I don’t want to harp on this issue too long, but I’m more or less forced to because of those who keep blaming every bad action of Muslims on the West or on “colonialism,” rather than features inherent in the faith itself.
One of those actions is child marriage, practiced by Muhammad himself, reputed to have deflowered his wife Aisha, whom he married at the age of six, at the ripe old age of nine. The practice does have a lot of cultural rather than religious background, and occurs in non-Muslim countries like India and Nicaragua, but is also officially endorsed by some schools of Islam.
The age of marriage and of sex varies among those schools, with some maintaining that one should not have intercourse with a woman (even if married younger) until she reaches puberty. That, of course, could be as young as 10 or 12. Other schools maintain that even pre-puberty intercourse is okay if it’s not “injurious to health.”
At present, the minimum age for marriage in Pakistan is 18 for men and 16 for women. The Wikipedia article on child marriage in Pakistan is very strange, avoiding nearly all mention of religion, though it does say that it’s sometimes “justified” by religion but in fact blaming it on foreigners:
The problem of child marriage is at times justified on the basis of religious foundations. Historically, it can be explained as a reaction to invasions by foreigners; desire to perpetuate the cult of the family by marrying the son early; by marrying the daughter early to escape the discredit caused to the family by the presence of grown-up maiden; or by desire of mother to marry her son early so that she may sooner obtain the possession of a daughter-in-law in whom the mother could inculcate her habits of obedience and who could share the domestic chores with the mother. In the case of parents, sometimes it is due to their keenness to relieve themselves of the responsibility of marrying their daughter. They are also considered socially acceptable for reasons of responsibility and economically desirable for saving marriage expenses, bride price\dowry.
Despite moves to raise the marriage age of women in Pakistan to 18, comporting with the age for males, those measures have been rejected, and a sizable proportion of women (20%) are married before 18, while 3% are married at 15 in violation of the law. In some provinces the proportion of illegal marriages is much higher. There’s clearly a reporting problem in getting good statistics.
At any rate, according to the Express Tribune, a measure to eliminate child marriages in Pakistan has been turned back as violating religious dictates:
Another move to ban child marriages in Pakistan has fallen at the first hurdle. The bill to prohibit underage marriages has been withdrawn after the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) declared it un-Islamic.
The ruling party lawmaker, who moved the bill, withdrew her proposal on Thursday following staunch resistance from the council, which advises the legislature whether or not a certain law is Sharia-compliant.
The National Assembly’s Standing Committee on Religious Affairs and Interfaith Harmony rejected the Child Marriage Restraint (Amendment) Bill 2014 after the CII dubbed it ‘anti-Islamic’ and ‘blasphemous’.
Last week, lawmakers in the Gilgit-Baltistan Assembly had also blocked a bill seeking ban on child marriages over similar concerns.
It’s hard to find solid information on this bill. Apparently many Pakistani girls are already being married in violation of the law, but these marriages are not reported. I gather the new bill would bring all marriages into compliance with the official law (also raising the age for women to 18), with stringent punishments for violation. The problem is that Pakistani law does not comport with the Islamic “law” that allows marriage at puberty (my emphasis):
The CII has already ruled the minimum age stipulated for marriage in the Child Marriages Restriction Act of 1929 does not comply with Islamic laws.
In May 2014, amid severe criticism from various quarters, the council had endorsed its earlier ruling that girls as young as nine years old were eligible to be married “if the signs of puberty are visible”.
From rt.com:
The rejected bill would have introduced tougher punishments for those entering into marriage with minors, including prison terms for up to two years. It also proposed raising the minimum age for marriage up to 18.
Current legislation is already in violation of Islamic law, according to CII, since it requires a minimum age of 16 for girls to marry.
In contrast, the CII believes that girls as young as nine could be married off, “if the signs of puberty are visible,” according to a May 2014 statement.
If this has nothing at all to do with religion, why are Muslims citing Islamic law when fighting this bill?
I have been debating numerous regressive leftists over the past few days regarding the rapes in Cologne.
They are trying their damndest to exonerate the Muslims, because Muslims are the most oppressed of all on the Oppression Olympics scale or something.
They are trying to blame white men for it. One commenter even said that ultimately we need to teach German men not to rape, because they ‘rape with impunity’ and that Muslim men will never learn as long as German men keep getting away with it.
They have also informed me, numerous times, that it is unfair to pick on Muslim men, because literally *everyone is capable of rape*. Everyone.
Another commenter even felt the need to tell a woman who was nearly raped by a Kurdish refugee to ‘shut up and listen’ because this kind of thing is not ‘new’ for Germany, as “Germans raped non-Aryan women en masse during WW2”
I am appalled.
Utterly appalled at the lengths the regressive leftists will go to protect actual misogynists.
Cannot argue with any of that. And rape continues to be a huge problem right here in the U.S. because of a pathetic justice system that prefers to put women on trial and protect the felons who commit the crime.
In a Muslim country like Pakistan where it is perfectly legal to marry children the women are doomed anyway and the crime of rape does not really exist.
Even in the U.S. the age requirement for marriage, state by state is too low. Marriage failure and all the other problems caused by young marriage seems to be ignored. The same people who do back flips when a gay couple marries see nothing wrong with a 16 year old getting hitched as they say, as long as ma and pa approve.
“Even in the U.S. the age requirement for marriage, state by state is too low.”
Beat me to it.
Well, to be fair, they raped plenty of Aryan women, too — unless you think the Lebensborn program was the SS’s version of match-dot-com.
Indeed.
At any rate, the woman said that this kind of thing had *never* happened in Germany, and the SJW had to reference Nazi Germany in an attempt to exonerate the Muslim rapists.
A smart person pointed out that comparing the Muslim rapists to Nazis wasn’t exactly flattering to the Muslims…
The main difference between Islamofascists and paleo-fascists circa 1930s Europe is industrialization.
We often hear that Germans are over-tolerant to Arab Muslim immigrants to compensate for their Nazi past. This seems illogical to me. Most victims of Nazi Germany were white Europeans, particularly Jews. (I remember the Roma victims, therefore I say “most”.) Despite their racism, Nazis had a major non-white ally (Japan) and had a “beautiful friendship” with some Arab Muslims, notably the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. Now, Ms. Merkel opened the floodgates to uncontrolled Muslim immigration, and who will suffer from this? The white Europeans, particularly the few remaining Jews of Europe. So, instead of atonement for Nazism, I see in the current policies re-enactment of some of its elements.
Here’s an article by an Algerian sociologist, (a woman) saying that the story in Cologne sounds rather familiar.
http://www.siawi.org/article10593.html
This should really be a chance for Germany to really start supporting Muslim women, as well as opposing the ingrained (though comparitively mild) bigotry here in Germany.
“At the heart of Tunis, a protest by secular feminists against Ben Ali: groups of young fundamentalists (there is evidence of their affiliation) surround the mostly women demonstrators, isolate them, attack them sexually…”
“Tahrir square, Cairo, the place where anti-government opposition meet: for the first time women in numbers take this opportunity to seize and exercise their citizenship rights; groups of young men (where they part of the Muslim Brotherhood or manipulated by them?) sexually molest hundreds of women demonstrators….”
“an Algerian sociologist, (a woman)”
The Regressive Left consider such people “native informants.”
Since they’re such big fans of history, here’s the actual precursor to Muslim migrant mass sexual violence from WWII:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marocchinate
As a feminist, I honestly view the regressive left and intersectional feminists as little better than rape apologists. If politics and racial paternalism trump you ability to condemn sexual violence, you are morally broken.
Thanks for the link Victoria!
Very interesting!
Nicely said! I very much agree.
The Chairman of the Central Council of Muslims in Germany declared on TV that no crime had taken place.
Merkel has gone from ‘Woman of the Year’ to useful idiot within 24 hours of the next.
Sometimes one does wearily sideways glance at the next tale of Islam-related wickedness: they’re as inescapable as the weather. x
How do you know that and can you supply a link please? I don’t doubt you, just want to be able to share it with others I know of the left who are trying to say “no biggie”.
Actually, his words were:
“The Muslim faith is irrelevant to these drunken men who do such disgraceful things. Not only are these things strictly forbidden under criminal law, they are also a mortal sin in Islam.”
http://www.dw.com/en/cologne-attacks-the-muslim-faith-is-irrelevant-to-these-drunken-men/a-18974781
BTW, searching for this, I found also that a Central Council of Ex-Muslims exists in Germany, with branches in other countries.
Apologies for the tardy response, df: I’ve been at work. Link here:
http://www.welt.de/vermischtes/article150985361/Massen-Vergewaltigungen-durch-Muslime-sind-Maerchen.html
+1
Well said, Victoria!
It’s always the male GI’s that are implied when the “war is hell” idiom is used. No one acknowledges it’s equally (and sometimes more) hellish for women.
I’m still struggling with the logic of the apologists that because rape is already a problem in the West, that it is okay for immigrants to commit mass rape/sexual violation.
It is appalling Heather, appalling.
All of this went down on Love Joy Feminism, a blog that PCC highlighted a few months ago, as the blogger was making excuses for the Charlie Hebdo killers.
One other quote, and I paraphrase, was that even if we teach Muslim men not to rape, that they won’t stop raping because “German men currently rape with impunity”.
Yep.
And, multiple people made sure to let it be known *everyone* rapes. Yes. Everyone rapes. Men. Women. Children. So why are we all picking on innocent Muslim refugees?
And they banned me from the site a few days ago because I asked some very inconvenient questions. I wanted to know how they felt about transwomen using women’s private spaces – domestic violence shelters, changerooms etc. A feminist told me, and I kid you not…that one rape a year by a pervert pretending to be a transwoman in order to assault women, was completely acceptable, because protecting transwomen was the most important thing of all. And then a bunch more chimed in, once again, saying that 1) you don’t need a penis to rape 2) women are just as likely to rape as men.
#1 and #2 were ‘true’ up until they had to exonerate the migrant rapists, at which point they went to back to mostly blaming white men, and how they rape with impunity.
There’s been a lot of ghastly stuff written about this episode. Sounds like you’ve been through the mill trying to get people to understand!
One piece I thought was good though was by Maajid Nawaz, which I posted on my website’s Facebook page. I made the comment, “As usual, Maajid Nawaz gets it right.” and was honoured to get a “like” from the man himself!
Anyway, here’s what he wrote: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/01/08/why-we-can-t-stay-silent-on-germany-s-mass-sex-assaults.html
I did see that.
It was excellent.
You may also find this to be a worthwhile read. This ex-Muslim woman talks about how regressive leftists treat her:
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/the180/unheard-muslim-voices-banning-dangerous-dogs-and-a-plea-for-plain-language-1.3393360/speaking-up-for-unheard-muslim-and-ex-muslim-voices-1.3394359
At the end she makes the point that, as long as the left is silent re violent Islam, rightwingers will fill the void, and that this will only hurt *everyone* in the long run.
Thanks Cindy. Good article. I’ve put that one on the website too. I haven’t listened to the interview yet but I will – I have a lot of respect for Eiynah’s writing, so it will be interesting to hear her.
Heather, I missed it the first time, but yay that you got a like from the man himself!
It amazes me how nonchalantly the SJWs will dismiss Nawaz of all people.
He was on the inside.
He spent years in prison.
This man has been to hell and back.
And the SJWs sit inside their ivory towers, calling him names, and making light of his ‘lived experience’.
It just blows my mind it does.
It’s disgusting the rubbish that’s thrown at him. Pretty much a sign he has the best argument though when those are the only attacks his opponents can come up with!
I think Nawaz is such a lighting rod for hate because as Cindy notes he checks pretty much every box on ‘authenticity’ that the Regressive Left value under other circumstances. Of course that authenticity was when he was a Noble Savage resisting the nightmarish hegemony of liberal democracy, secularism, and gender equality. Now that he actually wants to reform Islam into compatibility with this unholy trinity, he is treated as a race traitor.
I think you’re onto something there.
Patheos is home to lots of regressive left bloggers and commenters. LJF is definitely ‘social justice’ zealotry to the core.
I’m not sure why you are trying to mix trans issues with Islam. Trans people are like a fraction of 1% of the populace. That’s the same reason I focus on Islam (25% and growing of the world) instead of Orthodox Jews (also fraction of 1%), even though they have many similar problems with misogyny. I see radical feminists cite some predators posing as trans, but rightwingers do the same scare-mongering. They make the same argument with welfare, using a few cheats to destroy the whole system. Freedom does come with some shared risks. Transgender issues are a legitimate medical thing so I don’t see them comparable to Islam (or other belief systems) in that regard either.
@Victoria
My bad. I was trying to be brief, and not go off-topic, so i gave the cliff notes version.
The regressive feminists spend a lot of time worrying about rape. But, when a group that they consider to be more oppressed than women is at risk of raping women, well, the SJWs suddenly throw women under the bus, in the interest of protecting the more oppressed group. Which is why I was appalled when the poster said that it was acceptable to let a few women be raped per year in women’s changerooms/shelters etc to protect trans persons. And now, they are arguing that sexual assaults etc are permissible in order to protect Muslims, who are the most oppressed of all. Some of these Muslims tried to stone a transgender person to death, and I guarantee that the SJWs will pretend it didn’t happen, because they must protect migrants first. Because of their weird ideology where they pit groups of people against one another.
Now, as to the second, I have been researching the trans thing. You’re right. It *is* a legit medical issue. That’s what I thought too. Until I started studying it. SJWs don’t use the same definitions as you or I. Just a quick rundown, as I don’t want to stray too far off topic.
1) biological sex/sexual dimorphism and species are entirely social constructs, invented by white cishet patriarchy to oppress everyone else.
2) one can IDENTIFY as another sex/species, and this is all that is necessary to be treated as that sex/species. Trans/otherkin is based on FEELZ, nothing more. In fact, body/gender dysphoria has been thrown out, as that is ABLEIST. Feelings are all that is needed, and in fact, you don’t have to change a thing about yourself. If you are a male bodied, penis-owning, pre-op bear of a man, and you say “I identify as a woman”, then by SJW standards, you should have the legal right to use women’s bathrooms/changerooms/domestic violence shelters and be sent to women’s prisons. Oh, and women’s sports. Yes, you should have the legal right to take part in women’s sports. New laws are being proposed that are based on gender identity, not expression. So yes, that pre-op bear can legally be sent to a woman’s shelter based on his feelings alone. Gender identity trumps reality. Criminals *will* abuse such a loophole.
I asked the SJWs on LJF if pre-op transmen should be sent to men’s prisons, seeing as how sex was only a social construct. They said that rape wont’ happen in prison, as ‘no one is looking at anyone else’s genitals anyway, and if they do, they will get in trouble’.
Completely disconnected from reality they are.
Anyhoo, sorry for going off topic there. Just wanted to give a bit more explanation as to why I said what I said, earlier.
+ 1
Yeah, me too. It’s like saying, “hey, we all die so the guy that murdered all those people was just what nature already does.”
Reblogged this on The Logical Place.
And to think, this is a nation with the A-bomb that A.Q. Khan stole for it. Our ally, supposedly. Good gawd almighty.
Would it have been better if the CIA had sold it to them?
cr
“The enemy of my enemy…”
I remember a time when Western politicians actively commented on or tried to support this kinds of efforts in 3rd world or Middle Eastern countries.
Right now, it is “let’s respect their culture” mantra that dominates the politics of the Western nations. Just because the West ignores there are modern and change-craving forces in the Middle East, those forces will not disappear. It is a mistake to ignore them and pretend Islamists are the only ones to talk to.
“Islam, this is Modernism. Modernism, say hello to Islam.”
The last introduction of this kind was between Modernism and Christendom a couple hundred years ago. (Matter of fact, there’re still parts where they’re just getting to know each other.)
“Historically, it can be explained as a reaction to invasions by foreigners…”
Excluding Muslim invaders, of course.
It is hard to imagine the gulf between my way of thinking and theirs. They are appalled that adult American women show bare legs. I am utterly creeped out and repulsed at the idea of an adult male having sex with a young girl.
How can Islam not automatically see sex with a girl under the age of 16 as simply creepy pedophilia? I’d have thought it would be as taboo as incest, but clearly not. Does Mohammed’s example help keep the practice alive? Are they forced to defend the practice simply because of Mohammed’s well-publicized mating with Aisha?
He should be referred to as Statutory Mohammed.
You’re assuming those adult men who have sex with female children think of females as real people with thoughts, feelings and opinions of their own. It’s easy to do what you will with an organism you believe is barely above a rock on the sentient scale.
Exactly. Women are possessions in cultures like this, to do with as you will. Most women brought up in these cultures believe that they must obey their husbands at all times, and if they don’t he is entitled to discipline them, physically if necessary.
There are heaps of stats on the UN website that show things like in many countries a majority of women think her husband is entitled to beat her for things like burning the dinner. A starting place for exploring their stuff: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/gender/chapter6/chapter6.html
Via: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/databases.htm
No concept of women as people with a will or sense of personal bodily integrity of their own outside the brutal communal mandates. How about
Quran Al-Baqara (The Cow) 02.223
Shakir: Your wives are a tilth for you, so go into your tilth when you like, and do good beforehand for yourselves, and be careful (of your duty) to Allah, and know that you will meet Him, and give good news to the believers.
or
The love of desires, of women and sons and hoarded treasures of gold and silver and well bred horses and cattle and tilth, is made to seem fair to men; this is the provision of the life of this world; and Allah is He with Whom is the good goal (of life).
Qur’an 3:14
the Qur’an
from Qur’an “ And marry those among you who are single and (also marry) the saalihoon (pious, fit and capable ones) of your (male) slaves and maid-servants (female slaves)…’ In the Qur’an al-Noor 24:32 it says “O young men! Whoever among you can afford it, let him get married, for this will lower his gaze and protect his chastity. Whoever cannot (get married), then let him fast, for fasting will be a protection for him.” Ibn ‘Abbaas said to Sa’eed ibn Jubayr: “Get married, for the best of this ummah are those who have more wives.”
Yeah, though to be fair there are exactly equivalent lines in the Bible. Christendom has had the Enlightenment, and hundreds of years later women still aren’t equal, though at least we have more men who recognize both the value and justice of equality.
Religious texts have a lot to answer for in all sorts of social justice areas. Shakespeare and Chaucer are wonderful, but no-one thinks that means we have to emulate the behaviour of the characters. Privileging of religious thought and behaviour is a bad idea.
Except for the Chaucer character that hung his bum out the window and tricked someone into kissing it….that’s worth emulating for the LOLz.
Forgot about that one! They should have slipped such an episode into the middle of the “begats” in the Bible to liven that bit up!
Yes, this understanding hit me full force when a couple of Arab men looked at me with profound hatred when I was filling up my car with gas somewhere in Quebec (or Ontario, I can’t remember as I was driving home from Montreal).
They think they’re better than us, but all they’re doing is showing their weakness imo.
Real men are those that are secure enough in themselves that they don’t feel the need to dominate women.
I suspect that the regressive leftists who support thees Islamists have never actually had to deal with being treated as an object of scorn.
They are safely ensconced in their ivory towers.
Risks of being assaulted by these men? Well, those risks are for *others* to take. I am pretty sure that the SJWs won’t be volunteering to be the sacrificial victim on behalf of social justice.
Being treated as an object of scorn *by the Islamists* I mean.
As you were.
My sympathies, btw.
Indeed, I would love to be there when a woman on the regressive left experiences this type of scorn. The mental gymnastics would be better than going to see Cirque du Soleil!
I’ve been told, though I have no idea how reliably, that one way that new rules got introduced into Islam is by simply having someone supposedly remember that Mohammmed did thus and so in such a situation. This is what the hadith supposedly are.
(This question was asked in the context of how the hygiene rules originated, but it supposedly generalizes.) Of course, even granting (ridiculously) the idea that the people in question really were contemporaries and really did remember, this is (despite Islamic principles themselves) treating a human as infallible! “He did it, so it must be honourable” is how it is thought.
Regarding the ‘this has nothing to do with religion’ meme, I find secular and/or atheist religious apologists exhibit the exact same psychological phenomenon of being unswayed by evidence explicitly contrary to their position as do many actual believers.
I think relates to the Postmodern, i.e. Regressive Left really being a continuation of the Counter-Enlightenment. They fundamentally think in terms of narrative and sentiment rather than reason and objective evidence.
Azar Nafisi’s “Reading Lolita in Tehran” gets more convincing all the time.
In other words misogyny and pedophilia is pro Islamic. Standard attributes for religions of no value. If there was ever a case for slapping a bunch of ol’ men this would be it.
Standing by to hear Ben Affleck’s pearls of wisdom on this.
That line, “Historically, it can be explained as a reaction to invasions by foreigners…” is indeed strange. I’m racking my brains to think how this could be explained as “a reaction to the invasions of foreigners”. What’s the suggestion here? Are they suggesting Pakistanis thought they might annoy the British into retreating by ordering their own 9-year-olds to get married? The causal chain is entirely opaque.
It’s tortured, but I think the logic is it’s a survival mechanism. You get invaded and your men get killed, so you have to make sure you leave lots of pregnant women behind to ensure clan survival.
I’m convinced that this social phenomenon, as well as most of Islam’s other stances towards women, is born not only out of a desire for total control over women, to offset the near- hysterical fear of women’s potential “power” and subsequent “seductive” influence over men (a hallmark of a truly primitive society), but also out of the view of women as “property”. It’s exceedingly important for these men’s self-esteem and status that their “goods” not be “damaged” before betrothal and it is entirely natural for this to be manifested in the pushing back, earlier and earlier, of the marriage age as it’s perceived to be extremely unlikely that the woman has had any sexual encounters if she hasn’t even reached her first menses (the ironic part about this is that the very “system” encourages sex at an earlier and earlier age, perpetuating the “need” to “claim your territory early”). Another “perk” of the system is that, if you marry a child, you can raise them any way you like, making sure that you’ll never get any criticism or resistance to your ideas from them. This, in a way, “mirrors” Islam’s own attitude toward outside examination and criticism.
Exactly. Females as chattel, to use and abuse, as they see fit.
I agree. Things like perpetuating the species are an excuse, not a reason. With Reason, we should, as a species, be beyond making such excuses. We’ve evolved to a point where we actually know our species is better off if we don’t treat women as possessions and second-class citizens. The reason it still happens is men who are too mentally weak to handle the idea of equality, imposing their views via their generally superior physical strength.
And ‘perpetuating the species’ is neutral at any rate, since reproduction can be deadly, especially if you exceed the carrying capacity of your environment.
Oh, as I have been researching this a lot lately, here is another link regarding the migrant crisis:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-11/european-migrant-crisis-triggers-gender-imbalance/7076924
Men outnumber women. Many are single and will remain so.
What future is there for men at the very bottom of society who will *not* be finding Swedish/Finnish/German wives etc?
How are they going to behave? What if there a million of them in 10 years, spread across Europe?
One thing – don’t put the lives and health of women at risk by making them start child-bearing too young, or make them display your manhood by having too many children. It’s better for the health of your children too!
Intersting article, thanks! I’ve only skimmed it at the moment – looking forward to reading it properly later.
I’ve read it properly now. This is a really important issue. If I remember correctly, most Western countries have more women than men, while most ME countries have more men. This is obviously already a problem for those societies, especially as men are often expected to have multiple wives, leaving an even larger cohort of unattached men.
You’ve got me all interested in the subject now! I’m going to be keeping my eye out for more stuff about this!
I showed this article to some of the regressive leftists, and they claimed that no such imbalance exists, because these ‘single men’ are merely leaving their families behind and will send for them later.
However, I am not buying it.
1) a refugee camp for a woman all alone is very very dangerous. Good way to guarantee that your wife will be ‘ruined’ by another man
2) there is absolutely no guarantee that you will ever see your family again. How exactly do you ‘send’ for them? How do you even know that yo will be able to make money in the country you choose to settle in?
3) leaving women alone in a non-refugee camp setting absolutely will not work, as, in many cases, women are simply prevented from working. How exactly will they find employment?
I call bs on the whole thing. The majority of these men are single because it’s easy for single men to get up and leave vs families.
This would make sense if there were a shortage of females. It doesn’t make sense if there’s a shortage of males. You can literally decimate the male population, and women can continue to churn out the same number of offspring without changing their reproductive patterns at all.
So I can see how harems and polygamy would follow if the British killed a significant proportion of the male population (although given the actual numbers involved – get real), but I can’t see any particular pressure to start recruiting nine-year-old girls into the national reproductive effort.
I didn’t say it was logical. And besides, men generally want their own genes passed on, not those of some random other in-group member, though those are preferable to those of an invader.
I do not think they mean the British here. There were many earlier invasions in Medieval times and earlier that were much more brutal than the British one. Most of those were from close neighbours (neighbouring tribes), but they also got their share of the nice Mongolians for example.
I think they mean this was a precaution against young women being raped by the invaders, because unmarried virgins have the highest chance for it. Or maybe they thought it is worse when the young girl is being foreigner-raped as a virgin than as a married non-virgin. (I do not know, I am just speculating there.)
Anyhow, it became a tradition, the tradition became entwined with religion (typical), so it resisting change. Tradition in culture is very much like genetically coded instinct, in a sense at least. Automatically trying to do what worked in the past instead of thinking. And religion enforce tradition, makes it holy.
Child marriage was practised in ancient Arabia before Islam and seems to be a strategy for ensuring chastisy plus longer reproductive years designed to both increase and insurer the direct purity of nomadic tribal lines with patriarchal heads
Suffer the children.
I found ‘child marriage’ a misleading headline. Somewhere in the body of the article it says women can currently marry at 16, men at 18 (I can’t see any reason for the discrepancy).
I wouldn’t call a 16-year-old a ‘child’.
The age of consent, for example, in most of Australia and NZ is 16. In NZ people can get married at 18, or 16 with parents permission. In Oz, it’s 16, provided the other party is a least 18 (!).
So we also have ‘child marriage’ by that (faulty) definition.
That’s not to say that I think getting married very young is wise, but ‘wise’ should not be enforced by law.
The minimum age for sex / marriage / drinking / driving / military service / voting is all over the map in different countries. I think this is genuinely one aspect where historical and cultural factors have to be allowed for. Or at least, where it’s culturally arrogant to assume that one’s own country has ‘got it right’ therefore others are wrong.
(In saying that I am absolutely not supporting arranged marriages, or of very young people, but that’s not what the current Pakistan law permits anyway).
cr
The fact that Pakistan enforces 16 as minimum age for marriage is truly laudable. But the efforts to increase that age in that specific country (just as in any other Muslim country) should be supported.
The concept of “consent” as is perceived in the West is totally different with the concept of “mature enough to consummate marriage”. This law was about making it harder to marry children and the Islamists showed their true colors again. If they could, they would have changed to law to allow 9 year-old girls to be married.
The farther from their “ideals”, the better!
The legal age there is 16, but the law isn’t enforced. A lot of girls younger than sixteen are being married off, although it’s hard to get actual numbers.
Having the law is something they have to have because of one of the UN Human Rights things they’ve signed, but the Islamic Council that approves laws on the basis of whether they comply with the Qur’an, Hadiths etc, has always said it’s un-Islamic.
I agree. In my country, marriage is allowed at 16 for both sexes with parental consent. Married teens are transferred from ordinary schools to “evening schools” that are attended by adults. A century ago, early marriages were common in all population strata, now they are mostly prerogative of the Roma (Gypsy) minority. I’d say, a characteristic of underdevelopment that is spontaneously outgrown unless religious ideology messes in.
Fair enough point re the proposed law – i think commenters may have been responding to the islamic councils defence on religious grounds of sharia including actual child marriage from nine years or on onset of puberty which can happen from 10 years
Yes I agree. No defence of the Islamic Council was intended by me 😉
Just the (IMO) misleading implication in the headline.
cr
I didn’t think you were defending the Islamic Council for a moment – and take your point about marital age limits in Western countries – 16 is not a sensible age to marry but excessively legislating is probably counterproductive as some people will get pregnant young and decide to go ahead with it.
I think, though young people should have the legal option to get married, I would strongly advise against it (though conscious of the fact that most such general advice is often wrong in any individual case).
Fortunately, being young, single and pregnant is not the sentence to a life of misery that it once was, in most Western societies at least. They do have options.
cr
To end child marriage would be “anti-Islamic”, and “blasphemous”- thanks for reminding us, once again, of what “Islam” is all about.
+ 1
Or as Ben Affleck would put it, “it’s gross; it’s racist.”
At least try to keep in mind that while we can condemn some Muslims for insisting child marriage is legal, we can also praise other Muslims for trying to get it banned or the age of consent raised even though to attempt such things can often have fatal consequences. Obviously not all Muslims want children married off even if their religious leader gives it a nod of acceptance.
There are wonderful Muslims in Pakistan trying to change their country for better, but they seem to fight a losing battle. Malala, after being shot in the head because of her wish to go to school, left Pakistan and I think, for good. A Muslim official publicly defended Asia Bibi (a Christian woman sentenced to death for blasphemy) and was assassinated by an extremist.
No concept of women as people with a will or sense of personal bodily integrity of their own outside the brutal communal mandates. How about
Quran Al-Baqara (The Cow) 02.223
Shakir: Your wives are a tilth for you, so go into your tilth when you like, and do good beforehand for yourselves, and be careful (of your duty) to Allah, and know that you will meet Him, and give good news to the believers.
or
The love of desires, of women and sons and hoarded treasures of gold and silver and well bred horses and cattle and tilth, is made to seem fair to men; this is the provision of the life of this world; and Allah is He with Whom is the good goal (of life).
Qur’an 3:14
the Qur’an
from Qur’an “ And marry those among you who are single and (also marry) the saalihoon (pious, fit and capable ones) of your (male) slaves and maid-servants (female slaves)…’ In the Qur’an al-Noor 24:32 it says “O young men! Whoever among you can afford åit, let him get married, for this will lower his gaze and protect his chastity. Whoever cannot (get married), then let him fast, for fasting will be a protection for him.” Ibn ‘Abbaas said to Sa’eed ibn Jubayr: “Get married, for the best of this ummah are those who have more wives.”
FYI, Mr. Coyne, India has 13-15% Muslim population which is about 150-200 millions.
“The problem of child marriage is at times justified on the basis of religious foundations. Historically, it can be explained as a reaction to invasions by foreigners”
What?? Exactly how child marriage can be explained as a “reaction to invasions by foreigners” is never explained or justified. To call the Wikipedia article “very strange” is an understatement.