Yes.
Just as it’s legal here in Alabama.
Nope. This where your non-logic collapses. There is no Islamic justification for what the gangs in the UK did, contrary to the assertions of you and others, and the marriage laws in Saudi Arabia do nothing to alter that fact, any more than the marriage laws in my state make child molestation legal or acceptable here.
Which might possibly have some remote bearing on this situation if there was actually some serious effort among the various Muslim communities in Britain to defend the actions of the gangs. So far, there has been pretty universal condemnation by the Muslim community. I realize that you have a vested interest in pretending that Islam is wholly corrupt, but the facts in this situation contradict your beliefs.
The articles from legitimate news sources have actually delved into the motivations and behaviors of the gangs. None of them support your “hypothesis.”
No one has come forward and said that they were justified in their actions and several Muslim Pakistani/Kashmiri community leaders have spoken about the need to provide interventions to prevent this from recurring.
If your fantasies were true, there should be some number of Imams or Mullahs proclaiming that the actions of the gangs were fine. I am afraid that the facts simply fail to support your wild conjectures.
When was the last timea 12 year old was legally sold to a 50 year old in Alabama?
I have never stated that religious teachings were the primary motivation for these crimes, I have seen no evidence to indicate that they were. I am simply refuting your erroneous blanket “nothing in Islam” statements.
I don’t know, but don’t you find a 14 year old girl marrying a 24 year old man troubling enough and consider it the “rape of children, which is legal…as long as it state/clergy sanctioned via..ceremony”?
Or are underage girls getting married off to much older adult men okay just as long as Islam isn’t involved?
I don’t want to give you a hard time and if you feel my question steps over the line I’ll drop it, may I ask why the story of Romeo and Juliet illustrating how medieval Christians had similar attitudes towards child marriage as medieval Muslims is considered a hijack which we’re not allowed to discuss and rants about rants about Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha are considered off-limits while silly rants about the age of consent in a backward nation like Saudi Arabia are considered on topic in a discussion about some British Muslims(none of whom are Saudis or Salafists).
For that matter, I don’t see why the discussion of Saudi’s age of consent laws are more relevant to a discussion of Pakistani rape gangs in the UK than Aisha’s marriage to Muhammad since the Pakistanis aren’t Saudis, probably hate the Saudi Government based on how Pakistanis are treated in Saudi Arabia, and of course aren’t trying to marry the women in question.
Would you explain the reasoning, because to me it seems that the bringing up of Saudi Arabia’s age of consent laws has nothing to do with the topic and is the same argument regarding Aisha’s marriage in sheep’s clothing?
Again, if you feel I’m over the line, I’ll drop the question and for the record, I do understand you often have to make judgement calls and split hairs.
Also, if it’s considered “unhelpful” to use the term “racist” when discussing other posters then shouldn’t the same be true of the term “apologist”?
Disallowing one side to use the former while the other side uses the latter strikes me as a bit unfair.
This is the second time on this thread that you’ve accused me of lying on this thread and you’ve continued to do after being noted by a mod not to.
The fact is, you explicitly supported racial profiling in the other thread and just did so in the post above when you insisted that “Arabs” should get “more scrutiny.”
When you accuse other people of lying, you’re not only violating board rules, but you’re being extremely rude and when you’re accusing them of lying when they haven’t been you don’t appear to be debating in good faith.
And no, that’s not an accusation of lying.
Well, in post #28, once you strip away the attacks on me and the other hijacks that have nothing to do with the thread Hank, an American, essentially admits, without explicitly doing so, that no, when the US allowed husbands to rape their wives whenever they wanted(which was rather recently) he didn’t speak out against it though presumably he didn’t support it.
If he seems to be more upset at the idea of Muslim husbands raping their wives without getting sanctioned by the state than American husbands doing the same then it certainly makes sense that he’d feel stronger about a Muslim marriage involving a 14 year old girl than an American marriage involving a 14-year-old.
Ah, so it’s not “adults who rape children under the guise of ‘marriage’” that angers him, it’s just Islam, with the underage-marriage thing being a thin excuse for his animosity towards Muslims.
Your odd twisted logic still does not get you there. Whatever odd cultural practices the Saudis might practice in regards to marriage, there is nothing in Islam that supports rape. That you want to play semantic games with the word rape still does nothing to make your case. Just as you tried to claim that permission to marry slaves was the same as permitting rape, you always have to twist the language to get to your goal.
BOTH the stories of Aishi and the of Romeo and Juliet are going to lead to extended hijacks and both have been ruled outside the scope of this discussion. The Saudi age of consent laws had a tangential connection to the thread and I had hoped that it would die out on its own.
Apologist has both pro and con meanings and connotations. That is not true of racist.
No, it is not made ok by any justification, religious or otherwise. Obviously arguing that a fourteen year old can give consent is not the same as arguing that a nine year old can, and everyone knows it. And arguing that any of this is morally similar a college freshman having sex with his high school senior boyfriend or girlfriend would be plainly insane.
Again, I introduced the example of Mohammed’s child abuse victim to refute Tom’s claim that “nothing in Islam” promotes this behavior. This is obviously wrong when the very model of behavior for Muslims is widely believed to have had a child bride. The fact that we do not know if these men conducted some Warren Jeff’s style ceremony or not does not exclude the possibility that whatever version of Islamic instruction these men received may have played some part in their behavior. It would be equally wrong, or perhaps even more wrong but for the same reasons, to state that “nothing in Christianity” promoted Warren Jeff’s behavior. All one has to do to be aware of this fact is to read the source texts.
You are the one doing the twisting. Non consensual sex is rape. Your implication that the slaves in question consented to sex with men who had just killed their fathers and brothers is wretched and disgusting, as is your implication that young children can have consensual sex with elderly men as long as there is some ceremony conforming to the demands a mythical being.
And yet you proceed to justify it, or at least attempt to mitigate it.
The authorities certainly don’t know that - sexually abusing a girl whether she’s nine or fourteen will still net you prison time in the US and the UK (and will get you beheaded in Saudi Arabia).
So I have no idea why you think you’re making a successful argument there, much less a relevant one.
This is some pretty egregious special pleading to try and explain why you’re all upset at Saudi Arabia’s marriage laws, but don’t seem to care about Alabama’s. We’re not talking about “a college freshman having sex with his high school senior boyfriend or girlfriend”.
We’re talking about 14 year olds being married to 24 year olds.
And since none of what happened in the UK involved “child brides”, that’s not even close to being relevant.
As tomndebb pointed out, yes, we actually do know that they didn’t do anything like that, and that “Islamic instruction” wasn’t involved.
Again, Jeffs’ case involved marriage, not roving rape/abuse gangs. So, again, that’s not relevant here.
This is just some more crap you made up. This is a staple of your’s.
Do you enjoy making these idle, baseless, pondering of your’s public, or is it kind of involuntary or something? Are you one of those people who walks around mumbling to yourself passive aggressively? Because that’s how you come across here.
Ibn Warraq and Hank Beecher, knock off the personal sniping and comments, now.
[ /Moderating ]
It is absolutely relevant, since it legitimizes sex with children. The prophet of Islam had sex with a nine year old when he was in his fifties! That is an example that teaches that under some circumstances this sort of behavior is acceptable. This could have been part of the justification that the men used for their behavior, even if they only used it sloppily, rather than devoutly.
More likely it was their isolation, combined with cultural and religious indoctrination that portrays Western society as incredibly corrupt, and portrays especially young independent Western women and anyone who emulates their behavior as destined to be sexually abused. This indoctrination is not used with the intent to make men abuse women, and it usually does not cause this. Usually it is to scare young women and keep them from straying from the confines of Islamic society and behavior. It is rape culture on steroids, and the power of suggestion may have led these men to believe that being whores may have been their victims destiny as young Western girls.
And as I keep pointing out to you, those circumstances involved marriage, and the marriage laws in Saudi Arabia don’t legitimize sex with children by rape gangs any more than the marriage laws in Alabama do (and, in fact, in both countries what the members of the UK gangs did is explicitly a punishable criminal act).
You would have been much better off had you taken this tack from the start.
I’m not sure how the term apologist can be seen as having “pro” meaning and the mods have repeatedly ruled that it is permissible to use the term “racist” so long as it used as a descriptor, not as an insult even if the use of the term is taken as an insult.
Beyond that, since we’re now in a thread where people are screaming about “white girls”(as you’ve noted the victims are described in racial not religious or national terms" by those screaming about the rape gangs) being raped by some Pakistanis and we’re not allowed to use the term “racist” to describe those railing about it, does that mean in threads in which people rant about gangs of young black men raping “white women” it would be considered “unhelpful” and forbidden to use the term “racist” to describe those screaming about the “white” victims even though the mods have said it is permissible to use the term “racist” as well “sexist” and “homophobic” to describe other posters outside the pit?
Now, I’d like to let everyone know reading this that the above question is not meant as an attack on Tom, or a suggestion that he’s less concerned about Islamophobic bigotry than he is anti-black bigotry and he has certainly demonstrated that in this thread. I’d like to sincerely thank him for demonstrating that and for also giving me more leeway than he needed. Also if he’d rather I take this to PM or drop it entirely I understand. He has to make judgement calls and split hairs and reasonable people can disagree about such decisions without holding it against each other.
Lastly, I really don’t see how Saudi Arabia’s age of consent law is remotely relevant to a discussion about a British Mosque, who’s members aren’t Saudis, Salafists, or even Arabs. For that matter, I don’t see how it’s even relevant to a discussion of a Pakistani gang in the UK who’s members aren’t Salafists, aren’t Saudis, almost certainly hate the Saudi government, probably don’t speak Arabic, and who almost certainly can’t even read the Quran?
Lets forget this thread was started about a peaceful Mosque giving tea and biscuits to a racist gang protesting against them. If we were having a discussion about the Blods and the Crips(who’s membership is overwhelmingly African-Americans from Christian backgrounds) would we be discussing what Nigerians thought the age of consent should be since they’re both black? Would we be discussing the religious rituals of people in South Korea since they’re both Christians and Protestants?
If this was a discussion of a Mafia run prostitution ring would we consider the age of consent laws in Brazil “tangentially relevant” since they’re both Catholic? Would we be discussing Vatican laws on divorce or proclamations by the Pope since all concerned are Catholic and the Pope is of Italian descent or would that not be considered “tangentially related” enough?
I ask because all of those examples are at least as “tangentially related”.
Don’t accuse me of lying just because Mac is able to.
Edit: Sorry Tom. I didn’t see your admonition until after I posted it. Sorry, I got upset because this is the second person on this thread that accused me of being a liar. I’ll drop it now.