Muslim Rape Wave in Sweden (religion of peace alert)

[rmnunez]

the period is the point a girl becomes a woman

Maybe back then in those places, but nowadays this isn't at all what the law says.

[Mia]

Quote by: rmnunez Maybe back then in those places, but nowadays this isn't at all what the law says.

But we can't use today's laws to judge Muhammad. Take away the Mary analogy - were Christians not marrying girls then too?

[Mia]

Quote by: rmnunez Maybe back then in those places, but nowadays this isn't at all what the law says.

Also, that is still when a girl becomes a woman, and the law still recognizes that line - punishment is much harsher for offenses against children than teenagers. The law simply chooses an age - 14 in most states - that recognizes that after that age virtually all females have reached puberty.

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: rmnunez Maybe back then in those places, but nowadays this isn't at all what the law says.

And? Muhammed, Joseph, etc, were not living in 21st century USA and as such 21st century US law is irrelevent.

[Jern_Sandyer]

Law isn't retroactive (except in a few cases which I can't remember right now)

[rmnunez]

Back when humanity had a shorter lifespan, the custom was to marry early, this was so until relatively recently even in Europe and the US. It is still the practice in more isolated communities in other places. Even so, 6 to 9 seems too young even taking into account we're talking about antiquity, particularly considering the aim here is to procreate and the female wouldn't be suited for this in that range. There are errors in translation, ritual betrothals, and cohabitation could be without intercourse, but that seems even worse.

[Mia]

Marriage in Islam was not only for procreation. Also marriages were made to have a male to take care of the female.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Chris the Chees Muhammad married Ayesha when she was aged six. This was not a marriage of attraction, but a rather normal marriage or arrangement. Muhammad waited at least four years before consummating the marriage; this is almost certainly to wait for Ayesha to reach an agre where she was capable of child birth. So in short Muhammad was not a child molester and was acting in a manner which was completely appropriate for the period in which he lived.

LOL thanks for showing us the light! Were you trying to prove GBA's point or refute it? Regardless of the time, 6 years old is 6 years old! A 6 yr old in the 7 century is no different than a 6 yr old in the 21st century. They are not physically, mental or emotionally ready for anything. That is science, not culture.

Question how old was Mohommad when he married and then consummated his marriage? LOL, nice rebuttel!

[GHook93]

Quote by: rmnunez Back when humanity had a shorter lifespan, the custom was to marry early, this was so until relatively recently even in Europe and the US. It is still the practice in more isolated communities in other places. Even so, 6 to 9 seems too young even taking into account we're talking about antiquity, particularly considering the aim here is to procreate and the female wouldn't be suited for this in that range. There are errors in translation, ritual betrothals, and cohabitation could be without intercourse, but that seems even worse.

It didn't just seem, but marrying at age 6 was too young!

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: GHook93 LOL thanks for showing us the light! Were you trying to prove GBA's point or refute it? Regardless of the time, 6 years old is 6 years old! A 6 yr old in the 7 century is no different than a 6 yr old in the 21st century. They are not physically, mental or emotionally ready for anything. That is science, not culture. Question how old was Mohommad when he married and then consummated his marriage? LOL, nice rebuttel!

Six years old was the point of marriage, but that is meaningless. Throughout history people have been married or been engaged even from the point of birth not because everyone was a paedophile back in the day, but because different rules operated governining what was appropriate and what was not. Obviously while they could be married the actual consumation of the marriage was a big no-no until both parties became biologically capable of producing children. Obviously that is the case of Mohommad and Ayesha or else why would have waited four years?

I am sorry that you fail to accept the importance of this distinction, but it is importance is paramount nonetheless.

Quote by: rmnunez Even so, 6 to 9 seems too young even taking into account we're talking about antiquity, particularly considering the aim here is to procreate and the female wouldn't be suited for this in that range.

Seems being irrelevent. It is not unknown for women to become sexually active pre-teen and even give birth before they become teenagers. indeed, i believe I read that the earliest successful preganancy occured in the case of a 5 year old girl.

[shrike]

So Chriss you say if it was 1500 years ago than its ok?So in the same manner you probably would defend slavery because its was long time ago and it was part of the ancient culture.
I hope people in 35th century would not say that Ruanda Genocide was ok because it has happened in ancient and violent time of 20th century.

[rmnunez]

Mohammed's marriage to a child does indicate a source of the Muslim problem with gender relations. That there's a problem should be clear from the frequent reference to all sorts of discrimination against women all over the Muslim world.

In the 1500 years since Mohammed, veiling women, keeping them isolated, denying them education or any social role beyond marital motherhood, devaluating their testimony, publicly subordinating them and subjecting them to countless other forms of repression has become customary. Maybe it has nothing to do with Islam itself, but this religion figures so prominently in so many Muslim differences it is unlikely. Mohammed is the most important figure in Muslim history, like Christ for Christians. The role of their prophet as a model for individual conduct cannot be disregarded. If Mohammed could marry a 6 year old and have sex with the child, this would be promoted among Muslims.

[Chris the Chees]

So Chriss you say if it was 1500 years ago than its ok?

Sorry, but its ridiculous debate to be drawn into. There is no logical basis to judge long dead cultures by modern standards.

And there is a hell of a difference between slavery and defining the point of womanhood based on biological changes as opposed to slecting a completely arbitarily selected age limit.

Mohammed's marriage to a child does indicate a source of the Muslim problem with gender relations.

Hardly, under Mohammed the lives of women took a notable turn for the better. Indeed on e of the more distasteful practises of Arabic society prior to Mohammed appearning on the scene was to kill female babies for honour related reasons, Mohammed decried the practise and had it ended. Mohammed was a pioneed for women being granted the right to own property and Mohammed openly spoke out against the common practise of men beating their wives.

I don't know where you get these ideas from, but they aren't from the history books.

If Mohammed could marry a 6 year old and have sex with the child

I think you are still missing the point. Mohammed does not have sex with her when she is a child, but when she becomes an adult. perhaps not an adult by modern standards, but modern standards are, as I have said, irrelevent. It is only very recently that people have been considered children even though they have reached the age of puberty. It would be like a increase in the age of consent now. If you were to sleep with an 18 year old but the age of consent were to be increased to say 25, would you be a paedophile? Of course not.

[shrike]

Quote by: chriss Sorry, but its ridiculous debate to be drawn into. There is no logical basis to judge long dead cultures by modern standards. And there is a hell of a difference between slavery and defining the point of womanhood based on biological changes as opposed to slecting a completely arbitarily selected age limit.

You understand that this two phrases contradictive either you say its ok because it was long time ago or nor and judge it by today’s morale.
The problem that Islam is not long dead culture for example as Mays with their human sacrifice. So I think its ok to criticize contemporary Muslims for their similar behavior because religion is main part of their culture.

[Chris the Chees]

You understand that this two phrases contradictive either you say its ok because it was long time ago or nor and judge it by today’s morale.

Its not contradictory at all. I don't judge 6th-7th century socieites by modern 21st century morals.

The problem that Islam is not long dead culture for example as Mays with their human sacrifice.

Sorry but you are wrong. There is no way that modern society is anything like the Middle East in the Early Middle Ages.

So I think its ok to criticize contemporary Muslims for their similar behavior because religion is main part of their culture.

Oh yes? Well you certainly don't think so when people are criticising your nation and culture.

[shrike]

Sorry but you are wrong. There is no way that modern society is anything like the Middle East in the Early Middle Ages.

But countries like Saudia and Iran try to implent that on modern society via Sharia law.

[Chris the Chees]

But countries like Saudia and Iran try to implent that on modern society via Sharia law.

Sharia Law its self has undergone transformation sinse its inception, due to numerous different interpretations. To suggest that all muslims have and do follow an identical, and by modern standards barbaric, legal code derived from Sharia law is nothing but a lie designed to defame a religion.

[shrike]

Quote by: chriss Sharia Law its self has undergone transformation sinse its inception, due to numerous different interpretations. To suggest that all muslims have and do follow an identical, and by modern standards barbaric, legal code derived from Sharia law is nothing but a lie designed to defame a religion.

I know in countries that Sharia is implemented there laws are pretty harsh.
For example you get stoned for adultery and there is no freedom of religion under Sharia law. As far as I know Islamic theocracies is the only one that exist today I am pretty sure if some other religion would implement their religious laws the situation would not be better.

[Chris the Chees]

I know in countries that Sharia is implemented there laws are pretty harsh. For example you get stoned for adultery and there is no freedom of religion under Sharia law.

Indeed there are. But there are also countries where Christians fight bloody civil wars and do all kinds of horrible things. For example the National Liberation Front of Tripura wish to set up a fundermentalist Christian state based on biblical law, and their idea of evangelism is gun point conversions and ethnic cleansing. And I am sure you would not enjoy vising the areas of uganda where the Lords resistance Army are in control, with their bloody Christian theocracy based on rape and murder.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Chris the Chees You believe that because some Muslim men tink this way, you can stereotype an entire religion? It's like saying that all white men are muderers because Ed Gein was white.

Not to mention that Somalis are Africans and these ones just happen to also have been adherents (I use that term loosely) of Islam. We need to stop talking about Muslims as if Islam is an ethnic group.