Learn why it is perfectly OK for a 40 year Muslim old man to marry a 10 year old.

[boyntonstu]

This video, although limited in scope, gives a picture of Islam that I think you will be glad you saw.

Learn why it is perfectly OK for a 40 year Muslim old man to marry a 10 year old.

(The result was an immolation suicide.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0SS_ud9qO8

Did you know that Islamic child adoption is forbidden?

Do you understand the problem?

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by boyntonstu

This video, although limited in scope, gives a picture of Islam that I think you will be glad you saw

Because it illustrates that just because Fox News has lost the health care debate doesn't mean that the right wing has stopped telling lies.

Quote:

Do you understand the problem?

Yes. Do you?

[TimCallahan]

drkitten, could you elaborate? The issue of women in Islam is so emotionally charged that critical thinking is often the first casualty. As to some of the horror stories concerning women in Islam - such as those in the video - I've heard them from many sources. Thus, I don't think the whole thing was made up by Fox News. That said, there seem to be plenty of women in Islam who lead happy fulfilling lives. So what is your take on the situation?

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

So what is your take on the situation?

My take on the situation is that every thread started by boyntonstu starts with a complete misrepresentation of reality, cut and pasted from some highly slanted part of the right-wing echo chamber. They're all slanted, distorted, and in many cases entirely re-written to represent, not the facts, but the world as boyntonstu wishes us to believe it exists.

Even if the particular facts alleged in the posting were true -- and I see no reason to believe them to be -- it's just another instance of heavy-handed politically motivated cherry-picking. Obviously, all Muslims are barbaric because he managed to find footage of one particular tragic incident.

Check his posting history. He's never posted anything honest yet, and I see no reason to believe that this is any different.

[Praktik]

huh - well you learn something new every day - guess NAMBLA is a muslim organization then, eh?

[McHrozni]

Originally Posted by drkitten

Because it illustrates that just because Fox News has lost the health care debate doesn't mean that the right wing has stopped telling lies.

Hm. What is the lie she's telling? That child marriage is sanctioned in Islam? That brainwashing is a problem in Islam? That Islam is an inherently totalitarian religion?

Quote:

Yes. Do you?

What is the problem, according to you?

McHrozni

[HansMustermann]

_My_ take would be that "Islam" covers as wide a spectrum of human beings as Christianity or Judaism or Buddhism or Shintoism or, really, whatever.

Sure, you can find nutters (especially among the Wahhabi sect and derivatives) which insist on taking an ancient nomads' fairy tale as real and applicable to the modern day. And I'm not going to defend those.

But then equally you can find nutters in Christianity who think gays should be killed, because _their_ fairy tale said so, and got at least one country to enact such a law. Or those who let a sick child die without medical attention, because _their_ god said so. Or those who crucified a nun and left her to die on the cross, over three ****** days, to drive her "demons" out. (And those were a monk and a couple of nuns that did that, so I'd say their religion might have had something to do with it.) Or those parents who beat a 7 year old girl literally to death, with a piece of plastic tubing, hitting her again and again until the little tissue destruction from each hit accumulated into something fatal. Apparently just following some pastor's recommendation for how to teach children proper Christian obedience. Etc. I'll stop here because just enumerating these gets my blood boiling already.

On the topic of Islam, yes, their fairy tale is stupid and outdated. So is the Christian fairy tale. And so is the fairy tale of the Jews.

And in their case there are plenty of Muslims who take it as little more than symbolic advice, and have no real desire to have Sharia laws or put their wife in a burqa. Just like there are plenty of Jews who supposedly follow the Tanakh but don't feel particularly inclined to apply the laws from, say, Leviticus instead of secular justice.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

_My_ take would be that "Islam" covers as wide a spectrum of human beings as Christianity or Judaism or Buddhism or Shintoism or, really, whatever.

Got it in one. "Muslim is evil because of this one girl" is as nonsensical as the idea that "Harvard is evil because the Unabomber got a degree there."

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by McHrozni

Hm. What is the lie she's telling? That child marriage is sanctioned in Islam?

That's one of the lies, yes.

[The Fallen Serpent]

Originally Posted by boyntonstu

This video, although limited in scope, gives a picture of Islam that I think you will be glad you saw.

Islam is no more monolithic than any other faith that counts millions or billions of adherents. The picture at best represents a major movement within the faith.

Quote:

Learn why it is perfectly OK for a 40 year Muslim old man to marry a 10 year old.

It is a sad state that so many still hold to this belief.

Quote:

(The result was an immolation suicide.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0SS_ud9qO8

Did you know that Islamic child adoption is forbidden?

That is not accurate. Instead of adoption in which the child becomes for all intents and purposes becomes the same as a biological child, Islam requires such a relationship be a fosterage and actual biological parentage recognized fully.

Quote:

Do you understand the problem?

Likely we disagree on what that is. I think it is a confluence of believing in irrationality (what I would call any religion) with a backwards cultural area of the world. The American Muslims I have known appeared to be as well adjusted and protective of their women and children as Christians and Jews. Which means one extreme horrible people and on the other quite kind people who just happen to have a few silly magical beliefs that have little bearing on their everyday lives.

[Roadtoad]

While I agree in part with what's been said, we still have the tale of the nine year old Yemeni girl who was married to a much older man, IIRC. And we have Imams in their own words telling Muslim men how to beat their wives. But Hans is correct in that you have the nutcases on each side, and it's not representative of the whole.

More evidence, please, not more "evidence."

[Praktik]

Well just look at North America in the 19th century - girls were marrying young here then too...

[Tarot_Is_A_Card_Game!]

The man is 4 times her age. 4:1
In 5 years, he will be only 3 times her age 3:1
In 20 years, he will only be twice here age 2:1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xpTjMhdIA0

[Roadtoad]

Originally Posted by Praktik

Well just look at North America in the 19th century - girls were marrying young here then too...

Valid point. I had an aunt in the 1800s who was married at 13. It was only scandalous when Jerry Lee Lewis did it in the '50's.

[HansMustermann]

Queen Mary of the Scots was married when she was 6 months old, and that was in the middle of the 16'th century. Hardly the dark ages. Obviously the marriage wasn't supposed to be consummated yet, but there we go.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by The Fallen Serpent

Islam is no more monolithic than any other faith that counts millions or billions of adherents. The picture at best represents a major movement within the faith.

Well if you look at some, they are much more monolithic than Islam.

[Roadtoad]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

Queen Mary of the Scots was married when she was 6 months old, and that was in the middle of the 16'th century. Hardly the dark ages. Obviously the marriage wasn't supposed to be consummated yet, but there we go.

Exactly. We don't have the high ground, here, folks.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

Queen Mary of the Scots was married when she was 6 months old, and that was in the middle of the 16'th century. Hardly the dark ages. Obviously the marriage wasn't supposed to be consummated yet, but there we go.

Those marriages were political arraignments and had specific clauses making sure they would not be consummated. I have not heard of there being child marriage in Europe on the level of say India. Of course there seems to be very little broad muslim support for child marriage either.

[TimCallahan]

One absolute measure, free of cultural considerations, by which to judge how acceptable is a marriage between an older man and a child bride is the onset of puberty. Biologically, girls of nine or ten aren't ready for sex.

As to reforming Islam, possibly the best way is to increase the flow of knowledge, technology and urbanization in the Muslim world. We won't do that by declaring all Islam the enemy. I suspect the horrors of young girls married off to old men, women virtually sold into slavery through a marriage contract and women having their ears and noses cut off by the likes of the Taliban are more the horrors of barbarous tribalism than of Islam per se.

Unfortunately, when the modern world catches up with tribal societies, the religious conservatives, seeing the potential loss of their power, become increasingly virulent. So we can expect more outrageous pronouncements from various ayatollahs and imams, more assaults on school girls, more acts of terrorism and continuing violence between Sunni and Shia militants for some time to come.

[HansMustermann]

AFAIK most of those marriages in India are just arranged marriages too. Which really isn't that far off from what everyone else has been doing for a lot of time.

Plus, since we're in one of Boyntonstu's threads, in Judaism a woman can be married as early as the age of 3 (THREE!), subject only to the judgment and authority of her father. Or whatever senior relative has jurisdiction over her, if her father is dead or missing. A girl who reaches 12 years and 6 months of age and isn't married yet, has the designation of "overripe" ("bogeret"). Which kinda tells you something.

So, you know, I believe that the proper expression is "WTH?" Our resident die-hard proponent of a religion that sanctions marrying a girl at 3, is outraged at another religion's allowing it at 10? Hypocrisy much?

I'm not versed in the laws of Israel, but considering that to the best of my knowledge the only kind of marriage recognized there is the religious one, I'd be curious if there is anything there which would prevent a 40 year old from marrying a 10 year old.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

AFAIK most of those marriages in India are just arranged marriages too. Which really isn't that far off from what everyone else has been doing for a lot of time.

Sure, but moving in with your inlaws at 9 is a bit much.(and of course illegal, but still not uncommon in some areas of india)

[HansMustermann]

Maybe, but really the only question is whether sex is actually involved or not. Otherwise really it's just equivalent to a weird form of adoption. I mean, sure, probably that girl would be happier to be with her real parents instead, but then again we don't forbid putting children up for adoption in these parts either. Or for that matter sending them to some boarding school.

[I Am The Scum]

The fact that the most holy prophet of Islam did this stuff is a lot more damaging to the religion than the acts of some random Yahoo.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

The fact that the most holy prophet of Islam did this stuff is a lot more damaging to the religion than the acts of some random Yahoo.

Not really, any more than the fact that Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son to YHWH damages Christianity.

[I Am The Scum]

The difference there is that God actually stopped Abraham from abusing a child. But both scenarios make the religions look like trash, so I don't know why you would go there.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

The difference there is that God actually stopped Abraham from abusing a child. But both scenarios make the religions look like trash, so I don't know why you would go there.

Because boytonstu didn't start this stupid thread with lies about how bad Christianity was.

[I Am The Scum]

Oh, so you're going into a tu quoque argument. Gotchya.

[HansMustermann]

I believe that a tu quoque is in fact the apropriate thing to do when debating which religion is worse than which. It's a bit hard to _compare_ if you look at only one side.

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

The fact that the most holy prophet of Islam did this stuff is a lot more damaging to the religion than the acts of some random Yahoo.

The most holy prophet of Islam IIRC also forbade sex with her until she has her first menstruation (look up the concept of "baligh" in Islam in regards to marriage some day.) I don't recall any such restriction in Judaism, but I trust some of our more educated posters on the domain will fill in the blanks.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

Oh, so you're going into a tu quoque argument. Gotchya.

I guess in "I Am The Scum"-speak, "tu quoque" translates to "you got me."

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by McHrozni

Hm. What is the lie she's telling? That child marriage is sanctioned in Islam? That brainwashing is a problem in Islam? That Islam is an inherently totalitarian religion?

Primarily the lie is that all these things are true for all of "Islam". There are a number of Islamic nations, and the laws on these issues differ. Some Islamic countries have relatively progressive policies on these matters, and others less so.

I suspect brainwashing is no more a problem in Islam than it is in Christianity.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

I believe that a tu quoque is in fact the apropriate thing to do when debating which religion is worse than which. It's a bit hard to _compare_ if you look at only one side.

I agree. (Just catching up with this thread.)

[I Am The Scum]

Originally Posted by drkitten

I guess in "I Am The Scum"-speak, "tu quoque" translates to "you got me."

No, it means that distracting from a claim of negative quality by pointing out that the negative quality is shared by others does not refute the point. If you think "You too" is equivalent to "Not me," then you might wanna read that link again.

And for the record, tu quoque arguments are not valid. "X is worse than Y" is not a specific point. If someone makes an accusation of "such-and-such is immoral," stating that the person making the claim engages in the practice does not address the point. The fallacy hinges on either distraction, or the unspoken proposition that the activity becomes moral by virtue of that individual partaking in it. One is dishonest, the other is quite silly.

[DC]

its alot better children get just abused by Christian priests, isnt it?

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

No, it means that distracting from a claim of negative quality by pointing out that the negative quality is shared by others does not refute the point. If you think "You too" is equivalent to "Not me," then you might wanna read that link again.

And for the record, tu quoque arguments are not valid. "X is worse than Y" is not a specific point. If someone makes an accusation of "such-and-such is immoral," stating that the person making the claim engages in the practice does not address the point. The fallacy hinges on either distraction, or the unspoken proposition that the activity becomes moral by virtue of that individual partaking in it. One is dishonest, the other is quite silly.

Nobody claimed that screwing a 9 year old is good or moral. Well, nobody on this forum.

_If_ anyone thought they're proving that, then, yes, a tu quoque would be a fallacy. It doesn't make it moral, obviously.

But it seems to me like when the whole thrust is that a culture or religion is in some way inferior, then that is inherently a comparison. Inferior compared to whom? If we're to condemn the Muslim wholesale as barbaric, then barbaric compared to whom?

ETA: If we're to tell them to change to be more like, say, the bigots waving the anti-Islam banner, is that change an improvement? Or is it like Freud getting his friend addicted to a stronger drug to save him from a weaker one? It's a valid question. You have to compare both ends of that road before telling someone that they better get their crap packed and walk that road.

And since we're talking fallacies: is the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy somehow a valid way to condemn the Islam? Because cherry-picking such things as if they were the common denominator for all Muslims is a textbook example of that fallacy. It seems to me like showing that equally bad examples can be cherry-picked for everyone else is actually a very good way to show and refute that fallacy.

[I Am The Scum]

I see your point, HansMusterman. Comparisons, by definition, rely on a difference between two things, and pointing out that a given property is a similarity would negate that point.

And good call on the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. I had never thought of how it applies in this manner. Would you agree, though, that there can be a connection drawn between the actions of Mohammad (the most perfect Muslim, many say), and the actions of those that follow the religion? Islam is a prescriptive philosophy. As most any religion, it tells us what we ought to do.

Note: I'm not comparing Islam to any other religion here. I think they're all pretty awful in their own special ways.

[boyntonstu]

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

I see your point, HansMusterman. Comparisons, by definition, rely on a difference between two things, and pointing out that a given property is a similarity would negate that point.

And good call on the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. I had never thought of how it applies in this manner. Would you agree, though, that there can be a connection drawn between the actions of Mohammad (the most perfect Muslim, many say), and the actions of those that follow the religion? Islam is a prescriptive philosophy. As most any religion, it tells us what we ought to do.

Note: I'm not comparing Islam to any other religion here. I think they're all pretty awful in their own special ways.

Let's see.

If we compare what a religion allowed 2,000 years to that of another religion that does the same thing today, is it a fair comparison?

Let's imagine without leaping too far, that a country practices slavery today.

Would we be OK with their slavery, because our country made it legal 150 years ago?

[I Am The Scum]

Originally Posted by boyntonstu

Let's see.

If we compare what a religion allowed 2,000 years to that of another religion that does the same thing today, is it a fair comparison?

Let's imagine without leaping too far, that a country practices slavery today.

Would we be OK with it, because our country made it legal 150 years ago?

I don't quite follow. But to work with your example, if there was a doctrine which stated that we ought to behave as those people from 150 years back, then yes, we would absolutely be justified in criticizing those actions, and drawing a correlation between those who follow this doctrine, and their actions.

[Cainkane1]

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

drkitten, could you elaborate? The issue of women in Islam is so emotionally charged that critical thinking is often the first casualty. As to some of the horror stories concerning women in Islam - such as those in the video - I've heard them from many sources. Thus, I don't think the whole thing was made up by Fox News. That said, there seem to be plenty of women in Islam who lead happy fulfilling lives. So what is your take on the situation?

My take on the situation is this. Women living happy and fulfilling lives in Islam woud be even happier if they were outside of Islam. Same goes for fundamentalist xcian women too.

[boyntonstu]

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

I don't quite follow. But to work with your example, if there was a doctrine which stated that we ought to behave as those people from 150 years back, then yes, we would absolutely be justified in criticizing those actions, and drawing a correlation between those who follow this doctrine, and their actions.

Exactly!

Watch the video again and listen carefully to her words.