Pakstan: Ban On Child Marriage Blocked By Islamic Clerics

First topic message reminder :

In Pakistan, a bill that would prohibit underage marriages has been withdrawn after Muslim clerics declared the ban to be “un-Islamic” and “blasphemous.”

The Express Tribune reports the National Assembly’s Standing Committee on Religious Affairs and Interfaith Harmony rejected the Child Marriage Restraint (Amendment) Bill 2014 after the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) dubbed it “anti-Islamic” and “blasphemous.”

The proposed legislation had recommended harsher punishments for those entering conjugal contracts with minors.

Technically, Pakistan’s Child Marriage Restraint Act (CMRA) of 1929 sets the legal age for marriage at 16 for women and 18 for men. However, this law is often unenforced and punishment for breaking the law is negligible because Pakistani religious scholars believe it is not in accordance with Islamic teachings.

The proposed legislation sought to remedy this problem by calling for “rigorous” punishment of up to two years in prison for those who organise child marriages, still common in many parts of Pakistan.

In other words, up to two years in prison for what is in essence the facilitation of child rape is considered “rigorous” punishment, and rejected by religious scholars as being “un-Islamic.”

In recent years reformists have been working to prevent and prohibit the abhorrent and barbaric practice of child marriage sanctioned by so many Islamic scholars. However, attempts to prohibit child marriage has met strong and sustained resistance by many Muslim scholars.

For example, in 2011, Dr. Salih bin Fawzan, a prominent cleric and member of Saudi Arabia’s highest religious council, issued a fatwa asserting that there is no minimum age for marriage and that girls can be married “even if they are in the cradle.”

Most Muslim scholars in support of child marriage note that nowhere does Sharia (or Islamic law) set an age limit for marrying girls.

However, perhaps most significant, and the biggest challenge to those attempting to reform Islam, and put an end to child marriage sanctioned by so many Islamic scholars, is the fact that Muhammad, Islam’s role model, married Aisha when she was only six or seven, and “consummated” the marriage when she was nine.

For many Muslims, to condemn child marriage is to condemn Muhammad. And for many Muslims, this is simply too much to ask.

As always, it is the children who suffer.


- See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2016/01/pakistan-ban-on-child-marriage-blocked-by-islamic-clerics/#sthash.4bZaGfNQ.dpuf

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

It renders the Quran redundant as a final message and where none are from the time they should be dismissed as any claims to the deeds of muhammad. You are being dishonest as well as they are used to based forms of punishment as well or acts he did which Muslims then act off believing it is acceptable. Hence why groups like ISIS use them

Isis use burning and fire, literally and in the form of explosives. Islam condemns this explicitly.

So you are clearly wrong.

Really, they seem to disagree with you and have even argued their case with doctrine

You see this is the point you miss, I am not trying to claim what is right, as nobody can claim this based off aq book, which cannot be validated by the author can it, as that takes faith
That leaves written sources that conflict, which is why your faith is problematic

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Did you not see the Facebook link above?

People of each country must fight for their own rights.

Where is the millions, not some small group, which many ignore

I applaud all those who do and those wishing to stop this, but lets have some honesty here, their numbers are small relativelly

That's just one group.

There are many still under tribal rule and scared to speak.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Isis use burning and fire, literally and in the form of explosives. Islam condemns this explicitly.

So you are clearly wrong.

Really, they seem to disagree with you and have even argued their case with doctrine

You see this is the point you miss, I am not trying to claim what is right, as nobody can claim this based off aq book, which cannot be validated by the author can it, as that takes faith
That leaves written sources that conflict, which is why your faith is problematic

Lol! I repeat: the Quran is explicit is about this.

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You can’t jump from “forced marriage” to “child marriage”, because you haven’t made that case.  Islam in fact forbids nonconsensual marriage.  I fear you are so quick to condemn that you are lobbing everything into the same category.

Also, it’s interesting to see the inclusion of Hispanic countries, which traditionally are Catholic in orientation.

Wow that shows how you fail to understand they are very much connected in these countries, where the girls are forced into arranged marriages and for profit. That is exploitation

In the universe of possibilities I do not deny that there is sex trafficking.  It goes on in Europe and Centraal America, as much as anywhere.  That is exploitation, because clearly there is money involved.  But we were talking about the Islamic religious practices, not criminal activities.

The Koran forbids nonconsensual marriage.  I believe you have a lot of 'theory creep' in your thinking, because you leap from terms like 'exploitation' and 'abuse' to the issues of marriage and age, without making a case at all.  Your admirable enthusiasm causes you to disregard certain boundaries.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

Where is the millions, not some small group, which many ignore

I applaud all those who do and those wishing to stop this, but lets have some honesty here, their numbers are small relativelly

That's just one group.

There are many still under tribal rule and scared to speak.

And why are they afraid to speak?

because they will labelled apostates or with blasphemy

Again based on a subjective standing within islam

Again the problem always falls back to the religion itself

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:

Wow that shows how you fail to understand they are very much connected in these countries, where the girls are forced into arranged marriages and for profit. That is exploitation

In the universe of possibilities I do not deny that there is sex trafficking.  It goes on in Europe as much as anywhere.  That is exploitation, because clearly there is money involved.  But we were talking about the Islamic religious practices, not criminal activities.

The Koran forbids nonconsensual marriage.  I believe you have a lot of 'theory creep' in your thinking, because you leap from terms like 'exploitation' and 'abuse' to the issues of marriage and age, without making a case at all.  Your admirable enthusiasm causes you to disregard certain boundaries.

Last month, the UN Human Rights Council — the leading UN body responsible for the promotion and protection of human rights around the world — adopted the first-ever UN resolution on child, early and forced marriage. The move came just two weeks before the second annual International Day of the Girl Child, celebrated this Friday, Oct. 11. A diverse group of 107 countries affirmed that the choice to marry is an adult decision that should be informed and made freely without fear, coercion or undue pressure.

Among those countries that signed the resolution are several that have a relatively high prevalence of child marriage: Ethiopia, South Sudan, Sierra Leone, Chad, Guatemala, Honduras and Yemen.

Previously, UN Agencies, advocacy groups and girls themselves had relied on — and still will — other human rights instruments that reference child marriage, within the context of broader frameworks.

For example, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) and the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (1979) both outlawed child marriage. Additionally, at the International Conference on Population and Development (1994), 197 countries adopted the ICPD Programme of Action, which called on countries to eliminate child marriage and to enforce laws that ensure free and full consent.

http://tooyoungtowed.org/blog/un-resolution-acknowledges-child-marriage-as-human-rights-violation/

Please read

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

In the universe of possibilities I do not deny that there is sex trafficking.  It goes on in Europe as much as anywhere.  That is exploitation, because clearly there is money involved.  But we were talking about the Islamic religious practices, not criminal activities.

The Koran forbids nonconsensual marriage.  I believe you have a lot of 'theory creep' in your thinking, because you leap from terms like 'exploitation' and 'abuse' to the issues of marriage and age, without making a case at all.  Your admirable enthusiasm causes you to disregard certain boundaries.

Last month, the UN Human Rights Council — the leading UN body responsible for the promotion and protection of human rights around the world — adopted the first-ever UN resolution on child, early and forced marriage. The move came just two weeks before the second annual International Day of the Girl Child, celebrated this Friday, Oct. 11. A diverse group of 107 countries affirmed that the choice to marry is an adult decision that should be informed and made freely without fear, coercion or undue pressure.

Among those countries that signed the resolution are several that have a relatively high prevalence of child marriage: Ethiopia, South Sudan, Sierra Leone, Chad, Guatemala, Honduras and Yemen.

Previously, UN Agencies, advocacy groups and girls themselves had relied on — and still will — other human rights instruments that reference child marriage, within the context of broader frameworks.

For example, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) and the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (1979) both outlawed child marriage. Additionally, at the International Conference on Population and Development (1994), 197 countries adopted the ICPD Programme of Action, which called on countries to eliminate child marriage and to enforce laws that ensure free and full consent.

http://tooyoungtowed.org/blog/un-resolution-acknowledges-child-marriage-as-human-rights-violation/

Please read

We've already dealt with that. Move on.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:


Last month, the UN Human Rights Council — the leading UN body responsible for the promotion and protection of human rights around the world — adopted the first-ever UN resolution on child, early and forced marriage. The move came just two weeks before the second annual International Day of the Girl Child, celebrated this Friday, Oct. 11. A diverse group of 107 countries affirmed that the choice to marry is an adult decision that should be informed and made freely without fear, coercion or undue pressure.

Among those countries that signed the resolution are several that have a relatively high prevalence of child marriage: Ethiopia, South Sudan, Sierra Leone, Chad, Guatemala, Honduras and Yemen.

Previously, UN Agencies, advocacy groups and girls themselves had relied on — and still will — other human rights instruments that reference child marriage, within the context of broader frameworks.

For example, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) and the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (1979) both outlawed child marriage. Additionally, at the International Conference on Population and Development (1994), 197 countries adopted the ICPD Programme of Action, which called on countries to eliminate child marriage and to enforce laws that ensure free and full consent.

http://tooyoungtowed.org/blog/un-resolution-acknowledges-child-marriage-as-human-rights-violation/

Please read

We've already dealt with that.  Move on.

No you have not because you failed to understand the problems where they are both connected

Again you were wrong so often on her, because you know little of Islam, cultures in the east as your knowledge is limited to the US

Either you back the human rights of children, or you do not, its as simple as that

eddie wrote:Hi zack
A female child can reach puberty as early as 9 in extreme cases but on average the age is 13
Isn't this too young?

yes today it is,

But back then not so much given average lifespan of the time even in this country Before the Age of Marriage Act, 1929, a lawful marriage could be contracted by girls aged 12 and over. It was this 1929 act which made 16 years the minimum age at which males and females could marry.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:Hi zack
A female child can reach puberty as early as 9 in extreme cases but on average the age is 13
Isn't this too young?

That is why the Koran avoids speaking of any age, I am told.

But it says puberty. So my post still stands, or am I missing something?

korban dallas wrote:

eddie wrote:Hi zack
A female child can reach puberty as early as 9 in extreme cases but on average the age is 13
Isn't this too young?

yes today it is,

But back then not so much given average lifespan of the time even in this country Before the Age of Marriage Act, 1929, a lawful marriage could be contracted by girls aged 12 and over. It was this 1929 act which made 16 years the minimum age at which males and females could marry.

Some more info with consent

The age of consent for heterosexual acts in England was set at 12 in 1275 during the reign of Edward I. The wording was along the lines of^[vague] "It shall be deemed illegal to ravage a maiden who is not of age" - at the time "of age" being 12. Therefore, there was technically no age of consent for the male participant. The English law became applicable in Wales following the Laws in Wales Acts (1536 and 1543). In medieval Welsh law there was no actual equivalent of the concept of the age of consent as such, but a girl was marriageable at 12–14 (the onset of puberty) and a fine was payable for the taking of a girl's maidenhood by force; the rules varied according to status and may not have been applied rigidly to commoners.^[127]
A concern that young girls were being sold into brothels led Parliament to raise the age of consent to 13 in 1875 under the Offences against the Person Act 1875. After W. T. Stead's Maiden Tribute articles, theCriminal Law Amendment Act 1885 raised the age of consent to 16.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe#History_29

It might be worth remembering that life expectancy in medieval Enland was only about 30-35 years.

korban dallas wrote:It might be worth remembering that life expectancy in medieval Enland was only about 30-35 years.

And with the plagues it would have been even worse, the life expectancy but here is the telling point and why the Abrahamic faiths are man made.
As did they not foresee the life expectancy increase over time and not account for this in the works?

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

That's just one group.

There are many still under tribal rule and scared to speak.

And why are they afraid to speak?

because they will labelled apostates or with blasphemy

Again based on a subjective standing within islam

Again the problem always falls back to the religion itself

Religion is a tool.

Instead of using a hammer to sculpt, a person uses it for violence, do you blame the person or the tool?

Only an idiot would blame the tool.

korban dallas wrote:It might be worth remembering that life expectancy in medieval Enland was only about 30-35 years.

Gawd. They'd have put me down by now

eddie wrote:

korban dallas wrote:It might be worth remembering that life expectancy in medieval Enland was only about 30-35 years.

Gawd. They'd have put me down by now

me too eddie certain people fail to take that in to account when discussing these things

Although up until this new pope the age of consent was 12 in the Vatican the seat of Christianity, people forget that little gem

korban dallas wrote:

eddie wrote:

korban dallas wrote:It might be worth remembering that life expectancy in medieval Enland was only about 30-35 years.

Gawd. They'd have put me down by now

me too eddie certain people fail to take that in to account when discussing these things

Although up until this new pope the age of consent was 12  in the Vatican the seat of Christianity, people forget that little gem

I don't have a problem with religion KD. I think it can bring peace to people and like anything, in the wrong hands, can wreak havoc too.
It's people, not religion, that kills.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

And why are they afraid to speak?

because they will labelled apostates or with blasphemy

Again based on a subjective standing within islam

Again the problem always falls back to the religion itself

Religion is a tool.

Instead of using a hammer to sculpt, a person uses it for violence, do you blame the person or the tool?

Only an idiot would blame the tool.

So nobody can be made to believe from religious text to commit things wrong?
The tool is not a do's and do not, the Quran and bible are
So to equate the Quran to a tool is completely absurd, as the Quran has absolute morals which make people believe they can execute people for supposed wrongs which in any rational society would not be a wrong

eddie wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
me too eddie certain people fail to take that in to account when discussing these things

Although up until this new pope the age of consent was 12  in the Vatican the seat of Christianity, people forget that little gem

I don't have a problem with religion KD. I think it can bring peace to people and like anything, in the wrong hands, can wreak havoc too.
It's people, not religion, that kills.

oh i disagree with that completely "thou shall not suffer a witch to live "springs to mind  but both books are full of "directions" to kill rape pillage ect in the name of and "commands" of (insert deity)

A book can't kill you KD
It can suggest you do, but it can't actually make you

eddie wrote:A book can't kill you KD
It can suggest you do, but it can't actually make you

It can make you believe you should if it has absolute morals claimed to be from a supreme being where a fear is placed into the believer if they do not do as commanded they will suffer eternally. As seen there is consequences for if you do not follow the beliefs, thus there is a reason then why for centuries religious people have persecuted and harmed millions of people
A religious book based on absolute morals with a fear factor of supposed consequences is as seen a dangerous prospect indeed,
As why for centuries would laws be made as some still are today based on what is in that book Eddie?

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That is why the Koran avoids speaking of any age, I am told.

But it says puberty. So my post still stands, or am I missing something?

My point exactly. Any attempt to put a chronological age on it is ethnocentric, and our condemnation of Muslims for not meeting our precise age limits is misplaced.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:

But it says puberty. So my post still stands, or am I missing something?

My point exactly.  Any attempt to put a chronological age on it is ethnocentric, and our condemnation of Muslims for not meeting our precise age limits is misplaced.

So you are saying a 9 year old girl is sexually mature mentally to have a relationship, marriage, children etc?
That she should not have basica human rights to be a child and grow up and then later decide who she wants to marry and not have marriage forced upon her, which is the case with child marriage. Unless again you think a 9 year old can consent to both sex and marriage at 9?

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

My point exactly.  Any attempt to put a chronological age on it is ethnocentric, and our condemnation of Muslims for not meeting our precise age limits is misplaced.

So you are saying a 9 year old girl is sexually mature mentally to have a relationship, marriage, children etc?
That she should not have basica human rights to be a child and grow up and then later decide who she wants to marry and not have marriage forced upon her, which is the case with child marriage. Unless again you think a 9 year old can consent to both sex and marriage at 9?

I am not saying anything about the above. I don't need to...my comments are on another level, aimed at another matter.

I am saying that one is wrong to judge others by the standards of one's own culture. It's called ethnocentrism, because it carries the implicit message that one's cultural standards are better than another's standards. I am sure there are those in other cultures who are doing the same to you...and I consider them equally wrong. This is how wars start, and those who participate are responsible.

Consider: we are already well on the way to a massive confrontation with the Islamic culture. Your own cultural belligerence spins that wheel. And it's no surprise that you advocate a military confrontation, with ISIS, or the next enclave that arises under the banner of Islam. That is evidence enough of my point.

It can, and will get worse. This is how wars start.

Yes quill, but even if they have a different culture etc don't you think it's wrong????

Why is it wrong to judge when children are fundamentally being denied their basic human rights to be a child to the point UN resolutions have been passed on this very matter? The one correct thing they have actually done in recent years?

So your views is to basically ignore this problem and not speak out on an injustice to children due to sensitivities? Are you then saying there is something wrong with Salafist Muslims, that they will go to war over criticism and being challenged over the abuse of children? So you are saying a war starts when an injustice is challenged?

Tell me how where William Wilberforce ended the slave trade in Parliament through democratic means, after years of challenging and being critical of Slavery, that it then ended in war? We know it did in the US, which shows fundamentally religion was at the heart of the problem in the US where fundamentally a view of Jesus was seen and cast as white and superior to those who were African. 

You tell me Quill, is there then not something fundamentally wrong people would go to war, based on denying the human rights of children, because liberal people spoke out against that? Is that not actually then bowing down to fear and also completely then allow that fear to then sit back and continue to watch children suffer? If a nation went to war over that are you not saying that would be a noble and just cause to free those children from oppression, where the aggressor was the abuser of those human rights starting this conflict?

I consider your views appeasement and fundementally failing children who deserve to be protected again mythical religious views that fundementally effect the well being and equality of children

Where do you want to draw the line on this.
If they are able to have sex at this age and marry, what is then stopping them from doing the following?

Driving cars?
Working?
Drinking?
Smoking?
Joining the armed forces?
Flying passenger airlines?
Becoming judges?

Yeah, Jesus Quill.
You're saying "Weeeellll....we are all different I guess!"

Are you saying it's okay because it's part of their religion or culture???

eddie wrote:Yeah, Jesus Quill.
You're saying "Weeeellll....we are all different I guess!"

Are you saying it's okay because it's part of their religion or culture???

Like Didge, you are trying to put the words in my mouth. I am saying nothing about the internal standards of the culture itself. I have my favorites, like you. But I am avoiding that subject because it is precisely not what I am addressing.

What you are feeling is the intense dissonance that comes with contemplating some standard that grates strongly against your standards. Enjoy...I make no comment about that dialectic.

I am simply recognizing the calamity that comes with ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism is what we have going on with the Muslim cultures right now. As tools in the mix, some like to throw in extreme examples, to stir up passions like yours, eds. But they are only examples--tools--after all. They are a part of the war dance that the natives hold, 'round the fire the night before the battle.

I am much more interested in the causes of the conflict, and ways to avoid future conflicts with more rational and insightful participants as we move forward.

Well then there is something fundamentally wrong with that sect of Islam, as again this is not all Muslims, but a hard line Islam, the Salafist or Wahabbism that allows for such practices and not just this many others that effect the well being and equality of others. 

I mean how on earth do you think humanity has progressed Quill if not by challenging injustices? This is why more than adults children have far more laws to protect their rights from being abused. 

Like I say, if we allow a fear to get in the way of providing equal rights for children, then to me that person fails to stand for equal rights, they allow that fear to take a precedence. So I am not putting any words in your mouth, but being in complete disagreement with you. There is people in Pakistan fighting this wrong and we should stand united behind them trying to bring about change, not ignore the, as that is ignore the plight of children who are fundamentally in need of our voices

Very poetic post Quill which didn't really explain your stance on it.
And that's all I wanted

Quill, stop using such long words, I have to go get the dictionary a dozen times a day!

nicko wrote:Quill,   stop using such long words,   I have to go get the dictionary a dozen times a day!

Stop being lazy, nicko.  You undoubtedly have a dictionary.  More importantly, you have computer right in front of you.  You don't have to ask the time.  You don't have to ask about the weather.  And, you don't have to question words.  Here's what you do:

Push 'Ctrl' and 'N'--a new screen window will open.
Go to Google (if it isn't automatic with a new screen, make it so) and enter the word followed by 'def'.

Eg, 'halitosis' 'def'
You will get:

hal·i·to·sis
ˌhaləˈtōsəs/
noun
technical term for bad breath.

Don't be so resistant to learning.  FCS, it doesn't even hurt and it's already right in front of you.  WTF could be easier, champ?

For goodness sake Nicko was being lighthearted Quill

Sense of humour failure

Didge wrote:For goodness sake Nicko was being lighthearted Quill

Sense of humour failure

How do I know that?  I understand he's stuck in a wheelchair, and I'm just trying to help.  

In fact, what I have offered above is for everyone's benefit.  We need not hear anyone say, What does that mean?, anymore.  These are little habits that will make your cognition grow immensely, and yet it costs so little.  I wasn't a university professor for nothing...take advantage.

eddie wrote:Very poetic post Quill which didn't really explain your stance on it.
And that's all I wanted

Same advice to you, eds. Take a little time to improve your own cognition. It's all right there, and I'm available for a reasonable time for any questions. Help yourself.

lol considering you failed to address all my points, maybe you should take some of the advice you gave to Eddie

Its clear Nicko was being lighthearted

Didge wrote:Well then there is something fundamentally wrong with that sect of Islam, as again this is not all Muslims, but a hard line Islam, the Salafist or Wahabbism that allows for such practices and not just this many others that effect the well being and equality of others.

I mean how on earth do you think humanity has progressed Quill if not by challenging injustices? This is why more than adults children have far more laws to protect their rights from being abused.

Like I say, if we allow a fear to get in the way of providing equal rights for children, then to me that person fails to stand for equal rights, they allow that fear to take a precedence. So I am not putting any words in your mouth, but being in complete disagreement with you. There is people in Pakistan fighting this wrong and we should stand united behind them trying to bring about change, not ignore the, as that is ignore the plight of children who are fundamentally in need of our voices

When you say ‘wrong’, immediately we know you are being judgmental, not factual. If you have never learned it at university, or graduate school, learn this now: moral language is not factual! Immediately when you invoke moral language we know we are not going to learn anything about the world. We are only going to learn about you, your tastes and predilections. When you use verbs like ‘wrong’ or ‘should’ or ‘better’, it is exclusively your opinion.

You have used the terms: “fundamentally wrong”, “well-being”, “progressed”, “injustices”, “protect”, “equality” and “abused”, in the first two paragraphs, all of which are value-laden terms. In the third paragraph, you have used the phrase that is right on point: “...then to me that person fails…” Direct judgment! Now that tells us directly that you are speaking about yourself--your judgment--not anything of the real world.

I, for one, already know where you stand. You stand for war, and a futile infinity of anger and antagonism. You think you have morality on your side, but all you have is your morality...nothing universal at all. You say things like “fighting this wrong” and “stand united behind them” and “bring about change”—fighting words—and they tell us all we need to know. You know that you stand no chance of achieving the goals of well being, progression, justice, protection, or any other of them. We know that too. They are guise for what you really want, revenge.

Right now it’s ISIS. Soon it will be the next group that emerges from Islam. Face it Didge, you’re not working for justice in any real sense. You are hoping to enlist others in your little vendetta.

Didge wrote:Why is it wrong to judge when children are fundamentally being denied their basic human rights to be a child to the point UN resolutions have been passed on this very matter? The one correct thing they have actually done in recent years?

So your views is to basically ignore this problem and not speak out on an injustice to children due to sensitivities? Are you then saying there is something wrong with Salafist Muslims, that they will go to war over criticism and being challenged over the abuse of children? So you are saying a war starts when an injustice is challenged?

Tell me how where William Wilberforce ended the slave trade in Parliament through democratic means, after years of challenging and being critical of Slavery, that it then ended in war? We know it did in the US, which shows fundamentally religion was at the heart of the problem in the US where fundamentally a view of Jesus was seen and cast as white and superior to those who were African. 

You tell me Quill, is there then not something fundamentally wrong people would go to war, based on denying the human rights of children, because liberal people spoke out against that? Is that not actually then bowing down to fear and also completely then allow that fear to then sit back and continue to watch children suffer? If a nation went to war over that are you not saying that would be a noble and just cause to free those children from oppression, where the aggressor was the abuser of those human rights starting this conflict?

I consider your views appeasement and fundementally failing children who deserve to be protected again mythical religious views that fundementally effect the well being and equality of children

Where do you want to draw the line on this.
If they are able to have sex at this age and marry, what is then stopping them from doing the following?

Driving cars?
Working?
Drinking?
Smoking?
Joining the armed forces?
Flying passenger airlines?
Becoming judges?

Still waiting

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Well then there is something fundamentally wrong with that sect of Islam, as again this is not all Muslims, but a hard line Islam, the Salafist or Wahabbism that allows for such practices and not just this many others that effect the well being and equality of others.

I mean how on earth do you think humanity has progressed Quill if not by challenging injustices? This is why more than adults children have far more laws to protect their rights from being abused.

Like I say, if we allow a fear to get in the way of providing equal rights for children, then to me that person fails to stand for equal rights, they allow that fear to take a precedence. So I am not putting any words in your mouth, but being in complete disagreement with you. There is people in Pakistan fighting this wrong and we should stand united behind them trying to bring about change, not ignore the, as that is ignore the plight of children who are fundamentally in need of our voices

When you say ‘wrong’, immediately we know you are being judgmental, not factual.  If you have never learned it at university, or graduate school, learn this now: moral language is not factual!  Immediately when you invoke moral language we know we are not going to learn anything about the world.  We are only going to learn about you, your tastes and predilections.   When you use verbs like ‘wrong’ or ‘should’ or ‘better’, it is exclusively your opinion.

You have used the terms: “fundamentally wrong”, “well-being”, “progressed”, “injustices”, “protect”,  “equality” and “abused”, in the first two paragraphs, all of which are value-laden terms.  In the third paragraph, you have used the phrase that is right on point: “...then to me that person fails…”  Direct judgment!  Now that tells us directly that you are speaking about yourself--your judgment--not anything of the real world.  

I, for one, already know where you stand.  You stand for war, and a futile infinity of anger and antagonism.  You think you have morality on your side, but all you have is your morality...nothing universal at all.  You say things like “fighting this wrong” and “stand united behind them” and “bring about change”—fighting words—and they tell us all we need to know.  You know that you stand no chance of achieving the goals of well being, progression, justice, protection, or any other of them.  We know that too.  They are guise for what you really want, revenge.

Right now it’s ISIS.  Soon it will be the next group that emerges from Islam.  Face it Didge, you’re not working for justice in any real sense.  You are hoping to enlist others in your little vendetta.

1) Falsehood number one, I stand for peace but am prepared to go to use military action against aggressors and those abusing the human rights of people where the world unites to do so .
That is your first fabrication showing you are losing the debate
This has nothing to do with war but the human rights of children that are being denied where they are being forced into child marriages
You think wrongly that we should appease nations in case they go to war?
That is defeatism to the equal and human rights of children and bowing down to fear itself
Where is the threat of war from Pakistan then Quill championing the voice's of those in Pakistan trying to bring about change?

You failed to address my points and badly deflect

Try again

Well then there is something fundamentally wrong with that sect of Islam, as again this is not all Muslims, but a hard line Islam, the Salafist or Wahabbism that allows for such practices and not just this many others that effect the well being and equality of others.

I mean how on earth do you think humanity has progressed Quill if not by challenging injustices? This is why more than adults children have far more laws to protect their rights from being abused.

Like I say, if we allow a fear to get in the way of providing equal rights for children, then to me that person fails to stand for equal rights, they allow that fear to take a precedence. So I am not putting any words in your mouth, but being in complete disagreement with you. There is people in Pakistan fighting this wrong and we should stand united behind them trying to bring about change, not ignore the, as that is ignore the plight of children who are fundamentally in need of our voices

Didge wrote:Why is it wrong to judge when children are fundamentally being denied their basic human rights to be a child to the point UN resolutions have been passed on this very matter? The one correct thing they have actually done in recent years?

And you want to go in with bombs, guns and tanks and kill those children. Hmmm...tough choice.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Why is it wrong to judge when children are fundamentally being denied their basic human rights to be a child to the point UN resolutions have been passed on this very matter? The one correct thing they have actually done in recent years?

And you want to go in with bombs, guns and tanks and kill those children.  Hmmm...tough choice.

Really?

Show me where I have stated to start a war?

You see every time you lie Quill you expose how badly you dug yourself a hole you cannot get out of here and the more you continue to do so the more you end up defending backward practices that abuses children

So tell me are you going to champion lowering the age of consent for sex and marriage to when children reach puberty in the US?

Piss poor deflection Quill

Quill, most times you talk sense, some times you talk bollocks. this is one of those times.

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

And you want to go in with bombs, guns and tanks and kill those children.  Hmmm...tough choice.

Really?

Show me where I have stated to start a war?

You see every time you lie Quill you expose how badly you dug yourself a hole you cannot get out of here and the more you continue to do so the more you end up defending backward practices that abuses children

So tell me are you going to champion lowering the age of consent for sex and marriage to when children reach puberty in the US?

Piss poor deflection Quill

And your point is?

If you don't want any children killed, then we are in agreement. With full knowledge that in any war, skirmish or firefight--any use of explosives--children will be killed, then we are in agreement that there should be not be any fighting.

I feel better already.

nicko wrote:Quill,   most times you talk sense,    some times you talk bollocks.     this is one of those times.

Nicko, you are being argumentative and not lending anything to the discussion. This isn't about me. If you feel that I have won, say so and move on.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:

Really?

Show me where I have stated to start a war?

You see every time you lie Quill you expose how badly you dug yourself a hole you cannot get out of here and the more you continue to do so the more you end up defending backward practices that abuses children

So tell me are you going to champion lowering the age of consent for sex and marriage to when children reach puberty in the US?

Piss poor deflection Quill

And your point is?

If you don't want any children killed, then we are in agreement.  With full knowledge that in any war, skirmish or firefight--any use of explosives--children will be killed, then we are in agreement that there should be not be any fighting.

I feel better already.

My points have been avoided by you so which is you basically conceding to them, which is cool

There is no threat of war championing people trying to bring about change in Pakistan, backing a decent resolution for once from the UN
I mean Iran has had countless people be critical of their human rights abusers and at no point have they gone to war over this showing how badly you tried to deflect to something that had no validity. Which means you are trying to stifle criticism of these practices off a falsehood claiming they will go to war over.


So I am glad you feel better for yourself. lol

Didge wrote:lol considering you failed to address all my points, maybe you should take some of the advice you gave to Eddie

Its clear Nicko was being lighthearted

Not only that but quill says he knows Nicko is in a wheelchair and then calls him lazy in the first line of his post.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:Very poetic post Quill which didn't really explain your stance on it.
And that's all I wanted

Same advice to you, eds.  Take a little time to improve your own cognition.  It's all right there, and I'm available for a reasonable time for any questions.  Help yourself.

I did help myself.
I asked you a question, you didn't answr it then said you're available for any questions.



Doesn't matter now.

eddie wrote:

Didge wrote:lol considering you failed to address all my points, maybe you should take some of the advice you gave to Eddie

Its clear Nicko was being lighthearted

Not only that but quill says he knows Nicko is in a wheelchair and then calls him lazy in the first line of his post.

I know Eddie, which I am glad Nicko did not react to as it was goading and in the worst possible way to do so
Fair play to Nicko, who has actually faced real terror and danger and come out on top alive
I doubt many could say the same or be able to

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:



And your point is?

If you don't want any children killed, then we are in agreement.  With full knowledge that in any war, skirmish or firefight--any use of explosives--children will be killed, then we are in agreement that there should be not be any fighting.

I feel better already.

My points have been avoided by you so which is you basically conceding to them, which is cool

Didge, I only have so much time on-line. After I make my point with you the third time around, I'm through. That's how it's gotta be. Get over it.

eddie wrote:

Didge wrote:lol considering you failed to address all my points, maybe you should take some of the advice you gave to Eddie

Its clear Nicko was being lighthearted

Not only that but quill says he knows Nicko is in a wheelchair and then calls him lazy in the first line of his post.

Absolutely. It doesn't take mobility, which is my point. The computer is right in front of him.

It's the same for you, eds. What's your excuse?