so i throw this question at you why do not muslims rally against terroism?
I'd advise you to read this article, titled 'Child Marriage in Ancient India. It gives a historical account of the practice of child brides in India over a 4000 year period. Here is an extract:DoctorNO said:India had been heavily influenced by Islam. I have no idea what was culturally acceptable to them before Islam, but I do know that their civilization was quite advanced at that time.
HmmmmThe Kama Sutra is attributed to Vatsyayana who wrote his "profound discussion of love and sex" no later than 300 AD and perhaps as early as 300 BC. The work wasn’t original, it was a summing up of ancient wisdom. Love and sex were considered as something a-moral, something which transcends ethics and has its own justifications.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
That the attentions are being paid to pre-pubescent girls is shown clearly by the concluding paragraph on Kama Sutra courtship, "A man who has seen and perceived the feelings of the girl toward him, and who has noticed the outward signs and movements by which those feelings are expressed, should do everything in his power to effect a union with her. He should gain over a young girl by childlike sports."
Later, in the Yajñvalkya Smriri and its contemporary literature, we find that the fear of post-puberty marriages became so great that the Smitris brought the marriageable age of girls still lower. According to the Parashar Smitri and Sheeghrabodha the marriageable girls were divided into five categories:
1) Nagnika or naked. A girl seven years old or younger. This was regarded as best age for marriage.
2) Gauri. A girl eight years old.
3) Rohini. A girl of nine years old.
4) Kanya. A ten years old girl.
5) Rajaswala. A girl above ten years old.
According to Vaikhnasa, a Brahmin should marry a Nagnika since that is the best match. According to Marici the best age of marriage for a girl is five years old. Brahmapurana also prescribes marriage in childhood. Failure to do this will condemn the parents or gaurdian to utmost degradation.
Shame you left our the rest of that quote:DoctorNo said:Now you know that even in ancient times such a practice is criticized: "Terentia apparently criticized Cicero for marrying a young girl"
And while you are right, it was acceptable for a 12 year old girl to be married off, that should not be stated with pride at how Romans were more civilised because of that 3 year difference. But prior to the age of consent being set at 12 years of age for girls, a child could marry once they reached puberty. So if the girl reached puberty when she was 8 or 9, as does happen occasionally, she could be made to marry by her parents.Although Terentia apparently criticized Cicero for marrying a young girl, the matching of a man with a woman young enough to be his daughter or even granddaughter was generally accepted ... For a man to marry a woman who was much older than himself was discreditable. A couple who were both old might also be criticized.
http://ablemedia.com/ctcweb/consortium/ancientweddings6.html
Bride and groom must have reached puberty. Over time, examination to determine puberty gave way to standardization at age 12 for girls and 14 for boys.
http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa110700a.htm
I found this little article that might be useful in regards to this topic, which discusses the marriage practices of the ancient Isrealites and girls were of marriable age at the point of puberty or when they reached 13 years of age.DoctorNO said:No one as of yet was able to show us the cultural practices of ancient arabia before Islam. But at least we know now that the romans were nearly as civilized as we are today.
The wife was to be taken from within the larger family circle (usually at the outset of puberty or around the age of 13) in order to maintain the purity of the family line; but she could not be too closely related as is shown by Leviticus 18.
http://www.theology.edu/marriage.htm
A father could not sell his daughter as a slave, according to the Rabbins, until she was at the age of puberty, and unless he were reduced to the utmost indigence. Besides, when a master bought an Isrealitish girl, it was always with the presumption that he would take her to wife. Hence Moses adds 'if she please not her master, and he does not think fit to marry her, he shall set her at liberty.' Or according to the Hebrew, 'he shall let her be redeemed.'
http://history.furman.edu/~benson/docs/grimke2.htm
Who? You claim not to know any, and you claim that Muslim parents today are trying to prevent their children from marrying young. So who are they? Ah, here, I'll give you a hand:DoctorNo said:None, but they do marry 9 yr olds.
"In many parts of Africa, Asia, and South America, young girls are often engaged by the age of eight, and leave their homes to join their husbands by twelve. In many cases, the younger the girl, the more her family receives in the form of a dowry. This program travels to the most rural and poverty-stricken regions of Ethiopia to expose the common practice of child brides and the consequences for the young girls who often give birth before they are out of childhood."--
http://library.gmu.edu/subject/womensrights.html
Mmm hmmm, so why aren't you protesting about these actions as they happen today? We live in an enlightened world, where we supposedly know better than the ancients did. Yet, instead of trying to stamp out the problem in our own time, people such as you continue to harp on about the practices from the 6th century, all because you hate their religion. Maybe it's time you concentrated your hate on other things. But then again, I forgot this little statement from you:DoctorNo said:I told you, actions that violate personal liberties and basic rights trancends the bounderies of time & culture.
DoctorNo said:We each have our role to play. Mine is not of politics or activism. Mine is more of religious and philosophical criticism, I think
vincent28uk said:esmerelda the bells
For no man is an island.***
And in the midst of life the death bell tolls.
And you and I and the whole of humanity –
we all participate in the economy of death –
allowing it, precipitating it, suffering from it, experiencing it.
*
*
So the bell tolls for you and mw
you are at one in death.
Don't ask for
whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee bells
Hmm astounding, you didn't even bother changing the punctuation. Tsk Tsk.For no man is an island.
And in the midst of life the death bell tolls.
And you and I and the whole of humanity –
we all participate in the economy of death –
allowing it, precipitating it, suffering from it, experiencing it.
------------------------------------------------------------------
So the bell tolls for you and me
We are at one in death.
A sermon preached by Rev Andrew Sails
What? You're now assuming that her playing with dolls meant that she had not had her period? Grasping at straws now aren't you?DoctorNO said:LOL! A common mistake when dealing with this issue is the immediate assumption that Aisha at age 9 had already entered puberty.
However there are strong evidences that such assumptions are wrong.
"Aisha was still playing with dolls at the time of the battle of Khaibar when she was at least 14 years old. Your great Islamic scholars all maintain that according to the strict interpretation of Islamic laws and the hadiths, and in particular in Muhammad's time, ONLY PRE-PUBESCENT GIRLS were permitted to play with or own dolls, thus proving that when Aisha owned/played with dolls she was pre-pubescent.
Aisha was still playing with dolls at the time of her nikah, the same day that Muhammad first had sex with her (according to Tabari). "
-by Hector
Look closely. The rest of that quote proves nothing. For all we know it could be referring to a Donald Trump scenario.Bells said:Shame you left our the rest of that quote:
You only quoted the Kama Sutra, a sex manual. Aside from the fact that such literatures are mostly confined to the upper caste, nothing in the article is suggesting that what is written here reflects the common practice in ancient India. On the other hand the article said these:Bells said:I'd advise you to read this article, titled 'Child Marriage in Ancient India. It gives a historical account of the practice of child brides in India over a 4000 year period.
That is a biased Islamist web site.Bells said:Doc, I would dearly suggest that you read The Young Marriage of Aishah which discusses the marriage rights and customs in ancient Arabia before and during the time of Mohammed. One of the articles I quoted above is also mentioned in there. It's a quick read and if I was to post quotes from it, my post would be too long (it's long enough as it is now), so it's easier for you to just read through it.
Thank you.Bells said:Who? You claim not to know any, and you claim that Muslim parents today are trying to prevent their children from marrying young. So who are they? Ah, here, I'll give you a hand:
Because the most effective way of dealing with a problem is by attacking the root of the problem – their idolized bogus prophet. Right?Bells said:Mmm hmmm, so why aren't you protesting about these actions as they happen today? We live in an enlightened world, where we supposedly know better than the ancients did. Yet, instead of trying to stamp out the problem in our own time, people such as you continue to harp on about the practices from the 6th century, all because you hate their religion. Maybe it's time you concentrated your hate on other things. But then again, I forgot this little statement from you:
You missed the point. In classical islamic law only pre-pubescent girls are allowed to own or play with dolls.Bells said:What? You're now assuming that her playing with dolls meant that she had not had her period? Grasping at straws now aren't you?
Bells said:DoctorNo, in no way do I approve of any man marrying a child. However, I do acknowledge that it was a common cultural practice in history. You're applying modern morals to ancient history and saying that he was wrong to do something that is so morally reprehensible by today's society. Yet in the 6th century, it was allowed. Should the rules change to suit today's society? Yes.
Had you read that article closely Doc, you'd see that it was referring to it having been written in 300AD, before Islam. And as to the Vedic mantras, it states that a girl could be married after she had reached puberty. Again, puberty plays a large role in the girls physical development at that time. If you read on, it states the importance of the girl having reached puberty prior to marriage. Therefore, if the girl reached puberty when she was, say 8 or 9 for example, then she would be of marriable age. And Doc, read up on your history. Islam didn't really begin to have any influence in India until the 7th century. Islam's birth in the 6th century would not have been felt in India at that point. So, the sinking of the marrying age in the 6th century could not really be connected now could it? Hmmm? Especially when one realises that the first Islamic kingdom was not established until the 12th century. Why do you persist in arguing this point Doc? That's how it was in history. It was not only Mohammed who did it. Accept it and move on.DoctorNO said:You only quoted the Kama Sutra, a sex manual. Aside from the fact that such literatures are mostly confined to the upper caste, nothing in the article is suggesting that what is written here reflects the common practice in ancient India. On the other hand the article said these:
So, up until the 6th century educated girls were following the Vedic religious practice which prevents them from marrying too early. And loooook, the age of marriage began to sink after the 6th century, about the time of Islamic expansion & influence.
(1) Religious dictates:
“The Vedic mantras, such as the Rigveda mentioned that a girl could be married only when she was fully developed both physically and mentally and that she was to be fully developed physically before leaving her father’s home”
(2)
“After the sixth century the marriageable age of girls went down lower and lower. The stoppage of participation of girls in Vedic education, Upanayana rituals and the insistence of purity in yajna (sacrificial) ritual contributed to the lowering of the marriage age for girls. ”
In that case, shouldn't your attack be based against ancient arabian culture? After all, that is the root of the problem is it not? After all, it was that culture that allowed the marriage to take place. Had it been seen as being morally reprehensible back then, do you think it would have occured? If they thought of it back then as we do today, do you seriously think that he wouldn't have been stoned to death for marrying her? Think about it Doc.Because the most effective way of dealing with a problem is by attacking the root of the problem – their idolized bogus prophet. Right?
I believe I have already answered that question above. If I were looking at it through modern western eyes, yes he is guilty of paedophilia. But I shall say this again. When looking at history, cultural relativity is essential. It is imperative to look at the cultural development and practices of societies and social groups on their own terms. It is essential that we look at history and ancient cultures without trying to impose our own moral values. Nor should we try to measure different cultural variations in terms of our own cultural standard. This is what I've been trying to say to you all along in this and what you continually fail to see.DoctorNO said:So tell me, bells, as a prophet & example for all time, was he guilty of pedophilia or not?
Deranged doesn't cover it dear boy.james bond said:bells sounds very deranged
And the little peon returns with another poem by Poe... What's the matter Vinny? Mummy give you a little book of poems for Christmas?vincent28uk said:are you alone bells you sound like a very lonley person
i have wrote another poem for you my love its called