Islam: 8-year old girl seeks divorce from 30 year old man

[Schuhart]

One of the church fathers stated that Mary died at 43, if Jesus died at 33, that would make the conception and birth at least two years earlier than first proposed. I also believe the Hebrew word almah (????) and its biblical usage lends weight to a young marriage.

'One of the Church Fathers' sounds like something that isn't canonical, but feel free to post up a relevant link. I take it you'll then be open to accepting the tradition that Mohammed attempted to include some verses in the Quran supplied by Satan.

As I understand it, the word 'Almah' both suggests she was a young woman, and casts doubt on the suggestion that she was a virgin - which is, of course, a mistake shared by both the New Testament and the Quran.

Divine law states that upon the onset of puberty a young woman is marriageable, she has made a physical transition from childhood to womanhood. There is no fixed age and nine seems quite early, though it may have been normal then.

So basically if she's physically capable of conceiving, she's eligible.

Western secular thought is no guide at all, it simply bows to the will of the majority.

Then what has changed that makes what Mohammed did unacceptable today?

[color=#408000]Perceptions, societal acceptance/rejection/ life expectancy?

In other words, Western secular values about people needing to be old enough to have competence to make decisions about their own lives.

Muhammad doesn't fit the profile of a pedophile

Perhaps, but he certainly put it about.

Bloody hell a kaafir telling me I'm not a Muslim, that's takfir!

Still, there's something I can't quite put my finger on.

Look, if you want to believe that God gave us a book that explains everything, via a guy who shagged a nine year old, you really do have to expect some condescension.

Why do you have to get abusive about it, is that what your atheism teaches you? To show and pour scorn upon belief?

Well, atheism doesn't actually 'teach' anything at all. But it certainly does mean that scorn can be directed at beliefs that deserve it.

[Riadach]

OK, I can see you want to forget that you posted up a case of an individual apparantly destroying a host in the middle of mass, as you can presumably see it doesn't help you.

It might have something to do with the fact that it is not a separate instance. It was merely a reduced version of the second. The second one was clearer so I posted it to help explain the issue involved. It was not the case of him destroying the wafer, it was the case of him taking the wafer. I have explained this twice now.

On the question of the Communion wafer, for what its worth if I have to attend a Mass (say a funeral or whatever) I actually don't take Communion, as I'm an atheist and I feel it would be unfair to Catholics to treat it as a bit of bread for the optics. So, indeed, perhaps unwittingly, the guy in that example did cross a line he shouldn't have. In the middle of someone else's religious ceremony.

I think your distinction doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Now I have asked you, do you think it was the disruption of the religious ceremony itself or the case of the blasphemy involved towards the communion wafer that inspired such a reaction? Would you imagine they would have demanded his death and rioted had he disrupted the ceremony in a non-blasphemous way? Or had he blasphemed, involving the communion wafers on the street in the middle of the village, would it have been ignored? It would be ridiculous to state that religious individuals leave their sensitivities at the threshold of the church/mosque door.

No its not. I'm sorry to have to put it in these terms, but I feel it is simply a fact that if you cannot tell the difference between interfering with someones religious ceremony and commenting on a religion, you are simply too stupid to be bothered listening to. Yes, I have read that sentence again and I'm afraid that's what I think. You're just not making points with sufficient contact with reality to be judged as other than stupid.

The distinction you make is pointless. Absolutely pointless. Do you want me to state that I think it is wrong for an individual to disrupt an act of religious worship, then I will agree. But if want me to state categorically, that the reaction induced by a minor instance above, would be limited to the confines of a church then you're talking bunkum. The man meant no insult, he did not mean to disrupt the congregation, and he was threatened with his life. Such radical attitudes towards the sanctity of their religion, are not going to remain with the church alone. These individuals would clearly be just as easily insulted by a blasphemy which portrayed the object of their religious adoration as a pedarast. Do remember the point of comparison I made was not merely with commenting on a religion, but between the cartoon controversary and that instance of blasphemy. It's far enough to comment on it in relation to other instances of blasphemy.

(I really do not see the reason why you feel the need to be so insulting over something neither of us have a personal stake in either. That said, I'm not surprised.)

Can you appreciate that there is a difference between me burning a Quran in a Mosque in the middle of Friday prayers, and me (say) writing a letter to a newspaper where I say that Isalm was an invention of someone who knew how to use religion as a tool of statecraft?

I imagine the reactions would be the same if I burnt a quran in a mosque or burnt a quran in the middle of a populous muslim square, regards whether one was a disruption of the freedom to assemble, and the other was an exercise of free speech. Whether one act is legitimate to an impartial observer, and the other is not, is not going to affect the position of the vast majority of religious fundamentalists.

[L'Chaim]

I'm convinced. After all, the right of freedom of expression includes the right to walk in to a place of public worship in the middle of religious ceremonies and destroy the most sacred object you can get your hands on.

I'm off to the Mosque next Friday to burn a Quran to assert my basic human right.

So it does include the right to riot and threaten murder when something you hold sacred is defiled? Interesting.

Perhaps a more elucidating article here http://www.geocities.com/toelehoe/jp100205.htm

And before you mention it, I'm not trying to prove that christians are just as bad as muslims on the basis of this instance. I'm just illustrating that it's unfair to compare the standards of educated christians in western liberal democracies with predominantely uneducated moslems in eastern cultures, where democracy and freedom of expression are virtually unknown. A fairer example is to compare east with east. Muslims with their hindu and christian neighbours who have similar attitudes towards blasphemy, similar cultures and similar levels of education.

Now this bothers me a great deal. I bet you don't even see how racist that comment actually is. You treat Muslims with a racism that considers them so primitave that they can't be held responsible for what they do. This type of attitude really bugs me because it assumes to excuse all sorts of behaviour, because the people perpetrating this behaviour don't know any better and shouldn't be expected to be held responsible like normal human beings.

[madura]

You asked me if I could ever imagine christians reacting to christ being portrayed as a pederast in the same manner that Muslims reacted to the portrayal of Mohammed in cartoons.

I answered, on the basis of what I recounted above, that I do. Let's not assume that all christians are western liberal democrats who believe in freedom of expression or religion.

Well, I was aiming for a comparison of like with like, i.e. of global reactions to a disparaging remark or image about one's faith. Other posters have given examples. The bigger picture, ya know.

And please don’t ascribe naïve assumptions to me about the social/political context in which such things can occur. I’ve spent time in West Timor amd am well aware of the effect their status as a tiny minority has on the mentality of the Christian people in that part of the Indonesian archipelago. It doesn't make them unamenable to reason, though.

[Jozer]

Get ya own house in order.

http://www.slate.com/id/2188971/