16 year old rape victim receives 101 lashes for becoming pregnant

D.R cowboy

Terry wrote: »

Hmm. Location: Blackrock.
D'ya have many Muslim immigrants down that way?

We certainly do not, however I heard their has been an influx of them in Dun laoghaire, we will let the skobies and them fight over who owns the dart:D

I'll quote a conversation I over heard between a skobie and a Muslim while boarding the dart "ya ****ing not getten on me train to blow up, ya bin laden ****"

wes

Nijmegen wrote: »

I'm sure that comes as much comfort to every girl whipped for getting pregnant after a rape, or being stoned to death for having the baby, or similar.

I don't know if your being sarcastic or not, but I think the fact that the government are taking steps to try and stop this sort of thing from happening again, is surely a good thing. How else are things going to change?!?

Terry

deravarra wrote: »

Absolutely tosh!

You are an islamophobe, and nothing short of a disgrace along with it.

the hadeeth are not teachings, but rather a collection of stories, written for posterity. their authenticity stems from the manner in which they were collected rather than the factual correctness of the stories contained within.

can you understand that?

Not only am I an Islamophobe, but I am also a Christianophobe, a Judaismophobe (are these even real words? Meh. You get what I'm saying) and really against all organised religion.
I believe they have absolutely no place in modern society, or any society at all. Definitely no place in governments.

K-9 wrote: »

Do you bother reading threads on AH at all?

I know it is AH, but considering you are an ex Mod, it helps to read the thread.

I'll admit to having had a few too many when making that last post, but I do tend to read an entire thread before posting in it.

vibe666

wes wrote: »

Yawn, the moral outrage is pretty hilarious (on the basis that only Muslim countries have a low age of consent), when you look at some of the ages of consent here in the EU, which was pointed out by K-9. I find is hilarious that seem to be continued the factually incorrect argument that some how only Muslim countries have low ages of consent. Plenty of others do as well, and to make this very clear, others doing it, is no excuse, nor did I say any such thing. Still, the fact remains, your claims are simply factually incorrect.

What also funny is that you are attributing an argument to me that I never made, so that makes you moral outrage even funnier. I was just pointing out that not all Muslim countries have the same age of consent, and you go with the above nonsensical rant.

My point is very simple, ages of consent vary the world over including Muslim countries, and low ages of consent are not exclusive to Muslim countries. I only say this, as some posters seem to think low ages of consent are only exclusive to Muslim countries, and that all Muslim countries have a low age of consent and that's it.

Now enough with the silly straw man arguments, attributing things to me that I never said.

lol, YOUR ignorance would almost be charming if it wasn't for the subject matter and your LACK of moral outrage at any of this speaks volumes. :rolleyes:

trying to compare a low age of consent in western countries that are there specifically to prevent teenagers who have sex with each other from being labeled as sexual predators with the systematic enslavement and sexual abuse of young girls by old men in places like Iran and Afghanistan would be laughable if it wasn't such a tragedy.

I'm not labeling all Muslims are pedophiles, but the FACT (and it is a fact) remains that some Muslim states have laws (both state and religious) in place which specifically allow old men to marry, imprison and sexually abuse young girls with impunity and so far, all I've seen the Muslims in this thread do is brush it off or ignore those facts.

the_syco

deravarra wrote: »

Hmm ... typical uneducated islamophobic comment - as per usual!

Actually, all religons try to spread their religon to all parts of the world.

Terry wrote: »

According to the teachings of Islam, Mohammed ****ed a 9 year old.

Since the average life expectancy at 600 AD was 25 years old, 9 years old was pretty old at the time.

=-=

As for the original post, meh, no surprise. A group of men blame the woman for getting raped, and punish her for it.

Religion itself is mainly imaginery friends created by people to explain stuff they can't explain themselves. Silly, but for the last few thousand years, it worked. When the religion becomes popular, people then used it to control people.

In the case of the girl getting whipped for being raped, it's more of a case of the men using their power to blame the victim. Less to do with a f**ked up religion, and more to do with the middle eastern version of an inbred hick f**king their cousin, and using their power within their tribe to get away with it.

irishconvert

Terry wrote: »

That being said, I will say in all seriousness that all organised religion is a complete and utter joke.

It is my firm belief that Islam is the worst of all organised religions when it comes to the treatment abuse of women.
Anyone, and I mean any person on this planet, who can justify whipping a rape victim because she was raped, .

Terry, wipping a rape victim because she was raped is not a teaching of Islam, in fact is goes against Islamic law. Will you please acknowledge this point?

bluewolf

bluewolf wrote: »

Can you go tell that to all the muslims insisting it's their right to marry children then please

wes wrote: »

What are you even talking about? Age of consent varies widely in Muslim majortiy countries, and our lowest here in Europe is 13 in Spain.

wes wrote: »

Yawn, the moral outrage is pretty hilarious (on the basis that only Muslim countries have a low age of consent), when you look at some of the ages of consent here in the EU, which was pointed out by K-9. I find is hilarious that seem to be continued the factually incorrect argument that some how only Muslim countries have low ages of consent.

Nobody has said that afaik
What I said was where there are muslim countries with a low age - and there are a few - leaders and any moderates should be explaining that the aisha 9 year old thing is up for dispute. It is a problem when clerics in Yemen are insisting it is the right of muslims to marry children because they think the prophet did.

I also said I couldn't believe the practice goes on and asked WERE there any rulings from leading clerics/whatever they are called - I don't see how there is ANYTHING offensive to islam or yourselves in there.

vibe666 wrote: »

I'm not labeling all Muslims are pedophiles, but the FACT (and it is a fact) remains that some Muslim states have laws (both state and religious) in place which specifically allow old men to marry, imprison and sexually abuse young girls with impunity and so far, all I've seen the Muslims in this thread do is brush it off or ignore those facts.

Indeed

irishconvert

Terry wrote: »

I'll stand up and call the I.R.A. complete scumbags (again. I have done so on Facebook to a member of the Real I.R.A.), and I'll do it in person.
Would you be willing to do the same to Islamic fundamentalists?

Yes If I came into contact with someone who sentenced a girl who was raped to any punishment I would have no problem giving him a piece of my mind.

As for making a you tube video, well that is not my thing. I'm too shy for public speaking

irishconvert

Nodin wrote: »

He's mod of pro-wrestling.

Hahahahaha

deravarra

vibe666 wrote: »

I'm not labeling all Muslims are pedophiles, but the FACT (and it is a fact) remains that some Muslim states have laws (both state and religious) in place which specifically allow old men to marry, imprison and sexually abuse young girls with impunity and so far, all I've seen the Muslims in this thread do is brush it off or ignore those facts.

Really?

feel free to point out where the brush offs are

wes

vibe666 wrote: »

lol, YOUR ignorance would almost be charming if it wasn't for the subject matter and your LACK of moral outrage at any of this speaks volumes. :rolleyes:

What funny is that you constant mis-representation of me, even after I clarified my point. You are looking to be morally outraged at someone, and you have chosen to mis-represent me for this purpose. You seem intent on continuing this absurd and nonsensical position despite the fact that I have made my intentions clear. However, we shouldn't let reality get in the way of a good old rant.

vibe666 wrote: »

trying to compare a low age of consent in western countries that are there specifically to prevent teenagers who have sex with each other from being labeled as sexual predators with the systematic enslavement and sexual abuse of young girls by old men in places like Iran and Afghanistan would be laughable if it wasn't such a tragedy.

This gets better and better. So low ages of consent in the West are ok then.....

If your going to be outraged, it helps to be consistent, and to not make excuses for others who do the same thing. Now me personally, I think low ages of consent are bad regardless of what country they are in.

vibe666 wrote: »

I'm not labeling all Muslims are pedophiles, but the FACT (and it is a fact) remains that some Muslim states have laws (both state and religious) in place which specifically allow old men to marry, imprison and sexually abuse young girls with impunity and so far, all I've seen the Muslims in this thread do is brush it off or ignore those facts.

I have never disputed that some of these states have low ages of consent, just that it is by no mean universal, nor have I seen anyone else do so on this thread, but you seem to have a habit of inventing positions to argue against.

wes

bluewolf wrote: »

Nobody has said that afaik

I have very much gotten the impression from some posters, but I may very well be wrong in that regard to be fair. So apologies.

bluewolf wrote: »

What I said was where there are muslim countries with a low age - and there are a few - leaders and any moderates should be explaining that the aisha 9 year old thing is up for dispute. It is a problem when clerics in Yemen are insisting it is the right of muslims to marry children because they think the prophet did.

Yes, I agree it is a problem, but as can be seen by the varying ages of consent, this is by no mean a universal position.

bluewolf wrote: »

I also said I couldn't believe the practice goes on and asked WERE there any rulings from leading clerics/whatever they are called - I don't see how there is ANYTHING offensive to islam or yourselves in there.

Again, the varying ages on consent in Muslim majority states, shows clearly that there are big difference on this, more so than any individual clerics.

Wibbs

deravarra wrote: »

the hadeeth are not teachings, but rather a collection of stories, written for posterity. their authenticity stems from the manner in which they were collected rather than the factual correctness of the stories contained within.

can you understand that?

Part of Islam(unless you're a Quran only adherent) is to follow the example of the Prophet in how you live your life. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunnah Hadith make up a large part of that sunna. So they are teachings or examples, only some of them are more up for debate than others.

"There are passages in the Qur'an that command that the prophet be followed, such as 3:32 "Obey Allah and His Messenger".[6]

For Muslims, the spiritual significance of the Sunnah is more than simply doing as Muhammad did; to imitate him helps one to know God and be loved by God.[7] Believers think that if one imitates and embraces the ways of Muhammad, they will also be loved by God. "

So in order to follow the example of the prophet hadith are very important. Now the Christian have their "what would Jesus do?" thing going on. If you were to follow his example, you would be wandering the countryside, preaching of the coming kingdom of god, turning the other cheek, giving away all your money to follow god and occasionally throwing banking officials out of churches by the scruff of their necks(Considering NAMA, I'm with the Jewish lad from Galilee on this one).

Buddhists would be again wandering the countryside, giving all your money to the poor, following the middle path avoiding excess and attachment, sitting under trees crosslegged seeking enlightenment going "Ommmm"

Muslims? well that would involve polygamy, ownership of slaves, raiding your enemies, stealing their stuff, ordering assassinations of those that oppose you and your faith/tribe, leading your lot into battle and enslaving or massacring the survivors. Bit of a diff there.

Other than the all encompassing nature of the faith in all aspects of life, one of the biggest differences is above. Name another faith founder who acted like this. Name another who had people killed on his orders. Name another who stole property or had slaves. Name another with 12 wives. Name another who ended up far more powerful at the end than when he started out. Just one would do. It is a faith born in a desert tribe and its customs, born of blood and spread by the sword from the get go and that mindset still runs through the faith like words in a stick of rock. The vast majority of Muslims do not act this way, but its not because of the faith or the example of the founder, but in spite of it.

the_syco wrote: »

Since the average life expectancy at 600 AD was 25 years old, 9 years old was pretty old at the time.

Common misconception. The overall life expectancy was lower than today, but much of that was down to very high levels of childhood mortality. If you reached 20, you had a good chance of seeing 60,70 even 80. To quote another prophet "The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away" Now that was aimed at a largely poor peasant audience by a traveling preacher 2000 years ago. If people were dropping from the twig at and average of 20, then Jesus' audience would have considered the notion of living to 70 a fantasy. It would be as if a modern guy said "the span of your life is 250 yrs". 9 was never "pretty old", nor was 25.

In the case of the girl getting whipped for being raped, it's more of a case of the men using their power to blame the victim. Less to do with a f**ked up religion, and more to do with the middle eastern version of an inbred hick f**king their cousin, and using their power within their tribe to get away with it.

Yep.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

Buddhists would be again wandering the countryside, giving all your money to the poor, following the middle path avoiding excess and attachment, sitting under trees crosslegged seeking enlightenment going "Ommmm"
.

No, that's for bhikku/bhikkuni. IIRC buddha spoke about finding paths to enlightenment both through "householders" and monks, laity is fine. It just might be more of a challenge if you're a "householder" as you're surrounded by owning things Buddha even gave advice on how to manage "householder" wealth

I'd say it must be the same for christians - there's no ideal on clerics vs laity is there

Terry

irishconvert wrote: »

Terry, wipping a rape victim because she was raped is not a teaching of Islam, in fact is goes against Islamic law. Will you please acknowledge this point?

Yes.
Will you acknowledge that radical sects use Islam to justify barbaric behaviour? That these same people generally weild quite a lot of power in their respective regions, and that moderate Muslims tend not to stand up to them?

irishconvert wrote: »

Hahahahaha

Really?
You moderate a forum dedicated to magical mythical beings and you find it funny that I moderate the PW froum?
Hey, at least PW is up front about its fake aspect.

They do have something in common though. Both use violence to garner support.

Terry

bluewolf wrote: »

No, that's for bhikku/bhikkuni. IIRC buddha spoke about finding paths to enlightenment both through "householders" and monks, laity is fine. It just might be more of a challenge if you're a "householder" as you're surrounded by owning things Buddha even gave advice on how to manage "householder" wealth

I'd say it must be the same for christians - there's no ideal on clerics vs laity is there

Wasn't Buddha the dude who sat under a tree for a few years?

Sure no wonder he was fat. Sitting around all day doing nothing.
Lazy bastard didn't even bother to discover gravity while he was there.

irishconvert

Wibbs wrote: »

Part of Islam(unless you're a Quran only adherent) is to follow the example of the Prophet in how you live your life. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunnah Hadith make up a large part of that sunna. So they are teachings or examples, only some of them are more up for debate than others.

"There are passages in the Qur'an that command that the prophet be followed, such as 3:32 "Obey Allah and His Messenger".[6]

Yes that is true, but not al of the hadith are considered authentic. Many have been fabricated. The hadith on Aisha's age is in question with many scholars not considering it accurate. I have already posted on this earlier in the thread. And as another poster pointed out, the same "background fact checking" on hadith is less strict when it is not a religious ruling.

Wibbs wrote: »

For Muslims, the spiritual significance of the Sunnah is more than simply doing as Muhammad did; to imitate him helps one to know God and be loved by God.[7] Believers think that if one imitates and embraces the ways of Muhammad, they will also be loved by God. "

So in order to follow the example of the prophet hadith are very important.

Yes but following the correct hadith is the key here. There are Muslims all over the place following fabricated haidth that the majority of scholars dismiss. You can explain this to them time and time again but some people are just stupid.

Terry

Terry wrote: »

Wasn't Buddha the dude who sat under a tree for a few years?

Sure no wonder he was fat. Sitting around all day doing nothing.
Lazy bastard didn't even bother to discover gravity while he was there.

Buddha was skinny, monk called laughing buddha was portrayed as the jolly fat guy

Wibbs

bluewolf wrote: »

No, that's for bhikku/bhikkuni. IIRC buddha spoke about finding paths to enlightenment both through "householders" and monks, laity is fine. It just might be more of a challenge if you're a "householder" as you're surrounded by owning things Buddha even gave advice on how to manage "householder" wealth

Oh yea he did too. I just meant if you decided to follow him or another faith founder to the letter and lived the way they did.

I'd say it must be the same for christians - there's no ideal on clerics vs laity is there

Well in the church that sprung from the original there was a division alright. Jesus himself says little about clergy versus laity. Indeed he seems to reserve a lot of his disapproving invective for the Jewish clergy of the time. I doubt he would be too welcoming of priests and other clergy. If he was faced with the perpetration and cover up of the child abuse by clergy in this country and elsewhere? I suspect the turn the other cheek bit would go right out the window. In fairness to Mohammad and all this talk of child brides, I also suspect if he was faced with the same clergy he would go early medieval on them too.

Terry

bluewolf wrote: »

Buddha was skinny, monk called laughing buddha was portrayed as the jolly fat guy

Ah, I see. It's the litle statues that everyone seems to have that threw me.

Still, he could have discovered gravity while he was there.

irishconvert

Terry wrote: »

Yes.
Will you acknowledge that radical sects use Islam to justify barbaric behaviour?

Yes that is true. They use Islam as an excuse even though Islamic teaching doesn't authorise what they do.

Terry wrote: »

That these same people generally weild quite a lot of power in their respective regions, and that moderate Muslims tend not to stand up to them?

I disagree. I have seen moderate Muslims stand up to Muslims with radical views many times. You probably have not come across this I am guessing you do not spend much time in the Mosque :-)

Terry wrote: »

Really?
You moderate a forum dedicated to magical mythical beings and you find it funny that I moderate the PW froum?
Hey, at least PW is up front about its fake aspect.

They do have something in common though. Both use violence to garner support.

Oh, all defensive about your man-hugging sport

Terry

Terry wrote: »

Ah, I see. It's the litle statues that everyone seems to have that threw me.

Still, he could have discovered gravity while he was there.

Should have been an apple tree instead of the bodhi tree

Wibbs

irishconvert wrote: »

Yes that is true, but not al of the hadith are considered authentic. Many have been fabricated. The hadith on Aisha's age is in question with many scholars not considering it accurate. I have already posted on this earlier in the thread. And as another poster pointed out, the same "background fact checking" on hadith is less strict when it is not a religious ruling.

Oh I do get that, but areas of sunnah that are considered authentic would be considered dubious to modern eyes.

Yes but following the correct hadith is the key here. There are Muslims all over the place following fabricated haidth that the majority of scholars dismiss. You can explain this to them time and time again but some people are just stupid.

Well stupid or not its easy to understand why they do. When Hadith like Sahih Muslim and/or Sahih Bukhari which are considered to be pretty good as far as authenticity and transmission contain elements including 9 year old brides. And as I said before those who took down these Hadith in the centuries after his death and those who listened to them as instructions didnt see any problem with 9 year old brides. Regardless of what Mohammad himself did or didnt do, his later audience saw nothing wrong with it. Its really only when questions and eyebrows have been raised in more modern times do the scholars start to question more deeply and suggest she was 19. The followers at the time had no such issue. Which tells me at least that it was common and accepted.

Like I said above:

Other than the all encompassing nature of the faith in all aspects of life, one of the biggest differences is above. Name another faith founder who acted like this. Name another who had people killed on his orders. Name another who stole property or had slaves. Name another with 12 wives. Name another who ended up far more powerful at the end than when he started out. Just one would do. It is a faith born in a desert tribe and its customs, born of blood and spread by the sword from the get go and that mindset still runs through the faith like words in a stick of rock. This is why I have serious misgivings about Islam compared to the other Abrhamic religions.

Oh dont get me wrong, christians and jews were blood thirsty bastards as much as muslims ever were. Often much worse. Just look at the christian impact on the americas. The difference is that its a helleva lot harder to equate those actions with the founder of the faith. Ditto for buddhism. The Japanese in China in the 30's enslaved, raped and butchered millions. More than hitler had a go at. The majority would have been shinto or buddhist. Neither of which faiths would condone such things. Buddha would have lost his infamous composure in a big way over that.

The vast majority of Muslims do not act this way, but its not because of the faith or the example of the founder, but in spite of it. Indeed Muslims actually increase my faith in common humanity as the vast majority dont follow their best example of the faith.

Terry

irishconvert wrote: »

Yes that is true. They use Islam as an excuse even though Islamic teaching doesn't authorise what they do.

That's fair enough, but they do bastardise the teaching to suit their view, and this is then passed on to their subjects.

I disagree. I have seen moderate Muslims stand up to Muslims with radical views many times. You probably have not come across this I am guessing you do not spend much time in the Mosque :-)

Can't say I've ever set foot in a Mosque. Then again, I only tend to go to Catholic churches for funerals and weddings. Even at that, I usually skip out half way through the ceremony. Do it when everyone stands up. It's less noticable that way.

Anyway, I'm talking about doing it in public. Salman Rushdie style.
Dude still has a hit out on him, issued by Iran's spiritual leader.

Oh, all defensive about your man-hugging sport

Oh, all defensive about your homosexual intolerant religion.

In saying that, you could apply that line of reasoning to many sports. Rugby, soccer, GAA, American football. All men chasing a ball and then showering together afterwards.

bluewolf wrote: »

Should have been an apple tree instead of the bodhi tree

Yeah, but it had figs.

vibe666

deravarra wrote: »

Really?

feel free to point out where the brush offs are

for a start, how about RIGHT HERE! :rolleyes:

wes wrote: »

What funny is that you constant mis-representation of me, even after I clarified my point. You are looking to be morally outraged at someone, and you have chosen to mis-represent me for this purpose. You seem intent on continuing this absurd and nonsensical position despite the fact that I have made my intentions clear. However, we shouldn't let reality get in the way of a good old rant.

This gets better and better. So low ages of consent in the West are ok then.....

If your going to be outraged, it helps to be consistent, and to not make excuses for others who do the same thing. Now me personally, I think low ages of consent are bad regardless of what country they are in.

I have never disputed that some of these states have low ages of consent, just that it is by no mean universal, nor have I seen anyone else do so on this thread, but you seem to have a habit of inventing positions to argue against.

I'm going to say it again because you obviously weren't paying attention last time.

low ages of consent in the western world are there to ONLY to protect teens of a similar age from the laws that apply to adults so they do not end up being labeled as pedophiles for doing what comes naturally to them.

in the western world, any old man having sex with children is committing a crime, end of story, no matter if she is above the age of consent in that country.

by contrast, in Iran, Tehran, Afghanistan etc. families are actively encouraged to marry off their children to rich old men for them to be imprisoned and sexually abused.

and you make it very obvious that I'm not misrepresenting you at all, I don't need to because your own statements are very clearly representing what you are about and it is sickening.

instead of doing the right thing and condemning the practice of old muslim men marrying children to sexually abuse them, you are trying to protect them by pointing to laws in the west that are designed exclusively to protect sexually active teenagers from being criminalised by the laws that govern the rest of us that are also there to protect them from becoming victims.

i see no way for a rational human being to point at these western laws and try and use them to protect an abhorrent practice in parts of the muslim world that has no place in the 21st (or any other imho) century.

deravarra

Terry wrote: »

That's fair enough, but they do bastardise the teaching to suit their view, and this is then passed on to their subjects.

They? Who exactly? The rogue elements? Or those from Al Azhar, or Darul Uloom Deoband?

"The Grand Sheikh of the al-Azhar mosque, Sheikh Muhammad Sayyed Tantawi, has condemned the suicide bombings against Israeli civilians. Speaking at a press conference in Cairo on Monday, the sheikh, who is acknowledged as the highest spiritual authority for nearly a billion Sunni Muslims, said Islam condemned terrorism in all its forms.
In a wood-panelled room in Cairo's medieval Islamic district, the sheikh said that Islam considers anyone who kills an innocent person as killing the whole of humanity.
He says that in the name of Islamic law he rejected and condemned the aggression against innocent civilian people, regardless of whatever side, sect or country the aggression came from."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1690624.stm

"Denouncing terrorism in all its manifestations, top Muslim groups in India on Monday adopted a declaration calling it "un-Islamic" and terming it against the Islamic principle of "peace".

The Anti-terrorism Conference organised by Islamic seminary Darul Uloom in Uttar Pradesh's Deoband town was attended by clerics, scholars and religious leaders from several sects and groups across the country."

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Muslim_clerics_declare_terror_un-Islamic/articleshow/2813375.cms

Thing is, Terry, you still prefer to use the meanderings of the quack rather than the authentic instruction from a consultant as a measure on how the whole group sees terror...

Terry wrote: »

Salman Rushdie .... still has a hit out on him, issued by Iran's spiritual leader.

Iran ... a shiite leader. Shia muslims, for the record, are very much in the minority. They constitute less than 15% of muslims worldwide. They are very much different from Sunni muslims, and their "fatwahs" do not have affect Sunni muslims and have no relevance to them.

Your insinuation re: Rushdie could be likened to blaming the RC church for something that the Orthodox Church has done.

Terry wrote: »

Oh, all defensive about your homosexual intolerant religion.

Homosexual acts are seen by the three Abrahamic faiths as a sin. Modern Scholars within Islam have taken a different stance in how this is addressed.

Jesus is reported to have said that while you should love the sinner, and hate the sin - that the sinner should go and sin no more.

Mohamed El-Moctar El-Shinqiti, a contemporary Mauritanian scholar, has argued that "even though homosexuality is a grievous sin, no legal punishment is stated in the Qur'an for homosexuality, and it is not reported that Prophet Muhammad has punished somebody for committing homosexuality - also there is no authentic hadith reported from the Prophet prescribing a punishment for the homosexuals"

He argues that both hadiths on stoning and killing homosexuals are weak: Hadith scholars such as Al-Bukhari, Yahya ibn Ma`in, An-Nasa'i, Ibn Hazm, Al-Tirmidhi, and others impugned the two hadiths.

This is by no means a recent move to this thinking - as Abu Bakr Al-Jassas (d. 981 AD) argued that the hadiths on killing homosexuals "are not reliable by any means, and no legal punishment can be prescribed based on them.

Clarified?

deravarra

vibe666 wrote: »

for a start, how about RIGHT HERE! :rolleyes:
I'm going to say it again because you obviously weren't paying attention last time.

I was - but I just couldnt follow your "logic"

vibe666 wrote: »

low ages of consent in the western world are there to ONLY to protect teens of a similar age from the laws that apply to adults so they do not end up being labeled as pedophiles for doing what comes naturally to them.

I would have agreed with you up to recently - but in light of a number of cases heard recently in the Irish courts, I would have to disagree. Irish kids "doing what comes naturally to them" are being labelled as paedophiles - from a cursory search in google, I found this letter in the Irish Independent from a few months back highlighting a recent case. Read it, and you will see that it makes your argument a nonsense.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/statutory-rape-law-a-disgrace-2114084.html

vibe666 wrote: »

in the western world, any old man having sex with children is committing a crime, end of story, no matter if she is above the age of consent in that country.

I really wish that were the case, but it isnt. There are countless stories of "old men" marrying young girls - often as young as 14 or 15 - in the western world. They are neither castigated as being perpetrators of evil nor criminals. Why?
It would be far better for you to highlight that - an issue closer to home - than the cultural traditions and norms in a country in which you have no influence to bear.

Roma Gypsies - in Europe, and not muslim:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_4_40/ai_110808643/
http://www.chesskb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/chess-politics/449/Child-Bride-Bolts-Wedding-in-Vain-12-Year-Old-Marries-Against
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/CHILD+BRIDE%3A+BOY,+14+IS+HELD%3B+Garda+swoop+in+rape+probe.%28News%29-a060679099

vibe666 wrote: »

by contrast, in Iran, Tehran, Afghanistan etc. families are actively encouraged to marry off their children to rich old men for them to be imprisoned and sexually abused.

Proof? And if it does happen, I would be right up there with you condemning it as abhorrent.

And on a slightly related note - in Egypt, there was a law recently passed which meant that there could not be an age difference of more than 10 years between husband and wife. Egypt - a muslim country, doing something like this? Oh dear. Is there anything like that in the western world? Not as far as I know - but I am open to be corrected

vibe666 wrote: »

and you make it very obvious that I'm not misrepresenting you at all, I don't need to because your own statements are very clearly representing what you are about and it is sickening.

Seeing as YOU are addressing ME, I would like you to point out those statements you perceive to be representing the "sickening" things I "am about" .... come on, dont be shy ... proofs please.

vibe666 wrote: »

instead of doing the right thing and condemning the practice of old muslim men marrying children to sexually abuse them, you are trying to protect them by pointing to laws in the west that are designed exclusively to protect sexually active teenagers from being criminalised by the laws that govern the rest of us that are also there to protect them from becoming victims.

Really? I am trying to protect old muslim men marrying children? Utter BS.
Let me know when you've finished tripping out on whatever happy pills you've been on, and then we'll have a discussion.

vibe666 wrote: »

i see no way for a rational human being to point at these western laws and try and use them to protect an abhorrent practice in parts of the muslim world that has no place in the 21st (or any other imho) century.

Whoa there buddy - you seem to be on an overkill with the muslims there. Did you know that this sort of thing happens not only in the "muslim world" - but also in the Hindu, Christian, Jewish and Buddhist world? But that doesnt matter does it? As long as the mooslims do it, they are bad people. Tunnel vision or what?

Have a nice day

Terry

deravarra wrote: »

They? Who exactly? The rogue elements? Or those from Al Azhar, or Darul Uloom Deoband?

"The Grand Sheikh of the al-Azhar mosque, Sheikh Muhammad Sayyed Tantawi, has condemned the suicide bombings against Israeli civilians. Speaking at a press conference in Cairo on Monday, the sheikh, who is acknowledged as the highest spiritual authority for nearly a billion Sunni Muslims, said Islam condemned terrorism in all its forms.
In a wood-panelled room in Cairo's medieval Islamic district, the sheikh said that Islam considers anyone who kills an innocent person as killing the whole of humanity.
He says that in the name of Islamic law he rejected and condemned the aggression against innocent civilian people, regardless of whatever side, sect or country the aggression came from."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1690624.stm

"Denouncing terrorism in all its manifestations, top Muslim groups in India on Monday adopted a declaration calling it "un-Islamic" and terming it against the Islamic principle of "peace".

The Anti-terrorism Conference organised by Islamic seminary Darul Uloom in Uttar Pradesh's Deoband town was attended by clerics, scholars and religious leaders from several sects and groups across the country."

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Muslim_clerics_declare_terror_un-Islamic/articleshow/2813375.cms

Thing is, Terry, you still prefer to use the meanderings of the quack rather than the authentic instruction from a consultant as a measure on how the whole group sees terror...

I wasn't actually referring to terrorism. Just bastardisation of religious texts to suit their own ends.
By them I mean religious leaders, tribal elders and the like.
I'm quite aware that Muslim terrorists and their supporters are very small in number.
My main problem with Islam is the subjugation of women.

Iran ... a shiite leader. Shia muslims, for the record, are very much in the minority. They constitute less than 15% of muslims worldwide. They are very much different from Sunni muslims, and their "fatwahs" do not have affect Sunni muslims and have no relevance to them.

Your insinuation re: Rushdie could be likened to blaming the RC church for something that the Orthodox Church has done.

Meh. Shia, Sunni. Same thing with a slightly differing view.
One believes that certain descendants of Mohammed have power over the community, and reject the first three caliphs. The other one doesn't.

Homosexual acts are seen by the three Abrahamic faiths as a sin. Modern Scholars within Islam have taken a different stance in how this is addressed.

Jesus is reported to have said that while you should love the sinner, and hate the sin - that the sinner should go and sin no more.

Mohamed El-Moctar El-Shinqiti, a contemporary Mauritanian scholar, has argued that "even though homosexuality is a grievous sin, no legal punishment is stated in the Qur'an for homosexuality, and it is not reported that Prophet Muhammad has punished somebody for committing homosexuality - also there is no authentic hadith reported from the Prophet prescribing a punishment for the homosexuals"

He argues that both hadiths on stoning and killing homosexuals are weak: Hadith scholars such as Al-Bukhari, Yahya ibn Ma`in, An-Nasa'i, Ibn Hazm, Al-Tirmidhi, and others impugned the two hadiths.

This is by no means a recent move to this thinking - as Abu Bakr Al-Jassas (d. 981 AD) argued that the hadiths on killing homosexuals "are not reliable by any means, and no legal punishment can be prescribed based on them.

Clarified?

Thanks for that. I was just joking around with IrishConvert though.

K-9

vibe666 wrote: »

low ages of consent in the western world are there to ONLY to protect teens of a similar age from the laws that apply to adults so they do not end up being labeled as pedophiles for doing what comes naturally to them.

Nope, I specifically took examples of countries where 14 is the statutory minimum age and no differentiation is made about the age of the other person.

Ages of consent in Europe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And yes it's Wiki, the sources are at the bottom!

Terry

deravarra wrote: »

Whoa there buddy - you seem to be on an overkill with the muslims there. Did you know that this sort of thing happens not only in the "muslim world" - but also in the Hindu, Christian, Jewish and Buddhist world? But that doesnt matter does it? As long as the mooslims do it, they are bad people. Tunnel vision or what?

Have a nice day

Proof please.
Also, the implication the we are out to get the "Mooslims" couldn't be further from the truth.
Speaking for myself, I'm against all organised religion. No matter what their belief structure.
Islam just happens to be the topic of this thread.

Please see my post in IrishConvert's thread on religion in Irish schools, my constant criticism of Israel's actions against Palestine and my derision towards the comical actions of many American Baptists for reference.

deravarra

Terry wrote: »

Proof please.
Also, the implication the we are out to get the "Mooslims" couldn't be further from the truth.
Speaking for myself, I'm against all organised religion. No matter what their belief structure.
Islam just happens to be the topic of this thread.

Please see my post in IrishConvert's thread on religion in Irish schools, my constant criticism of Israel's actions against Palestine and my derision towards the comical actions of many American Baptists for reference.

I never said YOU were. I was addressing someone else.

Wibbs

deravarra wrote: »

Whoa there buddy - you seem to be on an overkill with the muslims there. Did you know that this sort of thing happens not only in the "muslim world" - but also in the Hindu, Christian, Jewish and Buddhist world? But that doesnt matter does it? As long as the mooslims do it, they are bad people. Tunnel vision or what?

Common enough answer and yes of course it does happen all over the world. People can be retards regardless of faith or culture. No doubt about that at all.

The distinct difference is that according to the sunnah/hadith the founder of the Muslim faith followed many practices that are considered at worst abhorrent or at best morally dubious today and indeed by the standards of many philosophers and faith founders in the ancient world. Slavery, war, assassinations, forcible conversion(at best under duress), polygamy, theft, massacres etc

deravarra

Terry wrote: »

I wasn't actually referring to terrorism. Just bastardisation of religious texts to suit their own ends.
By them I mean religious leaders, tribal elders and the like.
I'm quite aware that Muslim terrorists and their supporters are very small in number.

People - "religious leaders, tribal elders and the like" - whether they are muslims, christians or Jews can and often do quote their scriptures to suit their own ends. I'm sure you understand that.

The main problem as I see it, is that the west - even me, before converting - see Islam as an organised religion in the same way as Christianity. However, there is no centralised HQ for Islam as there is in Christianity. All groups and sects maintain a level of autonomy... even those within the same denomination. It can be quite confusing to people like me - but I do understand it.

Terry wrote: »

My main problem with Islam is the subjugation of women.

Can you be specific with which areas of life within Islam for a woman you believe are examples of subjugation?

Terry wrote: »

Meh. Shia, Sunni. Same thing with a slightly differing view.

Quite an oversimplification, and one which would be ideal if teaching a religion class for children. However, seeing as we are all a bit more grown up than that, I think this example doesnt suffice for an explanation.

Terry wrote: »

One believes that certain descendants of Mohammed have power over the community, and reject the first three caliphs. The other one doesn't.

Hmm ... almost there - but fair play for trying!

deravarra

Wibbs wrote: »

Common enough answer and yes of course it does happen all over the world. People can be retards regardless of faith or culture. No doubt about that at all.

Agreed!

Wibbs wrote: »

The distinct difference is that according to the sunnah/hadith the founder of the Muslim faith followed many practices that are considered at worst abhorrent or at best morally dubious today and indeed by the standards of many philosophers and faith founders in the ancient world. Slavery, war, assassinations, forcible conversion(at best under duress), polygamy, theft, massacres etc

Are you talking about the Prophet David or Mohammed?

vibe666

deravarra wrote: »

I was - but I just couldnt follow your "logic"

i was talking to wes, not you. the only reason I quoted you was to point out wes brushing aside the ACTUAL issue of old men marrying and screwing kids.

deravarra wrote: »

I would have agreed with you up to recently - but in light of a number of cases heard recently in the Irish courts, I would have to disagree. Irish kids "doing what comes naturally to them" are being labelled as paedophiles - from a cursory search in google, I found this letter in the Irish Independent from a few months back highlighting a recent case. Read it, and you will see that it makes your argument a nonsense.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/statutory-rape-law-a-disgrace-2114084.html

Ireland doesn't have a low age of consent and the boy in question in the article was BELOW the age of consent in Ireland and as such was criminalised because Ireland isn't one of those enlightened countries that has lowered the age of consent to allow teens the freedom to express their sexuality. thank you for proving my points that A you weren't listening the first (or second) time, even though I wasn't directly addressing you, and B that lowering the age of consent for teens of a similar age to be able to express themselves without being criminialised is a step forward and one that still needs to be taken in Ireland. :rolleyes:

deravarra wrote: »

I really wish that were the case, but it isnt. There are countless stories of "old men" marrying young girls - often as young as 14 or 15 - in the western world. They are neither castigated as being perpetrators of evil nor criminals. Why?

which ones exactly?

deravarra wrote: »

It would be far better for you to highlight that - an issue closer to home - than the cultural traditions and norms in a country in which you have no influence to bear.

Roma Gypsies - in Europe, and not muslim:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_4_40/ai_110808643/
http://www.chesskb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/chess-politics/449/Child-Bride-Bolts-Wedding-in-Vain-12-Year-Old-Marries-Against
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/CHILD+BRIDE%3A+BOY,+14+IS+HELD%3B+Garda+swoop+in+rape+probe.%28News%29-a060679099

that's great, if I was a Romany Gypsy with influence over what they do I'd be saying the same thing. I don't restrict my anger at the practice of child abuse to Muslims, if I could click my fingers and have every single dirty filthy child abusing scumbag of every colour creed & religion die in extreme agony on the spot I'd do it right now and not lose a seconds sleep over it.

deravarra wrote: »

Proof?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/africanlives/ivory/ivory.htm
http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2010/03/11/13201531.html
http://newsblaze.com/story/20100411134246reye.nb/topstory.html
http://undhimmi.com/2010/03/13/canada-cannot-close-muslim-child-bride-loophole/
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/15/yemen.childbride/index.html
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/783526--islamic-clerics-in-yemen-oppose-child-bride-ban
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/08/islam-saudi-child-bride-turned-back-over-to-80yearold-husband.html

I could go on, there's an endless supply of horrific stories about Muslim child brides out there for anyone with an open pair of eyes to see. proof? seriously? :rolleyes:

deravarra wrote: »

And if it does happen, I would be right up there with you condemning it as abhorrent.

that's one of the first sensible things I've seen a muslim post since i started reading this thread.

deravarra wrote: »

Seeing as YOU are addressing ME, I would like you to point out those statements you perceive to be representing the "sickening" things I "am about" .... come on, dont be shy ... proofs please.

seeing as I wasn't, I was addressing wes, I don't see your point. again with the lack of attention thing. :rolleyes:

deravarra wrote: »

Really? I am trying to protect old muslim men marrying children? Utter BS.
Let me know when you've finished tripping out on whatever happy pills you've been on, and then we'll have a discussion.

i don't remember pointing the finger directly at you, AGAIN i was talking to wes and YOU weren't paying attention. but since you're about to condemn all the abhorrent acts in the above links, i don't think we have any problem at all.

deravarra wrote: »

Whoa there buddy - you seem to be on an overkill with the muslims there. Did you know that this sort of thing happens not only in the "muslim world" - but also in the Hindu, Christian, Jewish and Buddhist world? But that doesnt matter does it? As long as the mooslims do it, they are bad people. Tunnel vision or what?

as I've already said, i'm happy to condemn it wherever it is, BUT this thread isn't about Hindu, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist or Romany Gypsies, it's about muslims. feel free to start a thread of your own about the latest abhorrent acts of any of the other above religions and I'll happily join you there to condemn them as well.

wes

vibe666 wrote: »

for a start, how about RIGHT HERE! :rolleyes:
I'm going to say it again because you obviously weren't paying attention last time.

low ages of consent in the western world are there to ONLY to protect teens of a similar age from the laws that apply to adults so they do not end up being labeled as pedophiles for doing what comes naturally to them.

in the western world, any old man having sex with children is committing a crime, end of story, no matter if she is above the age of consent in that country.

by contrast, in Iran, Tehran, Afghanistan etc. families are actively encouraged to marry off their children to rich old men for them to be imprisoned and sexually abused.

No, what you have constructed a massive excuse, which you are still running with.

vibe666 wrote: »

and you make it very obvious that I'm not misrepresenting you at all, I don't need to because your own statements are very clearly representing what you are about and it is sickening.

Coming from the guy making excuses for low ages of consent, I don't think your in a position to condemn anyone.

Still, everything you are saying is nothing short of laughable. I have already made my position clear, and yet you continue the above mis-representation. Its really funny that you are still running with the above nonsense.

vibe666 wrote: »

instead of doing the right thing and condemning the practice of old muslim men marrying children to sexually abuse them, you are trying to protect them by pointing to laws in the west that are designed exclusively to protect sexually active teenagers from being criminalised by the laws that govern the rest of us that are also there to protect them from becoming victims.

To quote myself:

wes wrote: »

If your going to be outraged, it helps to be consistent, and to not make excuses for others who do the same thing. Now me personally, I think low ages of consent are bad regardless of what country they are in.

So, yes I did condemn low ages of consent, but I was being universal in my condemnation, and haven't made any excuses for anyone, like you have been doing so.

Honestly, I find it so funny, that you are constantly accusing me of things I have never said, even after I have gone out of my way to clarify things. It is amazing that you only have issue with some countries with lows ages of consent and then construct an excuse for others, and then throw out all kinds of false accusations against me.

Again, to make it even more clear, yes I do condemn old man marrying underage girls. Its a horrible practice and needs to be stopped, regardless of where it takes place. Now, I know you will probably once again mis-represent me, even thought I am being very clear.

vibe666 wrote: »

i see no way for a rational human being to point at these western laws and try and use them to protect an abhorrent practice in parts of the muslim world that has no place in the 21st (or any other imho) century.

No, what you have done is make excuses for some countries, and then selectively condemn other people. My position, which I stated earlier condemn's everyone, you on the other hand have constructed a wonderful excuse for some, and then selectively condemn others.

vibe666

deravarra wrote: »

I never said YOU were. I was addressing someone else.

no, you were addressing me, but ditto to what Terry has said.

the world will be a much happier place when the deluded masses finally figure out that all religion is complete and utter BS, but right here and right now, in this thread we're talking about practices in the muslim world.

wes

vibe666 wrote: »

i was talking to wes, not you. the only reason I quoted you was to point out wes brushing aside the ACTUAL issue of old men marrying and screwing kids.

No, I most certainly did not do that, but then you have constantly been mis-representing everything I have said, so why would that change now.

Quick question, do you even read other peoples post, or just randomly invent things to rant about?

vibe666

sorry, but i just have to snip out all of that complete and utter tosh because it is so pathetic that doesn't even dignify a response. seriously, you're still going with this.

wes wrote: »

No, what you have done is make excuses for some countries, and then selectively condemn other people. My position, which I stated earlier condemn's everyone, you on the other hand have constructed a wonderful excuse for some, and then selectively condemn others.

i see no problem with two teenagers expressing themselves sexually as they reach puberty as long as they are educated properly and approach it with a little sense and I don't see why anyone would, after all it IS totally natural.

and STILL you are comparing curious teens doing what coms naturally with dirty old predatory men abusing children and tarring the former with the same brush to try and justify the latter and quite frankly it's fcuking sickening. if your blindness to the glaringly obvious is at all typical of attitudes in the muslim world then there really is no hope for any of you.

Terry

deravarra wrote: »

People - "religious leaders, tribal elders and the like" - whether they are muslims, christians or Jews can and often do quote their scriptures to suit their own ends. I'm sure you understand that.

Yes, I do understand it. Thus my dislike for all organised religion.

The main problem as I see it, is that the west - even me, before converting - see Islam as an organised religion in the same way as Christianity. However, there is no centralised HQ for Islam as there is in Christianity. All groups and sects maintain a level of autonomy... even those within the same denomination. It can be quite confusing to people like me - but I do understand it.

Lack of a central figure doesn't take away from the fact that it's an organised religion.
All Muslims follow the teachings of the Koran. That is central to Islam, regardless of the sect you belong to.

Can you be specific with which areas of life within Islam for a woman you believe are examples of subjugation?

You have to be taking the piss here.
Did you read the title of the thread?
This was done under the guise of Islam.
You can say it was a tribal thing, you can point out idiotic acts carried out by Christians and Jews, but none of that takes away from the fact that this was carried out in the name of Islam.

Aside from that, how are those Saudi, Iranian, Dubaian and Iraqi chicks, to name but a few, getting on?

Quite an oversimplification, and one which would be ideal if teaching a religion class for children. However, seeing as we are all a bit more grown up than that, I think this example doesnt suffice for an explanation.

This and...

Hmm ... almost there - but fair play for trying!

This.
You can keep throwing little jabs at me, but that won't change the fact that Islam (certain interpretations of sharia law to be exact) subjugates women.

wes

vibe666 wrote: »

sorry, but i just have to snip out all of that complete and utter tosh because it is so pathetic that doesn't even dignify a response. seriously, you're still going with this.

A very accurate description of your posts btw .

vibe666 wrote: »

i see no problem with two teenagers expressing themselves sexually as they reach puberty as long as they are educated properly and approach it with a little sense and I don't see why anyone would, after all it IS totally natural.

Great, and I don't think it should be illegal either, but the ages of consent we are talking about are not just for those cases, as you constantly claim.

vibe666 wrote: »

and STILL you are comparing curious teens doing what coms naturally with dirty old predatory men abusing children and tarring the former with the same brush to try and justify the latter and quite frankly it's fcuking sickening. if your blindness to the glaringly obvious is at all typical of attitudes in the muslim world then there really is no hope for any of you.

No, I did not make any such comparison. You are again accusing me of saying things I have never said. You have clearly shown that you don't give a rats ass what I am saying and are instead trying to smear me with a load of nonsense that you constantly post.

You are talking utter rubbish, and have been this entire time. Your constant excuses are sickening, and you constant lies about me are sickening. You faux moral outrage is utterly laughable, and your excuses for low ages of constent more. Those age of consent do not solely apply to teen ages, as you have constantly falsely claimed, it is a disgusting and sicekening excuse, and nothing more.

See, I can play the faux moral outrage crap too.

Your posts are nothing short of constant mis-representation and excuses, and faux moral outrage. The ages of consent in Western countries, do not solely apply to teenagers, and I have yet to see anything from you to prove that it only applies to teenagers. So as it stands you moral outrage, looks to me to be highly selective.

**EDIT**
I have no idea, what I have done to earn so much ire from you, and your constant mis-representation of me is nothing short of puzzling.

I have made myself clear on several occasions, and I find it utterly astonishing, you are still mis-representing me, and what I have said.

Ok, so I will say this again one more time. Once again, low ages of consent in Muslim countries are wrong, old men marrying underage girls is wrong. Low ages of consent elsewhere is no excuse for this, but I was only pointing out that it isn't unique to the Muslim majority countries, as some seem to think that this is unique to them, and not to excuse it.

I have already said the above, and I have said it again as clarification.
**END EDIT**

deravarra

vibe666 wrote: »

i was talking to wes, not you. the only reason I quoted you was to point out wes brushing aside the ACTUAL issue of old men marrying and screwing kids.

Fair enough - apologies there.

vibe666 wrote: »

Ireland doesn't have a low age of consent and the boy in question in the article was BELOW the age of consent in Ireland and as such was criminalised because Ireland isn't one of those enlightened countries that has lowered the age of consent to allow teens the freedom to express their sexuality. thank you for proving my points that A you weren't listening the first (or second) time, even though I wasn't directly addressing you, and B that lowering the age of consent for teens of a similar age to be able to express themselves without being criminialised is a step forward and one that still needs to be taken in Ireland. :rolleyes:

Perhaps if you made the points with more clarity and conciseness, I would have given more than a cursory glance at them

It kind of flies in the face of the insinuation that the western world has it all together tho ... wouldnt you agree?

vibe666 wrote: »

that's great, if I was a Romany Gypsy with influence over what they do I'd be saying the same thing.

Ah, so it's ok to do so for muslims even tho you arent one, but not ok for Roma Gypsies because you arent one?
That's the kind of logic I just do not get

vibe666 wrote: »

I don't restrict my anger at the practice of child abuse to Muslims, if I could click my fingers and have every single dirty filthy child abusing scumbag of every colour creed & religion die in extreme agony on the spot I'd do it right now and not lose a seconds sleep over it.

I'd be with you on that one!

vibe666 wrote: »

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/africanlives/ivory/ivory.htm
http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2010/03/11/13201531.html
http://newsblaze.com/story/20100411134246reye.nb/topstory.html
http://undhimmi.com/2010/03/13/canada-cannot-close-muslim-child-bride-loophole/
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/15/yemen.childbride/index.html
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/783526--islamic-clerics-in-yemen-oppose-child-bride-ban
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/08/islam-saudi-child-bride-turned-back-over-to-80yearold-husband.html

I could go on, there's an endless supply of horrific stories about Muslim child brides out there for anyone with an open pair of eyes to see. proof? seriously? :rolleyes:

Thanks for that, but I wasnt referring to the need for proof about child brides. I am very much aware that it does happen.

You said: "families are actively encouraged to marry off their children to rich old men for them to be imprisoned and sexually abused."

What I was looking for is proof that it is actively encourage - and I would like to know who encourages it.

On a side word - I do not read anything that comes from that evil Pamela Geller ... a well known islamophobe. Please do not post any links to her rubbish when addressing me. Thanks

deravarra

vibe666 wrote: »

no, you were addressing me, but ditto to what Terry has said.

the world will be a much happier place when the deluded masses finally figure out that all religion is complete and utter BS, but right here and right now, in this thread we're talking about practices in the muslim world.

Yup - we are. But you seem to be confused as to whether these are Islamic practices, or practices done by people who are muslims.

Sorry - let me rephrase that - you are convinced that these are islamic practices rather than practices done by people who are muslims.

If they are Islamic practices, as you seem to be saying, then why are these practises not happening in the rest of the muslim world?

I'd be interested to see you produce proof of happenings like this all over the muslim world!

deravarra

deravarra wrote: »

Roma Gypsies - in Europe, and not muslim:

You don't think gypsies have too many fans around here do you?

deravarra

Terry wrote: »

You have to be taking the piss here.
Did you read the title of the thread?
This was done under the guise of Islam.
You can say it was a tribal thing, you can point out idiotic acts carried out by Christians and Jews, but none of that takes away from the fact that this was carried out in the name of Islam.

Sheesh - for a brief moment I was hoping you had moved on a little, but it doesnt appear from that little rant that you have.

Let me explain: Just because someone does something in the name of Islam, it doesnt mean it is Islamic.

Until you grasp that fundamental idea, this discussion is lost on you

Terry wrote: »

Aside from that, how are those Saudi, Iranian, Dubaian and Iraqi chicks, to name but a few, getting on?

Rather flippant, and a little padding for an empty argument, but let's not be tied down to the absence of real argument here.

Some are fine, others arent. If, as you seem to suggest that Islam subjugates women, all wouldnt be getting on so well.

Terry wrote: »

Islam (certain interpretations of sharia law to be exact) subjugates women.

Thank you. Just .... Thank you

Islam ... with a big condition slapped right bang in the middle of the statement surrounded by those parantheses ... subjugates women.

Christianity (certain interpretations of the bible to be exact) subjugates women.

Judaism (certain interpretations of the OT and the Talmud) subjugates women.

It's all in the interpretation of the law, rather than the law itself - isnt it? So, rather than Islam itself subjugating women, you are saying that it is certain interpretations of Shariah that does it.

I wouldn't disagree with you about the interpretations of Shariah being used to subjugate women. But I do disagree when you say that Islam subjugates women.

Now, like I asked before - please show where Islam subjugates women. You havent done it yet.

deravarra

bluewolf wrote: »

You don't think gypsies have too many fans around here do you?

No, but it was showing a point - that the area of child brides does not only happen within one people outside the western world.

I wasnt using the example to condone the practice either - just in case someone's twisted logic will lead them to that conclusion.

Terry

deravarra wrote: »

Sheesh - for a brief moment I was hoping you had moved on a little, but it doesnt appear from that little rant that you have.

Let me explain: Just because someone does something in the name of Islam, it doesnt mean it is Islamic.

Until you grasp that fundamental idea, this discussion is lost on you



Rather flippant, and a little padding for an empty argument, but let's not be tied down to the absence of real argument here.

Some are fine, others arent. If, as you seem to suggest that Islam subjugates women, all wouldnt be getting on so well.




Thank you. Just .... Thank you

Islam ... with a big condition slapped right bang in the middle of the statement surrounded by those parantheses ... subjugates women.

Christianity (certain interpretations of the bible to be exact) subjugates women.

Judaism (certain interpretations of the OT and the Talmud) subjugates women.

It's all in the interpretation of the law, rather than the law itself - isnt it? So, rather than Islam itself subjugating women, you are saying that it is certain interpretations of Shariah that does it.

I wouldn't disagree with you about the interpretations of Shariah being used to subjugate women. But I do disagree when you say that Islam subjugates women.

Now, like I asked before - please show where Islam subjugates women. You havent done it yet.

Sharia law is an Islamic law. Therefore Islam subjugates women by using Sharia law. How difficult is that to understand?

Absolution

what.. the ****... thats pretty disgusting I mean its not like its intentional

deravarra

Terry wrote: »

Sharia law is an Islamic law. Therefore Islam subjugates women by using Sharia law. How difficult is that to understand?

Do you actually know which position you are taking in this argument? Or are you having problems keeping up with where you are on the issue?

A while back, you said "Islam (certain interpretations of sharia law to be exact) subjugates women"

That in the parentheses is very important - and not something I disagree with.

Certain interpretations of shariah law. Not all - but certain. So, it is down to the individual's interpretation of the law rather than the law itself.

Seriously, if you want to engage in a discussion such as this, please use a coherent approach with usable arguments which support your viewpoint rather than a miscellaneous selection of nonsensical utterings which do not show anything more than a disdain and contempt for islam (and other religions).

I don't care if you hate Islam. Fine, hate it as much as you want. I wont ask why you do. You don't have to come up with anything to validate or rationalize your hatred of it. But if you are going to use arguments such as subjugation of women, bring something real and measurable rather than half wit comments such as the one above.

irishconvert

Terry wrote: »

You have to be taking the piss here.
Did you read the title of the thread?
This was done under the guise of Islam.
You can say it was a tribal thing, you can point out idiotic acts carried out by Christians and Jews, but none of that takes away from the fact that this was carried out in the name of Islam.

I think you are the one taking the piss. The fact that something was done under the guise of Islam means nothing at all if it goes against the teachings of Islam. I already pointed out that Islamic law doesn't allow for the punishment to the rape victim and you accepted this point. So why are you banging on and on about it being done in the name of Islam?