Posted on 04/16/2008 11:31:19 AM PDT by freerepublic_or_die
A YEMENI court has granted a divorce to an eight-year-old girl whose unemployed father forced her into an arranged marriage. "I am happy that I am divorced now. I will be able to go back to school,'' Nojud Mohammed Ali said, after a public hearing in Sanaa's court of first instance.
Her former husband, 28-year-old Faez Ali Thameur, said he married the child "with her consent and that of her parents'' but that he did not object to her divorce petition.
In response to a question from Judge Mohammed al-Qadhi, he acknowledged that the "marriage was consummated, but I did not beat her".
Yemen, one of the world's poorest countries, has no law governing the minimum age of marriage.
Nojud was a second grader in primary school when the marriage took place two and a half months ago.
"They asked me to sign the marriage contract and remain in my father's house until I was 18.
"But a week after signing, my father and my mother forced me to go live with him.''
Nojud's father, Mohammad Ali Al-Ahdal, said he had felt obliged to marry off his daughter, an act he said she consented to.
He said he was frightened after his oldest daughter had been kidnapped several years ago and later married to her abductor.
He said the same man then kidnapped another of his daughters who was already married and had four children, resulting in him being jailed.
Dressed in traditional black, Nojud said she would now go to live in the home of her maternal uncle and did not want to see her father.
The girl's lawyer, Shadha Nasser, said Nojud's case was not unique.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.au ...
And that's just in Yemen, one with only the smallest populations within the Muslim world. Extrapolate that from the entire Muslim population at large to get a handle on
the prevalence of child marriages within Islamic culture.
Any way, so what? Didn't the Prophet, Muhammad, himself have a nine year old as one of his wives? {/Sarcasm Off]
this is just sick... dint they just raid a ranch in TEXAS for that...
...”he acknowledged that the “marriage was consummated, but I did not beat her”.
well, that’s mighty big of him.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg sits on the SCOTUS once wrote a paper advocating the age of consent be lowered in the US to 11 years old.
So Democrats have more in common with Muslims then we care to admit.
If this isn’t proof that Islam is NOT a religion, but a cult of death and depravity that MUST be wiped from the face of the Earth, somebody tell me what more proof is needed.
/sarc.
L
She gets half his pixie sticks for the rest of her life, I believe.
And they say that the West is immoral and decadent.
You just have to shake your head at an ideology that is so against any display of anything even remotely sensual that women wear garb that covers them from neck to feet (and with burkas, even their faces are covered) — yet has no problem with a forced marriage of an 8-year-old to a 28-year-old. And believes that murdering women who are rape victims is an act of “honor.”
As we’ve known for quite a while now: That’s just messed up. And it is an ideology that ultimately needs to be utterly defeated.
Medieval. Could be the year 1000 A.D. Except perhaps that the judge did let her divorce her husband.
been saying the same for years
Islam is most certainly not a religion but a cult and I firmly believe we have to close down the places where they gather ansd make it illegal to practise this cult
even in Germany Tom crusies so called religion is banned so why not islam.
I mean they won’t even let you draw a picture of their supposed mohammed who happened to see God and who happened to be the right man
Just like Mohammed. Except Mohammed was in his 50s. And he may have beaten his child-bride. Wonderful religion of peace they have there.
we get told we have to understand these sick people , the same people who want to kill us and make us like them following their cult.
they have arranged marriage, they have girls getingmarried even before puberty, they have 500 year backward thinking.
Yet we get told understand them, talk to them and yet over 400 kids have been taken by the govt with no proof while muslims here are doing the very same in their communities and are bringing over girls to have arranged marriages
Have I missed something but why are the two different and why should I talk to the islamist cult
bring this up all the time to libs and muslims
they believe some guy who lived in a cave , said God talked to him , said he is the true messenger, hyjacks parts of Christianity and judism and then comes out with laws like marry gils when they are 6 like mohammed the sexual child molestor did, stone women for this and that
tis truely disgusting that we even allow this kind of cult to be legal in this country
That was in 1918. Everyone was Christian. What can one say, except that sometimes people do stupid and crazy things!
She got a divorce after having a baby at age 16, moved to California where she met my grandfather and raised a family of four children. My mother was her third child.
“Extrapolate that from the entire Muslim population at large to get a handle on
the prevalence of child marriages within Islamic culture.”
And there are dire ramifications for the West: Extrapolate the Islamic population growth rate that accompanies the phenomenon of the females getting pregnant at the very first date possible date, maximizing their lifetime child-bearing (i.e., Jihadist bearing) capacity and supporting the Islamist goal of prevailing by Jihad, by infiltration of Western societies through the promotion of the political smoke-screen they call “multiculturalism,” and by numbers.
The minimum legal age of marriage in medieval times was 12 for girls and 14 for boys. It seems young by today's standards, but it is not wholly unreasonable; since boys and girls roughly go through puberty at these ages, since "adolescence" or prolonged childhood is a modern invention, and since life-expectancy was low during the middle ages.
Marriage in Medieval Times
By Rachelle CarterIn the middle ages marriages were done by arrangement. Women were not allowed to choose who they wanted to marry. However, sometimes men were able to choose their bride. Marriage was not based on love. Husbands and wives were generally strangers until they first met. If love was involved at all it came after the couple had been married. Even if love did not develop through marriage, the couple generally developed a friendship of some sort. The arrangement of marriage was done by the children's parents. In the Middle Ages children were married at a young age. Girls were as young as 12 when they married, and boys as young as 17. The arrangement of the marriage was based on monetary worth. The family of the girl who was to be married gives a dowry,or donation, to the boy she is to marry. The dowry goes with her at the time of the marriage and stays with the boy forever (Renolds).
After the marriage was arranged a wedding notice was posted on the door of the church. The notice was put up to ensure that there were no grounds for prohibiting the marriage. The notice stated who was to be married, and if anyone knew any reasons the two could not marry they were to come forward with the reason. If the reason were a valid one the wedding would be prohibited (Rice).
There were many reasons for prohibiting a marriage. One reason was consanguinity, if the two were too closely related. If the boy or the girl had taken a monastic or religious vow the marriage was also prohibited. Sometimes widows or widowers took vows of celibacy on the death of their spouse, and later regretted doing so when they could not remarry. Other reasons which also prohibited marriage, but were not grounds for a divorce, were rape, adultery, and incest. A couple could also not be married during a time of fasting, such as lent or advent. Nor could a couple be married by someone who had killed someone (Rice).
The church ceremony in the middle ages took place outside the church door before entering the church for a nuptial mass. During the ceremony in front of the church doors the man stood on the right side and the woman stood on the left side, facing the door of the church. "The reason being that she was formed out of a rib in the left side of Adam (Amt, p.84)." The priest begins by asking if anyone knows of any reason the couple should not be married. He also asks this of the man and woman so they may confess any reasons for prohibiting their marriage (Amt, p.84).
The ceremony proceeds with the priest saying, "N[ame] wilt though have this woman to thy wedded wife, wilt the love her, and honor her, keep her and guard her, in health and in sickness, as a husband should a wife, and forsaking all others on account of her, keep thee only unto her, so long as ye both shall live? (Amt, p.84)" Then the priest, changing the wording of "as a husband should a wife", asks the same of the woman. Both the man and the woman should answer by saying "I will (Amt, p.84-5)." At this time the woman is given by her father. The wedding continues with the saying of vows. Both the man and the woman, with the exception of the words wife and husband, say, "I N. take thee N. to my wedded wife, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness, and in health, till death do us part, if the holy church will ordain it: And thereto I plight thee my troth (Amt, p. 85)." At this time the are given to the priest to bless them. He gives them back and the ring exchange occurs. They bow their heads and the priest gives them a blessing. As husband and wife they enter the church, where they kneel before the altar. At the altar the priest gives a prayer and a blessing, thus ending the marriage ceremony (Amt, p.85).
Many of the things that took place during the time of a wedding have become traditions, and are currently practiced today. The marriage ceremony, for example, contains much of the same wording as was used in the middle ages. Today, the man and the woman stand on the same sides of the altar as they did in the middle ages. The wedding ceremony of today also includes a ring exchange, and the ring is put on the fourth finger, the same finger it was placed on during the middle ages. Even nuns marrying the church wore a ring on their fourth finger. In the middle ages a couple and their families would have a large feast after the wedding, this is still carried on in today's society (Rice).
One advantage we have today is the acceptance of divorce. People today can get divorced for practically any reason. In the middle ages there were few reasons the wedding could be dissolved. One reason was if either the man or woman were not of legal age, 12 for girls and 14 for boys. If the husband or wife had previously made a religious or monastic vow or were not Christian, the marriage would be dissolved. The last reason a marriage could end was if the woman, not the man, was incapable of sexual relations (Rice).
Marriages in the middle ages were done by arrangement. Most of the time the man and women did not know each other prior to their wedding. The marriage involved a dowry, and a ceremony beginning at the chute door and proceeding into the church. After the couple were married there were few reasons for divorce which were strictly adhered to. Over time marriages have carried on similar traditions and have also changed to involve the man and woman in deciding who they want to marry, and most importantly: LOVE.
OK, let's just say this is "so" for argument's sake. Do you realize how small population-wise--and pagan--most of the medieval period was?
I'm sure folks could pull up all kinds of nice cultural & sub-cultural anecdotal information from isolated areas...how head-hunding was widely practiced in some tribes...how cannibalism was embraced by even more...how harems were prominent in certain Mid-East cultures...how voodoo is still widely embraced in Haiti...
But none of these multicultural sounding "anecdotes"--no matter how hard these anedotalists try--universalizes or normalizes the practice.
And, what's more scary (and I'm not accusing you of this), but what's more scary is that it's likely to be either those advocating for the lowering of the age-of-consent laws...or even the few visible pedophile organizations...that tend to promote this kind of "historical enlightenment" (as if a return to paganism is somehow "progressive" and "enlightening"). At the very least, ya gotta consider what "league" you place yourself in when you start posting stuff like this. What was once upon a time the publishing of run-of-the-mill anthropological pieces like what you posted is, unfortunately, in an era of child sexual exploitation, no longer "innocently" utilized by those with other motivations.
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.