Pakistani Lawmakers and Clerics Block Law Imposing Sanctions For Forced Child Marriages As “UnIslamic” and “Blasphemous”

In another disturbing example of the abuses that occur in the absence of church (or mosque) and state separation, Pakistani lawmakers have yielded to the demand of Islamic clerics and killed a law that would have imposed real penalties for those who arrange forced child marriages, including raising the legal age of marriages. Clerics denounced the law as “blasphemous” and against Islam.

Some Islamic clerics have maintained that there can be no age limitation on child brides. They often note that Muhammad married Aisha when she was seven and consummated the marriage at nine years old.

The law would have mandated “rigorous” punishment up to two years in prison for those who organize child marriages. The reforms were rejected by a parliamentary committee on religious affairs after opposition from the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) which was formed in 1962 to advise parliament on the compatibility of laws with Sharia. A representative from the CII had declared the amendment to the Child Marriage Restraint (Amendment) Bill 2014 as “anti-Islamic” and “blasphemous.” The CII continues to try to shape the nation’s laws in accordance to its view of Islamic values. In 2013, the CII suggested making DNA inadmissible evidence in rape cases and insisted that Islamic law should bar cases where a victim could not provide four witnesses to back their claims.

Marvi Memon, a member of the ruling Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz), had proposed the new law including raising the age of consent for marriage from 16 years to 18 years. As we have seen, children below the age of 16 are routinely forced into Islamic marriages in Pakistan.

45 thoughts on “Pakistani Lawmakers and Clerics Block Law Imposing Sanctions For Forced Child Marriages As “UnIslamic” and “Blasphemous””

  1. Dalia Mogahed: Mainstreaming Islamic Oppression

    Sharia advocate goes on the Daily Show to explain why Islamic oppression of women is, hey, really cool.

    January 15, 2016

    Robert Spencer
    Dalia Mogahed, formerly Barack Obama’s adviser on Muslim affairs, appeared on Trevor Noah’s sinking-like-a-stone Daily Show last week, to explain to a worshipful Noah and an adoring audience that the hijab represented nothing more or less than the “privatization of women’s sexuality” – and who on earth but the most benighted lout could possibly be against that? The burning outrage of Mogahed’s words was probably missed by most Daily Show viewers. It should not be missed by FrontPage readers.

    “The privatization of women’s sexuality.” A well-constructed and extraordinarily clever phrase, to be sure. With it, Mogahed suggests that the only people who could possibly object to women wearing hijabs are those who want to objectify women as sexual commodities. In this, we glimpse the subtle manipulation by which Islamic supremacists such as Mogahed have co-opted and silenced feminists whom one might otherwise have expected to have stood up against the Sharia oppression of women. How can one stand with the objectifiers, the pornographers, the users, the haters, against those who simply want to “privatize” their sexuality?

    The audience loved this. Noah ate it up. But there are a few audiences before whom Mogahed’s extremely clever act might not play quite as well as it did before the Daily Show. Aqsa Parvez’s Muslim father choked her to death with her hijab after she refused to wear it. Aqsa might have a few choice words for Dalia Mogahed about “privatization” of her sexuality. And then there was Amina Muse Ali, who was a Christian woman in Somalia whom Muslims murdered because she wasn’t wearing a hijab. Forty women were murdered in Iraq in 2007 for not wearing the hijab. They might wish that their sexuality had been a trifle less “privatized” – at least enough for them to be able to continue to breathe air.

    Will Dalia Mogahed and Trevor Noah get together on another Daily Show episode to say a few words in memory of Aqsa, Amina, and the forty Iraqi women? Will they honor the memory of Amira, an Egyptian girl who committed suicide after being brutalized for her family for refusing to “privatize” her sexuality and wear the hijab? Will they defend the freedom of Alya Al-Safar, whose Muslim cousin threatened to kill her and harm her family because she stopped privatizing her sexuality and wearing the hijab in Britain? Will they speak up for the Saudi schoolgirls who were burnt alive because firefighters wouldn’t enter their burning school since they weren’t wearing hijab, i.e., their sexuality was insufficiently privatized?

    When will we see the Daily Show episode on Amira Osman Hamid, who faces whipping in Sudan for refusing to wear the hijab? Will we hear about the sexuality privatization of the Muslim and non-Muslim teachers at the Islamic College of South Australia who were told that they had to wear the hijab or be fired? How about the women in Chechnya whom police shot with paintballs because they weren’t wearing hijab; or the women also in Chechnya who were threatened by men with automatic rifles for not wearing hijab; or the elementary school teachers in Tunisia who were threatened with death for not wearing hijab; or the Syrian schoolgirls who were forbidden to go to school unless they wore hijab; or the women in Gaza whom Hamas has forced to wear hijab; or the women in Iran who protested against the regime by daring to take off their legally-required hijab; or the women in London whom Muslim thugs threatened to murder if they didn’t wear hijab; or the anonymous young Muslim woman who doffed her hijab outside her home and started living a double life in fear of her parents? When is the Daily Show episode scheduled about the hazards that lie in the way of women who refuse to “privatize their sexuality”? When will Dalia Mogahed and Trevor Noah spare a few words for these and all the other women and girls who have been killed or threatened, or who live in fear for daring not to wear the hijab?

    Dalia Mogahed has done this before. Several years ago she appeared on a British TV show sponsored by the pro-Sharia group Hizb ut-Tahrir and proclaimed: “Sharia is not well understood and Islam as a faith is not well understood.” Who has misunderstood Sharia and Islam, O Ms. Privatized Mogahed? Was it Aqsa Parvez, who might perhaps have believed the establishment codswallop about Islam being a religion of peace and tolerance long enough to think that she might survive into adulthood even while not wearing hijab? Was it any of these other women and girls who might have had a different understanding from that of Ms. Mogahed of the “privatization” of their sexuality, and didn’t deserve to have Ms. Mogahed’s view violently enforced upon them?

    Mogahed added on the Hizb ut-Tahrir show that we have erroneously associated Sharia with “maximum criminal punishments” and “laws that… to many people seem unequal to women.” “Seem unequal”? The next time a young man is brutally murdered by his family to cleanse the family “honor,” call my office. Until then, the fact is undeniable: the path to Mogahed’s “privatization of women’s sexuality” is littered with the mangled bodies of those women and girls whose sexuality was deemed insufficiently privatized. For Mogahed and Noah so glibly to gloss over that fact was tantamount to dancing on their graves.

  2. Multiculturalism Trumps Protecting Women from Rape
    In the competition between multiculturalism and one of the most elementary instincts and obligations of higher civilization, higher civilization lost.
    January 13, 2016
    Dennis Prager

    Since the scores of New Year’s Eve sexual attacks on German women by hundreds of men identified as Arab or North African, the left in Germany has faced a dilemma: which to fight for first — women’s human rights or multiculturalism?

    This was the same dilemma that faced British authorities between 1997 and 2013. During those six years at least 1,400 girls from the age of 11 in just one English city (Rotherham, population 275,000) were raped by gangs of men, nearly all of whom were immigrants (mostly from Pakistan) or their sons.

    But British authorities kept silent. Why?

    In 2014, the reason finally was revealed: The perpetrators were Muslim, and British authorities were therefore afraid to publicize — or often even investigate — the crimes. They feared being branded Islamophobic and racist. Politicians on the left and right acknowledged this fact.

    As I wrote in a column in 2014:

    “In 2002, a Labor Party MP from nearby Keighley, Ann Cryer, complained to the police about ‘young Asian lads’ raping girls in her constituency. In her words, she ‘was shunned by elements of her party.’ And note, that as is demanded by the left in the UK, she didn’t even mention that the rapists were Pakistani, lest Muslims be blamed for this evil. They were ‘Asian lads.’”

    The British Home Secretary, Theresa May, told Parliament that “institutionalized political correctness” was responsible for the lack of attention given to the mass rape.

    In other words, between protecting over a thousand girls from repeated gang rape and protecting Muslims from being identified as the rapists, British authorities chose to protect multiculturalism and “diversity.” In the competition between multiculturalism and one of the most elementary instincts and obligations of higher civilization — the protection of girls and women from sexual violence — higher civilization lost.

    The U.K. is of course not alone in having multiculturalism and the fear of being branded racist or Islamophobic take precedence over protecting girls and women. Some German authorities’ reaction to the events of New Year’s Eve in Cologne exemplified this.

    After the attacks in Cologne, the mayor of Cologne suggested, in the words of The New York Times, “that women can protect themselves from men on the streets by keeping them more than an arm’s length away.”

    In the mayor’s words: “It is always possible to keep a certain distance that is longer than an arm’s length.”

    Aside from the moral foolishness of the comment, it is factually incorrect. It is often impossible to keep an arm’s length distance from others — as, for example, on a crowded bus or train, or, as in Cologne on New Year’s Eve, on crowded streets.

    It is important to note two things about the mayor. One is that she has been among Germany’s most vociferous advocates of accepting 800,000 Syrian refugees into Germany.

    The other is that she is a woman.

    One would assume that a woman would instinctively wholly condemn the sexual predators rather than lecture women on the distance they should always keep from men in order to avoid being attacked. But the mayor, like the British authorities, has opted for multiculturalism over human and women’s rights, for fighting Islamophobia over fighting to protect women.

    A related example is Ralf Jaeger, the interior minister of North Rhine-Westphalia state, the German state in which Cologne is located. The left-wing minister said: “What happens on the right-wing platforms and in chat rooms is at least as awful as the acts of those assaulting the women.”

    All the isms of the left — multiculturalism, feminism, environmentalism, socialism, Marxism, egalitarianism — distort the individual’s and society’s moral compass. But, as the minister’s comments make clear, none do so more than the left’s loathing of conservatives and conservative values.

    As with multiculturalism, a left-wing priority — in this case destroying the right — has distorted the left’s moral compass. How could anyone in his right mind write that right-wing platforms and chat rooms are “at least as awful” as women being sexually attacked and even raped by gangs of men? The answer is that you cannot be in your right mind; you have to be in your left mind.

  3. Karen S

    It’s been a while, so I could be mistaken, but I believe that I recall him using the pronoun, SHE, when referring to his slave. As I also recall, no one, and I do mean no one, has ever broached the subject with him, which is further proof that the world holds Muslims to a far lower standard than the one demanded and expected of other normal, civilized creatures. Muslims are given a pass, not expected to be governed by the most basic rules found in most societies. Given the barbaric, grotesque and savage acts that Islam permits, condones and encourages one possessing a slave to perform on that slave, I don’t have to draw you a picture of the horrors that this particular slave must have experienced at his hands. He condemns the world, yet he comes from a country which, at best, is a simmering hellhole, rife with every imaginable problem. It’s interesting that none of his more than abundant condemnation is ever pointed in the direction of his own people. Interesting, but, in po’s case, not unexpected.

  4. Bam Bam:

    That’s disturbing. Slavery does still exist on the African continent, whereas we fought a civil war and hundreds of thousands of people died in order to free the slaves. But to be currently part of that most heinous abuse is inconceivable.

    You never know what to believe from Po. He’s claimed to be an immigrant from the African continent, a Mexican American, and after posting a long series of “Jews suck” posts, he claims to be married to a Jewish Catholic. Considering slavery does exist in Africa, if he really is Somalian (I think it was), it’s possible. Who knows.

    Somalia has been embroiled in civil war between Islamic extremists and warlords. Its biggest economy drivers appear to be agriculture, slavery, and misery. Sadly, many choose to migrate illegally, which puts them at the mercy of smugglers, who often abuse the passengers – raping women, selling them to brothels in the rest of the anti-woman ME, even arbitrarily killing and dumping passengers.

    “The human trafficking trade out of Somalia is now one of the busiest, most lucrative and the most lethal in the world. The ferocious violence and anarchy in the region has kept the scale of profits and misery the most hidden from outside eyes.
    Dozens corpses are found floating in the Arabian Sea every month, often with gunshot wounds, often with hands tied behind their back – victims of traffickers who have jettisoned their cargo in the most final way.”

    People there feel they have no choice. All they face at home are drought, starvation, and war. And that’s one of the biggest drivers of illegal immigration – the sheer misery and economic plight of many countries around the world.

    But that is a difficult issue to solve. The main reason why Somalia is so poverty stricken is because it’s embroiled in constant war. The US has tried to get involved, but as has been proven beyond any doubt is that you cannot solve a country’s problems from the outside without permanently colonizing it. Otherwise, you come in, muddle around, and when you leave the country has the exact same issues it had when you arrived. Farming practices, as well, could be adjusted to help with the drought. The methods of the famous “water farmer” from Zimbabwe, Zephania Phiri Maseko, could prove vital to recovering the fertility of such regions. But it will all be for naught if the country cannot stabilize and suppress the extremists AND the war lords.

  5. DBQ “Thank you Hildegard for bringing up that the FBI and our government is actively trying to start violence by pretending to be part of the protester in Burns, Oregon.”

    You’re welcome DBQ. This blog site is doing a good job keeping us up to date:

  6. Karen S

    po’s claim, that he owned a slave, which, he, allegedly, finally freed, was something that he posted a while back. If I knew the exact thread, I would provide it to you. Pose the question to him yourself. I’m sure that I am not the only one that recalls his post, in which he wanted to be praised, yes, praised, because he was benevolent enough to grant this poor, defenseless human being, freedom from enslavement. Yes, I recall it quite vividly. In a failed attempt to show just how kind and compassionate he was–all due to the influence of Islam, of course– he revealed that he had freed his slave. It is never far from my mind as I read his words, blathering on about the injustice in the world and never choosing to denounce Islam and its daily atrocities around the globe. Sounds like a heck of a guy to me.

  7. Bam Bam – What??? I usually don’t read Po’s posts. He devolves to name calling and I find his posts disturbing. On which thread did he claim to have owned a slave? I’m curious enough to bite the bullet and take a look.

  8. po, a self-proclaimed owner of a slave–A SLAVE–dares to waive his disgusting finger of contempt at other religions? He, a a self-proclaimed religious Muslim, claims to have owned a slave, and, now, he is somehow is delusional enough to fancy himself the arbitrator of all that is good and just in the world? From now on, his name shall be po, the slave owner. Address him as such and watch as he tries to wiggle out of that crime.

  9. I say we vote with our dollars.

    Perhaps one day Pakistan will follow Israel’s lead, where child brides are illegal. Just as in the US, such criminal activity at times takes place in secret, and is prosecuted if discovered. Compare and contrast with Pakistan, where Parliament was swayed by extremists into allowing such barbarism to take place.

    The rape of children and a life sentence of forced marriage to the rapist. There are no words.

  10. This illustrates how extremism is the norm, not the exception, in the ME, and that it is anathema to women’s rights. These are not some fringe, wild eyed cult members. They moved Pakistani Parliament to permit little girls to be forced into marriage, which is a form of rape. Aside from the torture and anguish of such an act, little girls are not physically ready to bear children. Children bearing children are prone to severe complications, such as an obstetric fistula.

    Those who engage in forced child marriage, whether in the name of their religion or not, are worthless pedophiles.

    Reformers have a long row to hoe to enact meaningful change. I hope the tide will change, but as it stands now, extremism is spreading. ISIS is recruiting members faster than Al Qaeda ever did. And it appears that Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, et al are not going to embrace women’s lib anytime soon.

    Poor girls.

  11. And now..”
    “”Qur‘anic Teachings on Child Marriage

    In discussing marriage, the Qur‘an equates marriageable age with the ability to make mature and sound judgments, as demonstrated by the passage, “And test the orphans [in your charge] until they reach a marriage­able age; then, if you find them to be mature of mind/sound in judgment, hand over to them their possessions…” (4:6).

    In this passage, marriageable age is equated with sound judgment, an age at which a person can responsibly handle his or her possessions. Common sense, then, would dictate that a person has not reached marriageable age until adulthood, since childhood is a crucial time of development. Thus, it is illogical to assume that a child has a mature intellect. During these years, the child shapes his or her whole personality by exploring different opportunities and adopting various paradigms. To enter into such an immense, life-changing responsibility as marriage greatly affects the child psychologically since he or she is deprived of the chance to discover who he or she is.

    Furthermore, child marriage is de facto child rape since children have not developed adequate sexual maturity to comprehend the implications of sex. A heartbreaking reality is that traditional cultural teachings more often encourage the marriage of an older man to a younger girl, an arrangement that reinforces a man’s sexual imposition on a girl with his psychological and physiological superiority. Unable to challenge the man physically or intellectually, the girl is subject to the emotionally—and often, physically—scarring reality of child marriage with few, if any, avenues for liberation.

    The Qur‘an also advises Muslims to marry monotheists, as demonstrated in the passage:

    Do not marry the females who set up partners until they acknowledge. An acknowledging servant is better than one who sets up partners, even if she attracts you. Similarly, do not marry the males who set up partners until they acknowledge. An acknowledging servant is better than one who sets up partners even if he attracts you. (2:221)

    The Qur‘an acknowledges that a healthy relationship is based, among other things, on a similarity of belief systems. If Muslims accept this principle, how can those who defend child marriage expect children to understand Islamic theology when they are developmentally incapable of doing so? Children tend to unquestioningly adhere to the beliefs of their parents, but blind faith is severely discouraged in the Qur‘an on many occasions (2:170, 5:104, 7:70). As mentioned earlier, parents must give their children space to formulate their views before they even consider marriage.

    The Qur‘an regards marriage as a solemn oath, as demonstrated in the passage, “And how could you take it away (marital gift) after you have given yourselves to one another, and she has received a most solemn pledge from you?” (4:21).

    Marriage is not child’s play. It demands great responsibility from both individuals, something children are not ready for. Therefore, the Qur‘an does not compromise on this issue, terming marriage a “most solemn pledge.” To suggest that Allah would allow—-let alone encourage—-an individual to prematurely enter into a “solemn pledge” without discovering who he or she is as a psychological, physical, and social being insults the miracle of creation.

    Furthermore, the Qur‘an forbids forcing women to marry, as we can see in the passage, “O You who have chosen to be graced with belief! It is not lawful for you to force women into marrying or holding on to them in marriage against their will.” (4:19)

    Would a child, unbidden, entertain the idea of marriage? The immense responsibility of marriage is one that children do not possess the intellectual capacity to grasp thoroughly. Therefore, children only entertain the idea of marriage if they are heavily influenced by their parents, which, as stated above in the Qur‘an, is severely discouraged.

    It is worth noting that the Qur‘an expects the male partner to financially support his wife, as can be seen in the passage:

    Let them (the divorced women) live where you live with the same standard of living that you have, and according to your best means. Harass them not to make life difficult for them. And if they are pregnant, spend on them freely until they deliver their burden. Then, if they nurse your baby, give them their due recompense. And frequently consult together amicably. And if both of you find it difficult, let another woman suckle the baby on her behalf. (65:6)

    So, should a young boy enter into marriage, how could he be expected to earn enough money to support not only himself, but also his wife? Should he get an education, or should he forfeit a more profitable and enriching future to labor in order to financially support his spouse? Child marriage frequently prevents children from furthering their education. Therefore, the inaccurate claim that child marriage is Islamic is tantamount to a claim that education for children who attain puberty is un-Islamic.

  12. And then this, bambam, again, you are welcome…no, no, don’t mention it, please.
    Just a question…how does it feel when the boomerang returns?
    Jewish Pedophilia and Child Marriage
    Many laws in the Torah deal with sex and sex slavery. The Talmud clarifies what is considered adultery/fornication, when, and by whom. The standard in the Talmud is that girls can be married and are ready for coitus at the age of three, while boys may be sodomized without penalty between the ages of three and nine. Mothers who have sex with their eight year old sons are not rendered impure from the act, and girls below eleven years old are prohibited from using contraception during sex.

    See Also – Sex With Children By Talmud Rules


    Only sex/incest with boys above eight years old renders women impure

    “Ifa woman sported lewdlywithher young son [a minor], and he committed the firststage of cohabitation with her, — Beth Shammai say, he thereby renders her unfit to the priesthood [4]. Beth Hillel declare her fit. R. Hiyya the son of Rabbah b.Nahmani said in R. Hisda’s name; others state, R. Hisda said in Ze’iri’s name: All agree that the connectionof a boy aged nine years and a day is a real connection;whilstthat of one less than eight years is not: [5] their dispute refers only to one who is eight years old, Beth Shammai maintaining, We must base our ruling on the earlier generations, but Beth Hillel hold that we do not.” – 1961 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 69b


    Footnote 4: I.e., she becomes a harlot, whom a priest may not marry (Lev. XXI, 7).

    Footnote 5: So that if he was nine years and a day or more, Beth Hillel agree that she is invalidated from the priesthood; whilst if he was less that eight, Beth Shammai agree that she is not.


    Captive slave girls (proselytes) can be married to priests below the age of three, they are “fit for cohabitation”

    “It was taught: R. Simeon b. Yohai stated: A proselyte who is under the age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest, for it is said, But all the women children that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves, and Phinehas surely was with them. And the Rabbis? — [These were kept alive] as bondmen and bondwomen. If so, a proselyte whose age is three years and one day should also be permitted! — [The prohibition is to be explained] in accordance with R. Huna. For R. Huna pointed out a contradiction: It is written, Kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him, but if she hath not known, save her alive; from this it may be inferred that children are to be kept alive whether they have known or have not known [a man]; and, on the other hand, it is also written, But all the women children, that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves, but do not spare them if they have known. Consequently it must be said that Scripture speaks of one who is fit for cohabitation.” – 1961 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Yebamoth 60b


    Boys between 3 and 9 are not “men” and can be used for sex without sin


    “Our Rabbis taught: In the case of a male child, a young one is not regarded as ona par withan oldone; but a young beast is treated as an old one. [23] What is meant by this? — Rab said: Pederasty with a child below nine years of age is not deemed as pederasty with a child above that. Samuel said: Pederasty with a childbelowthree years isnot treated as with a child above that.[24] What is the basis of their dispute? — Rab maintains that only he who is able to engage in sexual intercourse, may, as the passive subject of pederasty throw guilt [upon the active offender]; whilst he who is unable to engage in sexual intercourse cannot be a passive subject of pederasty [in that respect].[25] But Samuel maintains: Scripture writes, [And thou shalt not lie with mankind] as with the lyings of a woman.[26]. It has been taught in accordance with Rab: Pederasty at the age of nine years and a day“- 1961 Soncino Babylonian Talmud: Sanhedrin 54b


    Footnote 23: The reference is to the passive subject of sodomy. As stated supra 54a, guiltisincurredby the active participant even if the former be a minor, i.e., lessthan thirteenyears old.Now, however, it is stated that within this age a distinctionisdrawn.

    Footnote 24: I.e., Rab makes nine years the minimum; but if one committed sodomy with a child of lesser age, no guilt is incurred. Samuel makes three the minimum.

    Footnote 25: At nine years a male attains sexual matureness.

    Footnote 26: Lev. XVI I, 22. Thus the point of comparison is the sexual matureness of woman, which is reached at the age of three.

    Sex with heathen boys defiles Jews beginning at age 9, but not before that

    “What is the meaning of the phrase used above: ‘and against this other matter on account of still another matter’? — R. Nahman b. Isaac said: They decreed in connection with a heathen child that it should cause defilement by seminal emission[17] so that an Israelite child should not become accustomed to commit pederasty with him. For R. Zera said: I experienced great trouble with R. Assi,[18] and R. Assi with R. Johanan, and R. Johanan with R. Jannai, and R. Jannai with R. Nathan b. Amram, and R. Nathan b. Amram with Rabbi over this question: From what age does a heathen child cause defilement by seminal emission? — He replied to me: From a day old; but when I came to R. Hiyya, he told me: From the age of nine years and one day. When I then came and discussed the matter with Rabbi, he said to me: Abandon my reply and adopt that of R. Hiyya who declared: From what age does a heathen child cause defilement by seminal emission? From the age of nine years and one day, for inasmuch as he is then capable of the sexual act he likewise defiles by emission.” – 1961 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Abodah Zarah 36b


    FOOTNOTE 17: [Even though he suffered from no issue.]

    FOOTNOTE 18: He put the following question to him and had difficulty in eliciting a reply.


    Three year old available for marriage through “coition” in Sanhedrin 69a

    “R. Jeremiah of Difti said: We also learnt the following: A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquiredinmarriageby coition, and if her deceased husband’s brother cohabited with her, she becomes his.” – 1961 Soncino Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin, 69a

    Three year old, marriage through “coition” in Sanhedrin 55b

    “A maidenaged three years and a day may be acquiredinmarriageby coition, and if her deceased husband’s brother cohabits with her, she becomes his.”- 1961 Soncino Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin 55b

    Three year old “betrothed by cohabitation”In Yebamoth 57b

    “Raba said, We also learned a similar Baraitha: A girl who is three years of age and one day may be betrothed by cohabitation; if a levir cohabited with her, he has thereby acquired her; [9] one incurs through her the guilt of intercourse with a married woman” – 1961 Soncino Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Yabamouth 57b


    FOOTNOTE 9: She is deemed to be his legal wife.

    Three year old girls are “betrothed by intercourse” in Niddah 44b


  13. Bambam, somethign for you. You sure are welcome.
    “”Jewish Child Brides — Why the Barbaric Practice of Marrying Off Young Girls Persists
    March 29, 2011
    by Elana Maryles Sztokman
    Child Brides
    Ever since the marriage of Rebecca and Isaac over three millennia ago, the children of Abraham and Sarah have toyed with the practice of betrothing their daughters at very young ages. Of course not all scholars agree that Rebecca was actually three years old when she took the fateful decision to feed Eliezer’s camels and cement her destiny as a Jewish matriarch. Realistically, many scholars (including Maimonides, Tosafot and Sifrei, for example) argue that the age is a fabrication. Nevertheless, the mythology of the girl-bride has relentlessly taken hold, to such an extent that even now, thousands of years later, the practice is frightfully tenacious.
    The latest chapter in the Jewish annals of child-brides emerged last week in Kiryat Sefer (Modi’in Illit), a Haredi town in the center of Israel not too far from where I live. A 13-year-old girl whose parents were horrified to discover that she was talking to boys (my word!) was apparently married off to a 16-year-old boy from Rehovot. Rumors are sketchy about whether they were merely engaged or secretly married. But according to a report in Haaretz, the girls’ parents were so overwhelmed by their daughter’s rambunctiousness that they turned to a local kabbalist who told them that “this was the only way for the girl to supposedly atone for …. her sin.” The welfare department, the police, and even other local rabbis tried to intervene to prevent the marriage from taking place, but the social workers learned that the marriage took place anyway. (Government social workers are now on strike in Israel, and are thus not currently involved.)
    Another story of child-brides emerged several years ago in Israel’s north. Rabbi Shlomo Eliezer Schick of the Bratslav Hassidic movement in Yavne’el in the Galilee was arrested “for officiating the marriages of some 20 underage couples, mostly ages 12 to 16,” according to Ha’aretz. In Israel, marriage under the age of 17 is illegal. Schick actually has a bit of a following, and even his own nickname “The Mohorosh,” although if he has continued to marry off children, he has been doing it under the radar.
    In 1995, another case of a man betrothing his underage daughter — in that case, it was a girl under the age of 12 — made the headlines in Monsey, and caused a bit of an uproar. In that case, the girl’s parents were in the middle of a divorce and the man used the betrothal as leverage against his wife, thus destroying two female lives at once. Although all these cases are shrouded in mystery and perpetuated by more rumor than fact, there seems to be some anecdotal evidence that underage betrothal in the Jewish community is not as inviolable as one would hope.
    There are several important insights from these stories. The most obvious, I think, is that the use of marriage as a “punishment” is not exactly sound educational practice. I mean, what are we saying about marriage? Plus, if the “solution” doesn’t work — that is, if the girl still has a spunky spirit or an interest in conversation with boys even after she is married at 13 — the problems will now compound themselves in scenarios that our own adolescent memories can easily conjure.
    I think there are other important messages here as well. One is how unrelenting certain barbaric practices can be, especially when it comes to women. While the world struggles to get a grip on issues like pedophilia, sexual abuse and the trafficking of girls, in some corners of the Jewish world, men continue to offer young girls’ bodies to the nearest bidder as if this is a lofty religious practice. It is mind-boggling, and it’s frightening.
    Second, a brief glance at the history of this issue demonstrates that our tradition has hardly progressed in a linear fashion. The Talmud in the tractate Kiddushin describes how nearly 2,000 years ago the rabbis specifically outlawed “kiddushei k’tana,” the betrothal of a little girl. And yet, in one of the most astonishing texts in our heritage, the Baal HaTosafot, a leading medieval Talmudic commentary, wrote that the local community of the 14th-15th century simply did away with this prohibition and returned to betrothing their underage daughters (that is, under the age of 12). The Tosafot justifies this by saying simply, “hagalut hitgaber aleinu” — the exile has overwhelmed us. Whatever their reality vis-à-vis external threats, they felt that underage betrothals somehow protected the community.
    This text is phenomenal not only for the manipulation (or sacrifice) of girls’ lives on behalf of some obscure notion of communal protection, but also for the ease with which Talmudic prohibitions were casually tossed aside. It makes you wonder why it is so difficult to cast aside other precepts, ones that are actually archaic and harmful, such as those ancient rulings that keep agunot chained in unwanted marriages today. This whole history establishes unequivocally that perceptions of halachic forward progress are greatly mythologized, especially when it comes to women’s lives.
    Finally, as much as we would all like to say that this practice is minute, an aberration, not “us,” we cannot easily make that claim. If this practice exists at all in the Jewish community, if even one girl has her freedom stolen from her before she has experienced the first flicker of independent life, we are all accountable to her. Ultimately, if these are practices carried out in the name of a Judaism that I choose to call my own, then I am responsible, and my community is responsible, and we will all have to answer for the destruction of women’s lives.

    Read more:

  14. Thank you Hildegard for bringing up that the FBI and our government is actively trying to start violence by pretending to be part of the protester in Burns, Oregon. This is a common tactic. Take a volatile situation and make it worse by impersonating and agitating the situation.

    All to make the government’s meme of white terrorist become true so that they can continue to oppress the land owners, ranchers and citizens.

    Just before this discovery was made, there were reports of people who looked like militia harassing locals, which is uncharacteristic of the protesters who initially assembled at the refuge. It turns out that these militia members suspected of harassing locals were actually undercover FBI agents.

    This is a prime example of the immoral corrupt government that we have allowed to oppress us and take our freedoms.

  15. If we were not “allied” with Pakistan this would have sum total zero effect on any American (except for one who wanted to get a child bride in Pakistan). We should not be “allied” with Pakistan and we should not care one twit whether a Pakistani marries an unborn baby.

    This who notion of caring about such matters stems from President Wilson’s wrong, inept, and insane policy he propagated, which is that the more Americans spread “democracy” around the globe, the more free and better is the quality of life for the entire human race.

    One need only refer to Syrians starving to death, and the almost complete leveling of Damascus to the stone age, the sad current victim of the ever popular American democracy-spreading policy.

    G. Washington’s policy he recommends in hi Farewell Speech should be the law of the land: “all foreign entanglements are temporary,” including Israel. Nothing could increase the quality of life for earth’s population than Americans following G. Washington’s eternally wise advice, and flushing Wilson’s evil policies down the toilet of history.

    Another example of Wilson’s policies in action is Hilary Clinton’s email in which she approves of ethnic cleansing of black Africans because it helped bring about the later rape and murder of our perceived enemy Ghaddafi:

    No surprise that dual Israeli-citizen likely Mossad agent Sidney Blutmenthal promoted ethnic cleansing of black Africans. (Ghaddafi died because he threatened to establish a pan-African currency and he directly threatened to destabilize the French currency.)

  16. Thank you, Beldar. I’ll take that as a compliment. You are welcome, anytime, to visit me, here on earth, when you decide to leave Remulak for a little vacation. Not too sure what you guys, on Remulak, like to eat, but I make a mean poached salmon with grilled asparagus. Come on down! 🙂

  17. I hate to admit this. They were not from my planet. But aliens from another planet sent Muslims here hundreds of years ago to break down human society on Planet Earth. If you are stifled, like you are here, you will not go out to the Universe and compete.

Comments are closed.