Saudi Court Approves Pedophilia

reply to post by Hemisphere


Thank you for looking up dictionary meanings for 'Sheik'! Yes, 'Sheik' means 'stature', someone with authority. I can't say I understand how this is applied in SA, or under Islamic codes but I can say that in such a class ridden society as SA, 'Sheik' is unlikely to apply to those who have not had the benefit of an education as understood by western standards and is therefore unlikely to apply to anyone of working (or indentured working) class.

In the case refered to in the OP, the judgement of the court has twice now been in the favour of the defence, that the 'husband' has more rights than the child. I do not want to make defamatory remarks about the judge in the case and I do understand why some opinions on this thread make reference to cultural difference but in my opinion, this issue is not about perversion, culture or individuals, it is about power and control.

Originally posted by teapot
reply to post by Hemisphere

 

I do understand why some opinions on this thread make reference to cultural difference but in my opinion, this issue is not about perversion, culture or individuals, it is about power and control.

I too understand why many make this surface call, but again it's just a surface call. Your opinion is more then an opinion you nailed it on the head... this is all about power/control, plain and simple.

Now what we should be asking ourselves is, "where does this power/control come from?" In most cases, past and present, religion has been the sole goto reference guide on how to conduct one's life. If god's life manual says it's ok, then it must be ok. No thought or self reflection needed, just follow the instructions/script and all will be peachy keen.

The solution to the problem we have been deconstructing as well as many others that plague humanity is simple. All the world religions are in a dire need of a revision/update. If we don't improve these reference manuals, as a whole our evolution is stuck in pause. If this task proves to be impossible then we need to abandon them all in favor of a universal text that takes the best bits of wisdom and best practices from each. Leaving all references/sources of divisiveness and exploitation in the scrap heap on the floor.

[edit on 14-4-2009 by The All Seeing I]

reply to post by The All Seeing I


Just trying to make sure that i understand what you're advocating here. If all the religions in the world can not revise thier religious beliefs, then much like those that believe in one world government you wish to create one world religion ? Because the problems that are created by a need by some for power and control are indeed caused by religion ?

Just exactly who gets to decide what this "universal text" will consist of ? Who will decide which bits of wisdom and practices are the best from each religion and should be kept ?

What will be done about certain beliefs that are key to some religions and are not a part of other religions, ex. How will Christ be handled in this new religion, as Christians view him as their savior, and other religions view him as merely a prophet ? Would you have some forced to believe in him as a savior, or force others to believe that he is not ?

People have been persecuted for their religious beliefs throughout history and some believe so strongly that they would rather be persecuted than to give up their beliefs, which is why what you suggest can never be possible. You can not dictate what people believe in, you can not dictate peoples faith, or lack of.

The title of this thread is pretty misleading...

I understand that most people on this board think it's weird for an adult to "marry a kid" but didn't the court specifically say they COULDN'T have sex?

Isn't that the exact opposite of approving pedophilia?

reply to post by chise61


I don't think we need a one world religion, but we should have a universal code of morality. Murder, rape, sex with children under the age of 12, robbery, theft, extortion, fraud, all conduct that can not be tolerated. There are certain basics that need to be established in order to maintain a level of communal trust.

How your pray, how your worship, how you dress, and this other stuff should be left up to the choice of individuals. Ah, but the basic rules remain, you don't murder someone because you disagree with the way they worship God, or you think they are making fun of your God, or you don't want them to convert your children from your religion.

reply to post by Jezus


He couldn't perform a specific act until the girl had her first menstruation, but other acts are apparently permitted. This is hardly an acceptable arrangement.

reply to post by chise61


Ok turn your NWO radar sensor down a couple notches. I am talking about cutting out the garbage in SCRIPTures that enable followers to exercise control/power over others. I am not advocating a "one world religion" orchestrated by the NWO but instead a one world spirituality that all mature rational sane people can agree on. There are common threads that run through all the world religions... that you could call universal truths, that all religions can agree on. If it's easier for you to relate to your god (or spokesman for god) looking more like you, then pick the one that looks more like you ... if you are european pick jesus or moses, asian budda, indian vishnu, middle-eastern allah ... so be it, doesn't really matter... as long as the teachings all over lap. i.e. love, compassion, understanding, service to others, cooperation etc

No one would have to give up their religion, just the toxic parts that don't make any sense. i.e. Christians would have to give up their homophobia & mental chastity belt, Jew's "we are the chosen people" & "god gave us Israel", Hindu's caste system & pre-arranged marriages, Muslim's gender inequality & "eye for an eye" zero tolerance... Buddhist's... minor adjustments but no major edits that i can think of at this moment. (Note world's most peaceful religion is a kin of Buddhism and ironic from a westerner's perspective embraces a swastika)

Now this may seem impossible and unfortunately most likely is at this time in our current state of evolution/consciousness, for most people have the heart in lead of their heads... but my point still validly remains... most of the world's problems stem from these mentally ill teachings, cut out the "divine" inspired psychotic babble and the world will become a better safer place for all of us.

[edit on 14-4-2009 by The All Seeing I]

reply to post by The All Seeing I


That's why I like Jesus. He said nothing about imposing any form of religion on anyone. He said, "Love God" and "Love your neighbour".

If anyone other than the mother in the child slavery and rape case in SA were able to see the wisdom in such advice, they wouldn't have to turn to books that are so evil they explicitly legitamise acts of gross indecency upon a minor.

Here we go again, ISlam this and islam that....

-Saudi is where most of the 9/11 hijackers came from.

-Saudi is where the Sharia is practised to its core, its like taliban times 10.

And Saudis are also best freinds with US.

It's all about oil and $$$$$$$$$, no one gives a crap about human flippin rights.

Ohh and pakistan has finalised their deal with taliban to bring Sharia law.

Somalia is 90% sharia law.

Nigeria, afghanistan and a few more countries are following in their footsteps.

reply to post by merkava


Yes. And where does all of this fit in with the ever advancing ultimate attempt at power and control, the NWO?

So to boil this down to the root cause ...
can we all agree that religion gives control/power to men over women?

If women had an equal say in their lives we wouldn't have this issue... but they don't because a "holy" book says so... still to this day, similar inequalities are true for many Mormons, Christians and Hindus... because of what their "holy" scripts say about the roles men and women should play.

So instead of telling/forcing people to give up their belief in their version of god, we promote a common spiritually through their pre-existing idea/construct/mask of god. Sorta like calling ourselves African American, from Africa but first and foremost an American. Such people would refer to themselves spiritually as World, Global or Universal Citizens... accurately describing their brand of faith by say they are "Universal Muslims" or "Universal Christians" ... true test being that you can swap any deity and their universal truths with another and everyone is still on the same page in agreement... cooperating versus competing.

NWO on the other hand follows an unspoken Machevelli creed, "divide and conquer", so the antidote to this trap/dis-ease is unity through diversity.

[edit on 14-4-2009 by The All Seeing I]

Originally posted by The All Seeing I
So to boil this down to the root cause ...
can we all agree that religion gives control/power to men over women?

Actually it's not religion. Religion isn't the cause here, only a conduit. It's anything that anyone believes grants them a position over others which is the issue.

You see, the pious are pariahs, no matter if that piety comes from a sense of justification based on reason, religion, emotion, or even having the larger army.

It is truly hubris, which is the arrogance of conviction that allows atrocities like this to occur.

The only question to ask, is where is your sense of piety? Do YOU believe YOU are better than anyone else? Do YOU believe you are better than these men marrying these children?

If so, then you have the same piety as these.






[edit on 14-4-2009 by HunkaHunka]

reply to post by HunkaHunka

Do YOU believe you are better than these men marrying these children?

SAY WHAT!!!!

I'll say it, yes, I think I am better than child molesters, murderers, rapists, and the like, because I have the moral fortitude not to engage in such brutal and selfish attitudes. These people intentionally harmed others for their own personal gratification, and that means they don't have the self control necessary to walk around decent moral human beings. They have demonstrated themselves to be no better than animals.

[edit on 14-4-2009 by poet1b]

reply to post by The All Seeing I


even if we went after the guy, we would have to go after tribes, and how many countless other cultures that still approve of it? even places that america is "against" are doing these things and we dont care, you cant go into some other people land and force them to live by our laws...

the guy is disgusting (although wheres the proof that hes having sex with her?), but you cant start a war over 1 person... come on

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by Ownification

 

I'm not sure what you're looking for. The Qur'an is supposedly Allah speaking, and Allah direct followers to emulate the prophet Muhammed, in whom is a good example.

In order to learn anything about Muhammed, one must read the Hadith. It is in the Hadith that the things Muhammed did and said are documented. These were the companions of Muhammed.

Tabari VII:7 teaches that Muhammed married Aisha when she was six, and in May of 623 A.D, he consumated that marriage. He was somewhere around 53 when he married Aisha.

Aisha in Tabari IX:131 states that Muhammed consumated his marriage to Aisha when she was nine years old.

In Bukhari V9B86N98, "The prophet said, 'A virgin should not be married until she has given her consent.' 'Oh Apostle, how shall the virgin express her consent?' 'He said, 'By remaining silent."

Yeah, OK.

The words, teachings, and deeds of Muhammed are found in the Hadith.

Just a warning. This does shows Muhammed for exactly what he was.

Firstly more than one sources which refer to Aisha's age. The historical source which is more credible, states that Aisha was 18 - 20. So for you to outright insult one third of the world's population using a quote which only has one narrator is beyond me.

Please read:

* According to hadith in Bukhari and Muslim, Aisha is said to have joined Muhammad on the raid that culminated in the Battle of Badr, in 624 CE. However, because no one below the age of fifteen was allowed to accompany raiding parties, Aisha should have been at least fifteen in 624 CE and thus at least thirteen when she was married following the Hijra in 622 CE.

* Ibn Hisham’s recension of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rashul Allah, the earliest surviving biography of Muhammad, records Aisha as having converted to Islam before Umar ibn al-Khattab, during the first few years of Islam around 610 CE. In order to accept Islam she must have been walking and talking, hence at least three years of age, which would make her at least fifteen in 622 CE.

* Tabari reports that Abu Bakr wished to spare Aisha the discomforts of a journey to Ethiopia soon after 615 CE, and tried to bring forward her marriage to Mut`am’s son. Mut`am refused because Abu Bakr had converted to Islam, but if Aisha was already of marriageable age in 615 CE, she must have been older than nine in 622 CE.

* Tabari also reports that Abu Bakr’s four children were all born during the Jahiliyyah, the pre Islamic period, which could be said to have ended in 610 CE, making Aisha at least twelve in 622 CE.

* According to Ibn Hajar, Fatima was five years older than Aisha. Fatima is reported to have been born when Muhammad was thirty-five years old, meaning Aisha was born when he was forty years old, and thus twelve when Muhammad married at fifty-two.

* Most of these narratives are reported only by Hisham ibn Urwa reporting on the authority of his father. All the narratives of this event have been reported through narrators from Iraq, where Hisham ibn Urwa is reported to have shifted after living in Madinah for seventy-one years. It is reported in one of the most well known books on the life and reliability of the narrators of the traditions ascribed to the Muhammad reports that Yaqub ibn Shaibah said, “narratives reported by Hisham are reliable except those that are reported through the people of Iraq”. It further states that Malik ibn Anas objected on those narratives of Hisham, which were reported through people of Iraq. Another book on the narrators of the traditions of the Muhammad reports that when he was old, Hisham’s memory suffered quite badly.

* According to the generally accepted tradition, Aisha was born about eight years before Hijrah. However, according to another narrative in Bukhari (Kitaab al-Tafseer) Aisha is reported to have said that at the time Surah Al-Qamar, the 54th chapter of the Qur’an , was revealed, “I was a young girl”. The 54th Surah of the Qur’an was revealed nine years before Hijrah. According to this tradition, Aisha had not only been born before the revelation of the referred Surah, but was actually a young girl, not even only an infant at that time. So if this age is assumed to be 7 to 14 years then her age at the time of marriage would be 14 to 21.

* According to almost all the historians, Asma the elder sister of Aisha, was ten years older than Aisha. It is reported in Taqreeb al-Tehzeeb as well as Al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah that Asma died in the 73rd year after migration of Muhammad when she was 100 years old. Now, obviously if Asma was 100 years old in the 73rd year after Migration to Medina, she should have been 27 or 28 years old at the time of migration. If Asma was 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah, Aisha should have been 17 or 18 years old at that time. Thus, Aisha - if she got married in 1 AH (after Migration to Medina) or 2 AH - was between 18 to 20 years old at the time of her marriage.

* According to many Ahadith in Bukhari, it is believed Aisha participated in the battle of Badr and Uhud.Also in Bukhari (Kitabu’l-maghazi) Ibn `Umar states that the Prophet did not permit me to participate in Uhud, as at that time, I was 14 years old. But on the day of Khandaq, when I was 15 years old, the Prophet permitted my participation. So if it was not allowed to participate in Uhud for people younger than 15, then Aisha would be atleast 15 in those battles, making her age atleast 13 to 14 at the time of marriage.

* Tabaqat ibn Sa’d, 8:58; Ansab al-Ashraf, 1:410. Opinions are in disagreement concerning her marriage with Muhammad. Their marriage seems to have taken place either two of five years after the Migration (Usd al-ghaba, 5:501).

So it is history VS the people you hate so, so dearly. A right wing fanatic like you should have chosen history but then again don't know what to expect from you. As long as you find something that allows you to continue your hate you accept it without any second thought. How does that differ you from the Nazis who dearly inspected every situation so to find something which downgrade Jews which in respond would allow them to continue their hate.

[edit on 023030p://30b4 by Ownification]

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by HunkaHunka

 

Do YOU believe you are better than these men marrying these children?

SAY WHAT!!!!

I'll say it, yes, I think I am better than child molesters, murderers, rapists, and the like, because I have the moral fortitude not to engage in such brutal and selfish attitudes. These people intentionally harmed others for their own personal gratification, and that means they don't have the self control necessary to walk around decent moral human beings. They have demonstrated themselves to be no better than animals.

[edit on 14-4-2009 by poet1b]

WOW you are comparing western morals with them, that is just stupid. Check out some statistics when it comes to child molesting, rape, murder, abuse.

US 2002
95,136 rapes

excluding date rapes which is a huge number where the law can't do anything about it. So instead of going after them across the other side of the world, you should concentrate more on your own society first. Start with your family then go on to your neighbors then community ... Get it?

reply to post by Ownification


We have already been through this propaganda nonsense that you are pushing. What U.S. rape statistics show is that we are already doing more in the U.S. to combat rape than the rest of the world, by making sure these incidents are getting reported, and the violators prosecuted. In places like Saudi Arabia and many Muslim nations, it is obvious that rape is covered up and hidden, when not actively engaging in down right intimidation against women who dare to speak up against crimes committed against them. When you physically beat a woman for daring to report a rape, or course you are going to have very few rapes reported.

This type of propaganda nonsense you put forth only serves to make matters worse. Who do you think you are fooling.