88: Narrated 'Ursa: Mohammed (p.b.u.h.)
The Prophet (when He was 53 years old) wrote the marriage contract with
'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her
while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years
(i.e. till his death).
Now, you may be wondering "Why did Mohammed marry Aisha when she was
only 6 and then wait until she was 9 to have sexual intercourse?" - Lets
go to the wisdom of the Shi'a Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini defined the
following limits and consequences for adult sexual activity with
children (roughly translated from Arabic):
"A man can marry a girl younger than nine years of age, even if the girl
is still a baby being breastfed. A man, however is prohibited from
having intercourse with a girl younger than nine, while other sexual
acts such as foreplay, rubbing, and kissing are allowed. A man having
intercourse with a girl younger than nine years of age has not committed
a crime, but only an infraction, if the girl is not permanently damaged.
If the girl, however, is permanently damaged, the man must provide for
her all her life. But this girl will not count as one of the man's four
permanent wives. He also is not permitted to marry the girl's sister."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_children
Ayatollah Khomeini in Tahrirolvasyleh, Fourth Edition, Darol Elm, Qom
An English translation of this wonderful work can be purchased on
Amazon.com:
Sayings of Ayatollah Khomeini, Political, Philosophic, Social and
Religious with a special introduction by Clive Irving, ISBN number 0-
553-14032-9
http://www.amazon.com/Sayings-Ayatollah-Khomeini-Political-
Philosophical/dp/0553140329/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200375019
&sr=8-9
.
|
|
| User: "David Moss" |
|
| Title: Re: Mohammed and Aisha - The Perfect Love Story |
24 Jan 2008 06:52:59 AM |
|
|
In article <89830$4798630d$4f61217c$17227@news.upc.ie>,
Mavisbeacon@nospam.forme writes...
"David Moss" <q0320811@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:MPG.22029fefc7c1a10998b084@news.bigpond.com...
In article <41b5b$47975634$4f61217c$25882@news.upc.ie>,
Mavisbeacon@nospam.forme writes...
Then show me one peeled.
By that I mean prove the papers dated after 2003 actually draw from
primary source data collected after 2003. It is quite usual for papers
to analyse data already collected, sometimes years earlier, rather than
the researchers actually collecting data themselves.
Wrong! Please look up "longitudinal studies"
And it says so above :[quote]
data from the hospital archives, the
limit of early marriage was set at 15 years of age, and by studying the
archives between 1971 and 2004 at 5-year intervals, 537 cases of women
who
had given [End Page 76] birth under the age of 15 over the past 33 years
were identified
[end quote]
As an expert banana bender I can tell you straight that the peel is
still firmly attached to that one.
You are seeking a reference that shows a girl under the age of 13 has
been legally married in Iran since 2003. You have provided a quote
indicating 537 women under the age of 15 have given birth over the last
33 years.
Wrong! I didnt. i pointed out to you the research was conducted in 2004/5.
teh point is that sex outside Marriage is illegal in Iran!
They interviewed 537 women from a particular city who had been married
between 1971 and 2004.
Im assuming at least one of that 537 sample were from AFTER 2003 and BELOW
13 years of age.
Frankly I'm surprised the number is so low, but that is beside the
point. It tells us nothing about girls 13 and under.
AS I have stated one would have to review the methodology but Im fairly sure
that you would find at least one.
We have no way of knowing from the quote when the instances occurred.
All instances could have occurred 20 years ago, or every one of them
happened between 2003 and 2004.
No at least one must be 1971 and at from every five years till 2004. It
would be most unlikely to publish a paper pointing to such a sample and for
them to have all the sample 20 years ago. I am almost entirely certain that
there was about an even spread of the sample from every five years i.e.
about eight to ten groups with at least 50 in each group.
I would have to look into that and frankly im not bothered. Ill let someone
else produce evidence of marriage under 13.
We don't even know if any data archived after 2003, the cite only states
that archives were studied at 5 year intervals. it is quite possible,
even likely given the history of Iran, that there are gaps the archives.
Again stratified sampling methodology suggests otherwise.
Of course it is possible you are attempting to support my statement that
"It is quite usual for papers to analyse data already collected,
sometimes years earlier, rather than the researchers actually collecting
data themselves". But it is more likely you are just clutching at
straws. That one was waterlogged and just sank.
The point is that there were records from years ago about people who
married. REcords right up to 4004. The researcher INTERVIEWED these people
in 2004 or thereabouts! that is only PART of the research in the paper. I do
not doubt that at least one of these was under 13 and married after 2003 but
I admit it may be none were. Im not bothered finding out since Im sure
someone else will post evidence of marriage under 13 in iran since 2003.
You do not doubt because you *want* it to be true. Wanting something to
be true does not make it so.
There may well have been a 12 year old married with the court's
permission in Iran after 2003, but the text you cited did not address
the issue.
Consider yourself to have failed academic peer review.
Incidentally, I went to visit some people in a low income urban suburb
here in Australia a few days ago. All the girls in the household I
visited over the age of 14 were either heavily pregnant, or had recently
had a baby. I counted 4 or 5 pregnant young teenagers and 2 or 3
carrying babies around. I can assure you they were not Muslims. The
reason, I assume, is because our federal government pays these girls a
$5000 bonus for having a baby, and they become exempt from the activity
test for jobsearch allowance for 5 years. They also get a health care
card (free medical and pharmaceutical) rent assistance, discounts on
electricity, phone and public transport. The State government increased
their priority in the waiting list for subsidised public housing too.
This is pretty much the same motivation for very early marriage we
deride in African, middle eastern and South American countries. The only
difference is these girls in Australia don't bother to get married
before starting their sex lives.
If you lift the lid on teenage pregnancy in many other western countries
you find the same thing.
That saying from Jesus about not criticising the mote in the eye of
another before removing the beam from your own might warrant
consideration at this point.
--
DM
personal opinion only
The Australian Politics Resource
http://politics.sunnybar.dynip.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mavisbeacon" |
|
| Title: Re: Mohammed and Aisha - The Perfect Love Story |
24 Jan 2008 01:50:23 PM |
|
|
"David Moss" <q0320811@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:MPG.2203270da33ebbec98b08d@news.bigpond.com...
In article <89830$4798630d$4f61217c$17227@news.upc.ie>,
Mavisbeacon@nospam.forme writes...
[snip]
The point is that there were records from years ago about people who
married. REcords right up to 4004. The researcher INTERVIEWED these
people
in 2004 or thereabouts! that is only PART of the research in the paper. I
do
not doubt that at least one of these was under 13 and married after 2003
but
I admit it may be none were. Im not bothered finding out since Im sure
someone else will post evidence of marriage under 13 in iran since 2003.
You do not doubt because you *want* it to be true. Wanting something to
be true does not make it so.
No. i do not doubt it because i am aware of the standard sampling techniques
and it would be a singular example of a peer review journal publishing a
paper and giving the impression it does when there was only one of the
population from 2004. And I do not doubt it because given around fifty
should be from that year and all are under fifteen it is likely that at
least one of the fifty was under thirteen.
There may well have been a 12 year old married with the court's
permission in Iran after 2003, but the text you cited did not address
the issue.
Consider yourself to have failed academic peer review.
You have established no academic qualifications or understanding of sampling
and interview techniques.
Incidentally, I went to visit some people in a low income urban suburb
here in Australia a few days ago. All the girls in the household I
visited over the age of 14 were either heavily pregnant, or had recently
had a baby.
Over 14? Thats 15 is it. How many igirls over 14 and how many girls in
total? what was the oldest?
I counted 4 or 5 pregnant young teenagers
How young? Fifteen? Since "teen" means from thirteen to nineteen and the
middle of that is sixteen "young teenager " I take to mean under sixteen, as
opposed to "older" teenager for 17-19. But tell me how many and what were
their ages?
and 2 or 3
carrying babies around.
Carring their own babies? What age were they? Were they pregnant at undr
13??? I am really surprised at tah if it is true!
I can assure you they were not Muslims.
So what? You haven't given any statement of age! Were they Christian? It
isn't evidence that Christianity is to blame for these young parents.
The
reason, I assume, is because our federal government pays these girls a
$5000 bonus for having a baby, and they become exempt from the activity
test for jobsearch allowance for 5 years. They also get a health care
card (free medical and pharmaceutical) rent assistance, discounts on
electricity, phone and public transport. The State government increased
their priority in the waiting list for subsidised public housing too.
This also happened in the most Catholic country in the world, Ireland in the
1970s when they introduced "unmarried mothers " allowance. Today they call
it "single parent" allowance. In the first year (about 1978) only about 15
claimed it. Today there are tens of thousands. One in five mothers are
unmarried. But that has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the Catholic Church
who do not like the idea of unmarried mothers.
This is pretty much the same motivation for very early marriage we
deride in African, middle eastern and South American countries.
Yes probably the factors of low education and poverty are similar in these
cases. As the reference given says. But the Church in these countries does
not make the law or run the State! Not does it say sex with childrn is an
acceptable thing! In fact as I have informed you the church voices
opposition to a society of unwed parents.
The only
difference is these girls in Australia don't bother to get married
before starting their sex lives.
That isnt true at all! It is NOT the ONLY difference! In Iran marriages are
arranged and compulsory and people are criminals if they have sex outside
marriage.
If you lift the lid on teenage pregnancy in many other western countries
you find the same thing.
You do not find child abuse because of sex with nine year olds endorced by
the Church in ANY western country!
That saying from Jesus about not criticising the mote in the eye of
another before removing the beam from your own might warrant
consideration at this point.
Might it?
Considering the church in the West NEVER said sex with a nine year old was
acceptable and considering the percentage of child marriages in Iran It
probably would do you some good to remove the beam from your eye before
criticising the mote in the eye of Western countries.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Moss" |
|
| Title: Re: Mohammed and Aisha - The Perfect Love Story |
24 Jan 2008 08:11:47 PM |
|
|
In article <46f52$4798ecc0$4f61217c$364@news.upc.ie>,
Mavisbeacon@nospam.forme writes...
"David Moss" <q0320811@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:MPG.2203270da33ebbec98b08d@news.bigpond.com...
In article <89830$4798630d$4f61217c$17227@news.upc.ie>,
Mavisbeacon@nospam.forme writes...
[snip]
The point is that there were records from years ago about people who
married. REcords right up to 4004. The researcher INTERVIEWED these
people
in 2004 or thereabouts! that is only PART of the research in the paper. I
do
not doubt that at least one of these was under 13 and married after 2003
but
I admit it may be none were. Im not bothered finding out since Im sure
someone else will post evidence of marriage under 13 in iran since 2003.
You do not doubt because you *want* it to be true. Wanting something to
be true does not make it so.
No. i do not doubt it because i am aware of the standard sampling techniques
and it would be a singular example of a peer review journal publishing a
paper and giving the impression it does when there was only one of the
population from 2004. And I do not doubt it because given around fifty
should be from that year and all are under fifteen it is likely that at
least one of the fifty was under thirteen.
There may well have been a 12 year old married with the court's
permission in Iran after 2003, but the text you cited did not address
the issue.
Consider yourself to have failed academic peer review.
You have established no academic qualifications or understanding of sampling
and interview techniques.
Incidentally, I went to visit some people in a low income urban suburb
here in Australia a few days ago. All the girls in the household I
visited over the age of 14 were either heavily pregnant, or had recently
had a baby.
Over 14? Thats 15 is it. How many igirls over 14 and how many girls in
total? what was the oldest?
Over 14 includes everyone who has passed their 14th birthday.
I counted 4 or 5 pregnant young teenagers
How young? Fifteen? Since "teen" means from thirteen to nineteen and the
middle of that is sixteen "young teenager " I take to mean under sixteen, as
opposed to "older" teenager for 17-19. But tell me how many and what were
their ages?
The young girls with the babies I mentioned were around 15-16. Nearly
all the older women in the household had children too. The culture I am
talking about considers a girl to be a full adult at the age of 15 and
if she hasn't produced a child by the age of 16 she may be taunted for
being barren.
and 2 or 3
carrying babies around.
Carring their own babies? What age were they? Were they pregnant at undr
13??? I am really surprised at tah if it is true!
Childhood pregnancy for this cultural group is not unusual. Most
pregnancies end in abortion however, because up to around the age of 15
child welfare agencies usually intervene, remove the child and put the
mother in the care of the State if a birth catches to their attention.
I can assure you they were not Muslims.
So what? You haven't given any statement of age! Were they Christian? It
isn't evidence that Christianity is to blame for these young parents.
Obvious pregnancies in 14 and 15 year old girls. They claim to be
Christians if you ask them. Most get their babies baptised and the
Church is happy to do it.
The reason I shared this information is to illustrate that an early
start to sexual activity is not, by any means, an issue only for Islam.
Affluent, predominantly Christian first world countries like Australia
also have very young sexually active girls. Unlike Islamic countries, we
sweep inconvenient facts like that under the carpet and pretend to be
"holier than thou". I like to drag inconvenient facts out into the
sunlight where everyone can see them. Exposure to light stops them from
festering unseen and poisoning our attitudes toward others.
The
reason, I assume, is because our federal government pays these girls a
$5000 bonus for having a baby, and they become exempt from the activity
test for jobsearch allowance for 5 years. They also get a health care
card (free medical and pharmaceutical) rent assistance, discounts on
electricity, phone and public transport. The State government increased
their priority in the waiting list for subsidised public housing too.
This also happened in the most Catholic country in the world, Ireland in the
1970s when they introduced "unmarried mothers " allowance. Today they call
it "single parent" allowance. In the first year (about 1978) only about 15
claimed it. Today there are tens of thousands. One in five mothers are
unmarried. But that has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the Catholic Church
who do not like the idea of unmarried mothers.
Is that so?
What is the Catholic Church's attitude to abortion by pregnant young
girls?
This is pretty much the same motivation for very early marriage we
deride in African, middle eastern and South American countries.
Yes probably the factors of low education and poverty are similar in these
cases. As the reference given says. But the Church in these countries does
not make the law or run the State! Not does it say sex with childrn is an
acceptable thing! In fact as I have informed you the church voices
opposition to a society of unwed parents.
yet Iran, where the State is highly influenced by religion, also sets a
lower age limit to sexual activity, and they oppose unwed parenthood
even more strongly than the Catholics!
The only
difference is these girls in Australia don't bother to get married
before starting their sex lives.
That isnt true at all! It is NOT the ONLY difference! In Iran marriages are
arranged and compulsory and people are criminals if they have sex outside
marriage.
One of the little secrets underlying many early marriages in Iran is
that the girl is already pregnant when the arrangements are made. You
would be surprised how often that happens within Christianity too.
In fact it is technology rather than morality that drove the law
regarding minimum age of marriage here in Australia, and I assume other
western countries too.
Currently in Australia the prevalence of marriages for women under 19
years of age is about 7 per thousand of population. Until the early
1970s, when reliable contraception and abortion became widely available
this figure was over 66 per thousand of population. In 1973 the minimum
age a person may marry without parental consent was set at 18 years. In
1991 the Act was amended so that nobody could marry under the age of 16
years and between the ages of 16 and 18 years, a person could only marry
with the consent of their parent or guardian and an order from a judge
or magistrate. Any two persons under the age of 18 years may not marry
each other.
The role of contraception in this transition is highlighted when you
consider the median time between marriage and birth of first child. From
the beginning of recorded statistics to the mid 1960s this was 12
months. This figure rose exponentially to around 30 months, levelling
out and flattening just about the time the minimum age of marriage was
legislated.
Getting to some harder statistics we find the official statisticians
being a little cagey. They only have categories going down to 15-19 for
age of mother. 10,744 girls between the ages of 15 and 19 gave birth in
Australia during 2005.
Of course a smart bloke like me simply adds up all the numbers in the
categories provided and subtract it from the total number of births
recorded to discover there were 380 births recorded for girls under the
age of 15.
Thats as far as we can go however. We know 380 girls under the age of 15
gave birth in Australia during 2005, but we know nothing about their
ages beyond this.
Statisticians are even cagier about abortion. They do not provide
official figures on how many very young girls have abortions. Figures,
excluding abortions performed in public hospitals, show 2,283 women
under the age of 20 had abortions in 2005. The majority of abortions on
very young girls from very low income families would be performed in
public hospitals.
The steady decline in the teenage fertility rate has been attributed to
a "greater willingness of medical practitioners to prescribe
contraceptives (particularly the contraceptive pill) to young unmarried
females and a reinterpretation of and changes in state laws governing
elective abortions.=3F (AIHW 2003, p. 132)
So, we are left with the inescapable conclusion that dramatic reduction
in very early marriages in Australia, a first world predominantly
Christian country, is due to technological advancement, not moral
superiority.
If you lift the lid on teenage pregnancy in many other western countries
you find the same thing.
You do not find child abuse because of sex with nine year olds endorced by
the Church in ANY western country!
That saying from Jesus about not criticising the mote in the eye of
another before removing the beam from your own might warrant
consideration at this point.
Might it?
Considering the church in the West NEVER said sex with a nine year old was
acceptable and considering the percentage of child marriages in Iran It
probably would do you some good to remove the beam from your eye before
criticising the mote in the eye of Western countries.
OK, lets take a slightly different view of the issue.
Below is a list of countries ranked by the prevalence of early marriage.
(source:OECD, which deems marriage under the age of 18 as early)
It is not a surprise that very poor African countries top the list.
Early marriage prevalence correlates almost perfectly with GDP per
capita.
Nepal just makes it into the top 10. Over 90% of people in Nepal are
Hindus with the rest being mainly Buddhists. Although a staggering 40%
of marriages in Nepal are deemed "early" I don't see anyone spamming
propaganda about paedophile Hindus or the Buddhists.
Slipping just into the top 20 is Nicaragua. Over 90% of Nicaragua's
population are members of Christian denominations. Approximately 73% of
Nicaraguans follow the Roman Catholic religion with about 15% attending
evangelical churches, around 2% are part of the Moravian Church and some
0.1 percent are joined to the Episcopal Church. A further 2% belong to a
variety of religious groups including Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons and
Amish or Mennonite communities. Along the Atlantic Coast there appears
to be a larger following of the Protestant churches. A very small
percentage of Nicaraguans practice other forms of religion. The Jewish
community is limited to just a few and the small Muslim group are mostly
made up of alien residents as well as immigrants who are now naturalized
Nicaraguans. The Church of Scientology and Bahai'i Faith followers are
in the minority. Nicaraguans are generally religiously inclined people
with many attending services and taking part in other observances. The
great influence of religion in the lives of Nicaraguans is often evident
in their speech as they utter phrases like "if it is God's will".
(http://www.nicaragua.com/culture/religion/)
When Nicaraguans speak of "the church", they mean the Roman Catholic
Church. The bishops are expected to lend their authority to important
state occasions, and their pronouncements on national issues are closely
followed. (Wikipedia)
Despite 32% of the marriages in this overwhelmingly Christian country
being deemed "early" I don't see anyone spamming propaganda about the
evil paedophile Christians.
In fact we have to move beyond the top 50 to find the target of most
anti-Islam propagandists, Iran, at number 54. Saudi Arabia, the other
centre of Islamic tradition comes in at number 65.
Christians could do well to heed the words of their Prophet and remove
the beam of Latin America from their own eye before commenting on the
Middle Eastern stick (bigger than a mote) in the eye of Islam.
Country, Prevalence of early marriage (% of women)
Niger, 62%
Mali, 50%
Chad, 49%
Bangladesh, 48%
Mozambique, 47%
Sierra Leone, 47%
Guinea, 46%
Central African Republic, 42%
Nepal, 40%
Gambia, 39%
Eritrea, 38%
Malawi, 37%
Angola, 36%
Cameroon, 36%
Liberia, 36%
Burkina Faso, 35%
Madagascar, 34%
Nicaragua, 32%
Uganda, 32%
Honduras, 31%
Ethiopia, 30%
India, 30%
Benin, 29%
Cuba, 29%
Dominican Republic, 29%
Senegal, 29%
Mauritania, 28%
Nigeria, 28%
Bhutan, 27%
Lao People's Democratic Republic, 27%
Yemen, 27%
Equatorial Guinea, 26%
Guatemala, 26%
Cote d' Ivoire, 25%
Syrian Arab Republic, 25%
Tanzania, United Republic of, 25%
Occupied Palestinian Territory, 24%
Zambia, 24%
Zimbabwe, 23%
Ecuador, 22%
Gabon, 22%
Panama, 22%
Iraq, 21%
Pakistan, 21%
Papua New Guinea, 21%
Sudan, 21%
Costa Rica, 20%
Togo, 20%
Haiti, 19%
Puerto Rico, 19%
United Arab Emirates, 19%
Colombia, 18%
Iran, Islamic Republic of, 18%
Lesotho, 18%
Venezuela, 18%
Brazil, 17%
Kenya, 17%
Mexico, 17%
Paraguay, 17%
Bulgaria, 16%
El Salvador, 16%
Georgia, 16%
Ghana, 16%
Oman, 16%
Saudi Arabia, 16%
Turkey, 16%
Egypt, 15%
Thailand, 15%
Azerbaijan, 13%
Indonesia, 13%
Morocco, 13%
Peru, 13%
Uruguay, 13%
Uzbekistan, 13%
Argentina, 12%
Bolivia, 12%
Cambodia, 12%
Chile, 12%
Moldova, Republic of, 12%
Tajikistan, 12%
Kyrgyzstan, 11%
Mauritius, 11%
Myanmar, 11%
Russian Federation, 11%
Serbia and Montenegro, 11%
Fiji, 10%
Philippines, 10%
Ukraine, 10%
Armenia, 9%
Estonia, 9%
Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of , 9%
Swaziland, 9%
Trinidad and Tobago, 9%
Albania, 8%
Jordan, 8%
Namibia, 8%
Viet Nam, 8%
Bahrain, 7%
Burundi, 7%
Kazakhstan, 7%
New Zealand, 7%
Rwanda, 7%
Sri Lanka, 7%
Belarus, 6%
Greece, 6%
Mongolia, 6%
Portugal, 6%
Romania, 6%
Turkmenistan, 6%
Botswana, 5%
Kuwait, 5%
Malaysia, 5%
Algeria, 4%
Israel, 4%
United States, 4%
Austria, 3%
Canada, 3%
Malta, 3%
South Africa, 3%
Tunisia, 3%
Croatia, 2%
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China, 2%
Hungary, 2%
Lithuania, 2%
Luxembourg, 2%
Poland, 2%
Slovak Republic, 2%
Spain, 2%
United Kingdom, 2%
Australia, 1%
Belgium, 1%
China, 1%
Czech Republic, 1%
Denmark, 1%
Finland, 1%
Iceland, 1%
Italy, 1%
Jamaica, 1%
Japan, 1%
Korea, 1%
Latvia, 1%
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, 1%
Netherlands, 1%
Singapore, 1%
Switzerland, 1%
--
DM
personal opinion only
The Australian Politics Resource
http://politics.sunnybar.dynip.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mavisbeacon" |
|
| Title: Re: Mohammed and Aisha - The Perfect Love Story |
25 Jan 2008 03:37:48 AM |
|
|
"David Moss" <q0320811@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:MPG.2203e2362d1976de98b092@news.bigpond.com...
In article <46f52$4798ecc0$4f61217c$364@news.upc.ie>,
Mavisbeacon@nospam.forme writes...
"David Moss" <q0320811@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:MPG.2203270da33ebbec98b08d@news.bigpond.com...
In article <89830$4798630d$4f61217c$17227@news.upc.ie>,
Mavisbeacon@nospam.forme writes...
[snip]
The point is that there were records from years ago about people who
married. REcords right up to 4004. The researcher INTERVIEWED these
people
in 2004 or thereabouts! that is only PART of the research in the
paper. I
do
not doubt that at least one of these was under 13 and married after
2003
but
I admit it may be none were. Im not bothered finding out since Im
sure
someone else will post evidence of marriage under 13 in iran since
2003.
You do not doubt because you *want* it to be true. Wanting something
to
be true does not make it so.
No. i do not doubt it because i am aware of the standard sampling
techniques
and it would be a singular example of a peer review journal publishing a
paper and giving the impression it does when there was only one of the
population from 2004. And I do not doubt it because given around fifty
should be from that year and all are under fifteen it is likely that at
least one of the fifty was under thirteen.
There may well have been a 12 year old married with the court's
permission in Iran after 2003, but the text you cited did not address
the issue.
Consider yourself to have failed academic peer review.
You have established no academic qualifications or understanding of
sampling
and interview techniques.
Incidentally, I went to visit some people in a low income urban suburb
here in Australia a few days ago. All the girls in the household I
visited over the age of 14 were either heavily pregnant, or had
recently
had a baby.
Over 14? Thats 15 is it. How many igirls over 14 and how many girls in
total? what was the oldest?
Over 14 includes everyone who has passed their 14th birthday.
Yes fourteen or over.
Which is entirely DIFFERENT to thirteen or under
Nevertheless, I am asking about YOUR sample, how many and what were their
ages?
What is the population of the town they are in?
I mean the figures given suggest a relatively high percentage of child
marriages in Iran (under fourteen) but all the same I assume even the older
teenage marriage rate is also relatively higher in Iran.
I counted 4 or 5 pregnant young teenagers
How young? Fifteen? Since "teen" means from thirteen to nineteen and the
middle of that is sixteen "young teenager " I take to mean under
sixteen, as
opposed to "older" teenager for 17-19. But tell me how many and what
were
their ages?
The young girls with the babies I mentioned were around 15-16. Nearly
all the older women in the household had children too.
So in a household you saw four sixteen year olds pregnant. That is indeed
startling! But i would sugest it is a grave exception rather than the rule.
It is shown by the published data from this thread that in Iran it is NOT
the exceptional case.
The culture I am
talking about considers a girl to be a full adult at the age of 15 and
if she hasn't produced a child by the age of 16 she may be taunted for
being barren.
But
1. you have been shown that this attitide is even more prevalent in Iran!
2. You have been shown Islam considers sex at NINE acceptable!
What you depict is an extreme case in the west but even if it were
commonplace "they are nearly as bad" is not a good argument to justify
something is it?
and 2 or 3
carrying babies around.
Carring their own babies? What age were they? Were they pregnant at undr
13??? I am really surprised at tah if it is true!
Childhood pregnancy for this cultural group is not unusual.
Really? and this OPINION is based on what evidence? Above you stated four
sixteen year olds have children. Are you now suggesting they were all having
sex at nine years of age? It is exceptional if true and frowned upon by
society and by the Christian church.
Most
pregnancies end in abortion however, because up to around the age of 15
child welfare agencies usually intervene, remove the child and put the
mother in the care of the State if a birth catches to their attention.
As so in the West the State intervenes and says such an act is wrong but in
Iran the State says it is okay to have sex with a nine year old? I think you
can at least admit to that.
I can assure you they were not Muslims.
So what? You haven't given any statement of age! Were they Christian? It
isn't evidence that Christianity is to blame for these young parents.
Obvious pregnancies in 14 and 15 year old girls.
Above they were 15 or sixteen! Now it seems they have got younger since they
had the babies. they still were net nine were thay. In fact a pederast might
well think a fifteen year old is too old!
They claim to be
Christians if you ask them. Most get their babies baptised and the
Church is happy to do it.
Oh well then I would think they were Christian. You didn't happen to ask
around at the Church (without going into paricular cases) and find out if
they though sex with a nine year old was acceptable?
The reason I shared this information is to illustrate that an early
start to sexual activity is not, by any means, an issue only for Islam.
I agree. Nor is it an issue only for christianity. But Christianity does NOT
say it is okay for a man in his fifties to have sex with a nine year old!
Nor does Christianity law down the law of the State!
Affluent, predominantly Christian first world countries like Australia
also have very young sexually active girls.
Yes . Who are at the youngest teenagers. Christianity does not approve of
this behaviour but when the girl is eighteen they have the right to act
sexually as they want.
By the way these are not all lesbian relationships. If the giral are
sexually active usually boys are as well. But again it seems you don't find
men being sexually active is wrong! Older men predating teenagers is
suspiscious. But fifty year olds having sex with nine year old girls? What
do you think of that?
Unlike Islamic countries, we
sweep inconvenient facts like that under the carpet and pretend to be
"holier than thou".
Your comma might well be a period there!
But let me take you up on that. Do you think a man in his fifties having sex
with a nine year old girl can be a holy act?
I like to drag inconvenient facts out into the
sunlight where everyone can see them. Exposure to light stops them from
festering unseen and poisoning our attitudes toward others.
Do you think Mohammad having sex with Aisha when she was nine was
acceptable? Will you avoid this question or drag it into the light?
The
reason, I assume, is because our federal government pays these girls a
$5000 bonus for having a baby, and they become exempt from the
activity
test for jobsearch allowance for 5 years. They also get a health care
card (free medical and pharmaceutical) rent assistance, discounts on
electricity, phone and public transport. The State government
increased
their priority in the waiting list for subsidised public housing too.
This also happened in the most Catholic country in the world, Ireland in
the
1970s when they introduced "unmarried mothers " allowance. Today they
call
it "single parent" allowance. In the first year (about 1978) only about
15
claimed it. Today there are tens of thousands. One in five mothers are
unmarried. But that has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the Catholic
Church
who do not like the idea of unmarried mothers.
Is that so?
What is the Catholic Church's attitude to abortion by pregnant young
girls?
The Catholic Church is opposed to abortion by anyone at any age under any
circumstances. Even assisting in abourtion is considered morally wrong.
This is pretty much the same motivation for very early marriage we
deride in African, middle eastern and South American countries.
Yes probably the factors of low education and poverty are similar in
these
cases. As the reference given says. But the Church in these countries
does
not make the law or run the State! Not does it say sex with childrn is
an
acceptable thing! In fact as I have informed you the church voices
opposition to a society of unwed parents.
yet Iran, where the State is highly influenced by religion, also sets a
lower age limit to sexual activity, and they oppose unwed parenthood
even more strongly than the Catholics!
No they don't! Catholics are not in favour of unwed parents. But they also
learned from past experience that "social engineering" such as forcing
people to marry or shifting child abusers away from their victims is not an
apt solution. The church also had more control over people in those times.
But that didn't make people holier. I woudl suggest that authoritarian
control does not make people more law abiding or just.
The only
difference is these girls in Australia don't bother to get married
before starting their sex lives.
That isnt true at all! It is NOT the ONLY difference! In Iran marriages
are
arranged and compulsory and people are criminals if they have sex
outside
marriage.
One of the little secrets underlying many early marriages in Iran is
that the girl is already pregnant when the arrangements are made.
You can't prove that! If you could you could prove the man comitted a crime!
You
would be surprised how often that happens within Christianity too.
No I wouldn't! And it STILL does not mean the church justifies it!
In fact it is technology rather than morality that drove the law
regarding minimum age of marriage here in Australia, and I assume other
western countries too.
But as I stated the church is SEPERATE to the state. Whatever drove the law
the church has a position which may or may not be different. They also have
Canon Law. But their moral position is NOT that sex with a nine year old is
acceptable. your position is that sex with a nine year old IS acceptable!
Currently in Australia the prevalence of marriages for women under 19
years of age is about 7 per thousand of population.
Under 19 NOT under 9! BIG difference!
Until the early
1970s, when reliable contraception and abortion became widely available
this figure was over 66 per thousand of population.
But this is an arguemt tha clerical control regards marriage as a solution
to young girls getting pregnant!
It is NOT an argument which deals with the morality of how the girl got
pregnant in the first place!
In 1973 the minimum
age a person may marry without parental consent was set at 18 years. In
1991 the Act was amended so that nobody could marry under the age of 16
years and between the ages of 16 and 18 years, a person could only marry
with the consent of their parent or guardian and an order from a judge
or magistrate. Any two persons under the age of 18 years may not marry
each other.
The role of contraception in this transition is highlighted when you
consider the median time between marriage and birth of first child. From
the beginning of recorded statistics to the mid 1960s this was 12
months. This figure rose exponentially to around 30 months, levelling
out and flattening just about the time the minimum age of marriage was
legislated.
Getting to some harder statistics we find the official statisticians
being a little cagey. They only have categories going down to 15-19 for
age of mother. 10,744 girls between the ages of 15 and 19 gave birth in
Australia during 2005.
Because there are a vanishingly small number of pregnancies UNDER 15! And
sex with a nine year old is ILLEGAL!
Look! Please doint beat around the bush!
The Church do not favour sex with teenagers that are not married. They dont
favour contraception or abortion. But the point is they say a fifty year old
man having sex with a nine year old girl is WRONG!
Now DO YOU SAY THAT A MAN HAVING SEX WITH A NINE YEAR OLD IS WRONG?
Of course a smart bloke like me simply adds up all the numbers in the
categories provided and subtract it from the total number of births
recorded to discover there were 380 births recorded for girls under the
age of 15.
If that is in the data I accept it.
Source please? No doubt you can supply it in births per thousand?
Thats as far as we can go however. We know 380 girls under the age of 15
gave birth in Australia during 2005, but we know nothing about their
ages beyond this.
Well you could extrapolate the curve! It is likely that it runs down as they
get younger from 11,044 under 19 to 380 under 15. About three and a half
percent which would be about one birth under 11. It seems statistically
reasonable if biologically possible. Certainly there is probably more than
one criminal in australia having sex with ten year olds. But the point is
that man is a criminal.
Do you think such a man could be doing something acceptable?
Statisticians are even cagier about abortion. They do not provide
[snip]
So, we are left with the inescapable conclusion that dramatic reduction
in very early marriages in Australia, a first world predominantly
Christian country, is due to technological advancement, not moral
superiority.
The church never argued that it was
The point yo make here is that teenagers are having sex and getting
pregnant! Forced marriage is not stopping or preventing that!
most of thes are teenagers on both sides!
But we were not discussing the morality of teenage sex! We were discussing a
MAN in his fifties with a CHILD of nine! A PRETEEN!
If you lift the lid on teenage pregnancy in many other western
countries
you find the same thing.
You do not find child abuse because of sex with nine year olds endorced
by
the Church in ANY western country!
That saying from Jesus about not criticising the mote in the eye of
another before removing the beam from your own might warrant
consideration at this point.
Might it?
Considering the church in the West NEVER said sex with a nine year old
was
acceptable and considering the percentage of child marriages in Iran It
probably would do you some good to remove the beam from your eye before
criticising the mote in the eye of Western countries.
OK, lets take a slightly different view of the issue.
Below is a list of countries ranked by the prevalence of early marriage.
(source:OECD, which deems marriage under the age of 18 as early)
It is not a surprise that very poor African countries top the list.
Early marriage prevalence correlates almost perfectly with GDP per
capita.
So what? We are not discussing marriage as a solution to men having sex with
teenagers!
This came about as a result of the issue of young brides in Iran! Which came
about because of the discussion of men in theior fifties having sex with
nine year olds as being acceptable.
Do you accept that a man in his fifties UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES having sex
with a nine year old can be depicted as a holy or normal thing?
[snip - side issue on people marrying young]
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Moss" |
|
| Title: Re: Mohammed and Aisha - The Perfect Love Story |
25 Jan 2008 05:40:10 AM |
|
|
In article <5afe2$4799b1c6$4f61217c$28976@news.upc.ie>,
Mavisbeacon@nospam.forme writes...
[cut]
Do you accept that a man in his fifties UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES having sex
with a nine year old can be depicted as a holy or normal thing?
You repeatedly ask this question, particularly when you are under
pressure from statistics showing girls begin having sex well before the
legal age for marriage in first world countries.
I have answered your question many times during the thread.
My answer is that morality changes over time.
It was perfectly accepted, even expected, that Mohammed would consummate
his marriage to Aisha at the earliest opportunity. At that time, and in
that place, sex was acceptable as soon as a girl had reached puberty. We
are told that occurred when Aisha was nine.
Before the time of Mohammed the "people of the Book" deferred to the Law
as stated in the Talmud, in particular Tractate Niddah in the Babylonian
Talmud, for guidance on when it was acceptable to have sex with a girl.
At the time it was written it was perfectly acceptable for a man to have
sex with a baby, but after the age of 3 years and 1 day the girl was
accorded rights as a result of sexual penetration.
There is no Jewish or Christian scripture that amends tractate Niddah,
so a fundamentalist Jew or Christian would presumably see nothing wrong
in having sex with a girl of any age.
My own personal moral code dictates that sex with any girl younger than
sixteen years and one day is unacceptable. In fact I believe the age at
which it is acceptable to have sex may even be older than this depending
on the individual concerned.
But I live in the year 2008 and I have extensive knowledge about child
development. The morality I follow would have been laughable even a
hundred years ago, and I would have been considered totally out of touch
with reality, a veritable lunatic, a thousand years ago.
In another hundred years who knows what public morality will dictate.
Our advertising industry is increasingly sexualising young girls,
marketing lingerie , makeup, high heeled shoes and revealing clothing at
pre-teens. Some department stores are even selling "braletts" for three-
year-old girls!
(http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/10/09/1160246071551.html)
I happen to think deliberately sexualising children is morally
reprehensible, but apparently the millions of people who respond to such
advertising and buy clothing and cosmetics for their pre-teens think
otherwise.
"I=3Fm talking about the billions of dollars of marketing aimed at kids
whose childhoods are being cynically abbreviated, stolen for profit. I=3Fm
talking about the sexualisation of ever younger children through
advertising and for what passes for entertainment - so that kids are
encouraged to see themselves as sexual beings long, long before puberty.
Yes, the age of puberty is decreasing - and it will all but vanish if
companies continue to employ their teams of child psychologists and ad
agencies to turn ever younger children not simply into consumers, but
into mini-adults." (Phillip Adams - Corporate Pedophilia)
I agree with him.
I hope this clears up matters regarding my personal opinion about the
age of consent.
--
DM
personal opinion only
The Australian Politics Resource
http://politics.sunnybar.dynip.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mavisbeacon" |
|
| Title: Re: Mohammed and Aisha - The Perfect Love Story |
25 Jan 2008 06:34:17 PM |
|
|
"David Moss" <q0320811@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:MPG.2204677d3f979db298b09d@news.bigpond.com...
In article <5afe2$4799b1c6$4f61217c$28976@news.upc.ie>,
Mavisbeacon@nospam.forme writes...
[cut]
Do you accept that a man in his fifties UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES having
sex
with a nine year old can be depicted as a holy or normal thing?
You repeatedly ask this question,
Because you are not answering it!
answer it please will you?
particularly when you are under
pressure from statistics showing girls begin having sex well before the
legal age for marriage in first world countries.
I KNOW this happens. that does not mean the state or the church supports
such tinings happenning. In fact they say it is illegal and immoral. In some
Muslim countries they actually give out guidlines for how it is to be done!
But I am asking you about YOUR opinion as to whether a man in his fifties
having sex
with a nine year old can be depicted as a holy or normal thing?
I can tell you itn christian countries it isnt!
Well? Could you answer that?
I have answered your question many times during the thread.
My answer is that morality changes over time.
So you do think it is possible for a fifty year old man to have sex with a
nine year old ant that this is acceptable? Do you?
Do you also believe Mohammad had a lifestyle which people shoud imitate?
Do yo believe Mohammad gave good examples?
Do you believe that anything he did can be considered as immoral?
Do you believe morality changed so that you can say an act Mohammad did is
immoral today?
It was perfectly accepted, even expected, that Mohammed would consummate
his marriage to Aisha at the earliest opportunity. At that time, and in
that place, sex was acceptable as soon as a girl had reached puberty. We
are told that occurred when Aisha was nine.
So you think today this is it iommoral and it was not then immoral?
So that means uo accept there are things Mohammad did which by todays
standards are immoral?
Before the time of Mohammed the "people of the Book" deferred to the Law
as stated in the Talmud, in particular Tractate Niddah in the Babylonian
Talmud, for guidance on when it was acceptable to have sex with a girl.
At the time it was written it was perfectly acceptable for a man to have
sex with a baby, but after the age of 3 years and 1 day the girl was
accorded rights as a result of sexual penetration.
this isint in ANY Christian book and is not acceptable behaviour to them!
But your argument is that in ancient times people were really bad and then
Mohanmmad came and he was less evil and today things Mohammad did would be
regarded are morally wrong.
If that is the case how can you trust anything Mohammad did? Do yyou go by
"today's standards" or by the life of Mohammad?
There is no Jewish or Christian scripture that amends tractate Niddah,
It isnt IN Christian scripture! But all jewish law is revised by christ!
Christians do not believe that sexwith a nine year old is a holy and
acceptable act!
Just because you may believe otherwise do not change the FACT that
christians do not!
Mosaic law in the Old teatament does not say what you claim but
they do not live by Mosaic law! Do you understand?
so a fundamentalist Jew or Christian would presumably see nothing wrong
in having sex with a girl of any age.
If Christian reference to Jewish law said this yes.
But it does NOt say this.
And again almost all christians are not fundamentalist!
My own personal moral code dictates that sex with any girl younger than
sixteen years and one day is unacceptable. In fact I believe the age at
which it is acceptable to have sex may even be older than this depending
on the individual concerned.
Yes but that is NOT directly answering the question I asked!
Could you please answer it directly.
Do you believe that having sex with a nine year old was an acceptable act in
Mohammads time or any other time?
But I live in the year 2008 and I have extensive knowledge about child
development. The morality I follow would have been laughable even a
hundred years ago, and I would have been considered totally out of touch
with reality, a veritable lunatic, a thousand years ago.
So you think that what Mohammad did is not acceptable today?
In another hundred years who knows what public morality will dictate.
Our advertising industry is increasingly sexualising young girls,
marketing lingerie , makeup, high heeled shoes and revealing clothing at
pre-teens. Some department stores are even selling "braletts" for three-
year-old girls!
So you think morality is socially determined and not absolute?
If so then why adhere to ANY of Mohammad's behaviours?
I happen to think deliberately sexualising children is morally
reprehensible,
As do i.
but apparently the millions of people who respond to such
advertising and buy clothing and cosmetics for their pre-teens think
otherwise.
Yes. But do you think Mohammads actions if done today are morally
reprehensible?
"I=3Fm talking about the billions of dollars of marketing aimed at kids
whose childhoods are being cynically abbreviated, stolen for profit. I=3Fm
talking about the sexualisation of ever younger children through
advertising and for what passes for entertainment - so that kids are
encouraged to see themselves as sexual beings long, long before puberty.
Yes, the age of puberty is decreasing - and it will all but vanish if
companies continue to employ their teams of child psychologists and ad
agencies to turn ever younger children not simply into consumers, but
into mini-adults." (Phillip Adams - Corporate Pedophilia)
I agree with him.
I hope this clears up matters regarding my personal opinion about the
age of consent.
Yes you are saying that Mohammad's lifestyle if practiced today is morally
wrong. That clears that up.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt" |
|
| Title: Re: Mohammed and Aisha - The Perfect Love Story |
20 Jan 2008 04:07:56 PM |
|
|
David Moss <q0320811@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote in
news:MPG.21fdbca3ad8a55f498b021@news.bigpond.com:
In article <k606p3hcd06pu8u2j27572of27ig9re471@4ax.com>,
mikegray@newsguy.com writes...
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 07:42:08 GMT, David Moss
<q0320811@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote:
In article <e0q5p3t3bd79o4bgvugg7234r7audgv0ei@4ax.com>,
mikegray@newsguy.com writes...
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 05:28:58 GMT, "Sunny" <wombatlodge@gmail.com>
wrote:
"David Moss" <q0320811@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:MPG.21fd5ae4d08f920598b01c@news.bigpond.com...
In article <c20a8$4792af90$4f61217c$24405@news.upc.ie>,
Mavisbeacon@nospam.forme writes...
But what the Pope does not want is for people to actually
*do* something about pedophile clergy or to support their
victims.
This is rubbish! The Catholic church has completly CHANGED
position on moving proiests around! They DO send them to
prison!
Getting back to the original topic, Islamic countries have
completely changed their position on the age of consent. They
DO require the girl to be 12 or over, except in exceptional
circumstances and with the approval of both (the parents) and
(a properly constituted court).
Slowly catching up to.......
Canada: 14
France: 15
Japan: 13-18
Hong Kong: 16
USA: 14-18, depending on state
Italy/Lithunia/South Carolina/China: 14
Mexico: 12 +
Australia: 16-18, depending on state.
Germany: 14-16
Pakistan: Must be married
Denmark: 15
United Arab Emirates: Married/18
Argentina: 13-16
UK: 16
India:16
Switzerland: 16
http://www.cfr.org/publication/8034/
Still a long way to go though
Australia seems to well in front.
In Australia a court can grant permission for a marriage to go ahead
if *one* of the parties is over the age of 16. Not so far in front
as some people think.
If they are between 16 and 18 *only*.
Yep, a 16 year old can marry a 60 year old in Australia with the
permission of both (the parents) and (a properly constituted court).
In Iran the lower age is 12 with identical requirements.
As I said, Australia is not as far in front as some people think.
There is no minimum age for marriage in Iran
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Mohammed and Aisha - The Perfect Love Story |
20 Jan 2008 04:26:25 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 10:17:34 GMT, David Moss
<q0320811@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote:
In article <k606p3hcd06pu8u2j27572of27ig9re471@4ax.com>,
mikegray@newsguy.com writes...
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 07:42:08 GMT, David Moss
<q0320811@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote:
In article <e0q5p3t3bd79o4bgvugg7234r7audgv0ei@4ax.com>,
mikegray@newsguy.com writes...
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 05:28:58 GMT, "Sunny" <wombatlodge@gmail.com>
wrote:
"David Moss" <q0320811@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:MPG.21fd5ae4d08f920598b01c@news.bigpond.com...
In article <c20a8$4792af90$4f61217c$24405@news.upc.ie>,
Mavisbeacon@nospam.forme writes...
But what the Pope does not want is for people to actually *do*
something about pedophile clergy or to support their victims.
This is rubbish! The Catholic church has completly CHANGED position on
moving proiests around! They DO send them to prison!
Getting back to the original topic, Islamic countries have completely
changed their position on the age of consent. They DO require the girl
to be 12 or over, except in exceptional circumstances and with the
approval of both (the parents) and (a properly constituted court).
Slowly catching up to.......
Canada: 14
France: 15
Japan: 13-18
Hong Kong: 16
USA: 14-18, depending on state
Italy/Lithunia/South Carolina/China: 14
Mexico: 12 +
Australia: 16-18, depending on state.
Germany: 14-16
Pakistan: Must be married
Denmark: 15
United Arab Emirates: Married/18
Argentina: 13-16
UK: 16
India:16
Switzerland: 16
http://www.cfr.org/publication/8034/
Still a long way to go though
Australia seems to well in front.
In Australia a court can grant permission for a marriage to go ahead if
*one* of the parties is over the age of 16. Not so far in front as some
people think.
If they are between 16 and 18 *only*.
Yep, a 16 year old can marry a 60 year old in Australia with the
permission of both (the parents) and (a properly constituted court).
In Iran the lower age is 12 with identical requirements.
As I said, Australia is not as far in front as some people think.
What are you talking about?
The effective cut-off of 16 years (with enormous difficulty) matches
or exceeds that of all the other countries in the friggin list!
Just who are these straw men to whom you refer, who do not think that
Australia is as far ahead in this area?
Do not hesitate to be precise, or give concrete examples, if you are
able to ascend above vapid platitudes.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt" |
|
| Title: Re: Mohammed and Aisha - The Perfect Love Story |
19 Jan 2008 09:45:26 PM |
|
|
David Moss <q0320811@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote in
news:MPG.21fd5ae4d08f920598b01c@news.bigpond.com:
In article <c20a8$4792af90$4f61217c$24405@news.upc.ie>,
Mavisbeacon@nospam.forme writes...
But what the Pope does not want is for people to actually *do*
something about pedophile clergy or to support their victims.
This is rubbish! The Catholic church has completly CHANGED position on
moving proiests around! They DO send them to prison!
Getting back to the original topic, Islamic countries have completely
changed their position on the age of consent. They DO require the girl
to be 12 or over, except in exceptional circumstances and with the
approval of both (the parents) and (a properly constituted court).
If you are talking about Iran, that's a false statment. There is no minimum
age for marriage in Iran, simply a minimum age a girl can get married
without her fathers consent.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "B J Foster" |
|
| Title: Re: Mohammed and Aisha - The Perfect Love Story |
19 Jan 2008 04:49:54 PM |
|
|
Mavisbeacon wrote:
"B J Foster" <bjfoster@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:4790fd90$0$24086$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
Mavisbeacon wrote:
[snip]
"We conclude from all the evidence cited above that Aisha (may Allah be
pleased with her) was nineteen years old when she joined the Holy
Prophet as his wife in the year 2 A.H., the nikah or betrothal having
taken place five years previously".
http://www.muslim.org/islam/aisha-age.htm
Where did he state that and did he also state the Majority opoinion in
the
same post?
At the start of the thread:
"Why did Mohammed marry Aisha when she was only 6..."
Which is the accepted Majrity opinion in the Hadiths.
and then above, he posted a reference which argued:
"We conclude from all the evidence cited above that Aisha (may Allah be
pleased with her) was nineteen years old when she joined the Holy
Prophet as his wife in the year 2 A.H."
Which is a minoroty opinion and not accepted by most Sunnis.
You did an opinion poll did you?
If not, I suggest taking a sample not of mullahs but of mums of nine
year old girls. Got that? Okay.
Post the result here: ____
Oh - please do remember to keep the respondents anonymous. Don't record
any names and addresses aor anything like that.
[snip]
Which do you think states it is acceptable to have sex with a nine
year
old?
Which between what alternatives?
The christian scriptures which had NO references to such practicves or
the
Islamic ones which refer to the greatest of their Prophets doing it?
I have never seen or heard of any such reference in Christian (or
Jewish) scripture.
So back to the question which scripture of which religion states it is
acceptable to have sex with a nine year old?
I have heard of it in the Koran, obviously, hence the question:
It isn't in the Koran! It is in the Hadiths. Hense the questions about what
is a sunni. I think y6ou are not keeping up with what I have posted. You
diodn't read it did you? But you have been given the example
ALSo of a Shia Cleric who outlines how such sex should be performed.
Ask the
mullah, make him take a stand and then make him defend his position with
argument and facts.
A very strong line in Islam is that of it is in scripture of if Mohammad did
something than it is acceptable for anyone to do it.
Sure. So let's see how well that "strong line" stands up against
professional opinion about the psychological and physical damage done to
nine year olds.
This is in contrast to the aggressive confrontational approach taken by
'Matt' (or whatever his name is) and will be more effective.
Confronting someone about their beliefs isn't immoral is it?
He is attributing the belief that marriage (and sex) with nine year olds
is acceptable to all Muslims because *one* Muslim (Khomeini) said it
was. This is patently false. Why do you have such a problem
understanding that you can't make assumptions about the beliefs of a
whole community based upon a handful of fuckwits within it.
It's all mumbo-jumbo written by witchdoctors and corrupted by tribal
customs for paternalistic tribesmen who regarded women and kids as
possessions.
That is you r opinion. I am asking you based not on opinion but the
actual
FACTS of recorded literature.
Recorded literature is recorded opinion
No it isnt but so what?
Don't be ridiculous. Do you sincerely believe that sex with nine old
girls is God's word? Do you really think that God didn't want women to
enter the priesthood?
These people made it up as they went along. They are tribal witchdoctors
- nothing more.
A scientific paper about an experiment is recorded literatire. It may
contain opinion but in the main it is about a FACT which you can test to be
true. Similaraly if a historian records something and another who never met
him recorded the same thing but with a differnt slant it is difficult to
claim some event didnt happen.
Precisely. If you want the genuine word of God, ask an historian - don't
ask a priest/mullah/rabbi.
My original proposal still stands:
<quote>
Perhaps we need a Muslim volunteer to ask the question and have a
judgement issued via fatwa.
This is your opportunity to ask the wise men (why men only?) of Islam
the question:
"WHAT IS THE MINIMUM AGE FOR MARRIAGE (SEX) IN ISLAM?"
Any volunteers? Please submit this question to your Imam and let us
know
the response.
This is your opportunity to silence the bigots....
</quote>
that is a fair question.
And what will the response be?
1. Avoid the question; or
2. Acknowledge the Koran and defend that position; or
3. Start a riot
you would have to ask and see.
The key missing link is that these mullahs are unaccountable for their
actions. It is the same missing link with paedophile priests.
that isnt true!Many abusing priests are in prison . I am aware of one who
died in prison.
One?
They can sin away at will with no fear of punishment.
Thats rubbish! The comparisn isnt valid!
What about the hundreds of others? Estimates range from 5% to 15%
The church isn't responsible for attracting these animals to conditions
where they can sin with impunity but the church (church leaders, that
is) are absolutely responsible for not handing them over to the police.
One would think that the church would have a mission to protect kids -
the fact that they don't brings into question the whole raison d'etre of
the church.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mavisbeacon" |
|
| Title: Re: Mohammed and Aisha - The Perfect Love Story |
19 Jan 2008 07:35:54 PM |
|
|
"B J Foster" <bjfoster@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:47927eca$0$18606$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
Mavisbeacon wrote:
"B J Foster" <bjfoster@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:4790fd90$0$24086$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
Mavisbeacon wrote:
[snip]
"We conclude from all the evidence cited above that Aisha (may Allah
be
pleased with her) was nineteen years old when she joined the Holy
Prophet as his wife in the year 2 A.H., the nikah or betrothal having
taken place five years previously".
http://www.muslim.org/islam/aisha-age.htm
Where did he state that and did he also state the Majority opoinion in
the
same post?
At the start of the thread:
"Why did Mohammed marry Aisha when she was only 6..."
Which is the accepted Majrity opinion in the Hadiths.
and then above, he posted a reference which argued:
"We conclude from all the evidence cited above that Aisha (may Allah be
pleased with her) was nineteen years old when she joined the Holy
Prophet as his wife in the year 2 A.H."
Which is a minoroty opinion and not accepted by most Sunnis.
You did an opinion poll did you?
If not, I suggest taking a sample not of mullahs but of mums of nine
year old girls. Got that? Okay.
Post the result here: ____
Oh - please do remember to keep the respondents anonymous. Don't record
any names and addresses aor anything like that.
Please dont try to be a smart *****. You will end up embarrassing yourself.
You seem to be entirely ignorant of the facts I posted. The HADITHS you
eejit! i cited a number of them. the ones which are taken more seroiusly and
the MAJORITY of Hadiths cite the 6-9 years of age ! the MINORITY of the
hadiths cite other ages. Have you got it now smart *****?
[snip]
Which do you think states it is acceptable to have sex with a nine
year
old?
Which between what alternatives?
The christian scriptures which had NO references to such practicves or
the
Islamic ones which refer to the greatest of their Prophets doing it?
I have never seen or heard of any such reference in Christian (or
Jewish) scripture.
So back to the question which scripture of which religion states it is
acceptable to have sex with a nine year old?
I have heard of it in the Koran, obviously, hence the question:
It isn't in the Koran! It is in the Hadiths. Hense the questions about
what
is a sunni. I think y6ou are not keeping up with what I have posted. You
diodn't read it did you? But you have been given the example
ALSo of a Shia Cleric who outlines how such sex should be performed.
Ask the
mullah, make him take a stand and then make him defend his position
with
argument and facts.
A very strong line in Islam is that of it is in scripture of if Mohammad
did
something than it is acceptable for anyone to do it.
Sure. So let's see how well that "strong line" stands up against
professional opinion about the psychological and physical damage done to
nine year olds.
thats beside the point. We are not comparing conventional medicine with
Islam. we are discussing what evidence exists their own Islamic scriptures.
Of cvourse if you go outside that others say differntly. bu i dont need a
psychologist or a law saying sex with a nine year old is wroing! I know it
is without having to be told. the point her is that clerics are stating that
it is ok and even givin instructions in it.
This is in contrast to the aggressive confrontational approach taken by
'Matt' (or whatever his name is) and will be more effective.
Confronting someone about their beliefs isn't immoral is it?
He is attributing the belief that marriage (and sex) with nine year olds
is acceptable to all Muslims because *one* Muslim (Khomeini) said it
was.
No! He is saying that for Shias. For sunnis (who are the vast Majority of
Muslims) he also gave the example of the Hadiths.
This is patently false.
It is a false assertion that he only referred to Kohomni. But as it happensd
Khomeinileads MILLIONS of Muslims.
Why do you have such a problem
understanding that you can't make assumptions about the beliefs of a
whole community based upon a handful of fuckwits within it.
You CAN take it as fact that his pronouncements for his people are like that
of the Pope for Catholics.
It's all mumbo-jumbo written by witchdoctors and corrupted by tribal
customs for paternalistic tribesmen who regarded women and kids as
possessions.
That is you r opinion. I am asking you based not on opinion but the
actual
FACTS of recorded literature.
Recorded literature is recorded opinion
No it isnt but so what?
Don't be ridiculous. Do you sincerely believe that sex with nine old
girls is God's word?
No but I don't think Islam or christianity is mumbo jumbo written by witch
doctors.
Do you really think that God didn't want women to
enter the priesthood?
Seperate issue but quite probably yes. it is a valid argument . I dont have
anything against women priests however. the arguments against women priests
is much stronger than that of married priests.
These people made it up as they went along. They are tribal witchdoctors
- nothing more.
Eh no you would be quite wrong about that! they didnt make it up as they
went along. Hermenutics suggests not in the Case of christians anyway.
A scientific paper about an experiment is recorded literatire. It may
contain opinion but in the main it is about a FACT which you can test to
be
true. Similaraly if a historian records something and another who never
met
him recorded the same thing but with a differnt slant it is difficult to
claim some event didnt happen.
Precisely. If you want the genuine word of God, ask an historian - don't
ask a priest/mullah/rabbi.
Some priests ARE historians, and astronomers and doctors. The Jesuits
usually have one of everything. In fact they teach historians!
My original proposal still stands:
<quote>
Perhaps we need a Muslim volunteer to ask the question and have a
judgement issued via fatwa.
This is your opportunity to ask the wise men (why men only?) of Islam
the question:
"WHAT IS THE MINIMUM AGE FOR MARRIAGE (SEX) IN ISLAM?"
Any volunteers? Please submit this question to your Imam and let us
know
the response.
This is your opportunity to silence the bigots....
</quote>
that is a fair question.
And what will the response be?
1. Avoid the question; or
2. Acknowledge the Koran and defend that position; or
3. Start a riot
you would have to ask and see.
The key missing link is that these mullahs are unaccountable for their
actions. It is the same missing link with paedophile priests.
that isnt true!Many abusing priests are in prison . I am aware of one
who
died in prison.
One?
Yes. Many more are in prison but this guy died in captivity . he was in for
child abuse.
They can sin away at will with no fear of punishment.
Thats rubbish! The comparisn isnt valid!
What about the hundreds of others? Estimates range from 5% to 15%
The church isn't responsible for attracting these animals to conditions
where they can sin with impunity but the church (church leaders, that
is) are absolutely responsible for not handing them over to the police.
I agree with you on this but this policy has changed! Unlike Islamic
teaching!
One would think that the church would have a mission to protect kids -
the fact that they don't brings into question the whole raison d'etre of
the church.
No it doesnt since your premise is in error! They DO so your assumption that
DONT is wrong!
.
|
|
|
| User: "B J Foster" |
|
| Title: Re: Mohammed and Aisha - The Perfect Love Story |
20 Jan 2008 02:25:07 AM |
|
|
Mavisbeacon wrote:
"B J Foster" <bjfoster@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:47927eca$0$18606$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
Mavisbeacon wrote:
"B J Foster" <bjfoster@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:4790fd90$0$24086$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
Mavisbeacon wrote:
[snip]
"We conclude from all the evidence cited above that Aisha (may Allah
be
pleased with her) was nineteen years old when she joined the Holy
Prophet as his wife in the year 2 A.H., the nikah or betrothal having
taken place five years previously".
http://www.muslim.org/islam/aisha-age.htm
Where did he state that and did he also state the Majority opoinion in
the
same post?
At the start of the thread:
"Why did Mohammed marry Aisha when she was only 6..."
Which is the accepted Majrity opinion in the Hadiths.
and then above, he posted a reference which argued:
"We conclude from all the evidence cited above that Aisha (may Allah be
pleased with her) was nineteen years old when she joined the Holy
Prophet as his wife in the year 2 A.H."
Which is a minoroty opinion and not accepted by most Sunnis.
You did an opinion poll did you?
If not, I suggest taking a sample not of mullahs but of mums of nine
year old girls. Got that? Okay.
Post the result here: ____
Oh - please do remember to keep the respondents anonymous. Don't record
any names and addresses aor anything like that.
Please dont try to be a smart *****. You will end up embarrassing yourself.
You seem to be entirely ignorant of the facts I posted. The HADITHS you
eejit! i cited a number of them. the ones which are taken more seroiusly and
the MAJORITY of Hadiths cite the 6-9 years of age ! the MINORITY of the
hadiths cite other ages. Have you got it now smart *****?
I don't know what you mean by "majority opinion in the Hadiths". There
are 6 major Hadiths and 4 of them are disputed, which leaves 2. Even if
these two say the same thing as Khomeini I can't see how that is
relevant. There are 1.8 billion Muslims in the world and it is *not*
general practice for them to marry off their daughters at the age of
nine regardless of what that fuckwit Khomeini says.
You'll have to explain what you mean by "majority opinion". Did all 1.8
billion Muslims vote? Or just the Mullahs? Who elected the mullahs? What
standing do they have? I'm afraid I'm not impressed by someone who calls
himself the "Grand something of somewhere".
Your claim has no credibility. Where are the people voting their opinion
in an open, free and fair process? or an opinion poll? where is the
peer-reviewed scientific/historical paper? Or the logical deductive process?
[snip]
Which do you think states it is acceptable to have sex with a nine
year
old?
Which between what alternatives?
The christian scriptures which had NO references to such practicves or
the
Islamic ones which refer to the greatest of their Prophets doing it?
I have never seen or heard of any such reference in Christian (or
Jewish) scripture.
So back to the question which scripture of which religion states it is
acceptable to have sex with a nine year old?
I have heard of it in the Koran, obviously, hence the question:
It isn't in the Koran! It is in the Hadiths. Hense the questions about
what
is a sunni. I think y6ou are not keeping up with what I have posted. You
diodn't read it did you? But you have been given the example
ALSo of a Shia Cleric who outlines how such sex should be performed.
Ask the
mullah, make him take a stand and then make him defend his position
with
argument and facts.
A very strong line in Islam is that of it is in scripture of if Mohammad
did
something than it is acceptable for anyone to do it.
Sure. So let's see how well that "strong line" stands up against
professional opinion about the psychological and physical damage done to
nine year olds.
thats beside the point. We are not comparing conventional medicine with
Islam. we are discussing what evidence exists their own Islamic scriptures.
Mumbo-jumbo written by 6 different people with different biases and not
one of them was a woman. No woman on this earth would subject a nine
year kid to rape in a forced marriage. Not one. But boy-oh-boy I *can*
see a mullah doing it.
Of cvourse if you go outside that others say differntly. bu i dont need a
psychologist or a law saying sex with a nine year old is wroing! I know it
is without having to be told. the point her is that clerics are stating that
it is ok and even givin instructions in it.
I agree with you. I also know it is wrong without consulting a pro, but
if you get a pro's opinion carries more weight.
This is in contrast to the aggressive confrontational approach taken by
'Matt' (or whatever his name is) and will be more effective.
Confronting someone about their beliefs isn't immoral is it?
He is attributing the belief that marriage (and sex) with nine year olds
is acceptable to all Muslims because *one* Muslim (Khomeini) said it
was.
No! He is saying that for Shias. For sunnis (who are the vast Majority of
Muslims) he also gave the example of the Hadiths.
This is patently false.
It is a false assertion that he only referred to Kohomni. But as it happensd
Khomeinileads MILLIONS of Muslims.
Who elected him?
Why do you have such a problem
understanding that you can't make assumptions about the beliefs of a
whole community based upon a handful of fuckwits within it.
You CAN take it as fact that his pronouncements for his people are like that
of the Pope for Catholics.
Who elected him?
It's all mumbo-jumbo written by witchdoctors and corrupted by tribal
customs for paternalistic tribesmen who regarded women and kids as
possessions.
That is you r opinion. I am asking you based not on opinion but the
actual
FACTS of recorded literature.
Recorded literature is recorded opinion
No it isnt but so what?
Don't be ridiculous. Do you sincerely believe that sex with nine old
girls is God's word?
No but I don't think Islam or christianity is mumbo jumbo written by witch
doctors.
Good grief, do you seriously believe that God would condone sex with a
nine year old?
Do you really think that God didn't want women to
enter the priesthood?
Seperate issue but quite probably yes. it is a valid argument . I dont have
anything against women priests however. the arguments against women priests
is much stronger than that of married priests.
Oh what rot. What possible argument could there be for not having women
priests?
This is the best evidence that the church is really just a remnant of
tribal practices.
These people made it up as they went along. They are tribal witchdoctors
- nothing more.
Eh no you would be quite wrong about that! they didnt make it up as they
went along. Hermenutics suggests not in the Case of christians anyway.
For a start, the tribal practice of those days was that women should
never study the Talmud - so scripture is stuffed from the outset.
A scientific paper about an experiment is recorded literatire. It may
contain opinion but in the main it is about a FACT which you can test to
be
true. Similaraly if a historian records something and another who never
met
him recorded the same thing but with a differnt slant it is difficult to
claim some event didnt happen.
Precisely. If you want the genuine word of God, ask an historian - don't
ask a priest/mullah/rabbi.
Some priests ARE historians, and astronomers and doctors. The Jesuits
usually have one of everything. In fact they teach historians!
Hope for your sake, you never get a Jehovah's witness as a doctor
My original proposal still stands:
<quote>
Perhaps we need a Muslim volunteer to ask the question and have a
judgement issued via fatwa.
This is your opportunity to ask the wise men (why men only?) of Islam
the question:
"WHAT IS THE MINIMUM AGE FOR MARRIAGE (SEX) IN ISLAM?"
Any volunteers? Please submit this question to your Imam and let us
know
the response.
This is your opportunity to silence the bigots....
</quote>
that is a fair question.
And what will the response be?
1. Avoid the question; or
2. Acknowledge the Koran and defend that position; or
3. Start a riot
you would have to ask and see.
The key missing link is that these mullahs are unaccountable for their
actions. It is the same missing link with paedophile priests.
that isnt true!Many abusing priests are in prison . I am aware of one
who
died in prison.
One?
Yes. Many more are in prison but this guy died in captivity . he was in for
child abuse.
They can sin away at will with no fear of punishment.
Thats rubbish! The comparisn isnt valid!
What about the hundreds of others? Estimates range from 5% to 15%
The church isn't responsible for attracting these animals to conditions
where they can sin with impunity but the church (church leaders, that
is) are absolutely responsible for not handing them over to the police.
I agree with you on this but this policy has changed! Unlike Islamic
teaching!
If that were the case we would be seeing hundreds of convictions - not
just a handful. And the convictions would be sexually active 20-50 year
olds, not octogenerians. We would be seeing many more excommunications -
we're seeing none.
No the churches are merely responding to public pressure with the
minimum that they can get away with. It is a P.R. exercise and little more.
One would think that the church would have a mission to protect kids -
the fact that they don't brings into question the whole raison d'etre of
the church.
No it doesnt since your premise is in error! They DO so your assumption that
DONT is wrong!
Fine, so open it all up to an independent investigation.
It won't happen - and you know it, cos it's just a P.R. exercise
.
|
|
| | | |
