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In Pakistan, a bill that would prohibit underage marriages has been withdrawn after Muslim clerics declared the ban to be “un-Islamic” and “blasphemous.”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

Original Quill wrote:

As are your values associated with children.  I think it is natural to eschew treating a child as an adult…neoteny appears to be instinctual.  But the definition of child appears to be debatable.  If we were to personify nature, clearly childhood would end somewhere between ages 10 and 13 or 14, the age of puberty.  


surely you cannot consider a 10-14 yo, even if (and the younger the bigger this IF is) physically sufficiently mature not only for the act itself BUT also the potential consequences, to be sufficiently MENTALLY mature for such a burden? Granted again cultural differences can mitigate this to some extent (as in "extended families" etc), but even so I doubt can completely solve the problems


The Mormons tend to adopt this as moral:

BYU Harold Lee Library wrote:To beget and bear children is central to God's plan for the development of his children on earth. The powers of procreation therefore are of divine origin. An early LDS apostle, Parley P. Pratt, noted that the desires and feelings associated with procreation are not evil, but are ordained of God for sacred purposes: The fact is, God made man, male and female; he planted in their bosoms those affections which are calculated to promote their happiness and union. That by that union they might fulfill the first and great commandment…"To multiply and replenish the earth, and subdue it." From this union of affection, springs all the other relationships, social joys and affections diffused through every branch of human existence. And were it not for this, earth would be a desert wild, an uncultivated wilderness [pp. 52-54].

We have adopted the age of either 16- (Europe) or 18- (US) as the age of majority.  So even in our culture there are differences.  These are conventional elections, not “universal truth”.  So, once again, you are defending a groundless premise.  Absent a god, who is to say that 18- is a better age of majority than 15- or any other age?  Where are the limits?  You would be on more defensible ground if you said all sex is evil, and left it at that.

surely this is why "we" set such limits as 16 or 18....to ensure that for the benefit of both mother AND child, the girl is of sufficient maturity to deal with the consequences...(and it could be reasonably argued that even 16 is too young in some cases)

from what you have said above Quill, I would almost have expected a 10th century priest telling me this, not a "purveyor of the law" in the 21st century?

I'm actually quite dumbfounded

Original Quill wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:personally I think you are just too yellow to actually stand for anything, and have sat on the fence so long the post has grown up your ass..which has resulted in your stiff necked attitude...

Childish...get out of the sandbox.

maybe it was a bit of a cheap shot, but the mental image is enduring

I think you may find mein kampf interesting, if "difficult" reading Tommy....seriously, no dig intended. He rambles on a lot but It provides a good insight into Hitlers mind, before he became TOTALLY deranged (due, it is suspected, to syphylis and drug abuse).

Another possibility... thank you your Foulness!

Victor wrote:surely this is why "we" set such limits as 16 or 18....to ensure that for the benefit of both mother AND child, the girl is of sufficient maturity to deal with the consequences...(and it could be reasonably argued that even 16 is too young in some cases)

Well, you see, you are down inside the ideology, arguing your society’s own case.  I have no problem with that.  I do the same.  But you have to know where you are in the discussion.  All that I have said, and been saying, is that such matters are relative, and it is ethnocentrism for one society to judge another…as any anthropologist will tell you.  As Nietzsche says, You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.

Yes, your (and my) society deems it necessary to provide parents with “sufficient maturity.”  My feeling is that our society is technologically complex to the point that a prolonged neoteny (period of upbringing) is necessary to provide advanced education.  Perhaps a hunter/gatherer society is not that advanced, and thus doesn’t need a prolonged neoteny. Maybe the Muslim world is not as complex.

Victor wrote:from what you have said above Quill, I would almost have expected a 10th century priest telling me this, not a "purveyor of the law" in the 21st century?

I'm actually quite dumbfounded

As for your expectations about me, you might shed such presumptions and open your mind.  Remember that I also have a doctorate in a field that combines sociology and history, and I think and operate along such paths.  

In fact, law is essentially a clerical function, and really, not very intellectually challenging.  Law deals with power and precedent; it’s not very expansive cognitively.  It is in academia where exploration, discovery and invention take place.

As far as the priest is concerned…still, he would be inside the ideology.  Again, as Nietzsche says…there are no facts, only interpretations.  You need to know where the discussion is: We are talking about the overview an anthropologist or historian has, as he or she views religions (the priest), social theory and political expectations.  Society may not manage without ideology, but that doesn’t mean it cannot be studied.

do you also have a Doctorate in Stupid, I bet you have, but you keep it hidden.

Original Quill wrote:

Victor wrote:surely this is why "we" set such limits as 16 or 18....to ensure that for the benefit of both mother AND child, the girl is of sufficient maturity to deal with the consequences...(and it could be reasonably argued that even 16 is too young in some cases)

Well, you see, you are down inside the ideology, arguing your society’s own case.  I have no problem with that.  I do the same.  But you have to know where you are in the discussion.  All that I have said, and been saying, is that such matters are relative, and it is ethnocentrism for one society to judge another…as any anthropologist will tell you.  As Nietzsche says, You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.

A point I have made when talking about historical cultures (such as the romans). BUT, given what we know in terms of medical harm, AND given that some of these guys are creepy enough to marry AND have sex with girls who cannot be considered "post pubertal" I think criticism and rejection of that cultural norm is well and moreover fairly founded.
Dont mistake my misgivings for misunderstanding, I know and pretty much understand what you are saying. but "my own culture aside" i.e putting my inevitable culural bias aside, I cannot but feel that having sex with a child who is NOT pysically (mentally of course is to some extent culturally defined) old enough, not physically capable of doing so without sustaining needless (and often sever) harm is wrong, and cannot be justified in any reasonable OR acceptable "cultural norm". on a purely un emotive term it is doing harm, where such harm is not only unnecessary but is a wrong against the person harmed....if that makes sense????

Yes, your (and my) society deems it necessary to provide parents with “sufficient maturity.”  My feeling is that our society is technologically complex to the point that a prolonged neoteny (period of upbringing) is necessary to provide advanced education.  Perhaps a hunter/gatherer society is not that advanced, and thus doesn’t need a prolonged neoteny.  Maybe the Muslim world is not as complex.

It is plain that for many of those who follow this particular ideology (remember this is NOT universal amongst ALL Muslims...certainly NOT the practice of bedding 10yo.) that indeed their culure is purely that of tee very early farming communities .......perhaps just post hunter gatherer, so you may well be right on that score...and of course as i mentioned they DoO tnd to have the extended families that would help "compensate" for this as well..where mother, grandma and possibly great grandma are there to lend a hand and no doubt sound experience of what works...

Victor wrote:from what you have said above Quill, I would almost have expected a 10th century priest telling me this, not a "purveyor of the law" in the 21st century?

I'm actually quite dumbfounded

As for your expectations about me, you might shed such presumptions and open your mind.  Remember that I also have a doctorate in a field that combines sociology and history, and I think and operate along such paths.  

In fact, law is essentially a clerical function, and really, not very intellectually challenging.  Law deals with power and precedent; it’s not very expansive cognitively.  It is in academia where exploration, discovery and invention take place.

As far as the priest is concerned…still, he would be inside the ideology.  Again, as Nietzsche says…there are no facts, only interpretations.  You need to know where the discussion is: We are talking about the overview an anthropologist or historian has, as he or she views religions (the priest), social theory and political expectations.  Society may not manage without ideology, but that doesn’t mean it cannot be studied.

are you saying then that "law" is merely a mechanistic application of the objective morality inherent in a given society....mmm I suppose thats right since, we have to ask the question ..

society -------------> Law
OR

law -----------------> society

does law inform morality or is it the otherway round?

AND since law HAS to surround itself with strict boundaries.. i.e it has to draw a "line in te sand" as to when and if a law is broken (elsewise it becomes a morass) does that in itself lead to the occaisional "iniquity" and "incidental injustice" a sort of judicial "collateral damage"???

would you say that the fixed "boundaries" that WE implement (be it 16 or 18) on such activities are entirely arbitrary, and do not infact represent "exactly" what they are perhaps (in the mind of MOST people) meant to represent? (that is to say the protection from harm of an individual who isnt capable of preventing that harm themselves) and given that law isnt capable of being an "exact science" is this perhaps unsurprising?

nicely now Nicko...I'm enjoying this...I find it interesting...
Quills view on this is not what I expected, in many ways...
but I appreciate the points he is making.....
I find law interesting

I find the rational and basis of law fascinating

and the evolution of such is like ,,,wow....

on these things I could happily chat with quill all day (though i'd probably bore him to death eventually )

nicko wrote:do you also have a Doctorate in Stupid,   I bet you have,   but you keep it hidden.

Childish. You make no point. All you want is to be argumentative.

I was making a valid point.

Victor wrote:A point I have made when talking about historical cultures (such as the romans). BUT, given what we know in terms of medical harm, AND given that some of these guys are creepy enough to marry AND have sex with girls who cannot be considered "post pubertal" I think criticism and rejection of that cultural norm is well and moreover fairly founded.

You are just betraying your learning, if you learned anything from “historical cultures”.  What do we know about “medical harm” related to age of marriage, post-puberty?  Nothing.  It's all cultural. Any normal, post-pubescent person is what we are dealing with.  If you are passing laws that prohibit normal, of-age people from having sex, that's another form of aberration...totalitarianism.

“Creepy enough?”  That’s a valid argument in the dialogue over relativity??  You are speaking judgmentally, again.  If they violate the laws of the given culture, they are outside the parameters of either culture.  That’s called criminal conduct…arrest them.

Victor wrote:Dont mistake my misgivings for misunderstanding, I know and pretty much understand what you are saying. but "my own culture aside" i.e putting my inevitable culural bias aside, I cannot but feel that having sex with a child who is NOT pysically (mentally of course is to some extent culturally defined) old enough, not physically capable of doing so without sustaining needless (and often sever) harm is wrong, and cannot be justified in any reasonable OR acceptable "cultural norm". on a purely un emotive term it is doing harm, where such harm is not only unnecessary but is a wrong against the person harmed....if that makes sense????

I agree with you.  “A child who is not physically old enough” is physically disabled, and that could be anyone at any age if you take into account Downs and other disabilities.  

But speaking about norms, we are not talking about exceptions.  We are assuming a normal, post-pubescent person of the sort we find in any society.  It is on that threshold that we begin the discussion about norms and standards for every normal—not exceptional--person in society.

When we return the discussion to normal (ie, not disabled) people, there is no universal standard.  It is ethnocentrism for one culture to impose it’s “cultural norms” on another.   Again, as Nietzsche says, You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.

Original Quill wrote:

Victor wrote:A point I have made when talking about historical cultures (such as the romans). BUT, given what we know in terms of medical harm, AND given that some of these guys are creepy enough to marry AND have sex with girls who cannot be considered "post pubertal" I think criticism and rejection of that cultural norm is well and moreover fairly founded.

You are just betraying your learning, if you learned anything from “historical cultures”.  What do we know about “medical harm” related to age of marriage, post-puberty?  Nothing.  Any normal, post-pubescent person is what we are dealing with.  If you are passing laws that prohibit normal, of-age people from having sex, that's another form of aberration...totalitarianism.

“Creepy enough?”  That’s a valid argument in the dialogue over relativity??  You are speaking judgmentally, again.  If they violate the laws of the given culture, they are outside the parameters of either culture.  That’s called criminal conduct…arrest them.

Victor wrote:Dont mistake my misgivings for misunderstanding, I know and pretty much understand what you are saying. but "my own culture aside" i.e putting my inevitable culural bias aside, I cannot but feel that having sex with a child who is NOT pysically (mentally of course is to some extent culturally defined) old enough, not physically capable of doing so without sustaining needless (and often sever) harm is wrong, and cannot be justified in any reasonable OR acceptable "cultural norm". on a purely un emotive term it is doing harm, where such harm is not only unnecessary but is a wrong against the person harmed....if that makes sense????

I agree with you.  “A child who is not physically old enough” is physically disabled, and that could be anyone at any age if you take into account Downs and other disabilities.  

But speaking about norms, we are not talking about exceptions.  We are assuming a normal, post-pubescent person of the sort we find in any society.  It is on that threshold that we begin the discussion about norms and standards for every normal—not exceptional--person in society.

When we return the discussion to normal (ie, not disabled) people, there is no universal standard.  It is ethnocentrism for one culture to impose it’s “cultural norms” on another.   Again, as Nietzsche says, You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.

whilst I would tend to agree with you in regards to the post pubertal person, the reality is in refernce to the O/P that they ALSO include in their thinking PRE pubertal "persons" (lets be honest and say girls), and it is THIS I have a problem with....Such practices though perhaps less common than say marrying a 14 YO is still far from exceptional, AND moreover even if it WAS exceptional, the fact that it is CONDONED IN THAT SOCIETY is grounds for valid criticism surely?

and I think "creepy" is a fair description of such behaviour...wherever you come from.....

Lord Foul wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You are just betraying your learning, if you learned anything from “historical cultures”.  What do we know about “medical harm” related to age of marriage, post-puberty?  Nothing.  Any normal, post-pubescent person is what we are dealing with.  If you are passing laws that prohibit normal, of-age people from having sex, that's another form of aberration...totalitarianism.

“Creepy enough?”  That’s a valid argument in the dialogue over relativity??  You are speaking judgmentally, again.  If they violate the laws of the given culture, they are outside the parameters of either culture.  That’s called criminal conduct…arrest them.



I agree with you.  “A child who is not physically old enough” is physically disabled, and that could be anyone at any age if you take into account Downs and other disabilities.  

But speaking about norms, we are not talking about exceptions.  We are assuming a normal, post-pubescent person of the sort we find in any society.  It is on that threshold that we begin the discussion about norms and standards for every normal—not exceptional--person in society.

When we return the discussion to normal (ie, not disabled) people, there is no universal standard.  It is ethnocentrism for one culture to impose it’s “cultural norms” on another.   Again, as Nietzsche says, You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.

whilst I would tend to agree with you in regards to the post pubertal person, the reality is in refernce to the O/P that they ALSO include in their thinking PRE pubertal "persons" (lets be honest and say girls), and it is THIS I have a problem with....Such practices though perhaps less common than say marrying a 14 YO is still far from exceptional, AND moreover even if it WAS exceptional, the fact that it is CONDONED IN THAT SOCIETY is grounds for valid criticism surely?

and I think "creepy" is a fair description of such behaviour...wherever you come from.....

I've seen no evidence that this is a cultural norm of Islamic society.  Do you have any evidence of this?

As I say, there is always aberrant behavior, not condoned by the culture, in any culture.  Other than such exceptions, I'd like to see you substantiate that "their thinking" commonly includes sex with pre-pubescent children.  As I say, aberrant behavior does not a cultural practice make.

Original Quill wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

whilst I would tend to agree with you in regards to the post pubertal person, the reality is in refernce to the O/P that they ALSO include in their thinking PRE pubertal "persons" (lets be honest and say girls), and it is THIS I have a problem with....Such practices though perhaps less common than say marrying a 14 YO is still far from exceptional, AND moreover even if it WAS exceptional, the fact that it is CONDONED IN THAT SOCIETY is grounds for valid criticism surely?

and I think "creepy" is a fair description of such behaviour...wherever you come from.....

I've seen no evidence that this is a cultural norm of Islamic society.  Do you have any evidence of this?

As I say, there is always aberrant behavior, not condoned by the culture, in any culture.  Other than such exceptions, I'd like to see you substantiate that "their thinking" commonly includes sex with pre-pubescent children.  As I say, aberrant behavior does not a cultural practice make.

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.”

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.”

Yes, it appears the cultural norm in Pakistan in this area is in flux at present. Obviously, some religious leaders have a different opinion than western civilization.

Different ideologies based upon different cultures.

Original Quill wrote:Yes, it appears the cultural norm in Pakistan in this area is in flux at present.  Obviously, some religious leaders have a different opinion than western civilization.

Different ideologies based upon different cultures.

This is what they findementally taken from religious texts and not just in Pakistan either the belief it is taken as acceptable by their deity
Its fundementally down to the view they take that because they view Muahmmad married a girl of 6 and then had sex with her at 9, that they claim it cannot be child rape, which is problematic being that they think a deity would allow a child of whi is not mentally and physically able to have sex to be raped. A girl of that age is not of sound mind to consent to marriage let alone sex.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Interesting... it is true that I don't read as much as I used to although it is something I enjoy... Maybe because lately I haven't had anything challenging enough to stimulate the interest... any suggestions for my library list?

Hitler: A Study in Tyranny. I think you posted something about his rise to power the other day, so you might find it interesting.

The Alan Bullock book, Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, is an excellent choice. However, tommy's interests are greater than just history. He has had some good debates on Darwinism, and frankly...some good old philosophy, particularly in epistemology.

Tommy, don't be befuddled by the terms. You've actually been into these things, even if you didn't realize it. For example, your personification of nature in some of the 'gay debates' gets heavily into the purpose v. chance dialectic, which is right at the threshold of existentialism.

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Yes, it appears the cultural norm in Pakistan in this area is in flux at present.  Obviously, some religious leaders have a different opinion than western civilization.

Different ideologies based upon different cultures.

This is what they findementally taken from religious texts and not just in Pakistan either the belief it is taken as acceptable by their deity
Its fundementally down to the view they take that because they view Muahmmad married a girl of 6 and then had sex with her at 9, that they claim it cannot be child rape, which is problematic being that they think a deity would allow a child of whi is not mentally and physically able to have sex to be raped. A girl of that age is not of sound mind to consent to marriage let alone sex.

I think it is more doctrinal than just a narrative about Muhammad. The religion encourages post-pubescent females to wed in order to promote procreation.

Our culture is different in this regard; not better, nor worse...just different.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:



This is what they findementally taken from religious texts and not just in Pakistan either the belief it is taken as acceptable by their deity
Its fundementally down to the view they take that because they view Muahmmad married a girl of 6 and then had sex with her at 9, that they claim it cannot be child rape, which is problematic being that they think a deity would allow a child of whi is not mentally and physically able to have sex to be raped. A girl of that age is not of sound mind to consent to marriage let alone sex.

I think it is more doctrinal than just a narrative about Muhammad.  The religion encourages post-pubescent females to wed in order to promote procreation.  

Our culture is different in this regard; not better, nor worse...just different.

That is just your opinion, which is not shared by Muslim scholars who disagree with you.
This is the problem with religion where they have absolute morals
The religion denies children their basic human rights under international law and everyone should be condemning that.
We have laws more so to protect the human rights of children and at present world is failing them as its not down to religious people to deny children their basic human rights off something they cannot prove exists a deity. They are placing their beliefs over the rights of a child, which is abhorant and fundementally wrong.

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I think it is more doctrinal than just a narrative about Muhammad.  The religion encourages post-pubescent females to wed in order to promote procreation.  

Our culture is different in this regard; not better, nor worse...just different.

That is just your opinion, which is not shared by Muslim scholars who disagree with you.

I've seen no proof of that. I would like to see in the Koran where it says it's not doctrinal. Schari'a law says marriage is permissible with "the onset of puberty, presumed to have been reached by age 12 for boys and age 9 for girls." But puberty controls in the individual case. I think you are just pulling stuff out of your hat.

Didge wrote:This is the problem with religion where they have absolute morals
The religion denies children their basic human rights under international law and everyone should be condemning that.

What international law are you referring to? Can you expand?

Didge wrote:We have laws more so to protect the human rights of children and at present world is failing them as its not down to religious people to deny children their basic human rights off something they cannot prove exists a deity. They are placing their beliefs over the rights of a child, which is abhorant and fundementally wrong.

What laws? How is the "world" failing them? What "religious people" are denying human rights? Can you specify what "beliefs" are being placed "over the rights of a child?" Too general.

I gave you proof, seriously what did you failed to grasp how religious scholars can block a law that made the rape of children punishable?

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.”

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.”

As to the international law of human rights for children

There aren't any international laws or guidelines on the age of consent, though the Convention on the Rights of the Child says that you have the right to be protected from all forms of sexual abuse and exploitation. In addition, the Committee on the Rights of the Child, which keeps track of how children's rights are being implemented around the world, argues that countries with a low legal age of consent should raise it.

http://www.unicef.org/rightsite/433_457.htm

As usual we are seeing the most prolific defense of of the abuse of Children hhere by Quill where girls as young as 8 who are not physically or mentally of sound mind to consent to marriage or sex and he claims it is no different in the west?

That is regressive leftism and the worst form of apologist

A child has the right to be protected from sexual abuse, which is being denied to them in Pakistan, Saudi, Yemen and other countries

There is no age of consent in the Quran

Hence with also Muhammad viewed as marrying a 6 year old and having sex at 9, and the fact they are meant to emulate Muhammad, why do you think the law has been banned?

The Quran on age of marriage:

Translation:
And test the orphans until they attain puberty; then if you find in them maturity of intellect, make over to them their property, and do not consume it extravagantly and hastily, lest they attain to full age; and whoever is rich, let him abstain altogether, and whoever is poor, let him eat reasonably; then when you make over to them their property, call witnesses in their presence; and Allah is enough as a Reckoner. – Quran 4:6

In conclusion, the flimsy claims made by critics against Quran 4:6 hold no weight once we expose their deceptions. The evidences presented on the verse (Quran 4:6) shows that the Quran has specified an appropriate age for someone to get married i.e., hitting puberty and when one is intellectually mature (rushd). The passage confirms the prohibition against child marriage, as those who have not attained the age of discernment would be disallowed from making the decision of entering married life.

Read entire article: http://discover-the-truth.com/2014/11/21/minimum-age-for-marriage-in-the-quran/

Didge wrote:There is no age of consent in the Quran

Hence with also Muhammad viewed as marrying a 6 year old and having sex at 9, and the fact they are meant to emulate Muhammad, why do you think the law has been banned?

Again rubbish.

How many wives did the prophet (peace be upon him) have?

How many wives are Muslims allowed as a maximum and as a recommendation?

Answering those questions (should you choose to educate yourself) will prove your assertion wrong.

Didge wrote:I gave you proof, seriously what did you failed to grasp how religious scholars can block a law that made the rape of children punishable?

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.”

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.”

Religions are interest groups, just like any enterprise, and interest groups have a keen influence on legislative matters that affect them.  It is common practice.  In fact, some might argue that because religions have a conscience, they are a cleaner sort of influence.

Didge wrote:As to the international law of human rights for children

There aren't any international laws or guidelines on the age of consent, though the Convention on the Rights of the Child says that you have the right to be protected from all forms of sexual abuse and exploitation. In addition, the Committee on the Rights of the Child, which keeps track of how children's rights are being implemented around the world, argues that countries with a low legal age of consent should raise it.

http://www.unicef.org/rightsite/433_457.htm

I suggest, with all due respect, the reason there are no international laws is because the world community does not agree with you on the finality of the matter.  First, the world likely has issues with calling marriage a form of sexual abuse and exploitation.  Family influence aside, Shari'a law actually strongly forbids any nonconsensual sex and marriage.  So calling it 'abuse' is somewhat misplaced.  And calling it exploitation when you have yet to demonstrate any profit of yield from the practice, is unsubstantiated.

It's a clash of cultures, nothing more.  We hover over our children in ways that are unfamiliar in other cultures.  Throwing in a few choice adjectives do not make a case.

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?

Protest against this organisation has been going on for a while and is a long term battle. But in sha Allah, they will get there.

https://www.facebook.com/events/553372261428172/

Which is disgusting because its denying her the right to decide and consent for themselves

Girls can hit puberty as young as 8, so it shows how backward the Quran is and clearly written by men and not something that would forego the rights of a child


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/

As usual Zack ignores the fact that whilst he may not believe Muhammad married at that age,m the majority of Muslims believe he did which is the problem

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?

But puberty is not the only condition. Read my post again.

Didge wrote:Which is disgusting because its denying her the right to decide and consent for themselves

Girls can hit puberty as young as 8, so it shows how backward the Quran is and clearly written by men and not something that would forego the rights of a child


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/

As usual Zack ignores the fact that whilst he may not believe Muhammad married at that age,m the majority of Muslims believe he did which is the problem

Lol @ your last sentence. Show me where I said that? I said nothing about that marriage.

Fuzzy Zack 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?

But puberty is not the only condition. Read my post again.

Wow so based off how someone views if they are intelligent enough.

Subjective and dangerous and why the Quran is clearly mad made

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:Which is disgusting because its denying her the right to decide and consent for themselves

Girls can hit puberty as young as 8, so it shows how backward the Quran is and clearly written by men and not something that would forego the rights of a child


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/

As usual Zack ignores the fact that whilst he may not believe Muhammad married at that age,m the majority of Muslims believe he did which is the problem

Lol @ your last sentence. Show me where I said that? I said nothing about that marriage.

Sorry my mistake, you do believe he married at that age then?

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.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

But puberty is not the only condition. Read my post again.

Wow so based off how someone views if they are intelligent enough.

Subjective and dangerous and why the Quran is clearly mad made

Setting an arbitrary age is pointless as everyone matures at a different age.

They have to be mature enough to understand their financial assets, etc.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

Wow so based off how someone views if they are intelligent enough.

Subjective and dangerous and why the Quran is clearly mad made

Setting an arbitrary age is pointless as everyone matures at a different age.

They have to be mature enough to understand their financial assets, etc.

Hence why we have a legal age, because many people do age differently to thus stop any abuse , the point you clearly miss, which the Quran allows for others to judge if they are which is flawed
A child can understand mathematics to a degree of understanding finance, that does not mean they are of sound mind for marriage and to claim they are mature enough off finance is about the most absurd thing to claim

Hence why the Quran is clearly the views of men

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Lol @ your last sentence. Show me where I said that? I said nothing about that marriage.

Sorry my mistake, you do believe he married at that age then?

There are historically conflicting reports, so nobody is ultimately sure.

The age is placed anywhere between 14 and 19 by historical scholars, Muslim and non Muslim.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

Sorry my mistake, you do believe he married at that age then?

There are historically conflicting reports, so nobody is ultimately sure.

The age is placed anywhere between 14 and 19 by historical scholars, Muslim and non Muslim.

I am very well aware the hadiths on the age conflict and on the same collated author of them, so this is another reason why the hadiths should be seen to be totally unreliable as a historical source for Muhammad, which I have told you many times, of which is why Islam is problematic
Again in countries like Saudi, Yemen and Pakistan, the scholars disagree with you

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Setting an arbitrary age is pointless as everyone matures at a different age.

They have to be mature enough to understand their financial assets, etc.

Hence why we have a legal age, because many people do age differently to thus stop any abuse , the point you clearly miss, which the Quran allows for others to judge if they are which is flawed
A child can understand mathematics to a degree of understanding finance, that does not mean they are of sound mind for marriage and to claim they are mature enough off finance is about the most absurd thing to claim

Hence why the Quran is clearly the views of men

Lol! How many little girls can understand the full state of their finances?

We are not talking about a bank account. I mean all her assets.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

There are historically conflicting reports, so nobody is ultimately sure.

The age is placed anywhere between 14 and 19 by historical scholars, Muslim and non Muslim.

I am very well aware the hadiths on the age conflict and on the same collated author of them, so this is another reason why the hadiths should be seen to be totally unreliable as a historical source for Muhammad, which I have told you many times, of which is why Islam is problematic
Again in countries like Saudi, Yemen and Pakistan, the scholars disagree with you

You cannot rely on Hadith for history.

It is just used to put context to the Quran in terms of religious rituals , such as praying, fasting, charity, etc.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

Hence why we have a legal age, because many people do age differently to thus stop any abuse , the point you clearly miss, which the Quran allows for others to judge if they are which is flawed
A child can understand mathematics to a degree of understanding finance, that does not mean they are of sound mind for marriage and to claim they are mature enough off finance is about the most absurd thing to claim

Hence why the Quran is clearly the views of men

Lol! How many little girls can understand the full state of their finances?



We are not talking about a bank account. I mean all her assets.

Plenty, some understand the meaning to save money for the future like their later studies like University

Again, it is subjective view point based on men deciding and not the child

hence why the book you follow is based on 7th century human social thinking

In other words backwards

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.

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.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

I am very well aware the hadiths on the age conflict and on the same collated author of them, so this is another reason why the hadiths should be seen to be totally unreliable as a historical source for Muhammad, which I have told you many times, of which is why Islam is problematic
Again in countries like Saudi, Yemen and Pakistan, the scholars disagree with you

You cannot rely on Hadith for history.

It is just used to put context to the Quran in terms of religious rituals , such as praying, fasting, charity, etc.

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

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

There are historically conflicting reports, so nobody is ultimately sure.

The age is placed anywhere between 14 and 19 by historical scholars, Muslim and non Muslim.

I am very well aware the hadiths on the age conflict and on the same collated author of them, so this is another reason why the hadiths should be seen to be totally unreliable as a historical source for Muhammad, which I have told you many times, of which is why Islam is problematic
Again in countries like Saudi, Yemen and Pakistan, the scholars disagree with you

FYI -'those Saudi, Yemeni, and Pakistani scholars admit this is un-Islamic but claim it is part of their culture. And then use religious text to oppress those under their charge.

But to educated people, even they admit it's UN-Islamic. They just don't care.

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.

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

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

I am very well aware the hadiths on the age conflict and on the same collated author of them, so this is another reason why the hadiths should be seen to be totally unreliable as a historical source for Muhammad, which I have told you many times, of which is why Islam is problematic
Again in countries like Saudi, Yemen and Pakistan, the scholars disagree with you

FYI -'those Saudi, Yemeni, and Pakistani scholars admit this is un-Islamic but claim it is part of their culture.  And then use religious text to oppress those under their charge.

But to educated people, even they admit it's UN-Islamic. They just don't care.

Again they are the ones that hold sway on the laws based on religious gibberish, and hence why these countries remain backwards

Where is the Muslim world challenging them, in mass numbers Zack?

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Lol! How many little girls can understand the full state of their finances?



We are not talking about a bank account. I mean all her assets.

Plenty, some understand the meaning to save money for the future like their later studies like University

Again, it is subjective view point based on men deciding and not the child

hence why the book you follow is based on 7th century human social thinking

In other words backwards

Lol! You're clutching at straws. I'm not you understand what I mean by all her assets. In those days, this included farming, trading and other "inheritable assets".

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

Plenty, some understand the meaning to save money for the future like their later studies like University

Again, it is subjective view point based on men deciding and not the child

hence why the book you follow is based on 7th century human social thinking

In other words backwards

Lol! You're clutching at straws. I'm not you understand what I mean by all her assets. In those days, this included farming, trading and other "inheritable assets".

I think that is you clutching at straws trying to claIm someone is of sound mind based on finances, where they can be completely immature socially with sex and relationships

Seriously do you need me to even explain this to you why the Quran exploits young girls claiming that nonsense?

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

FYI -'those Saudi, Yemeni, and Pakistani scholars admit this is un-Islamic but claim it is part of their culture.  And then use religious text to oppress those under their charge.

But to educated people, even they admit it's UN-Islamic. They just don't care.

Again they are the ones that hold sway on the laws based on religious gibberish, and hence why these countries remain backwards

Where is the Muslim world challenging them, in mass numbers Zack?

Did you not see the Facebook link above?

People of each country must fight for their own rights.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

Again they are the ones that hold sway on the laws based on religious gibberish, and hence why these countries remain backwards

Where is the Muslim world challenging them, in mass numbers Zack?

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

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

You cannot rely on Hadith for history.

It is just used to put context to the Quran in terms of religious rituals , such as praying, fasting, charity, etc.

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.