Senior-most-cleric says Islamic Sharia law allows preteen marriage

[Michael]

Morocco’s Supreme Scientific Council says yes an n=1 lacks religious validity.

What the hell IS "Religious Validity"? Sounds oxymoron. It seems Morocco’s Supreme Scientific Council is trying to get the people of Morocco to develop socially past the stone-age, so, in a sense they are condemning Mohammad's behavior as unenlightened - just not directly saying as much.

I've also heard Muslims say Aisha was 18 or even 25, and perhaps Mohammad was actually about 33 and theirs was a monogamist relationship. It's called trying to move into the modern century by rewriting (and freeing people from) what was concidered acceptable behavior from the past.

Did Mohammad ever own a Slave? Why, now a days many Muslims say no. Yet, just 100 years ago, every Muslim would have said yes. Probably SAM, you think no. No?

 

[S.A.M.]

So does the Moroccan Supreme Scientific council have any validity?

Do you agree with all their pronouncements?

 

[Michael]

Does the Moroccan Supreme Scientific council have any validity?
What do you mean by validity? The council is a group of people. Some of those people probably have some valid points to make. For example, I seem to remember the members on this council condemning the kidnapping of some tourists. Seems like a valid condemnation to me. But, they probably also think many things I would not consider valid.

No, I most certainly wouldn't agree with all of their pronouncements.


The reason they are quoted is to give an example of how people try to get around this stone-age mentality and progress into the present. The more ingrained the superstition the harder it is to move past it. Hence you have the Moroccan Supreme Scientific council making a "scientific" judgment that an n=1 (aka Mohammad) is not valid. That is, it is not acceptable for other people to emulate the actions of Mohammad. Why is that? Because his behavior is becoming despised by modern cultures - even Islamic ones.

It should be noted the entire Baha'i faith was built around an attempt (and a clever one at that) to circumvent the entire Islamic faith with the birth of the New Adam. Very clever. Then the Iranians would have been able to, in one step, move past the mentality of the 6th century and into the 20th.


It's odd that you don't seem to recognize these for what they are. Ways of trying to take Mohammad out of Islam. Clean up all the crap one could say.

 

[S.A.M.]

So you basically quote some people who have the same views as you do. Isn't that what people quoting the Salafi cleric are also doing? What makes one claim more valid than the other?

It's odd that you don't seem to recognize these for what they are. Ways of trying to take Mohammad out of Islam.

Is that another claim of the Moroccon Supreme Scientific council?

 

[Michael]

No, I gave a contemporary example and THAT WAS my point.


Maybe this will make sense: Chinese Cheats

More than 750,000 people applied for the 13,500 places available. A job in the civil service is highly sought after in China as government officials are powerful and often make a lot of money as a result. Across China people working in the private sector are losing their jobs as the economy flattens. There was a record number of applications this year for jobs in the public sector as it is seen as a safer place to work. But it is hard to get into the civil service.

More than 300 applicants were caught cheating while completing their papers. Another 700 of those who had sat the exams were deemed to have cheated because their answers were too similar. Their names and identification numbers will now be placed on a database used by recruiters throughout the public sector. An editorial in a state newspaper, the China Daily, suggested they had got off lightly. It reminded its readers in that in imperial times cheats were executed.

Now, if this were in an Islamic country, and Mohammad had ordered people's heads cut off, which he did, then probably Chinese would be calling for these cheaters heads to be chopped off. BUT, that didn't happen. Because the Chinese are progressing socially. Lucky for them they are not tied to some archaic superstition founded by a plagiarist. Luckily they are not stuck forever modeling the plagiarists actions.

Not so luckily for Islamic countries, they are. Sheeple like yourself. And so, the more progressive in these countries (who understand the need to reform their socially inept societies) form "Institutions" with nice long "Official" sounding names (Sheeples like those sorts of things, especially if they have the word "Islam" or "Allah" in it) and then they come up with what ever excuse sounds "Valid" enough to try and pull the knuckle draggers into the modern world.

Hence, the cited example WAS the point.

 

[Michael]

Islam and slavery

Unlike Western societies which in their opposition to slavery spawned anti-slavery movements whose numbers and enthusiasm often grew out of church groups, no such grass-roots organizations ever developed in Muslim societies. In Muslim politics the state unquestioningly accepted the teachings of Islam and applied them as law. Islam, by sanctioning slavery - however mild a form it generally took - also extended legitimacy to the nefarious traffic in slaves.[98]

Writing about 1862 the English traveler W.G. Palgrave says that in Arabia he constantly met with black slaves in large numbers. The effects of concubinage were apparent in the number of persons of mixed race and the emancipation of slaves he found to be common.[99] Doughty, writing about 25 years later, made similar reports.[100] Slavery was common in the East Indies until the end of the 19th century. In Singapore in 1891 there was a regular trade in Chinese slaves by Muslim slaveowners, with girls and women used for concubinage.[101] At Istanbul, the sale of black and Circassian women was conducted openly until the granting of the Constitution in 1908.[102]

It was in the early 20th century (post World War I) that slavery gradually became outlawed and suppressed in Muslim lands, largely due to pressure exerted by Western nations such as Britain and France.[3]

I wonder why Muslims never managed to ban Slavery? Could it be the same reason why Muslims, now, don't want to ban 10-12 year old child brides (in some cases even 9 years old children)? Could it be the same reasons why Morocco had to invent a counter weight called the Moroccan Supreme Scientific Council to try and counter balance and finally tip back these practices. Was it really wrong of Britain and France to pressure Muslims to stop selling other humans as slaves?


Yes, Mohammad was a nomadic Arab and he lived his life about in the manner as your typical nomadic Arab. Unless you believe in Gods, then you'll agree he either lied about the voices in his head, or, was demented. What he didn't do was sit down and think how his actions could affect people long after he died.

Why do you suppose there is a Moroccan Supreme Scientific Council? It's to counterweight Religious wingnuts that want people to live by Mohammad's life examples. Why do you suppose Baha'i was invented?

They are the tools used to try to fight against the ramblings of these Islamic priests exemplified in the OP. What I find sad is, just like the quoted text above, SAM seems just fine to float along thinking 9 year olds can be married to 55 year old men. In a sense, it's no different than the people that sat on their hands and allowed Slavery to take place in Islamic countries for 1500 years.

I think it boils down to a fear of offending God. And, if you're not a slave or a 9 year old girl, meh, leave it in gods hands. No wonder the ME is at the same level now, as the West was 1500 years ago.

 

[S.A.M.]

Sorry, contemporary example? Of what? Why one Muslim's opinion is better than anothers, except that its the same as yours?

Whats contemporary about that?

They are the tools used to try to fight against the ramblings of these Islamic priests exemplified in the OP. What I find sad is, just like the quoted text above, SAM seems just fine to float along thinking 9 year olds can be married to 55 year old men. In a sense, it's no different than the people that sat on their hands and allowed Slavery to take place in Islamic countries for 1500 years.

Sure, thats why we have a legal system. Which decides arbitraily that marriage is alright for 12 year olds and waterboarding is not torture. And if you replace the word "slavery" with structural adjustment, its easier to exploit people. Which means its based on people's opinions at any given time.

Why do you suppose there is a Moroccan Supreme Scientific Council?It's to counterweight Religious wingnuts that want people to live by Mohammad's life examples.

Is there any evidence for this?

No wonder the ME is at the same level now, as the West was 1500 years ago.

Whats more important is where societies will be in the next 1500. Where do you think western societies will be?

 

[swarm]

Only within their own age group and in unusual circumstances in which the court can decide it best.

Once again, you are completely mistaken. There is absolutely no upper age limit. A 99 year old man can marry a 12 year old if they both so choose.

 

[Enmos]

Once again, you are completely mistaken. There is absolutely no upper age limit. A 99 year old man can marry a 12 year old if they both so choose.

If that's the case it's despicable.
Do you have a link ?

 

[swivel]

Does it make me a misogynist that I enjoy watching Michael beat the shit out of SAM in this thread?

Or does it make me a Muslim?

 

[S.A.M.]

I guess it depends on your perspective, personally, I don't see him beating anything out of me. Let alone turds. :shrug:

I do believe he is overcompensating for his love of young skinny and hairless girls though, so its amusing to me. I wonder what it means that HE likes the prepubescent look. Methinks he doth protest too much

 

[GeoffP]

Michael makes serious points; Sam ignores issue, accuses him of paedophilia.

Standard sort of thread.

 

[S.A.M.]

Michael makes no serious points.

1. the OP deals with a father selling his daughter for money. It is somehow arbitrarily connected to some cleric who expresses an opinion on female sexuality and this to Islam, even though the mother and other social workers [all Muslims] are attempting to extricate the girl out of it.

2. Michael points out that people use the Prophets marriage as an excuse for this marriage, while also pointing out that this is common in pre-Islamic Arabia. All the while using as his basis, those Hadiths many of which contradict each other over Aisha's age. ie he does the same thing the cleric does

3. And then he points out a Muslim council with the ability to influence law as not having the same opinion vs a Muslim individual without the ability to influence law [like Michael] as justification for his view that Muslims who marry 9 nine year olds are doing it only because the Prophet did it.

4. 50% of all child marriages in the world take place in India, ie not in Muslims

5. Age of marriage throughout history, even Islamic history, has been a matter of public consensus, not religious opinion, otherwise 12 year old Marys would still be marrying 90 year old Josephs.

6. He does prefer young, skinny and hairless girls which makes his protestations curious, just as Baron Max's graphic descriptions of homsexual sex acts make his protestations curious. Note that he has avoided answering the question put to him several times, directly.

7. Basically, Michael is just Islam and Mohammed bashing which is what he does in almost all topics

 

[GeoffP]

Michael makes only serious points. He's one of the most serious people on here. Why is there this correlation between this senior-most-cleric and the dad's decision to sell the kid? Does the Archbishop of Canterbury go around making these kind of opinions? Whether or not the hadiths contradict each other - and I think the ones with the shortest isnad don't - the political religious law is geared that way. His supposed preferences - no idea what you're referring to - are entirely unimportant. Or, put it this way: I worry about the same things he does, and I don't have such preferences. Is he islam and Mohammed bashing? Maybe. Lots of things get bashed. Does it change where this springs from? Does islam have a responsibility to deal with its own social issues in a humanitarian way?

 

[S.A.M.]

I've lived in Saudi Arabia. The senior most cleric has no influence on decisions of marriage. Mostly its a matter of "joining families" in the well heeled and money in the others. Nobody cares what the senior most cleric thinks about marriage. Marriages are conducted by the Family Court, and presided over by qadis.

Michaels opinions are uneducated, uninformed and biased.

And I'd still like to know why he prefers the prepubescent look. And what he makes of that.

 

[GeoffP]

So what does the Family Court use for its decisions?

Law
The Basic Law, in 1992, declared that Saudi Arabia is a monarchy ruled by the progeny of King Abd Al Aziz Al Saud. It also declared the Qur'an as the constitution of the country, governed on the basis of Islamic law.[13]

Criminal cases are tried under Sharia courts in the country. These courts exercise authority over the entire population including foreigners (regardless of religion). Cases involving small penalties are tried in Shari'a summary courts. More serious crimes are adjudicated in Shari'a courts of common pleas. Courts of appeal handle appeals from Shari'a courts.[13]

Civil cases may also be tried under Sharia courts with one exception: Shia may try such cases in their own courts. Other civil proceedings, including those involving claims against the Government and enforcement of foreign judgments, are held before specialized administrative tribunals, such as the Commission for the Settlement of Labor Disputes and the Board of Grievances.[13]

Main sources of Saudi law are Hanbali fiqh as set out in a number of specified scholarly treatises by authoritative jurists, other schools of law, state regulations and royal decrees (where these are relevant), and custom and practice.[14]

The Saudi legal system prescribes capital punishment or corporal punishment, including amputations of hands and feet for certain crimes such as murder, robbery, rape, drug smuggling, homosexual activity, and adultery. The courts may impose less severe punishments, such as floggings, for less serious crimes against public morality such as drunkenness.[15] Murder, accidental death and bodily harm are open to punishment from the victim's family. Retribution may be sought in kind or through blood money. The blood money payable for a woman's accidental death is half as much as that for a man.[16] The main reason for this is that, according to Islamic law, men are expected to be providers for their families and therefore are expected to earn more money in their lifetimes. The blood money from a man would be expected to sustain his family, for at least a short time. Honor killings are also not punished as severely as murder. This generally stems from the fact that honor killings are within a family, and done to compensate for some dishonorable act committed. Slavery was abolished in 1962.[17][18]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia

http://www.international-divorce.com/d-saudi.htm

Seriously, though, why would you be much surprised at what Saudi Arabia gets up to?

 

[S.A.M.]

So what does the Family Court use for its decisions?



http://www.international-divorce.com/d-saudi.htm

Quite clearly said here:

Main sources of Saudi law are Hanbali fiqh as set out in a number of specified scholarly treatises by authoritative jurists, other schools of law, state regulations and royal decrees (where these are relevant), and custom and practice.[14]

Don't see where it says :because the prophetdidittoo

Seriously, though, why would you be much surprised at what Saudi Arabia gets up to?

I wouldn't. They follow the law that they feel is best for their society. And its a kingdom.

 

[swivel]

Oh, there is no doubt. Michael has schooled SAM sideways in this thread. Her responses are so ludicrous and evasive that I am convinced she is just trolling.

 

[S.A.M.]

If it pleases you to think so. :shrug:

 

[GeoffP]

Quite clearly said here:

Don't see where it says :because the prophetdidittoo

? Well, what else would be used as a theological basis for fiqh?? The whole Quran and the hadiths are about Mohammed's life. Does this cleric exert no influence over these bodies? Unlikely in the extreme. In fact, the sources you cite as influences - authoritative jurists, other schools of law, state regulations and royal decrees (where these are relevant), and custom and practice - are the essential problem. Where is the humanitarian relief?

I wouldn't. They follow the law that they feel is best for their society. And its a kingdom.

Oo-kay. So what if it's a kingdom? And "the law that they feel is best for their society" is being decided by about half their society, and not even all of them. Not particularly wholesome.