Does this embarrass you when you hear things like this?

Simon.d

Agathon wrote: »

Who said she had sex with the prophet(p) when she was 9?

The following is an extract taken from Sahih al-Bukhari's Hadith.... Known to many as "the most authentic book after the Holy Qur’an.”


Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64: Narrated 'Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).

Agathon

Simon.d wrote: »

The following is an extract taken from Sahih al-Bukhari's Hadith.... Known to many as "the most authentic book after the Holy Qur’an.”


Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64: Narrated 'Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).

OK, all this says is that the prophet, peace be upon him, completed an arrangement or an agreement by the signing of a contract with abu Bakr. Where does she say that they had sexual intercourse? They didn't necessarily have to have sexual intercourse. Even though these types of marriages were a normal occurrence in Arabia, this specific marriage was a special one in the light of Islam. There was wisdom behind it that you must try to research properly instead of assuming that it was wrong!

Simon.d

Agathon wrote: »

OK, all this says is that the prophet, peace be upon him, completed an arrangement or an agreement by the signing of a contract with abu Bakr. Where does she say that they had sexual intercourse? They didn't necessarily have to have sexual intercourse.

To consummate a marriage is to have sexual intercourse... If you could show me alternate translations of this hadith that suggests otherwise, fire ahead.. That contract was already signed when Aisha was six, so I don't see where that comes in.. As per another extract from that chapter:

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88: Narrated 'Ursa:
The Prophet 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).

Agathon wrote: »

There was wisdom behind it that you must try to research properly instead of assuming that it was wrong!

You should try thinking about it somewhat objectively before assuming such things are right.. Forget about your religious belief's for a moment and consider the idea of putting your own child in Aisha's position, aged nine (and menstruating) would the idea of some 50 year old man taking her to his bed sit comfortably with you?

Agathon

Simon.d wrote: »

To consummate a marriage is to have sexual intercourse... If you could show me alternate translations of this hadith that suggests otherwise, fire ahead.. That contract was already signed when Aisha was six, so I don't see where that comes in..

con⋅sum⋅mate
   /v. ˈ[v. kon-suh-meyt; adj. kuhn-suhm-it, kon-suh-mit] Show IPA verb, -mat⋅ed, -mat⋅ing, adjective
–verb (used with object)
1. to bring to a state of perfection; fulfill.
2. to complete (an arrangement, agreement, or the like) by a pledge or the signing of a contract: The company consummated its deal to buy a smaller firm.

I'm saying, usually to complete the contract and letting somebody to move in & live with you, does not mean having sex straight away. It would just mean she is under the care of the Prophet (p) instead of Abu Bakr now, and ready to learn the ways of the religion.

You should try thinking about it somewhat objectively before assuming such things are right.. Forget about your religious belief's for a moment and consider the idea of putting your own child in Aisha's position, aged nine (and menstruating) would the idea of some 50 year old man taking her to his bed sit comfortably with you?

Abu Bakr and his wife were not forced to do it. Read up on the actual events of the relationship of Abu Bakr, the Prophet and the other sahabah. Read up on marriage in that era. Read up on the context and don't only think about sex. I'm telling you there was wisdom behind it because I believe that the Prophet (p) was a true Messenger of God sent to mankind and I've read the context of the hadith and seerah. There are over a billion Muslims in the world. The reality is they do not see it from the same perverted perspective as you're seeing it from (that includes educated, Western reverts), so do a bit more research and write a thesis about it if your so passionate about the events of that marriage.

Simon.d

Agathon wrote: »

con⋅sum⋅mate
   /v. ˈ[v. kon-suh-meyt; adj. kuhn-suhm-it, kon-suh-mit] Show IPA verb, -mat⋅ed, -mat⋅ing, adjective
–verb (used with object)
1. to bring to a state of perfection; fulfill.
2. to complete (an arrangement, agreement, or the like) by a pledge or the signing of a contract: The company consummated its deal to buy a smaller firm.

I'm saying, usually to complete the contract and letting somebody to move in & live with you, does not mean having sex straight away. It would just mean she is under the care of the Prophet (p) instead of Abu Bakr now, and ready to learn the ways of the religion.

To consummate a marriage means to have sex... Tis a bit petty of you to skew your argument by ommiting the most relevant dictionary definition... :rolleyes:

3. to complete (the union of a marriage) by the first marital sexual intercourse.

Abu Shakurah

Simon.d wrote: »

I really don't care about her legacy.. I don't care what society was like back then, all I care about at this moment is the moral stance of modern day muslims on this issue.. You continually dodge my point.. Please just answer this one question, with a yes or no answer, no ifs, buts, or whatever..

Do you think it is morally acceptable for a 50 year old man to has sexual intercourse with a 9 year old girl?

Yes or No

I know you're not a muslim (yet), but please answer the question anyhow...

Is homosexuality morally acceptable in Ireland?

Simon.d

Abu Shakurah wrote: »

Is homosexuality morally acceptable in Ireland?

More or less (Obviosly some people still find it unacceptable).. But most Irish don't seem to have a problem with it: Poll.. What's the relevance of the question?

Agathon

Simon.d wrote: »

To consummate a marriage means to have sex... Tis a bit petty of you to skew your argument by ommiting the most relevant dictionary definition... :rolleyes:

3. to complete (the union of a marriage) by the first marital sexual intercourse.

I was just showing you the other meanings of the word in a dictionary. Usually a hadith is more specific about even sex and she would have mentioned it. But the main issue is the real reasons behind the marriage and the life and status of 'Aisha(ra) in Islam. What is your theory exactly? elaborate...

Simon.d

Agathon wrote: »

What is your theory exactly? elaborate...

Muslims (in general) seem to be unable to denounce sexual intercourse between preteen (though menstruating) females and older men as immoral, viewing certain instances of statutory rape as morally acceptable..

This stems from Mohammed's relationship with Aisha, and as "the prophet" could do no wrong, his sexual relationship with a preteen pubescent girl is viewed by modern Muslims as being on a solid moral footing.. Yes it happened 1400 years ago, but the religious believe what God found morally acceptable back in the day, is also morally acceptable in the here and now..

That'd be my reckoning.. Do you agree?

Agathon

Simon.d wrote: »

Muslims (in general) seem to be unable to denounce sexual intercourse between preteen (though menstruating) females and older men as immoral, viewing certain instances of statutory rape as morally acceptable..

This stems from Mohammed's relationship with Aisha, and as "the prophet" could do no wrong, his sexual relationship with a preteen pubescent girl is viewed by modern Muslims as being on a solid moral footing.. Yes it happened 1400 years ago, but the religious believe what God found morally acceptable back in the day, is also morally acceptable in the here and now..

That'd be my reckoning.. Do you agree?

So what you're saying is Muhammed(p) took 'Aisha(ra) shouting and screaming, against her parents will & the society at large, and raped her?! Is that your theory?

Firstly, It has been already explained to you that this was a practice before the Prophet(p) was even born; sexual maturity (16 onwards in the Western society according to you!) is different for different environments and eras. Her father would not have done it if it wasn't and the society would have seen it as strange. But you and a few other atheists are the only ones mentioning it now, even though you believe we don't abide by a moral duty (no accountability)!!

Secondly, the Prophet (p) was not 50, and some narrations say she was 13 or 16, etc. (basically when she was old enough to make her own decisions/mature); We don't take every single thing in hadith word for word as we do for the Noble Qur'an. The essence of the marriage is the most important thing in this hadith (and that is the life of 'aisha in Islamic History). You should seriously write an essay about this and send to me; you're missing a very big point in Islam. The main thing is the 'Aqeedah (Belief in a Creator, as revealed in the Qur'an). If you don't believe in the Creator and the Qur'an, you're obviously not going to understand the essence of certain events of the Prophet's life. End it there because we could argue all year! Good luck with your thesis...

Simon.d

Agathon wrote: »

So what you're saying is Muhammed(p) took 'Aisha(ra) shouting and screaming, against her parents will & the society at large, and raped her?! Is that your theory?

No I did not say that.. I agree that Mohammed engaged in a consensual relationship with a 9 year old girl, with the permission of the girls parents and probable acceptance of his immediate social circle.. But that's nothing to do with what I said.. I'm solely interested in the moral stance of modern day muslims, not the social norms of 1400 years ago (as I clearly pointed out in my last post and numerous other times )..

Do you believe in the concept of statutory rape?

Do you feel it's morally acceptable for a 50 year old man to have "consensual" sexual intercourse with his nine year old menstruating wife?

Trouser_Press

Jannah wrote: »

It is so typically western that we would think that our way is the only and best way. The same goes for things like multiple wives etc - just because it's not in our society, people see it as being 'wrong' yet for many people it really does work.

I was impressed by your responses, which were highly informative, until this.

I'm certain "multiple wives" really do "work" for some. Just as slavery benefited many.

Pitiful.

Agathon

Simon.d wrote: »

...Do you feel it's morally acceptable for a 50 year old man to have "consensual" sexual intercourse with his nine year old menstruating wife?

Do you believe it's ok for a man and woman to marry with a 30 or 40 year age difference? I'm trying to say she was a sexually mature girl (& her parents were not evil) at either 9, 12 or 13 and he was in his 40's; Do you think Tom Cruise is doing something abhorrent or Michael Douglas or Demi Moore or that rich old man who was with Nicole whats-her-name?? I'm saying as they got older the two of them lived harmoniously and there has never been a complaint/outcry from anybody (not from 'Aisha, not from her parents, not from the society, not from the Mushriks of Koraish, not from the Jews of Medina, not from the Christians around the Peninsula, not even from the enemies of Muhammed(p) at that time and after his time). They lived in tranquillity and they were happy until the objective of the marriage was reached; which we are seeing the fruits of to this day. I think there is some envy and anger in the way Islam is ever growing and atheist's predictions are turning out to be wrong. Islam is still growing.

And, No, I don't think it's right for somebody to marry a nine-year-old Irish girl because she probably wouldn't be mature enough and her parents would not accept it, and the situation is different ... Go visit an Arab country and ask about the history and how things have evolved. You seem to see only from your narrow perspective of things.

Jannah

Trouser_Press wrote: »

I was impressed by your responses, which were highly informative, until this.

Meh, I don't answer questions to impress people, I do it because it gives me a chance to research things I normally wouldn't bother.

Trouser_Press wrote: »

I'm certain "multiple wives" really do "work" for some. Just as slavery benefited many.

I don't exactly see where you're going by trying to link slavery and multiple wives. A woman can state in her marriage contract whether she wishes to allow her husband to marry any future wives and if he violates this, she is granted an instant divorce. However, allowing one's husband to marry multiple women in times of war where widows would be left on the streets penniless and with children was seen as a charitable and noble deed. Their objective shouldn't be to build up a vast haram of women.

Simon.d

Agathon wrote: »

Do you believe it's ok for a man and woman to marry with a 30 or 40 year age difference?

Yes... Assuming both parties were consensual and capable of giving consent..

Agathon wrote: »

And, No, I don't think it's right for somebody to marry a nine-year-old Irish girl because she probably wouldn't be mature enough and her parents would not accept it, and the situation is different ...

Could you expand on what you mean by "wouldn't be mature enough", and explain why an Arab girl may be mature enough?

Trouser_Press

Jannah wrote: »

Meh, I don't answer questions to impress people

Hmm, a touch defensive there. Interesting. If you can show where I said you set out to impress people I'll happily donate E25 billion to a charity of your choice.

Jannah wrote: »

allowing one's husband to marry multiple women in times of war where widows would be left on the streets penniless and with children was seen as a charitable and noble deed. Their objective shouldn't be to build up a vast haram of women.

Of course not. Noble indeed. Just like when a pimp insists he's only 'protecting' his women out of the goodness of his heart.

You are so inculcated it's comical.

You attempt to intellectualise the 'multiple wives' habit, like it's actually a deeply moral and righteous thing....it's not: it's as ugly and seedy and decadent as any of the aspects of Western life you so despise.

Yogabba

A woman can state in her marriage contract whether she wishes to allow her husband to marry any future wives and if he violates this, she is granted an instant divorce.

Right. And what is a woman to do in, let's say Afghanistan, should her husband choose to take more wives? So what if she's granted 'instant divorce' (which I seriously doubt she would in a sharia state). Where is she to go, can she support herself? Will she get maintanance from her ex-husband? Can she claim the dole? Can she get a job to support herself? Can she get on a housing list? Didn't think so.
In reality, women have very little to no choice -- unless they live here in the bad, decadent and morally inept west.

And herein lies the irony. You are trying to make excuses for something that'll never affect you in the way that it IS affecting women all over the world.
It's all very well for you to condone a practice that won't come to a neighbourhood near you any time soon.

I also saw you making references in an earlier thread to the link posted what's going on in Sweden and you are making statements on something that you actually don't have a clue about. Sweden and Norway have the exact same problems. The perps have been more than happy to disclose *why* it is acceptable to (gang) rape Scandinavian women, in newspapers, on the radio and television alike. How should society deal with something like that, in your opinion Jannah?

Nodin

Yogabba wrote: »

The perps have been more than happy to disclose *why* it is acceptable to (gang) rape Scandinavian women, in newspapers, on the radio and television alike. How should society deal with something like that, in your opinion Jannah?

I'm sure they have. But gang rapists, rapists, child molesters, burgalars, bank robbers and many, many others seek to self justify their behaviour in some form or another. Whats that got to do with Islam?

Yogabba

Um, well if 99% of the perps belong to the same religion and they claim that their acts are justified because the victims aren't covering themselves up and therefor are legitimate targets, then what do you think?

Remember this?

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20646437-601,00.html

Simon.d

Nodin wrote: »

I'm sure they have. But gang rapists, rapists, child molesters, burgalars, bank robbers and many, many others seek to self justify their behaviour in some form or another. Whats that got to do with Islam?

Surah 23:5-6
(The believers ) Who abstain from sex, Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (in their case) they are free from blame

(Sex with captives/slaves also highlighted as being ethically sound in Surahs 70:30, 4:23, 33:50 etc)

The following extract from Sahih Muslim (Seen as the second most authentic hadith in Islam) takes this a bit further.. As can be seen, the only ethical concern that occured to this close follower of Mohammed was whether or not it was ok to impregnate the captives in question...

Book 008, Number 3371:

Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa'id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): 0 Abu Sa'id, did you hear Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-'azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Mes- senger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.

Nodin

Yogabba wrote: »

Um, well if 99% of the perps belong to the same religion and they claim that their acts are justified because the victims aren't covering themselves up and therefor are legitimate targets, then what do you think?
Remember this?

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20646437-601,00.html

O yes. I remember this too.....
http://www.peacewomen.org/news/SouthAsia/Jan08/Indiarape.html
and this.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_homicides_in_Ciudad_Ju%C3%A1rez
and this....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/nov/04/israel1
and this....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/may/02/israel

Simon.D wrote:

As can be seen, the only ethical concern that occured to this close follower of Mohammed was whether or not it was ok to impregnate the captives in question...

Completely unlike the Bible, a veritable tome of hippydom.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges%2021:10-24&version=31
While of course the Koranic verse is objectionable, I don't see it as any worse than various biblical passages.

Simon.d

Nodin wrote: »

Completely unlike the Bible, a veritable tome of hippydom.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges%2021:10-24&version=31
While of course the Koranic verse is objectionable, I don't see it as any worse than various biblical passages.

The bible is just as bad (if not worse in places).. Completely agree..

Yogabba

Interesting that you chose these two Nodin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_...ad_Ju%C3%A1rez

Where the main suspect was a man named Abdul....from Egypt.....Probably not a Coptic.....

And this one:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/may/02/israel

Where the soldiers have been *accused* (Innocent until proven guilty??)
And it's from 2006, have they not reached a verdict yet?

Your quotes prove/disprove nothing.

Nodin

Yogabba wrote: »

Interesting that you chose these two Nodin:
Where the main suspect was a man named Abdul....from Egypt......

Why did you pick his name from the list of the rest, when the article under his name clearly states the killings have continued despite his imprisonment? O yes, single out the possible muslim.....

Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) figures show that seven out of every 10 Mexican women have suffered some form of abusive treatment at some time in their lives.

(my bold, underline)
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=34338

...which is laughable, given the enviroment in which those killings happen.

Yogabba wrote: »

Where the soldiers have been *accused* (Innocent until proven guilty??)

Ahem.....

A 27-year-old non-commissioned IDF officer admitted on Wednesday to having participated in the statuary rape of a 13-year-old girl on an IAF base, and will most likely be fired from his post.
In addition, five other soldiers confessed to having sexual relations with the girl, bringing the total number of people who have thus far admitted to the sexual acts to 16. Some 30 troops and civilians have been suspected of having illegal sexual relations with the girl, who is the daughter of a career air force man.

(my underline)http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1149572639408

Yogabba wrote: »

Your quotes prove/disprove nothing.

They give context to your attempts to demonise muslims and Islam as unique, or singuarliy evil. It shows similar deviant behaviour in other societies, thus negating the whole "Koran is Teh 3bbil" line of drivel.

Hobbes

Simon.d wrote: »

Muslims (in general) seem to be unable to denounce sexual intercourse between preteen (though menstruating) females and older men as immoral, viewing certain instances of statutory rape as morally acceptable..

I saw in the news recently that a non-Muslim 9 year old girl in North Texas got permission to marry a 5 year old boy. Totally acceptable in the US.

I also recall a 11 year old girl in England having a baby and she wasn't even married (youngest in UK). That was also morally acceptable at the time (at least for her family). The boy of course was charged, but morally acceptable and laws aren't mutually inclusive.

That'd be my reckoning.. Do you agree?

Your trying to equate all Muslims to stuff that goes on in lesser developed worlds. Least that is how I read what you are saying. Which is why I suggest again you read the charter and see the point of this forum.

Simon.d

Hobbes wrote: »

Your trying to equate all Muslims to stuff that goes on in lesser developed worlds. Least that is how I read what you are saying.

That's not what I'm doing... I'm simply trying to ascertain the moral standing of modern day, Irish Muslims on the issue of preteen pubescent girls having sexual relations with older men... I personally think it's immoral (especially in this day and age), but members of this forum seem unable to give me a straight answer.. And those that have attempted to do so, in an utterly vague manner, seem to be somewhat defensive of the practice...

I understand it's probably a difficult moral question for Muslims to address, owing Mohammed's relationship with such a young female, but why should it be outside the remit of this forum?

Trouser_Press

Hobbes wrote: »

I saw in the news recently that a non-Muslim 9 year old girl in North Texas got permission to marry a 5 year old boy. Totally acceptable in the US.

"Totally acceptable in the US"? Good grief, your brief, um, synopsis of the story was a touch disingenuous, don't you think Hobbes?

The 9-year-old girl in question is dying from leukemia, her wish was to marry some day, so she 'married' her five-year-old best friend, with the consent of both families. It, quite obviously, is not a marriage in the conventional sense, it's a gesture, a sweet one at that.

I humbly suggest you upgrade your research skills to find better examples to help you defend the indefensible.

Hobbes wrote: »

I also recall a 11 year old girl in England having a baby and she wasn't even married (youngest in UK). That was also morally acceptable at the time (at least for her family). The boy of course was charged, but morally acceptable and laws aren't mutually inclusive.

Here we go again: "Morally acceptable". Did you see the family? Drug and alcohol-abusers with infinitely more criminal convictions than brain cells. But because they felt it was perfectly fine for their neglected 11-year-old daughter to have a baby you cast that as being generally 'morally acceptable' by....whom? The entire population of the UK?

:rolleyes:

Hobbes

Trouser_Press wrote: »

"Totally acceptable in the US"? Good grief, your brief, um, synopsis of the story was a touch disingenuous, don't you think Hobbes?

It was intentional. I knew the full story very well. It is funny how it is acceptable for us when it is a "feel good story".

'morally acceptable' by....whom? The entire population of the UK?

By the family. Thought I made that clear in my post. But you make a good point.You can't judge the population as a whole based on a small minority's beliefs. Do you understand now?

That's not what I'm doing... I'm simply trying to ascertain the moral standing of modern day

Strange because post 6 in the thread made it quite clear.

Trouser_Press

Hobbes wrote: »

It was intentional. I knew the full story very well. It is funny how it is acceptable for us when it is a "feel good story".

So, let me get this right. Two stories:

(1) A 9-year-old girl, who is dying from leukemia, is granted her wish to 'marry' her five-year-old best friend - evidently a marriage in name only (I somehow doubt that it was legal, but that's not the issue). I would have thought it somewhat unlikely that the 'marriage' will be consummated.

(2) A Saudi cleric defends the 'right' of adult men to marry girls as young as 10 (the report that started this thread). It is somewhat likely that such 'marriages' would be consummated.

And you find it funny that the first story is "acceptable", and the second one is not?

Seriously, you cannot see the difference between the two? They are indistinguishable to you?

If I replaced "Saudi cleric" with "Catholic bishop" or "Rabbi" or "Buddhist monk" would you still find the pronouncement acceptable?

So you're okay with adult men 'marrying' girls as young as ten? You wonder why these aren't feel good stories? Sweet Jesus.....

Why, because it's just so cool to defend every aspect of modern-day Islamic teaching, even when much of it perverts the innate beauty of that religion? It makes you an erudite man of the world? Pity the parochial peasants (alliteration is always a winner) who are so uneducated and so insular that they cannot see the righteousness in an adult man taking a 10-year-old child to bed every night?

Right on, Hobbes! You are SO enlightened! Wow.


"The privilege of absurdity, to which no living creature is subject, but man only."

Hobbes

Trouser_Press wrote: »

And you find it funny that the first story is "acceptable", and the second one is not?

I don't find either story acceptable.

Yes there are differences but no one here has said that they found the second option acceptable either. In fact they made it quite clear this is the voice of that country and not Islam as a whole.

My two examples were to try and prove that point to you, but you appeared to fail to understand.

Right on, Hobbes! You are SO enlightened! Wow.

I am cutting you some slack up to now, but I will say this only once. Attack the post and not the poster. If you try to infer that somehow myself or other posters here endorse child abuse you will be banned.

Trouser_Press

Hobbes wrote: »

I am cutting you some slack up to now, but I will say this only once. Attack the post and not the poster. If you try to infer that somehow myself or other posters here endorse child abuse you will be banned.

Priceless! I dismantled your defence of the Saudi cleric and your response? You're threatening to ban me!!!

You. Couldn't. Make. It. Up.

Mark Hamill

Hobbes wrote: »

I don't find either story acceptable.

What don't you find acceptable about the first story? (the dying 9yo girl "marrying" her friend)

PDN

Trouser_Press wrote: »

So, let me get this right. Two stories:

(1) A 9-year-old girl, who is dying from leukemia, is granted her wish to 'marry' her five-year-old best friend - evidently a marriage in name only (I somehow doubt that it was legal, but that's not the issue). I would have thought it somewhat unlikely that the 'marriage' will be consummated.

This was the same kind of thing as if a sick child was taken to 10 Downing Street and allowed "to be Prime Minister for a day" or taken to Old Trafford so as "to be manager of Manchester United for the day". Even the child concerned would be able to see that this is just a game of "let's pretend" in order to make a dying kid's last days a bit brighter. I am absolutely staggered that anyone would, even in their wildest dreams, pretend that this was suggesting that it is OK for children to really get married (or manage a premiership team, or run the country).

Hobbes

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What don't you find acceptable about the first story? (the dying 9yo girl "marrying" her friend)

Although moving off topic I will respond to this once. (probably better suited for humanities) Like I said the point I am trying to get across is that we have no problem breaking convention when it feels good for us as a society and fits in with our ideals. What if it was the kids dying wish to marry another girl?

The kid getting married in itself is not a big deal. I don't find it acceptable because we appear to pick and choose what we condone a childs dying wish should be.

As I said this is offtopic, if you want to continue this part open a thread in humanities.

, pretend that this was suggesting that it is OK for children to really get married

Well either she did get married or she didn't. From what I read of it, she did.

balkanac

CENSORSHIP BY A NON MUSLIM MODERATOR