Friday, January 27, 2012

Growing Number of Child Brides Among Muslims ... in London

Behold the glories of multiculturalism. We keep telling ourselves that all cultures are equal, and that no one should judge another person's cultural practices. But then we have to face reality: Other cultures follow Muhammad's example and see no problem with old men having sex with nine-year-old girls. So now we have a dilemma on our hands. Do we protect the young girls, thereby showing that we don't really believe the absurd myth that all cultures are equal? Or do we sacrifice the young girls on the altar of political correctness and false tolerance?

UNITED KINGDOM--An alarming number of under-age girls – some as young as nine – are being forced into marriage in Islington [a neighborhood in London], according to a leading campaign group.

The Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation (IKWRO) claim that at least 30 girls in the borough were forced into marriage in 2010.

The practice was condemned by the Imam of Finsbury Park Mosque, who said such marriages were against Islam and “unacceptable”.

He pledged to invalidate any marriage which he said were carried out by “back-street Imams”.

IKWRO, which made headlines last month when they revealed there had been almost 3,000 “honour-based” violence cases in 2010, has shown the Tribune records which revealed at least three 11-year-old girls and two nine-year-olds had been forced into marriage with older men within Islington. The oldest girls involved were 16.

They have warned that hundreds of Islington girls could be suffering sexual, emotional and physical scars as a result of the child marriages every year and are calling for teachers, social workers and police to be better trained to spot and manage the abuse.

Information from the Ministry of Justice, following a Freedom of Information request, revealed that 32 Forced Marriage Protection Order applications were made for children under 16 in Britain last year.

Six of these were made for under-16s within Islington at the Royal Courts of Justice, although these were not necessarily made for Islington residents.

At the Islington court, “five or fewer” orders were made to protect children between the ages of 9-11.

The orders are a form of injunction that threaten legal punishment if marriage takes place due to emotional or physical force.

In most cases, the children fear they will be killed if they reveal the truth to anybody, while others believe they will be separated from their families and taken into social services’ care.

Dianna Nammi, director of IKWRO, explained that the girls are married in a mosque’s sharia court. This means they are not legally married according to British law, rendering the Home Office unable to recognise or prove the abuse.

“They are still expected to carry out their wifely duties, though, and that includes sleeping with their husband,” she said.

“They have to cook for them, wash their clothes, everything. They are still attending schools in Islington, struggling to do their primary school homework, and at the same time being practically raped by a middle-aged man regularly and being abused by their families. So they are a wife, but in a primary school uniform.

“The reason it doesn’t get out is because they are too terrified to speak out, and also the control their families have over them is impossible to imagine if you’re not going through it. The way it is covered up is so precise, almost unspeakable.” (Read more at Islington Tribune.)

63 comments:

Tom said...

Ah, yes. The wretched serpent demon-god of "political correctness and false tolerance". As usual, he's here to claim his quota of sacrifices of young women. [sigh]

Somebody help me out here: "Why is it that wretched serpent demon-gods always demand sacrifices of young women and girls?" And, more appropriately, why is it that ANY of us are sitting idly by while he claims our children? [seething]

No, I'm not advocating violence but we must be willing to do WHATEVER IS NECESSARY to rebuke this "wretched serpent demon-god" and cast him into the eternal lake of fire (let HIM be the flaming sacrifice)[boiling]

And THANK YOU, once again, David for helping us to see those things that our MSM "just happens" to miss letting us know about.

KAFIR AND [MAD AS A BARN-FULL OF HORNETS] PROUD!!

Hezekiah Ahaz said...

I wonder where Melanie is and what she thinks about pedophiles.

Is it loving Melanie to shatter a child's dreams and future and to enslave them?

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Hezekiah

What do you think about pedophiles if I might ask. And I might be wrong, but do you believe that prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was a pedophile. If you say yes, then lets discuss it and see who has the stronger arguments. If no, then ignore the question. Thanks.

Joe Bradley said...

Ah Islam, the religion of Pedophilia.

Quran is Corrupt said...

Muhammad was a pedophile and the Quran says it is ok to marry girl children even before they have their menses.

simple_truth said...

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Hezekiah

"
What do you think about pedophiles if I might ask. And I might be wrong, but do you believe that prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was a pedophile. If you say yes, then lets discuss it and see who has the stronger arguments. If no, then ignore the question. Thanks.
"

No, he is not a pedophile since he doesn't seem to have a pattern of or a keen interest in engaging sexually with little girls; however, he is a child molester with respect to Christian teachings.

The bottom line is that by Jesus' standards, he is a sexually immoral deviant. Highly perverse!!

simple_truth said...

Just to keep you from deviating so far from the topic, I must ask you what would you do to prevent the marriage of child brides in the UK or anywhere else? The question is asked in the context that child marriages are already illegal in the UK, but some Sharia courts allow them, although illegally.

Koala Bear said...

@Samatar Mohammed:-

It is summed up very well here:-

http://www.faithfreedom.org/challenge/pedophile.htm

If you think he is not a peadophile then you need mental help. Would you marry your 6 year old daughter or sister off to an old man who rapes and abuses her? I would hope not.

Koala Bear said...

@Samatar Mohammed - I do find it interesting your lack of comment of the article? Are you pro-child marriages?

Andish said...

Muslims who claim 9 year olds aren't children because they show small signs of puberty are truly sick in the head. They know nothing of science and realize it is abnormal for a nine year old to reach puberty.


I challenge any Muslims right here to answer this question:


If your 5 year old daughter shows signs of having puberty would you allow your daughter to marry a man?

If you say no, then you're not only going against your prophet and early Muslim interpretations, but you're being inconsistent in your judgements and not following your principle of puberty equals adult.

If you say yes, then that alone should tell you why Islam is false. Also I wouldn't be surprised iy you experience pedophilia.

For those that don't know, going through puberty as such young ages is called precocious puberty. It's abnormal and does NOT mean they are an adult or ready for marraige.

Whether or not pedophilia was acceptable in the previous centuries is irrevelent becaus pedophilia is pedophilia. There are no exceptions. It can be safe to say that just because societies in the past regarded sex and marriage with children as acceptable it doesn't mean it was morally right, nor does it mean we should do it today.

For example: Pre-Islam infant girls were buried in the sand. If we started doing that again does it make it acceptable just because a previous society or region deemed it as so?

If you say no then if you want to stay consistent then you must say the same about pedophilia.

If you say yes then please check yourself in at the nearest hospital.

Also, I have evidence to prove that even if Aisha had reached puberty at 9, it was abnormal and Muhammad took advantage of an abnormal girl.

If you look at history you will see that girls use to reach puberty much later in life. And now it's much sooner. But do you know the reason? It's because of US! The hormones and chrmicals we put in our foods are causing girls to reach puberty earlier than in previous generations.

So in Muhammad's time hardly ANY girls hit puberty at 9. And even if she did then that means she was abnormal and experienced precocious puberty WHICH IS ABNORMAL.

Deleting said...

Samatar said to Hezekiah " but do you believe that prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was a pedophile. If you say yes, then lets discuss it and see who has the stronger arguments. "

Stop right there Samatar. I know you're going to argue culture and a different time period.

However, in order to excuse it, it would have to be the norm in all cultures and ancient civilizations.
It wasn't.
I'm not going to go into a diatribe on this stuff because it's saturday and I want to enjoy the rest of my weekend, but the civilizations where there was pedophila there was also paganism.

Consequently if you looked at child mortality rates you would also find them higher within pagan societies.

And islamic countries still happen to have both, including the pagan rituals it took from the pagans in mecca (black stone worship, bowing towards kabaa, hajj, etc).
The only thing you will successfully prove is there is still a strong connection to paganism in islam today.

Kim said...

As if Islam never gave the girl the right to refuse a forced marriage. As if it never said to wait until the girl is physically capable for intercourse. Duhhh lol.

BOOTA SINGH said...

Thanks Samatar Mohamed, admitting that Muhammad was a pedophile.
Peace.

Joe Bradley said...

As everyone knows, by modern standards, Muhammad WAS a pedophile!

[Click Here for Google's references to Muhammad's Child Bride Aisha (all 1,160,000 of them).]

"In popular usage, pedophilia means any sexual interest in children"* . . .[CLICK HERE for more on this]. While a popular argument among Islamists seems to be the age of Aisha at her first menses (somehow justifying the sexual intercourse as non-pedopheliac in nature), even this is in dispute and, by popular definition, it is the "sexual interest in children" which defines Pedophelia and NOT the actual sexual act. Aisha was married to Muhammad at 6 years of age and consummated that marriage at 9, the age of Aisha when she was married to Muhammad, is NOT in dispute and, for purposes of definition, the age of Aisha and her pubescent condition under which this union was consummated is a non-issue. Since marriage, among other things, is a manifestation of "sexual interest" in the spouse, Muhammad meets the clinical definition of a pedophile.

Predictably, there will be some Judeo-Christophobic Islamists which will assert that all of the 1,160,000 references found in Google are the result of islamophobes, however, most of these references cite Islamic writings as the basis for their thesis. Such is the state of Islam's fourth century bigotry brought forward into the 21st century.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

Juniper in the Desert said...

Islington is an area in London I am familiar with. It is the classic well-off middle class lefty area where hypocrisy reigns supreme. Margaret Hodge, now an MP used to be head of the council there. During her tenure, paedophiles were permitted to adopt - and abuse - vulnerable children. Under its veneer of beautiful houses and trendy shops it is run by a very nasty bunch. They follow the usual socialist protocol of spouting about women's rights and care for children, a kind of sick one-upmanship, meanwhile not giving a d#mn except for their own pockets.

Deleting said...

Kim said, "As if Islam never gave the girl the right to refuse a forced marriage"

Prove it.
Quote the surah and corrosponding ahadiths that say otherwise.

David Wood said...

Deleting said: "Prove it. Quote the surah and corrosponding ahadiths that say otherwise."

Actually, a child bride is allowed to object. Her silence is interpreted as acceptance.

The main problems are:

(1) such girls are told to keep quiet by their parents, and the girls don't know any better;

(2) little girls are not mature enough to make life decisions about marriage.

This is why a man in the U.S. will be charged with rape, even if an underage girl agrees to have sex. The reasoning is that young girls aren't mature enough to agree to have sex, and they may be easily manipulated into making decisions that aren't in their best interest.

Now think about this. A little girl is told that she will be marrying a Muslim. Her parents tell her to keep quiet while the marriage is arranged. Practically speaking, many parents will beat her if she disobeys. According to Kim, there is no problem with marrying such children, because they can reject the marriage if they want to. If they don't reject it, they have accepted it. But such girls are in no position (morally, intellectually, or physically) to make an informed decision about the rest of their lives, and it's simply naive to expect little girls to go against massive family pressure.

Notice that Kim has no concern whatsoever for the child's welfare.

Is it any surprise that this is the same religion that sends children to perform suicide bombings?

David Wood said...

Kim said: "As if it never said to wait until the girl is physically capable for intercourse. Duhhh lol."

Chapter and verse, Kim? Where did Muhammad or the Qur'an say that men must wait until girls are physically capable of intercourse?

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Koala Bear

"If you think he is not a peadophile then you need mental help. Would you marry your 6 year old daughter or sister off to an old man who rapes and abuses her? I would hope not."

I guess simple truth also needs mental help because he agreed that the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was not a pedophile as he said " No, he is not a pedophile since he doesn't seem to have a pattern of or a keen interest in engaging sexually with little girls;". But he does call him a child molester which I will discuss with him further. And may I repeat that you must look into the society. In these days, of course I would not give my six year old daughter up for marriage. But lets look at the culture the prophet (pbuh) lived in. He lived in a culture where the marriage of you women was an acceptable practice. Therefore, if you want to condemn the prophet (pbuh) as a pedophile and child molester, then you must also call past generations before you the same thing. Remember, the enemies of the prophet (pbuh) tried many ways to destroy the credibility of Muhammad (pbuh), and what better way to do this than to say that the man is a child molester. But hence, they never raised any such objection. Even in the United States of America in the 1800's ( about 200 years ago), the age of consent of as this site states "American reformers were shocked to discover that the laws of most states set the age of consent at the age of ten or twelve, and in one state, Delaware, the age of consent was only seven."

http://womhist.alexanderstreet.com/teacher/aoc.htm

So as you know should be consistent, Americans were mostly child molesters just 200 years ago. If you want to continue to discuss this sure, but I think the best path is to raise a few questions about the Prophet (pbuh) and Aisha.

1. Did the parents of Aisha consent to the marriage.

2. What did Aisha have to say about the man who supposedly molested her .

3. Did the Prophet (pbuh) have a tendency to go after young girls.

4. Was the practice acceptable in the culture and time he was living.

5. Was the prophet (pbuh) ever condemned in his time for the marriage by friends and foes.

6. Was the marriage of young girls practised not only in Arabia, but worldwide.

And there is more but this will be sufficient for now.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@BOOTA SINGH

"Thanks Samatar Mohamed, admitting that Muhammad was a pedophile.
Peace."

Where did I say that BOOTA SINGH, if you can quote me. It seems you have made an error while reading my posts.

Kim said...

Well David back then they were mature enough to make these decisions. If they clearly arent mature enough then why bother even thinking about marriage at such an age. It's permissible but no one said we have to abuse it.

http://islamqa.info/en/ref/1493

And what makes you think a loving Muslim parent is going to give her immature child to marriage when it isnt in her best interest? The girl maintains the right to annull the marriage anytime she wants to by saying no. If she is abused ( as if all Muslim men are rapists haha) then the man has to pay for her and maintain her for a lifetime while being divorced.

Its true social customs change very often, including the age of marriage people agree to. Girls in the middle ages were married off younger according to life's circumstances. In today's society our lives have expanded and our mental/ social have changed (Dam so spoiled). So I see absolutely nothing wrong with this law whatsoever. It's too bad some people are so narrow minded and bigoted.

Deleting said...

David answered my comment. He also said, "If they don't reject it, they have accepted it. But such girls are in no position (morally, intellectually, or physically) to make an informed decision about the rest of their lives, and it's simply naive to expect little girls to go against massive family pressure."

Damned if you do. Damned if you don't.


David ended with, "Is it any surprise that this is the same religion that sends children to perform suicide bombings?"

Ladies and gentleman, the religion of piece.

Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Samatar asked: "What do you think about pedophiles if I might ask."


I think they are sick twisted desperate insane individuals. What do you think about them?

Samatar asked: "And I might be wrong, but do you believe that prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was a pedophile."


Idk would you marry a 6 year old?

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Koala Bear

"I do find it interesting your lack of comment of the article? Are you pro-child marriages?"

No, in the times we live in now, I am against child marriage. I agree that child marriage should not be tolerated in the world today. But in the culture of many years ago, I am in no position to call the world of the past generations pedophiles because they practiced young marriage especially if it can be explained.

Deleting said...

Kim said, "Its true social customs change very often, including the age of marriage people agree to. Girls in the middle ages were married off younger according to life's circumstances."
And what circumstances? What ages? What countries? You have yet to cite any evidence thus far Kim.

And whilst were on the subject of cultures, show me somewhere (and it may very well be in the Sahih hadiths) girls were married off at the age of 6 BEFORE MOHAMMAD STARTED HIS MINISTRY.

If it were cultural there would be many, many more child brides mentioned and thus Mohammed would be justified.

But that's not the reason why you're dismissing it or denying it Kim/Samatar and you KNOW IT. You don't want to have to answer for your prophet and deflecting means you don't have to defend him. I see right through it and I won't let up because it is EVIL. Time and culture doesn't make it okay.

Andish said...

Samatar don't avoid my questioning. Killing infant girls and child labor was respected once upon a time. Is it acceptable to bring them back since they were once accepted?

I pretty much already gave the impression that societies approval of child molestation was wrong in the past, and therefor wrong today.

Derek Adams said...

Samatar said:

"But lets look at the culture the prophet (pbuh) lived in. He lived in a culture where the marriage of you women was an acceptable practice. Therefore, if you want to condemn the prophet (pbuh) as a pedophile and child molester, then you must also call past generations before you the same thing. Remember, the enemies of the prophet (pbuh) tried many ways to destroy the credibility of Muhammad (pbuh), and what better way to do this than to say that the man is a child molester. But hence, they never raised any such objection."

Your position is irrational (as usual)

Notice your defense:

1) In Mohammed's time it was culturally acceptable to marry at that age.

2) All the generations before Mohammed did the same thing

3) The enemies of Mohammed did not object to this.

Lets address the fallacies:

1) "culturally acceptable"

In Mohammed's time it was also supposedly also culturally acceptable to murder female infants in times of famine, yet Allah condemns this:

"And do not kill your children for fear of poverty; We give them sustenance and yourselves too; surely to kill them is a great wrong."

According to Muslims, Islam brought with along with it itself the rights of women. Women's status in pre-Islamic Arabia was poor, practices of female infanticide, unlimited polygyny, patrilineal marriage and others. The social reforms brought by Mohammed were meant to include changes to marriage (a limited number of wives or one wife), divorce and inheritance.

So here is clear proof that Allah rejected many cultural norms regarding women.

Therefore the defense that "pedophila was the cutural norm" is not a defense at all, it's an untenable position.

2) Everyone before him did it.

In Abraham's time it was culturally acceptable to be a polytheist, all the generations in Mesopotamia before him did the same thing.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh. Bad reasoning.

3) No one objected.

Firstly this is a mere argument from silence. It assumes that the Quran and Sunnah record every objection that was made by the pagans, Sabians, Jews and Christians. Yet there is no reason to think that is true.

Secondly they didn't object to murdering infant children, so who cares what the hell they object to?

Thirdly If they had objected (which many poets objected to the deeds of Mohammed) they were to be executed. As Islam does not allow criticism. So we have a strong deterrent showing why many may not have.

Ultimately you believe the Creator of the universe revealed this book, he upgraded the rights of women, but he forgot to mention that pedophilia was a crime. When are you going to leave Islam?

Kim said:

"Well David back then they were mature enough to make these decisions. If they clearly arent mature enough then why bother even thinking about marriage at such an age"

Children were more mature in the 7th century?

Why were children thinking about marriage?

1) Provide any scientific evidence that's notion is even possible

2) Stop begging the question.

Clearly Aisha wasn't thinking marriage, it was Mohammed whom had dreamed about her, and said his dream was from God approving of his marriage.

Abu Bakr originally even objected:

"Narrated 'Ursa: The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for 'Aisha's hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said "But I am your brother." The Prophet said, "You are my brother in Allah's religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry."

Not only was Aisha not thinking about marriage, neither was her Father thinking about her marriage, clearly evidence showing this was NOT common.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Andish

So you agree with me then that forcing a women to marry you under compulsion is morally wrong right now, and any time in history. That, just because it was accepted in the past does not make it justifiable, do you agree with this basic statement or no. If yes then why, if no, then why not?

Zack_Tiang said...

Samatar just said,
"No, in the times we live in now, I am against child marriage. I agree that child marriage should not be tolerated in the world today."

Samatar has just denounced Allah and his Quran as false..... Again?

033.021
YUSUFALI: Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah.
PICKTHAL: Verily in the messenger of Allah ye have a good example for him who looketh unto Allah and the Last Day, and remembereth Allah much.
SHAKIR: Certainly you have in the Messenger of Allah an excellent exemplar for him who hopes in Allah and the latter day and remembers Allah much.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Zack Thiang

Well then I guess you just condemned the Old testament for some of the principles in the old testament. The Old testament undeniably allowed slavery, yet I am pretty sure that you would agree with me that slavery is a practice that should be abolished. Therefore, Just because I am saying that what was suitable in a a culture of many years ago, is not suitable in this day and age, does not mean that I am condemning the Prophet (pbuh). And going by your logic, slavery should be condemned regardless of when in history it occurred. Then if you are honest with yourself, then you will condemn the slavery that was allowed in the Old testament. Or you will admit that what is suitable in a day and age may not be suitable in another day and age . The balls in your court.

Foolster41 said...

@Samatar, Zack: I would disagree, if it was allowed in the past, that doesn't mean it is necessarily evil or bad for that time and place, as is in the OT.

However, Samatar, you are missing two major points.

1.)As it has been explained a million times already, the bible has actions for the set period of time (allowing slavery for example), but it is not a global scope. Many were laws for the nation of Isreal at the time.

But the problem with the Koran/Hadiths is it's presented as declarations that cannot change, thus what is proscribed in the Koran/hadiths then has to be allowed now. Mohammad is presented as a great example to follow, so if he did things then like marry and have sex with a 9 year old, or raided caravans then it must be acceptable now. This is the major line between the bible OT and the Quran/hadiths.

2.)(and it baffles me how Muslims don't understnad this) Mohammad lived AFTER the new Testiment. This means, after the Christians discarded the old laws and practices, which many were not even in effect in that day. Meaning Mohammad's reforms were not a step foreward, they were a step backward!

Of course, your going to ignore this as usual, and someone will have to explain this again.

Deleting said...

I said to Kim, "If it were cultural there would be many, many more child brides mentioned and thus Mohammed would be justified."

I need to clarify. I shouldn't have said 'justify'. I should have said, "explained it'.
There is absolutely N-O justification for pedophila or child marriage.
And there was no excuse for Mohammed.

Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Samatar and Osama are fighting a lost battle it's embarrasing.


By the way Samatar did your god create logic?

Zack_Tiang said...

Samatar,

First of all, the slavery in the OT is different from the slavery you are thinking of.
The modern perception of 'slavery' is that of forced labor enforced onto a suppressed group of people against their freedom.

But in the OT, slavery was a job description, like a butler or a maid of a mansion. Is being a butler or maid for a rich man considered slavery at this current time? There are plenty of cases of masters abusing their butlers and maids too, btw.

God allowed slavery in the OT (btw, for the Jews, and not as a global thing, as pointed out by Foolster) by making sure the slaves' rights are protected; e.g. no mistreatment/abuse, equal rights as a wife if married, right to be married (even into the family), right to leave should certain conditions apply, etc.

Second of all, nowhere does the NT tell us to follow the examples of the OT.. and when it does, it is quite specific of what it is we should mimic.



Now, back to you, the Quran and Allah say that Muhammad is the best role model for ALL to follow... and since it was Allah who said it, it must be a timeless statement, meaning for ALL time.
Or is Allah not speaking timelessly and only at that specific point in time was Muhammad the best role model to follow? If that is the case, then Allah is not a timeless (a.k.a. eternal) god.

So, is 033.021 a timeless and true statement (that Muhammad is the best role model for you to mimic, unquestionably and fully) or is it not, Samatar?

FYI, I can quote you who Jesus said (in the NT) was the greatest (godly) man in all history of mankind.. and I assure you, this man has no issue with slavery to debate over.

Kim said...

@Deleting
Wow? Did you watch the video I posted that explained how the age of marriage for girls was so young? Please say yea.

Kim said...

Sorry, forgot to post it earlier. My mistake.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcbguOBaVck&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Kim said...

If it was pedophilia then why havent the enemies of Islam at his time object to the marriage and call him such things.

It was acceptable due to the life's circumstances as welll as the cultural norm.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Foolster, Zack Thiang

So you are telling me that the slavety in the New Testament is the equivalence of a maid in todays day and age. So in the 21 st century, does the government allow us to flog or hit our maid with many blows if they intentionally decide not to complete the tasks their boss wanted them to do. Or even worse, flog them a few times even if they did NOT intentionally know what the boss wanted them to do. You would say of course not, and no such teaching is their in the New Testament. Well, here it is:

Luke 12, 47-48

47 “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

Most of the time in this blog, I feel as if I am speaking to the most inconsistent people who say no way should maids be hit, but when we bring a passage showing them that it is allowed, I guess its time to start reinterpreting the verse so you have it mean the opposite of what it really says.

Zack_Tiang said...

Samatar,

"So you are telling me that the slavety in the New Testament is the equivalence of a maid in todays day and age."

Now where did you read that?

I said, "But in the OT, slavery was a job description, like a butler or a maid of a mansion."

Who was it again that is interpreting something to mean opposite of what it really says, Samatar?

Speaks very much of your disposition to actually reason and be reasoned.

My God has a funny way of uncovering the fool. Praise His matchless Name. =)



"You would say of course not, and no such teaching is their in the New Testament. Well, here it is:

Luke 12, 47-48"

And if you read from Luke 12:35, you'd actually realize it was Jesus Christ speaking a parable and not to teach how a master is to treat a slave, but to illustrate God's wrath/punishment upon His servants/followers who do not do according to His will either consciously or otherwise.



"Most of the time in this blog, I feel as if I am speaking to the most inconsistent people who say no way should maids be hit, but when we bring a passage showing them that it is allowed, I guess its time to start reinterpreting the verse so you have it mean the opposite of what it really says."

No, sir, it has been clear and shown/demonstrated over and over that commentors like you, who have no regards to reason or to be reasoned, are guilty of reinterpreting anything.
You even reinterpret the comments of others in this blog (such as mine, as shown in the very beginning of this reply of mine and as can be demonstrated in other threads of comments too).


---


And now, back to you, Samatar:

Is 033.021 a timeless and true statement (that Muhammad is the best role model for you to mimic, unquestionably and fully) or is it not, Samatar?

Deleting said...

Kim said, "Sorry, forgot to post it earlier. My mistake."

THAT...was not your only mistake. You posted a youtube video again and thought I wouldn't check the references given.

I'll start with Baldwin III-I wasn't able to find record either way but the video said he got married in 1145. I'll assume it's true.
How ever the girl was 13 years old. He was fifteen. That's a world of difference between two years and 47 years difference!!!!


Alexious II Komnen-The video said he married a 'beautiful' (the videos words, not mine. Keep a barf bucket nearby. No he didn't. He was entered into an arranged marriage but the marriage was never followed through.

Mary, the mother of Jesus. I'm not sure why they said '13'. There's no real record that exists for her age at the time of his birth. She could have been 13. She could have been 15 or even 18. We. Don't. Know. And neither does the producer of this video so he shouldn't have used it.
The speaker being interviewed went on a diatribe about age of marriages. This really only had a hair of revelance as far as I'm concerned. We don't see anyone in the hadiths having child brides BEFORE Mohammad. That's been my point. I don't care about who came afterwards with child marriages. They were wrong just like mohammad was wrong.
Just like you're wrong to defend him or try to deflect which is still what you're doing...

To be continued...

Deleting said...

Kim continued,
At point 3:09 the interviewee says 'You have to judge on whether someone was doing something wrong'.
I might be inclined to agree, the problem is we don't see P-R-O-O-F in the hadiths that say before Mohammed it was okay to have a child bride.
No one was allowed to critize mohammed!! don't you understand??? Absence of the critism doesn't mean people approved of it. All it means is they were scared to death to speak out because he was a monster.

Let's continue.
3:39(ish???) the interviewer says Aisha was previously engaged to another man. Would need to see hadith to see this.
And apparently Aisha, that shameless hussy, got around because The dude said she was married three or four times and she was originally married off to a jew.
(I smell a deflect coming on here).
But before this, he said 'She was first married off at the age of 10' but then at 4:28 he said 'she married at six'. So Aisha was married to multiple men at one time??????????

Kim, really? Do you watch these videos?
Continued...argh.

Deleting said...

Further on Kim's videos:

4:50 this was funny. He said 'And who said a girl can get married when she reaches puberty?"
Hint: he doesn't quote the Koran. He doesn't quote the bible.
He quotes Encyclopedia Brittanicia.

Guess we can toss 2000+ years if hermaneutics and just go with that.

THe third history reverence Maria of Hungary to Isaac II- yup found it. He was 19 years older than she was and was known to be somewhat of a cruel bastard.
Not gonna deny it. Not gonna endorse it. Nor am I going to say it 'was just that time'.
She had kids with him, two sons. They can't find birth records for the oldest one. The youngest was born when she was 18.
But then again....european nobles married for a reasons. Power.
Mohammed married for lust and just because there was a 'marriage' doesn't mean it was or was not consumated. There could be other reasons why as in the bride was travelling a 1000 miles away from home, there was political wranglings and wars.
Not denying it. Not dismissing it, but I don't buy the maker of this videos spiel that it's illogical to critize mohammed when people some 400-500 years later do the same thing.
I condemn it and won't excuse it.

Wrapping up video-the guy moves on to say that mohammed had many enemies (consequently the picture of some long bearded fellows pops up.)
He also said the jews of arabia were his enemies, saying all sorts of bad things.
Right....because Mohammed was tolerant and pieceful.
it ends saying 'forget romeo and juliet and just read mohammed and aisha's 'love story'.
No thank you.

Deleting said...

Kim said ( surmise her statement as she tries to find her shahada card because she thinks this wins the argument) "If it was pedophilia then why havent the enemies of Islam at his time object to the marriage and call him such things.

It was acceptable due to the life's circumstances as welll as the cultural norm."


Because he K-I-L-L-E-D his enemies kim.

Abi Bin Khalaf Bin Wahab and Amro Bin Umer didn't fare quite so well.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Zack Thiang

LOL, you completely brushed aside my question without answering it. You said that slavery in the Old Testament is like a job description as of a maid. But my point was to show you that slaves were punished with beating for not obeying orders, whether intentionally or intentionally. Therefore, would you accept slavery, and more importantly, would you advocate the beating of slaves for not obeying orders fully in this day and age.

With regards to your question, my answer is yes and no. By saying is he the best role model of course he is the best role model for me to follow. Hello, I am a muslim you know. But the no is that I would not follow the prophet (pbuh) in every possible thing he did that is not compulsory for muslims to do. For example, the prophet (pbuh) used a miswak to brush his teeth, I prefer using a tooth brush, so I would not follow that. Also, the prophet (pbuh) had multiple wives, and I prefer only one wife. The prophet (pbuh) prayed during the night for long periods until his feet would swell. I pray the 5 daily prayers, the witr prayer at night, and some of the sunnah prayers if I have time. In the hadith, I read that the prophet (pbuh) hated lizards and I do to. But if for example I did like lizards, I would not stop eating it just because the prophet (pbuh) did not prefer lizards. But if I heard the prophet (pbuh) say something in an authentic hadith, such as telling muslim men to trim their mustaches and to keep their beard. I would be the first one to do that. So here is your answer, and please do not avoid mine as you did in your last post.

Deleting said...

You know what i just realized???
No muslim apologist ever quotes child marriages from the time period preceeding Mohammad.
That's odd. All the citation are usually using european references to royalty.
No one quotes anything before that.
strange.

Zack_Tiang said...

Samatar,

I didn't brush aside anything, Samatar. I pointed out the very foundation of your argument was false (e.g. 'slavery in the NT is equivalent to a maid in today's age')... and therefore, it follows that your following question based on this statement is pointless. (This is the same as you pointing out (in another thread) that I had misunderstood your position, and therefore you completely ignored the rest of my comments).
So please don't act as though I am being dodgy.

With that, I also pointed out your disposition for proper reasoning based on proper context of what you're quoting.
The New Testament taught nothing about treating slaves or even having one.... The only thing about slavery in the NT is that the NT teach us to stop being in slavery to sin and change that to being in slavery to righteousness.
So, I only prove that you're guilty of what you accused us of doing (of which we are innocent of).

Now, regarding 'punished with beating for not obeying orders'...
I'd like to know, Samatar...

Do you agree an adulteress should be beaten/whipped for their adultery?
Do you agree that both adulterer and adulteress should be stoned to death for their adultery?
Do you agree that thieves should have their hands cut off?
Do you agree that apostates of Islam should be killed?
Do you agree that a disobedient child should be punished; e.g. by cane or spanking?

If you said no to all of the above, then I agree you have a reason for making your argument...
But I highly doubt you will to all, lest you want to go against your own Quran.

Now, if you are gonna say 'yes' to any of the above, then you can't argue the punishment for slaves by beating is unjust.

But even if I were to go along with you, and say the slavery of the OT is unjust or inappropriate in this time and day, the NT never calls us to follow or continue such practices.
But the Quran, on the other hand, inferred that whatever Muhammad did is righteous and moral and should be mimicked by all Muslims.. which comes back to my question to you regarding 033.021.

You say, just because Muhammad did it, that doesn't mean you have to or must, too.
But that doesn't mean you should not or must no longer follow/mimic, yes?
You, by your own admission, said you as a Muslim must take Muhammad as your best role model, albeit you don't follow 100%...
But that only means you're not being faithful; not that anything Muhammad did is no longer to be followed or is no longer suitable for this time and age, doesn't it?

With that, you can't argue that child marriage is no longer suitable for this time and age and was only for the time of Muhammad, based on culture and times.
What's more, you can't hold the position that you are against child marriage. It is the same as you saying you are against brushing teeth with a miswak or against keeping a beard.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Zack Thiang

Just a quick question. What is the age that a girl is allowed to have sex with a man according to the bible. Because it seems to me that you are confused with the islamic position. Remember, muslims are not allowed to have sex with any female until she hits puberty. Marriage can take place before puberty, but the consummation of the marriage can only take place when the female hits puberty. Which is why it is critical that I receive a response as to what age is a a married person allowed to have sex with her husband. Is it 16, 18, 12 (when Mary got married to Joseph), or is it when the female hits puberty.

Zack_Tiang said...

Samatar,

Now it is obvious that you are trying to shift the subject.
Where have I touched on sex with a child/infant? I have only been talking about child marriage and also about your saying about being against CHILD MARRIAGE.

Now you're saying "marriage CAN take place before puberty".
But you're against child marriage?

It is obvious I am right that you can't hold your position and remain consistent with Islam.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Zack Thiang

Now I am shifting the subject. What is the problem with child marriage if I might ask. It ony becomes a problem if their is sex involved in the marriage. I was against child marriage that involved a sexual relation because there would be no purpose of the matter, and would result in child molestation. And I knew that you misunderstood my position, hence, I brought it up. But when I go into detail about my position, then you say I am shifting my position. Which is why it is critical you answer when in the bible is a female allowed to have sexual relations with her husband. But you did not answer. I wonder why.

Kim said...

@Deleting

There were much more people than those two that knew about his marriages. What about the rest of Arabia? Byzantines? Persians? Israelites? You have no solid ground to back your claims now do you?

Zack_Tiang said...

Samatar,

Oh... so now you're against child sex, and not child marriage, then?

Let me repeat what you wrote and see if you meant "child marriages" (in general) or only "child marriages with sexual relations"...

Samatar Mohamed said...

"In these days, of course I would not give my six year old daughter up for marriage. But lets look at the culture the prophet (pbuh) lived in. He lived in a culture where the marriage of you women was an acceptable practice."

"@Koala Bear "Are you pro-child marriages?"

No, in the times we live in now, I am against child marriage. I agree that child marriage should not be tolerated in the world today."

I think it's quite obvious what you referred to, Samatar.
So, no, it isn't critical for me to answer your question at all, Samatar.

You said, "What is the problem with child marriage if I might ask."

I'm sure you have the answer(s) to that question since you answered, "In these days, of course I would not give my six year old daughter up for marriage." and "in the times we live in now, I am against child marriage. I agree that child marriage should not be tolerated in the world today."

Deleting said...

Kim list them. ALL of them! Fact is you can't so shut up! I proved you wrong and refuted EVERY dopey claim that stupid video made.

Kim said...

Watch the video again. I understand how you dont like to be exposed when wrongfully attacking another religion.

The hypocrites and pagans knew of his marriage, it was publicly known. If they thought he was a child molester they would have spread that throughout the entire region against him. That is proof enough.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Zack Thiang

You finally get my position, at no time in history does Islam tolerate having sex with a female under the age of puberty. Even though Aisha was married to the prophet (pbuh) at 6, she did not enter the house of the prophet (pbuh) or have sexual relations with him until she was at the age of nine where she considered herself a women according to the hadith.

When the girl reaches nine years of age, she is a woman. (Sunan al-Tirmidhi, Kitab: al-Nikah, Bab: Maa Jaa'a fee Ikraah Al Yateemah 'alaa al tazweej, Hadith no. 1027

Aisha knew (that she hit puberty) when she became nine years old. (Shaikh Abdur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri, Tuhfat AI-Ahwadhi, Kitab: al-Nikah, Bab: Maa Jaa'a fee Ikraah Al Yateemah 'alaa al tazweej, Hadith no. 1027.

Kangaroo said...

http://islamic-replies.ucoz.com/Rebut_WikiIslam_Pedophilia_Quran.html

Refutes any allegation of such "pedophilia" in Islam.

Deleting said...

Kim said, "Watch the video again. I understand how you dont like to be exposed when wrongfully attacking another religion."

Then why did I do 4 posts correcting the video watched????

I don't need to watch it again. If anyone needs to do so it would be you so you can see why you shouldn't post youtube links that DEFEAT your argument.

Deleting said...

Kim, let me approach it another way with you so you see what the deal is.

Your agrument-Mo's marriage wasn't wrong because none of his enemies protested it.

This is your argument.

But if you want me to accept islam on this basis alone, then I want you to accept this statement:

It wasn't wrong for Safiyaah, the jewish woman, to test mohammed by serving him poisoned mutton.
No one said she did anything wrong, and lots of people have tried to poison other people during that time so poisoning mohammad couldn't be wrong.

I already know right now, you can't accept that statment. I can't accept mohammed's marriage to aisha either. It's not an insult to islam to say i reject it. I reject islam for many, many reasons other than this one.

My point that i've been trying to get you to understand is right is right. Wrong is wrong and it is WRONG to marry little girls to older men. I don't care which culture you live in. I don't care which civilization was practicing it. IT. IS. WRONG.

If you don't want to defend your prophet, don't answer the questions but also don't deflect either.
Just walk away.

Zack_Tiang said...

Samatar Mohamed said...
"@Zack Thiang,
You finally get my position"

It's very interesting how Samatar even ignores quotes from himself in order to make himself seem not wrong or inconsistent in his position.

I'll let everyone else be the judge of that.

Samatar Mohamed said...

"In these days, of course I would not give my six year old daughter up for marriage. But lets look at the culture the prophet (pbuh) lived in. He lived in a culture where the marriage of you women was an acceptable practice."

"@Koala Bear "Are you pro-child marriages?"

No, in the times we live in now, I am against child marriage. I agree that child marriage should not be tolerated in the world today."

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Zack Thiang

I'll repeat my question as we cannot move along until you answer the question. At what age does the bible allow females to marry and have sexual relations with their husbands. Because if you say puberty, then you cannot argue that the prophet (pbuh) molested Aisha.

cornholio said...

@Samatar

You might want to keep quite about slavery foolio -- because the ONLY countries which practice legalized slavery in the 21st century today are islamic (i.e. Sudan and Mauritania). BTW, the slave traders who sold black Africans into slavery were muslime Arabs, not white Europeons.

Zack_Tiang said...

Samatar Mohamed said...

"@Zack Thiang
I'll repeat my question as we cannot move along until you answer the question. At what age does the bible allow females to marry and have sexual relations with their husbands. Because if you say puberty, then you cannot argue that the prophet (pbuh) molested Aisha."

In this whole thread or even site, when have I said anything about Muhammad molesting Aisha?
So, there is no need for me to justify anything nor is there a need to 'move along'.

It's clear that you want to 'move along' so as to 'move away' from the predicament that your own words have placed you and your latter efforts to relieve that is just plainly desperate and unsightly.

I'm perfectly fine to rest my case with my previous comment.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Zack Thiang

LOL. This whole time I thought you held that the prophet (pbuh) was molesting Aisha. Therefore, looks like I wasted my time trying to prove something you did not even argue with. My bad on this one.

dstewart said...

Leviticus 18:

24 "‘Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants."

So from a Christian point of view, the argument about it being OK in that cultural context is invalid. Moral law is not determined by popular vote, but by the Moral Lawgiver. Their moral standard is not necessarily God's moral standard, which is written in a person's heart. This is why we naturally find sexual relations with 9-year-olds so disgusting. It was never God's intention for ANYONE to do that, especially not someone who claimed to be his prophet.