"How early is too early?"

Well, 9 and 10 definitely are...!

18 is the legal age...

The EARLIEST I could see it ever being justified (and not so much now as in the past) would be about 15 or 16, but that's mostly for eras when we didn't live to 80 or 90.

I think 8 AM is definitely too early.

There are a number of news sources discussing it, Tolstoy.

I'm just surprised that, well, to put it lightly, nobody seems to care. Sure, there are the occasional human rights groups or womens' rights groups, but there's never really any backlash against these countries for insane lawmaking aside from some economic sanctions (at which point they threaten to take away our precious oil and we back off again).

16 is the legal age in the UK.

From what I have read, the official legal age for girls to marry in Iran is 13, not 9, but a girl can be married younger than that if there is a specific court ruling permitting the marriage. There is a huge debate going on in Iran because quite a lot of girls are being forced into marriage at 9 or 10 years old, many then going on to divorce their husbands at 16 when they are legally able to do so, and some politicians in Iran have suggested the solution would be to make 9 or 10 the official legal age limit. That seems like a foolish solution to me, I must say. The problem is that Sharia law does indeed say the minimum should be 9, but then many aspects of Sharia law are from a previous era and are centuries out of date...

"There are a number of news sources discussing it, Tolstoy."

Yes, there are - on all the official organs of the Islamophobia industry, like WND and frontpagemag. I googled "Iran marriage 9" and the only close to reputable news story I could find on the first few pages was an account of Ahmadenijad lamenting the fact that the average age at marriage for women in Iran is 25.

"there's never really any backlash against these countries for insane lawmaking"

Have you considered that this could be because the "insane lawmaking" isn't actually happening? Like the alleged law that was going to be passed in Egypt permitting necrophilia - it was actually a claim by one of the down-and-out Mubarakites in an effort to scare people into voting the Mubarak cronies back into power. It was taken in Egypt as seriously as allegations that Republicans will bring slavery back. Yet western media ran with it like it was actually going to happen.

"The problem is that Sharia law does indeed say the minimum should be 9, but then many aspects of Sharia law are from a previous era and are centuries out of date..."

That's a bit like saying that the age of consent in Christian law is 12, because that's what it is in some parts of Mexico. Or that Christianity encourages marriages between cousins, because that's what the Christian hill-tribesmen of Appalachia do. Sharia has as many different interpretations as it has had legal scholars (millions, or tens of millions) throughout history - everyone has an opinion, and in Islam (where for most of its history there has been no legal/religious hierarchy), the only way to 'judge' the validity of the interpretation is in how many Muslims actually follow it. Acording to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageable_age , the minimum age for marriage in nearly all Muslim countries is at least 15, and the mode seems to be 18 - which is a higher requirement than many US states, where marriage can occur as young as 13 or 14 with parental consent.

http://www.ask.com/wiki/Marriageable_age?o=2802&qsrc=999

http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm

@Speaker, Tolstoy ... I was a bit (i.e quite) misleading in the OP... the legislation has been proposed to move the age to 10 and 9. It's not law, but was proposed in the name of "upholding" Sharia law.

@Tolstoy "Christian hill-tribesmen of Appalachia" - That is hilarious. +1 just for that alone.

bo_sox, do you have any credible (and ideally, actually *Iranian*) sources for this proposed change? Even if someone actually *did* propose this, the lack of coverage in news sources that don't have an ax to grind against Muslims in general might indicate just how seriously the proposal was taken in Iran by actual Iranians.

@Tolstoy

You demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of Wahhabism and 12'er Shiaism, as well as how they are the official, state Sharia systems in Saudi Arabia and Itan. To compare a state system that is based off the Koran with in-breeding in Appalachia and child brides in Mexico is pathetic. Both of the examples you listed are illegal. Wahhabism and 12'er Shiaism are the law of the land, and the age of consent as nine years old is based off legal precedent established when the Prophet Muhammed consummated his marriage to Aisha when she was 9 years old (they got married when she was 6). Different times back then, I understand... but it's in the book, and the book is infallible according to Sharia interpretation.

I haven't seen anything suggesting how serious they took it, but it's the same kind of remark that got Richard Mourdock and Todd Akin in people's heads in the USA. Nobody took them seriously but they were completely serious.

The original source ("Mohabat News") labels themselves as "Iranian Christians" and supposedly is trying to replace the Bahar paper, which was banned in Iran. I don't see any information that explicitly says that they are operating in Iran but they do have services in Iran according to their own statements.

i have no idea what the age of consent in either of those two places, and the kind of information I read about Iran has nothing to do with marriages licenses. i just wanted to point out that your argument, while hilarious in format, was fundamentally flawed and you should probably re-evaluate what's coming out of your mouth before lamenting about the "islamophic" press.

"it's in the book"

No, dumbass, it's not. A'isha's age at the time of her marriage to Muhammed isn't mentioned at all in the Qu'ran. You referred to a hadith, not the Qu'ran. A hadith that is highly questionable when you consider all the other hadiths which would place A'isha's age at marriage to be in her mid or late teens at the time of her marriage (for instance, she was reported as accepting Islam in the first year of Muhammed's prophethood at the age of 7, which would've made her 17 or 18 at the time of her marriage).

Anyhoo, you're claiming that the 9-year-old-bride thing is a product of Wahhabism and Twelverism. Let's assume just for laughs that this is true. Considering that Wahhabism wasn't born until over eleven centuries after the marriage and the Twelfth Imam disappeared two and a half centuries after the marriage, why are we to believe that they have a better insight into how old A'isha actually was when the people who were actually there obviously knew she was much older?

As usual, Tolstoy is carrying water for fundamentalist Islam. It shows how far the termites can get when a so-called libertarian can argue for religious law, especially religious law that can even theoretically force children into pedophilic marriages.

"it's the same kind of remark that got Richard Mourdock and Todd Akin in people's heads in the USA. Nobody took them seriously but they were completely serious."

Exactly my point. Why should we take it seriously if Iranians themselves don't (even if it's true, which I'm not yet convinced of)?

Is there actually anyone on this site that currently lives in the Middle East? Someone who can actually attest to the age of marriage in these countries?

"As usual, Tolstoy is carrying water for fundamentalist Islam. It shows how far the termites can get when a so-called libertarian can argue for religious law, especially religious law that can even theoretically force children into pedophilic marriages."

Can you please point to where I'm "arguing for" religious law? I hardly think debunking war propaganda is equivalent to trying to defend the validity of what said propaganda is claiming. Or is debunking "Huns" tossing around babies on bayonets somehow a defense of bayoneting babies?

What war propaganda? You are a lunatic.

When all else fails, call 'em nasty names.

And yes, "Muslims are baby-rapers! Look at this poorly sourced hadith I found!" is really nothing but an article of propaganda - especially when aimed at a country which our masters have been actively beating the war-drums against for a decade or three.

We beat war drums against Saudi Arabia? Go back to Info Wars with your paranoia.

Can't you read? We're talking about Iran here.

"I disagree that children under 13 are forced into marriage in Iran"

"LOOK AT YOU SUPPORTING RELIGIOUS LAW AND ENCOURAGING PEDOPHILIA"

Hrmmm. Also last time I checked it's Yemen that has the lowest age of consent in the world, not Iran? And well, Yemen has a lot of things wrong with it.

At any rate, for an excellent debunking of the idea that A'isha was 9 at the time of her marriage, read this:
http://www.islamawareness.net/FAQ/what_was_ayesha.html

Tostoy, if you think that everybody is wrong about the age of Aisha, please head on over to Wikipedia and lead the effort to debunk the 7 or so sources that are cited to discuss how there is disagreement over whether she was 9 or 10 when the Prophet consummated his marriage with her. And, I suppose, when I said it is in the "book," I should have specified that it was included in the generally accepted Hadith.

This isn't some one-off imam claiming something new, it's something that has been accepted by the Umma for centuries.

i also think that you're being ridiculous.



I don't buy into the whole Mohammed as a pedophile line. Granted, i think it's a bit weird - but I also think that it's weird that priests are celibate.

wikipedia is an infamous bastion of anti-Muslim bigotry (although it has gotten better the last couple of years). The sources listed on the "Aisha" page all fall into one of two categories: western writers (relying largely on western sources, most of which are severely out of date), and the hadiths with the questionable isnads (or Tabari, which relied on them) which my link in the previous post does an excellent job of pointing out.

"This isn't some one-off imam claiming something new, it's something that has been accepted by the Umma for centuries."

The idea that it is "widely accepted by the Umma" is debatable, but that aside, the fact that something might be widely accepted doesn't make it historically factual. The fact that 1) the "9 years old" hadiths essentially are all traced back to one single source in his old age (when his mental faculties were apparently on the decline), and 2) there are numerous other hadiths with differing narrators and subjects that would put A'isha's age at 17 or 18 at the time of marriage both to me prove that she was substantially older than is claimed by the "Muhammed was a pedophile" crowd.

"i also think that you're being ridiculous."

Apparently you're not the only one, but a man without critics is a man without purpose.

@Tolstoy ... "Exactly my point. Why should we take it seriously if Iranians themselves don't (even if it's true, which I'm not yet convinced of)?"

Why did we take it seriously? Because it's a big deal that people are still that stupid. That's why.

"And yes, "Muslims are baby-rapers! Look at this poorly sourced hadith I found!" is really nothing but an article of propaganda - especially when aimed at a country which our masters have been actively beating the war-drums against for a decade or three."

Now you're stretching it again. I'd be the last person to call Muslims anything like that, first of all, and second of all, nobody here has, nor did the article. It may not be unbiased, but there isn't a media source that is anymore - maybe NPR. Maybe. Give me a fucking break.

When did Wikipedia become an "infamous bastion of anti-Muslim bigotry?" Please, point to a page, point to a scholarly article (because I can actually take it for what it's worth and nothing more). Tell me why everyone categorized into "western writers" is incapable of writing about things that happen somewhere else.

If you want me to go the same route you did, your site is amazing at completely thrashing Judaism and making it the worst thing next to the fires of hell.

tl;dr - Your link is shit, your claims about Wikipedia are shit. I don't know a thing about the Quran or Aïcha, but I've never seen anything but 9 or 10 at consummation of marriage.

@semck - I agree! 8am is much, much too early.

"Why did we take it seriously? Because it's a big deal that people are still that stupid."

Except we have yet to see any credible evidence that Muslims are, in fact, that stupid.

"I'd be the last person to call Muslims anything like that, first of all, and second of all, nobody here has, nor did the article."

Surely, you're not so ignorant as to be unaware that "Muhammed was a pedophile" is one of the battle-cries of anti-Muslim bigots everywhere? By asking aloud whether "various nations really pushing for this in the name of Sharia law?" (never mind that they aren't), did you think you were somehow not fanning these flames?

"When did Wikipedia become an "infamous bastion of anti-Muslim bigotry?""

Like I said, it has gotten better. But you know those "Criticism of Islam/Muhammed/______" pages? That's what the main articles used to read like. It got so bad that the mods had to step in and put an end to the reign of the Islamophobes over the Islam articles. The "Criticisms of Islam" category of articles (the first such, I believe) had to be created to appease them.

"Tell me why everyone categorized into "western writers" is incapable of writing about things that happen somewhere else."

So if every wikipedia page on Judaism was written by non-Jews, you would be okay with that? Why must people be forced to permit others to speak for them when they are fully capable of speaking for themselves?

"I don't know a thing about the Quran or Aïcha, but I've never seen anything but 9 or 10 at consummation of marriage."

If you are ignorant about such basic things as the Qu'ran, might it be safe to say you are probably also ignorant about the intricacies and details of Muslim marriage law?

"The idea that it is "widely accepted by the Umma" is debatable, but that aside, the fact that something might be widely accepted doesn't make it historically factual."

Since when was the Koran, Islam, or Sharia based on Historical Fact? I mean, the Koran has stories about the prophet riding a magical flying horse ...

>opens thread
>sees stupid argument
>checks OP
>bo_sox

oh, right

"Except we have yet to see any credible evidence that Muslims are, in fact, that stupid."

There you go again. You're defending Islam. Nobody is attacking it. And, last I checked, stupidity doesn't stratify itself into religions.

"Surely, you're not so ignorant as to be unaware that "Muhammed was a pedophile" is one of the battle-cries of anti-Muslim bigots everywhere?"

Point out where I said that, please. Once again, you're defending against an attack nobody's making. Also, the member of Parliament is specifically quoted as saying, "To do otherwise would be to contradict and challenge Islamic Sharia law." I didn't make that up. I enjoy how you challenge every basic tenant of this site yet you forget to actually look at it.

"So if every wikipedia page on Judaism was written by non-Jews, you would be okay with that? Why must people be forced to permit others to speak for them when they are fully capable of speaking for themselves?"

I'd be fine with that. That's why there's moderation. If they are blatantly and/or intentionally wrong, someone else jumps in and fixes it. It doesn't have to be a Jewish person.

"If you are ignorant about such basic things as the Qu'ran, might it be safe to say you are probably also ignorant about the intricacies and details of Muslim marriage law?"

I am ignorant of the Quran in the sense that I haven't read it, but not so much that I can't speak of it in everyday conversation, though based on your previous responses I'm breaking some unwritten moral code by doing so.

Did you even read your OP? Using one Parliament member's opinion on Sharia law to justify your original statement that "Iran lets 9 year old girls get married" is like using Richard Mourdock's comments last fall to justify the statement that "the USA forces all rape victims to carry pregnancies to term." And you haven't read the Qu'ran, but you're commenting on it like you know what's in it and attempting to hold a conversation about the meaning of its contents.

Yes, you're breaking an unwritten code -- the unwritten code of "not being an ignorant moron." The bad news is, it's a pretty bad one to break; the good news is, you're not alone! Many people have rejected this maxim all together, so for better or worse, you have company.

bo-sox - do you ever read what you write? This last post is so full of contradictions I'm surprised the internet didn't just explode...

You can' defend if there is no attack. If you are seeing someone as "defending", then you obviuosly see an attack, yet you say there is none. Contradiction.

Your ignorant of the Quran, have never read it...but you are fully capable of speaking about it in conversation. Contradiction...and blatant stupidity...number two.

"challenge every tenant of this site..." Uh....don't even know what that means...but if not a contradiction of something, it is at least, again, another stupidity.

Stop posting before you break the forum.

More important question -- why is Bo-sox so worried about the suppoed age of consent or whatever? What's the matter? Right hand getting a little tired and/or overdeveloped as compared to the left? Looking for someplace to migrate to where you can get some action after you convert to Islam?

The depths into which you plunge me, OP. I just gave krellin a +1. Now I need to go shower to clean the metaphorical (and maybe literal, who knows what happens next?) stain off my guilty conscience.

I find this discussion very helpful and want to thank all its participants

Bo-sox sent me a PM. From henceforth on he wants to be called, "Spanky" in honor of his right-handed activities. He is also soliciting advise from Yellowjacket on how to work it over with his left hand without getting callouses in the beginning so as to balance out the currently imbalanced musculature in his biceps....

Alright the winner of this thread, without further ado...

One of webdip's finest writers....

Semck! Let's all give semck a big round of applause and move on with our lives.

My grandmother always told me that if there wasn't any grass on the infield, go play in the mud. She also called a broken bottle a "nigger knife" so take it with a grain of salt.