when both parties have attained puberty, ie. they are physically and mentally mature.

There's your answer.

Quote:


I'd like to consider it something different to the act you describe as 'rooting'.

Quote:


In small tribal based societies like that, it was known. People would know when someone had reached the age.

Quote:


If marriage occured prior to the age of maturity, the couple would not move in together, and consummation would not occur, not until menstruation begins. At which point it's known the girl is ready to move in with her husband.

I am well aware you're obviously quite sheltered and small minded, and not really aware that other cultures exist, or that the world hasn't always been exactly as it is today, but that's just how it was in all societies back then. You can attempt, in futility, as mozza has been, to try and judge societies of 1400 years ago by todays social conditions and laws, but it's just ridiculous. Anyway I think enough of your questions have been answered, and you're just going into pointless details that serve no benefit in discussing this issue. That's they way pretty much all societies functioned back then, and it was just normal. Do some research, step outside your comfort zone, and realise the world hasn't always been as it is today, and even today it's not the same everywhere as it is in your particular little town.

Pretty dishonest representation of the facts there Abu.

To steer the argument about what may or may not have been culturally acceptable 1400 years ago is not what we were really arguing about.
The whole point was you, and others justifying mohammeds actions as being divinely inspired and the perfect example for a devout person to emulate, therefore morally right throughout all ages, including today.

You know that the matters we were discussing are considered totally unacceptable by any decent human in todays world, and sought to try and avoid answering that point, which you never did.

I am happy to drop it because I have accepted you are incapable of honestly discussing it, but I will not sit back and let you pretend you have answered this point, when you have only evaded it.

Quote:


Since I believe him to be the best of creation, I have no doubt he acted with nothing but the highest of ethnical and moral character.

But his example is not even the point here. The point is that many men in that time, married women who today would be considered under the age of consent in Australia. And if you look at the table of ages of consent under 14, there's still many countries today in which people can marry at any age so long as they've reached maturity (most of those with 'no set age' fall into this category). They aren't doing anything wrong, their cultural norms just happen to be different to ours. And it's no different to if in 200 years time the age of consent creeps up to 21, and people look back on this period in time as being so barbaric, as people in Australia actually took advantage of poor little 16 year old girls.

You have to stop looking at this from your own cultural lens, and accept a lot of humans are different to you, and that you're not morally superior to them, because your society happened to raise the age of consent to 16 over the past coupla centuries.

Stop lying Abu.

Your pathetic evasion must end.

It is illuminating that your knowledge of Islam forces you to lie about it, so people will not know what it teaches.

Quote:

Sorry, the book you like takes it beyond that, koran 65/4

Quote:


Marrying a child is not a normal thing to do Abu, it is wrong, the child has no power to choose. The Koran has no age of consent, THAT IS THE WHOLE FLIPPIN POINT.

Quote:


Because we do not have the Sharia law that people like you call for, you are hoping to see it introduced but being deceitful about what it will allow.

While we are on the subject, what does the koran prescribe as the punishment for molesting children?

Nothing, that's what.

How can it be considered a crime when it is enshrined by the actions of the prophet?

It seems you can incur a death penalty for just about anything in
islam, not wearing socks could gather you a hundred lashes, but not a word about sexual molestation of children being wrong.

So enough of the lies, you cannot defend the indefensible.

I think that even your biased approach can recognise that the difference between the examples you give, and Islam, is that nobody is saying we should change our sexual norms to follow charlemagne's example, we do have muslims saying that everything mohammed did was prescribed by god, and therefore the right example for a moral person to follow.

Ergo, marrying infants is fine, having sex with children is fine, if you marry them, and as for what you can do to women and children that you capture in battle, that does not even bear thinking about.

We just want muslims to say that yes, mohammed did have different sexual norms than we do today, and it is therefore unacceptable for muslims to use his life as justification for marrying and having sex with children any more.

We want to live morally in a modern world, and we accept that many of the practices of ancient times are now unacceptable, even if mohammed did them.

This is a really interesting interview. Follow the link for the full story.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/the-infidel/story-e6frg8h6-1225869...

SOMALIA-born author, feminist and former Dutch politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali talks about Western apologists, why moderate Muslims don’t speak out and the spread of Saudi-style Islam.

Greg Callaghan: You were a pious Muslim in your teens. You even once supported the fatwa on writer Salman Rushdie. What, more than anything, was the catalyst for your dramatic change of opinion on Islam?
Ayaan Hirsi Ali: For years I met Muslim women in very difficult circumstances, victims of terrible domestic violence, forced into miserable marriages, but I sought to avoid connecting the dots, blinding myself to the link between the indoctrination of the religion and the oppression of women and lack of individual, free choice. My five years at the University of Leiden [in the Netherlands], enjoying a democratic culture, walking around in a society where men and women are equal, started to change my perspective. The events of September 11 cemented it. I later became the face of Muslim women who had sought freedom in Holland. Unlike white commentators, hamstrung by the fear of being labelled racists, I could voice my criticisms of the feudal and religious mechanisms that were holding Muslim women back.

It’s been six years since you wrote the script for the controversial film Submission and film-maker Theo van Gogh was murdered by an Islamic extremist. Are you still living under heavy security?
I’m sorry, but I really can’t talk about my security arrangements.

In your new book, Nomad, you say that liberals in the West are far more uncomfortable condemning the ill treatment of women under Islam than conservatives. Why do you think this is so?
Liberals tend to think collectively about ethnicities, cultural groups and religion. Freedom of the individual tends to be a lesser notion. Thus a liberal might be more reluctant to interfere in the case of a Muslim father physically abusing his daughter out of some misplaced respect for cultural difference. A conservative, being more concerned with individual rights – and perhaps less subject to political correctness – would be more inclined to speak out against the wrongdoing. Liberals too often fall back on the notion that governments can solve all problems and “rescue” people who have been told they are victims of the system. Rather than speak out against totalitarian practices under Islam, they shuffle their feet.

Isn’t it also the case that journalists, usually to the left of politics, happily criticise Christianity for its abuses while letting Islam off the hook?
The term “Islamophobic” has been invented to slam anyone who dares to criticise the religion. It’s nonsense, a convenient way of avoiding honest, critical scrutiny. If I criticise George Washington, I am not defaming Americans, for example. This non-critical, morally empty attitude towards Islam helps no-one, least of all its own believers. Those who insist on a black-and-white view of Islam conveniently overlook the variations within the faith itself, between Sunni and Shia, for example. The Saudis spend over $2 billion annually on their public relations machine, hiring some of the best PR firms and lawyers to protect their ideology. People in the US and Europe are taken to court for criticising Islam, and this makes the media more cautious. It is a process of muzzling free speech.

Why don’t moderate Muslims in the West speak out more often? We don’t see them forming mass demonstrations against terror attacks in their own homelands – the US or the UK – when they occur.
Most Muslims are instinctively appalled by the violence committed in the name of Islam. But as to why they don’t demonstrate in the streets when a terrorist strike in their home country – the US, Britain, Spain – occurs, this isn’t an easy question to answer. Whenever a terrorist strike happens, the local Muslim communities suffer a backlash. Radicals like to present this as Islam under threat, of course, when it is no such thing. It’s not always easy for young Muslims to speak out. People who do this face a lot of rejection from their families and their communities. But yes, one of the best things they could do to defend the image of Islam would be to demonstrate against terrorist attacks. This would be a big shock to al-Qa’ida.

Following the republication of the Danish cartoons of Mohammed, a group of demonstrators in London recently held up signs saying “F… Democracy” and “Save Islam”…
It is a fallacy that Islam is under siege. The zealots and extremists love instilling this in the minds of young Muslims to unite them in anger, to make them feel victims of discrimination, to be more aggressive in their demands. Most of their parents fled to Europe, the US or Australia to escape hardship and discrimination in their homeland, often sacrificing everything to carve out a better life for their children. In the West they have been offered free health care, programs to learn English, get jobs, and a culture that encourages tolerance, and allows them to express their viewpoints. Most of these young Muslims in the West have no idea what it is to live under an Islamic dictatorship. Zealots tell them to “fight” but they have no real idea what they’re fighting for.

abu_rashid wrote on Aug 25^th, 2008 at 9:03pm:


The difference is that with hormones flying everywhere, its not that hard to take advantage of the emotions of teenagers. People are now asking for the drinking age to be raised to 21 because prior to that, the brain is still at a crucial development stage. Personally, I think the point of maturity is at least this age, not when menstruation starts...