Malaysian Girl, 14, Celebrates Muslim Wedding in Public
- Posted on December 5, 2010 at 7:21am by
Scott Baker
- Print »
- Email »
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia (AP) — A 14-year-old girl and 23-year-old man have celebrated their recent marriage in public in Malaysia’s largest city, a report said Sunday, fueling a debate on teen weddings.
Underage marriages are allowed for Muslims with court permission and parental consent but are not common in this Muslim-majority country.
The New Straits Times reported the Muslim couple, whose union was arranged by their parents, were married in July after obtaining permission from an Islamic court.
The couple, whose photo was published on the government-linked newspaper’s front page, celebrated their union at a mosque in Kuala Lumpur Saturday together with about 250 other couples. The celebration was organized by Kuala Lumpur’s Islamic department.
“It has been hard trying to juggle two roles — as a student and a wife — but I am taking it in my stride,” said the bride, Siti Maryam Mahmod, who studies at a religious school.
Authorities could not immediately be reached Sunday to comment.
Muslims, who make up two-thirds of Malaysia’s 28 million people, are permitted to marry after reaching puberty as long as they have consent from their parents and Islamic Shariah courts. For non-Muslim Malaysians, females must be at least 16 and males 18 to marry.
The Times quoted Jamil Khir Baharom, minister in charge of Islamic affairs, as saying that Siti Maryam was allowed to marry as long as she obtained court consent.
But Deputy Health Minister Rosnah Abdul Rashid Shirlin said child marriages should be forbidden.
“It is never OK for a 14-year-old to be married,” the Muslim woman politician told The Associated Press.
Ivy Josiah, executive director of local group Women’s Aid Organization, called on the government to repeal laws that allowed underage marriage for Muslims.
“Cultural and religious sensitivities should not be excuses for what is clearly a human rights violation,” she said.
A southern state’s leader made headlines in August when he encouraged teen marriages as a way to prevent young girls from having sex out of wedlock and getting pregnant. Dozens of babies are abandoned by young unwed Muslim mothers in Malaysia each year.
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 705 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 547 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 364 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 361 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 359 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 359 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 364 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 278 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 149 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 359 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (194)
OneRepublic4us
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 10:46amHey people, age is NOT the issue here. It’s choice. Did she marry him of her own free will and can she divorce him if she isn’t happy? NO, she had no choice and in a Muslim arranged marriage she is his property and has no individual rights.
Report Post »Oil_Robb
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 1:01pmYou are absolutly right…..its about her choice, and I would assume she didnt have one.
Report Post »JohnnyJT
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 9:58amIsn’t Love Wonderful.
Report Post »2dollarbill
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 9:34amDSTSS2010 – Self righteous ******. Just because YOU didn’t read something on the internet – it just Can’t possibly be true? If ignorance is bliss you must be a very happy person. Did you know 14 year olds get married all the time here in the U.S.? But YOU didn‘t read it in the paper today so it can’t be true, right? Both parties agree, both parents agree & all interested petition the court and stand in front of a judge and explain. Then the judge gives the thumbs up or thumbs down. In your case, you must have a thumb up………someplace. Who hurt your tender little feelings so bad you have to pass judgement on others without knowing most of the facts?
Report Post »Country
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 9:30am14 year olds can have abortions in this country without parental assent and the age of the person who got her pregnant ever being questioned.
Report Post »Gunfighter
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 9:16amSo let see if I have this right since it was ok to marry a 14 yr old girl in the past despite all of our advancements it’s still ok to do this. If I’m understanding this correctly then as a culture and as a human race we have lost ourselves to our depraved immoral sides and are not worth saving. It was wrong to do it then and it is wrong to do it now just because it was accepted doesn’t mean it was right we know better now.
Report Post »awizard
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 9:42amNice try, replace “Human Rights” with “Human Race” … “We” know better … You’d better start spreading “Your Culture” a little further/faster … the rest of the world is way behind.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 9:46amPunctuation might help to analyze your argument better.
Are you making a blanket statement that “we know better now”? Is that the premise for all your reasoning? You don’t need no stinking divine authority for you moral judgments? If you believe it to be so, it is, no arguments. You know better. Simple as that.
Have I got that right? I missed how you defined what constitues “our depraved immoral sides” but I‘m assuming it’s whatever we as a whole believe because of “all of our advancements”. But then I’m still unclear how you determine what it is that “we” really believe. Obviously there is right here some disagreement about the absolute wrongness of a 14 year old marrying. Do we determine modern morality, which is competent to judge all actions in all times and cultures, by a majority vote of the advanced people here? Is morality determined by democracy?
You see, you aven’t established the truth of either part of this statement: “It was wrong to do it then and it is wrong to do it now”. How do we know that it is absolutely wrong to do it, now or at any time.
It is certainly wrong to do it now in this country because our laws forbid it. It is wrong to sell alcohol to someone under 21 now. But it wasn’t always. Was it wrong that I could buy a beer on my 18th birthday back in the day? Is it right that my niece has to wait 2 more years until she can drink in public?
Positive Law says that an action is wrong when the law says it is wrong. There need be no “moral” justification behind the law. The law is whatever we make it to be. Natural law says that there is a moral law behind the human law, and that it is the purpose of human law to reflect that moral law as best it can within the circumstances of the day. This Natural Law seems to be what your argument would logically be dependent upon. Except you make no acknowledgement of Natural Law, but merely to the wisdom of the age, “we know better”.
Have you ever heard the saying, “he who marries the spirit of the age soon finds himself a widower”?
Report Post »Momma M
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 9:49amYou brought a knife to this gunfight, Gunfighter. In the past, 14 year olds were MUCH more mature than they are now, so to call it ‘wrong then” is completely … wrong! We don‘t know the maturity of this young bride and it’s not our business to question it.
Report Post »What we need to do is address the immaturity of OUR youth, the open-door policies of OUR society that allows immature children (of ANY age) to have sex without consequences, steal without consequences, lie without consequences, cheat without consequences…
Though I have NO tolerance for ISLAM… If you‘re directing your comment specifically at this bride’s age… You‘re shootin’ at the wrong target.
xrayamy
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 12:37pm@ Momma M
Again…you took the words right out of my mouth! My grandmother was 15 when she married and had 5 kids in 8 yrs! However when I was 15, there was a huge difference in the generations with maturity. I do think she should have been able to make the decision on her own and not have an “arranged” marriage. But then again, the Islamic culture is different from mine/ours. I personally would not want my 14 yr old daughter marrying.
Report Post »awizard
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 9:12amThis is a non story, married at 14 is not unusual … “Human rights” might explain the “Outrage”, but then they Are muslim … Did anyone notice that 250 other couples married in the same ceremony?.. I find that a bit odd … but, that’s just me, maybe they were just trying to save money?..
Report Post »cykonas
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 9:09amDon’t you think we have more than enough to concern ourselves with here at home? Let‘s declare a moratorium on sticking our ever loving noses in everyone else’s business. Too often that’s how we end up in crazy places like Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, and Afghanastan. Let’s work at getting our “house” cleaned up. Keep your eye on the ball.
Report Post »heavyduty
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 9:08amNo comment!!!!
Report Post »Bob
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 8:53amFact – Pedophilia is a accepted tradition in many Islamic/Muslim countries.
Report Post »wtd
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 8:51amTo: Islesfordian at 8:11am who stated:
1. “Many people are simply ignorant”
2. “Islam can be criticized for many things, but this isn’t one of them”
In Islamic tradition Muhammad is al-insan al-kamil, the perfect man, and uswa hasana, an excellent model of conduct (Qur’an 33:21).
Muhamamd, the exemplar of right conduct (uswa hasana), Muhammad the Perfect Man (al-insan al-kamil) lusted after and married the six year old child, Aisha, consumating the union when she was only nine years old.
“It is folly not to take Islam seriously. It is folly to entrust the teaching of Islam to apologists for Islam, both Muslim and non-Muslim. It is folly not to study the canonical texts, and what are made of those texts by imams and jurisconsults. . . It is folly to participate, lemming-like, in an act of collective Pollyannism or perhaps merely criminal negligence. . .having bestowed the title of “uswa hasana, al insan, al kamil” (the perfect man to be emulated), repeated all his deeds countless times in the last 14 centuries. From looking like him, dressing like him, to looting, raping, murdering, destroying all monuments”, erasing all non-Islamic history as jahiliya. How many people have died till now because followers through the centuries continue to imitate their so called perfect man ?
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 9:20amI’m sorry, but what is your point? Are you saying blindly following Muhammad’s example is wrong? I wasn’t arguing in favor of that. That actually is one of the serious problems I see in Islam. But what has that to do with the case in hand? Surely (and in honor of Leslie Nielsen I apologize immediately for calling you that) you can’t be saying that this practice can be condemned because it flows from a dangerous religious practice? That sounds too close to the fallacious ACLU reasoning that religiously based ideas should be inadmissable in politics. A practice can be good or evil regardless of how it is justified. There is such a thing as being right for the wrong reasons.
Report Post »wtd
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 9:32amIt was clearly laid out for you. Despite your attempt to ignore the reality of doctrinal implications and the dictate that the traditions of their prophet is to be emulated for all time in all places has everything to do with Islam. Lan Astaslem.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 10:05amYeah, I got that. So how does that fact make it wrong in itself for a 14 year old to marry? You haven’t answered that.
Report Post »Chett
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 8:46amChildhood is way over prolonged in the US. American kids are not ready to be adults even long after 18 because that is how we raise them.
Report Post »Juliette and Romeo were 13
I think forcing them to stay ‘young’ too long is cruel.
Momma M
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 9:36amBut we’re not forcing them to stay young too long. We’re giving very mixed messages to our kids.
We have “HannaMontana” doing pole-dances on a supposedly kid-friendly Disney program. We have kids prancing around our streets half-naked. We have a completely unexceptable un-wed pregnancy rate, with thousands of kids under the age of 14 giving birth WITHOUT the benefit of a “devoted” husband.
In essence, kids are not expected to be kids – to enjoy their youthful innocence. No, we’re breeding “uneducated little-adults”… Giving them all the freedoms of adulthood without benefit of parental guidance. Kids as young as 12 can get birth control without parental knowledge… Perhaps in some cases even abortions…. Because they have “rights”.
A parent can no longer raise their own child without the DoED’s progressive influence. Parents can no longer discipline their child without “social services” down their necks. A record number of these “children” are raised in fatherless homes…. Far too many children being raised by aging grandparents because Mommy has better things to do… Kids aren’t expected to find a part-time job (mowing grass or weeding a garden for a neighbor) to pay for their “wants”… No – they demand those ‘wants’ to be satisfied and society has deemed this acceptable… Cell phones, cars, $100 jeans, violent video-games have replaced sacking groceries after school… And what do we have? Lazy, un-involved, desensitized BRATS.
Look at the role models we provide. Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton, Rapper-thugs, come to mind in the “entertainment” arena, but go further… Rangel, Waters, Clinton – unethical THEIVES who will openly profit from their criminal behavior… AND who go on to gain more wealth/power after being exposed. EVERY arena of society is plagued by these low-lifes setting examples for our youth.
No, I disagree – our kids aren’t allowed to EVER be truly “just kids”….. Not in America – Not anymore.
We need to allow parents to actually RAISE their kids! The government’s involvment has in no way benefited our youth, much less our society in general. In short, being “progressive” has proven to be “counter-progressive”.
Report Post »GeeWhiz
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 9:49amFunny that you invoke ‘Romeo and Juliet”. I use them as an example to my own 13 year old as to what not to do. How did that story work out in the long run? They were stupid enough to get themselves dead in the process.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 10:02amThe age of Juliet, I think Romeo was a little older, is not a factor in the tragedy. That is clear in the play. The point of her age meely highlights that it was a common enough to marry at that age that it would not be shocking in Shakespeare’s day.
The mother of Henry VII of England was 12 when she married Owen Tudor and 13, and already a widow when she gave birth to the future king. It was a marriage arranged by her gaurdian, king Henry VI.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 10:22am“But we’re not forcing them to stay young too long. We’re giving very mixed messages to our kids”
You are partly right here, Momma M. We are prolonging children’s youth but in a period we now call adolescence, in which they have lots of hormonal changes and drives but no heathly way to express them. Biologically they are ready to start being adults but the are not being preparred for it emotionally or societally. Furthermore we are taking away the strong moral codes that were put in place to keep them from giving in to their natural urges awaking in their bodies and are also sexualizing them even before their hormones kick in, Hannah Montanna, Britney Spears, etc.
What else should we expect besides moral chaos. And here we are condemning another culture for doing what ours did for centuries before our “enlightened age”. What blind idiocy.
Report Post »Momma M
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 10:32am@Islesfordian
That actually was my point… a bit rambling I’ll admit…..
Report Post »xrayamy
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 12:29pm@ Momma M
Right on!!! You have summed up how parents should be raising kids and how the gov’t should stay out. I thank my parents all the time for raising me in church and spanking me when I needed it. My husband and I are working on the 1st child and we have already considered home-schooling and trust me, spanking. Yes… I said spanking!
Report Post »Celeste.Christi
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 10:34pmYes, they were 13 in the play, however, in real life Juliet was 16 years old.
http://www.funtrivia.com/en/subtopics/The-Tragicall-Historye-of-Romeus-and-Juliet-221454.html
Report Post »SlimnRanger
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 8:41ami don’t understand the judgement on here from some of you, Loretta Lynn was 14 when she and monnie were married as was many older women of today were of that age when they got married,parental consent of course but it did happen alot in this country. personally i think they should wait till 18 or older but it did happen alot
Report Post »thepatriot
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 8:49amFor me it’s not about the age as much as it seems that this girl now has to do more that just her dutie as a wife. It doesn’t appear that she was ready for this. It doesn’t really say whether or not this was her choice. The story appears to be incomplete, and because it is a young person who seems to be moving on with her life as far as education is concerned, she either doesn’t realize that at some point she will bear children and those options will go away, or she doesn’t understand. Either way it appears that she was not prepared for this.
In the times other people are referring to, the woman would have known that she would be expected to stay in the home, and raise the children. This doesn’t appear to be the case here.
Report Post »heavyduty
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 9:17amThe story didn’t say consent, it said parent arranged the marriage. This is where I have a problem with it. If it is her choice then I really have no problem with it. But if it was her parent’s choice then I have a problem with it.
Report Post »Oldphoto678
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 10:40amHey, Heavyduty, Do you have the same problem with a christian parent that denies medical treatment to a child due to their faith.
Report Post »thepatriot
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 8:34amInteresting because the UN thinks that we are not supportive enough of human rights… isn’t that weird?
Report Post »teddrunk
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 8:30amA story like this won’t bother the Democrats. They think it‘s just fine to molest a child if you’re a Hollywood director like Polanski, so something like this would be just fine with them.
Report Post »Momma M
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 9:05amGood Point!
Report Post »canuck44
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 8:18amMuslim Law….if they are old enough to go to the store they are old enough to get bred.
Report Post »MJ1025
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 8:09amSorry video does not post. Go to newzeal.blogspot.com and see the video about what is happening to Sweden
Report Post »shorthanded12
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 8:08amgood ole peaceful religion..Did the State Department send a represenitive on behalf of the United States?
Report Post »MJ1025
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 8:08amThis is from newzeal about how Sweden has highest rape numbers because of Muslim men. They believe if you show too much skin, like an ankle, you are asking for it.
Report Post »MJ1025
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 8:10amnewzeal.blogspot.com
Report Post »M31Sailor
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 11:48amThese muslim men would be exausted on South Beach
Report Post »Lenman
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 8:01amWhat would you expect from a so called religion whose diety is a pedophile.I‘m sure she’s mature enough to make the decision…in fantasy land!What chance do kids have when their parents are pieces of camel dung?
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 8:31amI despise Islam for its enshrinement of barbarism and its enslavement of its worshippers. But your comment reeks of ignorant hatred. No criticism is valid rom such an attitude.
Report Post »freightliner1160
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 7:59amMy aunt was 14 when she married my uncle. Been married for 40 years before his death. She died 3 year after Bob.
Report Post »Most Christian historians believe Mary was 14 year old when she became pregnant with Jesus.
The states here, most westerners while settling the west married young.
The difference now is we teach kids about sex and not about love or honor. We look at marriage as sex and not as love or honor. Love is work. It’s not a feeling.
This young woman has to learn to love him and he her. I wish them the best of luck.
tuffenough
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 7:57amWhy is the world so eager to embrace and adore this most demonic religion { islam } ?
Report Post »What Good can possibility come out of a child { 14 } getting married ?
Reminds me of a joke I once heard — Why do men prefer virgins ? — So the bride won’t know if the man is any good in bed !
But seriously folks this practice is just evil – next week we will not ever hear from this ‘ child ’ again – UNTIL she is beaten up so badly – or stoned to death.
Allah is the devil !
Reagan/Demint.deciple
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 8:05amCourse ,to 2dollarbill stoning is in the culture, so get over it….
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 8:27amAnd unwed teen pregancies, abortion and rampant divorce are in OUR culture. Got anything besides your innately liberal condescension against all things not you to back you up?
Report Post »thepatriot
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 8:39amIf we were all following God and using his words and wisdom as a benchmark in our own lives, we would not be in a situation like we are with teen pregnancies and so on. We’ve strayed very far from the path.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 10:59am“Reminds me of a joke I once heard — Why do men prefer virgins ? — So the bride won’t know if the man is any good in bed !”
This joke pressuposes sexual promiscuity. Perhaps you think that is preferable to people saving it for marriage. I’m not married but would like to be, and I would like to marry a virgin so that what we share together we will have had with no one esle. That’s my preference, but I know people make mistakes and so won’t say No to the right woman who made mistakes.
Also, there is something really sick and broken with thinking that comparing one‘s spouse’s “performance” against others’ is a good thing. Sex is not meant to be “good” in that sense. It is a sacred thing in marriage that is good by nature. It is a self-giving that should not be critiqued. Would you judge the gift your lover gave you if it came from the heart?
No wonder divorce is so rampant in our society.
Report Post »Reagan/Demint.deciple
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 12:55pmI would hardly say that teen pregnancy ,rampant divorce and abortion is in OUR culture. I, being a conservative, detest ALL of the above and I’m sure many are with me on this…
Report Post »The situation in Malaysia is an ARRANGED marrage and agreed upon due to THIER culture.. So, you haven’t a clue of what you are talking about.. Good try though
Islesfordian
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 2:39pmIs the fact that the marriage is arranged proof of something? Is it proof that the marriage is wrong? You have yet to establish that. I might say “nice try” but you weren’t trying that much. There have been many arranged marriages throughout history. It was the dominant way marriages were contracted. The cultural snobbery that says that our way is the only acceptable way is tiresome and ignorant when it is grounded in no greater philosophy or divine authority, only rank prejudice.
And if YOUR culture has no divorce, unwed teen mothers and abortions which IS your culture and how can we identify it?
Report Post »2dollarbill
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 7:44amMany peoples great, great grandparents married when they reached puberty. Now we would put those people in jail. Here’s a really crazy idea. Take the log out of your own eye before you worry about the splinter in someone else’s. Not everybody has the same culture as America. Get over it.
Report Post »Rational Man
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 8:01amI hate it when scripture is mis-used out of context!
Report Post »Reagan/Demint.deciple
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 8:01amYeah, just wondering, if that is so, then why do they have to get parental permission to get married ? Why do they have to get approval from the Islamic Sharia courts ? I mean if it’s in the culture then it should be ok to just go get married …
Report Post »Sounds like you have a 14 year old girl friend and are just offended, could that be ?
Besides all of that, this IS America and I have a right to express an opinion on anything , course over in Malaysia not so much, if you get what I mean..
DSTSS2010
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 8:02am3DOLLARBILL- I don’t recall anywhere in the article that the “girl” was given a choice in this matter. I’m sure there was a lucrative cash transaction associated with this “arranged marriage”.
Report Post »BlazingBlonde
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 8:11amApparently, you jumped off a bridge because everyone else did too….
Report Post »A 14 year old is still a child. I dont care how many great grandparents of any one may have done it before us. In previous times, there was child labor.. we thought that abhorrent, and changed societal views to reflect a much better value. We even made laws Protecting Children.
It is not lost on any of us that people like you would like to go back to the day of children slaving away, child abuse, pedophilia and worse, stealing a child’s CHILDHOOD. In your foaming defense of pedophelia.. you forget the child behind the situation. Shame on you. Shame.
You would never support Your child working in a tennis shoe factory for Kathie Giffford would you? yet you support a child now gets to be a pedophile’s maidservent instead of a carefree child for a few more years.
Islesfordian
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 8:11amMany people are simply ignorant of their own past. In Jewish tradition the chieldren become adults at 13. That is when they are bar mitzvahed (for boys) and bat mitzvahed (for girls). The boys can then read the Scriptures in the Synagogue and the girls can be married.
The Christian tradition from the beginning through into the 16th century was similar, though girls were could be married at 12, the normal age when puberty kicked in. Islamic culture did not fix it at any specific age but simply required that the girls had reached puberty.
We may find this practice disgusting, but disgust is not a moral category. God laid down no rules on this. You won’t find anything in the Bible on it. Islam can be criticized for many things, but this isn’t one of them, unless you want to take the liberal line that modern moral sentiments are superior to ancient morality. But beware! You may find yourself condemning Saint Joseph, for tradition has it that the Virgin Mary was 14 when she married him, and he was no spring chicken.
Report Post »Momma M
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 8:22amBoth my great grandmothers married at 14. Both lived long and happy lives (92 and 94). Both raised their families through the depression. Both had husbands that served proudly in the Military. Both were loving, God-fearing women and neither were considered “victims”.
I don’t know the circumstance of this 14-year old Malaysian girl… But to consider her a victim of human-rights violations SIMPLY because she’s 14 seems to me to be an over-reach.
We are, globally speaking, a widely diverse group of independent cultures. Who are we to judge another’s culture based on our views?
I can only say, without question – that my great grandmothers were happy, healthy, loving, devoted, intelligent and inspirational women – And I completely reject the theory they were “victims” who suffered because of their early-marriages.
I
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 8:24am“Why do they have to get approval from the Islamic Sharia courts ? I mean if it’s in the culture then it should be ok to just go get married ”
Reagan/Demint Disciple, a 14 is still the child, and thus ward, of her parents. She needs parental permission to do a lot of things. There is in our culture the concept of child emancipation in which a child under 18 can be emancipated frim its parents and live as an adult. Here in Maine the age at which this can happen is 16. Why couldn’t another country make 14 the age?
A lot of people seem to to think that we we think in our time and place is the standard for morality everywhere. This is pretty ignorant. Our culture hasn’t been around all that long. Are we going to say that own culture is perfect and there is nothing we would criticize in it? I don’t know anyone who takes THAT position. But if we do criticize our own culture we are going to have to identify objective standards by which we do that and which are applicable to other cultures. But we also have to identify where we get those standards. I have’nt heard anything like that yet here.
Report Post »smasaoka
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 8:38amIn Africa-and other places-there is no priest, pastor, wedding ceremony, or a “paper” two have sex and they are considered married? If that were true here in USA, think: how many wives/husbands do you presently have??
Report Post »TOSKIMAN
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 9:08amSo. 2 dollarbill, shall we let the beatings continue? This is not about whether you can drive at 16 , 15, or 10. It is about respect for human life and acknowledging that the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob writes that law on the heart of a man who willingly submits to HIM. The law is for the rest of the people that CHOOSE not to listen to God. Simple enough!!
Report Post »vistacruiser
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 9:54amI believe the point being overlooked is that this was an arranged marriage to a 23yr old man that she had never met. Trying to equate this to anything my grand-mother did, does not change the fact that this girl has been sold into virtual slavery.
Report Post »MrButcher
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 11:48am@Isles
very true. The bible does not forbid child rape nor arranged marriage. How could they leave that out if the bible is supposed to be the only guide one needs to live a moral life? It also mentions nothing on genocide nor slavery. Guess these things just weren’t that important to the fraud pious committee that authored the christian canon.
But you can thank modern secularism for pointing out these horrors and creating the sense of repulsion towards these ideas and practices that we have in the West.
But I’m sure most here are not willing to give any credit to secularism because most mistake it with some progressive plot to indoctronate everyone into statist subservience. Which just makes my eyes roll.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 12:32pmYeah, butcher, I get where you are coming from. You don’t believe in divine revelation or religious truth. OK. But shouldn’t you then be more tolerant of other cultural ways of thinkiing, there being no God telling us what‘s so and what isn’t? Or are you just naturally smarter than all others so that you are qualified to judge other people’s morality by the infallible light of your own thoughts? I mean, it’s not like physics where you could point to objcetive and imperical evidence to support a statement.
Just to take an example, what’s “wrong” with genocide, if you can get away with it? Everyone dies eventaully anyway and wouldn’t it make the lives of future generations more harmonious if unasimulatable elements of the population were eliminated? Think of how much energy we expend agonizing over treatment of the Indians. If we had just completely wiped them out they would just be a footnote of regret rather than a continuing moral and legal hazzle. I’m playing, LITERALLY, Devil’s Advocate here. If Darwin is right, that nature favors the fittest, shouldn’t the fittest co-operate and perfect the race by weeding out imperfections? C’mon, aren’t the Muslims taking the simpler and easier approach just wanting to drive the Jews into the sea rathet than trying to find a way of living with them?
Without a moral philosophy that comes from a source higher than ourselves isn’t our condemnation of other cultures just another form of cultural genocide?
Report Post »MrButcher
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 2:54pm@Isles
Two points.
1. Moral philosophy based on revelation and divinity is not moral. I’d challenge you to point out one moral religious tenet that can not be said, or hasn’t been said, by a secularist. The clash of these perceptions is where and how we define our morality. Holy texts have never been moral and have added very little to this debate over the centuries (do I need to list all the ways religion has murdered and destroyed?). My point is secularism, particularly western secularism, has been the engine for the concepts of what we consider moral more so than the anything revealed. How can you even contest this?
2. Survival of the fittest does apply to all speices including our own. However, it is our moral philosophy derived from “higher” ideals like understanding of reasoned thought, literature, history, science and debate over the truly unknown that allows us to avoid the more, shall i say, unpleasent aspects that our smaller brained mammalian cousins can’t avoid by their very disposition. Also, “survival of the fittest” is a bit of misnomer to Darwin’s idea. Survival of the Adaptable better describes his idea. For example (not from Darwin), the Neanderthal was more physically fit and stronger than Modern Man was when they were competing for dominence. However, it was the adaptablity of modern man (larger brain) that won the day not the fitness of the neandertals.
Are you, in your devil’s advocacy, suggesting we apply “survival of the fittest” to the theological? If so, you just became and advocate for holy war. Is that really moral? But I’ll go you one further and grant you this because it is, basically, what already is happening in the minds of many and the actions of a few. If this holy war is to transpire, if we are to engage in a survival of the fittest duel amongst the religions of mankind, I’d highly recommend you take the side of secularism. All the holy books of the Abrahamic faiths command the killing of non-believers of their faiths and the texts that justify this are just waiting to be brought out and preached in American pulpits (notice how they ignore these). To take the side of any of these faiths and to claim one is better than the other is to take an immoral stance, to potentially encourage genocide and to enter the murderous ranks of Hamas, Hezbollah, and Constantine.
But don’t misunderstand me, this fight shouldn’t be side-stepped nor avoided. We need to meet it head on with gusto. I just think the right sde to be on is the side of the secularists and not the side of the various and equally tyrannical army’s of god.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 3:24pmButcher,
a pleasure to have an actual discussion.
point 1 “Holy texts have never been moral” Well, that‘s a circular argument isn’t it? Besides, where did the Golden Rule originate? With secularism? You can make the claim that secularism now teaches everything moral, so who needs religion? But where did secularism get it? Secularism didn’t originate in a vacuum. Furthermore, by dismissing the religious ground of the teachings that it wishes to continue it leaves itself open to the challenge of “Who says what you think is true?” If someone of a secular mind disagrees with YOUR secular morality on what basis do you argue? The fist? Marx threw out religion but take a look at the vicious battles within Marxism. It wasn’t religious disagreement that got Trotsky assassinated.
point 2. Yes. That is of course what I mean by survival of the fittest, the fittest is the most adaptable.
Re: my Devil’s advocacy: I was not advocating for myself but proposing what I see as a logical application of Darwinian theory and wondering how one justifies condemning it. Not being a Darwinian it’s no skin off my nose. Without a God to judge me I can‘t see why simple utilitarianism shouldn’t be the rule. Enlighten me why it shouldn’t.
“All the holy books of the Abrahamic faiths command the killing of non-believers of their faiths and the texts that justify this are just waiting to be brought out and preached in American pulpits (notice how they ignore these).”
No this is patently untrue. Please refute me by citation if you can. There is nothing in the NT about killing or forcible converting non-believers. In the OT the only thing remotely applicable is God’s command to kill the wicked inhabitants of Canaan. But beyond those there was no command to go after any others outside Israel nor were they commanded to convert individual non-Jews dwelling as guests in the land. Judaism has always been uniterested in evangelism and mission work. Only Islam has texts speaking of infidels both generally specifically and commanding their forcible conversion and/or death.
It’s one thing to think all religions are false because there is no God. It’s another to think they are all equally as bad. All poisons aren’t alike. I can swallow a small portion of Arsenic but not Cyanide.
Report Post »MrButcher
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 4:21pm@Isles
Yes, it is very good to have these discussions. You seem a very honest adversary.
I’ll respectfully start with the immorality of the New Testament.
1. The concept of Hell–Hell isn’t mentioned in the Old Testament even with all the violence and creulty it ascribed to its jealous and angry god. Unless you include a few indirect mentions, this “place”, very important to the dogma, is left out. Why?–Damnation was a teaching of jesus, a maniacal self-serving teaching I propose. Is it the position of the christian faith that Jesus, the prince of peace and love, introduced humanity to, perhaps even invented, this new horrid place of torment made for those who don’t believe in him? How is that not blackmail? (note: Islam takes alot from this as well since it to recognizes Jesus’ virgin birth and divinity)
2. The preachings of Jesus–(a)Matthew 10:34 (the one most often cited by non-believers) in which jesus proclaims he doesn’t “bring peace but a sword.” Now I know christian apologists claim this to be a metaphorical sword and not an actual one but what is a messiah who speaks in metaphor? And could some chose to read this as non-metaphical. I think they can, have and will.— But why would jesus do this? Matthew 4:11-12 says its so jesus can confuse people and, by doing so, send them to hell. WHAT??? The messiah wants to deliberatly speak in parables so people can go to hell?—Also in Matthew chapter 11 verse 20 Jesus condemns an entire city to death for not liking his preachings. How is that moral? What is wrong with this guy?
(b) The Book of Revelation—Why the bible committee chose to include this text I’ll never understand.
In Rev. 19:20-21 another reference to the “Sword of Jesus” is made. This time there is no calling it metaphorical. It clearly says, bare in mind this is predicting the return of the “Prince of Peace” and has major relavance for the modern day incarnations of this faith, “The beast and the false prophet are cast alive into a lake of fire. The rest of the unchosen will be killed with the sword of Jesus.”
My last point IS the Old Testament. I know it is argued that this is, essentially, god’s “first draft” and is countered with the New Testament; which is the one Christians should turn to and seek guidance from. But here’s the problem I have with it. Here’s my logic: The Old Testament is still apart of the Christian faith. It was revealed by god. If god was also Jesus THEN Jesus was also responsible for the Old Testament and its atrocities. Follow me? I think that makes sense.
But to argue more directly the connection of Jesus to the atrocities of the Old Testament I’ll give you this example: Mark 7:9 in which Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law.
—————————–
(I could make these points better but I’ve got a crying 5 month old in the other room so my writing is compromised.)
What say you?
Report Post »neversaynever
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 5:18pm@ Isles and Butcher..Great discussion. I believe this kind of give and take is what this site was meant to foster. I do not want to get in the middle of it, however I would like to make one point to Mr. Butcher- Jesus was God, and therefore ofcourse he had a say in the old testament. However, being the loving God that he is, he decided to come to earth and die for our sins because he knew that since the fall (adam and eve) all men and women were sinful, and therefore un-worthy of God. God came to earth to save mankind, not to condemn it, which is slightly implied by you. Without Jesus coming to save us from our sins we would all be going to hell because we are all naturally sinful. Jesus brought a sword to fight evil personified by the devil and demons. Jesus is not about “religion”, because religion in and of itself is flawed because it is made up of humans, rather, Jesus was about having a reltionship with Him. I see Jesus as my lawyer for the afterlife, when I go in front of God the father I will stand there with Jesus by my side because I have ben forgiven through him because of my relationship with him (remember Jesus said “no-one goes to the father except through me”). You sound like an intelligent person, and I do not want to prosthelytize on here, but if you wish to read intellectual arguements for belief in Jesus, read Case For Christ, Case For Faith, and Case For A Creator- all were written by a former atheist who became a follower of Christ after trying to disprove his existence. If you are treuly open to finding the truth, and not simply closed to religion because of some pre-conceived notions, you will read these and make a decision.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 5:33pmButcher,
honest adversary is probably the highest compliment I can imagine. Thank you.
To your point about hell. I would like to separate what the NT and Jesus actually teach about this from what many others have made out of it later. First though, we have to acknowledge that Jesus did not invent this teaching. His audience knew very well what he was talking about when he talked of hell. This, along with the Resurrection and angels were subjects developed in Jewish thought for the three to four hundred years before Jesus.
“I bring not peace but a sword” You question whether this can or ought be read metaphorical. “What is a messiah who speaks in metaphor?” A Jewish one. Of course I’m sure a Buddhist or Muslim or Daoist messiah would speak in metaphors. It is a very common form of speech when talking of things beyond normal human experience. Only modern scientistic minds despise it but even today metaphor is everywhere, in poetry and political rhetoric, and especially in religious talk.
When considering the morality of a subject in a story, and lets consider the gospels as a story since you discount them as truth, one has to accept the narrative context. Jesus is the incarnation of God, his very representative. Whether you accept it or not that is how he is presented. Thus his condemnation of a city for rejecting him is logical because the city are, by definition, rejecting God. Rejecting god they are rejecting heaven, because that’s his home. Hell is the only other place for them to go. There is no motel 6 in the middle. There’s a Motel 666, but we won’t go there. Well, I won’t go there and I advize you not to as well.
Revelation and the sword coming out of Jesus’ mouth. First, no “committee” decided to include this text because they understood it. It was decided that it was part of the canon because it was apostolic in origin and thus a true prophecy. The sword is not cited as being metaphorical because no one needs to point out an obvious metaphor. The word of God, Scripture had earlier in the NT been called a sword which pierces the heart and divides between bone and marrow. This also is metaphor, like Occam’s Razor.
As to the connection between old and new testaments, the Christian position is not that the old has been replaced by the new. The New has fulfilled the Old. It is the same God and the same Gospel, except the gospel is clearer in the New. The Old is seen as foreshadowing the New. The Old focussed on the Law which was a necessary preparation for the Grace. But you can’t have Grace without Law any more than you can have forgiveness without something needing to be forgiven.
About Mark 7:9: Here Jesus was pointing to the hypocrisy of the pharisees who claimed to be observing the Law in all its strictness but were clearly not when it came to their own self interest. Jesus did not address how that verse should actually be interpreted or applied. But you may respond, “Why did God put it there in the first place?” that would be a good question.
Think of man, the entire species as an organic unit in space-time, as a child that needs to be raised. The Jews when God gave them the Law represented us at the two-four year old level. We are able to receive instructions in the most basic form but not able to understand much about why. A father would not try to reason with a two year old to convince it not to stick paper clips in the outlets or run into traffic. He would tell the child not to do them because he said so. If he waited until the child understood the child might do them. So the instruction has to be in a sense both harsh “You’ll be sorry if you disobey” and unreasonable, “Because I say so”. That is a lot how I see the OT. It’s a lot of “Wax on. Wax off”. The pay off comes in the NT when we learn what it was all for.
Report Post »MrButcher
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 6:02pm@Neversaynever
Thanks for the compliment. I too think this is what this website was set up for. To get folks talking about the most relevant issues facing not only our country but ourselves and the world. I gladly welcome you into the debate.
In keeping with the theme of the immorality of the New Testament I’ll address what you brought up; The death of Jesus as “payment” for humanity’s sins or what I prefer to call vicarious redemption via human sacrifice. I find it highly immoral to suggest that personal wrong-doing can be passed off to and forgiven by any third party. That isn’t logical. If you were to, say, steal my car and set it on fire. Upon being caught, you confessed your fallen nature and received absolution from Jesus (which there is no way of proving you actually recieved); I would then be put in the position of “going against god” if I were to not forgive you and want you to replace my property and be punished for what you had done. What kind of moral teaching would put a victim in such a position? I’d be more inclined to agree with the draconian Old Testament concept of “an eye for an eye” in such instances.
I have read some of the writings you mentioned by Lee Stroble. I found most of his agrguements to boil down to nothing more than a re-interpritaion of Pascal’s Wager (which I find also to be immoral.)
Let’s say there is a god. Upon my death I go before the holy decreer and am asked why I didn’t believe (if I’m not sent to hell automatically). I would be inclined to ask this holy decreer if he would prefer an avid non-believer to a flimsy believer who just went along with the mortal peer pressure and publicly said they believed despite having utter doubts as a way to hedge their bets, put on airs and get in good graces with the invisible. Which is what I would be doing if i ever said I believed. I would hope this god would repect thought over belief and if he doesn’t then, as Mark Twain so wonderfully said through Huckleberry Finn, “all right, then, I’ll go to hell.”
Report Post »MrButcher
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 7:50pmIsles,
you’re very welcome for the compliment. I often come here trying to provoke such converstions. Most often with poor results.
“Think of man, the entire species as an organic unit in space-time, as a child that needs to be raised.” I agree with this to an extent. But would like to add that knowledge and understanding are the meaning of man. This knowledge and understanding is not revealed but collected over time by study and experiment and are always subject to change and revision. What we take for “truth” today will be vastly different than what future generations will take for truth in 500 years. The birth of christianity came during the infancy of western understanding, a philosophic childhood of, and I don’t mean this disparagingly, ignorant people. The Greeks had already pondered many of these ideas with their gods. The Chinese (who were vastly more advanced than anyone in the world at this time) took no note of the Abrahamic faiths. Why would they not be made aware of these “truths” by god? Did god not care about the ancient chinese?
And if we are to look at the relationship between god and man as a father and child relationship this runs aground also. Children are expected to grow into adults and, once the adults die, take their place and raise their children etc. and so on and so forth until extinction. The idea that there is only one father for all humanity that never dies and never gets out of the way so his children can become adults and is always watching, listening and waiting on his children to die so he can judge them is nightmarish. What father worth a damn would want to control and mircomanage everything about his childrens lives from the foods they eat to the positions they make love?
I get the feeling neither one of us is going to convince the other but I’d like to make one last point by means of a question: why are people’s religious beliefs largly determined by what part of the world they were born in?
My answer, perhaps yours is different, is that religion is the manifestation of the innate human desire to understand itself, its past, its future and all its surroundings. An attempt at philosophy. The vast array of religious thought and sects and the innumerable amount of gods humanity has created throughout the ages clearly illustrate our willingness to make up an explanation for what we don’t know rather than confessing our ignorance.
I, on the other hand, proudly confess my ignorance as to why all “this” is. And as Thomas Jefferson once said, in a effort to summerize the most basic tenets of all faiths as succinctly as he could, “be good and just.”
Those four simple words define my philosophy on the responsibility of man to his fellow man and my concepts of morality.
———————————
great talking with you. hope to see you around.
cheers
Report Post »komponist-ZAH
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 8:14pmVery interesting debate here between ISLESFORDIAN and Mr. Butcher. I love your eloquent defense of Christianity, ISLES, and your equally eloquent defense of Atheism, Butcher. Nice to see civil discussion.
As you know from our previous discussions here, Butcher, I come down on the Christian side, but I respect your (dis?)belief. I would, however, agree with you that morality does not necessarily need religion, but the notion of God and Biblical morality does provide a safeguard against the dangers of relativism. ….but, if you can live with love, kindness, and respect towards your fellow beings without needing to believe in God, more power to you.
Report Post »MrButcher
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 8:15pmmissed your last post
here’s my email
johnny79butcher@gmail.com
would love to continue the talk and stay in touch.
Report Post »MrButcher
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 8:22pmyou too Kom!
feel free to email me as well.
I wish this site made it easier for us to converse and truly get to know and understand each other without so much annonimity.
Report Post »komponist-ZAH
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 8:38pm@Butcher–
Report Post »Yeah, I wish there were some sort of forum here. There are many interesting discussions we get into here that we can’t really finsh up because the story goes away.
Islesfordian
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 10:34pmGood idea. Why don’t we set one up? It isn’t hard. I already set up my own blog. Setting up another to serve as a forum for conversations started here where anyone could start a thread should be possible. I’ll look into it, or maybe the Blaze staff would like to have at it. Either way, something will get done soon.
Report Post »MrButcher
Posted on December 6, 2010 at 12:09amIsles
I’d rather converse directly.
Blogs are too public and subject to platitudes.
I’d gladly read your blog but if you want to debate and share—I’d rather head on and personal.
johnny79butcher@gmail.com
Report Post »komponist-ZAH
Posted on December 6, 2010 at 5:34pm@ISLES–
What is your blog? I have enjoyed reading your posts here; sound like you have a lot of ideas. (You can set it up so that your username will act as a link, in case you didn’t know.)
True that a forum is perhaps a little too public for real debate, but, on the other hand, it allows more group participation… I suppose there are pros and cons either way. It would be very interesting to be in on any conversation you guys have, but I don’t know whether I would have anything to contribute myself, or have the time to.
Report Post »boomboom
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 7:43amPervy, dude.
Report Post »DagneyT
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 7:36amImagine that, muslim pedophiles! Ever read about Mohammed and 6 year old bride? Guess they’re just carrying on his legacy.
Report Post »Rational Man
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 8:17amI think Muslim men feel more secure marring young girls that are closer to their own maturity and intellectual level. Thus, you have Mohammed and the 6yr old. They are also easier to beat up, bully, control and brainwash at an early age. Pretty insecure bunch those cowardly guys.
And, well, there is the fact that they are pedophiles too!
Don’t like my analysis, come and get me!
Report Post »drvestal
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 8:24amMuhammad married Aisha when she was 6-years-old and consummated his marriage with her when she was 9. He was then, 54 years old.
Report Post »mauneym
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 10:31amAnd what’s better, because she was to young to consummate at six, he merely “thighed” her for three years.
I wont get into what that means here because this is a classy site ;)
(Source, one of many: http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/prepubescent.htm)
Report Post »M31Sailor
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 10:53amHow the heck can she do all her 9th grade homework ,when she has to keep the house clean, cook breakfast,lunch and dinner, wash the laundry in the stream,?? Allah help her if she doesn’t get her masters(husband) rice to the dinner floor on time and not burned. Soon to be read on the Blaze “14 year old muslim girl beaten by husband(master) for burning a hole in his prayer rug”
Report Post »Sailor
Reagan/Demint.deciple
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 1:07pmIslefordian is just another bleeding heart maine liberal that will diagree with anything that ANYONE says on this site just to, well, disagree… That’s how they all are..
Report Post »This is what they do, they go from blog to blog copy and pasting certian points in a comment and then critique it as if THEY’RE opinions are the only ones that matters.. I couldn’t careless about you and your thoughs when you have no problem with a 14 year old being forced to get married being in Malaysia or the USA.. yes, OUR culture is right and yes this country is young but we didn’t become the greatest country going along with other cultures.. Do me a favor, write your own comment and move along, don‘t copy paste then critique it’s very annoying.. course as a liberal ,your always annoying..
Islesfordian
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 2:57pmIt’s called argument and debate you ignorant twit.
Are you the kind that is unable to imagine anyone disagreeing with you who might be every bit as conservative exceot in the area in which you disagree? To call me a liberal is laughable. I have been a conservative rino hating Republican since 1984. I went to jail blocking abortion clinics three times. I got kicked out of the pulpit, yes I preach, for speaking out against gay marriage. Don’t act like you know me. How you know that I am from Maine is interesting, but not that much.
Glenn Beck has been making excelent points about keeping up the level of civility and dialogue with each other. Merely spouting off with no attempt to respond or debate is exactly the kind of atmosphere to increase anger and distrust. Do you despise communication or discussion? Do you prefer to blow off people whose beliefs you find challenging? You would make a much better liberal than I.
Perhaps you really are one trying to make us look bad. Who knows?
For the record, I ahve said nothing to the effect that I approve this patrticular marriage. All my posts have been against the specious basis upon which many have criticized it. To accept your reasoning I would have to declare the Virgin Mary to have been forced into marriage to a pervert. That kind of arrogant and irreverent blasphemy I find abhorent, far more abhorent than the marriage of a 14 year old girl. What do i know about her decisions or willingness regarding this marriage? Nothing? What do i know about the likelyhood or her being abused? Nothing specific. I could only predict misery for her because she is in a MUSLIM marriage, not because she is 14. 14 or 41, she will have the same freedom or lack of it.
You may find it liberal not to make it a point to be outraged by every act done in a barbarous society which I would not do. But I make a distinction between things I would not do because they either would be wrong in my situation or because they don’t appeal to me and things that I believe to be immoral in their own right, regardless of cultural context. I am temperamentally conservative in only condemning things I have a solid justification for condemning. I find liberals far more willing to condemn in absolute terms whatever they don’t like, and then condemning anyone who objects to such blanket condemnation.
Yes, I’m looking at you.
Report Post »mintyfresh
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 5:36pm@DagneyT – how old was mary when she married joseph? your moral high ground is sinking.
Report Post »Reagan/Demint.deciple
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 7:28amFunny, in the U.S we call that Child molestation, remember the ole saying ? ” 14 will get you 20 ??
snowleopard3200 {mix art}
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 7:49amI think it should be more like ‘14 will get you put in the tigers den.’
Report Post »MAULEMALL
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 8:14amReally… How old was your great grandmother when she was married…
People in this country have NO CLUE about thier own history.
Highland
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 8:32amNot religion of peace. Religion of pervs.
Report Post »2
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 8:45amI thought most of them got Hitched when they were 10 – 11 tops?
I guess at 14 you’re an Old Maid. What’s a Vidio game or Music?
Report Post »TOSKIMAN
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 8:46am14 will get you 4 more years of beatings !! Compliments of a religion that loves ———————————- to beat women.
Report Post »RebeccaRyan
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 9:12amI hope everyone up here understands that in the US there are still states that a girl can marry at 14. In New Hampshire they can marry as young as 13. I’m in no way agreeing, I think it is sick that any grown man would want marry a child. But its kinda funny because, I assume most people commenting up here are US citizens and they are bashing this other country/religion/culture, while their own does the same….
heavyduty
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 9:13amMAULEMALL: What does the great grandmother have to do with anything. You could go back to the caveman if you wanted to. But evidently your great grandmother was pretty young or you wouldn’t put a comment up like that. Yes, there are marriages like this all through the ages. But it still doesn’t make it right. Me and my wife were married when she was 15 and I 21. But the parents didn’t arrange it. It was mutual consent between me and her. I tried to get her to wait until she was 18, but she didn’t want to. We have been married for 41 years now. So don’t hand me the crap about what great grandma did way back when.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 9:54amheavtduty,
Report Post »What in the world is the point of your comment?
“Yes, there are marriages like this all through the ages. But it still doesn’t make it right.”
But what makes it wrong? Do you not get the point that condemning a practice our grandparents did, on no other grounds than that we simply don’t do it anymore, is arrogamntly disrespectful of our past. Have you ever heard of the 5th commandment “Honor your father and mother”. One natural application of that is respecting the wisdom of our forefathers and at least PROVING that this or that practice was wrong before we throw them under the bus.
snowleopard3200 {mix art}
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 9:55am@Maulemaul
Great grandmother Morroshi-Berrie was 19 according to the church archives in her home village when she got married. Her daughter, my adoptive grandmother Katilin was 25 when she married.
Report Post »jColes
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 10:10amIn places where life spans are short, early marriage makes sense…For example: in 1900 the actuarial life span of an American man was 47, and for women about 52. In Malaysia today, the estimated actuarial life span for a man is between 52 & 55 — and for women slightly less…I say ‘estimated’ because Malaysia, like most Muslim-dominated countries doesn’t keep good records…In the America of 1900 it was not at all unusual to find 15 – 18 year old mothers and 19-year old fathers…
Is 14 too young to marry? Most likely, but it depends upon many factors in each individual case…My problem with this whole sordid story is that I know what happens to women in Muslim-dominated countries; and folks, it ain’t pretty…No American parent would tolerate the normal day-to-day treatment their daughters would receive were they to marry under Shari’a-prescribed marital rules.
2DOLLARBILL rightly points out that in some US states 14-year old girls may marry, provided all sorts of legal hoops have been jumped by all the parties involved; however 2DB misstates by alleging that such marriages happen ‘all the time.’ Such marriages are exceedingly rare in the US, but when they do occur such marriages are subject to American law and custom, which severely limit behaviors and perquisites of the parties to the marriage.
Having lived and worked in the Muslim-dominated world for many years I can tell all readers of this site that Islam and Shari’a Law are incompatible with even the most basic of Western concepts of liberty and personal choice.
How this young lady‘s life turns out we’ll likely never know, but my guess is she will be much less happy, safe or secure than an American counterpart who might marry at such a young age.
Report Post »DATL
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 10:15amSo MAULEMALL….let me understand your argument here…we should OK 14 year olds getting married because great grandma got married at 14?….so we should use out door toilets and cook on wood stoves because great grandma did?….your argument is not logical…you should rethink that one
Report Post »ME
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 10:22amYes well even in our history I have never heard of a 9 year old getting married as Mohammad (may hell burn a bit hotter for him) did, this guy waited 5 more year then the false prophet.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 10:40amDATL, I’m cooking on a woodstove right now. Is there a problem with that?
I see a lot of argument here to the effect that if we accept this practice from the past we have to accept everything from the past and reject everything that is new. This is illogical. It is the argument of every liberal against pointing to past beliefs and practices to judge the rightness of our own . “Ignore the Consitution. It was written by slave holders who didn’t allow women to vote. They didn’t have modern medicine and thought the world was ten thousand years old. What do they know?”
We are capable and logically allowed to look at distinct practices and ideas and accept or reject them apart the rest. The point is that if you are going to condemn an action acceptable in past ages you are going to have to establish a universal rule that governs them. And you can’t just take you own beliefs and declare them as universals, unless you’re God.
Report Post »MAULEMALL
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 11:32amDatl
So MAULEMALL….let me understand your argument here…we should OK 14 year olds getting married because great grandma got married at 14?….so we should use out door toilets and cook on wood stoves because great grandma did?….your argument is not logical…you should rethink that one
I don’t need to rethink anything… Femnazis have changed the dynamics and the history of marriage in this country..
Just because you are ignorant of the actual facts of this country doesn’t make it wrong,It just reinforces my argument..
Report Post »MAULEMALL
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 11:45amheavyduty
My Grandmother came to this country in a contract to marry when she was 13..
She would be around 105 right now..
Anyone ever watch Little house on the prarie?? How old were they in the show when they were married..
Report Post »Please become knowledgeable before you spout indignation..
P C BE DAMNED
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 12:23pmMy mother was born in 1912 and was married at 13 years of age. My understanding is in the age of people living on the farm if a girl could bear children and a boy could control a plow behind a mule they were ready for marriage. But a man marrying a young girl was wrong even then.
Report Post »Sheepdog911
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 12:40pm@ All-you-all, Muslims practice a religion of the 6th century. MoHAMmad (PIGS be in his name) laid down their laws based on his meglomaniacal concept of the world at that time. Muslims have not advanced past the 6th century because their relgion does not allow it. Our own laws allow for grossly under-age marriages, just like sharia does, though it isn’t encouraged. The real difference here is the protections that women (and child brides) have under our laws. Under islam, women are property, not partners. The ironic part of MoHAMmad’s (PIGS be in his name) marriage to a 9 year old is that she is the only woman in all of islamic history who is worthy of any status beyond that of property for men to use as they see fit. The issue here shouldn’t be age, it should be status.
jimi2fly
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 12:40pmDon’t be so quick to condemn, my grandmother was 16 and grandfather 19 when they married. They were married 75 years.
Report Post »tower7femacamp
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 12:42pmback in the old days this was common maybe your great great grandmother did it ?
Report Post »and in the USA we have same sex marriages so how can we protest this wedding ?
kgb58
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 12:55pmI don’t see any TSA employees going to jail for child molestation.
Report Post »TheGreyPiper
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 1:39pmYeah, except there’s still a lot of states where a girl can get married at 14, with parental consent.* It ain’t stat. rape then. That of course is a completely different question of whether such a marriage is completely voluntary. That is something we never tolerate here — unless it’s the happy bridegroom, with a shotgun at his back.
* See my post further down the line.
Report Post »BoiseBaked
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 2:12pmYeah, those moslims sure got the moral high ground on the rest of us infidels. (sarcasm).
Report Post »Dustyluv
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 3:08pmShe gets a chance to get stoned by the time she is twenty…With real stones…
Mohammed was a pedophile…his teachings are highlighted here..Suff her in a Burka and beat her when you like,,ahhhhhhh the religion of peace.
Report Post »Dandylyon
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 3:46pmSo what kind of Muslim’s condone wedding children??Good Muslims or bad Muslim’s or is there now a third kind of Muslim that condones pedophilia???? I mean you need a program to stay politicaly correct with the Muslim’s.
Report Post »12 gauge
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 4:48pm14 will get you 20.. LOL. “religion” of perverts
Report Post »Happy Killmore
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 5:25pm“If she‘s old enough to go to the market then she is old enough to get ’bred’”
-Sura 69 of The Koran
Report Post »txfirehawk
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 8:26pmOnly a gutter religion would allow you to marry and have sex with children.
Report Post »DATL
Posted on December 5, 2010 at 10:38pmMAULEMALL….let me understand your argument….because great grand ma married when she was 14…..we should do like great grand ma?…use out door toilets and wood burning stoves…like great grand ma?…you may want to rethink that argument>>>
Report Post »MAULEMALL
Posted on December 6, 2010 at 8:43amDATL
I am going to say this REAL SLOW so you can get someone to explain it to you..
I don’t have an opinion one way or the other.. I was making the case for all those here, whineing, They are ignorant to there own history…
I will state this though, While I was in the Marine corps I had 2 fellow Marine friends who married young.
One from missorie married a 16 year old and while I was on the drill Field a fellow Drill Instructor from W.Va. married a 15 year old…
Both are still happily married after 30 years.
And to be honest , You are not fit to judge.
Report Post »Rice Water
Posted on December 6, 2010 at 11:00amThe story was obviously written to portray all Muslims as child-molesting pervs, but as Rebecca pointed out, here in the USA our age-of-consent laws fluctuate like a Maine thermometer in September.
In the days of our Founding Fathers, an unmarried 14-year old girl would’ve been considered an old maid. Reagan/Demint, why do you hate our Founding Fathers?
Report Post »sWampy
Posted on December 6, 2010 at 1:25pmWe all know that we used to get married at 14, back when we were an agricultural society the only way to get wealth was to marry early and have lots of children to work your farms, this isn’t the case anymore.
Report Post »Camo Pants
Posted on December 6, 2010 at 3:09pm“But what makes it wrong? Do you not get the point that condemning a practice our grandparents did, on no other grounds than that we simply don’t do it anymore, is arrogamntly disrespectful of our past. Have you ever heard of the 5th commandment “Honor your father and mother”. One natural application of that is respecting the wisdom of our forefathers and at least PROVING that this or that practice was wrong before we throw them under the bus.”
Waiting for your point aswell, Yes it does. People live longer, now more than ever, so the age gap shouldn’t be huge. The 5th commandment thing your trying to pull is bull tbh :), it has no relevence. Simple proof: Girl bearly out of puberty with a man around 21-25, any ideas?
JS.
Report Post »diesel71dan
Posted on December 6, 2010 at 7:05pm@MAULEMALL
Report Post »What does our grandparents or great grandparents have to do with this???? Some of our great grandparents had slaves and bread little “nappy headed” slaves without even providing them with internet access. Are you condoning slavery too? How do you feel about feeding Christians to lions? The Romans did it!!!….. WTF?
USAPLISKENXI
Posted on December 7, 2010 at 10:32amWhere have all you ben they married 300 little girls as young as 5 It was plastered all over the web look it up. The parents don’t raise girls the husband does and they cant ever leave.
Report Post »The husband also can kill his wife or kids when ever he wants to for almost any BS reason.