Islam: A Religion of Lies...

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

Wii - not to horn in on this argument, but there are disagreements as to how old Rebecca was at the time of marriage.
Below links show that there is reason to believe she was 14.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/ar.../12610-rebekah

www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/eng/toledot/942Hal.doc

Yes, there are, and it is not a private argument.

There are no disagreements as to Isaac's age.

Are we all in agreement then that, though CURRENTLY distasteful under our CURRENT culture, it is biblical and biblically acceptable and within the biblical norm for a 40-yr-old man to marry a young teen or was this marriage also a sin?

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Please add "dim" to "humorless" in your long list of personality traits.

For someone who whines about “insults” you have no problem attempting to insult others. I will not respond in like manner.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

What I think about this passage has nothing to do with what Muslims think. It has, as stated (much much WAY) earlier, everything to do with what the Jews who practiced and lived under these laws think.

Here we go once again attempting to build a straw man argument and false moral equivalency. It was stated (much much WAY) earlier that I do not hold the tradition of Jews, the Talmud or human governmental laws as being equivalent to divine inspiration.

The Bible is divinely inspired literature. Muslims believe the life example of Muhammad is to be followed along with his teachings. After all he’s the “messenger of god”. There is a consensus about Muhammad and his teachings on this point.

It’s without controversy that he was a pedophile and your deity has “blessed” that relationship. You cannot find anything in the Bible, the moral equivalent, to support your wishful thinking. Thus you must seek for it elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Since you appear to be a preacher and have such a witful way of both jumping to conclusions and putting words in my mouth I guess I will save you the research and show you how those who lived under and practiced these laws interpreted them. They interpret them differently from you and why. My guess as to why this may be is this: There is no personal motive or gain to be had, as in this discussion, by glossing them over.

Once again trying to build a straw man with a false moral equivalency. At least you have learned how to document your assertions, even if your assertion is wrong. Of course you are free to guess at anything you like. You’ve been wrong before.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Rashi’s commentary on Genesis 25:20 says:
[I]forty years old: For when Abraham came from Mount Moriah, he was informed that Rebecca had been born. Isaac was then thirty-seven years old, for at that time Sarah died, and from the time that Isaac was born until the “Binding” [of Isaac], when Sarah died, were thirty-seven years, for she was ninety years old when Isaac was born, and one hundred and twenty-seven when she died, as it is stated (above 23:1): “The life of Sarah was [a hundred and twenty-seven years.”] This makes Isaac thirty-seven years old, and at that time, Rebecca was born. He waited for her until she would be fit for marital relations-three years-and then married her.— [From Gen. Rabbah 57:1

Source: http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_...showrashi=true

Let’s see… Your “proof” comes from the commentator Rashi. You are aware that Rashi was born in France and lived from 1040 – 1105 AD right?
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...aphy/rashi.htm

So your “logic” is to ignore the clear teaching of the text and accept the comments of someone bornin Europe who lived thousands of years after the event. I guess he had a crystal ball that he could look at to make that determination. Your logic here explains a lot.

You do understand that the Jewish rabbis disagree on the age of Rebakah right? Yet you fixate upon the one that agrees with your agenda. Why is that? Your paradigm at work? It doesn’t even matter to you that he lived thousands of years after the events he is commenting on. As long as it helps you sleep at night why let the truth get in the way of the narrative…

I need to get one of those crystal balls! LOL!

Here is what the Bible states concerning Rebekah.
She was old enough to go to the well alone.
She was physically capable of fetching water for the entire family to use throughout the day.
She was physically capable of drawing water for the camels (there were ten camels according to Genesis 24:10) of Abraham’s servant. As documented in an earlier post, camels drink up to twenty gallons of water at a time. They had been on a long journey. Rebekah retrieved enough water for the camels to drink till they were satiated. Do the math. That’s a lot of water to draw!
She was mature enough to have full understanding of the state of affairs of her family. She understood the camels need hay to lay down on and “provender” enough (Genesis 24:25) for the camels.
She did not have to run home and ask any of these questions and also understood there was room for him and the men with him to lodge with them.
She was able to make the decision to stay or go (Genesis 24:57-58).
This all points to a young woman not a three year old girl as suggested by you. I will stick with the Biblical text. You can have the Jewish commentator here.

I understand why you dredge this up. You have no choice but to try to find something, somewhere to alleviate the fact that your prophet was a pedophile. This sin is inherent to islam and enshrined in sharia law. Therefore, you must justify it somehow some way. In this way you can tell yourself it’s okay. Yet, your conscious tells you differently.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Also Johann Buxtorf cites Rashi that Rebecca was three years old when she married Isaac.
[I]Rabbi Solomon in his comment on Genesis, says that Rebecca, when she was married to Isaac, was but three Years of Age. His words run thus, ‘When Abraham was come from Mount Moria, he received the joyful News of Rebecca. Isaac was at that Time Thirty seven years old; and then did Sarah die. The time, from birth of Isaac to the death of Sarah, was Thirty seven Years, And Sarah was Ninety Years old when Isaac was born; and One Hundred and Twenty Seven Years old when she died: As it is said in Gen 23:1 . Sarah was one hundred and twenty-seven years old. Behold, the Age of Isaac was Thirty Seven Years, at the Time of the Birth of Rebecca. And when he had waited for her three Years, till she was fit for marriage, he took her to wife.”

It is apparent that your “information” comes from this site:
http://discover-the-truth.com/2013/0...omment-page-1/
Here is the citation for the quote from the Islamic apologetic source:

Please note this is point 2 and footnote 1.

Wow! LOL! One Jewish commentator makes a silly assertion and someone quotes him. That’s supposed to be “proof’? This may pass for “scholarship” in islam but not the rest of the world. In the rest of the world scholarship rests upon facts not wild eyed speculation from someone with a crystal ball making a misjudgment thousands of years after the events.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

According to this Account, Rebecca was a very notable Girl at three years of age. But that a girl of three Years old is fit for marriage, is maintained very plainly in the Jewish writings; particularly, in Emek Hamelech, in the following passage, ‘our blessed sags, of blessed memory, say, that a female is not fit for marriage, ‘till she is arrived at the Age of three years and one day.’ The Talmud supports these Sages here, in the part entitled Avoda Sara. And the Sanhedrin says, A daughter, who is of the age of three years and one day, is, by being bedded with a Man, lawfully married.”

Source: Johann Buxtorf, Johann Andreas Eisenmenger, John Peter Stehelin
Rabinical literature: or, The traditions of the Jews, contained in their Talmud and other mystical writings. Likewise the opinions of that people concerning Messiah, and the time and manner of his appearing; with an appendix comprizing Buxtorf’s account of the religious customs and ceremonies of that nation; also, A preliminary enquiry into the origin, progress, authority, and usefulness of these traditions; wherein the sense of the strange allegories in the Talmud and Jewish authors is explained. [ Publisher: London J. Robinson, 1748] Volume 1 page 33 – 34

Here is the citation for the quote from the Islamic apologetic source:

http://discover-the-truth.com/2013/0...omment-page-1/

Please note this is point 2 and footnote 1.

So once again you rely upon the Talmud? And exactly who believes the Talmud is divinely inspired? Not me nor any Christian I know of. You have once again tried to create a straw man by attempting to make a false moral equivalency. The Bible is the standard.

It doesn’t matter what the Talmud states. It’s only correct inasmuch as it agrees with the Bible. The Bible is the standard not Judaism’s rabbis, oral traditions or the Talmud. You are aware that Jesus taught against the doctrines of the Pharisees right? Please see Matthew 16:12 for one example, there are others as well. Why would I or any other Apostolic attempt to establish doctrine from the teachings Jesus specifically preached against?

Good thing this not baseball…

All you have done is shown the depravity of humanity. However, you have miserably failed to establish anywhere at any time that the God of the Bible condones such “distasteful” behavior.

Yet, I commend you for finally actually documenting your assertions, misguided though they are.

BTW you are aware that not all Jews accept the mystical writings aren’t you? You are aware that there is diversity of opinion by them as well right? Unlike islam where there is “scholarly consensus”.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

“One might counter that the expression mohar habbetulot (Ex. 22:16[17]) refers rather to the pretium virginitatis. In this case, the mohar would be compensation to the girl for the loss of her virginity. This explanation, however, is unacceptable, since it proceeds on the assumption that the term betula means ‘virgin.’ This may doubtlessly be the case in many passages, but in joel 1:8, betula thus refers to a married woman who had been ‘possessed’ by her husband (ba’al); betula thus refers to a marriageable girl who was physically able to cope with a man, ‘taking her into his possession.’ Here the term betula says nothing about her virginity. Ex.22:16 (17) (kesep yisqol kemohar hab betulot) can thus be translated ‘he shall weigh out as much silver as is required for marriageable girls.’ In this context we should point out that ancient Hebrew custom did not associate marriageability with puberty. In contrast to the marriageable girl (betula), the…. Alma refers to a girl in puberty capable of conception. Girls could in fact already be given marriage long before actual physical maturity, perhaps even as young as five years old (cf. Lev. 27:5), and it did happen that marriages were already consummated with prepubescent girls.

Source: Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Volume 8 edited by G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, Heinz-Josef Fabry [1997] page 144 – 145

Here is the citation for the quote from the Islamic apologetic source:

http://discover-the-truth.com/2013/0...omment-page-1/

Please note this is point 13 and footnote 12.

Here we go again. Nowhere does this dictionary state the God of the Bible condones such a heinous act as marriage with prepubescent girls. Yet, another straw man argument. Perhaps you can show everyone where Jesus quoted this dictionary authoritatively…

There is no moral equivalency between this dictionary, the Talmud, Jewish rabbis and the Bible. Has it ever occurred to you that this dictionary could be wrong? Where did they base their “understanding”? Were they accepting Rashi’s commentary? Maybe they used the same crystal ball as he did.

Talk about grasping for straws!

BTW Lev. 27:5 is not about marriage but making a vow/promise to God. Here is the context:
(Lev 27:1 ESV) The LORD spoke to Moses, saying,
(Lev 27:2 ESV) "Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, If anyone makes a special vow to the LORD involving the valuation of persons,
(Lev 27:3 ESV) then the valuation of a male from twenty years old up to sixty years old shall be fifty shekels of silver, according to the shekel of the sanctuary.
(Lev 27:4 ESV) If the person is a female, the valuation shall be thirty shekels.
(Lev 27:5 ESV) If the person is from five years old up to twenty years old, the valuation shall be for a male twenty shekels, and for a female ten shekels.
(Lev 27:6 ESV) If the person is from a month old up to five years old, the valuation shall be for a male five shekels of silver, and for a female the valuation shall be three shekels of silver.

Did you know that Samuel’s mother vowed to give him to the Lord all his days? Try reading 1 Samuel 1:28.

Leviticus 27 has nothing to do with what you so desperately want. The editors of this dictionary are not the messenger of God.

I will stick with God’s pronouncements.
I will stick with the Bible.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

“Child marriages were very common in ancient days. Since marriages were arranged by parents and the consent of parties was not necessary, AGE WAS NOT THE FACTOR in coming to an agreement. The physical factor related only to the consummation of the marriage. Hence, there was usually a waiting period between the agreement and the consummation. It is logical to assume that when a boy and a girl reached the age of puberty, and the sex urge demanded satisfaction, ancient society deemed marriage to be the answer.

Source: A Guide to Jewish Religious Practice By Isaac Klein page 396

Lots of assumptions going on here! LOL! This is really funny since you seem to be getting your “information“ from this site:
http://discover-the-truth.com/

Here is the citation for the quote from the Islamic apologetic source:

http://discover-the-truth.com/2013/0...omment-page-1/

Please note this is point 18 and footnote 17.

Ooopppsss…

From the isalmic apologist’s site:
Kaleef K. Karim
“In this article I will establish that the age for marriage, when someone is allowed to get married Biblically, is when one enters puberty. The Bible makes mention the general age of girl allowed for marriage. The reference is found in a parable where God compares Israel to a baby girl whom YHWH took in and then married her off, later.

Ezekiel 16:4 NIV Translation
4 On the day you were born your cord was not cut, nor were you washed with water to make you clean, nor were you rubbed with salt or wrapped in cloths. 5 No one looked on you with pity or had compassion enough to do any of these things for you. Rather, you were thrown out into the open field, for on the day you were born you were despised. 6 “‘Then I passed by and saw you kicking about in your blood, and as you lay there in your blood I said to you, “Live!”[a] 7 I made you grow like a plant of the field. You grew and developed and entered puberty. Your breasts had formed and your hair had grown, yet you were stark naked. 8 “‘Later I passed by, and when I looked at you and saw that you were old enough for love, I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your naked body… –

As you read the passage, the girl attained the age for lovemaking after her breast had grown and pubic hairs, these are clear signs of puberty. As shown, the Bible does not give explicit age for someone to get married, but what it does give, reading the passage, ‘puberty’ is the minimum age for a girl allowed to get married.
…
In conclusion, the Bible provides no explicit age for when a girl is allowed to get married. But, what it does give us is that YHWH – God of the Bible, allows for marriage to be consummated when a female has hit puberty. Ezekiel 16 proves, once a girl has hit puberty, she can get married.”
http://discover-the-truth.com/2014/0...-in-the-bible/

The site where you get YOUR information even states the Bible is AGAINST prepubescent marriage! LOL!

Oh my!

Hmmm… Sure wish you muslims would come to a consensus! Oh wait you have! Marrying and consummating the marriage to a prepubescent girl is okay with your prophet and your deity. It has been codified in Islamic law – shariah.

Looks like now we know why you never wanted to document your assertions! LOL!

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

“Girls were often married to their uncles on their father’s side, or to their cousins, in order to secure the family’s capital and in the hope that their kin would take good care of them. Minor girls were betrothed by their fathers (by Kidushin, a legally binding commitment) even before they came of age, and usually began living with their husbands-occasionally much older than them- at the age of puberty.”

Source: Encyclopedia of the Jewish Diaspora: Origins, Experiences, and Culture, Volume 1 By Mark Avrum Ehrlich page 258

Here is the citation for the quote from the Islamic apologetic source:
http://discover-the-truth.com/2013/0...omment-page-1/

Please note this is point 17 and footnote 16.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

“Betrothal, or engagement, generally occurred at the age eight or nine. Jewish girls typically married at age eleven or twelve and boys at about thirteen or fourteen.

Source: The History of the Jewish People: A Story of Tradition And Change By Jonathan B. Krasner, Jonathan D. Sarnapage volume 1 page 83

Here is the citation for the quote from the Islamic apologetic source:

http://discover-the-truth.com/2013/0...omment-page-1/

Please note this is point 28 and footnote 27.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

And can't this just go on, and on, and on, and on. Like I told you a long time ago, call Jerusalem 911 and complain there. It's their law and I believe it is they and not you who are more qualified to explain to the world what it means and how it was practiced.

ROTFL!!! You copy and paste these citations from an Islamic apologetic site and not a single quote teaches that the God of the Bible condones prepubescent marriage. All we have is straw man after straw man.

Then after it’s all said and done the same site establishes that the God of the Bible never condones such a heinous act.
Once more from your site! LOL!

Kaleef K. Karim
“In this article I will establish that the age for marriage, when someone is allowed to get married Biblically, is when one enters puberty. The Bible makes mention the general age of girl allowed for marriage. The reference is found in a parable where God compares Israel to a baby girl whom YHWH took in and then married her off, later.

Ezekiel 16:4 NIV Translation
4 On the day you were born your cord was not cut, nor were you washed with water to make you clean, nor were you rubbed with salt or wrapped in cloths. 5 No one looked on you with pity or had compassion enough to do any of these things for you. Rather, you were thrown out into the open field, for on the day you were born you were despised. 6 “‘Then I passed by and saw you kicking about in your blood, and as you lay there in your blood I said to you, “Live!”[a] 7 I made you grow like a plant of the field. You grew and developed and entered puberty. Your breasts had formed and your hair had grown, yet you were stark naked. 8 “‘Later I passed by, and when I looked at you and saw that you were old enough for love, I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your naked body… –

As you read the passage, the girl attained the age for lovemaking after her breast had grown and pubic hairs, these are clear signs of puberty. As shown, the Bible does not give explicit age for someone to get married, but what it does give, reading the passage, ‘puberty’ is the minimum age for a girl allowed to get married.
…
In conclusion, the Bible provides no explicit age for when a girl is allowed to get married. But, what it does give us is that YHWH – God of the Bible, allows for marriage to be consummated when a female has hit puberty. Ezekiel 16 proves, once a girl has hit puberty, she can get married.”
http://discover-the-truth.com/2014/0...-in-the-bible/

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Yes, there are, and it is not a private argument.

There are no disagreements as to Isaac's age.

Are we all in agreement then that, though CURRENTLY distasteful under our CURRENT culture, it is biblical and biblically acceptable and within the biblical norm for a 40-yr-old man to marry a young teen or was this marriage also a sin?

The discussion is the islamic practice, as exemplified by your prophet and enshrined in islamic law, of prepubescent marriage. That is sin.

(a) Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the ‘Iddah (prescribed period), if you have doubt (about their periods), is three months; and for those who have no courses [(i.e. they are still immature) their ‘Iddah (prescribed period) is three months likewise”
[al-Talaaq 65:4]

In this verse we see that Allaah has made the ‘iddah in the case of divorce of a girl who does not have periods – because she is young and has not yet reached puberty – three months. This clearly indicates that Allaah has made this a valid marriage.


Ibn Qudaamah (may Allah have mercy on him) said in al-Sharh al-Kabeer, 7/386:
With regard to females, the father may give his minor, virgin daughter who has not yet reached the age of nine in marriage, and there is no difference of opinion concerning that, if he gives her in marriage to someone who is compatible.

Ibn al-Mundhir said: All of those scholars from whom we acquired knowledge unanimously agreed that it is permissible for a father to give his minor daughter in marriage if he arranges her to someone who is compatible, and it is permissible for him to do that even if she is reluctant. End quote.



“Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini himself married a ten-year-old girl when he was twenty-eight. Khomeini called marriage to a prepubescent girl “a divine blessing,” and advised the faithful to give their own daughters away accordingly: “Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house.” When he took power in Iran, he lowered the legal marriageable age of girls to nine, in accord with Muhammad’s example.”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/03/tu...last-ten-years

[Aquila]

Guys, from my studies on this, I think this is not being altogether truthful. In the West it was common to betroth a girl to a man... from birth. In Jewish culture, the betrothal required a "get", writ of divorcement to terminate it. Remember Joseph considering "putting away" Mary during their betrothal? In Arab culture, they not only had betrothal, but actual "marriage" sometimes from the earliest ages. It doesn't mean that they consummated said "marriages" immediately. Sometimes they'd take in a girl, raise her almost like a daughter, then marry her. When she became "of age" according to the natural order, they'd consummate and seek to sire children. It was an ancient culture and those were ancient ways.

Every culture both Eastern and Western had practices that we'd not find "decent" by today's standards. We can't impose our modern cultural values upon ancient cultural values.

I'm not agreeing with Islam. I'm only wanting to be fair.

[Pliny]

Let's be fair...

Okay let’s be fair but truthful.
Does the Bible or did Jesus condone prepubescent marriage and consummation of that marriage? The answer is a resounding NO!

Does isalm and its messenger from god condone prepubescent marriage and the consummation of that marriage? The answer is a resounding YES.

This is not about Western culture, Jewish culture or any other culture. It’s about what the Bible condones versus what islam condones.

There is no question or controversy surrounding these salient facts:
1) Muhammad married a six year old girl
2) Muhammad consummated that marriage when she was only nine years old.

There is also no question about sharia law, Islamic law based upon the example and teachings of Muhammad.

Here are a couple quotes from the Quran:
Surah 33. Al-Ahzab
“21. Indeed in the Messenger of Allah (Muhammad) you have a good example to follow for him who hopes for (the Meeting with) Allah and the Last Day, and remembers Allah much.”

Surah 68. Al-Qalam
“4. And verily, you (O Muhammad) are on an exalted (standard of) character.”

Islam establishes that Muhammad had an “exalted character” and his “example” is encouraged to be followed. Thus, we can be “fair” in understanding why Mohammedans across the globe seek to consummate marriage with prepubescent girls.

In islam past, present and future there is “scholarly consensus” concerning the topic of prepubescent consummation of marriage.

Apparently some people have missed this important fact.

“Marrying a young girl before she reaches the age of adolescence is permitted in sharee’ah; indeed it was narrated that there was scholarly consensus on this point.
(a) Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the ‘Iddah (prescribed period), if you have doubt (about their periods), is three months; and for those who have no courses [(i.e. they are still immature) their ‘Iddah (prescribed period) is three months likewise”
[al-Talaaq 65:4]

In this verse we see that Allaah has made the ‘iddah in the case of divorce of a girl who does not have periods – because she is young and has not yet reached puberty – three months. This clearly indicates that Allaah has made this a valid marriage.”

Here we see divorce law at work in sharia. Before a divorce is completed there is a waiting period of three months for those who have “passed the age of monthly courses”. In other words a female that has reached the age of puberty.

Additionally, we see those that “have no courses” still have a waiting period of three months. Those who “have no courses” are prepubescent girls. Therefore, there is Islamic “scholarly consensus” that consummation of a marriage to a prepubescent girl is okay. That goes for the past, present and future of islam thanks to Muhammad’s example and teachings.

Additionally we know:
“Ibn Qudaamah (may Allah have mercy on him) said in al-Sharh al-Kabeer, 7/386:
With regard to females, the father may give his minor, virgin daughter who has not yet reached the age of nine in marriage, and there is no difference of opinion concerning that, if he gives her in marriage to someone who is compatible.

Ibn al-Mundhir said: All of those scholars from whom we acquired knowledge unanimously agreed that it is permissible for a father to give his minor daughter in marriage if he arranges her to someone who is compatible, and it is permissible for him to do that even if she is reluctant. End quote.”

In islam a man can give his daughter (even if she is younger than nine) to another man in marriage regardless of whether she wants it or not.

Because prepubescent marriage is enshrined in Islamic law and the consummation of that despicable act is okay with their deity and exemplified in their “messenger”, there is nothing stopping that “man” (I am being kind here) from consummating that marriage to the girl, given by her father. Remember this girl is less than nine years old.

I documented earlier that the Ayatollah Khomeini married a ten year old girl. When he came to power he lowered the age to nine years old for marriage. He went on to encourage families to not let their daughters reach puberty in their homes. In other words marry the girls off while they are still little girls. This is a sick practice. No, let’s be fair. Let’s be fair to the multitudes of little girls that have been manipulated and exploited and tell the truth about islam.

Let’s be fair and tell the truth. This is not about a “betrothal”. It’s about the consummation of marriage prior to the girl reaching puberty. It is a logical fallacy to attempt to equate cultures to divine inspiration. There is no moral equivalency to be found there.

Pedophilia has been declared okay in isalm. That is both fair and true. It’s not “imposing” current culture upon an ancient one. It’s understanding godliness. BTW the Christian God does not change. There is no variableness nor shadow of turning with Him. If it is sin today it was sin then. Good grief.

Let’s be fair shall we? Allah gave Muhammad permission to rape the women slaves.

Surah 4. An-Nisa
24. “Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those (slaves) whom your right hand possess. Thus has Allah ordained for you… Surely, Allah is Ever All Knowing, All Wise.”

Here is yet another news story about an EIGHT year old girl.
NEWSER) – Yemeni officials say a shocking media report about a child bride dying from internal injuries sustained on her wedding night simply isn't true, reports the Huffington Post. The initial report about the 8-year-old girl's death went viral, but now a local police official tells Gulf News that it's false. "When I heard the rumors (of the girl's death), I called the girl’s father," he says. "He came with his daughter and denied the marriage and death of his daughter. I have the photos of the girl and will show it to anyone." A nonprofit volunteer group that protects children says its initial investigation also suggests that the "story was untrue."

However, the journalist who wrote the original piece—it said the girl's family married her off to a man in his 40s—is sticking by it, insisting that Yemeni officials are looking to deflect criticism. If such a marriage took place, it would not be against the law in Yemen. The country did pass a law in 2009 setting the minimum age for marriage at 17, HuffPo reports, but it was later overturned. A quarter of girls in Yemen are married off before the age of 15, reports Al Bawaba.
http://www.newser.com/story/173975/c...ing-night.html

Human Rights Watch on Yemen – An Islamic Country ruled by Sharia (Islamic law).
Note: A PDF report can be attained here:
http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/fil...orUpload_0.pdf

“How Come You Allow Little Girls to Get Married?” Child Marriage in Yemen p 7.
According to Human Rights Watch in Yemen
“after the 1994 war. Sharia became the source of all legislation, not just a “main” source as before.”8
8 “Note on the amended constitution, 1994,” Yemen Gateway, http://www.al-bab.com/yemen/gov/con94a.htm (accessed November 11, 2010).

“How Come You Allow Little Girls to Get Married?” Child Marriage in Yemen pp 15-16
“In rural areas, such as Hadhramawt and Hudaida, girls may be married as young as eight, and in Mukalla around 10. The age of marriage in urban areas is slightly higher. Of the 31 girls and women Human Rights Watch interviewed in Sanaa, all but one were married between the ages of 12 and 17, with the majority married before age 15.”

“How Come You Allow Little Girls to Get Married?” Child Marriage in Yemen p 17
In fact, the government made matters worse by repealing the previous legal age of 15 for marriage in 1999, making it legal for a child of any age to be married.


“On April 10, 2010, the Sharia Legislative Committee issued a 14 page document citing religious reasons for not setting an age of marriage. The document stated that article 15 is in contradiction to the Quran, Sunnah, the Constitution, and the interest of the child.” 87
87 Government of Yemen, “Full report of the Sharia legislative committee on article 15 of the law number 15 of 1992 on personal status law,” April 4, 2010. Copy on file with Human Rights Watch.

Great religion…

Who will give voice to this atrocity?
Who will care for the little girls manipulated an exploited by this religious system.?
Let's be fair. Fair to those little girls who are trapped in a demonically inspired religious system.

[shazeep]

well, at least we don't have to look any further for anti-Christ
you have quite a crowd seeking escape from your own system, it seems to me; is there a point to this, other than doing satan's work, Pliny? I mean, the disingenuous fixation on little girls a half-world away is understandable, being as how you are pretty much in the heart of Incest Central--the true path of course would be to either adopt them yourself or become a missionary to those areas, rather than this braying in superiority on a Pent forum, lol--but the religious attack, what is that? Seems like you might be more worried about Christ ascending the throne of King David, the Murderer, or something?

[Walks_in_islam]

With limited time I will weed through these and address the high points only.

Originally Posted by Pliny

Divorce and marriage are entwined together. In case you are unaware of this interesting fact, you don’t get divorced unless you are married. This is even understood by Islamic “scholars”.

Earlier question: Based on what the bible DOES say about marriage, and since you accept the marriage of Rebecca with Isaac as biblically sound, it IS biblical for a 40-yr-old man to marry a young teen.

Is this practice sinful or not? Still currently distasteful. Sinful? Declare. Same question applies to Mary and Joseph.


As far as those taking more than one wife as “sinning”, yes they did. Jesus affirmed the creative order as being between one man and one woman. So simple even a cave man can understand it!

Jesus described divorce quite well. Where is it specifically stated in the bible that polygamy is a sin?

Here is another factoid for you. The Bible does not profess to be a laundry list of every sin that man could possibly conceive. That would fill a library and no doubt someone somewhere would argue that their particular “distasteful” act was not delineated anywhere and is therefore “not sin”. The volumes would be so large that it would take a U-Haul truck and trailer to bring the Bible to church.

Instead God gave 613 mitzvahs (commandments), in the Old Testament, and many of those deal specifically with religious ceremony and how they, as a nation, were to approach God. Instead of a library of do’s and don’ts God gave them a ministry - Deuteronomy 17. The ministry was to use the principles of God to establish the matter.

Yeah, you aren't the first minister to declare that his flock needed the ministry to use the principles of God to establish what is or is not sin. This is, I believe, the root of the problem here.

Many critics make similarly unlearned statements.

Yes but you said that the bible is stand-alone, no need for any source for anyone else. Now you are saying that on this issue there is a need for a little bit of "ministerial help". I find that funny.

Oh and to your point about Muhammad divorcing the girl. He should have NEVER married her to begin with. Don’t you agree? After all even you cannot deny that what he did was “distasteful” can you?

He arranged a marriage, waited 3 years, consummated it. Seems that practice predates Islam.
Either he is the most patient pedophile in history or he simply, not realizing that in the 21st century these actions would be judged under a different set of criteria, was following the practices of that time.


Although I am certain you meant this as a pejorative, I take it as a compliment. Thank you.

Of course you do. Being called "to use the principles of God to establish the matter" of right and wrong to others probably feels very important.


Naturally common sense demands that a marriage covenant be between two people of sufficient age and maturity to enter into the covenant. Well unless you’re the “messenger of god” (according to islam). Once again going back to the scripture you referred to about Rebekah. The text makes it clear she was of a mature age physically and mentally. She was able to not only go to a well by herself and take back enough water for the family for the day. She was also physically able to draw water for the camels of Abraham’s servant. That is no small task concerning the amounts of water camel’s drink!

“They drink large amounts of water - up to 20 gallons at a time.”
http://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/mysteries/camel.html

Additionally, Rebekah had the mental acumen to know the state of the family’s provisions. It’s clear she was, as the ESV states, a young woman. Every case of marriage in the Bible is between mature individual’s not prepubescent girls, as exemplified by your prophet. Jesus affirmed the creative order of one man and one woman (Mtt. 19).

Sure. So she was a young teen. So, as the marriage between Mary and Joseph, a Jacob's marriage to a young teen was also a loving biblical marriage. This is acceptable?

BTW your hyperbole of stating that I am the only person after 2000+ years to note the “distasteful” act of your prophet is, well, “distasteful” is really quite funny. Especially considering that you yourself have said the same thing! Thanks for the laugh!

Funny we were speaking of the interpretation of the discussion on divorce. Was there something about the Prophet in that little clip from Matthew that you took the liberty to "use the principles of God <cough>current practice<cough> to establish the matter?

Here’s an idea. Why don’t you make your donation here:
http://humanoptions.org/need-help/em...omens-shelter/

I like this one. http://standforthesilent.org/ I know you probably can't spare anything from your building fund or your missions fund but they do good work.


Apparently you have no idea what ACE schools are. They did not have them then, just so you know.

I must not, because if I did, then comparing children dressed in red, white, and blue sitting in silence facing a wall at their back of their desk putting up little flags if they want to speak to captivity would not be insulting, it would be funny. So if I did know what they were then the statement would be a joke.

With that in mind, maybe it is you who have no idea what ACE schools are. LOL


BTW they, the slave girls, were allowed freedom of choice.


Instead of a library of do’s and don’ts God gave them a ministry. The ministry was to use the principles of God to establish the matter.

Which principle of God does your current ministry establish while trying to use the word "slave girl" and "freedom of choice" in the same sentence?

Thank you. I REALLY needed ministerial interpretation "assistance" to clear that up. Thanks for the laugh!


TBC

[Walks_in_islam]

Again, the highlights of the "wall o' text"

Originally Posted by Pliny

For someone who whines about “insults” you have no problem attempting to insult others. I will not respond in like manner.

A little late for that. I do not mind if you want to turn a discussion into a knife fight. Up to you.


Here we go once again attempting to build a straw man argument and false moral equivalency. It was stated (much much WAY) earlier that I do not hold the tradition of Jews, the Talmud or human governmental laws as being equivalent to divine inspiration.

Yes, you are the one who supplies the "ministerial assistance" to determine what a passage means or doesn't mean.

The Bible is divinely inspired literature. Muslims believe the life example of Muhammad is to be followed along with his teachings. After all he’s the “messenger of god”. There is a consensus about Muhammad and his teachings on this point.

It’s without controversy that he was a pedophile and your deity has “blessed” that relationship. You cannot find anything in the Bible, the moral equivalent, to support your wishful thinking. Thus you must seek for it elsewhere.

Wishful thinking is when you declare a sin without a specific passage to support it. I actually have no goal, no gain, and nothing to lose here.


Let’s see… Your “proof” comes from the commentator Rashi. You are aware that Rashi was born in France and lived from 1040 – 1105 AD right?
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...aphy/rashi.htm

So your “logic” is to ignore the clear teaching of the text and accept the comments of someone bornin Europe who lived thousands of years after the event. I guess he had a crystal ball that he could look at to make that determination. Your logic here explains a lot.

Rashi is a rabbi and as you yourself FINALLY admitted God did not spell it out leaving it to "the ministry" to do so.

You do understand that the Jewish rabbis disagree on the age of Rebakah right? Yet you fixate upon the one that agrees with your agenda. Why is that? Your paradigm at work? It doesn’t even matter to you that he lived thousands of years after the events he is commenting on. As long as it helps you sleep at night why let the truth get in the way of the narrative…

Nope, I got what I needed from that. I just wanted you to declare a marriage between a young teen and a 40-yr-old man as biblical and blessed and you have done so. Thanks.

I need to get one of those crystal balls! LOL!

You do, because in focusing on the 3-yr-old thing you walked right into the above.

Here is what the Bible states concerning Rebekah.
She was old enough to go to the well alone.
She was physically capable of fetching water for the entire family to use throughout the day.
She was physically capable of drawing water for the camels (there were ten camels according to Genesis 24:10) of Abraham’s servant. As documented in an earlier post, camels drink up to twenty gallons of water at a time. They had been on a long journey. Rebekah retrieved enough water for the camels to drink till they were satiated. Do the math. That’s a lot of water to draw!
She was mature enough to have full understanding of the state of affairs of her family. She understood the camels need hay to lay down on and “provender” enough (Genesis 24:25) for the camels.
She did not have to run home and ask any of these questions and also understood there was room for him and the men with him to lodge with them.
She was able to make the decision to stay or go (Genesis 24:57-58).
This all points to a young woman not a three year old girl as suggested by you. I will stick with the Biblical text. You can have the Jewish commentator here.

Me too. She was right at or near puberty, as per the consensus of the majority. So you accept this as biblically acceptable yes?

I understand why you dredge this up. You have no choice but to try to find something, somewhere to alleviate the fact that your prophet was a pedophile. This sin is inherent to islam and enshrined in sharia law. Therefore, you must justify it somehow some way. In this way you can tell yourself it’s okay. Yet, your conscious tells you differently.


It is apparent that your “information” comes from this site:
http://discover-the-truth.com/2013/0...omment-page-1/
Here is the citation for the quote from the Islamic apologetic source:

Please note this is point 2 and footnote 1.

You are not implying that dusty old books like "Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Volume 8 edited by G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, Heinz-Josef Fabry" were secretly written for Muslims are you? That's ridiculous.


So once again you rely upon the Talmud? And exactly who believes the Talmud is divinely inspired? Not me nor any Christian I know of. You have once again tried to create a straw man by attempting to make a false moral equivalency. The Bible is the standard.

Me? I care less what the Talmud says actually. It was you who said that God did not spell out every single sin and it was those who developed the Talmud who represented the ministry assigned by God to do it.

It doesn’t matter what the Talmud states. It’s only correct inasmuch as it agrees with the Bible. The Bible is the standard not Judaism’s rabbis, oral traditions or the Talmud. You are aware that Jesus taught against the doctrines of the Pharisees right? Please see Matthew 16:12 for one example, there are others as well. Why would I or any other Apostolic attempt to establish doctrine from the teachings Jesus specifically preached against?

Did he? You ARE aware that Jesus specifically said (at least you would be if you had followed my recommended bible study the other day)

2 The Pharisees and the teachers of the Law are experts in the Law of Moses. 3 So obey everything they teach you, but don’t do as they do. After all, they say one thing and do something else.

I have no idea as to possible motives as to why you would establish doctrine that is different from the teachings Jesus specifically said to follow. Can you explain why you just said one thing and Jesus in Matthew 23 said the exact opposite? Is this another example of where you are using "ministerial guidance" to explain what Jesus probably MEANT to say? LOL

Good thing this not baseball…

Yeah, you hit a foul with that one.

All you have done is shown the depravity of humanity. However, you have miserably failed to establish anywhere at any time that the God of the Bible condones such “distasteful” behavior.

Jesus appeared to condone the teachings of the Pharisees which you already stated above that you categorically reject. hmmmmm.....which way should folks lean on that?

[Walks_in_islam]

One quick question because this is sort of a double standard -

Originally Posted by Pliny

First you posted this is good, these girls were headed for loving, wholesome, biblical marriages, no way were they mistreated:

(Num 31:15 KJV) And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
(Num 31:16 KJV) Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
(Num 31:17 KJV) Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
(Num 31:18 KJV) But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Then you posted look at this terrible thing that happened in the news:

Since January, 2011 through March, 2014, over 550 Christian girls were kidnapped by Muslim men and forced to convert and marry their abductors, often after suffering violence at the hands of their kidnappers

I do not in any way condone these terrible deeds by these so-called "muslims". I do wonder. Suppose all of their family members, fathers, mothers, brothers, were lined up and butchered in front of them, then they were taken, would that constitute "suffering violence" and if this happened wouldn't that be exactly what happened in this little story that you post over and over and over and isn't what happened to them actually better than what happened to young girls in the bible?

Because in posting this, and waving the (probab-lie) good things that happened later to these little girls ("they were slaves but hey they had freedom of choice so look at how good they had it blah blah") you are actually openly condoning everything that happened for these girls to end up as "freedom of choice slave girls".

What does that make you?

A. A sicko?
B. A twisted sicko?

You should be condemning the whole story. Instead you are waving it online as the standard of wholesome loving biblical marriage. Whats up with that?

Also you seem to find this passage quite challenging so you have skirted around it this entire discussion. You skipped it in your little "seminar" on rape like a schoolgirl on the hopscotch court.

23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her,
24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife.

Instead you only posted this:

25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die.
26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor

That's intellectually dishonest. Just saying. If a tree falls in the city and nobody hears, that tree gets stoned for it in your bible, but only if that tree was betrothed to another tree. Otherwise, that tree gets a life sentence with the axman. Thus says the LORD.