'It Is Allowed To Marry A Girl At The Age Of One'.

[Mayabird]

Saudi Marriage Officiant : 'It Is Allowed To Marry A Girl At The Age Of One'.
by Live Leak
Thanks to burn0gas for the link.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8d4_1214302019

Saudi Marriage Officiant : 'It Is Allowed To Marry A Girl At The Age Of One'.

Aired on LBC TV (Lebanon) - June 19, 2008 - 00:03:08 :

Dr. Ahmad Al-Mub'i, a Saudi Marriage Officiant: It Is Allowed to Marry a Girl at the Age of One, If Sex Is postponed. The Prophet Muhammad, Whose Model We Follow, Married 'Aisha When She Was Six and Had Sex with Her When She Was Nine :

Following are excerpts from an interview with Dr. Ahmad Al-Mu'bi, a Saudi marriage officiant, which aired on LBC TV on June 19, 2008:

Dr. Ahmad Al-Mu'bi: Marriage is actually two things: First we are talking about the marriage contract itself. This is one thing, while consummating the marriage – having sex with the wife for the first time – is another thing. There is no minimal age for entering marriage. You can have a marriage contract even with a one-year-old girl, not to mention a girl of nine, seven, or eight. This is merely a contract [indicating] consent. The guardian in such a case must be the father, because the father's opinion is obligatory. Thus, the girl becomes a wife... But is the girl ready for sex or not? What is the appropriate age for having sex for the first time? This varies according to environment and traditions. In Yemen, girls are married off at nine, ten, eleven, eight, or thirteen, while in other countries, they are married off at 16. Some countries have legislated laws forbidding having sex before the girl is eighteen.

[...]

The Prophet Muhammad is the model we follow. He took 'Aisha to be his wife when she was six, but he had sex with her only when she was nine.

Interviewer: When she was six...

Dr. Ahmad Al-Mu'bi: He married her at the age of six, and he consummated the marriage, by having sex with her for the first time, when she was nine. We consider the Prophet Muhammad to be our model.

Interviewer: My question to you is whether the marriage of a 12-year-old boy with an 11-year-old girl is a logical marriage, which is permitted by Islamic law.



Dr. Ahmad Al-Mu'bi: If the guardian is the father... There are two different types of guardianship. If the guardian is the father, and he marries his daughter off to a man of appropriate standing, the marriage is obviously valid.

[...]

People find themselves in all kinds of circumstances. Take, for example, a man who has two, three, or four daughters. He does not have any wives, but he needs to go on a trip. Isn't it better to marry his daughter to a man, who will protect and sustain her, and when she reaches the proper age, he will have sex with her? Who says all men are ferocious wolves?

None of those "oh, wait, it was actually sixteen and nineteen" apologetics here. Very unapologetic, in fact. Ugh.

Link

[Zixinus]

The Prophet Muhammad, Whose Model We Follow, Married 'Aisha When She Was Six and Had Sex with Her When She Was Nine

Are you telling me that the prophet of one of the holy religions was a self-documented PAEDOPHILE?

Holy. Fuckswatting. Shitcopter.

[Rye]

You didn't know that? The Hadith even has a story where he comes and plays with her and her friend while they're playing with dolls.

[Sidewinder]

Are you telling me that the prophet of one of the holy religions was a self-documented PAEDOPHILE?

A quick search on Wikipedia turned up these comments:

D. A. Spellberg states that in Ibn Sa'd, the age of Aisha at marriage varies between six and seven.

from D. A. Spellberg, Politics, Gender, and the Islamic Past: the Legacy of A'isha bint Abi Bakr, Columbia University Press, 1994, p. 40.

Colin Turner, a professor of Persian language and Islamic history, states that Muhammad's marriage, in its historical context, would not have been considered the least improper. Such marriages between an older man and a young girl were customary among Bedouins as they still are in many societies across the world. Coulin further writes that Arabs in the seventh century tended to reach adulthood at an earlier age than Westerners today.

from C. Turner, Islam: The Basics, Routledge Press, p.34-35.

That may excuse Mohammed, but it certainly doesn't excuse Al-Mub'i, although it does explain it; like many Muslims, Al-Mub'i seems to think time has frozen in the seventh century CE.

[Tasoth]

Aside from it being an arranged marriage at waaaayy too early an age, a part of me feels that as long as it isn't consummated at way to early, it's not as bad as it seems.

But then the portion of me that doesn't believe a thing someone says makes realize that they can do what ever they want to these young girls and it won't matter because they're the adult and the girls aren't, therefore giving their word more sway. How many of the muslim countries still treat women as second class?

[Darth Wong]

The Prophet Muhammad, Whose Model We Follow, Married 'Aisha When She Was Six and Had Sex with Her When She Was Nine

Are you telling me that the prophet of one of the holy religions was a self-documented PAEDOPHILE?

Holy. Fuckswatting. Shitcopter.

A lot of our attitudes about children are actually fairly recent. It was only a few centuries ago when it was considered perfectly acceptable to make children work in mines or even serve on naval vessels. The Bible says it's OK to beat your children to death if they swear at you, or sacrifice them for religious purposes.

[Mayabird]

Even so, for a supposed arranged marriage, Mohammed was particularly disgusting about it. He married her because he'd been lusting after her, a six year old, not because of some tribal business arrangement as was often the case in those days.

Also, the entire thing about veiling women comes because he was jealous of other people looking at Aisha so he covered her up.

[Stark]

Aside from it being an arranged marriage at waaaayy too early an age, a part of me feels that as long as it isn't consummated at way to early, it's not as bad as it seems.

But then the portion of me that doesn't believe a thing someone says makes realize that they can do what ever they want to these young girls and it won't matter because they're the adult and the girls aren't, therefore giving their word more sway. How many of the muslim countries still treat women as second class?

Child marriage + social restrictions on woman-initiated divorce = domestic violence. Imagine how brainwashed you could make a girl you married at six, even if you didn't rape her until she was 18? Functional, healthy relationships I'm sure.

[Omeganian]

The Prophet Muhammad, Whose Model We Follow, Married 'Aisha When She Was Six and Had Sex with Her When She Was Nine

:shock: :shock: :shock:

Are you telling me that the prophet of one of the holy religions was a self-documented PAEDOPHILE?

Holy. Fuckswatting. Shitcopter.

A lot of our attitudes about children are actually fairly recent. It was only a few centuries ago when it was considered perfectly acceptable to make children work in mines or even serve on naval vessels. The Bible says it's OK to beat your children to death if they swear at you, or sacrifice them for religious purposes.

Well, the Bible, I believe, didn't say to beat him to death, but to execute him (and the court could usually find a loophole). As for sacrificing, while readiness to do so might be considered positive, few actually consider the deed itself to be such.

BTW, I studied a bit about the Jewish weddings. Turns out there were attempts to regulate the marriage so that no immature girls will be married. However, the sages were just about powerless against the social conditions (if you don't marry off your daughter today, tomorrow you might be banished from the land, and in the new place, you won't be able to find a proper groom, nor will you be able to provide her with a proper dowry. Plus, if she is abducted, a married one will be returned unharmed).

Also, in India, the perfect age for marriage was considered a husband three times the wife's age. She still lived a few years with her family though.

[General Zod]

Well, the Bible, I believe, didn't say to beat him to death, but to execute him (and the court could usually find a loophole).

Exactly what is the difference between beating someone to death and "executing" them when the result is the same?

[Omeganian]

Well, the Bible, I believe, didn't say to beat him to death, but to execute him (and the court could usually find a loophole).

Exactly what is the difference between beating someone to death and "executing" them when the result is the same?

When there is a legal procedure instead of lynching, there is often a difference in the results.

[General Zod]

When there is a legal procedure instead of lynching, there is often a difference in the results.

And if the "execution" is decided to be "beaten to death"? Or as was common in Biblical times, "stoned to death"? Alternately "lashed to death"?

[Feil]

Well, the Bible, I believe, didn't say to beat him to death, but to execute him (and the court could usually find a loophole).

Exactly what is the difference between beating someone to death and "executing" them when the result is the same?

Jack shit. American King James Version, because it has my favorite line: "stone him with stones"

18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not listen to them: 19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out to the elders of his city, and to the gate of his place; 20 And they shall say to the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. 21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shall you put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

[Omeganian]

When there is a legal procedure instead of lynching, there is often a difference in the results.

And if the "execution" is decided to be "beaten to death"? Or as was common in Biblical times, "stoned to death"? Alternately "lashed to death"?

Well, there was no "lashed to death" punishment, to be exact. To tell the truth, we don't know that much about how often the execution was actually applied in those times, most of the actual acting law is from times of the Roman Empire and the Talmud - and a major idea there was abolition of the capital punishment. After all, the literal laws of the Tanakh are not quite sufficient without commentaries, and you can write them in several direction. Considering the Books of Kings already show how a trial can be staged, the people likely understood quite early that you must check the circumstances veeery carefully.

[General Zod]

Well, there was no "lashed to death" punishment, to be exact. To tell the truth, we don't know that much about how often the execution was actually applied in those times, most of the actual acting law is from times of the Roman Empire and the Talmud - and a major idea there was abolition of the capital punishment. After all, the literal laws of the Tanakh are not quite sufficient without commentaries, and you can write them in several direction. Considering the Books of Kings already show how a trial can be staged, the people likely understood quite early that you must check the circumstances veeery carefully.

You have read the Bible yes? You're aware of how often "stoning" is mentioned as an acceptable method of punishment?

[Omeganian]

Well, there was no "lashed to death" punishment, to be exact. To tell the truth, we don't know that much about how often the execution was actually applied in those times, most of the actual acting law is from times of the Roman Empire and the Talmud - and a major idea there was abolition of the capital punishment. After all, the literal laws of the Tanakh are not quite sufficient without commentaries, and you can write them in several direction. Considering the Books of Kings already show how a trial can be staged, the people likely understood quite early that you must check the circumstances veeery carefully.

You have read the Bible yes? You're aware of how often "stoning" is mentioned as an acceptable method of punishment?

The Hebrew Wikipedia (in this case, i believe it can be trusted) gives nine types of crime (There were other types of execution, together, they seem to include a similar number). Not a long list for the times. Even for much later times, actually.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Well from the interview it's clear that consent of the female is not necessary in order for "the contract of marriage" according to this guy.

[General Zod]

The Hebrew Wikipedia (in this case, i believe it can be trusted) gives nine types of crime (There were other types of execution, together, they seem to include a similar number). Not a long list for the times. Even for much later times, actually.

I suggest looking up the following: Exodus 19:13, Joshua 7:1-26, Leviticus 24:16, Deuteronomy 22:23-24, Exodus 21:28, Deuteronomy 22:13-21, Deuteronomy 17:2-5, Deuteronomy 13:5-10, Deuteronomy 21:18-21, Leviticus 20:27, Leviticus 20:2, Numbers 15:32-56, 1 Kings 21:10.

There may not be enough records to show how often it was carried out, but the fact that it appears as a common punishment for most crimes strongly suggests that it happened a fair amount, and it's not exactly as if that era was known for being pleasant to live in.

[Axiomatic]

Well from the interview it's clear that consent of the female is not necessary in order for "the contract of marriage" according to this guy.

I thought arranged marriages were arranged by the parents of the two people in question, so really, neither of the two is really asked what they think about it.

Also, NEWSFLASH - the concept of pedophilia being bad is a new one. What, you think Mary was in her twenties when she had her "virgin birth"?

[Omeganian]

The Hebrew Wikipedia (in this case, i believe it can be trusted) gives nine types of crime (There were other types of execution, together, they seem to include a similar number). Not a long list for the times. Even for much later times, actually.

I suggest looking up the following: Exodus 19:13, Joshua 7:1-26, Leviticus 24:16, Deuteronomy 22:23-24, Exodus 21:28, Deuteronomy 22:13-21, Deuteronomy 17:2-5, Deuteronomy 13:5-10, Deuteronomy 21:18-21, Leviticus 20:27, Leviticus 20:2, Numbers 15:32-56, 1 Kings 21:10.

There may not be enough records to show how often it was carried out, but the fact that it appears as a common punishment for most crimes strongly suggests that it happened a fair amount, and it's not exactly as if that era was known for being pleasant to live in.

Not many examples, considering the Tanakh is not such a small book, and it deals with centuries of time. As for punishment for most crimes... Well, the historical parts don't deal in pocket thefts, but in crimes considered serious. Perhaps the definitions are strange to you.

Also, considering the times, the Tanakh laws should be compared not to modern views, but to something closer

[General Zod]

Not many examples, considering the Tanakh is not such a small book, and it deals with centuries of time. As for punishment for most crimes... Well, the historical parts don't deal in pocket thefts, but in crimes considered serious. Perhaps the definitions are strange to you.

Also, considering the times, the Tanakh laws should be compared not to modern views, but to something closer

Who the fuck is doing any comparing whatsoever? I'm pointing out that stoning was seen as an acceptable and common punishment. Considering the amount of shit they'll punish you for in modern Islamic shitholes, I have a hard time buying that they'd use the option less back then.

[Omeganian]

Not many examples, considering the Tanakh is not such a small book, and it deals with centuries of time. As for punishment for most crimes... Well, the historical parts don't deal in pocket thefts, but in crimes considered serious. Perhaps the definitions are strange to you.

Also, considering the times, the Tanakh laws should be compared not to modern views, but to something closer

Who the fuck is doing any comparing whatsoever? I'm pointing out that stoning was seen as an acceptable and common punishment. Considering the amount of shit they'll punish you for in modern Islamic shitholes, I have a hard time buying that they'd use the option less back then.

I fail to see the connection. However, the fact that you can give 11 places in the Tanakh where the law mentions stoning, but only two practical applications, speaks quite clearly.

[Sidewinder]

Even so, for a supposed arranged marriage, Mohammed was particularly disgusting about it. He married her because he'd been lusting after her, a six year old, not because of some tribal business arrangement as was often the case in those days.

Please tell me in which book of the Koran is Mohammed described as lusting after the six-year-old Aisha, so I can know whether or not it's a "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion"-type lie for the sake of Islam-bashing?

[Rye]

Colin Turner, a professor of Persian language and Islamic history, states that Muhammad's marriage, in its historical context, would not have been considered the least improper. Such marriages between an older man and a young girl were customary among Bedouins as they still are in many societies across the world. Coulin further writes that Arabs in the seventh century tended to reach adulthood at an earlier age than Westerners today.

from C. Turner, Islam: The Basics, Routledge Press, p.34-35.

That may excuse Mohammed, but it certainly doesn't excuse Al-Mub'i, although it does explain it; like many Muslims, Al-Mub'i seems to think time has frozen in the seventh century CE.

It doesn't really excuse Mohammed. I've heard this claimed before but such young marriages were rare amongst the arabs at the time. IIRC, some early islamic history shows that Mohammed actually inspired his followers to start taking early wives to try and be more like him (much as it is inspiring the muslim in the OP), he didn't merely buy into something everyone else was doing. Indeed most of the pre-islamic arabian marriages that Aisha describes in the Shihab (az-Suhri) have to do with getting pregnant which certainly implies what their priorities were.

[General Zod]

I fail to see the connection. However, the fact that you can give 11 places in the Tanakh where the law mentions stoning, but only two practical applications, speaks quite clearly.

Modern Islam nations are theocratic shitholes. Ancient Jewish states were theocratic shitholes. Theocratic shitholes tend to have punishments in massive excess of the supposed "crimes" they committed, which rather makes whether or not the applications were "practical" somewhat moot.