632-800

[کیش]

Marriage at pre-teen age was never the norm nowhere.... Even in ancient Greek, the girls were married off at age the youngest 13-15 and that was when they got there period, no 9 year old marrieng and old man in his 50s was never the norm.

Actually people in ancient Greek used to sleep with boys.


Other things you said are based on emotional opinion

[Toramana]

Actually people in ancient Greek used to sleep with boys.


Other things you said are based on emotional opinion

Moronic. How does that prove girls were married pre-teen? Or would you cling to straws to win an argument?

[Khostai]

Actually people in ancient Greek used to sleep with boys.


Other things you said are based on emotional opinion

yes and even those boys were at the age of 14-16 :P
no 9 year old ones. Your claim that pre-teen marriage was the norm, that is not true, marrieng a chiled is unnatural and only sick people do such things.

[کیش]

yes and even those boys were at the age of 14-16 :P
no 9 year old ones. Your claim that pre-teen marriage was the norm, that is not true, marrieng a chiled is unnatural and only sick people do such things.

Again that is your view.

You're wrong. I'm sorry but you are. Because you're comparing modern times with the ancient ones.

Boys 14-16. Not according to what they teach in university Philosophy and history courses.

Unnatural and sick people. It doesnt matter what your judgement is, but it happens/ed


Now please don't derail this thread. It's timeline 632-800, study more about it before you say your opinions.

[Khostai]

Moronic. How does that prove girls were married pre-teen? Or would you cling to straws to win an argument?

He is a moron, but the thing is that he claims that it was the norm in that time, but there were a lot of strange things at that time that was the norm and even if it was the norm, what I highly doubt, isn't that the reason that the prophet was send to end all thos horrible things in the first place?

[Khostai]

Again that is your view.

You're wrong. I'm sorry but you are. Because you're comparing modern times with the ancient ones.

Boys 14-16. Not according to what they teach in university Philosophy and history courses.

Unnatural and sick people. It doesnt matter what your judgement is, but it happens/ed


Now please don't derail this thread. It's timeline 632-800, study more about it before you say your opinions.

I know about the disgusting practise of the greeks and boys. And I also have read information about ancient greeks. Pedophiles and rape of minor was common in ancient times. But still there were a lot of sources that confirmed that sex with children was a bad thing and taboo, no culture promoted marriage with pre-teen children. Even tough in ancient time girls at the young age were married off, they were still at the age of 13-16, because which family will want a small chiled for there son, they want grandchildren as soon as possible and for that you need at least a girls who has her period.

[کیش]

He is a moron, but the thing is that he claims that it was the norm in that time, but there were a lot of strange things at that time that was the norm and even if it was the norm, what I highly doubt, isn't that the reason that the prophet was send to end all thos horrible things in the first place?

I'm a moron, lol that's cute.

[کیش]

I know about the disgusting practise of the greeks and boys. And I also have read information about ancient greeks. Pedophiles and rape of minor was common in ancient times. But still there were a lot of sources that confirmed that sex with children was a bad thing and taboo, no culture promoted marriage with pre-teen children. Even tough in ancient time girls at the young age were married off, they were still at the age of 13-16, because which family will want a small chiled for there son, they want grandchildren as soon as possible and for that you need at least a girls who has her period.

I respect that you are smarter than the others.

Please post references where it says it was a taboo?

[Khostai]

I respect that you are smarter than the others.

Please post references where it says it was a taboo?

"A financial arrangement was made between the families in the form of a dowry. Girls married between the ages of fourteen to eighteen, while typically men married in their twenties or even thirties."

http://historylink101.com/2/greece3/marriage.htm

The average age difference between husband and wife was fifteen years. Hesoid's advice was that "A man should marry at about thirty, choosing for his wife, a girl of sixteen" (quoted in Flacelière 59). Although there were no formal laws governing a specific age to marry, Flacelière (59) also mentioned that girls could marry as soon as puberty hit. As Powers notes,

"A girl married at the age of fifteen because it was presumed to guarantee virginity. Gentlemen married at thirty because that was the usual age when they finished their military service".

Marriage in ancient Egypt.
Once a young man was well into adolescence, it was appropriate for him to seek a partner and begin his own family. Females were probably thought to be ready for marriage after their first menses. The marrying age of males was probably a little older, perhaps 16 to 20 years of age, because they had to become established and be able to support a family.

http://fathom.lib.uchicago.edu/2/21701778/

This are of the old civilizations the same was the case for Roman empire and every other country aorund the world, marriage for girls was only the norms when there were in there teens or as early as possible when they had there period, no 9 year old marrieng was seen as normal.

[کیش]

The ancient Greece one is a weak source

The egyptian one is a good source, but only says menses.

I also don't care about what age girls get married. This thread isn't about that. Make another one,

[Khostai]

The ancient Greece one is a weak source

The egyptian one is a good source, but only says menses.

I also don't care about what age girls get married. This thread isn't about that. Make another one,

Yes I know this tread was not about that, but you claimed that pre-teen marriage was common thing in ancient times, what was never the case. The greeks source is quite accurate, you can find many more. BUt I guess people are right when they say, you can bring a thursty horse to water, but it has to drink byhimself you can't make him drink the water.

[کیش]

My grandma was married at 11. And it's still prevalent in Afg today.

Anyways, any other questions about this era?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

yes and even those boys were at the age of 14-16 :P
no 9 year old ones. Your claim that pre-teen marriage was the norm, that is not true, marrieng a chiled is unnatural and only sick people do such things.

Wanna try again dumb -sh-it? If you are going to pretend literacy then at least do a thorough job.

Margaret Beaufort, (age approximately 7) was married to John de la Pole (age 7) in 1450 by the arrangement John's father

From The King's Mother, Lady Margaret Beaufort Countess of Richmond and Derby page 37 in Chapter, War of the Roses

^ Mother of King Henry the VII

On the fourth day of the Parliament of 17 Edward IV (1477), it was declared that Richard, the King's second son, was to be Duke of York and Norfolk, Earl Marshal, Warrenne, and Nottingham, and to marry Anne, daughter and heir to John late Duke of Norfolk, the said Anne being then but six years old; and if she should die without issue, the said Richard, Duke of Norfolk, should have, by consent of Elizabeth, Duchess of Norfolk (widow of the said John, Duke of Norfolk), 'for the terme of his life, the halvendale (that is, the moiety) of the Castell, Towne, Lordship and Maners of Dynesbran [of the] Castell, Lordshipp, and Towne of Lyons [and of] the Lordship, Maners, and Londes of Heulyngton, Bromefield, Yale, Wraxham, and Almore, with their appurtenaunces, in the Marche of Wales,' etc.

^Marriage of Richard Duke of York to Ann Mawbrey in Archaelogia Cambrensis page 18

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZrMVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA18&lpg=PA18&dq=King's+second+son,+was+to+be+Duke+of+York+and+Norfolk,+Earl+Marshal,+Warrenne,+and+Nottingham,+and+to+marry+Anne,+daughter+and+heir+to+John+late+Duke+of+Norfolk,+the+said+Anne&source=bl&ots=LlVkXkZjoh&sig=tdqRXEwpQ3FKYXrMwMZEGjGMOuQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6wrPU5GnJIeQyAT_1YHgBQ&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=King's%20second%20son%2C%20was%20to%20be%20Duke%20of%20York%20and%20Norfolk%2C%20Earl%20Marshal%2C%20Warrenne%2C%20and%20Nottingham%2C%20and%20to%20marry%20Anne%2C%20daughter%20and%20heir%20to%20John%20late%20Duke%20of%20Norfolk%2C%20the%20said%20Anne&f=false

or to seal the deal:

And yet it is the case that in 1396, Richard II of England (age 28) was joined in marriage to young Isabel of France, who had been 7 years old when their engagement was announced the previous year in Paris. Not only was there no uproar; there was considerable happiness expressed over the assumed probability that this marriage would end the Hundred Years War then in one of its periodic states of truce between the two kingdoms. Peace was to be ensured by joining together this man and this little girl in marriage. If some scholars are correct, Geoffrey Chaucer even celebrated the arrival of the little queen in England, in the formal but funny balade, "To Rosemond," remarking her "chekes round," clowning for the child, like "a pike, walwed in galantyne,"

http://www.thedigitalfolklife.org/childmarriage.htm

Do you like that fool?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Moronic. How does that prove girls were married pre-teen? Or would you cling to straws to win an argument?

No actually, you are moronic per the British Royal references above. Pay special attention to the portion where there is a clear discussion of of even Geoffrey Chaucer celebrating a monarch marrying a girl aged 6.

Besides, what exactly are you deducing since this criticism of the Prophet Muhammad was nonexistent until Christian American Missionaries generated it in the 20th century. Prior to this, neither contemporaries, nor adversaries, nor critics in subsequent centuries found this a point to cling on.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Dr Saib

Omar is a wonderful example of the separation of Church and the State. As you have given the examples, Omar acted on his own with out resorting to any religious sanction. He was a great Arab leader. I love him for his leadership qualities, his personality, his administrative and other reforms and his expansion of the Arab empire.

He was a true secular Muslim Arab leader rather statesman. All his innovations, reforms and measures speak of his acumen being a secularist who did not bother religion in state affairs.

Incorrect per the famous declaration Omar made regarding the sunnah of the rajm found in Bukhari.

Rather his strength was WISDOM when applying the law.

For instance, any leader can take any great law, (e.g. the right to free speech) and attempt to apply it - but only a great and just leader can allow its practice even to his political detriment.

We see the same debates centering on the utilization of the law with respect to treason and spying and whistle blowing for instance going on right now in the US as a criticism of Obama's Justice Department misusing the law. Ron Paul contends a variant, and perhaps more just interpretation of the constitution and its execution.