[Aekos]

The article doesn't mention how old the man was, but it really doesn't matter either way. This is barbarity.

[Zyx]

Understand your history:

XL.

Women forthwith from the age of fourteen are called by the men mistresses ([Greek: churiai], dominæ). Therefore, since they see that there is nothing else that they can obtain, but only the power of lying with men, they begin to decorate themselves, and to place all their hopes in this. It is worth our while then to take care that they may know that they are valued (by men) for nothing else than appearing (being) decent and modest and discreet.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/10661/10661-h/10661-h.htm

[ThereBeDragons]

Is marriage to a thirteen year old girl in violation of Islamic tenets? No. But then again, it is not in violation of Christian tenets, either. The idea that the Qur'an is the only source of law, and that the prevention of child marriage contradicts the laws of Allah is the real problem. It is as Aekos says.

[Zyx]

Despite this, of course, Aekos is right.

Why do you say that Aekos is right?

[Zyx]

I am talking about today.

Your ancestors were fourteen-year-old girls.

Why do you hate yourself?

The point of reproduction is to reproduce, not to be twenty-six with a law degree and a large bank account.

[ThereBeDragons]

Nobody is saying it is.

Indeed, you did not say it was, because you did not say anything at all. Therefore, there is no "topic" to stick to, besides general discussion of the article, therefore I can say whatever the fuck I want so long as it is relevant to the article. If you really think I am posting off-topic you may report my posts to moderation and see what they think; telling me to shut up and go away is not going to achieve your ends.

If posting an article or news item relating to Africa please also include your own comment on the article as to what is up for debate. This is not the Today's News forum, so pelase don't just post articles with no comment.

Why do you say that Aekos is right?

Based on the morality of the society in which I live, such a marriage is anathema and can therefore be called "barbaric."

[Dagoth Ur]

Africans have probably applied Islam more incorrectly than like any other group in history. But this probably has more to do with an inability to read arabic and hence understand the qur'an than any continental deficiency.

[ThereBeDragons]

It's not relevant.

If someone makes a thread about ww1 and you start talking about ww2 then it's off topic.

Kindly make a thread about christians scholars today in Europe permitting the marriage of a chilid to a grown man.

I was unaware that comparisons automatically meant that people were being off-topic.

I will be sure never to use them in the future.

The point of the Thread is to highlight child abuse which is legally justified by Islamic scholars.

Therefore what you have written is irrelevant blabble of an unevolved mind.

Enjoy your card.

[Dagoth Ur]

The point of the Thread is to highlight child abuse which is legally justified by Islamic scholars.

The point of this thread is to accuse muslims of being muslims and/or labeling Islam as a pedophiliac religion. So what do you think of Catholicism?

Therefore what you have written is irrelevant blabble of an unevolved mind.

Cool story bro. Now if you could form some counter-points more refined than simple insults.

[Zyx]

Based on the morality of the society in which I live, such a marriage is anathema and can therefore be called "barbaric."

Well, what is the moral argument against child marriages ThereBeDragons? That's what I am asking.

The ancient Greek were philosophically inclined to ask and answer the question. I wonder what your learnings entitle you to claim.

Africans have probably applied Islam more incorrectly than like any other group in history. But this probably has more to do with an inability to read arabic and hence understand the qur'an than any continental deficiency.

False. For one thing, the Islamic scripture does allow for marriage between old men and young women.

For another, some African communities are historically the only communities we can name, beside from recent feminism in the West, which openly oppose the issue of pedophilia and ephebophilia.

Finally, the Africans learned in Islam can not only be well-read in Arabic but have oftentimes become the best-read in Islam. See Timbuktu as an example. Counting the Berbers as Africans (duh, they are in North Africa) would allow one to expand this claim into theology proper, as St. Augustine was a Berber. Notably, Timbuktu was an educational center for the World, admired by the Europeans like few other places.

Dagoth Ur, don't be a racist. Those are a stupid people.

The point of the Thread is to highlight child abuse which is legally justified by Islamic scholars.

Why call it child abuse? It was the norm in human history.

Give us a reason to consider it abusive, beside from "feminists said."

[ThereBeDragons]

Well, what is the moral argument against child marriages ThereBeDragons? That's what I am asking. The ancient Greek were philosophically inclined to ask and answer the question. I wonder what your learnings entitle you to claim.

Societies are founded on certain principles, many of which have an arbitrary axiom at their root. In this case, the argument against child marriage is founded off the principle of the age of consent. These axioms are not universal; at times in history, infanticide and slavery have been accepted.

[Dagoth Ur]

Dagoth Ur, don't be a racist. Those are a stupid people.

lol. It has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with the massive level of fundamentalism in Africa. Female circumcision is most widely practiced in Africa even though the prophet himself explicitly came out against it. I'm not saying Africans are incapable of being good muslims, or even that most Africans are bad muslims.

The point of the thread is that islamic scholars in Nigeria accept child abuse or pedophilliac practice. If you want to label it that way then thats your distortion.

Oh yeah? Well then why this:

I think catholicism have too many pedophile priests that they covered up. Perhaps these priests would be more at home in Islam.

[Dagoth Ur]

A news story only makes the point you interpet it to make. I made no such point my posting of the news story only presents fact.

You other posts regarding Islam prove you had the motive to libel Islam.

My comments on catholic priests in relation to Islam are my own personal observation or opinion.

Which are exactly why you posted this story in the first place. I'm sure there were several notable African news stories today but instead you posted this.

[Zyx]

In this case, the argument against child marriage is founded off the principle of the age of consent.

Research history. In the mid-19th century, the age of consent in the West was 10-13.

"Feminists said" it should be 18, therefore . . ..

That's not an argument. Go deeper into the philosophical underpinnings of the moral question, then condemn others. Simply "I heard" isn't an argument that's worth expressing.

These axioms are not universal; at times in history, infanticide and slavery have been accepted.

What's your point?

The Christian religion 'turned the other "eye"' toward the brutal exploitation of the land and people of this world. That's truly backward from a moralistic point of view.

This doesn't establish thirteen-year-old marriage as wrong.

It was human history to wash twice a year and throw sewerage onto the street. Should we still do that?

Irrelevant. In addition, that wasn't human history, but nasty European tradition. Africans had public and private showers before European states even existed.

Any psychologist can tell you it damages the mental health of a child to be innitiated into sexual contact with an older man like this.

Show me the psychologist.

As was said, in the mid-19th century, the 'age of consent' was as young as 10 in Europe.

Now that's pedophilia (pre-pubescent.)

I'm not saying Africans are incapable of being good muslims, or even that most Africans are bad muslims.

But this probably has more to do with an inability to read arabic and hence understand the qur'an

An inability to read or understand doesn't come off as incapable or a criticism of most?

Is English your second language?

If I say that you are unable to read, am I not saying that you are incapable of being scholastic?

[ThereBeDragons]

Research history. In the mid-19th century, the age of consent in the West was 10-13.

"Feminists said" it should be 18, therefore . . ..

That's not an argument. Go deeper into the philosophical underpinnings of the moral question, then condemn others. Simply "I heard" isn't an argument that's worth expressing.

Right, and the age of consent went up because most people arbitrarily agreed that it should (some citing facts about human development), so now it's higher.

What's your point?

The Christian religion 'turned the other "eye"' toward the brutal exploitation of the land and people of this world. That's truly backward from a moralistic point of view.

This doesn't establish thirteen-year-old marriage as wrong.

Okay, so what are the philosophical reasons why exploitation and infanticide are wrong?

[Dagoth Ur]

An inability to read or understand doesn't come off as incapable or a criticism of most?

Its way more an issue of lacking education than a lack of capability. This is a problem in the middle-east as well. I don't mean any of this as characteristic of the african peoples but their material conditions.

Is English your second language?

No.

If I say that you are unable to read, am I not saying that you are incapable of being scholastic?

Only if I don't know how to read in any language. I'm not saying africans can't read but that many african muslims can't read arabic, again because of a lack of education rather than capability.

That's a serious allegation. Where did I libel islam?

This entire thread. Also bolding a whole sentence just makes it look like you're yelling. And most people don't like being yelled at.

I am interested in highlighting human rights abuses.

Which, if true, has way more important stories than some small group of clerics justifying their political choice's lifestyle.

Take note of a thread about Ukrainian people trafficing I created yesterday.

Possibly having a good thread doesn't make up for a libelous one.

[Dagoth Ur]

The first post, and most of your posts following it.

[Dagoth Ur]

I never said racism. Your intent with this thread was clearly from the onset to libel Islam as a pedophile religion. Your playing innocent act isn't fooling anyone.

[Okonkwo]

Mod note: I'm in two minds about this thread. It's up to you to stop it from completely derailing. Don't force me to delete it.

[Zyx]

Right, and the age of consent went up because most people arbitrarily agreed that it should (some citing facts about human development), so now it's higher.

Why not admit that you have no idea?

Okay, so what are the philosophical reasons why exploitation and infanticide are wrong?

Really, there's no argument against the latter.

The former does have an argument but it's more astute than I'd like this conversation to be. Nevertheless, 'exploitation' has a key role in the moral question, so much so, that the reason for infanticide not having an argument is that it is non-exploitative.

But why have a philosophical discussion? The point is that you call a people barbaric for being people.

Check especially the link to chilid sexual abuse at end of page.

The strongest indicators that a child has been sexually abused are inappropriate knowledge about sex, inappropriate sexual interest, and sexual acting out.7 The effects of abuse result from the abuse itself, from the family's response to the situation, and from the stigmatization that accompanies abuse. The symptoms can include post-traumatic symptoms, precocious sexualization, depression, anxiety, guilt, fear, sexual dysfunction, dissociative symptoms, eating disorders, substance abuse, prostitution, regressive behaviors such as a return to thumb-sucking or bed-wetting, runaway behavior, and academic and behavior problems.7,15

Factors that influence the outcomes in cases of childhood sexual abuse include the age of the victim, the frequency and extent of the abuse, the relationship of the victim to the abuser (incest has the worst outcomes), the use of force, the presence of severe injury, and the number of different perpetrators.15 The response of the victim's family has a tremendous effect on the outcome. Supportive responses from the victims family and friends can go far to lessen the impact of the abuse while negative responses (seen commonly in cases of incest where one parent tries to protect the other parent) will compound the damage done.

Marriage doesn't fall under 'abuse' except for possibly 'age' but as was stated, it once was the norm to marry at even ten, in Europe. To say that all women were sexually abused as children marrying at ten, undermines the fundamental tenets of psychology: a reference point.

It's not a psychological abuse if it is a tolerated norm.

That's like saying wearing pants is an abuse.

If an adult loves and treats a child right, why would a marriage between be abusive? Answer the bleeding question.

Thirteen here is around the age of starting high school. It's post-puberty and children form relationships regularly.

So Europeans are not human?

Why would you need to ask that?

Of course Europeans are humans. Europeans are 99.5% genetically similar to all other people on the planet. If the Europeans are not humans, then few are.

By the way, what I mean is that this non-showering you cite has to do with European dark ages. The Romans (Europeans), I'd point out, did shower regularly.

It's not 'human history' that has non-showers, but Europe's dark ages. Not to say that they are not humans, just that they reflect a tiny minority of history considering that humans have been around for 200,000 years and the dark ages weren't even a hundredth of that.

In truth, for you to claim the near-millennium of European ignorance as representative of human history is the only 'racism.'

Europeans found africans in trees and mud huts when they arrived to civilize them in the 19th century.

Probably. The Europeans decimated the African continent in the 16th century.

I don't mean any of this as characteristic of the african peoples but their material conditions.

You can retract your statement, but what you said was clearly ignorant.

The Arab conquest of Africa made sure that the Africans would be astute and learned in Islam.

Maybe today Africans stray from their past as scholars in Islam, but it's despicable that you'd jeer the Africans for it given their scholastic history.

Now you wish to backtrack and say that a poor people can not be scholarly. This is just class bigotry.

I do not understand what you are trying to achieve in denigrating Africa, but I'd like to hear your point.

I'm not saying africans can't read but that many african muslims can't read arabic, again because of a lack of education rather than capability.

Check your facts. The Africans are among the most multi-lingual people on the planet. If you noticed, Okonkwo and millie_(A)TCK are well-versed in multiple European and African languages. The Africans themselves regularly speak Swahili, making Arabic an easily understood language.

It's quite ridiculous of you to claim the Africans lacking of education. Have you been to Africa?