Posted on 07/06/2025 10:44:52 AM PDT by DFG
A six-year-old girl has allegedly been forced to marry a 45-year-old man in Afghanistan after she was given away for money.
The haunting photo of an older man and a little girl standing together horrified even the Taliban, who intervened with the union.
The youngster had allegedly been exchanged by her father for money to a man who already has two wives, it was reported by Amu.tv.
The marriage was allegedly set to take place on Friday in Helmand province but the Taliban stepped in and arrested both men involved.
No charges were brought against them but they have forced the creep to wait until the girl is nine before he can take her home, local media said.
UN Women reported last year that there has been a 25 per cent rise in child marriages in Afghanistan after the Taliban banned girls' education in 2021. They also said there has been a 45 per cent increase in child bearing across the country.
In the same year as the Taliban came to power, after the US' heavily criticised exit, a nine-year-old girl who was sold by her father to a 55-year-old man as a child bride was rescued by a charity.
Parwana Malik was sold for the equivalent of £1,600 in land, sheep and cash to a stranger named Qorban so her father Abdul Malik could pay for food.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
We should stand up for children 100%. I was making the distinction between here- in the US, where we have to, vs elsewhere where we have no control.
this is what a male dominated stone age culture looks like.
There is no indication that Harriet Forster is under 16, nor that her marriage is the product of any such “arrangement,” particularly one dating back to early adolescence. There is really no comparison.
I don’t recall the text. I just looked it up and she was said to be very young and newly married. It may have been some literary analysis of P&P that made the point.
Hmmm, Persuasion had heavier involvement of the Royal Navy. Now that I think of it the Forster girl was married to a senior army officer, not naval.
The way this worked was during the Napoleonic wars, ships as prizes captured would be “read into” the navy and any goods shipped grabbed. The money was split unevenly among crew and officers — and squadron or flotilla command structure also got a piece of the prize — of all their captains’ captures. This is how they achieved the wealth required for the scenario presented.
I know the Harriet / Lydia situation existed and one of the 5-7 P&P filmings had her played by a very young actress, but as I say above, that was an Army situation, not Navy. I suspect I got this from some literary analysis connecting P&P with the Patrick O’Brien novels about officers at sea for years and years and their wives dying in childbirth.
Oh by the way heads up.
PBS just aired a full episode filming of a novel called Miss Austen. The subject is Cassandra, Jane’s sister. There are all sorts of subtexts but in general the focus is the trials of being forced to change a home and apparently the historically accurate choice by Cassie to burn Jane’s letters, which contained trivial bits of shallow family fighting and Cassie thought it would be best for Jane’s legacy to have them burned. Which she did.
I got curious after watching it and learned that Jane made almost no money from those novels. She had to pay, or rather her brother had to pay, publishing costs. Then they sold reasonably well but not huge and she made a profit on each of them but they in no way funded her life. That was from her father and her brother, and her brother eventually went bankrupt.
Both Jane and Cassie had proposals of marriage and both refused. Cassie apparently eventually did make pretty good money from Jane’s royalties, the entirety of which Jane bequeathed to Cassie.
Anyway it’s a good series on PBS and if you dig into their website you can see things that they already aired.
It’s called sarcasm. I won’t spell it out when it’s that obvious in a post, but it’s what Muslims have done for thousands of years.
The only way to stop is eradication.
I’m old and retired.
My wife don’t want to hear my crap and my kids are out of the house.
I’ll never let a chance slip by to opine.
Not insinuating you didn’t know better.
Probably. And literary analysis are often very politically motivated, so I can see some neo-Marxist grad school brat being anxious to make the point that Christian culture is no better than Muslim culture. Of course, we all know that girls DID get married quite young in Western European culture. Shoot, Juliet was only a few weeks short of 14 (of course, Romeo was very young too, but her parents were about to marry her off to Paris, and he was clearly an adult. To her father's credit, he is at first against it, and wants Paris to wait "a few more summers," but ultimately decides to let it happen immediately.) So yes, we know that marrying off girls as young as 14-15 was not uncommon. But pre-pubescent?? No. No, I maintain that's never been an aspect of Judeo-Christian culture, and I'll defend Jane Austen in particular to the death.
Well, if your religion cannot trust their men to actually see women’s hair and face…then they become frustrated horn-dogs who want what they CAN see—little girls. And little boys.
It’s a religion for idiots.
Another tidbit of Navy norms.
The issue got pretty big during the year between Napoleon’s abdication and attempt to return to power. Navy officers were put on half pay aggressively for budget reasons and since they no longer had a ship, they were impoverished by rent and food. There was perpetual effort to try to get a posting on a ship, any ship.
If they had a family, the situation was grim. Their young sons . . . younger and younger, were property of sorts, with letters written to captains that officer had served with and who still had a ship to ask that their perhaps 9 year old son be taken aboard as a midshipman. This was the first rung of the officer ranks and where they learned their trade. It would give them a career, where there would be none ashore. It would also give them food — and a tiny paycheck to be shared with family back home.
My vague recall of the situation with marrying off daughters to retiring admirals was that the marriage required him to be hands off for some number of years and . . . I think I also recall the mother as chaperone at her daughter’s house.
The issue was poverty throughout the land. Extended to food, severely. Every mouth out of the house helped.
The Miss Austen series of 4 episodes is worth your time. As is Poldark, though the many filmings of those books never did them justice.
The wild and wacky world of these Taliban man and the girls they rape in an Islamic marriage. Then you have the others that prefer the dancing boys.
You outdid that clown.
“I’m old and retired.
My wife don’t want to hear my crap and my kids are out of the house.”
Something in common !!
Thomas Aquinas said the same thing and so did John Adams.
Now that, I recognize. It crops up in Mansfield Park, although I think the boys are closer to 12. Still. I've never read or seen Poldark, but I know I should. I plan to, one day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.