NationStates Jolt Archive

Just when you thought the Saudis couldn't get sillier with their Sharia law, there's another court judgement to stun us! :mad:

Girl, 8, ordered to stay with 58-year-old husband
Riyadh
December 24, 2008
AN EIGHT-YEAR-OLD Saudi Arabian girl who was married off by her father to a 58-year-old man has been told she cannot divorce her husband until she reaches puberty.

Lawyer Abdullah Jtili said the divorce petition was filed by the unnamed girl's divorced mother in August after the marriage contract had been signed by her father and the groom.

"The judge has dismissed the plea because she (the mother) does not have the right to file, and ordered that the plea should be filed by the girl herself when she reaches puberty," Mr Jtili said.

The case was handled by a court in Qasim province, north of the Saudi capital, Riyadh.

The girl does not know that she is married, said Mr Jtili, adding that he would appeal against the ruling.

The case appears to fit a pattern of divorced fathers using their children to take revenge against their former wives.

In many child marriages, girls are given away to older men in return for dowries or following the custom by which a father promises his daughters and sons to marriage while still children.

But the issue is complicated by different interpretations of Islamic law and a lack of legal certainty.

GUARDIAN

Oh that's ridiculous. What's the legal age of marriage in Saudi Arabia anyway? I thought it was thirteen, so can the girl even be legaly married?

I need to move to Saudi Arabia.

8 seems a little young. 11 or 12 might be about right. but then monogamous merrage isn't all that ideal an approach to satisfying the needs of both individual and society either. its one, more or less reasonable compromise, but far from ideal.

there are other approaches besides either romantic love, favored by the so called civilized 'west' or the presumed traditon of offspring being the possessions of their progenators, as well (and such as my be considered superior and preferable to both).

i think though, highly suspect, ulterior motives of cultural chauvanism, behind the focus of such "news". seldom for example, do we hear of the well known coercive practices of white supremists and/or 'christian' extremists. (and only rarely, even those of eastern europe, such as abduction merrages)

Good news for the homosexuals :) As mentioned elsewhere, Saudi Arabia recently declared that homosexuality was like pedophilia - and this shows that the country thinks pedophilia is perfectly fine; not to mention that marriages should be possible.

Rejoice !
After weeping.

it is okay their prophet married an 8 year old.

In before the "Saudi Arabia = Muslims Everywhere" comments.

:rolleyes:

Honestly, what can you expect from a bunch of Wahabbist dirtballs?

i think though, highly suspect, ulterior motives of cultural chauvanism, behind the focus of such "news". seldom for example, do we hear of the well known coercive practices of white supremists and/or 'christian' extremists. (and only rarely, even those of eastern europe, such as abduction merrages)

Actually we hear quite a bit about "Christian" extremist cults and their criminal practices. For example:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/07/arts/television/07cult.html?ref=television

And such cult practices tend to be prosecuted by the courts, not excused by them:

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7013421749

As for "cultural chauvinism," so what? That other such abuses occur elsewhere doesn't excuse court-sanctioned Saudi abuses.

Oh that's ridiculous. What's the legal age of marriage in Saudi Arabia anyway? I thought it was thirteen, so can the girl even be legaly married?

in most places, even in some places the US, a child can be married with the concent of the parents/guardians. tho even that has an age limit.

question is tho. is this "marriage" more like a promise when she turns the right age, (She's still living with her parents) or is she expected to live with her husband.

in most places, even in some places the US, a child can be married with the concent of the parents/guardians. tho even that has an age limit.

question is tho. is this "marriage" more like a promise when she turns the right age, (She's still living with her parents) or is she expected to live with her husband.

most require parental consent for under 18.
almost all out law it all together for those under 12 to 16 (depends on state some are unwritten but common lawed) with a few of the 16 cut off ones making exceptions if the girl is pregnate or has a kid.

Just when you thought the Saudis couldn't get sillier with their Sharia law, there's another court judgement to stun us! :mad:

Girl, 8, ordered to stay with 58-year-old husband
Riyadh
December 24, 2008
AN EIGHT-YEAR-OLD Saudi Arabian girl who was married off by her father to a 58-year-old man has been told she cannot divorce her husband until she reaches puberty.

Lawyer Abdullah Jtili said the divorce petition was filed by the unnamed girl's divorced mother in August after the marriage contract had been signed by her father and the groom.

"The judge has dismissed the plea because she (the mother) does not have the right to file, and ordered that the plea should be filed by the girl herself when she reaches puberty," Mr Jtili said.

The case was handled by a court in Qasim province, north of the Saudi capital, Riyadh.

The girl does not know that she is married, said Mr Jtili, adding that he would appeal against the ruling.

The case appears to fit a pattern of divorced fathers using their children to take revenge against their former wives.

In many child marriages, girls are given away to older men in return for dowries or following the custom by which a father promises his daughters and sons to marriage while still children.

But the issue is complicated by different interpretations of Islamic law and a lack of legal certainty.

GUARDIAN
Weren't the Saudis one of those complaining that the U.N. resolution decriminalizing homosexuality would lead to legalized pedophilia?

Wow, that guy's just like Mohammed...of course, unlike him this guy apparently hasn't consummated his marriage yet so I have to give him some credit.

It shouldn't surprise anybody that a country whose religious beliefs are stuck in the seventh century is going to make decisions pretty similar to those made by actual people in the seventh century. Hell, this was pretty messed up even back then...not even the hardcore Christian fanatics back in the day would condone a marriage like that.

In b4 pedobear moves to Saudi.

women always go for the older men :(

Just when you thought the Saudis couldn't get sillier with their Sharia law, there's another court judgement to stun us! :mad:

Girl, 8, ordered to stay with 58-year-old husband
Riyadh
December 24, 2008
AN EIGHT-YEAR-OLD Saudi Arabian girl who was married off by her father to a 58-year-old man has been told she cannot divorce her husband until she reaches puberty.

Lawyer Abdullah Jtili said the divorce petition was filed by the unnamed girl's divorced mother in August after the marriage contract had been signed by her father and the groom.

"The judge has dismissed the plea because she (the mother) does not have the right to file, and ordered that the plea should be filed by the girl herself when she reaches puberty," Mr Jtili said.

The case was handled by a court in Qasim province, north of the Saudi capital, Riyadh.

The girl does not know that she is married, said Mr Jtili, adding that he would appeal against the ruling.

The case appears to fit a pattern of divorced fathers using their children to take revenge against their former wives.

In many child marriages, girls are given away to older men in return for dowries or following the custom by which a father promises his daughters and sons to marriage while still children.

But the issue is complicated by different interpretations of Islamic law and a lack of legal certainty.

GUARDIAN

I don't care if it's politically incorrect, but that is a backwards, wrong practice. I don't care if your culture is cool with it, it's not right.

I didn't intend this thread to be a Muslim bash. I guess it is a Saudi bash though. Those guys with their petrodollars ought to know better. It is not multicultural cool to force others to live in a tenth century fantasy.
It's a damn good argument for globalisation - you can't have all the luxuries and 21st century technology and keep half your population in servitude.

EIGHT?

This shit must be stopped.

.....SNIP...
It's a damn good argument for globalisation - you can't have all the luxuries and 21st century technology and keep half your population in servitude.

Odd - I thought that was exactly how the global economic model worked

You can't have luxuries unless someone else has bugger all and is paid bugger all to make them for you.

The ad on the top of the screen on this thread is for Arab dating.

Sweet jesus, Jolt programmed their ads well.

Ah yes, the essential disequilibrium of Capitalism (served up to us with a feudal and theocratic twist). Mind you "historical materialism" - which has yet to be disproven by the way, tells us that each system's contradictions create an antitheseis that will ultimately topple the dominant paradigm.
I'll drink to that!

If an old Saudi Quazillionaire want's to marry an eight year old girl who are we to stop him? Let's look at the Pro's and Con's-

Con's
It's peodophilia and it;s wrong according to our moral code

Pro's
They have oil and we want them to like us, and then sell us it


The awnser is obvious - eight year old brides for everyone!





;)

It shouldn't surprise anybody that a country whose religious beliefs are stuck in the seventh century is going to make decisions pretty similar to those made by actual people in the seventh century. Hell, this was pretty messed up even back then...not even the hardcore Christian fanatics back in the day would condone a marriage like that.

Actually, they did. It wasn't until the 19th century that most christian nations adopted age of consent & marriageble age laws. Before then, nobody really cared...

Actually, they did. It wasn't until the 19th century that most christian nations adopted age of consent & marriageble age laws. Before then, nobody really cared...

Indeed many marriages took place between 8 year olds.

However, both parties were of similar ages. I have not heard of an 8 year old marrying someone 50 years older than herself (Albeit against her will)

Then again, Hugh Hefner's doing those two 19-year-old sluts and I think he just turned infinity 4 weeks ago.

Indeed many marriages took place between 8 year olds.

However, both parties were of similar ages. I have not heard of an 8 year old marrying someone 50 years older than herself (Albeit against her will)

Then again, Hugh Hefner's doing those two 19-year-old sluts and I think he just turned infinity 4 weeks ago.

Due to certain vagaries of legal death, Hugh Hefner is still, technically, 27.

Actually, they did. It wasn't until the 19th century that most christian nations adopted age of consent & marriageble age laws. Before then, nobody really cared...

From what I understand, the Catholic church offically banned arranged marriages sometime during the Midde Ages but people just ignored the ban or found ways around it.

From what I understand, the Catholic church offically banned organized marriages sometime during the Midde Ages but people just ignored the ban or found ways around it.

:)Actually Teritoria, the correct phrase is "arranged" marriages. Most marriages attempt tobe "organised" - except for Adam Sandler movies like The Wedding Singer, and "Runaway Bride", "Four Weddings and a Funeral", "The Graduate" etc. :D

:)Actually Teritoria, the correct phrase is "arranged" marriages. Most marriages attempt tobe "organised" - except for Adam Sandler movies like The Wedding Singer, and "Runaway Bride", "Four Weddings and a Funeral", "The Graduate" etc. :D

Thanks for noting that. I blame working outside most of the day in below freezing weather for the last two days. ;)

It's warm and sunny in Melbourne Australia. I hope your organised Xmas/Chanukah/Festivus gets riotous and disorganised - and for your present I hope that you have lasting romantic and non-arranged love.

Joke: What's the difference between Love and Herpes?
Answer: Herpes is forever!

Weren't the Saudis one of those complaining that the U.N. resolution decriminalizing homosexuality would lead to legalized pedophilia?

I believe it was a group of ME nations...

I don't care if it's politically incorrect, but that is a backwards, wrong practice. I don't care if your culture is cool with it, it's not right.

Why isn't it right?

It's not for us to say how the must live

It's not for us to say how the must live
Yes, it is. We are better than them in this area. Eight-year-old brides are absolutely not cool.

They should do it like the west. Only let the powerful and well connected do it then cover it up.

Works for us.

Though apparently this guy didn't consummate it and he actually married her. So arguably they are light years ahead.

Yes, it is. We are better than them in this area. Eight-year-old brides are absolutely not cool.

Same thing you told those Africans before the take that boat trip, right :rolleyes:

It's not for us to say how the must live

Exactly. for this reason we must also let thousands die, be imprisoned for no reason and have their human rights stripped away in Zimbabwe and around the world. After all, it's blatantly *their* lifestyle choice to be starving, ill, imprisoned, executed etc.

Same thing you told those Africans before the take that boat trip, right
Nope. This is completely different. I'm as guilty a white person as most, but this is genuinely Not Right and should be seen as such.

Exactly. for this reason we must also let thousands die, be imprisoned for no reason and have their human rights stripped away in Zimbabwe and around the world. After all, it's blatantly *their* lifestyle choice to be starving, ill, imprisoned, executed etc.

Eh? So invading Iraq = Good then.

Exactly. for this reason we must also let thousands die, be imprisoned for no reason and have their human rights stripped away in Zimbabwe and around the world. After all, it's blatantly *their* lifestyle choice to be starving, ill, imprisoned, executed etc.

Man, I just read "victimless crimes" right there.

Eh? So invading Iraq = Good then.

Did I say invasion was the answer? No. I think that might have been some sort of fallacy you just tried out there.

Its exactly the same; as telling your Neighbour to live exactly like you

Its exactly the same; as telling your Neighbour to live exactly like you
Slavery wasn't about telling people to live like us. It was about economic gain at the expense of human rights. Telling them to stop this kind of shit is about increasing human rights. That's about it.

Did I say invasion was the answer? No. I think that might have been some sort of fallacy you just tried out there.

Starve them to death with sanctions...? Pray to the baby jeebus that the bad mans recognizes the error of his ways...? Ignore them until they change their mind?

Really if you want regime change it's pretty much a matter of invading.

Well this ruined Christmas Eve.

Really if you want regime change it's pretty much a matter of invading.

Don't forget secret service sponsored coup!

So who decides what is 'right' within the country? If it's a dictator who kills and tortures anyone he dislikes on a whim, that's OK, simply because he's in charge and that's that? Is it really as simple as that? Anything is acceptable as long as it is enforced by the current government?

Don't forget secret service sponsored coup!

I think the various train wrecks in South America and the Middle East have taught us the error of those ways.

(Not to say that the government won't keep doing it, but they are stupid. At any rate, it is clearly not an answer if you want to improve humanitarian conditions).

Starve them to death with sanctions...? Pray to the baby jeebus that the bad mans recognizes the error of his ways...? Ignore them until they change their mind?

Really if you want regime change it's pretty much a matter of invading.

I also never said regime change, but feel free to put words in my mouth! I'm talking about diplomacy in all its forms. The argument I heard was 'you should not do ANYTHING because it's their business'

So who decides what is 'right' within the country? If it's a dictator who kills and tortures anyone he dislikes on a whim, that's OK, simply because he's in charge and that's that? Is it really as simple as that? Anything is acceptable as long as it is enforced by the current government?

Yeah. That's pretty much how it works. If the people don't like it they can have a revolution or something.

It's the same here though. You just happen to like it.

United Nations without interference from the us

United Nations without interference from the us
What?

I also never said regime change, but feel free to put words in my mouth! I'm talking about diplomacy in all its forms. The argument I heard was 'you should not do ANYTHING because it's their business'

Diplomacy won't work. We are talking about brutal dictators. It's cool if you want to swap stuff with them, or get oil leases and such, but they really aren't open to fiddling with their human rights policies.

So you might as well not do anything. Definition of insanity and all that.

Also, it really is no-one else's business unless they start invading allies. Even then..1938 &c.

Yeah. That's pretty much how it works. If the people don't like it they can have a revolution or something.

It's the same here though. You just happen to like it.

Cool, 'cos it's the way it is, we should just leave it. No point in trying to push stupid agendas like human rights.

At least I have the illusion of being able to change things! Plus I happen to like it for the same reasons a lot of other people would like it. Due process in law, enough to eat, banning of torture, and no death penalty.

I'm sure there are people in the world who wouldn't happen to like that..... err, would there?

Diplomacy won't work. We are talking about brutal dictators. It's cool if you want to swap stuff with them, or get oil leases and such, but they really aren't open to fiddling with their human rights policies.

So you might as well not do anything. Definition of insanity and all that.

Also, it really is no-one else's business unless they start invading allies. Even then..1938 &c.

Good to know you can speak for all brutal dictators in history and the future.

Also, we are not only talking about brutal dictators. Yes, they are the hardest end of the spectrum to influence, but that doesn't mean they don't have a price. Libya has moved on from international pariah, do you think that wasn't do do at least partly to diplomacy?

Cool, 'cos it's the way it is, we should just leave it. No point in trying to push stupid agendas like human rights.

At least I have the illusion of being able to change things! Plus I happen to like it for the same reasons a lot of other people would like it. Due process in law, enough to eat, banning of torture, and no death penalty.

I'm sure there are people in the world who wouldn't happen to like that..... err, would there?

That's right. There is no point in trying to push things like human rights agenda overseas. It just annoys them.

And all those things you like aren't nearly as secure as you think they are. The west is pretty much a soft tyranny itself. You just happen to agree with the things the government is doing so you don't mind.

Good to know you can speak for all brutal dictators in history and the future.

Also, we are not only talking about brutal dictators. Yes, they are the hardest end of the spectrum to influence, but that doesn't mean they don't have a price. Libya has moved on from international pariah, do you think that wasn't do do at least partly to diplomacy?

Libya was because Iraq got invaded. Quadaffi took the axis thing seriously. Anyway, I hardly count coughing up some wergeld and giving up a non-existent nuclear program a banner day for human rights in Libya.

That's right. There is no point in trying to push things like human rights agenda overseas. It just annoys them.

And all those things you like aren't nearly as secure as you think they are. The west is pretty much a soft tyranny itself. You just happen to agree with the things the government is doing so you don't mind.

Everything is insecure, vagaries of fate and all that. Doesn't mean you shouldn't bother to get them though does it? Or be thankful you have them?

Yes, I happen to agree with some of the things they are doing and accept the limitations of the democratic system. But again, just because it's not perfect does not nullify its achievements. In your terms, ANY government is soft tyranny. But I don't see how that has any bearing on whether or not you should use diplomacy to further human rights.

Libya was because Iraq got invaded. Quadaffi took the axis thing seriously. Anyway, I hardly count coughing up some wergeld and giving up a non-existent nuclear program a banner day for human rights in Libya.

Really? Then why not Iran or North Korea? Perhaps because the diplomatic relationship was different?

Neither did I say it was a victory for human rights. I was pointing out that diplomacy can have an effect on policy and is not a useless tool. And there was no invasion of Libya to get it, was there?

EDIT: have to go now, but do you think these diplomatic actions don't / did not make a difference?:

sanctions against apartheid
the rules set for entry into the EU
Negotiations with PLO/Hamas/Israel/etc

Yes, I happen to agree with some of the things they are doing and accept the limitations of the democratic system. But again, just because it's not perfect does not nullify its achievements. In your terms, ANY government is soft tyranny. But I don't see how that has any bearing on whether or not you should use diplomacy to further human rights.

What I am saying, given the way that western governments seem to become more and more despotic and corrupt every day, is that efforts would be better spent sorting shit out at home, rather than being distracted about stuff overseas, which, in reality, we can do very little about.

(During the past thirty years the fucking safety nazi baby boomers have quitely constructed the apparatus of a police state. I am worried that it is about to turn nasty because of economy stuffs because then I would have to move to Belize or Panama.)

Really? Then why not Iran or North Korea? Perhaps because the diplomatic relationship was different?

Neither did I say it was a victory for human rights. I was pointing out that diplomacy can have an effect on policy and is not a useless tool. And there was no invasion of Libya to get it, was there?

North Korea is kept around by China - for laughs I think. So they know they are safe.

Iranians are smarter than us.

I did already agree that these states respond to diplomacy. Just it is for external stuff. It doesn't work about internal matters. (Which really isn't the purview of diplomacy anyway).