French mother confesses to killing eight babies

[Asiyah3]

French mother admits to killing eight of her newborns

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...r-eight-babies

[Sawdah]

This article made my stomach turn.

8 babies, 8 babies!?

Inna Ilahi wa Inna Ilayhi Raj'oon.

This is sick. SICK.

How the heck could this go on for so long? SubhanAllah.

Aoudubillahi minashaytaanir rajeem.

[Rhubarb Tart]

I saw this on news yesterday. This is truly sick. Either something is soo wrong with her mind or she is just pure evil.

Inna Ilahi wa Inna Ilayhi Raj'oon.

[nousername]

I hope inshaALLAH that those babies will have Allah swt ask her what crimes that did that they deserved to be killed for, and she will have nothing to defend herself with. People who hurt children always have a deep spot of hatred in my heart and I hope they enter the deepest depths of hell inshaAllah.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[titus]

I am waiting for Karl to respond to this thread.

[Salahudeen]

I never even heard about this on the news, probably cos it's in France. I've noticed You hear about crimes like this often now . And there's all ways enquiries after as to why the social services didn't take the children away from the parent.

[Karl]

I am waiting for Karl to respond to this thread.

Under Shariah law the husband fully decides what to do about it. He could kill her or forgive her or banish her to a madhouse or whatever. But under French liberal socialist oppression the father has no say or power. He is just a slave of the state.

[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

Subhaan`Allaah, this is an evil act, she will be Questioned on the Day of Qayamah!

Innah Lillah Wa Innah Ilaayhi Rajioon

[جوري]

So many women I know are struggling to have just one child and pay all they own to have help conceiving and she does away with eight of whom she was blessed with at an age where it is considered a miracle.. sob7an Allah.. some people truly live like animals and die like animals and then wonder why their acts are seen as criminal through that innate sense of entitlement many of them harbor!

[nousername]

Under Shariah law the husband fully decides what to do about it. He could kill her or forgive her or banish her to a madhouse or whatever. But under French liberal socialist oppression the father has no say or power. He is just a slave of the state.

That's not true! Allah commanded us not to kill our newborns, and under sharia the hadd punishment for murder is death. It has nothing to do weather the husbands whats this or that!

[Rhubarb Tart]

That's not true! Allah commanded us not to kill our newborns, and under sharia the hadd punishment for murder is death. It has nothing to do weather the husbands whats this or that!

Sister... actually as much as I dislike Karl's comments what he said is right to certain extent. The relative of the victim decide what they want, its either blood money or death. In this case it would most likely be the father...

[Darth Ultor]

Eight babies? What kind of monster could... I am absolutely sickened. This woman is either pure evil or is completely insane.

[Karl]

@Sweet106. I am glad to know your acknowledgent that I am right about that, but just wondering which part I said that you didn't actually like. Nousername obviously knows nothing about blood money. And technically speaking the relative can also demand 0 amount of blood money if they wish. Also in this particular case it would most DEFINATELY be the father who would decide what should be done, as he is the direct relative of those killed.

[Insecured soul]

French mother admits to killing eight of her newborns

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...r-eight-babies

unbelievable, such an horrific crime btw she really looks psychotic by her

did anyone else noticed that?

[titus]

And technically speaking the relative can also demand 0 amount of blood money if they wish

Who decides the punishment if the father kills the children?

[Karl]

Who decides the punishment if the father kills the children?

Only Allah (swt) can. This is because there is no more higher head in the family hierachy than the patriarch himself, so therefore he must decide what punishment is fitting for himself. Paying one's self blood money would be rather a pointless excercise.

[Pygoscelis]

So in your ideal world, if the father kills the children, he walks away with no consequences beyond what his God (if said god exists) may do to him after he dies. I don't want to live in that kind of land.

[Karl]

So in your ideal world, if the father kills the children, he walks away with no consequences beyond what his God (if said god exists) may do to him after he dies. I don't want to live in that kind of land.

No one is forcing you to live in a Sharia jurisdiction.

[Darth Ultor]

Only Allah (swt) can. This is because there is no more higher head in the family hierachy than the patriarch himself, so therefore he must decide what punishment is fitting for himself. Paying one's self blood money would be rather a pointless excercise.

So the father will not be prosecuted?

[Abu Zainab]

So in your ideal world, if the father kills the children, he walks away with no consequences beyond what his God (if said god exists) may do to him after he dies. I don't want to live in that kind of land.

In that case the father will get executed. Period.

[Danah]

his wife maintained he was unaware not only of the killings but also of the pregnancies. "Mrs Cottrez told investigators he had known neither that his wife was pregnant nor that she had got rid of them directly afterwards,"

Seriously? are you kidding me??
if it was one pregnancy that can be possible but 8?? there is something fishy in this case. I suspect that he didn't know about anything

Such people need the license that Boaz was talking about in another thread!

[Karl]

So the father will not be prosecuted?

Yes, that is correct.

[Karl]

In that case the father will get executed. Period.

Rubbish, he is the progenitor! He is the direct and closest blood relative that is possible! You are ignorant to the fact that seeing the parents are the direct relatives then worldly prosecution would be legally rendered null and void. You don't know about blood money obviously?? If the father kills his offspring, he can offer the closest relative (in this case himself) blood money. If he accepts it from himself the blood money is therefore technically accepted and worldy charges therefore waived.

[Karl]

Such people need the license that Boaz was talking about in another thread!

Such busybody leftist concepts as "parent licences" are about as ANTI Islamic as is possible, they are the Satanic thinking of maniacal totalitarian state worshippers and Marxists. Anyone who calls themselves "Muslim" and actually support such a despicable thing as "parent licences" should be completely ashamed of themselves.

[Darth Ultor]

Yes, that is correct.

I seriously doubt Sharia sanctions this.

[Salahudeen]

I seriously doubt Sharia sanctions this.

I will ask a sheikh and find out the answer for you.

[Darth Ultor]

Thank you, Squiggle.

[Abu Zainab]

I will ask a sheikh and find out the answer for you.

That would be great squiggee. I never heard of a guy paying blood money to himself and tell the judge (sheikh) "Your Honor I forgive myself. I know its really bad to kill my kids but what can I say I just couldn't resist...and by the way I accept the blood money paid to me by the killer - which in this case is me".

[Lynx]

If the father kills his offspring, he can offer the closest relative (in this case himself) blood money. If he accepts it from himself the blood money is therefore technically accepted and worldy charges therefore waived.

Lol. Excellent so Abortion is no longer a big deal in Islam since the parents can just pay themselves the blood money & honour killings are perfectly justified. Who said Islam was the common-sense religion? I think your fear of socialism is making you think a little bit irrationally...oddly enough since you don't quite get what socialism is..if you did then you'd pointing out the problems of Zakah which is inherently socialism and moreso than anything discussed in this thread since money is obviously private property but humans are arguably not.

[titus]

I find it interesting that Karl believes the mother has no say in this. The father holds complete authority.

[Rhubarb Tart]

In your ideal world Karl, a man pretty much gets away with everything. I did not say I dislike that particular comment: I dislike your comments in general. And so far what you have said proves it.
If an abusive, paedophilic and idiotic father, brother or even the uncle wants to get away with their hideous crimes they would be in a country headed by people like you. Thank god, you don’t run a country.

Peace

[cat eyes]

Under Shariah law the husband fully decides what to do about it. He could kill her or forgive her or banish her to a madhouse or whatever. But under French liberal socialist oppression the father has no say or power. He is just a slave of the state.

lol what are u talking about? who the hell gives a **** about whether the husband forgives her or not?? she killed 8 humans. she should be more worried about whether god will forgive her or not.

when you kill a life its like you have killed the whole of humanity. according to shariah, she would be sentenced to death so who on earth is going to care whether the husband forgives her not.

Hes probably more mentally sick then her. and what sane man is going to forgive his wife for doing such a thing.

[Danah]

Such busybody leftist concepts as "parent licences" are about as ANTI Islamic as is possible, they are the Satanic thinking of maniacal totalitarian state worshippers and Marxists. Anyone who calls themselves "Muslim" and actually support such a despicable thing as "parent licences" should be completely ashamed of themselves.

hey hey hey easy on me man! I can see you flaming!:hmm: Don't jump into conclusions like that!!
I didn't mean taking a license literally....but getting a very intensive education before being parent. It seems that you don't hear a lot about parents who abuse their kids. Maybe I was exaggerating a bit when I said in the other thread that I am supporting the decision because I experienced a very bad example of parent abusing their kids few days ago.

Yeah I am supporting it partially but not to an extend where you can have kids if you have a valid license, that will be very stupid if it happened. I am supporting the idea of getting potential parents into courses where they got a proper education about kids.

I don't think that a person who kill 8 of her kids is a sane one!

[Salahudeen]

I asked and he said "This issue has a difference of opinion among the scholars but the majority of scholars say that the father is not killed for killing his son, but that does not mean he is not subject to prosecution and could be punished in a way specified by the judge, but he cannot be executed for it according to majority.

If someone kills a person, he will not be executed also if only one of the close relatives of the deseased forgives the killer"

[Karl]

In your ideal world Karl, a man pretty much gets away with everything. I did not say I dislike that particular comment: I dislike your comments in general. And so far what you have said proves it.
If an abusive, paedophilic and idiotic father, brother or even the uncle wants to get away with their hideous crimes they would be in a country headed by people like you. Thank god, you don’t run a country.

Peace

Sorry but I can't help it if I am conservative. I noticed that you often go out of your way to add "paedophilic" along with "abusive" and "idiotic" (as if they were all the same and one). lol. Well I don't prefer to employ newly founded atheist expressions as "paedophilia", because there is simply nothing against so-called "paedophilia" in Islam. Every time you employ it you are only fuelling the infidels' attacks against the prophet (PBUH). In the past the infidels used to label him "the mad poet", now it's inane pc expressions like "paedophile" instead. It's utterly pathetic.

[Salahudeen]

Sorry but I can't help it if I am conservative. I noticed that you often go out of your way to add "paedophilic" along with "abusive" and "idiotic" (as if they were all the same and one). lol. Well I don't prefer to employ newly founded atheist expressions as "paedophilia", because there is simply nothing against so-called "paedophilia" in Islam. Every time you employ it you are only fuelling the infidels' attacks against the prophet (PBUH). In the past the infidels used to label him "the mad poet", now it's inane pc expressions like "paedophile" instead. It's utterly pathetic.

There is such a thing against paedophilia in Islam, if the marriage is consummated before the girl reaches the age of maturity the man will be punished for child abuse. As the girl is not ready for such relations physically.

[Karl]

according to shariah, she would be sentenced to death so who on earth is going to care whether the husband forgives her not..

You are another who is clearly unaware about blood money. If a person kills someone they can offer something called "blood money" to the direct kin. If they accept the blood money the killer is then technically off the hook, at least in the worldly dimension. So in this particular case, if the mother killed her babies and she offers blood money to her husband and he accepts, then he or anyone else can NOT kill her. Of course she cannot still escape whatever fate Allah (swt) has decided for her in the afterlife.

[Karl]

There is such a thing against paedophilia in Islam, if the marriage is consummated before the girl reaches the age of maturity the man will be punished for child abuse. As the girl is not ready for such relations physically.

ABSOLUTE RUBBISH. It is only recommended (not threatened by worldy punishment) under Islam that a girl should reach menses before marriage is consummated. And furthermore, the atheists so-called "paedophilia" definition does NOT just denote full sexual intercourse, it also by extension means sensuous love making as well. But the recommendation under Islam for a girl to wait until menses is only to do with full sexual intercourse. Sensual and erotic love making is perfectly ok irregardless of her physical maturity. Anyway let's not get off the thread...

[Salahudeen]

ABSOLUTE RUBBISH. It is only recommended (not threatened by worldy punishment) under Islam that a girl should reach menses before marriage is consummated. And furthermore, the atheists so-called "paedophilia" definition does NOT just denote full sexual intercourse, it also by extension means sensuous love making as well. But the recommendation under Islam for a girl to wait until menses is only to do with full sexual intercourse. Sensual and erotic love making is perfectly ok irregardless of her physical maturity. Anyway let's not get off the thread...

I never knew this, where is the evidence? which madhab holds this opinion? hanafi? maliki? hanbali? shafi? So you would allow consummation with a baby? tell me friend which scholar has this opinion and what is the evidence for it? so I may research, Who else holds this opinion amongst the 'ulema? because I've never heard of it.

So I would like to know where are you taking this information from? And what is your evidence for saying Islam allows the consummation with a girl who has not reached her period? Bring your evidence and enlighten us.

What you are in fact saying is you can consummate the marriage with a baby who has not reached her period and do other erotic stuff that may be harmful to her body. So bring your evidence inshaAllah. And your evidence should be from the Qur'an and sunnah. This would be better for you if you backed up what you said with evidence from the Qur'an and sunnah instead of claiming what other people say is absolute rubbish when you yourself have provided no evidence that what you said is allowed.

[Lynx]

I asked and he said "This issue has a difference of opinion among the scholars but the majority of scholars say that the father is not killed for killing his son, but that does not mean he is not subject to prosecution and could be punished in a way specified by the judge, but he cannot be executed for it according to majority.

If someone kills a person, he will not be executed also if only one of the close relatives of the deseased forgives the killer"

So I posted a possibility earlier in the thread and since you've asked a scholar maybe you can also ask about abortion and honour killings. If a man and a wife decide to abort their fetus could they not just pay themselves blood money or forgive themselves? Thus far it appears to be a rule that isn't properly clarified and I am tempted to say +1 for secular law and another reason why Shariah law should not be implemented, ever...but I don't want to jump the gun! It just appears this ruling is inconsistent with the general meaning of verses like 'don't kill your newborns' ;\.

[Woodrow]

I am expecting the next post and all future posts to relate to the original topic. I trust that everybody is wise enough to cease taking this thread in other directions.

[Salahudeen]

So I posted a possibility earlier in the thread and since you've asked a scholar maybe you can also ask about abortion and honour killings. If a man and a wife decide to abort their fetus could they not just pay themselves blood money or forgive themselves? Thus far it appears to be a rule that isn't properly clarified and I am tempted to say +1 for secular law and another reason why Shariah law should not be implemented, ever...but I don't want to jump the gun! It just appears this ruling is inconsistent with the general meaning of verses like 'don't kill your newborns' ;\.

If you read my post I said they're subject to prosecution however according to the majority the death penalty can not be applied, The judge decides a punishment but the punishment can't be the death penalty.

As for honour killings it's still a crime, I think you're under the impression they walk away scotch free without any accountability, that's not what I meant. What I meant was they still face prosecution however the death penalty can not be applied according to the majority of scholars but that doesn't mean they walk away without any punishment.

So if two people killed their child for honour then they could be prosecuted and the judge will decide a punishment however the punishment can't be the death penalty.

And I assume the same for the foetus issue, I will raise the scenario's you posted with him. to make sure what I said is correct.

[Lynx]

If you read my post I said they're subject to prosecution however according to the majority the death penalty can not be applied, The judge decides a punishment but the punishment can't be the death penalty.

As for honour killings it's still a crime, I think you're under the impression they walk away scotch free without any accountability, that's not what I meant. What I meant was they still face prosecution however the death penalty can not be applied according to the majority of scholars but that doesn't mean they walk away without any punishment.

So if two people killed their child for honour then they could be prosecuted and the judge will decide a punishment however the punishment can't be the death penalty.

And I assume the same for the foetus issue, I will raise the scenario's you posted with him. to make sure what I said is correct.

I did read that part but I sort of felt like it was a cheap answer. If the Judge was Karl then he would offer no punishment and it wouldn't matter because there isn't a prescribed punishment..? Leaving punishments to the whims of the Judges isn't a whole lot better. I will await your clarification and if you could ask the basis of your clarification from your sheikh that would be great too!


So the french mother could theoretically get away under Shariah if all this stuff is true?

[Karl]

So you would allow consummation with a baby?....And what is your evidence for saying Islam allows the consummation with a girl who has not reached her period?

Hmm you live in Britain which is one clue to me why you speak in the kind of mawkish pc way you do. It's a quite typical way I usually hear from yanks and poms. I just hope you are not yet another immigrant victim of their culture and to their commie pommy BBC global socialist propaganda machine which is obsessed and hellbent on trite popularist political catch-cries. I hope for your sake. You seemed to have misunderstood me before. I already pointed out that "consummation" technically only means full sexual intercourse (penile to vaginal penetration). Yes that should be best waited until the female reaches menses, that only seems logical. So yes, I have no disagreement with you there. I do not recommend consummating a marriage with a 6 month old baby. LOL, who in their right mind would want to? I didn't allow my own daughters to get married until one was 7 and the other was 8. And even then I instructed their husbands only to engage in the sensuous and erotic sides of love making for another year or so until my daughters reach puberty. I stipulated that into the condition of the marriages. Imam Khomeini once said "Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house, for it is a divine blessing". In Islam the only real sexual taboos are ADULTERY, INCEST, ANAL PENETRATION and FORNICATION (zina), NOT what lunar age someone marries or consummates it!

[Maryan0]

I asked and he said "This issue has a difference of opinion among the scholars but the majority of scholars say that the father is not killed for killing his son, but that does not mean he is not subject to prosecution and could be punished in a way specified by the judge, but he cannot be executed for it according to majority.

If someone kills a person, he will not be executed also if only one of the close relatives of the deseased forgives the killer"

I've also heard that parents cannot be prosecuted by anyone but Allah but I was corrected of that opinion on this forum...
Does this hold true for the mother also and as to the blood money can the parents give themselves blood money as has been mentioned on this topic?
Is there any proof of this in hadith?
This is so confusing.
Salam

[Karl]

I've also heard that parents cannot be prosecuted by anyone but Allah but I was corrected of that opinion on this forum...

You weren't corrected at all, that is just his opinion/madhab that he follows. There are differences in opinion between scholars. And under some Islamic positions the parents can only be prosecuted by Allah (swt) for killing their own offspring. There is no single head of control under Islam. There are differing ideas and religious jurisprudence.

[nousername]

[QUOTE=Karl;1356095 Imam Khomeini once said "Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house, for it is a divine blessing". [/QUOTE]

are you shia? otherwise no one takes this "ayotollah" seriously

[Salahudeen]

Sorry but I can't help it if I am conservative. I noticed that you often go out of your way to add "paedophilic" along with "abusive" and "idiotic" (as if they were all the same and one). lol. Well I don't prefer to employ newly founded atheist expressions as "paedophilia", because there is simply nothing against so-called "paedophilia" in Islam. Every time you employ it you are only fuelling the infidels' attacks against the prophet (PBUH). In the past the infidels used to label him "the mad poet", now it's inane pc expressions like "paedophile" instead. It's utterly pathetic.

I got the idea from the above post you were all for child abuse and having sex with kids who had not even reached their periods. Since you completely denied the fact paedophilia exists. And that's what paedophiles do, it's called child abuse when they have sex with a young girl who's body is not ready for it. Because it harms her body as she hasn't reached puberty. And I have seen cases in the news of grown men raping babies so I thought you were in favour of this sort of thing since you don't believe the menses is required for the marriage to be consummated as you said above and in later posts that you believe it's only recommended not essential for the girl to reach her menses before full sexual intercourse..

You then said there is nothing against paedophilia in Islam when there is, a child can not be exposed to sexual intimacy before her period because this would be child abuse. When she gets her period she is no longer a child she's a young woman hence then she's ready for sexual relations.


Lets examine your next post and see what you say.

ABSOLUTE RUBBISH. It is only recommended (not threatened by worldy punishment) under Islam that a girl should reach menses before marriage is consummated. And furthermore, the atheists so-called "paedophilia" definition does NOT just denote full sexual intercourse, it also by extension means sensuous love making as well. But the recommendation under Islam for a girl to wait until menses is only to do with full sexual intercourse. Sensual and erotic love making is perfectly ok irregardless of her physical maturity. Anyway let's not get off the thread...

You said it is only recommended that a girl should reach menses before the marriage is consumated which means you don't believe it to be obligatory for the child to reach puberty before the marriage is consumated. so I assumed you're in favour with having sex with a child who has not reached menses since you believe it's only a recommendation.

and I asked you to provide the proof for the fact it's only a recommendation which you never did. And from this I got the idea you are in favour of having sexual relations with children who have not reached menses.

Hmm you live in Britain which is one clue to me why you speak in the kind of mawkish pc way you do. It's a quite typical way I usually hear from yanks and poms. I just hope you are not yet another immigrant victim of their culture and to their commie pommy BBC global socialist propaganda machine which is obsessed and hellbent on trite popularist political catch-cries. I hope for your sake. You seemed to have misunderstood me before. I already pointed out that "consummation" technically only means full sexual intercourse (penile to vaginal penetration). Yes that should be best waited until the female reaches menses, that only seems logical. So yes, I have no disagreement with you there. I do not recommend consummating a marriage with a 6 month old baby. LOL, who in their right mind would want to? I didn't allow my own daughters to get married until one was 7 and the other was 8. And even then I instructed their husbands only to engage in the sensuous and erotic sides of love making for another year or so until my daughters reach puberty. I stipulated that into the condition of the marriages. Imam Khomeini once said "Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house, for it is a divine blessing". In Islam the only real sexual taboos are ADULTERY, INCEST, ANAL PENETRATION and FORNICATION (zina), NOT what lunar age someone marries or consummates it!

You said above consumation only means

"means full sexual intercourse (penile to vaginal penetration"

Ok, so now we have your definition of what consumation means "full sexual intercourse", if we look at what you said earlier we can see how you're in favour of consumating the marriage before the girl reaches her period

It is only recommended (not threatened by worldy punishment) under Islam that a girl should reach menses before marriage is consummated.

So you believe it is only recommended for a girl to reach her period before she engages in full sexual intercouse? but hang on, in your last post you said

Yes that should be best waited until the female reaches menses, that only seems logical

So you contradicted yourself, in 1 post you said it's only recommended for the girl to reach her menses before she engages in full sexual intercouse which indicates you have no problem with a girl who hasn't reached her puberty in engaging in full sexual intercourse and then later you say "it's best waited untill the female reaches menses before full sexual intercouse".

Can you blame me for misunderstanding you? you changed your position.

You still haven't provided any evidence for what you claim above, you changed your position in your last post and said the girl should wait untill she reaches menses. In an earlier post you said it's only recommended that she reaches her menses.

So your latest position is before the menses she can engage in other sexual stuff as long as penetration doesn't happen are you going to stick with this opinion now? or you gonna change on me again?

So I ask you what is the evidence for this from the Qur'an and sunnah for this?

show me where in the Qur'an and sunnah it says you can do the above then I will believe you? You just talk without producing evidence for your claims. And no offence brother, but you slag off people like a emotional girl who wants to turn this into a B*TCH fight lol. :hmm:

AND I noticed you follow Imam Khomeini so therefore I assume you are Shia? And please in your next post produce evidence from the Qur'an and sunnah for everything you claim as your opinion means jack all.

[Salahudeen]

are you shia? otherwise no one takes this "ayotollah" seriously

He must be a shi'a who else would take knowledge from Homeini. And part of their religion is they can lie and not say what's in their heart. So they can openly deny being shi'a and it's allowed. There's a term for it but I can't remember it.

[Salahudeen]

I did read that part but I sort of felt like it was a cheap answer. If the Judge was Karl then he would offer no punishment and it wouldn't matter because there isn't a prescribed punishment..? Leaving punishments to the whims of the Judges isn't a whole lot better. I will await your clarification and if you could ask the basis of your clarification from your sheikh that would be great too!


So the french mother could theoretically get away under Shariah if all this stuff is true?

I doubt a judge would do that since murder is a crime that requires punishment, and the crime of murder is not something that can be taken lightly. And the very fact that they face prosecution for this crime would mean some sort of punishment would have to be applied otherwise what is the point in the individual being prosecuted.

It's like taking a crimnal to court and proving him guilty and then saying he can walk out free with no punishment it doesn't make sense what would have been the point of the trial and having him prosecuted? The very fact he is prosecuted means there must be some sort of punishment if he is guilty of the crime otherwise prosecution would be pointless.

He is prosecuted for the crime of murder however the judge can not apply the death penalty. So he can't get away with it if he's prosecuted and guilty of it, the judge would have to issue a punishment because of the fact he's guilty. The only difference is he can't issue the death penalty.

And this would be the case in other murders also, lets say for example I murdered you, and a close family member of yours forgave me then the judge wouldn't be able to issue the death penalty for me but that does't mean I walk away scotch free, it means I have some other punishment.

But I will ask him and let you know what he says.

[Abu Zainab]

He must be a shi'a who else would take knowledge from Homeini. And part of their religion is they can lie and not say what's in their heart. So they can openly deny being shi'a and it's allowed. There's a term for it but I can't remember it.

That term is taqiyya.

[Karl]

@ Squiggle,

You really like to nit pick about don't you?

"Since you completely denied the fact paedophilia exists."

I don't deny it "exists". I just don't recognise it as a free standing sexual orientation in it's own right, no more than I would consider someone who is attracted to those who happened to have green coloured hair. What do I call the person? A "greenhairophile" or what? Such label slingings are all just socialist nonsense which I refuse to play any part in. To me one is only either hetero or homo sexual. That's it. That's the way it always was.

"child abuse"

Yet another one of your politically correct cliches. You lot just love to prefix everything you don't like with the word "child", don't you? It's either CHILD this, CHILD that, CHILD the next thing. Typical commie mentality.


"as you said above and in later posts that you believe it's only recommended not essential for the girl to reach her menses before full sexual intercourse.."

There you go again with more pedantic nit picking. Why do you play at this inane crap for?? Look, as far as I am concerned it's down to the father, his daughter and her husband all the fine details of what they decide is best for them.


"You then said there is nothing against paedophilia in Islam when there is, a child can not be exposed to sexual intimacy before her period because this would be child abuse. When she gets her period she is no longer a child she's a young woman hence then she's ready for sexual relations."

I already told you that by the atheists' invented word "paedophilia" this also includes the NON penetrative aspects of love making as well! It is quite possible for there to be "paedophilia" without there being PENETRATION!! Don't you understand this??? So you ARE plain and simply WRONG that Islam condemns this so-called "paedophilia" in all its full forms. It is completely IRRELEVANT how physically mature a female is if love making between husband and wife is confined to erotic non penetration!


"You said it is only recommended that a girl should reach menses before the marriage is consumated which means you don't believe it to be obligatory for the child to reach puberty before the marriage is consumated. so I assumed you're in favour with having sex with a child who has not reached menses since you believe it's only a recommendation."

I use "recommendation" rather than arbitrarily refraining from coitus (penetration) BECAUSE this is NOT always a cut and dry universal physical result as to how different prepubescent females will react to vaginal penetration. SOME prepubescent girls are known to initiate penetration and respond to it with completely HARMLESS outcomes. So this is why I don't like to be so concrete when talking about such matters. I am one who would tend to err on the side of caution and that's why I instructed my daughters' husbands to refrain from COITUS with my daughters until they reached menses.

"and I asked you to provide the proof for the fact it's only a recommendation which you never did."

Ok then smart arse, well YOU provide me the exact entry in the Qur'an that emphasises it as obligatory rather than recommendation! Teach me, the ill informed idiot I am!

"And from this I got the idea you are in favour of having sexual relations with children who have not reached menses."

I never said I was "in favour" of it. I just DON'T CARE about it.



"Ok, so now we have your definition of what consumation means "full sexual intercourse", if we look at what you said earlier we can see how you're in favour of consumating the marriage before the girl reaches her period"

RUBBISH! I DID NOT!! Where did I say that????


"So you contradicted yourself"

I didn't contradict myself at all. You are just playing snakey games with me. I have dealt with people like you in the past.


"Can you blame me for misunderstanding you? you changed your position."

I did NOT change my position. I use different words but generally speaking I am cautious against coitus during prepubescence. It is harmful to some girls but harmless to others. Just plain scientific truth there!


"You still haven't provided any evidence for what you claim above, you changed your position in your last post and said the girl should wait untill she reaches menses in an earlier post you said it's only recommended that she reaches her menses. "

Why are you using these petty and pedantic attacks at the words I use? "Should", "recommend". So what. Just cut pulling me up on fine details or word selection!


"So your latest position is before the mesnes she can engage in other sexual stuff as long as penetration doesn't happen."

YES!

"So I ask you what is the evidence for this from the Qur'an and sunnah for this?"

You're the smart arse. You give me the evidence from a Quranic POV why they SHOULDN'T engage in sensual love making! Not much use ME telling you. I'm the complete half wit, right!?

"show me where in the Qur'an and sunnah it says you can do the above then I will believe you?"

You show me in the Qur'an and sunnah where this CAN'T be done!! WHERE IN THE SUNNAH DOES IT FORBID IT??

Now if you want to keep attacking me then I advise you to come over and fight it out with me by private mail. Don't clutter this thread up for the people.

[Snowflake]

My brothers and sisters, of what benefit is this thread? The woman's country will deal with her actions. Why are the ummatis grabbing each other's necks in disagreements? What a waste of time. :( Shaytaan has found another tool to keep us distracted from what we really should be doing.

[glo]

I didn't allow my own daughters to get married until one was 7 and the other was 8. And even then I instructed their husbands only to engage in the sensuous and erotic sides of love making for another year or so until my daughters reach puberty. I stipulated that into the condition of the marriages.

Just when I think I am getting a handle on Islam, I read something which turns my stomach.
This post is one of those ... +o(

Apart from abiding by the Islamic law, Karl, did you consider your daughters' emotional maturity and needs?
What it would be like for them to become the object to their husbands' sensual desires (even in the absence of physically consummating the marriage), and whether they were mentally and emotionally mature enough to share in that experience and enjoy it?

I feel sickened ...

(Sorry, Woodrow, I know you asked for this thread to stay on topic. It clearly isn't ...)

[Karl]

Just when I think I am getting a handle on Islam, I read something which turns my stomach.
This post is one of those ... +o(

You are needlessly making an issue out of nothing dear, based on the crazed, neurotic and hysterical culture to which you are victim of.

Apart from abiding by the Islamic law, Karl, did you consider your daughters' emotional maturity and needs?

Yes, I certainly did. Me and especially my wife were encouraging of it and our daughters were also enthusiastic. Female emotional maturity doesn't usually occur until they reach about 50 or 60 anyway. Therefore it doesn't line up with the ability to agree to marriage and the ability to procreate. I think it is emotionally immature for you to even initiate debate on this subject to begin with.;D

What it would be like for them to become the object to their husbands' sensual desires (even in the absence of physically consummating the marriage),

Probably not much different to what it would be like for their husbands to become object of my daughter's desires.

and whether they were mentally and emotionally mature enough to share in that experience and enjoy it?

Yes they absolutely were. And even if they hypothetically WEREN'T, doesn't automatically mean that it therefore matters. So WHAT if one partner doesn't happen to share exactly the same degree of experience as the other? That is of very peripheral importance. I mean how many married couples (irregardless of their numerical age) would there be like that in the world whereby one partner doesn't get much out of the relationship? Probably MILLIONS!

I feel sickened ...

That is only because it happens to clash against the aesthetic sensibilities by which you have had bludgeoned into you by the jealous feminazi man hatering culture. I can assure you that my daughters were enthusiastic about their marriages and are both very happy to this day. And that is enough reason to make me to feel no regrets as well.:statisfie

[Ummu Sufyaan]

^you must be disturbed.

[Karl]

^you must be disturbed.

Any why, may I ask is that? HOW DARE YOU!

[Darth Ultor]

Karl: Because you sound almost like a parody of the American perception of an extremist Muslim.

[Karl]

Karl: Because you sound almost like a parody of the American perception of an extremist Muslim.

"Extremist?" Ohhh :giggling: Then again, Muslim women living in the West are regarded as "extremist" just because they want to wear veils and hijabs and all Sikhs are mistaken for Osama Bin Laden and when found out they are not "Islamic Extremists" they are merely written off as "crazy genies". That's how the American mind works.

[glo]

^you must be disturbed.

Any why, may I ask is that? HOW DARE YOU!

Karl, now I have read your further explanations in your reply to me, I am convinced that you are either making this up or you are indeed disturbed.

No father in his right mind - no matter what his beliefs, religion, background etc - would feel like this about his daughters and treat them in such a way!

Anyway, I am off on my Ramadan leave.
Your comments were the reason I decided to take my break earlier ... so not to let it spoil my views of Islam ... :hmm:

[Asiyah3]

I think all of the posts concerning murder and it's punishment in Shariah should be deleted, because so far there has not been any evidence from Qur'aan and Sunnah.

[aamirsaab]

This thread went off topic in the first page...that's like a forum record.

Unlike the guiness world records, however, you get jack for your troubles.

Well, apart from a locked thread.

[Rhubarb Tart]

Sorry but I can't help it if I am conservative. I noticed that you often go out of your way to add "paedophilic" along with "abusive" and "idiotic" (as if they were all the same and one). lol. Well I don't prefer to employ newly founded atheist expressions as "paedophilia", because there is simply nothing against so-called "paedophilia" in Islam. Every time you employ it you are only fuelling the infidels' attacks against the prophet (PBUH). In the past the infidels used to label him "the mad poet", now it's inane pc expressions like "paedophile" instead. It's utterly pathetic.

Disgusting is all I have to say!!!

[Karl]

Karl, now I have read your further explanations in your reply to me, I am convinced that you are either making this up or you are indeed disturbed.

No father in his right mind - no matter what his beliefs, religion, background etc - would feel like this about his daughters and treat them in such a way!

That is the typical arrogant self-righteous reply I would expect from a typical narrow minded pom or yank. The AUDACITY of you people! So utterly TYPICAL! Well listen here you: YOU are in NO position to make judgment on me! I know what's best for MY OWN offspring, NOT you! Got that??!! You keep your moral precepts to yourself, and I'll do the same. I don't care to ever make judgment upon you and how you raise YOUR own, so keep your arrogant selfrighteous nose out of MY business too! It's self-important people like you that remind us all of why the British Empire existed!

[Life_Is_Short]

She must be mentally unstable.

[aamirsaab]

Woops, I forgot to close the thread.