Imagine being divorced at 10 [Archive] - Debate Policy

View Full Version : Imagine being divorced at 10

SassyLady

10-01-2010, 01:04 AM

Child Brides, Sharia Law?

Abso ... how can you defend this?

Sana'a, Yemen (CNN) -- Reem al Numeri is 14-years-old and recently divorced. She was 11 when she says her father forced her to marry a cousin more than twice her age.
Reem says she has been stigmatized by her divorce and now lives the life of an outcast. Without a husband or father to support her, she cannot attend school.
Her story has echoes of Nujood Ali -- the Yemeni girl whose story sparked an international outrage that many thought would force change in the country.
But a bill to outlaw child marriages got blocked and the practice continues. On Saturday, Yemen's parliament will look again at child marriage.
Reem's desperate pleas to stay a child fell on deaf ears as her father forced her to marry a 32-year-old cousin. "He said you need to go into the room where the judge is and tell him you agree to the marriage," Reem said. "I said I won't go in there - he took out his dagger and said he'd cut me in half if I didn't go in there and agree."
For Reem, the terror and the trauma were just beginning. She said she was told to sleep with her husband, but refused. She locked herself in a bedroom every night to ensure her safety but, according to Reem, he managed to sneak in and raped her.
<SCRIPT type=text/javascript> var currExpandable = "expand16"; if(typeof CNN.expandableMap === 'object') { CNN.expandableMap.push(currExpandable); } var currExpandableHeight = 360; </SCRIPT>

Reem said members of her family first ordered her to submit, then expected her to celebrate. "They chose not to buy me any bridal dresses until they were sure I'd had sex with him because they didn't want their money to go to waste," she said. "Once they were sure, they bought me the bridal clothes and threw me a party. After that, I burned the white bridal dress I was given and then I used a razor to try to kill myself." Reem's father and ex-husband did not return CNN's calls.

In Yemen, a deeply tribal society, the issue of child marriages is a complicated one.
Two years ago, 10-year-old Nujood Ali shocked the world when she took herself to court in Yemen's capital city of Sana'a and asked a judge for a divorce.
After a well publicized trial, she was granted one -- and became a heroine to those trying to shine a spotlight on the issue of child brides in Yemen, where more than half of all young girls are married before age 18, mostly to older men.
In 2009, Yemen's parliament passed legislation raising the minimum age of marriage to 17. But conservative parliamentarians argued the bill violated Sharia, or Islamic law, which does not stipulate a minimum age of marriage.
And because of a parliamentary maneuver the bill was never signed into law.
More than 100 leading religious clerics called the attempt to restrict the age of marriage "un-Islamic".
Mohammed Aboulahoum, who advises Yemen's president, said the law should be passed, but he added the fight against child marriage restrictions were a distraction -- a way for the parliament to avoid bigger, more sensitive, political issues.
"I think there should be an age limit," Aboulahoum said. "And if you sit even with the religious people and you ask them, would you let your daughter marry at the age of 12 or 13, they would tell you no. So it is something, we use it more for politics."
Reem's attorney, Shada Nasser, is one of Yemen's most well known advocates for children's rights.
Nasser has represented several child brides seeking divorce, including Ali. She doesn't even think the practice should be called marriage. "I think it is rape," she said.
But Nasser also has hope that Reem's generation will help build a new Yemen, free of child marriages.
"Who can build this Yemen?" asked Nasser. "Me? No - all these small girls -- they must build Yemen. But all these girls need a good law - a family law." Nasser begs the clerics standing in the way: "I ask them to give these girls mercy."
A prominent Yemeni human rights activist, Amal Albasha, is also outraged the practice continues. Her organization, Sisters Arab Forum, tries to intervene on behalf of child brides, to stop the marriages from taking place. Albasha added that nothing will change until people in Yemen try to fully understand the horror a child bride goes through.
"You know, just two days ago, a 9-year-old girl got married in Taiz." she said. "Just think about the pain, the fear -- just think about a 9-year-old with a 50-year-old in a closed room," said Albasha. "The experience remains until the day of death."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/africa/09/30/yemen.child.brides/index.html?iref=NS1

Sweetchuck

10-01-2010, 01:31 AM

And I'm sure she got slapped around a few times.

... and we're the heathens.

Between this kind of idiocy and listening to idiots like RSR rail on about shit he's completely in the dark about makes me lose faith in mankind.

SassyLady

10-01-2010, 01:41 AM

Sweetchuck

10-01-2010, 01:46 AM

SassyLady

10-01-2010, 02:07 AM

Stupidity.

Radical Islam oppresses their women, forcing them into marriages at young ages, abuse them, mutilate them and then they call us the terrorists. All because they are brainwashed into believing that it's "God's will".

Isn't that the point of your post?

Yes ... it is about how young girls are being abused ... by their families, their culture, their laws....it is inexcusable.

I just didn't understand the "slapped around a few times" comment. Rape is more traumatic than being slapped so it sounded as if you were trivalizing her plight.

Agnapostate

10-01-2010, 05:05 PM

Wasn't Jesus's mother about 12?

BoogyMan

10-01-2010, 05:39 PM

Wasn't Jesus's mother about 12?

Show me book, chapter, and verse for that one and you *might* be able to regain some standing. No reference and all you have is foolish tripe.

SassyLady

10-01-2010, 11:21 PM

Wasn't Jesus's mother about 12?

And your point would be........?

Abbey Marie

10-02-2010, 04:53 PM

Wasn't Jesus's mother about 12?

You really are a phobic muttonhead.

Abbey Marie

10-02-2010, 04:54 PM

Yes ... it is about how young girls are being abused ... by their families, their culture, their laws....it is inexcusable.

I just didn't understand the "slapped around a few times" comment. Rape is more traumatic than being slapped so it sounded as if you were trivalizing her plight.

As always, where's the outrage from the American left/feminists when it's needed?

SassyLady

10-02-2010, 05:37 PM

I guess doing the PC thing and trying to not antagonize the Islam/Muslims by condemning this practice.

Trigg

10-02-2010, 07:35 PM

Of course if Abso doesn't answer this thread he will probably come back with his usual, "they aren't really Muslim".

jimnyc

10-03-2010, 11:45 AM

Funny how abso comes around and only responds to threads he feels his tripe is fit for. He'll ignore threads such as this one, or do exactly what Trigg has stated. I can make 10 posts like this daily and continue so for the rest of the year (posts about women being abused all over the world in Islam). It's disgusting, and all Muslims should be embarrassed, but they would rather remain in denial and/or think the treatment is acceptable.

Abso's view's:

muslim doing anything at all wrong = not a true muslim

terrorists killing in name of allah and quran = fake muslims

my own friends who go to mosque daily, pray 5 times daily but admit to certain outright crap in quran and hadith = abso says they are not true muslims

anything israel = bad

abso = 100% certified idiot

Gaffer

10-03-2010, 01:18 PM

Kathianne

10-03-2010, 01:53 PM

Jim what your friends practice is the muslim religion, they do not accept or practice sharia law. That is the main problem with islam. sharia law is what makes it not a religion but a political ideology.

However, the MO seems to be that when Islam become about 12% of religion of a given country, the arguments for Sharia begin. Truth is, the religion calls for it, but while not a significant percentage of population, the Muslims let it be.

darin

10-03-2010, 06:45 PM

Mother of Christ was probably 15 or 16...but didn't, probably, have 'relations' with a man until after she'd been married for some time. :)

My aunt married when she was 15 - to a man who had a 12 year old son. They lived together until her death 40 years later.

Those who can't see the differences in what Mary did, and my Aunt did, are purposely stupid. Willingly stupid.

Agnapostate

10-03-2010, 08:34 PM

Show me book, chapter, and verse for that one and you *might* be able to regain some standing. No reference and all you have is foolish tripe.

The tradition was betrothal at 12 to 12 1/2 and marriage at 13 to 13 1/2, with consummation following. But Mary and Joseph possibly did not complete the period of their betrothal (which could only be dissolved in the case of divorce or death), since she became pregnant before that. Says Matthew 1:18-25:

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly. But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins.”

So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: 23 “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,”[a] which is translated, “God with us.”

Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son.[b] And he called His name JESUS.

Ergo, Mary would have been sexually active in her early teens.

And your point would be........?

...? Is there something you don't get? Where's your thread about Christianity? It was only with the increasing secularization of society that marriage of females in their early to mid teens to older men ended.

You really are a phobic muttonhead.

Better that than a fool who instigates personal attacks instead of argumentative refutation. This forum is an echo chamber with a collective IQ of about 65.

Mother of Christ was probably 15 or 16...but didn't, probably, have 'relations' with a man until after she'd been married for some time. :)

My aunt married when she was 15 - to a man who had a 12 year old son. They lived together until her death 40 years later.

Those who can't see the differences in what Mary did, and my Aunt did, are purposely stupid. Willingly stupid.

As opposed to the intelligence of the belief that the earth is 6,000 years old? You are an idiotic moron. "Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son." Implication, spelled out slowly for braindead imbeciles such as yourself: He did "know" her after she had "brought forth her firstborn Son," and their relations were the cause of his brothers' conception. And based on local and religious traditions of the time and place (an established carpenter with a practice would have been at least somewhat aged too), and the fact that Joseph was never mentioned as being present after Jesus began his ministry while his mother and brothers were, and based on the fact that he entrusted his mother Mary to the care of the apostle John and that his body was given to Joseph of Arimathea, he is traditionally presumed to have died by the time Jesus was 30, which is why he is traditionally represented as an old man:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/Saint_Joseph_with_the_Infant_Jesus_by_Guido_Reni,_ c_1635.jpg

Your own little book of fairy tales is against you, fool! :lol:

BoogyMan

10-03-2010, 09:14 PM

The tradition was betrothal at 12 to 12 1/2 and marriage at 13 to 13 1/2, with consummation following. But Mary and Joseph possibly did not complete the period of their betrothal (which could only be dissolved in the case of divorce or death), since she became pregnant before that. Says Matthew 1:18-25:

Ergo, Mary would have been sexually active in her early teens.

Once again, show me book, chapter, and verse that supports the 12 to 12 1/2 age and you might be able to save face, until such a time you have nothing.

Matthew 1:18-25
18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Matthew 1:18-25 speaks about the birth of Jesus but does NOTHING to support your claim.

Book, chapter, and verse....support your claim with the text of admit you are simply another clown taking cheap shots at a religion you never had any desire to discuss honestly.

SassyLady

10-03-2010, 09:17 PM

The tradition was betrothal at 12 to 12 1/2 and marriage at 13 to 13 1/2, with consummation following. But Mary and Joseph possibly did not complete the period of their betrothal (which could only be dissolved in the case of divorce or death), since she became pregnant before that. Says Matthew 1:18-25:

Once again, Aggie, what does this have to do with children of today being married off at 9 or 10? Are you staying that just because it was done thousands of years ago that it is still acceptable? Also, where does it say that Mary did not want to be married to her husband? Where did it say that she was raped by her husband?

Ergo, Mary would have been sexually active in her early teens.

There is a vast difference between consensual sex and rape and if you can't figure that out then you are truly damaged.

...? Is there something you don't get? Where's your thread about Christianity? It was only with the increasing secularization of society that marriage of females in their early to mid teens to older men ended.

My thread about Christianity .... can you remind me which one?

Better that than a fool who instigates personal attacks instead of argumentative refutation.

Personal attacks .... like this one (see highlighted portion of your post)?

As opposed to the intelligence of the belief that the earth is 6,000 years old? You are an idiotic moron.

This forum is an echo chamber with a collective IQ of about 65.

Then leave so the collective IQ will increase.

Agnapostate

10-03-2010, 10:33 PM

Once again, show me book, chapter, and verse that supports the 12 to 12 1/2 age and you might be able to save face, until such a time you have nothing.

Not that there aren't Talmudic and apocryphal sources that would support my claims, but why should I have to do that? I'm referring to general social customs, as practiced in first-century Palestine. If your insinuation is that Mary decided to deviate from these general customs and get betrothed and married after the age of 18 because she knew that people would disapprove of early childbearing 2,000 years later, please enlighten us by providing the burden of proof.

Matthew 1:18-25 speaks about the birth of Jesus but does NOTHING to support your claim.

Um, yes it does. There is nothing in the text to support an intermission of years after the birth of Jesus and the consummation of Mary and Joseph's marriage.

Book, chapter, and verse....support your claim with the text of admit you are simply another clown taking cheap shots at a religion you never had any desire to discuss honestly.

I'm not doing anything different than anyone else in this thread, by deliberate choice. I've just selected a different target in order to reveal your double standard.

Once again, Aggie, what does this have to do with children of today being married off at 9 or 10? Are you staying that just because it was done thousands of years ago that it is still acceptable? Also, where does it say that Mary did not want to be married to her husband? Where did it say that she was raped by her husband?

Well, skurty, most people are of the opinion that the consent of persons under the age of sexual consent is irrelevant, so maybe we can get AllieBabble to make her annual visit here and condemn you for your "Nabokovian" viewpoints...regardless, I'm sure that in centuries of marriages of young girls to older men in relatively theocratic Christian societies, there were cases of force and compulsion.

There is a vast difference between consensual sex and rape and if you can't figure that out then you are truly damaged.

I am told by numerous people on this forum and a related one that ostensibly consensual sex with people under a certain age is rape. Perhaps you're familiar with this concept?

My thread about Christianity .... can you remind me which one?

Its absence is what is notable in this exposition of a double standard...

Personal attacks .... like this one (see highlighted portion of your post)?

Are you unfamiliar with the meaning of the term "instigate"? You see, despite your standard tunnel vision in somehow missing: "Those who can't see the differences in what Mary did, and my Aunt did, are purposely stupid. Willingly stupid." I am entirely willing to reciprocate, if not instigate. People ought to receive the treatment they give to others.

Then leave so the collective IQ will increase.

My presence alone is sufficient to elevate it by about 20 points at present. That none of you are intelligent or skilled enough to best me in a debate is evidence of this.

SassyLady

10-03-2010, 10:51 PM

Well, skurty, most people are of the opinion that the consent of persons under the age of sexual consent is irrelevant, so maybe we can get AllieBabble to make her annual visit here and condemn you for your "Nabokovian" viewpoints...regardless, I'm sure that in centuries of marriages of young girls to older men in relatively theocratic Christian societies, there were cases of force and compulsion.

I am told by numerous people on this forum and a related one that ostensibly consensual sex with people under a certain age is rape. Perhaps you're familiar with this concept?

Oh yeah, I forgot your stance about sex and children....

My presence alone is sufficient to elevate it by about 20 points at present. That none of you are intelligent or skilled enough to best me in a debate is evidence of this.

Nope ... I won this debate ... because I said so!

If you think this debating tactic works for you then I'll start using in our debates.

Abbey Marie

10-03-2010, 10:56 PM

...
Well, skurty, most people are of the opinion that the consent of persons under the age of sexual consent is irrelevant, so maybe we can get AllieBabble to make her annual visit here and condemn you for your "Nabokovian" viewpoints...regardless, I'm sure that in centuries of marriages of young girls to older men in relatively theocratic Christian societies, there were cases of force and compulsion.
...

Oh, you are sure. Why didn't you say so? That's all anyone should need as proof. :lame2:

Agnapostate

10-03-2010, 10:57 PM

Oh yeah, I forgot your stance about sex and children....

That implies that you ever knew it.

Nope ... I won this debate ... because I said so!

If you think this debating tactic works for you then I'll start using in our debates.

More false implications...for you to say that you'll "start" using it implies that you don't already, and for you to speak of our "debates" implies that you debate me as opposed to posting irrelevant text that contains ad hominem fallacies. :laugh:

Agnapostate

10-03-2010, 10:59 PM

Oh, you are sure. Why didn't you say so? That's all anyone should need as proof. :lame2:

Oh, forgive me, Crabby, and my outlandish presumption that centuries of marriages between young girls and older men might have involved some kind of coercion or force! How silly! :slap:

SassyLady

10-03-2010, 11:56 PM

That implies that you ever knew it.

Yes, it does.

More false implications...for you to say that you'll "start" using it implies that you don't already, and for you to speak of our "debates" implies that you debate me as opposed to posting irrelevant text that contains ad hominem fallacies. :laugh:

So? I still won.

Agnapostate

10-04-2010, 12:25 AM

Yes, it does.

So? I still won.

*gasp* I know you are but what am I!

So, what's causing you to be derailing threads more blatantly than usual here? Kurt not want to play anymore ever since you popped the balloons?

SassyLady

10-04-2010, 12:30 AM

*gasp* I know you are but what am I!

So, what's causing you to be derailing threads more blatantly than usual here? Kurt not want to play anymore ever since you popped the balloons?

:laugh:

You just make it so easy.........

Agnapostate

10-04-2010, 12:44 AM

:laugh:

You just make it so easy.........

Yea, you are kind of easy. Nothing to be ashamed of, though. ;)

jimnyc

10-04-2010, 02:25 PM

ABSO - instead of posting your lame articles over and over - how's about replying to this one?

Trigg

10-04-2010, 02:56 PM

Kathianne

10-04-2010, 02:57 PM

People, just a note, can we all please 'quote' off the post we're responding to? It makes it so much easier for those that come in late. Thanks.

abso

10-04-2010, 03:31 PM

abso = 100% certified idiot
Thats very respectful of you

if you dont show me some repsect then never expect me to answer, many people in this forum has no decency or respect at all.

my political views or my religion, have nothing to do with idiocy, i am free to believe what i want, and i am free to have any political stand i want, you dont call people idiots for having an opinion opposite to yours, but clearly none has taught you that in your ideal free country.

you were only taught to disrespect people and insult them when they disagree with you, and thats really civilised of you.

i have tried for many years to find some moderate decent american that can discuss and talk in a decent manner, and i have found very few, cause most of the people i end up talking with is like you, people with no respect to the other side, people who is ignorant and prefer to call others as idiots instead of talking with respect, for what i have learned while talking in this forum till now, is that most americans, or at least to be fair, most american that have interest in politics, have no manners, and no respect nor decency.

and by the way, none has sent me a msg to read this article, nor my name was written in its title, so i have never openned it and never known that it was directed to me, i dont read everything here, just the discussions that interest me, or the questions directed to me, i have no time to read everything here, sometimes i am not able to login for week or two, and maybe more than a month, and my study takes up most of my time, so dont expect me to open every new thread in the forum.

jimnyc

10-04-2010, 03:35 PM

Thats very respectful of you

if you dont show me some repsect then never expect me to answer, many people in this forum has no decency or respect at all.

my political views or my religion, have nothing to do with idiocy, i am free to believe what i want, and i am free to have any political stand i want, you dont call people idiots for having an opinion opposite to yours, but clearly none has taught you that in your ideal free country.

you were only taught to disrespect people and insult them when they disagree with you, and thats really civilised of you.

i have tried for many years to find some moderate decent american that can discuss and talk in a decent manner, and i have found very few, cause most of the people i end up talking with is like you, people with no respect to the other side, people who is ignorant and prefer to call others as idiots instead of talking with respect, for what i have learned while talking in this forum till now, is that most americans, or at least to be fair, most american that have interest in politics, have no manners, and no respect nor decency.

In other words, you cannot defend the indefensible - which is the non-stop of abuse towards women in Islam. If muhammahead can sleep with 9 year olds, not sure why this article should surprise many of us.

And no, I don't respect you. When you stop supporting the assholes in Islam and condemn them as they should be, then maybe I'll give you some respect. Even us Americans admit we have a shitload of assholes living here, but at least we aren't afraid to admit as much - and we surely don't disown them or call them non-Americans because they place America in a bad light.

jimnyc

10-04-2010, 03:37 PM

BTW - You don't want to respond to ME because I am disrespectful. How about replying to the ARTICLE or the member who posted it, instead of making excuses. Surely it won't be so hard for you to swear up and down that these aren't real muslims as you usually do.

abso

10-04-2010, 03:41 PM

Child Brides, Sharia Law?

Abso ... how can you defend this?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/africa/09/30/yemen.child.brides/index.html?iref=NS1

refresh your info, i am egyptian, not from Yemen, why should i defend something stupid that happens in Yemen !!!

and how can i defend something that i disagree with !!!

i stated that i completely disagree with child marriages, and that legal age for marriage in egypt is 18, and the usual age is after finishing university, at 21.

so in egypt, the average marriage age is about 23 - 26 years.

if you want me to participate here, i wont be defending Yemen, i will be on your side, condemning their law which allows it in the first place.

abso

10-04-2010, 03:46 PM

In other words, you cannot defend the indefensible - which is the non-stop of abuse towards women in Islam. If muhammahead can sleep with 9 year olds, not sure why this article should surprise many of us.

Come and visit egypt, when you find any abuse of women, then talk about it, womens here work in everything as men, my mother is a school principal, and almost all the womens in my family work like men, my cousin is an architecture engineer, my other cousin is an accountant, and my aunt works in the university, and so on, they all work, they all have same rights, they actually have better rights since they get better treatment everywhere because they are women, in most of the government facilities which does any service for the people, there are two lines, one for women and one for men, so we wait in longer lines, and they get faster and better treatment, that policy is not applied everywhere of course, but in many places its still there, and i dont object to it, as women should get better treatment.

anyway, visit egypt, then talk about women treatment, but stop getting your ideas from the media, come here to visit egypt, and i promise that i will personally show you how womens are treated.

And no, I don't respect you. When you stop supporting the assholes in Islam and condemn them as they should be, then maybe I'll give you some respect. Even us Americans admit we have a shitload of assholes living here, but at least we aren't afraid to admit as much - and we surely don't disown them or call them non-Americans because they place America in a bad light.

america is not a religion, if an american kills, then he is still an american, he just an outlaw, law is just written by us, not by any GOD.

but for religions, when you kill, then you do something that the religion forbid, then you are out of this religion unless you repent and stop doing anymore great sins.

jimnyc

10-04-2010, 04:02 PM

refresh your info, i am egyptian, not from Yemen, why should i defend something stupid that happens in Yemen !!!

and how can i defend something that i disagree with !!!

i stated that i completely disagree with child marriages, and that legal age for marriage in egypt is 18, and the usual age is after finishing university, at 21.

so in egypt, the average marriage age is about 23 - 26 years.

if you want me to participate here, i wont be defending Yemen, i will be on your side, condemning their law which allows it in the first place.

But they are still your beloved muslims, and millions are still living in this manner, under Islam, in quite a few countries. They are acting under an Islamic law and applying their lives to writings and verses from the quran and hadith. So - like I said from your first day on this board - while muslims may be OK in Egypt or USA - their are millions of scummy muslioms that still think the life of what occurs in this article to be ok.

jimnyc

10-04-2010, 04:05 PM

anyway, visit egypt, then talk about women treatment, but stop getting your ideas from the media, come here to visit egypt, and i promise that i will personally show you how womens are treated.

Do you visit Israel often? If not, then why is it ok for you to post articles and your opinions on Israel as if it were fact, and then get testy when we all laugh at you?

america is not a religion, if an american kills, then he is still an american, he just an outlaw, law is just written by us, not by any GOD.

but for religions, when you kill, then you do something that the religion forbid, then you are out of this religion unless you repent and stop doing anymore great sins.Well, seems like a TON of your "brothers and sisters" need some serious repenting!

abso

10-04-2010, 04:52 PM

But they are still your beloved muslims, and millions are still living in this manner, under Islam, in quite a few countries. They are acting under an Islamic law and applying their lives to writings and verses from the quran and hadith. So - like I said from your first day on this board - while muslims may be OK in Egypt or USA - their are millions of scummy muslioms that still think the life of what occurs in this article to be ok.

i am not responsible for some stupid actions that are done by some muslims, as much as that you are not responsible for the stupid actions done by some christians.

if a muslims choose to interpret his own religion in a way, then i dont care, i understand my religion in my own way, and its the right way, never to harm or hurt anyone, thats it.

you are saying that there are scummy muslims, i agree, but there are scummy christians and jews too, its not about religion.

abso

10-04-2010, 04:56 PM

Do you visit Israel often? If not, then why is it ok for you to post articles and your opinions on Israel as if it were fact, and then get testy when we all laugh at you?

Well, seems like a TON of your "brothers and sisters" need some serious repenting!

i post articles about politics, not the way of life, you are talking about how women live in egypt, then you should come, and i will show you how free they are.

and i dont need to visit israel, i never said that they abuse women or that they are bad society or any thing like that, they are just people, like any other people, i dont hold any hatred for them, i never talked about them, just their government and their army, like USA, i never talked about the people, just the adminstration and the army, i cant talk about the people until i can live with them and see them in their daily life, only then i can talk about them, but i can never learn about the people of a country from the media, the media is just a business which follows the direction of the money, they all reside with who ever pays better, and i am sure that you are well aware of that.

Abbey Marie

10-04-2010, 05:25 PM

Pagan

10-04-2010, 06:33 PM

So Islam has the Monopoly?

http://www.turnbacktogod.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/god-hates-america.jpg

Nor is their subjugation of Women in Christianity is there?

http://www.slvdweller.com/uploads/amish_2.jpg

http://ll-media.tmz.com/2008/04/16/0418_polygamy_2-1.jpg

jimnyc

10-04-2010, 06:54 PM

So Islam has the Monopoly?

Monopoly? No. Of course America, Christians, Catholics, Jews, Atheists and every other denomination has their share who pervert a religion, mistreat their women & some use their religion as an excuse.

But most religions have learned to civilize themselves over the years. I don't believe the other religions have laws that make it OK to abuse women for what the rest of the world would consider petty offenses, if you even want to call them offenses. Most other religions don't have the quran or hadith with wording to allow beating of women, killing of infidels of killing of those wishing to leave the faith. And if they do, it's far from the amount that happens in Islam. These things are a way of life for Islam, and they happen daily and in large amounts.

But most of all, MY point throughout my ramblings, is that abso defends Islam to the very end and declares ANY muslim who performs these acts to be non-muslims, or not true muslims - where this shit occurs in countries under shariah law and there are millions of muslims under this law and who support it - to include their state leaders and leading clerics as well.

So while other religions might have some of these issues similarly, it's nearly impossible to compare it with the scale of how often it happens in Islam.

Agnapostate

10-05-2010, 11:26 AM

It makes absolutely no difference how old Mary was thousands of years ago.

We are not discussing thousands of years ago.

We are discussing the rape and forced marriage of little girls TODAY.

It says a lot about Agna when he would rather derail a thread than admit that raping little girls is wrong.

Since I'm aware that Mohammed's marriage to Aisha is cited as an alleged foundational principle for modern child marriage by anti-Muslims, I'm pointing out the inconsistency in not similarly condemning Christianity on that count, or pointing out its continued practice by Christian tendencies:

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/assets/library/080410mormon_3--120784424889106600.jpg

You might claim that this particular denomination is not "truly Christian" because they do not adhere to your particular interpretation of Christian religious principles, while denying abso the same luxury of selectively choosing Muslim tendencies. But of course, this also says nothing of the traditional practice of marriage of young girls to older men that endured for centuries in Christian societies, including U.S. colonial society.

Monopoly? No. Of course America, Christians, Catholics, Jews, Atheists and every other denomination has their share who pervert a religion, mistreat their women & some use their religion as an excuse.

The claims that a tendency "perverts" a religion is applied to those that simply apply the plain doctrines in that religion's foundational texts literally and consistently. Since modern Christianity in developed countries is based on adherence to more liberal mores in secular countries and deviation from the traditional precepts in the Bible, why is it not those revisionists who "pervert a religion"? I also see no foundational principles for mistreatment of women in atheism, because there is typically no rigid orthodoxy of ethical thought among secularists.

But most religions have learned to civilize themselves over the years. I don't believe the other religions have laws that make it OK to abuse women for what the rest of the world would consider petty offenses, if you even want to call them offenses. Most other religions don't have the quran or hadith with wording to allow beating of women, killing of infidels of killing of those wishing to leave the faith.

I don't know why you would say that; it's demonstrably false.

The punishment for apostasy, or deviation from Judaism and Christianity, is found in Deuteronomy 17:2-5:

If there is found among you, within any of your gates which the LORD your God gives you, a man or a woman who has been wicked in the sight of the LORD your God, in transgressing His covenant, who has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, either the sun or moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded, and it is told you, and you hear of it, then you shall inquire diligently. And if it is indeed true and certain that such an abomination has been committed in Israel, then you shall bring out to your gates that man or woman who has committed that wicked thing, and shall stone to death that man or woman with stones.

The principles of what would be called terrorist warfare if practiced by Muslims are found in Deuteronomy 20:13-18:

And when the LORD your God delivers it into your hands, you shall strike every male in it with the edge of the sword. But the women, the little ones, the livestock, and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall plunder for yourself; and you shall eat the enemies’ plunder which the LORD your God gives you. Thus you shall do to all the cities which are very far from you, which are not of the cities of these nations.

But of the cities of these peoples which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance, you shall let nothing that breathes remain alive, but you shall utterly destroy them: the Hittite and the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite, just as the LORD your God has commanded you, lest they teach you to do according to all their abominations which they have done for their gods, and you sin against the LORD your God.

The principles of oppression of women and fundamentalist sexual mores are found in Deutoronomy 22:13-29

If any man takes a wife, and goes in to her, and detests her, and charges her with shameful conduct, and brings a bad name on her, and says, ‘I took this woman, and when I came to her I found she was not a virgin,’ then the father and mother of the young woman shall take and bring out the evidence of the young woman’s virginity to the elders of the city at the gate. And the young woman’s father shall say to the elders, ‘I gave my daughter to this man as wife, and he detests her. Now he has charged her with shameful conduct, saying, “I found your daughter was not a virgin,” and yet these are the evidences of my daughter’s virginity.’ And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. Then the elders of that city shall take that man and punish him; and they shall fine him one hundred shekels of silver and give them to the father of the young woman, because he has brought a bad name on a virgin of Israel. And she shall be his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days.

But if the thing is true, and evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done a disgraceful thing in Israel, to play the harlot in her father’s house. So you shall put away the evil from among you.

If a young woman who is a virgin is betrothed to a husband, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he humbled his neighbor’s wife; so you shall put away the evil from among you.

But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter. For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman cried out, but there was no one to save her.

If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.

This last doctrine is an example of sexist authoritarianism, where women are chattels to be exchanged as property. Nor do I see much of a basis for the traditional claims of abolition of these more authoritarian doctrines in the New Testament, given Jesus's statement in Matthew 5:17-18: "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled."

And if they do, it's far from the amount that happens in Islam. These things are a way of life for Islam, and they happen daily and in large amounts.

Islamic countries and societies vary in their degrees of authoritarianism, and Western criticism of this authoritarianism is more often based on the leadership's compliance with their governments' demands. For example, Saudi Arabia is decidedly more authoritarian and fundamentalist than Iran, but the government of Iran undergoes far more criticism because they are hostile to the current government of the United States and many European nations.

But most of all, MY point throughout my ramblings, is that abso defends Islam to the very end and declares ANY muslim who performs these acts to be non-muslims, or not true muslims - where this shit occurs in countries under shariah law and there are millions of muslims under this law and who support it - to include their state leaders and leading clerics as well.

That seems no different than what you have done in declaring the fundamentalist Mormons guilty in that they "pervert a religion," rather than actually apply its principles as literal interpretation would dictate.

So while other religions might have some of these issues similarly, it's nearly impossible to compare it with the scale of how often it happens in Islam.

That's probably true enough, since most Christian countries are characterized by a separation of church and state, and even those that don't have an official separation find leadership in countries that do, which means that the leadership of those countries cannot impose theocratic governance without isolating adherents with more liberal mores elsewhere. But the Yemenese judicial system ended up siding with the Western view, and these particularly noteworthy incidents are noteworthy because of their uniqueness. If every marriage in Yemen was characterized by repeated violent rape of prepubescent children, as opposed to the coercive or compulsive but not always openly forcible marriage of youths that are not always prepubescent, this story would be unremarkable.

Then again, I do see this sort of Christian authoritarianism occurring often enough. Here are a few choice quotes of Adolf Hitler:

"The Government of the Reich, which regards Christianity as the unshakable foundation of the morals and moral code of the nation, attaches the greatest value to friendly relations with the Holy See, and is endeavoring to develop them."

"The Government, being resolved to undertake the political and moral purification of our public life, are creating and securing the conditions necessary for a really profound revival of religious life."

"Except the Lord built the house they labor in vain... The truth of that text was proved if one looks at the house of which the foundations were laid in 1918 and which since then has been in building... The world will not help, the people must help itself. Its own strength is the source of life. That strength the Almighty has given us to use; that in it and through it we may wage the battle of our life... The others in the past years have not had the blessing of the Almighty—of Him Who in the last resort, whatever man may do, holds in His hands the final decision. Lord God, let us never hesitate or play the coward, let us never forget the duty which we have taken upon us... We are all proud that through God's powerful aid we have become once more true Germans."

"The Catholic Church considered the Jews pestilent for fifteen hundred years, put them in ghettos, etc, because it recognized the Jews for what they were... I recognize the representatives of this race as pestilent for the state and for the church and perhaps I am thereby doing Christianity a great service by pushing them out of schools and public functions."

"We want honestly to earn the resurrection of our people through our industry, our perseverance, our will. We ask not of the Almighty 'Lord, make us free'!—we want to be active, to work, to agree together as brothers, to strive in rivalry with one another to bring about the hour when we can come before Him and when we may ask of Him: 'Lord, Thou seest that we have transformed ourselves, the German people is not longer the people of dishonor, of shame, of war within itself, of faintheartedness and little faith: no, Lord, the German people has become strong again in spirit, strong in will, strong in endurance, strong to bear all sacrifices.' 'Lord, we will not let Thee go: bless now our fight for our freedom; the fight we wage for our German people and Fatherland.'"

"I say: my feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Saviour as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to the fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as sufferer but as fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and of adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before—the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. And as a man I have the duty to see to it that human society does not suffer the same catastrophic collapse as did the civilization of the ancient world some two thousand years ago—a civilization which was driven to its ruin through this same Jewish people."

We could also refer to the strength that traditionalist orthodox Roman Catholicism gained in the domestic sphere under the dictatorships of General Francisco Franco in Spain and General Augusto Pinochet in Chile, and to a lesser extent, that of Mussolini in Italy. As for ongoing Christian theocratic movements, there is this: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/lra.htm

The Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), led by Joseph Kony, operated in the north from bases in southern Sudan. The LRA committed numerous abuses and atrocities, including the abduction, rape, maiming, and killing of civilians, including children. In addition to destabilizing northern Uganda from bases in Sudan, the LRA congregated in the Bunia area in eastern Congo. They linked up with the Army for the Liberation of Rwanda (ALIR) and other rebel groups that were battling with forces from the Rally for Congolese Democracy (RCD).

The LRA continued to kill, torture, maim, rape, and abduct large numbers of civilians, virtually enslaving numerous children. Although its levels of activity diminished somewhat compared with 1997, the area that the LRA targeted grew. The LRA sought to overthrow the Ugandan Government and inflicted brutal violence on the population in northern Uganda. LRA forces also targeted local government officials and employees. The LRA also targeted international humanitarian convoys and local NGO workers.

The LRA abducted large numbers of civilians for training as guerrillas. Most victims were children and young adults. The LRA abducted young girls as sex and labor slaves. Other children, mainly girls, were reported to have been sold, traded, or given as gifts by the LRA to arms dealers in Sudan. While some later escaped or were rescued, the whereabouts of many children remain unknown.

In particular, the LRA abducted numerous children and, at clandestine bases, terrorized them into virtual slavery as guards, concubines, and soldiers. In addition to being beaten, raped, and forced to march until exhausted, abducted children were forced to participate in the killing of other children who had attempted to escape. Amnesty International reported that without child abductions, the LRA would have few combatants. More than 6,000 children were abducted during 1998, although many of those abducted later escaped or were released. Most human rights NGOs placed the number of abducted children held captive by the LRA at around 3,000, although estimates varied substantially.

Civil strife in the north of Uganda led to the violation of the rights of many members of the Acholi tribe, which was largely resident in the northern districts of Gulu and Kitgum. Both government forces and the LRA rebels, who themselves largely are Acholi, committed violations. LRA fighters in particular were implicated in the killing, maiming, and kidnapping of Acholi tribe members, although the number and severity of their attacks decreased somewhat compared with 1997.

The LRA rebels stated that they fought for the establishment of a government based on the biblical Ten Commandments. They were notorious for kidnapping children and forcing them to become rebel fighters or concubines. More than one-half-million people in Uganda's Gulu and Kitgum districts had been displaced by the fighting and lived in temporary camps, protected by the army.

There is also the matter of the Roman Catholic regime of Robert Mugabe prohibiting sodomy and persecuting gays in Zimbabwe. Since you will undoubtedly claim that all these people are not "true" Christians, why should Abso be denied the same right of selective appropriation of Muslim denominations? :laugh:

abso

10-05-2010, 01:02 PM

Uh, perhaps because these "stupid" people follow the same religion that you do?

simple response in simple question:

Can You Defend Adolf Hitler or Timothy McVeigh ? :salute:

jimnyc

10-05-2010, 01:10 PM

simple response in simple question:

Can You Defend Adolf Hitler or Timothy McVeigh ? :salute:

Nope, and who would want to? Unlike you, no one here will defend scumbags who kill others - for whatever that reason is. But there are MILLIONS of Muslims living under shariah law and are willing to fight and die for that right - that right that allows them to abuse women, kill infidels & kill those trying to leave Islam.

Furthermore, the likes of Hitler are no more - and do you know what country played a huge part in getting rid of the scumbag? And do you know which country it is that put McVeigh to death for being a scumbag?

jimnyc

10-05-2010, 01:15 PM

There is also the matter of the Roman Catholic regime of Robert Mugabe prohibiting sodomy and persecuting gays in Zimbabwe. Since you will undoubtedly claim that all these people are not "true" Christians, why should Abso be denied the same right of selective appropriation of Muslim denominations? :laugh:

I'll make no excuses for Christians/Catholics killing in the name of God. But the millions of Muslims enjoying shariah law, and the garbage in the quran and hadith -the comparison in current times is night and day.

Find a civilized nation, that exists currently, where Catholics are continually abusing women, killing infidels or killing those who try to leave Catholicism. You'll find some in shit countries - and THEY ARE scum for living and killing that way - but they are almost non-existent when comparing to the abuse in Islam.

abso

10-05-2010, 02:18 PM

Trigg

10-05-2010, 02:24 PM

Since I'm aware that Mohammed's marriage to Aisha is cited as an alleged foundational principle for modern child marriage by anti-Muslims, I'm pointing out the inconsistency in not similarly condemning Christianity on that count, or pointing out its continued practice by Christian tendencies:

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/assets/library/080410mormon_3--120784424889106600.jpg

You might claim that this particular denomination is not "truly Christian" because they do not adhere to your particular interpretation of Christian religious principles, while denying abso the same luxury of selectively choosing Muslim tendencies. But of course, this also says nothing of the traditional practice of marriage of young girls to older men that endured for centuries in Christian societies, including U.S. colonial society.

You're wrong I'm not going to claim that the Mormons who do this aren't really Christian. I'm not even going to claim that they're not really Mormons.

I will point out that what they do is ILLEGAL. They get sent to jail for doing it. Unlike in the Muslim countries where the gov. is firmly on the side of the families and the men raping little girls.

Christian traditions of CENTURIES ago has nothing to do with THIS discussion. Either you are against marrying off little girls or you agree with it. Which side are you on?

abso

10-05-2010, 02:26 PM

abso

10-05-2010, 02:27 PM

You're wrong I'm not going to claim that the Mormons who do this aren't really Christian. I'm not even going to claim that they're not really Mormons.

I will point out that what they do is ILLEGAL. They get sent to jail for doing it. Unlike in the Muslim countries where the gov. is firmly on the side of the families and the men raping little girls.

Christian traditions of CENTURIES ago has nothing to do with THIS discussion. Either you are against marrying off little girls or you agree with it. Which side are you on?

Again i say, Legal marriage age in Egypt is 18, and its the same in most of the Islamic countries.

Agnapostate

10-05-2010, 04:22 PM

Nope, and who would want to? Unlike you, no one here will defend scumbags who kill others - for whatever that reason is. But there are MILLIONS of Muslims living under shariah law and are willing to fight and die for that right - that right that allows them to abuse women, kill infidels & kill those trying to leave Islam.

Muslim theocracy and authoritarianism are more widespread than Christian theocracy and authoritarianism at present because most Christians live in liberal societies with separations of church and state. But their past practices, when they did not, showcase that their authoritarian Biblical principles can also be applied in an oppressive way. Columbus's statement regarding the Taino of the Caribbean that, "It appears to me, that the people are ingenious, and would be good servants and I am of opinion that they would very readily become Christians, as they appear to have no religion," was a starting point for their genocide at the hands of Roman Catholic Christians:

http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/Dolgoff/Spaniards4.jpg

http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/Dolgoff/Spaniards5.jpg

http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/Dolgoff/Spaniards6.jpg

And what was happening in Spain at the time, as Ferdinand and Isabella presided over post-Moorish unified Spanish society? The Inquisition.

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/spanish-inquisition-movie.jpg

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/inquisition-wheel.jpg

http://www.stmatthews.org.nz/images/gallery/370/original/782.jpg

There is nothing in the underlying foundational principles of Christianity that is against it, and a significant amount of content that is for it, as can be seen from the passages that I quoted. All that has happened is that modern Christians reject literal interpretations of these doctrines, because it's not exactly politically correct anymore. But this could flourish, in the proper settings. The Calvinist fundamentalist Rousas John Rushdoony could have easily inspired totalitarian religious theocracy along the lines of Afghanistan and central-south Somalia, and the evangelicals/fundamentalists such as Pat Robertson and James Dobson could inspire authoritarian, if not totalitarian, religious societies, with prohibitions of adultery, sodomy, divorce, implementation of explicitly religious education, more rigorous dress codes, etc.

It was ironic that even as people claimed that the 9/11 attacks were inspired by Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda members' disdain for liberal sexual mores and such in the United States, and not by his violent opposition to U.S. governmental support of the Israeli government, it was not him, but Jerry Falwell, who was saying this: "But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way — all of them who have tried to secularize America — I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen." Apparently, it was the Christian fundamentalists who believed that the U.S. population deserved punishment for their secular immorality.

Furthermore, the likes of Hitler are no more - and do you know what country played a huge part in getting rid of the scumbag?

Yes, the Soviet Union.

I'll make no excuses for Christians/Catholics killing in the name of God. But the millions of Muslims enjoying shariah law, and the garbage in the quran and hadith -the comparison in current times is night and day.

How? There are passages in the Old Testament, accepted by both Jews and Christians, that prescribe violent execution for fornicators, adulterers, and apostates.

Find a civilized nation, that exists currently, where Catholics are continually abusing women, killing infidels or killing those who try to leave Catholicism. You'll find some in shit countries - and THEY ARE scum for living and killing that way - but they are almost non-existent when comparing to the abuse in Islam.

You've outlined somewhat of an impossible goal, haven't you? If it was a "civilized nation," those practices wouldn't be occurring. You'll just dismiss any real-world examples by claiming that "those are just 'shit countries,' not civilized nations." But apart from the fact that the 1930's and 1940's are relatively recent, and Nazi Germany was a major power of the world whose leaders successfully annexed half of Europe, you've ignored citations of other examples such as Spain and Chile, as well as the ongoing example of Zimbabwe and the persecution of gays there by the Mugabe government. It's interesting that we can hear plenty of condemnation of them for dispossessing white farmers, but very little about persecution of the gay population. I would also say that powerful Christian authoritarianism manifests itself quite powerfully in the country of El Salvador, and its draconian abortion restrictions: Pro-Life Nation (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/magazine/09abortion.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all)

The problem was not simply that in this very Catholic country a shy 24-year-old unmarried woman might feel shame telling her story to an older man. There was also the criminal stigma. And this was why I had come to El Salvador: Abortion is a serious felony here for everyone involved, including the woman who has the abortion...In this new movement toward criminalization, El Salvador is in the vanguard. The array of exceptions that tend to exist even in countries where abortion is circumscribed — rape, incest, fetal malformation, life of the mother — don't apply in El Salvador. They were rejected in the late 1990's, in a period after the country's long civil war ended. The country's penal system was revamped and its constitution was amended. Abortion is now absolutely forbidden in every possible circumstance. No exceptions.

There are other countries in the world that, like El Salvador, completely ban abortion, including Malta, Chile and Colombia. El Salvador, however, has not only a total ban on abortion but also an active law-enforcement apparatus — the police, investigators, medical spies, forensic vagina inspectors and a special division of the prosecutor's office responsible for Crimes Against Minors and Women, a unit charged with capturing, trying and incarcerating an unusual kind of criminal.

Guess what the official religion of Malta and former official religion of Chile and Colombia is?

You're wrong I'm not going to claim that the Mormons who do this aren't really Christian. I'm not even going to claim that they're not really Mormons.

I will point out that what they do is ILLEGAL. They get sent to jail for doing it. Unlike in the Muslim countries where the gov. is firmly on the side of the families and the men raping little girls.

Some of the fundamentalist Mormon patriarchs have been imprisoned; many are still free to engage in this practice, despite the fact that it is widely known to the public at this point. This mixed record parallels the Yemenese situation. Reem al-Numeri, as well as the other major example, Nujood Ali, have both been granted legal divorces, and Nujood Ali's husband and father were imprisoned.

Christian traditions of CENTURIES ago has nothing to do with THIS discussion. Either you are against marrying off little girls or you agree with it. Which side are you on?

Centuries ago? The age of sexual consent was only raised to current levels amidst widespread fears of white slavery in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. But even if it had occurred centuries ago, though it is actually about one century ago that it ended, its extensive duration and widespread practice indicate that there is no fundamental precept of Christianity that opposes it. Quite the contrary, really, given the authoritarian gender roles that the Bible prescribes.

Thanks for the help :salute:

You're welcome. It's not even that I agree with religious authoritarianism; it's that there's an unfair double standard, and that Muslims are a religious minority group that face bigotry in the United States.

jimnyc

10-05-2010, 05:06 PM

if you wont defend them while they were in your religion, then why are you asking me to defend every stupid radical muslim !!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm not - YOU are the one who entered threads about the abuse in Islam and proclaimed all of those doing such things not to be true muslims. Unlike you, we are honest.

you dont know anything about shariah law, its just a word that you hear in the media.

How the fuck do you know what I know? Do you live under shariah law? Do you practice and study shariah law? Then I know as much as you, and I know enough.

find me a country in the world that has in its laws any law about killing anyone who leaves ISLAM !!!, in egypt, it happens sometimes, and we have no such laws at all, and even the Imams allow it.

I already quoted MUCH about apostasy to you in another thread along with verses from your beloved quran and hadith.

as i said before, its the families that kill its members if they converted, but its not an order from Islam, and as i mentioned before, but of course you people tend to ignore me when i tell you something about christianity, is that many accidents happned in egypt were christians converted to Islam and were killed by their families because they left christianity, and many kidnapped and forced to convert back to christianity, and its the same with Islam, if someone is converted, his family may get angry and kill him or force him back to Islam, or they may just ignore it and let him be, that happened many times, so its just the radical ideas in peoples minds, not the religion that makes them do so.

It's in your quran and hadith and still practiced by millions in countries other than Egypt and USA. Are you saying that those millions of muslims are ALL radicals?

find me any country that kills infidels !!!

If they follow the quran and hadith... But I suggest you read my quotes in another thread and then read the stories directly from the mouths of those who left Islam.

i dont see any muslims killing anyone because he has no religion ???

That makes no sense.

have you ever heared about any muslim in america or anywhere in the world killing anyone because he does not believe in GOD ???

Again, doesn't make sense. It is the muslims being taught from the quran and hadith in certain countries that kill and abuse.

you just think that its a law, while its not a law, muslims have no such law about killing people who does not believe in GOD, we believe in the freedom of religion, and the Islamic religion never asked to force anyone to join it, you can be christian or jewish or an atheist, WE DONT CARE, its your choice.

Maybe not law, but it's in the quran and hadith - as proven by the bevvy of verses I quoted for you. Shariah law is just icing on the cake and another reason to completely abuse people, especially women, for stupid offenses (like the woman just given 99 lashes for being in the newspaper not wearing her veil.. too bad they found out AFTER they abused her that the picture wasn't even of her!).

Again i say, Legal marriage age in Egypt is 18, and its the same in most of the Islamic countries.

Then explain the story that started this thread. And then read the pages you find with this search:

http://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=navclient-ff#hl=en&source=hp&biw=1920&bih=857&q=islam+child+brides&aq=0&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=islam+chil&gs_rfai=CFQNiEKCrTNPAHqGYoATt9cDJDQAAAKoEBU_Qv48v&fp=be1fba8001a0bb56

Muslim theocracy and authoritarianism are more widespread than Christian theocracy and authoritarianism at present because most Christians live in liberal societies with separations of church and state. But their past practices, when they did not, showcase that their authoritarian Biblical principles can also be applied in an oppressive way. Columbus's statement regarding the Taino of the Caribbean that, "It appears to me, that the people are ingenious, and would be good servants and I am of opinion that they would very readily become Christians, as they appear to have no religion," was a starting point for their genocide at the hands of Roman Catholic Christians:

Can we stick with modern times? Some of the world has progressed a bit, some haven't.

There is nothing in the underlying foundational principles of Christianity that is against it, and a significant amount of content that is for it, as can be seen from the passages that I quoted. All that has happened is that modern Christians reject literal interpretations of these doctrines, because it's not exactly politically correct anymore.

Yes, so again, can we please stick with somewhat current times?

Yes, the Soviet Union.

So the US wasn't involved at all?

How? There are passages in the Old Testament, accepted by both Jews and Christians, that prescribe violent execution for fornicators, adulterers, and apostates.

And this happens today, in major countries? And if you mention third world countries, prove to me that they are going around killing via terrorism, then going to the media or releasing videos describing that they did their terrorism in the name of God.

You've outlined somewhat of an impossible goal, haven't you? If it was a "civilized nation," those practices wouldn't be occurring. You'll just dismiss any real-world examples by claiming that "those are just 'shit countries,' not civilized nations." But apart from the fact that the 1930's and 1940's are relatively recent, and Nazi Germany was a major power of the world whose leaders successfully annexed half of Europe, you've ignored citations of other examples such as Spain and Chile, as well as the ongoing example of Zimbabwe and the persecution of gays there by the Mugabe government. It's interesting that we can hear plenty of condemnation of them for dispossessing white farmers, but very little about persecution of the gay population. I would also say that powerful Christian authoritarianism manifests itself quite powerfully in the country of El Salvador, and its draconian abortion restrictions: Pro-Life Nation (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/magazine/09abortion.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all)

Well, if you find it to be nearly impossible to find civilized nations that systematically kill and abuse based on the bible - but you can find this information about Islamic countries in your sleep - what does that tell you? Yes, the overwhelming majority of catholics, and the world, have evolved - while Islam is still in the dark ages.

Pagan

10-05-2010, 05:24 PM

I'll make no excuses for Christians/Catholics killing in the name of God. But the millions of Muslims enjoying shariah law, and the garbage in the quran and hadith -the comparison in current times is night and day.

Find a civilized nation, that exists currently, where Catholics are continually abusing women, killing infidels or killing those who try to leave Catholicism. You'll find some in shit countries - and THEY ARE scum for living and killing that way - but they are almost non-existent when comparing to the abuse in Islam.

Then join up with the Civilized Muslims and instead bashing a single religion for all the evils of religion itself and focus on the Radicals, ALL Radicals. You know stamping out ALL fanatical zealots?

Don't you think that would be a bit more productive rather than validating what the Radical Zealots spew?

jimnyc

10-05-2010, 05:46 PM

Then join up with the Civilized Muslims and instead bashing a single religion for all the evils of religion itself and focus on the Radicals, ALL Radicals. You know stamping out ALL fanatical zealots?

Don't you think that would be a bit more productive rather than validating what the Radical Zealots spew?

Already do! My ONLY friends where I live are all Muslim. 2 from Jordan, 1 from Iran, 1 from Morocco & 1 from Algeria.

And quite frankly, focusing on what "I" what consider radicals would encompass any country that allows Shariah Law and where the citizens live and breath to defend that way of life. So again, that is MILLIONS of Muslims that think a civilized society is one that allows for systematic abuse and death to those who don't adhere to their style of religion.

Pagan

10-05-2010, 06:34 PM

Already do! My ONLY friends where I live are all Muslim. 2 from Jordan, 1 from Iran, 1 from Morocco & 1 from Algeria.

And quite frankly, focusing on what "I" what consider radicals would encompass any country that allows Shariah Law and where the citizens live and breath to defend that way of life. So again, that is MILLIONS of Muslims that think a civilized society is one that allows for systematic abuse and death to those who don't adhere to their style of religion.

If this is true then don't you think you ought to stop alienating them by lumping them all in with the zealots? For doing so will serve only to drive them to the Zealot Radicals by bashing them, calling them "Scum", etc. therefore validating what the Radicals are preaching.

Wake up and use that brain housing group eh?

jimnyc

10-05-2010, 06:47 PM

If this is true then don't you think you ought to stop alienating them by lumping them all in with the zealots? For doing so will serve only to drive them to the Zealot Radicals by bashing them, calling them "Scum", etc. therefore validating what the Radicals are preaching.

Wake up and use that brain housing group eh?

I believe you have me confused with someone else. I don't lump my friends in with the zealots. I don't lump peaceful everyday muslims with the zealots, unless of course they support the abuse and/or radical elements. The scum I refer to are those who abuse women, want to kill infidels, want to kill those who attempt to leave Islam - none of my friends, or any muslims I know in the US, are anything like that. They speak out against terrorism, radicals, abuse of women and all the crap I hate.

Pagan

10-05-2010, 06:57 PM

I believe you have me confused with someone else. I don't lump my friends in with the zealots. I don't lump peaceful everyday muslims with the zealots, unless of course they support the abuse and/or radical elements. The scum I refer to are those who abuse women, want to kill infidels, want to kill those who attempt to leave Islam - none of my friends, or any muslims I know in the US, are anything like that. They speak out against terrorism, radicals, abuse of women and all the crap I hate.

Then I apologize, but you need to be careful with words, refer to them as the Zealots or radicals.

With all the Muslim bashing going on I'm a bit anal retentive about this. I myself have a number of Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Agnostic, Atheist, etc. friends and honestly I work in a very mixed environment with them also and guess what? We all get along very well.

SassyLady

10-05-2010, 08:06 PM

You know ... I get along with men really well, no matter what their religion, until I find out that they are abusive and then I won't have anything else to do with them.

So, if I worked with Muslims, Jewish, Christians, Hindu, Agnostic, Atheists, or Pagans .... I would not get along with them if I found out they supported laws, whether religious or not, that condoned the abuse of women and children. The point is that I don't believe those that support sharia law think of themselves as zealots or extremists. Instead of wanting to live under the law of the land (whatever nation that is), they want to have a different representation ... under sharia law. I believe anyone who wants to live under Sharia law should go to a nation that supports that law rather than trying to convert the country that has their own laws ... that apply to all religions.

Pagan

10-05-2010, 08:16 PM

SassyLady

10-05-2010, 08:44 PM

Yep, that's why we have a secular government that is forbidden to mix church and state.

I love how the "establishment of religion" has morphed into "forbidden to mix church and state".

Pagan

10-05-2010, 09:03 PM

I love how the "establishment of religion" has morphed into "forbidden to mix church and state".

Really?

Then WTF is this then?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Christian Church is an "Establishment"
The Jewish Church is an "Establishment"

When I walk into a bar it's an "Establishment", when I walk into a club it's and "Establishment",

capiche?

Abbey Marie

10-05-2010, 11:44 PM

Pagan

10-06-2010, 12:37 AM

You really don't understand the difference between establishing a government religion, and "mixing"? Perhaps you could study up on the difference between those two concepts and it will become clearer to you...

I'll give you a break since English isn't your native tongue

Establishment (http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/establishment?show=0&t=1286344142) noun

3 a public organization with a particular purpose or function
Synonyms establishment, foundation, institute

http://www.census.gov/epcd/ec97zip/ESTAB.HTM

An establishment is a single physical location at which business is conducted and/or services are provided. It is not necessarily identical with a company or enterprise, which may consist of one establishment or more

http://www.answers.com/topic/establishment-clause

Clause in the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution forbidding Congress from establishing a state religion. It prevents the passage of any law that gives preference to or forces belief in any one religion. It is paired with a clause that prohibits limiting the free expression of religion.

SassyLady

10-06-2010, 02:03 AM

Really?

Then WTF is this then?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Christian Church is an "Establishment"
The Jewish Church is an "Establishment"

When I walk into a bar it's an "Establishment", when I walk into a club it's and "Establishment",

capiche?

Ohhhhhh, I get it....you are using "Establishment" as a noun and I was thinking of it as a verb...you know "the establishment of" meaning to create. Therefore, I thought it meant that Congress was prohibited from establishing (creating) a national religion.

So, using it as noun, as you have, would you then say that Congress cannot pass a law regarding the buildings that religions are pacticed in? But they can't do anything about the establishment of religion.

An Estabishment being prohibited does not equal "not allowed to mix"

Whatever ..... in this case no religion should be held differenlty than all others when it comes to having laws applicable to them.

Hey ... I think I made my point without cursing and name calling. Go figure ... unlike others around here

abso

10-06-2010, 02:04 AM

I believe you have me confused with someone else. I don't lump my friends in with the zealots. I don't lump peaceful everyday muslims with the zealots, unless of course they support the abuse and/or radical elements. The scum I refer to are those who abuse women, want to kill infidels, want to kill those who attempt to leave Islam - none of my friends, or any muslims I know in the US, are anything like that. They speak out against terrorism, radicals, abuse of women and all the crap I hate.

when i tell you that muslims does not kill anyone because they have no religion, you tell me but its in your quran to kill non believers.

and when you are told that its in your bible too, you say: but christians does not kill anyone because they have no religion.

see the double standard ???

is it about the words contained in the quran or the bible.

or is it about what the muslims and christians are doing, decide then tell me because you are really confusing me here.

and again, i say that there is nothing at all in the Quran about killing anyone without religion.

jimnyc

10-06-2010, 05:32 AM

when i tell you that muslims does not kill anyone because they have no religion, you tell me but its in your quran to kill non believers.

and when you are told that its in your bible too, you say: but christians does not kill anyone because they have no religion.

see the double standard ???

There are verses in the Bible, quran & hadith that discuss acts that would not be acceptable for today's civilized societies. The double standard is that 99% of Catholics today do not follow those words literally and have adapted to the modern age. At the same time, there are millions of muslims that still follow the quran/hadith to the letter and even worse, apply shariah law on top of that. Furthermore, I've told you 10x now that I have posted the quotes/verses to backup my assertions about beating women, killing non-believers & apostasy. These were translated by arabic speaking muslims & confirmed myself by American muslims.

is it about the words contained in the quran or the bible.

or is it about what the muslims and christians are doing, decide then tell me because you are really confusing me here.

I couldn't care less what was written in the quran if there weren't a ton of people still using it literally as a tool for killing/abusing people. No different than when I myself read the bible. Should I read a verse that seems rather "out of time" - I take it in the context of what I'm reading and move on. I certainly don't go out and perform acts in the name of God because of what the bible might or might not contain.

and again, i say that there is nothing at all in the Quran about killing anyone without religion.

Then I suggest you go back to the thread where we discussed this, and gave you an outline of quotes - where you stated you would get back to me (even though I don't need you 2 as I believe being written by arabic speaking muslims and seconded by my own friends who are arabic speaking muslims is good enough for me.)

You might be like my friends and believe women deserve to be treated equally as men. That not everything written in these books is to be applied and taken literally and used as a tool to hurt. You may believe it's fine for everyone to have their own faith with no repercussions. You may believe war, or any type of killing, especially terrorism, is horrible. But you're deluding yourself if you don't think there are an inordinate amount of muslims that DO follow these words as if their lives depended on them. I've outlined the proof for you in the other thread, via translations from muslims & apostasy and abuse stories directly from muslims.

Pagan

10-06-2010, 07:24 AM

Ohhhhhh, I get it....you are using "Establishment" as a noun and I was thinking of it as a verb...you know "the establishment of" meaning to create. Therefore, I thought it meant that Congress was prohibited from establishing (creating) a national religion.

So, using it as noun, as you have, would you then say that Congress cannot pass a law regarding the buildings that religions are pacticed in? But they can't do anything about the establishment of religion.

An Estabishment being prohibited does not equal "not allowed to mix"

Whatever ..... in this case no religion should be held differenlty than all others when it comes to having laws applicable to them.

Hey ... I think I made my point without cursing and name calling. Go figure ... unlike others around here

Well that's what it is, look a the 1st amendment -

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Establishment (http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/establishment?show=0&t=1286344142) noun

3 a public organization with a particular purpose or function
Synonyms establishment, foundation, institute

jimnyc

10-06-2010, 09:03 AM

Just going to logon and ignore replying while you see my response, abso?

abso

10-06-2010, 10:20 AM

Just going to logon and ignore replying while you see my response, abso?

i never ignore, i just postpone my answer a little, is that wrong ? :salute:

just taking a little break from being attacked.

and about what you posted about Quran and Hadith in the other topic, i will answer as i promised, but i am sure that you are not in a hurry to read my response, am i right ?

jimnyc

10-06-2010, 11:29 AM

i never ignore, i just postpone my answer a little, is that wrong ? :salute:

just taking a little break from being attacked.

and about what you posted about Quran and Hadith in the other topic, i will answer as i promised, but i am sure that you are not in a hurry to read my response, am i right ?

If you're going to continually deny that these writings are in the quran/hadith in various threads, then yes, I would be very interested in how you can translate different than the translations of arabic people online, and arabic translations from a few personal sources of my own from different countries.

abso

10-06-2010, 02:54 PM

If you're going to continually deny that these writings are in the quran/hadith in various threads, then yes, I would be very interested in how you can translate different than the translations of arabic people online, and arabic translations from a few personal sources of my own from different countries.

okay, then i am very sorry to make you wait, i will try to answer as soon as i can, sorry if i am making you feel like i am ignoring your question, but i assure you that i never ignore anyone.

Abbey Marie

10-06-2010, 11:25 PM

I'll give you a break since English isn't your native tongue

Establishment (http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/establishment?show=0&t=1286344142) noun

3 a public organization with a particular purpose or function
Synonyms establishment, foundation, institute

http://www.census.gov/epcd/ec97zip/ESTAB.HTM

An establishment is a single physical location at which business is conducted and/or services are provided. It is not necessarily identical with a company or enterprise, which may consist of one establishment or more

http://www.answers.com/topic/establishment-clause

Clause in the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution forbidding Congress from establishing a state religion. It prevents the passage of any law that gives preference to or forces belief in any one religion. It is paired with a clause that prohibits limiting the free expression of religion.

Noun, verb or adjective, the POINT is that the federal gov't is prohibited from establishing a state religion (hopes you understand the word "state" in this context, but who knows...). Which once again, is not the same as "mixing". For further clarification of the intent of our forefathers, you can try reading the quotes in my sig.

In the meantime, I will be happy to continue to rely on my excellent grasp of English, (my native tongue, as you well know), my excellent grasp of the law (as garnered in law school), and my superlative grasp of common sense. All of which you appear to sorely lack.

SassyLady

10-06-2010, 11:29 PM

Pagan

10-07-2010, 12:33 AM

Noun, verb or adjective, the POINT is that the federal gov't is prohibited from establishing a state religion (hopes you understand the word "state" in this context, but who knows...). Which once again, is not the same as "mixing". For further clarification of the intent of our forefathers, you can try reading the quotes in my sig.

In the meantime, I will be happy to continue to rely on my excellent grasp of English, (my native tongue, as you well know), my excellent grasp of the law (as garnered in law school), and my superlative grasp of common sense. All of which you appear to sorely lack.

respecting (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/respecting)

With respect to; concerning.

The basic rules for when to use "An" (http://www.world-english.org/articles.htm).

an = indefinite article (not a specific object, one of a number of the same objects) with vowels (a,e,i,o,u)
Can I have an apple?
Donata is an English teacher.

establishment (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/establishment)

1.
a. The act of establishing.
b. The condition or fact of being established.
2. Something established, as:
a. An arranged order or system, especially a legal code.
b. A permanent civil, political, or military organization.
c. An established church.
d. A place of residence or business with its possessions and staff.
e. A public or private institution, such as a hospital or school.
3. often Establishment An established social order, as:
a. A group of people holding most of the power and influence in a government or society. Often used with the.
b. A controlling group in a given field of activity. Often used with the.