Islam and child brides

[Goat]

A large number of Islamic countries have the tradition of having child brides. The continued use of child brides is justified using the story in the Quran of Momahmmad marrying Aeyshea when she was 6.

In Yemen, an 8 year old child bride died of sexual trauma
http://www.albawaba.com/editorchoice/ye ... hts-519066

Every year, there are over 50 million girls under the age of 15 that are forced to marry.

In 2007, it was made illegal to marry under the age of 17 in Yemen, but the conservative lawmakers got that law overturned, because it was 'un-Islamic.'

THis child died as a result.

Why do so many (not all) of Islamic countries cling to the idea of marrying girls off much to young for their health. A girl under the age of 15 that gets pregnant and has a child has many health issues for herself, and the child quite often has health issues too.

Why do they think that is Mohammed did it, it's still justified in this age and time?

[help3434]

[Replying to post 26 by bluethread]

Why would a book inspired by God, who is supposedly the creator of the universe and a perfect being in every way, provide provisions for slavery?

[Goat]

By the way, atheism does not outright oppose child brides.

Meaningless statement. That is like saying heliocentrism or mechanical engineering doesn't outright oppose child brides. The definition of atheism and heliocentrism and mechanical engineering has nothing to do with child brides.

Not only that, but the term 'atheist' is not the opposite of 'Christianity' or "islam'

It is the opposite of 'Theism'

Now, something like Secular Humanism would have something to say about child bride. . .. not atheism.

[bluethread]

By the way, atheism does not outright oppose child brides.

Meaningless statement. That is like saying heliocentrism or mechanical engineering doesn't outright oppose child brides. The definition of atheism and heliocentrism and mechanical engineering has nothing to do with child brides.

Neither do the Scriptures.

Since atheism just means not believing in God or Gods then atheists have a world view that is more than just "atheism". And I would think that the world view of most is opposed to slavery. Attacking the bare bones characteristic of atheism as not being inherently against slavery is like attacking the color blue for not being inherently against slavery.

The world view of most theists is also opposed to slavery. Interesting choice of words, however. Are you saying that you are attacking believers in Adonai because their belief is not inherently opposed to slavery?

Why would a book inspired by God, who is supposedly the creator of the universe and a perfect being in every way, provide provisions for slavery?

Because it is something people do.

Not only that, but the term 'atheist' is not the opposite of 'Christianity' or "islam'

It is the opposite of 'Theism'

Now, something like Secular Humanism would have something to say about child bride. . .. not atheism.

I didn't say it was the opposite of 'Christianity' or "islam'. Atheists on this forum generally do not identify themselves as Secular Humanists. In fact, they generally do not like to identify themselves with any philosophy. However, they are quick to presume to know the philosophy of various theists. So, maybe atheists should stop hiding behind that term, and/or grant theists the right to not have absolute and perfect revelation. Just because there is a deity does not mean that deity is obligated to provide instructions on every aspect of life. By the way, where does Secular Humanism clearly state anything. Is that not left to the individual secular humanist.

[help3434]

By the way, atheism does not outright oppose child brides.

Meaningless statement. That is like saying heliocentrism or mechanical engineering doesn't outright oppose child brides. The definition of atheism and heliocentrism and mechanical engineering has nothing to do with child brides.

Neither do the Scriptures.

Didn't say it did.

Since atheism just means not believing in God or Gods then atheists have a world view that is more than just "atheism". And I would think that the world view of most is opposed to slavery. Attacking the bare bones characteristic of atheism as not being inherently against slavery is like attacking the color blue for not being inherently against slavery.

The world view of most theists is also opposed to slavery. Interesting choice of words, however. Are you saying that you are attacking believers in Adonai because their belief is not inherently opposed to slavery?

Attacking believers in Adonai? Where do you get that from? I am just trying to correct a category error that you seem to be making here.

Why would a book inspired by God, who is supposedly the creator of the universe and a perfect being in every way, provide provisions for slavery?

Because it is something people do.

Murdering, stealing, eating pork, having sex outside of marriage, etc. are things that people do, yet the Torah is not shy about outright forbidding those things.

[bluethread]

By the way, atheism does not outright oppose child brides.

Meaningless statement. That is like saying heliocentrism or mechanical engineering doesn't outright oppose child brides. The definition of atheism and heliocentrism and mechanical engineering has nothing to do with child brides.

Neither do the Scriptures.

Didn't say it did.

Well, if atheism and the Scriptures have nothing to do with child brides, why areyou criticizing the Scriptures on a thread about child brides?

Since atheism just means not believing in God or Gods then atheists have a world view that is more than just "atheism". And I would think that the world view of most is opposed to slavery. Attacking the bare bones characteristic of atheism as not being inherently against slavery is like attacking the color blue for not being inherently against slavery.

The world view of most theists is also opposed to slavery. Interesting choice of words, however. Are you saying that you are attacking believers in Adonai because their belief is not inherently opposed to slavery?

Attacking believers in Adonai? Where do you get that from? I am just trying to correct a category error that you seem to be making here.

You were talking about someone "Attacking the bare bones characteristic of atheism". If I was "attacking", when I pointed out that atheism does not outright condemn slavery, what were you doing when you pointed out that the Scriptures do not outright condemn slavery?

Why would a book inspired by God, who is supposedly the creator of the universe and a perfect being in every way, provide provisions for slavery?

Because it is something people do.

Murdering, stealing, eating pork, having sex outside of marriage, etc. are things that people do, yet the Torah is not shy about outright forbidding those things.

The question I was answering was why provide provisions for slavery. Provisions are also made for murdering, stealing, eating pork, having sex outside of marriage, because they are also things that people do. Why did HaTorah not outright forbid slavery, that is another question. To that question I must say I do not know. What that has to do with child brides, I do not know that either, do you?

That said, I must note that when I used the word provision in response to Finn the Human, who started this side rail, I was using it to mean condone. I was not referring to ways of handling a situation, as we are using the word now. HaTorah does not command slavery, it just provides instructions on how to handle it should it occur.

[help3434]

By the way, atheism does not outright oppose child brides.

Meaningless statement. That is like saying heliocentrism or mechanical engineering doesn't outright oppose child brides. The definition of atheism and heliocentrism and mechanical engineering has nothing to do with child brides.

Neither do the Scriptures.

Didn't say it did.

Well, if atheism and the Scriptures have nothing to do with child brides, why areyou criticizing the Scriptures on a thread about child brides?

I didn't bring these topics up, I am responding to posts that were already in the thread.

Since atheism just means not believing in God or Gods then atheists have a world view that is more than just "atheism". And I would think that the world view of most is opposed to slavery. Attacking the bare bones characteristic of atheism as not being inherently against slavery is like attacking the color blue for not being inherently against slavery.

The world view of most theists is also opposed to slavery. Interesting choice of words, however. Are you saying that you are attacking believers in Adonai because their belief is not inherently opposed to slavery?

Attacking believers in Adonai? Where do you get that from? I am just trying to correct a category error that you seem to be making here.

You were talking about someone "Attacking the bare bones characteristic of atheism". If I was "attacking", when I pointed out that atheism does not outright condemn slavery, what were you doing when you pointed out that the Scriptures do not outright condemn slavery?

The Torah explicitly allowed the ancient Israelites to own slaves. It gave regulations on buying and slaves and treatment of slaves. According to Deuteronomy 20:10-11 if a city that the Israelites are attacking surrenders, they are to be made slaves. These passages are worthy of condemnation, especially in the face of claims that they were inspired by God. On the other hand criticizing the definition of words for not addressing the issue of slavery makes no sense whatsoever.

[bluethread]

The Torah explicitly allowed the ancient Israelites to own slaves. It gave regulations on buying and slaves and treatment of slaves. According to Deuteronomy 20:10-11 if a city that the Israelites are attacking surrenders, they are to be made slaves. These passages are worthy of condemnation, especially in the face of claims that they were inspired by God. On the other hand criticizing the definition of words for not addressing the issue of slavery makes no sense whatsoever.

There are rules regarding forced labor and we can examine them to see what the nature of that forced labor really is. It is true that Deut. 20 states that Adonai's people were to offer terms of peace in their conquest of Canaan. Forced labor was not the only option. They could have fled or fought also. I am not criticizing the definition of words, but trying to determine on what basis you say that it is "worthy of condemnation" that those who do not flee or fight in a time of war are permitted to be forced laborers? Again, this has nothing to do with islam or child brides, so it is entirely off topic. Not to mention that we are in the Non-Christian Religions and philosophy section.

[Yochanan]

The continued use of child brides is justified using the story in the Quran of Mohmmad marrying Aeyshea when she was 6.

I challenge you into a head to head debate about the prophet mohammed(peace be upon him) marriage to Aisha

[HaLi8993]

@ help 3434

Why would a book inspired by God, who is supposedly the creator of the universe and a perfect being in every way, provide provisions for slavery?

People have a wrong understanding of the nature of slavery according to Islam, the common slavery that the west are a familiar with such as harsh treatment, labor, torture etc....are not the limits set by Islam rather a slave in Islam is respected and treated appropriately according to the rules and regulations set out by God.

We often see how people accuse Islam by saying it permits slavery, and saying that this is a transgression against man’s freedom and rights. When the question is asked, why does Islam permit slavery? We as Muslims emphatically and without shame will reply that slavery is permitted in Islam, but we should examine the matter with fairness and with the aim of seeking the truth, and we should examine the details of the rulings on slavery in Islam, with regard to the sources and reasons for it, and how to deal with the slave and how his rights and duties are equal to those of the free man, and the ways in which he may earn his freedom, of which there are many in the Islamic system, also taking into consideration the new types of slavery in this world which is pretending to be civilized, modern and progressive.

Capture of prisoners during war was the most common way of acquiring slaves. Prisoners would be captured during any war, and the prevalent custom at that time was that prisoners had no protection or rights, they would either be killed or enslaved. But Islam brought two more options:
1) Unconditional release
2) Ransom

Therefore Islam is not thirsty for the blood of prisoners, nor is it eager to enslave them. Furthermore it would not be a practical approach to set one free as this would give the person an opportunity to fight you again, hence Islam did not abolish it altogether.

Freedom is a basic human right which cannot be taken away from a person except for a reason. Slavery in Islam has rules and regulations. If a person is taken prisoner in a war of aggression in which he was defeated, then the proper conduct is to keep him in reasonable conditions throughout his detention. Despite all that, Islam offers many opportunities to restore freedom to him and people like him. The principle of dealing with slaves in Islam is a combination of justice, kindness and compassion. For example the Guarantee of food and clothing like that of their masters, preserving there dignity, being fair and treating them kindly.

I hope this has helped you in understanding the concept of slavery in Islam.

God knows best.