Yemen Cleric: Fight Draft Law Banning Child Brides

A February 2009 law set the minimum age for marriage at 17, but it was repealed and sent back to parliament's constitutional committee for review after pressure from some lawmakers and clerics, led by al-Zindani, who called it un-Islamic.

Un-Islamic?!

The cleric, Sheik Adbul-Majid al-Zindani, said a ban on child brides "threatens our culture and society and spreads immorality." Al-Zindani is Yemen's most powerful Islamic scholar and believed by the U.S. to be a spiritual mentor of Osama Bin Laden.

Banning child brides spreads immorality?!


SAN'A, Yemen (AP) - Yemen's most influential Islamic cleric vowed on Saturday to gather a "million" signatures to protest a draft law banning child brides, in an increasingly vocal showdown against the country's weak government which needs the support of powerful religious leaders to hold onto power.

The issue of child brides in Yemen has attracted broad international attention, most recently when a 13-year-old girl bled to death earlier this month after her 23-year-old husband allegedly tied her down and forced her to have sex with him.

The cleric, Sheik Adbul-Majid al-Zindani, said a ban on child brides "threatens our culture and society and spreads immorality." Al-Zindani is Yemen's most powerful Islamic scholar and believed by the U.S. to be a spiritual mentor of Osama Bin Laden.

Speaking at a conference at Iman University in the Yemeni capital San'a, al-Zindani called on the dozens of radical clerics and Islamic law students in the crowd to opposed the draft law.

"You have to gather a million signatures ... that supports the demands of clerics," said al-Zindani. "If the issue calls on us to gather a million protesters, we'll organize it," al-Zindani said.

Al-Zindani's calls against the ban have become increasingly strident ahead of an expected vote by Yemeni lawmakers next month on raising the marriage age to 17.

The practice of marrying young girls is widespread in Yemen, where a quarter of all females marry before they turn 15, according to a 2009 report by the country's Ministry of Social Affairs.

In the country's deeply tribal society, families prefer young brides because they are seen as more obedient and are expected to have more children. It is also difficult for poor families in impoverished Yemen to ignore bride-prices of hundreds of dollars.

A February 2009 law set the minimum age for marriage at 17, but it was repealed and sent back to parliament's constitutional committee for review after pressure from some lawmakers and clerics, led by al-Zindani, who called it un-Islamic.

In March, al-Zindani signed a religious decree that declared people who supported the ban on child brides to be apostates, a particularly severe charge in the deeply Muslim country.

Pressure from al-Zindani and other religious leaders have made the government reluctant to tackle the issue because they rely on their support to stay in power. A parliamentary committee was expected to make a final decision on the legislation this month, but that has now been delayed until May.

It is widely expected that the government will raise the marriage age to deflect international pressure, but will not enforce legislation. Impoverished Yemenis are widely expected to ignore the law.

http://www.cbsnews.c...in6428032.shtml

It Is Allowed to Marry a Girl at the Age of One:

Child sex normal in Islam and Quran:

Sharia Expert Defends Child Marriage:

Edited by Námo, 25 April 2010 - 07:03 PM.

Well if they don't marry kids, then they'll just marry goats again.

"...threatens our culture and society and spreads immorality."

OOhhh... no, no, sorry Mr. Shrek Abdula... no freedom of speech.

This is stupid... kids don't want these temple rats marrying them, so get rid of the 'child brides' so there can be less un-Islamic crap out there.

" ... threatens our culture and society and spreads immorality."

Ooh yes ... yes, Mr. Shrek Abdula is right ... a ban on pedophilia would indeed be very un-islamic, as the legitimacy of marrying pre-pubescent girls is established both in the Qur’an and in the "perfect example" set by Muhammad for his Muslim followers:

The Qur'an:

Such of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the prescribed period, if ye have any doubts, is three months, and for those who have no courses (it is the same) (65:4)

The rule concerns divorce, which obviously implies marriage. Muhammad wanted believing men to observe a three month waiting period before evicting their wives, to make sure that they weren’t pregnant.

Muhammad elsewhere encouraged his men to marry “young girls” for sexual pleasure:

"Allah's Apostle said to me, "Have you got married O Jabir?" I replied, "Yes." He asked "What, a virgin or a matron?" I replied, "Not a virgin but a matron." He said, "Why did you not marry a young girl who would have fondled with you?" (Bukhari 59:382)

Lest there be any doubt by what he meant by “young,” Muhammad set the example by marrying and having sex with Aisha when she was only 9-years-old:

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: “Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house at the age of nine.” (Sahih Muslim 3309) This is confirmed in many other hadith as well.

According to the most reliable traditions, Aisha brought her dolls to Muhammad’s house for play (Muslim 3341) and he would fondle the little girl in the tub while taking baths with her (Bukhari 6:298). Aisha was just a teenager by the time Muhammad died, but she had already spent over half her life in marriage to him.

Even worse for Muslims is that part of the Qur’an was actually “revealed” while Muhammad was in bed with this little girl:

[Muhammad said] "…the Divine Inspirations do not come to me on any of the beds except that of Aisha." (Bukhari 47:755)

So ... Muhammad did not condemn pedophilia.

Not even close.

Quoted from TheReligionofPeace.com

Saudi Society for the Defense of Women's Rights Launches Internet Campaign against Child Marriage:

I'm getting a bit tired of all these Youtube posts with nothing more than a small snippet of what it is about Namo.

I get it that you are very anti-islamic, but I'm not very prone to click on these youtube-links unless I see some good arguments why they should be clicked. I don't like any religion because they work on the same foundation, so when you only come with short posts with no personal opinion or comment on them I get annoyed.

Thank God (Allah?) somebody finally said it. Old opinionated videos are getting old.

As if there aren't enough normal-aged muslim women to go around. But of course this is a society that thinks that it's a woman's fault if she gets raped just because she doesn't walk around looking like a ghost out of Pac-Man, and stones her to death for her trouble. Can't expect sanity from that crowd.

Honestly, I'm all for religious freedom and freedom of expression but I can't take social mores of that draconian magnitude seriously, much less accept them as part of the culture of my own society - they're incompatible with its laws but I can imagine those same laws being bent in the interests of multiculturalism and political apologism.

Thank God (Allah?) somebody finally said it. Old opinionated videos are getting old.

So what else that is old that might be disturbing?
Communist Manifesto (1848)
Mein Kampf (1925)
Quaran (625 A.D)

Anything else you need to get off your chest?

So what else that is old that might be disturbing?

Communist Manifesto (1848)
Mein Kampf (1925)
Quaran (625 A.D)

One of the most disturbing about these three ideologies is that they are so much alike, and that most people don't seem to recognize this fact.

Those who has studied history of the pre-WW2 era will know, that the policies of the DNSAP (German National Socialist Workers Party) and the Soviet Communist Party were pretty much the same, even in terms of the state's control/takeover of the means of production.

So what else that is old that might be disturbing?

Communist Manifesto (1848)
Mein Kampf (1925)
Quaran (625 A.D)

One of the most disturbing about these three ideologies is that they are so much alike, and that most people don't seem to recognize this fact.

Those who has studied history of the pre-WW2 era will know, that the policies of the DNSAP (German National Socialist Workers Party) and the Soviet Communist Party were pretty much the same, even in terms of the state's control/takeover of the means of production.

I assume you're talking about the 25 Point Programme which, as you probably know, was merely kept by Hitler as a piece of rhetoric, and not a codification of the political intent. It was a relic from the older members of Drexler and Goebbels, the left of the party who eventually either abandoned their socialist leanings or were sidelined from the party.
You'll also realise that your insinuation that the horrific quality of the regimes alluded to - their socialist similarities - is entirely spurious and narrow-minded, trying to impose connections by equating socialism with genocide.

Edited by Puppeteer, 31 January 2011 - 04:34 PM.

By all means please provide us with examples of some working models of communism or any other form of government/economy besides democracy/capitalism that has not enslaved it's people. Theocracies don't work, communism doesn't work, feudalism doesn't work, tribal rule doesn't work. If one is going to govern a nation with a large population fairly than how do we accomplish that?

Please expand my narrow and spurious mind...

Capitalism may not have 'enslaved its people' in the sense you're getting at, but it has enslaved people.

British pioneer: "What's that you say, Tarquin? You've found a way to turn people into money?"
British slaver: "Why yes! Have these fifty dark-skinned individuals. They'll make your cotton plantations turn a healthy profit! Just ten florins each, eh what."
British pioneer: "You drive a hard bargain, Tarquin...buy me a few dry whiskies and we'll call the deal done."

Or how about the fact that, like it or not, the society we live in is now inescapable even if you wanted to escape it? People are not free to travel or to live where they wish. Why? Because society dictates that we must live in a certain country lest we be deported, or otherwise be forced to go through a long and arduous process to permit ourselves to live in the country of our choice. Or, you could always be an illegal immigrant who murders someone. Then it's illegal to deport you... They are even less free to live how they wish. Why? Because society says we must have all these numbers and cards and bits of ID saying who we are. Every move we make is tracked and virtually every move is audit-trailable by someone. God forbid you wanted to live self-sufficient because you can't. Why? Because you are taxed on your land (moreso if it's agricultural land) and on the commodities you own - even if those commodities amount to a cow, some chickens and a fishing line (which you aren't allowed to use to catch fish to eat because there are laws saying you must throw the fish back).
Don't like your country or disagree with its laws, government or tax regime? Tough. Unless you didn't belong to that country to begin with in which case come along and we'll bend over backwards for you.

Though you deny it you really are a slave to the system. As are we all, unfortunately. Not saying there shouldn't be some structure to the world and society. Just I think there's too much. And capitalism isn't the way forward in that regard any more than its opposite is; people still get squeezed. The only difference is that there are some people who get squeezed less than others. Wait...no, they're the same.

By all means please provide us with examples of some working models of communism or any other form of government/economy besides democracy/capitalism that has not enslaved it's people. Theocracies don't work, communism doesn't work, feudalism doesn't work, tribal rule doesn't work. If one is going to govern a nation with a large population fairly than how do we accomplish that?

Please expand my narrow and spurious mind...

Do you even read the posts before you answer what you think they're saying?
Look at whom I was quoting, too...

By all means please provide us with examples of some working models of communism or any other form of government/economy besides democracy/capitalism that has not enslaved it's people. Theocracies don't work, communism doesn't work, feudalism doesn't work, tribal rule doesn't work. If one is going to govern a nation with a large population fairly than how do we accomplish that?

Define 'working'. Global capitalism has driven millions of people into umeployment and poverty. People lose their homes because they can't afford to pay abstract sums of money to banks that gamble daily with even more abstract sums. I say abstract because can you really wrap your head around what, say £500'000 is? 50 million penny sweets. One million Mars bars. One gigantic pile of pound coins. Capitalism has, as Ash noted, created slavery of entire nations, created a system in which we are free to be part of the system as prescribed, where even knowledge and learning has become a commodity. Even water is bought and sold.

Now look at feudalism. Granted, people were not exactly more free to do as they wished under a feudal system, but equally the world still turned; everybody had a job, everybody was fed, everybody had a place in a real social society rather than the commercial society that we have these days. Tribal rule: again everybody has a job and everybody gets fed. In both of these there is still a solid and dependable rule of law.

You seem to be basing your argument around the theory that it is automatically better to live in a democracy. I would contest that. Having the right to vote does not mean society will improve. If anything, it forces chronic short-termism from the leaders and everybody suffers as a result.

Now, your final point above asks about governing a nation with a large population. This is, admittedly, a problem for feudalism or tribal rule, but that doesn't mean democracy is necessarily the answer. Maybe there is a better solution that we just haven't thought of yet. Or maybe it has been thought of but hasn't been implemented. I appreciate this is a hypothetical argument, but the point is this: do not assume democracy is the best form of government just because it gives you the illusion of involvement.