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

GeoffP said:
? 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?
Click to expand...

Fiqh has more than a theological basis, in fact, very little of it has a basis in Quran or Hadith, more in Jewish and Bedouin laws, existing and adopted customs. Its been stagnant for quite some time now, ever since the jurists were sidstepped by kings and dictators [probably once the Turkic influences came in]. Which is why although the basis is Hanafi [which is followed by 80% of Sunni Muslims], there is a wide variety of differences based on existing custom and practice.




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.
Click to expand...

Half is generous. I would say 100% of their law is decided through the king. Which is why its called a kingdom. Although I would say, in Saudi Arabia, they suffer more from having very few laws [such as the absence of laws covering age of marriage] than any imposed ones. Kuwait also has a similar absence of laws re: marriage, this kind of thing is traditionally left to the parents.

In general the age of marriage is similar around the world

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageable_age
 
Last edited:
S.A.M. said:
Fiqh has more than a theological basis, in fact, very little of it has a basis in Quran or Hadith, more in Jewish and Bedouin laws, existing and adopted customs. Its been stagnant for quite some time now, ever since the jurists were sidstepped by kings and dictators [probably once the Turkic influences came in].
Click to expand...

All right: what's your source to the above?

Which is why although the basis is Hanafi [which is followed by 80% of Sunni Muslims], there is a wide variety of differences based on existing custom and practice.
Click to expand...

Yet all with a similar bent towards women, among others. Not so different in intent, but only in specific practice. Are all these similarities due to corrupt kings and dictators?
 
Last edited:
S.A.M. said:
And I'd still like to know why he prefers the prepubescent look. And what he makes of that.
Click to expand...
The "prepubescent" look SAM? IS the the mother of all red herrings?!?!

Please
Michael

Note:
- Shaving body hair is common (legs, arm pits, crotch, back, arms, beard, whatever). The Lebanese in the lab shaves his legs and armpits. Reza paid 5k for laser hair removal. It's quite common and usually referred to as grooming.
- Having a fit body is not prepubescent. My partner is a 30 years old ballerina. If you saw her round arse you'd know she looks anything butt prepubescent.
 
Can you show me an example of the fit non prepubescent look you prefer? Just for kicks.

Cos I've seen some of your earlier examples.
 
bill-mckibben-rebecca-kelly-ballet-dancer-adirondack.jpg


ISH.jpg



and one for you SAM


fat_ballet.jpg
 
Ah, its good to see your tastes are maturing. These older women are a far cry from the ones you posted before. :p

[no, I'm not going to search for them]
 
SAM these (below) are CHILDREN. They have no business having to worry about marriage at their age. They should be protected and cared for as CHILDREN.
Children.jpg


Why would this "Senior-most-Islamic-cleric" suggest anything otherwise?

Because NOT to do so would SUGGEST there was something wrong with it when Mohammad did it and therefor something wrong with Mohammad and therefor something off putting about Islam and therefor maybe this cleric should be out of a job... by hell he isn't going to say that!



It was much more important for Mohammad to make the needed political allies rather than to develop unique enlightened message/philosophy. Actually, he didn't even bother to develop his own ideology! He just copied the nearest one - Christianity!

Step back and think about this from this perspective: There are NO Gods. Given there are no Gods, it should become quite evident what sort of person Mohammad was and what sort of goals he had in mind.

The rights and freedoms of children were the last thing on his mind.

IF , it was really all about the "message", THEN, Mohammad would have had the foresight to think how his actions would be perceived in the future implement of his message. But it was never about the message was it SAM? If it was he'd have developed his own. No, it was always about Mohammad - you know "The Last Samurai... oh I mean Prophet".

This is classic of cults of personality. And, so, fast forward 1500 years and you're stuck with Mohammadism.


The majority of nations really hadn't developed much socially up until the last few hundred years. And now, in the modern world, Islam doesn't fit. Most people no longer feel that Mohammad acted appropriatly. Hence Islamic apologists (Aishya was really 25 years old, slaves were really just hanging out having fun, etc...). I'm all for this interpretation.

But, THAT shit don't float with the people like the cleric in the OP. What's this guy going to go? Say, yeah you're right, Mohammad acted in a manner that today would be considered inappropriate? No way. It'd be like shooting himself in the foot. So, he gets up on TV and says no no no... it's OK to marry children. :bugeye:



It's the same reason why slavery was never banned by Muslims themselves SAM. IF Mohammad did it then it's OK. That is the reason. To do anything else would be to accuse Mohammad of being an unenlightened plagiarizer who build a cult of personality for his own self serving reasoning's.


M
 
You realise the concept of "childhood" is a western one? It doesn't exist in the east. Children are little people. They work for a living or starve. If no labour is available they become prostitutes. Marriage is also common. Its only in societies where people have the privilege of living comfortable lives [mainly at the expense of these "backward" countries], that such luxuries as childhood are available. And even then, children getting pregnant is not unusual in such societies. Nor is child sex tourism.

IOW, its all superficial, la-di-dah idealism. I wonder how much of your comfortable life you'd be willing to give up to give these little people a childhood. Anyway, I'm sure all these backward places will eventually catch up. After all, they did catch up to western notions of sodomites and pederasts.
 
Last edited:
It's funny that somehow even now you come around to blaming the "West". As if it's Western people's fault this cleric made such an asinine and embarrassing declaration.

Maybe with enough apologists and a few new Last Prophets, they just might change? Or maybe the world will implode and we'll all be clubbing one another in praise of Xenu? On can never truely know.

All praise Xenu,
Michael
 
Oh its not the fault of the west that they've been exporting democracy to the Middle East all these years. Its just our bad luck it seems so difficult to get it through.

100 years of Wahabism and still going strong. But its good to get feedback from the enlightened.
 
I'm surprised you can not see the connection with Muslims never had baned slavery and this. Can't you see how Europe was just like this, back when Europeans were superstitious and mentally controlled by the religious establishment? Pretty obvious to me.
 
I'm sure it is very "obvious" to you. All the democracy you've been exporting worldwide is proof of this.
 
and back to blaming the west again.

People in the ME knew of democracy long ago. 2300 years ago.
ME people traditionally had a government made of a king counter balanced with a religious class.
This was and is their culture.
They were like this from WAY WAY back before even Judaism was invented. Certainly long long before Islam.

If you look at KSA today, you can see the set up of ME rule from 5000 years ago.


Hellenization, building city states, disrupted this. Add to this, some forward thinking rulers themselves attempted to bring democracy to their own people (we're still talking 2000 years ago). Guess what - it didn't work.

2300 years and people in the ME are not democratic - it's because of their own culture.

So, lets not try to play the blame game.


As for Iraq, that's war over resources. Oil. You should appreciate this, most people in Egypt think they are Arab for the very same reasons.
 
S.A.M. said:
You mean consent for marriage, provision for divorce, custody, maintenance and property ownership? I don't see a problem with that.
Click to expand...

I do, when all are biased against one of the two parties. What about fairness? What about, say, proportionality?
 
GeoffP said:
I do, when all are biased against one of the two parties. What about fairness? What about, say, proportionality?
Click to expand...

Strawmen. No westerner has any right to talk proportionality, not when their society is invested in supporting undemocratic regimes and suppressing democratic movements in other societies. Political power is the forerunner to civil rights. Even a fool knows that.

and back to blaming the west again.

People in the ME knew of democracy long ago. 2300 years ago.
ME people traditionally had a government made of a king counter balanced with a religious class.
This was and is their culture.
Click to expand...

No, they've always had a tribal millet system. The Wahabi kingdom took over in the 1920s, when you know, the Brits and their allies promised the Arabs their nationalism.

Curiously, they have a record of only supporting kings and dictators there. Do as I say, in other words, not as I do. Democracy is more than elections, elected people must be overthrown and are all terrorists. Etc.

Why do you suppose that is? What is the military might of the so-called democracies invested in suppressing nationalism?
 
actually mohamed was ahead of his time... he set slaves free.... he married a divorced woman (to set an example) etc
isn't it kind of unfair and biased to set todays standards and hold them against those of mohameds times? what were the europeans doing during his times? Or the asians....
Besides his youngest wife aisha was offered to him at the age of 8 or 9 i dont recall it precisely and the prophet answered no i will not marry her untill she becomes a woman ie has her first period. Those were different times, i understand that when we hear of a imam saying that those standards should still be used in the present is appauling but please do consider the time and mentality difference when you start ranting about something.
 
S.A.M. said:
Strawmen. No westerner has any right to talk proportionality, not when their society is invested in supporting undemocratic regimes and suppressing democratic movements in other societies.
Click to expand...

We certainly do, when the domestic politics of another society is deeply engaged in the vicious suppression of anything not belonging to some arbitrary 'norm'.

Political power is the forerunner to civil rights. Even a fool knows that.
Click to expand...

Exactly! And that is precisely why religious minorities, women - and, basically, everyone else - are being so viciously suppressed in the islamic world. Even a fool knows that. I look confidently forward to the day when the advance of socialist humanitarianism can confine such systems to the trash heap of history.

No, they've always had a tribal millet system. The Wahabi kingdom took over in the 1920s, when you know, the Brits and their allies promised the Arabs their nationalism.
Click to expand...

Actually they got that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top