View Thread

Atheists Today » Religion » Islam
Who is here? 1 guest(s)
 Print Thread
Koran Backs Sex Before High School
neilmarr
A middle-aged Moslem cleric's recent marriage to a twelve-year-old girl has been defended by other high profile clerics who say it is not forbidden by the Koran.

The guy is reported as having plans for two more tenny-brides aged seven and nine.

Police in Indonesia (where state law prohibits marriage to a girl under sixteen) are under some pressure to prosecute. But Hilman Rosyad Syihab, the deputy head of the Islam-based Prosperous Justice Party (PKS), says: "It is not a problem under Islamic law."

The AFP story's here: http://www.news.c...public_rss

Neil
 
RayvenAlandria
Not surprised at all. Their prophet married a prepubescent child.

It is sickening that the police would not be inclined to prosecute pedophiles just because their religion says it's okay to marry a child. The large majority of society(and it's laws) say otherwise. Respecting religious beliefs gives people loopholes to do heinous things. What if some serial killer asserts that it is within his/her religious rights to murder people, would those religious rights be respected?
 
Nails3Jesus0
Islam has no problem justifying murder, misogyny, etc. Pedifilic rapists in their clergy would only seem fitting.
 
neilmarr
The big problem is that modern societies with hard-won secular laws that override the codes of ancient scripture still bend over backwards to accomodate such out-dated nonsense.

At the risk of again opening a can of worms, I'll remind you that sharia law is now sanctioned by government to rule on certain areas within the UK legal system. I am not suggesting that Britain will see a sudden wave of legalised pedophilia, merely that the scriptural law of any religion no longer merits respect, far less official recognition in secular society.

Neil
 
Doubting Thomas
This guy should get with that Tony Alamo, the wacko Christian cult leader who claims that the age of consent is puberty because someone in the bible married a 10-year-old.

I guess when you get different people taking different ancient books of superstition literally, you get stuff like this all over the world.

Just because the Koran doesn't specifically say that something is wrong doesn't make it right. It doesn't say that I can't dance around naked in my front yard smeared in peanut butter with an Ipod shoved up my ass, but it would be disturbing behavior to say the least.

(not that I'm going to dance around in my front yard smeared in peanut butter with an Ipod shoved up my ass)
Edited by Doubting Thomas on 10/29/2008 10:54
You're just jealous because the voices are talking to me and not you.
 
neilmarr
Sure, DT. But just as ignorance of the law is no excuse, neither is awarenes of ignorant law. Neil
 
derF
Doubting Thomas wrote:
Just because the Koran doesn't specifically say that something is wrong doesn't make it right. It doesn't say that I can't dance around naked in my front yard smeared in peanut butter with an Ipod shoved up my ass, but it would be disturbing behavior to say the least.

(not that I'm going to dance around in my front yard smeared in peanut butter with an Ipod shoved up my ass)


I've never tried it with an Ipod. Hmmm.
I'll drink to that. Or anything else for that matter.
 
catman
neilmarr wrote:The big problem is that modern societies with hard-won secular laws that override the codes of ancient scripture still bend over backwards to accomodate such out-dated nonsense.

That is the core of the problem. The secular laws are trumped by the ancient superstitions.
"If I owned both Hell and Texas, I'd live in Hell and rent out Texas." - General Sheridan
 
willie
Seriously Neil, I am beginning to wonder about your mental health. You've already made it clear you are unable or unwilling to understand the bigger picture, yet still you persist in just making stuff up. Where in this piece does it even suggest 'bend[ing] over backwards to accommodate such out-dated nonsense' ?

At least you are consistent in your knee jerk interpretation of snippets of news . Remember this...
neilmarr wrote:
But, already, we see in Europe secular courts excusing terrible crimes on the grounds of religion ... a judge in Germany recently ruled against a woman's divorce action against an abusive husband, for instance, on the grounds that his brutal daily beatings were sanctioned by the Koran.
Complete horse shit. Do you set out with the intention of propagating lies?

neilmarr wrote
At the risk of again opening a can of worms...
At the risk? What did you expect? What does the Indonesian legal system have to do with the UK, and especially your wildly inaccurate interpretation? I said before that I have no desire to hound you, but if you continue to spout crap I will call you on it. Remember, you backed out of your last pile of nonsense with a few platitudes, yet no defence based in fact. Starting a new thread doesn't take that away--or multiple threads, just look at the threads you've started in this section. Seriously, you need to get a grip.

neilmarr wrote:
I'll remind you that sharia law is now sanctioned by government to...
I can go over this again if it'll spare you from making the same stupid statement over and over.

RayvenAlandria wrote:
It is sickening that the police would not be inclined to prosecute pedophiles just because their religion says it's okay to marry a child.
Where is that the case? Or are you just going with the flow of baseless assumptions?

RayvenAlandria wrote:
Respecting religious beliefs gives people loopholes to do heinous things.
Where? Can you be more specific?

catman wrote:
That is the core of the problem. The secular laws are trumped by the ancient superstitions.
Are you talking about the story Neil linked? Or in general, where 'secular laws' (whatever that actually means) exist, where are they trumped by ancient superstition?
Edited by willie on 10/29/2008 17:48
 
willie
On that, can you, Neil or anyone, explain what this oft quoted 'secular law' means?
 
Sinny
Secular law must be supreme. As long as adherence to religious law is voluntary and religious practice does not defy secular law then that's fine. But secular law is the only law of the land that applies to all citizens. Religious courts should never be allowed to substitute or overrule secular courts. If a woman in England or America is granted a civil divorce, she is legally divorced.... whether her religion recognizes that divorce or not.

What happens when it's children. The state or civil law (secular law) must step in and overrule religious practices that violate human rights. In the United States, if a Jehovah's Witness or a Christian parent denies a child a life saving blood transfusion, the state will step in the best interest of the child and overrule a religious right to practice but what if it's a Muslim parent.

If adults wish to die for their religious beliefs, that is their right. But they have no right to make the same decision for their children. Therefore if Muslim parents try to cut off their daughter's clitoris, the state should step in, religious law shouldn't be considered. Unless the Muslim parent both voluntarily go to sharia court to decide if one decides it time to stop the practice. In America that is child abuse.

Just because the man is Muslim that shouldn't defy secular law and permit him to marry a minor regardless of his religious beliefs. Unless he lives in a Muslim Country where that is there law of the land and applies to all.
 
derF
As is reflected in California's initiative to ban gay marriage (Proposition 8) discussed on another thread here, the religious establishments are forever trying to force their opinions and beliefs on the rest of society. And they will not hesitate to stooping to supporting bills that would actually change the state's constitution in order to accomplish that goal. These people must be thwarted at every attempt. For if they ever succeed in changing a constitution to support their beliefs they will be emboldened to continue to overrule secular laws. Theocracy will begin to spread its diseased self into all aspects of government.
I'll drink to that. Or anything else for that matter.
 
General-Pryce
willie wrote:

neilmarr wrote:
But, already, we see in Europe secular courts excusing terrible crimes on the grounds of religion ... a judge in Germany recently ruled against a woman's divorce action against an abusive husband, for instance, on the grounds that his brutal daily beatings were sanctioned by the Koran.
Complete horse shit. Do you set out with the intention of propagating lies?


Actually it's not lies, it's just not 100% accurate.

The judge did not refuse a divorce, but refused a quick divorce, and included religious views in the decision.
.

"You were raised in the Moroccan culture. Such situations could be considered normal in your culture," the Judge said, "According to the sura Nisa in the Koran, man has dominance over woman. So, there is no need for you to get divorced urgently."


The country, legal system and Muslims publicly opposed this. The judge was removed and it was to be addressed anew. This is great, but the fact it had to happen is unsettling.

I think Neil's issue (and mine) is the fact that it took place at all, and that religion had even the smallest impact on it.

Links with the story:

[url]
http://www.omnine...Sharia_Law [/url]

[url]
http://www.spiege...29,00.html [/url]
 
catman
willie: I cannot fathom the reason(s) behind your vituperation. They aren't "snippets", they are complete news stories. Do you doubt that religious forces are constantly attempting to subvert secular law (law not based on supernaturalism) with their particular varities of hogwash? The ancient superstitions (and the more modern ones, such as Mormonism and Scientology) must not be allowed to take over the legal sphere.

Where are you coming from with all this, man? You're certainly entitled to your opinions, but I don't get it.
"If I owned both Hell and Texas, I'd live in Hell and rent out Texas." - General Sheridan
 
neilmarr
Often on these boards and at the old atheists.com, members have introduced stories of isolated incidents around the world that illustrate our general feeling against unwelcome religious interference in science and society. And we have all felt free to comment upon them.

Colllectively, such examples -- launching a cross into orbit, child marriage cults in the US, marines in Moslem countries handing out bibles, sharia law in the UK and elsewhere, religious pressures on governments, the establishment of creationist museums, the jailing of journalists for perceived religious insult, fundie Jewish pig-headedness in Palestine, etc, etc, etc -- make up a disturbing picture of what most of us here stand against.

I am puzzled that one particular religion should be considered off limits.

I thought twice yesterday about posting the story above because I had a feeling I'd have to read a response that appears to excuse unacceptable religious tradition. And not from a religious fundie, but from an alleged fellow non-believer.

It surprises and saddens me, here of all places, to have to remind anyone that I am an atheist and anti-religious, and will point out religious fault wherever I find it. I select no religion for my special attention and criticism. As my posting record in forums and articles here and there shows, I detest all religion equally.

The above story tells of a Moslem cleric who has just married a little girl with the blessing of Islamic law but against the modern laws of his country. Defend him and/or Islam if you like. That is not my job.

Best wishes. Neil

Neil
 
neilmarr
By the way, Willie, 'secular law' is clearly defined by many authories. A simple Google will do it for you or anyone else who may be confused as to the meaning of the term.

I will not argue fact (what's the point when another simple Google will back up all material I've presented as such in this thread and anywhere else).

Opinion in my posts is always clearly defined as my own. I am scrupulous about that. I respect anyone's right to disagree with that opinion and voice alternative views. But there comes a point when folks must agree to differ on matters of opinion or risk a fruitless squabble (hence what you call my 'platitudes' to defuse a potential pointless tiff in another thread).

The tone of your last post but one, Willie -- calling into question my mental health, accusation of deliberate inaccuracy, lies and stupidity, and its heavy hint of undue prejudice -- is uncalled for to say the least. And I will not pretend (as Rathpig might) that it is not deeply hurtful.

Like last time around, I refused to get involved in a childish slanging match with you or anyone else and will let what information I've presented as fact stand for the scrutiny of anyone who reads it and also stand by my right of free comment on issues ... which is, I believe, why forums like AtheistsToday exist.

Best. Neil
 
neilmarr
I just came across this on another site. Here, for those interested, is what Dr. Ahamad Al'Mu'bi, official Saudi Marriage Officiant, has to say about Islam and child brides.

I urge you to watch and listen to the official Moslem line, which -- in a nut shell -- is to follow the lead of The Prophet, who this man tells us married a girl of six but restrained himself from sex until she was all of nine years old! I guess that makes it OK, then.

http://www.youtub...k0_UvzjgnU

And no, Willie, I did not make this up.

Neil
 
willie
OK. I'll try address everything, although a lot is not pertinent to my post.
sinny wrote:
Just because the man is Muslim that shouldn't defy secular law and permit him to marry a minor regardless of his religious beliefs
No reasonable person would dispute that. Nowhere in Neil's link does it suggest this man is permitted to defy the law.

sinny wrote:
Unless he lives in a Muslim Country where that is there law of the land and applies to all.
Actually, thankfully, there are international laws that do prohibit this, although sadly under used.

Derf, your example on gay marriage make my point well. Not all Christian's can reasonably be portrayed as backward and homophobic by association, based on the actions of the likes of the westboro baptists. The debate on gay marriage is not divided along religious lines any more than 'thou shall not murder'.

You are of course correct, the religious do try force their agendas, as do environmentalist, capitalist, socialists, atheists, women, men, racists, etc. etc. Society should and does (in most cases) strive for a balance. That balance should be made with logic and reason, not by restricting what measure individuals use to form (even flawed) opinions.

General-Pryce wrote:Actually it's not lies, it's just not 100% accurate.

The judge did not refuse a divorce, but refused a quick divorce, and included religious views in the decision.
I'm well aware of the facts of the story, that's the point, I took the time to check them. Neil didn't, he just presenting an interpretation that fit his agenda, as you say, not 100% accurate --barely 10% accurate in fact-- this interpretation helps propagate lies. In that case, the misguided views of one judge were presented as representative of a whole legal system and a whole religious outlook. The redress from the legal system and muslim scholars that roundly rejected her view was all but ignored. I pointed that out and Neil refused to retract it. 'German court upholds sharia law' is a lie.
 
willie
Catman. First off, kudos for use of the word 'vituperation', a new word to me. The reason for my 'vituperation' (an opportunity to use it, not agreement it fits) is that I'm personally cross and upset. I come here for the good company, and reasoned and rational debate. What I see, in Neil's posts and the collective agreement of moral outrage, is baseless religion bashing for the sake of atheist (and western) unity and superiority. Lack of reason should be fought with reason, whether it comes from theist or atheists.

Among all of wrathpig's nonsense was his charge of 'the internet atheist religion' (and very telling was the reaction to him). I'm beginning to see his point. The Internet is full of people rallying around the atheist flag, often using irrational arguments against religion --particularly islam. Further this blanket demonisation of muslims is having serious repercussions on real people, who despite their silly religious beliefs are first and foremost people. I demand a higher standard. Sorry.

Catman wrote: They aren't "snippets", they are complete news stories.


The complete news story contained:

"Indonesian police are investigating..."

"has courted nationwide controversy"

"We are investigating the case. We are now gathering witnesses and then we'll look for evidence on what laws the man might have broken, and we'll follow up from there," national police spokesman Abubakar Nataprawira said."

"could be charged under a 2002 child protection law for forcing or trading a child into sex and for marrying below the legal minimum age of 16."

"The Government-backed Indonesian Child Protection Commission (KPAI) plans to question the cleric, the girl, her parents, the minister who married them and witnesses of the marriage."

"Under the Indonesian law, a woman must be at least 16 years old to marry."

From this Neil states "The big problem is that modern societies with hard-won secular laws that override the codes of ancient scripture still bend over backwards to accommodate such out-dated nonsense." Nowhere in this story would a reasonable person deduce Indonesia is bending over backwards to accommodate such outdated nonsense. At a stroke Neil implies the Indonesian people would rather see child abuse than question religion (and then, rather pathetically, conflates that with his already discredited views on the UK legal system). Others perpetuate his 'not 100% accurate' view. Including you...

Catman wrote:
That is the core of the problem. The secular laws are trumped by the ancient superstitions.
Simple question. Where is that the case?

Likewise, of the 200 million Muslims in Indonesia only 7% supported the PKS (political party quoted as backing this cleric). Assuming all of that 7% support the PKS on their extreme religious views (actually more likely to be due to their anti corruption stance, as that was the PKS's main platform), that leaves 93% of Indonesian Muslims with views unknown regarding Koran interpretation. Looking at the report '...courted nationwide controversy over his decision...' gives us some indication (without the boogeyman in mind) of that 93%'s view. Yet Neil chooses to go with the >7% and state 'Koran backs sex before high school'.
Edited by willie on 10/30/2008 15:59
 
willie
neilmarr wrote:
Often on these boards and at the old atheists.com, members have introduced stories of isolated incidents around the world that illustrate our general feeling against unwelcome religious interference in science and society. And we have all felt free to comment upon them.
Sure, and there are far too many cases worth highlighting. Blowing isolated incidents out of proportion and making stuff up is not necessary or welcome. Note I ignored your first post, nothing wrong there, good post. I only stepped in, as I have before, when you started making stuff up.

Simple question. Where in this case is anyone 'bending over backwards to accommodate such out-dated nonsense.'?

neilmarr wrote:
I am puzzled that one particular religion should be considered off limits.
You tried this line before, to no avail. I have never disputed your right to criticize any religion. I have challenged you to be factually accurate. Hiding behind this straw man is silly.

neilmarr wrote:
I thought twice yesterday about posting the story above because I had a feeling I'd have to read a response that appears to excuse unacceptable religious tradition.
Another stupid straw man. Rise to the challenge, Neil. Show me where I excuse the actions of this cleric and show where this case implies Indonesia is 'bending over backwards' . Put up or shut up.

neilmarr wrote:
And not from a religious fundie, but from an alleged fellow non-believer.
Alleged non believer? Really. My non belief does not come above reason and rationalism. You've got to question your ability to debate sensibly when you resort to 'not true atheist'.

neilmarr wrote:
The above story tells of a Moslem cleric who has just married a little girl with the blessing of Islamic law but against the modern laws of his country.
This story tells of a man, an Indonesian, a businessman, a muslim, a cleric (we can only guess at whether he prefers his orange juice with or without lumps) who has broken the law and is being investigated by the law of that land and has caused national controversy. This story tells of some muslims (who's orange juice preference is also unknown), who believe this marriage is not a problem under Islamic law.

What it does NOT do...

Is state that the 'Koran backs sex before high school'

Suggest that societies are bending over backwards to accommodate out dated nonsense, religious or otherwise.

Make a link between the actions of a man in indonesia and UK law.

State that police in Indonesia are not inclined to prosecute pedophiles because of religion.

Or state that there is a core problem of ancient superstitions trumping secular law.

These are all inflammatory opinions expressed in this thread. Nothing to do with the story.

neilmarr wrote:
Defend him and/or Islam if you like. That is not my job.
Very George Bushesque. You're either with us or against us, eh? So I question you on your diatribe and you conclude I must therefore be defending a pedophile muslim. It's clear how pathetic that is, I'll leave it there.
 
Jump to Forum:

Similar Threads

Thread Forum Replies Last Post
Boston and Free School Meals The Lounge 3 09/06/2013 12:00
Color photos from Mars (High Res) Science articles, papers and posts 8 08/31/2012 10:56
School-Homing Funny Zone 5 09/28/2010 20:16
Texas Seeks to Limit Portrayal of Islam in School Texts Christianity 2 09/17/2010 02:02
School Rubber Fetus Ban Being Fought in NM Christianity 2 08/05/2010 03:56