Joined: 24 Sep 2008 {Posts: 102 } Location: Santiago, DR
Posted: Mon 20 Oct 2008 19:05 Post subject:
DH, you always seem to have an answer - except most if not all of your info about Iran is wrong. You seem to forget a best friend of mine is Iranian and his family and parents still live there. It isn't anything like you apparently are led to believe - this is from Iranians who live in Iran for goodness sakes.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1301 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Mon 20 Oct 2008 19:17 Post subject:
chip wrote:
DH, you always seem to have an answer - except most if not all of your info about Iran is wrong. You seem to forget a best friend of mine is Iranian and his family and parents still live there. It isn't anything like you apparently are led to believe - this is from Iranians who live in Iran for goodness sakes.
Please state what I said was incorrect point by point and stop making broad general statements.
What did I say that was incorrect?
Are you saying Persian Zorocastrian women did not wear veils? Are you saying Muhammad did not somewhat look up to and respect Persia and took this tradition from them? Are you saying the Qu'ran states that women must cover their body from head to toe? Or cover their face?
The guy who wrote the book where I got the info is also Iranian and is a U.S. citizen and Ivy League educated.
I'm not concerned with your friend. My wife is Japanese and barely knows jack about Japanese history. A good % AMericans can't even find states on maps or even know where Mexico is.
Joined: 24 Sep 2008 {Posts: 102 } Location: Santiago, DR
Posted: Mon 20 Oct 2008 19:26 Post subject:
Dragon Horse wrote:
I'm not concerned with your friend.
Exactly, I think we can extrapolate that you aren't concerned with anything or anyone that doesn't agree with you.
It is apparent that you didn't read my post where I stated that my friend left when he was 18, already an adult mind you. He is in constant contact WITH HIS FAMILY THAT STILL LIVE THERE.
I'm finished with you dude, you are obviously only interested in your agenda, whether narcissistic or otherwise, who knows.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1301 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Mon 20 Oct 2008 19:33 Post subject:
chip wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
I'm not concerned with your friend.
Exactly, I think we can extrapolate that you aren't concerned with anything or anyone that doesn't agree with you.
It is apparent that you didn't read my post where I stated that my friend left when he was 18, already an adult mind you. He is in constant contact WITH HIS FAMILY THAT STILL LIVE THERE.
I'm finished with you dude, you are obviously only interested in your agenda, whether narcisstic or otherwise, who knows.
Good day
I'm concerned with facts and firm evidence, something you have in short supply.
As I said you have not stated specifically what you take issue with. If you actually bothered to back up what you said I would take you seriously. So far what you come with is a lot of stereotyping, broad general statements, and personal attacks.
You don't need to tell me who you are friends with. Tell me in detail what you know and back it up.
"You Know Who I'm Friends With" went out with the Sopranos tv show.
YOu also have to remember that before Islam, in Arabia most women had little standing in the community and were basically slaves to their father or husband. If Muhammad hated women he would not have given them so many rights (like the right to acquire property from inheretance). Muslims would have have followed Muhammad's wife Aliyah into battle...etc.
As with most things...over time people twist religion to suit their own purposes, cultural norms, attitudes, etc.
Yes but not equal rights in any appreciable sense. Women under Islamic law inherit half of what a man inherits. There testimony in court is worth half of a man's as well.
Muhammad didn't hate women, but he was like any other man from the 7th Century from that part of the world; he saw women as beneath him, and although he ended such things as infanticide of females, he still allowed himself more than four wives and had sex with a child who was probably around nine years of age. People like him did those kinds of things back then, but he isn't as Muslims see him- the perfect human being whose example is timeless and a man without sin.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1301 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Mon 20 Oct 2008 20:03 Post subject:
G-Man wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
YOu also have to remember that before Islam, in Arabia most women had little standing in the community and were basically slaves to their father or husband. If Muhammad hated women he would not have given them so many rights (like the right to acquire property from inheretance). Muslims would have have followed Muhammad's wife Aliyah into battle...etc.
As with most things...over time people twist religion to suit their own purposes, cultural norms, attitudes, etc.
Yes but not equal rights in any appreciable sense. Women under Islamic law inherit half of what a man inherits. There testimony in court is worth half of a man's as well.
Muhammad didn't hate women, but he was like any other man from the 7th Century from that part of the world; he saw women as beneath him, and although he ended such things as infanticide of females, he still allowed himself more than four wives and had sex with a child who was probably around nine years of age. People like him did those kinds of things back then, but he isn't as Muslims see him- the perfect human being whose example is timeless and a man without sin.
Oh I agree.
I'm not exactly pro-Abrahamic religions.
Jews are not really an issue because they do not try to convert people in mass and most of them do not follow the Torah and the Talmud strictly. Those who do, don't believe in female equality either.
I can point out similar disturbing things in the bible...and Judaism is full of them...the difference is most Jews and most Christians do not follow the "letter of the book". IN fact I"m convinced that most CHristians (at least in America) do not read the bible outside of selections from their minister/priest. THey constantly talk about "god is love"...uhm...well...I can make a serious argument that is not reality and many Jews (who do not have the new testement) who are orthadox tend to agree with my interpretation.
It clearly shows in the bible how "God" approved and ordered Israelites to commit genocide on people, it states no where in the bible a man can only have one woman and many of God's most "loved" men in the Old Testement had multiple wives, concubines and they were never EVER rebuked for that.
The bible talks about the relationship between a man and a wife...it never states number. MOst wealthy jews had multiple wives. THe idea of "one wife" came from Rome, where a man could have only one "legal wife".
Christianity was really created as an organized movement in urban Roman cities long after Jesus died.
According to my bible even Paul said women should not speak in the church and should cover thier hair in the church.
He states it clearly. The vast majority of "Christians" do not follow the Prophet Paul.
The bible also says a man can "discipline" his wife and she must "obey" him. Slaves should also obey their masters.
Uhm...most of us who were raised Christian were not taught those things in the latter half of the 20th century.
Problem with Islam is it is as legalistic as Judaism, actually more, and they proselytize on top of that, so they feel their "laws" are universal.
That is problematic.
The problem with Christianity, historically is that many of the text are so vague and lack firm structure that various people (Popes, Protestant kings and Bishops, etc) were able to manipulated far away from its original meaning or just disregard large areas.
It could have happened, but I have never heard of a BUddhist Holy War. Have you?
If it did happen it was very rare and definately not as common as the Islamic and Christian equivalents.
The reason is the idea to "convert" or force Buddhism on someone is just crazy and makes no sense in the Buddhist context. You can talk to people about it and give them knowledge. BUddha also talked about "the gods" [hindu ones] but never claimed to be a god and never talked much about the gods or even a soul.
Most Buddhist sects don't believe Buddha was a god, in the Abrahamic concept...so there is no conflict, for example in Japan for someone to be Buddhist and practice many Shinto ideas...there is no conflict in China between Doaism and Buddhism.
These things that there is only one God and he is for everyone is a Abrahamic tradition and obviously can be manipulated for xenophobic reasons. Once you say "We are on the side of God" and these people are destined for hell and against God..." you set up a slippery sloap.
My wife is still facinated by all the religious wars in the West and Middle East/Africa historically.
Joined: 24 Sep 2008 {Posts: 102 } Location: Santiago, DR
Posted: Mon 20 Oct 2008 20:14 Post subject:
G-Man wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
YOu also have to remember that before Islam, in Arabia most women had little standing in the community and were basically slaves to their father or husband. If Muhammad hated women he would not have given them so many rights (like the right to acquire property from inheretance). Muslims would have have followed Muhammad's wife Aliyah into battle...etc.
As with most things...over time people twist religion to suit their own purposes, cultural norms, attitudes, etc.
Yes but not equal rights in any appreciable sense. Women under Islamic law inherit half of what a man inherits. There testimony in court is worth half of a man's as well.
Muhammad didn't hate women, but he was like any other man from the 7th Century from that part of the world; he saw women as beneath him, and although he ended such things as infanticide of females, he still allowed himself more than four wives and had sex with a child who was probably around nine years of age. People like him did those kinds of things back then, but he isn't as Muslims see him- the perfect human being whose example is timeless and a man without sin.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1301 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Mon 20 Oct 2008 20:18 Post subject:
chip wrote:
G-Man wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
YOu also have to remember that before Islam, in Arabia most women had little standing in the community and were basically slaves to their father or husband. If Muhammad hated women he would not have given them so many rights (like the right to acquire property from inheretance). Muslims would have have followed Muhammad's wife Aliyah into battle...etc.
As with most things...over time people twist religion to suit their own purposes, cultural norms, attitudes, etc.
Yes but not equal rights in any appreciable sense. Women under Islamic law inherit half of what a man inherits. There testimony in court is worth half of a man's as well.
Muhammad didn't hate women, but he was like any other man from the 7th Century from that part of the world; he saw women as beneath him, and although he ended such things as infanticide of females, he still allowed himself more than four wives and had sex with a child who was probably around nine years of age. People like him did those kinds of things back then, but he isn't as Muslims see him- the perfect human being whose example is timeless and a man without sin.
Are you saying we don't have pedophilia in America? Are you saying that in AMerica Christian men (Jerry Lee Louis comes to mind) did not marry their 12 and 13 year old cousins in churches?
In the past girls menstrated earlier as the life span was shorter...that should be taken into account.
Joined: 24 Sep 2008 {Posts: 102 } Location: Santiago, DR
Posted: Mon 20 Oct 2008 20:35 Post subject:
Dragon Horse wrote:
Are you saying we don't have pedophilia in America? Are you saying that in AMerica Christian men (Jerry Lee Louis comes to mind) did not marry their 12 and 13 year old cousins in churches?
In the past girls menstrated earlier as the life span was shorter...that should be taken into account.
I'm coming to the conclusion that you will say anything to make your point. I find myself questioning why should I even debate with someone who can't understand that substance and truth are more important than making an argument.
Nonetheless, infants have never menstruated and comparing one crazy individual with little or no following to an icon who is no doubt followed by millions is another example yet again of comparing apples to oranges. I would say nice try but this is getting a little ridiculous.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1301 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Mon 20 Oct 2008 20:50 Post subject:
chip wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
Are you saying we don't have pedophilia in America? Are you saying that in AMerica Christian men (Jerry Lee Louis comes to mind) did not marry their 12 and 13 year old cousins in churches?
In the past girls menstrated earlier as the life span was shorter...that should be taken into account.
I'm coming to the conclusion that you will say anything to make your point. I find myself questioning why should I even debate with someone who can't understand that substance and truth are more important than making an argument.
Nonetheless, infants have never menstruated and comparing one crazy individual with little or no following to an icon who is no doubt followed by millions is another example yet again of comparing apples to oranges. I would say nice try but this is getting a little ridiculous.
You're debating?
Wow.
Like I said I'm no fan of any religions that have come out of the middle east.
YOu also have to remember that before Islam, in Arabia most women had little standing in the community and were basically slaves to their father or husband. If Muhammad hated women he would not have given them so many rights (like the right to acquire property from inheretance). Muslims would have have followed Muhammad's wife Aliyah into battle...etc.
As with most things...over time people twist religion to suit their own purposes, cultural norms, attitudes, etc.
Yes but not equal rights in any appreciable sense. Women under Islamic law inherit half of what a man inherits. There testimony in court is worth half of a man's as well.
Muhammad didn't hate women, but he was like any other man from the 7th Century from that part of the world; he saw women as beneath him, and although he ended such things as infanticide of females, he still allowed himself more than four wives and had sex with a child who was probably around nine years of age. People like him did those kinds of things back then, but he isn't as Muslims see him- the perfect human being whose example is timeless and a man without sin.
Are you saying we don't have pedophilia in America? Are you saying that in AMerica Christian men (Jerry Lee Louis comes to mind) did not marry their 12 and 13 year old cousins in churches?
In the past girls menstrated earlier as the life span was shorter...that should be taken into account.
Yes, pedophilia happens in the West, but it is illegal and such DEVIANTS are considered mentally ill or criminals. We do not NORMALLY throw weddings for 13 year old girls in the West, now do we? LOL!
You can play situational ethics all the day long, but what is considered moral and ethical TODAY? Such practices (child marriage, female circumcision, honor killings, etc) are not considered legal, ethical or appropriate TODAY (except in some towns in Asia/ME). The difference is that in MODERN TIMES, women are equals or legally protected under the law, despite religious convention. We can all thank Christianity for that! And yes, European culture, based upon Christianity too!
Girls are not married off TODAY at puberty except in backwards cultures.
YES, some cultures are better than others! I don't care who or what Christian, Jew, or Muslim married whom in 1400 AD or 1940. I'm talking about these practices being condoned TODAY. They are not.
Furthermore, the Bible does not condone pedophilia like Islam (i.e Mohammed) and even if it did (it does not), such practices are illegal and shunned TODAY. Not so under Shariah law.
Did you know rape victims are hanged in IRAN under Shariah Law?
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — A 19-year-old female victim of gang rape who initially was ordered to undergo 90 lashes for "being in the car of an unrelated male at the time of the rape," has been sentenced to 200 lashes and six months in jail for telling her story to the news media.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311848,00.html
The reason is the idea to "convert" or force Buddhism on someone is just crazy and makes no sense in the Buddhist context. You can talk to people about it and give them knowledge. BUddha also talked about "the gods" [hindu ones] but never claimed to be a god and never talked much about the gods or even a soul.
Um, tell that to these people!
Radical Buddists - Amid growing violence in Sri Lanka that Church leaders have likened to the 'killing fields' of Cambodia, Christians in the island are facing increased persecution from Buddhist extremists, Release International reported this week. http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=79&artid=20555
In the past girls menstrated earlier as the life span was shorter.
Source, please. I believe that the opposite is the case (age at menarche has been falling for centuries) due to improved nutrition. Also, barring accidents, disease, and murder, our species' natural lifespan has not changed in 120 ky.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1301 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Tue 21 Oct 2008 10:57 Post subject:
Frank:
I do know in the last 40 years women in many Western nations menstruate earlier than they did previously. There are all types of theories as to this..such as more body fat, which some feel can trigger early development in girsl...I have also seen people blame sexually imagery causing some type of mental trigure that produces sex hormones earlier. I'm sure you have heard of these.
As far as my claim, I will find the article I read this morning and let you look at it.
As far as average life span...it is pretty obvious the average life span has been increasing around the world.
As you mentioned, the main factor in this the relative lack of disease in childhood around the world due to better health care...early childhood disease does not only kill children in many cases but weakens them as adults reducing their lifespan.
Before the advent of antibiotics, modern standards of hygiene...people tended to live less.
So yes there is somewhat of an upward ceiling on the "natural life span" but to say the average life span met that ceiling in the past is not accurate.
Where are you getting information saying people's life span has not "changed in 120Ky"??
Like I said the way you worded it I would agree with but that is somewhat of a misleading statement as life span is not purely biological, it is a function of genes interacting with the environment. Still I can't figure out how they determined that people 120KY (I'm assuming this is a reference to people who came out of Africa) could live as long as today when we have not identified all the genes involved in aging. Is this based on skeletal information found?
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1301 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Tue 21 Oct 2008 13:19 Post subject:
fwsweet wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
In the past girls menstrated earlier as the life span was shorter.
Source, please. I believe that the opposite is the case (age at menarche has been falling for centuries) due to improved nutrition. Also, barring accidents, disease, and murder, our species' natural lifespan has not changed in 120 ky.
Here are some sources:
Quote:
Perhaps the more interesting finding is the correlation between menstruation and expected life span. The women were asked how long they thought they would live. Those who had reached menarche early predicted they would die at 75 on average, while those who reached menarche late expected to live until they were 85.
"It tells me that perhaps women who have been exposed to a stressful life are forced to develop earlier to gain independence and separation from their family," Dr Quinlivan said. "According to the old 'live hard, die young' principle, they expect a shorter lifespan than their peers."
Her findings support other research that points to environmental factors in determining the age of first menstruation. Dr James Chisholm, 28 an evolutionary biologist and academic at the University of Western Australia, is convinced of the link.
"Once diet and nutrition are at least adequate, then early emotional stress does seem to lower the age of menarche."
The theory goes like this: girls who experience trauma or violence in childhood tend to expect a shorter life than those who do not. It is this sense that causes the brain to trigger the pituitary gland early, and hurry puberty.
In the animal world, Dr Chisholm says, those species most at risk have the same impulse to survive and, in so doing, hasten their ability to reproduce.
Not only the ability, but the likelihood. Quinlivan's study has found that the average age of menarche in the teenage mothers was significantly earlier, at 12.1 years, than the older mothers, at 13.1 years. Although the age of menarche appears to have plateaued over the past 30 years and doctors believe it is unlikely to drop further, the move downwards has brought with it a number of health risks and few, if any, benefits.
Data from the 1996 Women's Health Australia longitudinal study found that the leading diagnosis in young women aged 18 to 24 was asthma and iron deficiency. In women aged 45 to 50 it was low iron and iron-deficiency anaemia. In other words, says Quinlivan, leading health problems for both groups have been caused by having more periods.
In Classical India...the average girl had her period at 12, which is similar to today. So while the average age of menarche was later in America in the 18th or 19th century and has dropped to (I believe 12.5 years old) in classical India, at least among the upper caste people it was 12.
Quote:
Data from the writings of Indian legislators during the period between ca. 500 B.C. and A.D. 500 have been used to study menarcheal age among girls born in classical India. As these legislators were concerned mainly with the upper-caste population, it can be presumed that the recordings obtained are only from upper-caste Hindu girls. Throughout the period the age at menarche was about 12 years. A number of legislators considered the best age for conception to be around 16. When these data are compared with those obtained from classical Greece and Rome, the Indian age is found to be about 1-2 years earlier. Comparison of the data from the 19th century and present-day India reveals that the older data are about 0·8-2·2 years earlier when various areas are considered. These results contrast with the downward trend for the age at menarche seen in the industrialized countries during this century.
This would also set the Roman average to be about 13-14 years old. This was in Classic times.
My point here is to say it is not universally true that because the average age has dropped in Western nations in the last 150 years that everywhere in the world the average age of menarche was always at some point in the late teens. This could be a genetic difference, it could be a cultural difference, there are obviously many variables that go into this...from nutrition to psychological.
Now for the info on Saudi women specifically since this is most relevant to what the discussion
The Aisha case could be used as an argument by judges (e.g., Antoun, 1980:p465)[6]. Islamic marriage, as it is literally synonymous with coition, normally took place at age 12 or 13, and the Koran prohibits premenarchal consummation (Bullough, 1976:p214). This sensitises some contemporary authorities when, in a pamphlet dedicated to Allah, stating that "[s]exual desire is aroused in human being at the age of puberty", which would be "fifteen lunar years for boys and nine for girls" (Rizvi, undated:p59, 60)[7]. Motzki (1985)[8] states that in central Arabia around the 7th and 8th century A.D. ejarcularche (13, 14y) and menarche (13) primarily signified legal, political and social caesura, the minimal ages would have been nine and twelve (ten), respectively.
It is not unlikely that women in classical Arabia menstruation earlier or at about the same age as today.
If the average was 12 in classical India...without the variance we can not know how far the spread is but it appears that in Islamic society it has long been held that the lower bound was 9 years old, but that was not the average. The average was about 13.
I can not state for a fact that classical Arabia and the United States have the same variance, I"m going to assume a normal distribution if the datea was put on a bell curve, so there were a minority of girls, but they did exist, who menstruated at 9 years old.
Other factors obviously many factors go into if an individual girl begins to menstruate.
In any case, I'm not defending having sex with a 9 year old in our modern cultural context. That is not only illegal but to me personally abominable, but it was not always so in all societies.
[/b]
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1301 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Tue 21 Oct 2008 13:55 Post subject:
Frank:
i don't want to get too much off topic, but I was thinking about this some more. It could be that the average age of menstruation in Western countries have been effected by many of the same factors as height:
If this is true it has little to do with India and Arabia though, based on what I found above...
What I'm wondering is...did early menstruation somewhat parallel the trend in height...but inversely. So as people got taller (for whatever reason) the age of menarche got lower...
Joined: 24 Sep 2008 {Posts: 102 } Location: Santiago, DR
Posted: Tue 21 Oct 2008 14:34 Post subject:
Dragon Horse wrote:
In any case, I'm not defending having sex with a 9 year old in our modern cultural context.
You could have fooled me.
Dragon Horse wrote:
That is not only illegal but to me personally abominable, but it was not always so in all societies.
Oh how PC of you!!! Somehow because it is in a far away land it is ok? Are you also saying that Islamic law has changed regarding this topic?
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, The Supreme Leader of Iran, the Shia Grand Ayatollah, 1979-89 said in his official statements:
"A man can quench his sexual lusts with a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate. Sodomizing the baby is halal (allowed by sharia). If the man penetrates and damages the child, then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl, however, does not count as one of his four permanent wives. The man will not be eligible to marry the girl’s sister. It is better for a girl to marry when her menstruation starts, and at her husband's house rather than her father's home. Any father marrying his daughter so young will have a permanent place in heaven."
I have never seen somebody tapdance around the facts and conjure up and mix match information to save face as much as you.
Speaking of "but it was not always so in all societies." I suppose bestiality is ok
A man can have sex with animals such as sheep, cows, camels and so on. However, he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should not sell the meat to the people in his own village; however, selling the meat to the next door village should be fine.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1301 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Tue 21 Oct 2008 14:58 Post subject:
chip wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
In any case, I'm not defending having sex with a 9 year old in our modern cultural context.
You could have fooled me.
Dragon Horse wrote:
That is not only illegal but to me personally abominable, but it was not always so in all societies.
Oh how PC of you!!! Somehow because it is in a far away land it is ok? Are you also saying that Islamic law has changed regarding this topic?
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, The Supreme Leader of Iran, the Shia Grand Ayatollah, 1979-89 said in his official statements:
"A man can quench his sexual lusts with a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate. Sodomizing the baby is halal (allowed by sharia). If the man penetrates and damages the child, then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl, however, does not count as one of his four permanent wives. The man will not be eligible to marry the girl’s sister. It is better for a girl to marry when her menstruation starts, and at her husband's house rather than her father's home. Any father marrying his daughter so young will have a permanent place in heaven."
I have never seen somebody tapdance around the facts and conjure up and mix match information to save face as much as you.
Speaking of "but it was not always so in all societies." I suppose bestiality is ok
A man can have sex with animals such as sheep, cows, camels and so on. However, he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should not sell the meat to the people in his own village; however, selling the meat to the next door village should be fine.
I didn't tap dance around anything. I showed clearly that:
1) The average age of first menarche varies considerably due to social/psychological stress, individual biology, nutrician.
2) Different populations have had different average first menarche ages at different times. It is not true that because Americans 100 years ago did not begin their periods until their late teens that the trend is the further back you go the later the woman matured sexually or what have you.
That is clear from the INdian and Arabian research. There is no dancing involved.
As far as Iran.
Most Muslims did not ever and do not follow their Ayatollahs and most Muslims are not Shia.
There is are several differnet juresprudince (Fiqh) in the Islamic world.
There is no one concensus. There is no international Islamic Legal Council or Islamic "Pope".
Most Sunni Muslims follow Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki or Shafii, while most Shia Muslims follow the jaafari school of thought and are considered Twelvers. The laws are usually broken up by what is required (wajib), forbidden (haraam), recommended (mandūb), disapproved (makruh) or merely permitted (mubah)".
As far as Iran, either your source is false or it is no longer accurate (I would think the former)...
Quote:
June 23 2002 at 03:15PM
Tehran - Iranian authorities have approved a law to raise the age at which girls can get married without their parents' consent to 13 from nine and for boys to 15 from 14, newspapers said on Sunday.
The decision by Iran's Expediency Council arbitration body watered down a bill passed by the reformist-dominated parliament in 2000 which tried to raise the age of consent to 15 for girls and 18 for boys to cut teenage marriages and ease criticism of Iran's human rights record.
SNIP
That bill was vetoed by the Guardian Council, a 12-man body dominated by conservative clerics whose job it is to ensure legislation conforms to Islamic Sharia law.
SNIP
The arbitration body ruling does not change the age at which children can get married - nine for girls and 14 for boys - but says girls below the age of 13 and boys younger than 15 need their parents' permission and the approval of a "righteous court".
Being stopped or arrested by the moral police is a fact of life for many Iranian teenagers.
Previously arrested for attending a party and being alone in a car with a boy, Atefah received her first sentence for "crimes against chastity" when she was just 13.
Although the exact nature of the crime is unknown, she spent a short time in prison and received 100 lashes.
SNIP
However, the age of sexual consent for girls under Sharia law - within the confines of marriage - is nine.
Being that you can not marry anyone under 9 years old without their parents permission and the permission of the court in Iran (at least in 2002)...and a girl who was simply alone was a boy got lashed.
I'm pretty sure you can not have sexual relations with babies.
That is a very bias anti-Islamic site and I don't consider that a legitimate source and I"m pretty sure no one would allow you to source that for a newspaper article or scholarly paper...or even college class report.
So I will disregard anything from that place in the future.
I'm pretty convinced now you don't know anything about Islam at all but what you read on right wing sites.
Chip:
Please show me in the bible where it condems sexual relations with animals? Please show me in the bible where it states specifically a man can only have one wife or it comdems a man for having multiple wives. Please show me where it states an age of concent.
Chip if you want to play this game we can play it.
YOur bible:
Quote:
1 Samuel 15:2-4
2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
4 And Saul gathered the people together, and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred thousand footmen, and ten thousand men of Judah.
We call that genocide in 2008, dont we?
Quote:
Numbers 31:7-18 NLT
Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.
What do you think happened to these girls?
Did God dissapprove? NOPE.
Quote:
(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.
Do you think captive women were not raped??
Quote:
(2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB)
Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.'
This sounds exactly like what Pakistani Muslim tribal people did 3 or 4 years ago. Ordered a girl gang raped because her brother had sexual relations (non-rape) with a girl of another tribe.
The difference is this statement is from God.
Quote:
(Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB)
"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion."
Once again, kidnapping and forcing women to marry you (obviously rape happened)...
Quote:
Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)
Ravished means "gang raped". Romans were found of using this as punishment against enemies, so were the Greeks, and the Jews and their God seemed to approve of this.
As I said, the biggest difference between Jews, CHristians, and Muslims is that there are still a large percentage of Muslims who follow their holy book strictly and believe in converting others.
Joined: 24 Sep 2008 {Posts: 102 } Location: Santiago, DR
Posted: Tue 21 Oct 2008 15:25 Post subject:
I really don't need to make points if you are going to make them for me - thanks:
Quote:
Being stopped or arrested by the moral police is a fact of life for many Iranian teenagers.
Previously arrested for attending a party and being alone in a car with a boy, Atefah received her first sentence for "crimes against chastity" when she was just 13.
Although the exact nature of the crime is unknown, she spent a short time in prison and received 100 lashes.
SNIP
Dragon Horse wrote:
So I will disregard anything from that place in the future.
I'm pretty convinced now you don't know anything about Islam at all but what you read on right wing sites.
How convenient - don't even bother to check out the Ayatollah writing's by checking other sources.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1301 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Tue 21 Oct 2008 15:35 Post subject:
chip wrote:
I really don't need to make points if you are going to make them for me - thanks:
Quote:
Being stopped or arrested by the moral police is a fact of life for many Iranian teenagers.
Previously arrested for attending a party and being alone in a car with a boy, Atefah received her first sentence for "crimes against chastity" when she was just 13.
Although the exact nature of the crime is unknown, she spent a short time in prison and received 100 lashes.
SNIP
Dragon Horse wrote:
So I will disregard anything from that place in the future.
I'm pretty convinced now you don't know anything about Islam at all but what you read on right wing sites.
How convenient - don't even bother to check out the Ayatollah writing's by checking other sources.
I'm getting to the point where I think you are just trolling.
Whatever the Ayatollah said is obviously no longer in effect, the laws are quite clear and would not be law in Iran if the present religious athorities did not approve.
As I said also, most Muslims in the world do not follow the Iranian Clerics, most Muslims are not Shia (as are almost all Iranians) etc.
so I'm not sure how you think this represents Islam, being a religion of about 1 billion people, when Iran is 70 million that appears to no longer even believe in such talk.
In short you are saying 7% of the world Muslims were led by a dictator 30 years ago who said something bizarre and disgusting and that somehow represent what the other 93% of Muslims who have never followed that leader or even share his shame denomination of Islam in 2008...or that it even represents most Iranians in 2008.
That makes no sense whatsoever.
As far as the "moral police" or being arrested for being in a car with a man alone, blah blah.
I never said that was not the case...not once.
So whatever point you are making...has little to do with this conversation.
Also, as I said, I have no intention of attempting to verify obviously bias sources. Sorry, no one would do that in the real world and I won't do it here.
It is like you asking me to prove blacks are not biologically inferior based on the writings of a Skinhead.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
