Underage marriages of girls rise in Kandahar.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Lol. I agree. Hence the confusion amongst his Muslim viewers stemming from his new interpretations which appease westerners (his Austrian hosts) and Muslims who are looking for other reasons that suit their interpretations.
On top of that he is a sensationalist. And he has gone noticed for making other robustly ludicrous claims about perpetual motion.

People like him because he says the right kind of stuff people want to hear. That's why he is popular.

Being a scholar is not about popularity. Scholars, scientists and people who really know what they are talking about are usually very boring and unlikable.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Look at this guy. He is also very popular:

[torkham]

What the hell is this SK?
It's a carousel of ridiculous!!!
Where do you find this stuff!!!!! Must be Dutch TV

[torkham]

Found it. Turk. Adnan Oktar.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

The is Harun Yahya. His books are very popular in Afghanistan among Ikhwanis.

[khushal]

People like him because he says the right kind of stuff people want to hear. That's why he is popular.

Being a scholar is not about popularity. Scholars, scientists and people who really know what they are talking about are usually very boring and unlikable.

They are not boring, people just don't understand the complexities of what they are saying. Its not because they are boring, its because your stupid.

[DaZahroJaam.]

People like him because he says the right kind of stuff people want to hear. That's why he is popular.

Being a scholar is not about popularity. Scholars, scientists and people who really know what they are talking about are usually very boring and unlikable.

Wow. Is that your excuse for staying away from wisdom??

[khushal]

Wisdom is boring.

[Khostai]

Since we are dicussing mental maturity, when are you going to become mentally mature?

I am, when are you going to get it?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Clearly there are many un-answered questions, many unsubstantiated legal conditions from Islamic law or any other law.

It's clear, on the basis of consensual and pragmatic truth, whether we have been attuned to 'laws' of Toronto, Den Hag, somewhere in Sind or Dand, many parents will not want their daughters to be given away at childish age to men of mature years or under blackmail or extortion or badal or walwar. My heart is rattled and my blood vessels tugged from my flesh whenever I hear of a girl in her early teens married off to man of maturity and experience, or forced, or coerced due to blackmail, ignorance or redeeming someone else's crime, In my view the intentions and desires of the groom loom with exploitation of the girls prematurity and innocence. There is ruthlessness and no mercy. Of course I have heard reasons put forward to DISTRACT ATTENTION from this practice, such as as consummation doesn't take place till the 'right' age or it is the tradition of the prophet, or its solution utilitarian. So avoiding distraction, who in our society oversees the right is maintained, HAQ is observed, innocence is not robbed, exploitation does not occur? Who has the power to see the intent, NIYA'?

So if we agree, in consensus, in morality of right and wrong that this is wrong, right?
Is there a counter example when it is ever righ to practice this? Really?

Ok then proceed to Shariah convoluted with traditions: who has the answer? Is your answer better than mine because you read more accepted books? Do you have undisputed authoritative answer of what is age of consent according to Shariah? Is it alright to continue our traditions because it isn't explicitly mentioned in the Quran. Are you taking the words of the schools at AlAzhar or at Madinah or at Karachi or at Deoband or Bahreil? Because, I assure you someone, ONE, will defend their school of thought, their Imam, their village maulawi and it will end up bloody fatal. My point here is there are mullahs/maulawi who are sanctioning these marriages with violations of Shariah conditions and Bukhari customs that we all have a read and understand, and still allowing marriages with out consent that is clearly mentioned. Then come the defenders of this action, "oh the girl knows the man, she has heard the proceedings been discussed in the family and she is consenting in her [coy] silence".

We have dimly educated maulawi sanctioning such marriages, who will quickly mention Umm Al Momineen Aisha (r) and her circumstances. We have the STERA MAQEMA failing to carry out its duty, duty of MAQEMA. We have Islamic government, so it claims, with Islamic scholars who are not overseeing their maulawis in their education of Islam. Then there is growing number of 'scholars of Islam' coming out with differing interpretations of Islam, like this TV sheikh Ibrahim from Jordan(?), you can recognise him by his goatee and pinstripe suits. There is clearly confusion amongst the ummah, and the uneducated, weak and poor are being mercilessly exploited.

I don't have an answer, I am not a Scholar of Islam with undisputed answers but I am shouting as loud as I can that THIS UNDER AGE MARRIAGE OF GIRLS TO OLDER MEN practice is an abuse of innocent girls and boys, there is exploitation that is being perpetuated, accepted and ignored. The POOR PARENTS, INNOCENT GIRLS, ARE BEING EXPLOITED AND BLACKMAILED. And you know it is oppression. I do say it to all I meet, in Kandahar. The stare, or agree, but I know some of them in their heads have another reason they think is so pressing that it defies mercy of Allah(j).

Bacha Bazi is not spared either.

Torkham Wrorraka,

Leave these folks aside, let us, as St. Paul said, dispense with the milk and get to the meat (though I am not a fan of the man from Tarsus).

The reality of the matter is that historically human rights follows a gradient pattern, whether it is in the empire of Cyrus the Persian reportedly known for its tolerance down to the present Pax Americana.

I may not agree with Reagan's trickle down economics, but I do think there is a trickle down economy inherent to human progress and human rights.

If the supposed strong of a society have no rights, what of the purported weaker and defenseless parties?

You and me, if we were to walk into certain areas and make certain comments against unsavory people would find ourselves either in a mound of dirt or with dislocated limbs. The same holds true for the people in the watan. The strong have "rights" because if someone messes with them it will result in problems in the locale and for the occupation. But otherwise, power yields rights in many instances, even in the courts of law in many of these nations in the present era.

Historically, the majority of the population that build an empire, that ethnic group, particularly its men start the process of egalitarianism. This began some 400 years ago in the present empire. It began to pick up pace when martyrs like Elijah Lovejoy and others of the dominant ethnic group would deign to spread these rights and privileges to others within the realms of the empire (black ethnic group). This would then go on to spread from men to women by the former's support (Frederick Douglas etc) and culminate in political recognition.

The issue here is how to yield a recognition and progress that is innate. I do not know who said it, but I always here the quote that "A people's condition wont ever change until they change it themselves." One can write all the articles and try to put posters up via Civic NGO activities around Kandahar all they want. This will not accomplish anything but will make the matter worse since the culture will push back.

I have a vivid story at hand of an Achakzai lady in the parliament that started a sewing business in coordination with the government. It was her husband's family women (mind you her husband was a former socialist not an Islamist) that accused her of unsavory activities and shut down her business. That story is published in the public record by Gopal during his travels through Kandahar.

What will change it and what is the solution? Well it seems that each time outsiders push on these regions the new iterations that arise are more fierce, less concerned with chivalry or some "rules of engagement" and much more fierce. And this makes sense right? War radicalizes people in multiple directions.

People can try and influence Kandahar media, TV, NGOs etc and I promise you it wont change anything. Instead, it will result in fierce blow back.

Leaving people alone is the best answer and permitting the natural evolution of government and human rights. It may take generations but eventually a brother, a cousin, a father, an uncle, a mother, or these girls themselves will begin to reach a juncture where tolerating this will be unbearable. That will be the generation of change.

I personally do my best to avoid involving myself in the affairs of folks as I travel our native lands. I think its the better part of valor to lead by example. If the local sees how I live or how I act and decides they want to pattern or mirror their behavior or life on mine then it becomes their choice. Its a form of respect I think we ought to give our own people. But in the least they wont feel like they have a Kipling on their head they have to resist and radicalize against that sets the cause back by 10-20 years.

A part of this social evolution also coincides with economic evolution that benefits the society as a whole. And that my friend can never come from anyone else - it has to be internally driven and develop in a pattern mirrored by examining the history of others who have achieved this.

I learned a long time ago when I was just a child and tried the alternative route of demanding that others adhere to the better way of practice that I get a less than stellar response.

A simple example is I once recall seeing a woman (distant relative which meant I was not confined to the hujrah) trying to move a full pot that seemed heavy. I got up and grabbed one end and moved it with her. On my way out, the elderly gentleman said 'Dr. Saib, there are actions that men are made to do and women are made to do - I know you are from abroad but when men perform the actions of a woman we have a label for that... I realize you are a guest, but I wanted you to know this and to not make this mistake.'

Looking back on it, there are multiple dimensions to this that I should have thought about before intervening. Perhaps he was insinuating that it was improper for me to help a woman of his household and that it might be perceived as intentions toward her that were less than chivalrous but more perverse and that the other local guests might have viewed it that way. So something simple in my mind probably resulted in more problems than benefits. Who knows? Maybe if I wasnt there his son or nephew might have taken the initiative to help. Or had I asked them to help it might have been a bit less problematic.

My point is that these issues tug at the heart strings - but there is education and then there is wisdom. We must practice the latter if we want the best long term results as opposed to window dressing and feel good alternatives.

[torkham]

so true ..... nothing more humbling than this experience.

The "pand" of your masher khapalwan should be written in the diplomatic bibles of all governments. non-interference and let gentle revolutions of self-determination evolve each nation at a natural pace.