Sheikh Khalil Chami of the Islamic Welfare Centre in Lakemba said polygamous marriages, although illegal, existed in Australia and should be recognised.

Islamic leader Keysar Trad was born into a polygamous relationship and he says his wife isn't against him taking another partner. 

The wife of the Islamic Friendship president conceded that a choice of polygamy could be due to a husnand wanting sex with more women.

"Yeah it can be," she said, "but having it in the right way instead of having it in like go to prostitute or just date".

What goes on their heads, do they have to do everthing they can to make us dislike them, does it ever end.

Just another example of the imports not willing to play by the local rules.  Piss off if you don't like our laws.

Malik Shakur wrote on Jun 26^th, 2008 at 9:11am:


also, u can marry as early as 16 in australia if u have your parents permission..

And what if we run out of women?

freediver wrote on Jun 26^th, 2008 at 10:11am:

women already outnumber men in this country, and especially within the Muslim community..

Quote:


Well if one is out shopping, you need a spare one to tell you to put the toilet seat down and mow the grass.

muso wrote on Jun 26^th, 2008 at 10:25am:



Amen to that, I personally don't see why you'd bother..

I can shack up with two women.  If they both get pregnant I can have myself named as the father (in fact I am legally responsible for the children.) 

I can claim de-facto status with both of them.  They can claim family support listng me as the partner.

We can have our wages go into a joint bank account, I can get a medicare card for both families, and so on and so on.

(Why anyone would want to do so is beyond me.)

The only reason this story got any play was becuase it featured muslims.

There have been plenty of examples of fundamental christian groups supporting polygamy.

Bill

The main problem with polygamy is that it inevitably leads to the objectification of women. There are societies where women run the households and have multiple husbands, but in a serial manner I think. That seems to work. It would be nice if we could be free to choose what sort of relationships we have. In practice we are, because you cannot prevent three people from living together. All you can do is not give the relationship a legal status.

This article from Psychology Today makes a sound argument that it is polygamy that causes most of the violence in the middle east:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1170642873/128#128

Most suicide bombers are Muslim
Suicide missions are not always religiously motivated, but according to Oxford University sociologist Diego Gambetta, editor of Making Sense of Suicide Missions, when religion is involved, the attackers are always Muslim. Why? The surprising answer is that Muslim suicide bombing has nothing to do with Islam or the Quran (except for two lines). It has a lot to do with sex, or, in this case, the absence of sex.

What distinguishes Islam from other major religions is that it tolerates polygyny. By allowing some men to monopolize all women and altogether excluding many men from reproductive opportunities, polygyny creates shortages of available women. If 50 percent of men have two wives each, then the other 50 percent don't get any wives at all.

So polygyny increases competitive pressure on men, especially young men of low status. It therefore increases the likelihood that young men resort to violent means to gain access to mates. By doing so, they have little to lose and much to gain compared with men who already have wives. Across all societies, polygyny makes men violent, increasing crimes such as murder and rape, even after controlling for such obvious factors as economic development, economic inequality, population density, the level of democracy, and political factors in the region.

However, polygyny itself is not a sufficient cause of suicide bombing. Societies in sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean are much more polygynous than the Muslim nations in the Middle East and North Africa. And they do have very high levels of violence. Sub-Saharan Africa suffers from a long history of continuous civil wars—but not suicide bombings.

The other key ingredient is the promise of 72 virgins waiting in heaven for any martyr in Islam. The prospect of exclusive access to virgins may not be so appealing to anyone who has even one mate on earth, which strict monogamy virtually guarantees. However, the prospect is quite appealing to anyone who faces the bleak reality on earth of being a complete reproductive loser.

It is the combination of polygyny and the promise of a large harem of virgins in heaven that motivates many young Muslim men to commit suicide bombings. Consistent with this explanation, all studies of suicide bombers indicate that they are significantly younger than not only the Muslim population in general but other (nonsuicidal) members of their own extreme political organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah. And nearly all suicide bombers are single.

Yeah, we see the Mormon religion's heaven is a bit like airplane travel, with First class, business class, and economy.
Mormons teach that you MUST be a polygamist to get into First Class Heaven.

That may be why they need special mormon underwear, you couldn't get that silly just playing with one dick!

Sprint that was a very big over simplification actually.

If you look at it first of all. In southern Lebanon and Palestine, there are not so many polygenist marriages actually.. And that is where your article claims most suicide bombings take place.

If you want to see polygenist marriages, check places like Africa and the Gulf, where no suicide bombing takes place. That's where it really occurs.

mozzaok wrote on Jun 26^th, 2008 at 10:53am:

So Mozzaok,

You still haven't shown how someone having an extra wife will interfere with your life?

Also I wonder in that case, why you have no problem with someone cheating on their wife and have children outside of marriage with their mistress in the West, but you do have a problem with people taking on another wife legitimately.

It's hypocritical. Obviously if you're cheating  on your wife its far more abhorrent because she doesn't know about it (hence cheating) and it could end your marriage. But instead of attacking that behaviour you attack a situation where a woman allows her husband to take another wife. Surely if you truly believed in monogamy you'd have more of a problem with people cheating on their wives than you do at the moment.

Definitely hypocritical.

The philosophical debate about sexual freedom is a different issue Malik.

My Primary concern is an alien culture seeking to change my traditional culture.

I do not wish to see any religious group, have laws changed to accommodate their beliefs.

I oppose the erosion of MY culture.

freediver wrote on Jun 26^th, 2008 at 10:46am:


Oh fiddlesticks.  Freedom from religion means for example that you can go shopping on sundays if you like, or even get drunk if you like.

We should all have the basic freedom not to be forced to participate in religion if we don't want to. You might say that it's part of freedom of religion, but so what? Freedom from Religion still exists - or it should do.   

http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/AdoptedText/ta05/EREC1720.htm

"The Parliamentary Assembly forcefully reaffirms that each person’s religion, including the option of having no religion, is a strictly personal matter. However, this is not inconsistent with the view that a good general knowledge of religions and the resulting sense of tolerance are essential to the exercise of democratic citizenship."

That's freedom from religion. Sometimes I think we are so backwards compared to the Europeans.

mozzaok wrote on Jun 26^th, 2008 at 10:53am:


I agree with you to a point. I like typical Australian culture. I enjoy an espresso and a bit of carrot cake, I like to have a falafel kebab when I'm hungry. I also like yum cha and the occasional sushi with wasabe as much as I will enjoy watching Queensland win next week at the State of Origin.

Take a look at some of the players in that clash of titans. They represent a reasonable cross-section of Australian culture. I'm not sure if there are specifically any Muslims among them, but there are certainly people with different family and cultural traditions.

Most of those traditions will tend to blur as time goes on. As Malik stated, the Muslim community is already having problems with their kids. (Who doesn't?)

Lines of distinction will continue to blur, and we'll have more in common with just being Australians rather than being Muslims or Catholics or Godless Heathens for that matter.

I'd prefer to live in a land of freedom, and freedom of choice. If you compare Australia to the US, both have variety, but we're totally different and distinctive. If countries were ice cream flavours, Australia would be tutti-frutti and America would be stale vanilla.

That's my two cents anyway.  

freediver wrote on Jun 26^th, 2008 at 11:41am:


Well I don't. I think people should be allowed to be eccentric and talk on park corners (or virtual park corners like this one) about whatever they choose to talk about. They should also be free to go around knocking on doors whenever they want (within reason). Freedom of speech is important.

I just think that we should be free to choose 'no-religion' and that the choice of 'no-religion'  which represents a growing proportion of the population should be on the same basis as those who choose a particular religion.

Australian society still has some archaic laws which are biased towards one form or other of Christianity. We are a multicultural  and secular society, so I believe that people should be treated equally, regardless of their religion or absence of religion.

We already have a "Do not call" register, but religious organisations are exempt. Maybe we should have the option to include religious organisations. Spam is spam, regardless of whether or not it's religious in nature or not.

muso wrote on Jun 26^th, 2008 at 11:59am:

Yes as an atheist I find it very offensive when the god botherers turn up on my doorstep, how would they like it if I went down to their local church and preached there is no god you've all been had?

I might add that to turn up on my doorstep is not all that easy, my place is 3kms down a dirt road and then another half a km up my driveway and yet they still come, the same ones have been here a dozen times even though I have resorted to telling them to f off ,they still come to save my soul.
I must admit that the last time they were here I let my dogs lose on them and they climbed back into their cars pretty quick , maybe thats the trick.

"You sound just like the radical Muslims who pretend that the fact that they take offence is a reasonable excuse for denying us our rights."

I have no problem with people believing whatever they want to believe, I have a problem when those people try to make me believe it as well.

They are giving you a choice, in the same way that you encourage others to choose atheism.

Bang on Freediver.

I'm all for Polyomy in a secular society supportive of equality. What does that mean?

Well it means that men and women should have the right to marry other men and women.

Man A can marry women A who can marry man B who can marry man A and woman C who can marry.... and so it goes. We could have a verible commune of married polyomists with each married to the other or not... with all the trimmings of a sexual relationship/s.

With DNA testing, parental issues entailed to such relationships are solved.

FD, stop reinterpreting what I say, into what you wish to disagree with.

Don't quote me, and then give "YOUR" interpretation of what I mean.

I think that the fact that you all seem to be treating women like chattels is very offensive.

I believe that polygamy in Islam is just another indicator of how disgustingly they promote bad attitudes, and behaviour towards women.

If they were in the least bit fair dinkum, they would allow multiple partners for either sex, but does anyone think any muslim would approve that?

I like Pat Condell's quote;
"if any religion is true, I hope it is Hinduism, and I hope muslims are all reincarnated as female, homosexual jews."

I am sick of being told why we need to acquiesce to the demands of this misogynistic, homophobic, racist, and violent religion.

yo UR SOUL.

Feel free to interpret that as you see fit FD.

I never do, it is a joke.

I can't help my self, whenever I hear someone talking about my soul, I immediately think, U R soul.

Your putting too much import to what I say, they are personal opinions, I am not standing for office, or demanding anyone agree.

I genuinely am repulsed by religion, I believe it to be the height of ignorance, yet I do not care a fig if others choose it.

I do object to them imprinting it onto juvenile minds, and I seriously consider it an abuse of childrens rights to force it on kids, especially to the exclusion of all rational thought.

Religious folk seem very keen on the ownership of other humans, to do with as they please, wives, kids, slaves.
In my lifetime mormons were still teaching that they could keep their black person slaves in heaven.

Religion should only be allowed as a personal philosophy, as soon as it starts demanding exceptional rights, by the mere fact of it holding absolute ludicrous beliefs, then we have a conflict, where the delusional seek the non-delusional to make exceptions for them.

You still haven't answered if you think religious groups should be exempt from taxation.
If so, why?

freediver wrote on Jun 26^th, 2008 at 12:49pm:

i'm sorry, i didnt say cheating should be illegal for only women, in fact the example i gave is of a man cheating.. nor did i mention beating her nor putting her in jail.

pope urban 2 wrote on Jun 26^th, 2008 at 8:52pm:

I still think it should be illegal

Some bloke robbing a bank or stealing a car doesn't affect me much personally either normally, doesn't make it right though.  If you don't like the laws here....

Right, but no-one says robbing a bank should be illegal because it interferes with your rights.

That's right, there is no right to expect your property be respected, and not stolen from, just the right to worship imaginary friends.

The trouble is Malik, that all this un-Islamic behaviour is carried out by muslims, in muslim countries, and the only way a westerner like myself can judge Islam is by it's actions, not by it's words alone, which I might add are very troublesome in themselves.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 26^th, 2008 at 9:58pm:

Soloman pbuh had many wives, was that sexist? Were his wives possessions?

And no it isn't acceptable for a woman to have many husbands.

That's why it's called polygeny and not polygamy.

The Christian West objectifies women far more than Islam does.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 26^th, 2008 at 10:24pm:


I assure you their government is not an Islamic government. They need regime change.

Its 2008, not 1017, I guess the Islamic calender moves slowly, like their thinking

soloman was a jew.

imho, the majority of muslims are like the majority of christians.
Most christians dont tithe.
Even though that is what is suggested in the Bible.

Most muslims are most suicide bombers. ...............

malik - your point is entirely taken though.

freediver wrote on Jun 26^th, 2008 at 12:02pm:


Christmas and Easter holidays.  Oaths and affermations, monarchy (a woman who rules by divine right)

Nearly every one of the ten commandmnets were protected by law well into the last century.

If polygamy were to be introduced into Australia, there is no way it could stipulate that it is a one male/multiple female form only. 

It would (theortically) also lead to one female/multiple male relationships.

Given the struggle that two income families have, and the trouble working parents have finding affordable child care, I could see a case for polygamy.

Besides the religious aruement, and the argument that it favours males over females, what are the real reasons that our soicety should ban polygamy?

Bill

Acid - oops, sorry. thanks for pointing that out.
Sorry malik. Entirely a mistake
It was a typo.
the sentence that is there does not make sense.


I meant "most muslims are NOT suicide bombers........."

Obviously

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 27^th, 2008 at 8:21am:

Hmmmmm.. I dunno.. I actually thought you really meant what you wrote in the other post Sprint. Because judging by all of your other posts about Muslims etc, you seem to actually believe we're all going to be suicide bombers etc.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 26^th, 2008 at 10:24pm:


Sprint, as a good christian dont you want the whole world to be christian?

Hi athiest,

Nice of you to think that, but I'm not a good christian.


I would not really like the whole world to be christian, I like the world to be of many flavours.  It is a freedom of choice thing.

Can't even imagine an entirely chrtistian world.
Sounds artificial, enforced.

Terrorism is not the main reason why the west rejects Islam, Malik.

Mozz, your argument is a good one for rejecting Arab culture, or at least, parts of it. However, it is not a good argument for rejecting Islam. When Europe turned it's back on the inquisition, it did not turn it's back on Christianity, it turned it's back on the inquisition. It is hypocritical to demand a different standard from Islam.

mozzaok wrote on Jun 27^th, 2008 at 10:11am:


This is incorrect.  The city with the third largest jewish population in the world is the capital of Iran.  Muslims (radical muslims anyway) are anti-zioist, not anti-semitic.

Just as many over-zealous despots have used christianity to further their own self interests, we are seeing a number of self serving leaders in predominantly islanic countries doing the same.

Osama Bin Laden is so dangerous becuase of his charismatic ability to make young muslims believe that his version of the islamic faith is the correct version.  He is even more effective because ignorant christians and westerners beleive it is the only version.

Attacking the islamic faith to prove that christianity is better is doomed to fail. 

If you want to encourage people to adobt the christian faith, talk about the positives of your faith, not the negatives of others faith.



Bill

mozzaok wrote on Jun 27^th, 2008 at 10:11am:

I'm sorry I haven't quoted the whole quote Mozza, but I'll address each point you made hopefully.

Firstly regarding your accusation of the treatment of Muslim women.
The fact remains that those behaviours that you mentioned are a cultural practice that is practiced by not only Muslim's but also Christians and Jews in the Middle East. Honour killings are forbidden in Islam, as is female circumcision, beating one's wives and raping them etc.

Next you talk about polygeny. I might ask you what happens when women outnumber men in society? Are those women who don't have a husband supposed to just go through their life being alone? No one to love, care for her, look after her, provide for her? Are you going to deny her the right to have those things?

Before Islam came Arabs used to buy and sell women, give their daughters and wives away to pay debts, women could not divorce their husbands nor could they choose them, women had no right to inherit wealth nor possess their own. Women had no right to education and were treated like possessions.

When Islam came it gave women the right to education, the right to own and inherit their own wealth and do with it as they please, the right to political representation, the right to choose and refuse potential husbands, to keep their maiden name and the right to divorce their husbands. The Christian West didn't grant these rights until very recently in history, whereas in Islam we had given these rights to women more than 1400 years ago.  

In addition to that, Islam brought women even more rights than non Muslim women enjoyed not only at that time, but even until today. They have the right not to be looked at as sexual objects or judged by their physical appearance and instead are taken by their intellect and personality, they have the right to be protected and have accommodation, clothing and food provided for them without being forced to work by their husbands. And should they actually go and work, their husbands have no right to touch their wealth and still have to provide for them. In fact even if the wife requests a payment from the husband for breast feeding their own children he has to pay it.

Furthermore, the punishment or death does not apply to apostasy, in fact all of the Qur'anic verses that refer to apostasy, those being  3:72, 3:90, 16:106, 4:137 and 5:54. All of these verses refer to the punishment for apostasy as something which will occur in the next life, not in this life. The only time that the death penalty can apply in this situation is if the person who apostates goes and physically fights against the Muslim state and encourages others to do so.

You also state that Islam is systematically racist against Jews, if that was the case we wouldn't have protected them from the Christian and European hordes that tried to rid them from the face of the earth. In fact the Jewish communities that have been safest in the world have lived amongst the Muslims, in Iran, Yemen, Morocco, Egypt, Islamic Spain, Ottoman Empire etc. When the Islamic State ruled these areas, Jews were given autonomy, allowed to live by their own laws, elect their own clergy and live under the protection of the Islamic State. Compare that with non Muslim Europe who forcibly converted more than a hundred thousand Jews in their many inquisitions and murdered many too. In addition to that Europe allowed anti Semitism to gain such support that Hitler was able to murder SIX MILLION OF THEM before the rest of the world stopped him. So regarding that, you have no right to blame Muslims for anti semitism. We ARE Semites.

Islam prescribes the Islamic State be run according to the Qur'an and Sunnah. But that doesn't mean we are against people living in a secular democracy. In fact, we have to follow the laws of the land that we are in and that means accepting peoples right here to live under the type of system they do and contributing positively to society. Compare that with the many coups orchestrated by the West in the Middle East including the overthrow of the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadeq in Iran in the 50's after he nationalized Iran's oil. In addition to the Non Muslim West's attempts to colonize and rid Islam's influence from the Middle East by installing and supporting dictators and kings in those lands.

You also say:

Quote:


But only a few sentences later you say:

Quote:


I find it very hypocritical that you accuse Muslims of not accepting a secular and democratic government but then have no problem with saying that for most Westerners an Islamic State is an abhorrent belief. It is obvious that you have a holier than thou attitude and believe that you're culture and values are superior to Islam. Thus you are happy to insult Islam and Muslims and make all kinds of stupid accusations against them, yet you find criticism of your own values and cultures as insulting and would ask any Muslim who does so to leave the country if they don't like it.

As mentioned before, many of the examples you gave of 'Islam' are actually cultural and social practices of the region not limited to Muslims and clearl

Our culture and lifestyle is better and Im sure that Middle Eastern Muslims think South East Asian Muslims are a joke but will claim them to enlarge their numbers. I live in a Turkish part of town, it aint that flash, do they know what rubbish bins are for and do they really have to blow smoke in everyones face that walks by, and the teenagers, what a great bunch, if you want us to believe we are doing it wrong, you will have to try a lot harder that writting down a few lines from the Koran.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 27^th, 2008 at 9:30am:

There are 1.6 Billion Muslims in the world, the largest religion out there.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 27^th, 2008 at 11:25pm:


My figures aren't rubbery, the Catholic Church admitted this recently.

I don't think you need to worry about us overrunning you and blowing ourselves up. However Islam is growing very fast. Not just from Muslims having children, but also from people becoming Muslims too.

mozzaok wrote on Jun 28^th, 2008 at 12:02am:


So then just admit that and make sure you only mention that. Instead of trying to make it look like you don't like Muslims because they want to make you Muslim say the truth, the fact is you don't like Muslims because they aren't like you.

mozzaok wrote on Jun 28^th, 2008 at 12:02am:

I agree with you, but the Niqaab or Burkha aren't an Islamic obligation on women. The prophet pbuh said that believing woman should cover everything except their face and hands.. Not everything except a slit for their eyes. That is a tribal type of tradition that has been promoted to suppress women. The prime users of this are people like the Salafi's and Wahabi's.. Their quite ignorant to what Islam actually promotes.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 28^th, 2008 at 12:58am:

What a stupid question sprint.
Quote:


Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 28^th, 2008 at 12:58am:


Islam is growing incredibly fast, and is second in growth to only buddhism in Australia according to the last census.

Your assertion that Muslims generally have 8 kids per woman is a bit far fetched, care to back that up with a source?

Breeding like maggots? Thanks for showing your true feelings on Islam and Muslims Sprint.  

The fact still remains that even though the Christian West is in the Muslim lands, and brutally murdering it's inhabitants (more than 1 million in Iraq). We're still growing larger than you. 1.6 billion Muslims and increasing incredibly fast.

That must be a scary thought for you sprint.

BTW, you want to know where people want to escape to. It was the Jews who led Christian Europe to Islamic Spain and other places to live under the protection of Muslims from the persecution by the Christian hordes.

And of course Muslims are fleeing to the West now, what do you expect when the West bombs their countries, install dictators and support them while they brutally repress the inhabitants?

Malik Shakur wrote on Jun 28^th, 2008 at 12:19am:



You are getting warmer Malik, but you are not quite there yet.
This is understandable, because it is not a clear cut case of, "I don't like Muslims", it is more that I do not like many of the teachings of, and cultural norms, that muslims practice.
How offensive each particular behaviour, that I find objectionable, will vary in degree, dependent on the individuals involved.

If those behaviours were matters of concern for the human rights abuses inflicted on people in Islamic states alone, I would still feel the same, but when I see those same behaviours, demanding acceptance and respect, on religious/cultural grounds, in our own, non-muslim country, then I have the right to state that I consider them to be a negative influence in our society.

It is a cultural difference, and people accept what they have grown up with, but your justification for polygamy, and oppression of women, indicates the breadth of the divide, between our cultural norms.

To even contend that guys are being magnanimous in taking in "unloved" spare women, is so patently ludicrous to any from a western culture, but seems reasonable to you, only serves to highlight the cultural gap.
I don't want to bridge that gap, I am happy if you wish to ditch those ridiculous views and come over to the light, but I do not wish to see my culture have that light of freedom and enlightenmet, diminished by the creeping erosion of our values, by acquiescing to demands to validate and allow that which we believe to be wrong.

Malik Shakur wrote on Jun 28^th, 2008 at 12:19am:


It's interesting how some of these traditions can become part of a religion. I remember having a conversation with a very enlightened Muslim at an airport in Africa. He was having a beer with me. He told me (and I haven't been able to verify this) that alcohol is not actually prohibited in the Qur'an, although many Muslims I have met say that it is not Halal (حلال) He said something to the effect that you should not be so intoxicated as not to recognize your own mother.

I never checked that reference.


(excuse me for playing with Arabic characters)

Some of the 'basis' for legalising polygamy in Australia seems to stem from protection against 'corrupt western values'. ie. engaging in pre-marital sex, or affairs. Some of the argument for polygamy in Australia unfairly assumes that all men are adulterous. Is this presumption just convenient for men who are themselves trying to legalise the practice in accordance to their religion? If I was a western man I would be annoyed at the presumption I am going to cheat on my wife – not all men do; this is just a Muslim man’s (the Sheik’s) way of trying to justify his stupid behaviour.  

Also, this is a sexist practice, whereby Islamic polygamy promotes Polygyny (the practice of a man marrying more than one woman), but Polyandry (the practice of a woman marrying more than one man) is Haraam (forbidden). If one form of polygamy is forbidden, perhaps it is time to abolish the entire practice.

Must we allow Nikah mut‘ah (temporary marriage, often for sexual gratification) too?
Lastly, how do you call such a marriage a consensual marriage between two adults when it stems from a society that endorses arranged marriage?

MW wrote on Jun 28^th, 2008 at 5:39pm:

Islam doesn't permit polyandry, firstly it is not for the woman to go and provide for men, so if she married several men they would just be bringing money in for her.

Islam also doesn't allow forcible arranged marriages.

Furthermore, what is your problem with Nikah Mutah?

MW wrote on Jun 28^th, 2008 at 5:59pm:


I'll use the Yusuf Ali translation, I'll also post the previous two verses.
[b]
So you wont actually try and interpret it, but you will call it ridiculous?

Classy...

MW wrote on Jun 28^th, 2008 at 6:21pm:

Which tenet of the Qur'an is that?

Interpretation comes into reading comprehension in addition to understanding the context behind the verses.

You're a bit late for this topic, the evidence in this case leads to Aisha actually being between about 15-20 at the time of the consummation of her marriage to the prophet Muhammad pbuh.

Read this one here regarding it. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1213756394/81#81

Furthermore, what we do know for a fact is that Aisha had already started menstruating at the time of her consummation to Muhammad pbuh.

Marriageable age starts from when menstruation begins. This was also acceptable to both Christian and Jewish law.

Milak...

WAS accepted in Christian and Jewish religion… was not meaning is…
I am not asking about other religions, I am asking about Islam.
Note the word CONSUMATION...
he married her when she was just 9 years old, and the article you claim is the be all and end all of this argument is just one of the possible scenario's in a debate that has no conclusion. 
However, documentation saying he married her at age 9 has been more consistent. Needless to say, if she had of said no to his advances (even at that age) he could divorce her. Saying he didn't consummate the marriage only suggests an attempt at excusing a man marrying a little girl. p.s. Having said that my question was about marrying her in the first place, not whether they copulated.  I asked about marriage, not consummation.
Quoting from one forum doesn't render your argument valid; there cannot be irrefutable conclusions as to someone’s age at the time they lost their virginity when it happened around 2000 years ago; even within the field of anthropology.

MW wrote on Jun 28^th, 2008 at 7:56pm:


Well even the age of marriage is not to be proven. There are hadith that claim she was married to him at 6 and consummated the marriage at 9, others state she was older. I don't trust those hadith because in my personal opinion and many others they were tampered with by the Umayyad's.

Judging by the evidence that's available from corresponding dates of the events that took place around them and the ages of other people, it leads me to believe the consummation didn't take place until the ages of 15-20, I would not be surprised if she had been engaged to him earlier, but she didn't move into his house until then. Thus their marriage hadn't really taken place until that age. What tends to happen at the 'engagement' is they sign the wedding papers. That is not uncommon at all, but the wedding doesn't take place for some time, depending on their preferences. Certainly not before the girl has started menstruating. That ceremony is called Katib Kitab.

It's not uncommon today for people in Yemen to get married as early as 10-12 years old. But that doesn't mean they have sex with their wives or husbands, it just means that is the time when they really get to know each other, it's sort of an apprenticeship that they go through to know how to act in marriage. This has been documented by many anthropologists, see Yemen Chronicle: Anthropology of War and Mediation by Steven C. Caton, it mentions it in there.

So it all goes by what you consider the beginning of marriage to be? I'd suggest not to go by what the Western standards are because they weren't from the West.

malik - where is the quote saying marys age ?

malik - yes, there is some thoughts of that. How surprising !!

Mind you, she wasn't married off to by her relatives to some misognist warmongering old man and then shagged by him.
Just as Mohammedan girls are married off to, today.

Come on guys, give it a break, vilifying your imaginary friends is not helping you know.

To think I was just defending your decency sprint, and you post something like that, intentionally intending to offend malik, you are better than that, malik pretty much believes all the Islamic stuff, so you can't pretend he would not find that poem offensive, and he has the decency to stay here, as a lone voice to try and put a more human face on Islam, we should try to be respectful as much as possible.

Both of you guys are better than needing to resort to swapping insults.

haha you don't even listen, do you?

Your way of arguing is to just go 'well someone else is doing it, so why are Muslims so bad.'

Once again, I am not asking about other religions, i'm asking about Islam. Your argument doesn't stand up when you bring in other religion's to justify behaviour.

I haven't seen any evidence to suggest  she was more than a year older than stated. As far as I have read, she was married at 6, and raped at 9 (by Mohammed).

As far as not saying anything about 'Western Values' in this whole debate goes, the original topic was about polygamy in Australia...
A WESTERN COUNTRY..
I now see why so many people have told Muslims like you to
go find yourself a country which is ok with that (oh wait, that place doesn't exist, you're all fighting)...

MW wrote on Jun 28^th, 2008 at 11:21pm:

I mentioned other religions because of the simple fact that Islam is not unique to this, there are many Jews who marry their children off as soon as they hit puberty, same with Christian examples (that of Mary pbuh) and hindus and other religions do the same.

You are also very arrogant to state that because you have not seen the evidence I've mentioned, that it must not exist. Perhaps you need to go and learn some more.

Furthermore, feel free to answer this question I posted earlier:

Quote:


In addition to that, I don't see how people having more than one wife should affect you, if the wives are okay with it why does it bother you? It's ok to cheat on your wife here and sleep with another woman. Giving the other woman no rights at all and committing the worst possible breach of trust on your wife, but as soon as someone wants to marry another wife with the permission of their first and give the new wife the rights that a wife has (the right to be looked after, clothing, accomodation and food provided for, children taken care of, you have a problem with it. To me that seems to be objectifying women and treating them like a possession or object that doesn't deserve rights.

The only problem I have with polygeny in a country like this, as with any situation is people taking advantage of the welfare system to not work yet still have two wives and expect the government to take care of them.

I personally think we need to overhaul the welfare system even without polygeny to prevent people from taking advantage of it.

read back over what i said... I in no way endorsed cheating, so that part of your argument is out the window 

Why do you assume all women need a husband? Is it possible that if women in the Islamic community took part in both public and private sectors they would not be 'alone'? Maybe the population differential has naturally happened that way for this reason even?

soo... should each man only have 1.25 wives each then?  That would make the wife ratio about equal for everyone, however if each man has four wives each that just swings the balance the other way.

Now Malik I am greatly offended by your comment. How can you call yourself an Australian when you clearly do not understand the Ideals of this country.

It is not acceptable to cheat on your partner in Australia. Hence the word used is cheat, outside of the laws, outside of the rules, wrong. As you are well aware in all countries and religions people choose to ignore the rules and guidelines meant to protect and promote a safe environment.

As to your comment and the topic of this forum. Polygamy.
It is not wanted nor required in this country.
Both partners have the rights under law regardless of if they are married; Custody, Child Support. remind me again of why females rights need protecting by a man having multiple wives?

D wrote on Jun 29^th, 2008 at 12:09am:

Your asking me how I call myself Australian? I am a proud Australian. It's my right in this country to speak out against things I disagree with. That's democracy for you.

It IS acceptable in this country to cheat on your partner, while it may be considered morally wrong to some people it is not a criminal offence as polygeny is. Thus it is obvious by that, that it's considered acceptable.

Secondly, you're right to an extent regarding parental rights of children born from mistresses. However you still haven't covered the rights of a wife (the right to be clothes, accommodated, fed, looked after, protected etc). They still don't have that right from the man that's cheating on his wife, thus they are simply objects and possessions as he has no obligations he must fulfil to her and can toss her away at any time. Whereas if she was married to him, that wouldn't be the case, he'd have those obligations.