Malaysian Muslim man marries 11-year-old Thai girl

In the USA, 48 states allow child marriage. Thanks to hard work by liberals, child marriage is now illegal in New Jersey and Delaware.

http://www.unchainedatlast.org/6-22-2018-nj-just-ended-child-marriage/

The liberals working to end child marriage in the USA are mostly opposed by conservatives of different religions -- Christians, Muslims and Orthodox Jews -- who all support child marriage for religious reasons.

 

The entire history of the west has been an ongoing cascade of warfare and full of enslaving. You mention what the territories are that the Muslims covered, as if what the Christians/Jewish west never got anywhere close to that. Let me remind you that it's totally the opposite.

 

Oh indeed. And when you compare who took the most slaves out of Africa.
Well I sourced the Christians/Jews made it twice as bad.

I'm not suprized.

 

During that time the Christians got Europe, the Jews got nothing. They lived in some of the lands, after being run out of the mid-east, but were constantly persecuted.

 

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/jews-and-the-african-slave-trade/
Yes. Jacob Rader Marcus, a historian and Reform rabbi, wrote in his four-volume history of Americans Jews that over 75 percent of Jewish families in Charleston, South Carolina; Richmond, Virginia; and Savannah, Georgia, owned slaves, and nearly 40 percent of Jewish households across the country did.

A number of wealthy Jews were also involved in the slave trade in the Americas, some as shipowners who imported slaves and others as agents who resold them. In the United States, Isaac Da Costa of Charleston, David Franks of Philadelphia and Aaron Lopez of Newport, Rhode Island, are among the early American Jews who were prominent in the importation and sale of African slaves. In addition, some Jews were involved in the trade in various European Caribbean colonies. Alexandre Lindo, a French-born Jew who became a wealthy merchant in Jamaica in the late 18th century, was a major seller of slaves on the island.

 

An estimated 3,000 blacks owned a total of 20,000 black slaves in the year 1860. One study concluded that 28 percent of free blacks owned slaves, which is a far higher percentage than that of free whites who owned slaves.

Whites was 1.4 percent

 

No, that's wrong on multiple level.

First, I mentionned other slave trade commited by the arabs showing that the number of people bought in slavery or put in slavery by the muslims is much more higher when you only considered the african one, if you consider the slavery on the slavs and on the one of the barbary coast, who both caused millions of victims. Furthermore, the fact that europeans had more slaves can be simply explained by the fact that europeans were much richer, and the difference of the number of slaves traded simply explained by the fact that one could simply buy more slaves. So it was a matter of ability. But the matters of actual number isn't what make it the most wrong, even if it's a interesting question.

Second, and it's the most important point, assuming the fact that one slave trade was less numerous than another make one better or more "nice" than another is extremly doubtfull on the moral point of view. A slaver is a slaver, and in both case, it was mass slavery case, not some isolated cases.

As far as I know, the international court, as ridiculous it because because of it's ability to only strike on war criminals coming from poor african or eastern european countries, doesn't take account the number of people killed in the process, but take consideration of the process itself.

Both arabs and european had very large, well-organized slave trades.

Furthermore, it's funny how you always assimilate jews and christians. The concept of judeo christianity exist for few time, since the end of WW2. During most of the time, islamic countries had as much, if not more jews than our countries. That's neither a quality or a flaw, I'm just assuming a fact. Furthermore, jews are much closer from the muslims on many point than christian. For instance, their refusal of eating pork, the fact they can eat animals only killed of a specific manner, their tradition of practicing circumcision on boys, and for the more orthodox part of both religions, their obsession for facial hairs.

Anyway, none of the nowodays arabs or europeans are responsible of that. The past and the acts of people of former people is very sad, but we can't change it. However, people who are actively involved in slave trades today are by the way still low-lives, which should be condemned.
But the past isn't the only thing which is very sad, there is a lot of nasty things happening today to. But none of us on this forum is a god or superman, and none of us can remove the nastiness of this world.

 

My source stands firmly about how many got enslaved by Muslims vs the Jewish/Christian west in Africa.

You are using "affluenza"... to sweet talk slavery? How utterly insane.
Excuse denied. And you admit also that Christians/Jews were the biggest slavers... by affirming "the fact that europeans had more slaves"

Still makes it so, that Europeans did that world wide. From North America, South America, Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe.... and on a much larger scale. The biggest evil of all.

 

Doesn't change that muslims enslaved people in other regions. Slavery in eastern europe was as bad than in Africa.

I don't sweet-talk slavery, and I already claimed how horrific both slave trade were, but you, you're trying to whitewash slavery commited by muslims.

I'm not seeking any excuse, and even if I had that stupid hereditaty culprit, I won't seek any excuse to somebody like you.

I don't deny that european slavery was more intensive during the 15th century to 18th century. But still the muslims had the most slave, around 14 to 18 millions slaves taken against 12 millions. Muslims still enslaved more people, but there slave trade was less intensive and much longer. Furthermore, there were at that times a lot of jews in the islamic countries. Yourself, you pointed out that when spanish expulsed jews, they seeked and found refuge in the ottoman empire.

You're inventing facts. There were no slavery in Asia and very few in Europe after the beginning of low middle age.
European slavery was more intensive yes. A larger scale, yes, a much larger scale, no. I showed that muslims enslaved millions of people aswell and the prize of the people who enslaved the most people still go to muslims, with up to 14 to 17 millions people. And the european are the one who started to mass abolish slavery, and some muslims countries until some decades ago had still slaves. Why ? Because they considered slavery as hallal.

And we're discussing only of the arabic slave trade, because there were islamic slave trade too in India :
In the Muslim conquests in the 8th century, the armies of the Umayyad commander Muhammad bin Qasim, enslaved tens of thousands of Indian prisoners, including both soldiers and civilians.[47][48] In the early 11th century Tarikh al-Yamini, the Arab historian Al-Utbi recorded that in 1001 the armies of Mahmud of Ghazna conquered Peshawar and Waihand (capital of Gandhara) after Battle of Peshawar (1001), "in the midst of the land of Hindustan", and captured some 100,000 youths.[49][50] Later, following his twelfth expedition into India in 1018–19, Mahmud is reported to have returned with such a large number of slaves that their value was reduced to only two to ten dirhams each. This unusually low price made, according to Al-Utbi, "merchants [come] from distant cities to purchase them, so that the countries of Central Asia, Iraq and Khurasan were swelled with them, and the fair and the dark, the rich and the poor, mingled in one common slavery". Elliot and Dowson refer to "five hundred thousand slaves, beautiful men and women.".[51][52][53] Later, during the Delhi Sultanate period (1206–1555), references to the abundant availability of low-priced Indian slaves abound. Levi attributes this primarily to the vast human resources of India, compared to its neighbors to the north and west (India's Mughal population being approximately 12 to 20 times that of Turan and Iran at the end of the 16th century).[54]

The Delhi sultanate obtained thousands of slaves and eunuch servants from the villages of Eastern Bengal (a widespread practice which Mughal emperor Jahangir later tried to stop). Wars, famines, pestilences drove many villagers to sell their children as slaves. The Muslim conquest of Gujarat in Western India had two main objectives. The conquerors demanded and more often forcibly wrested both land owned by Hindus and Hindu women. Enslavement of women invariably led to their conversion to Islam.[55] In battles waged by Muslims against Hindus in Malwa and Deccan plateau, a large number of captives were taken. Muslim soldiers were permitted to retain and enslave POWs as plunder.[56]

The first Bahmani sultan, Alauddin Bahman Shah is noted to have captured 1,000 singing and dancing girls from Hindu temples after he battled the northern Carnatic chieftains. The later Bahmanis also enslaved civilian women and children in wars; many of them were converted to Islam in captivity.[57][58][59][60][61]

During the rule of Shah Jahan, many peasants were compelled to sell their women and children into slavery to meet the land revenue demand.[62]

But there is nothing to discuss. You're just trying to whitewash all the crimes commited by muslims by pointing crimes commited by euros.

According to your logic, if a serial killer kill 6 people and another kill 8 people, the first is innocent and his crimes aren't problematic.
You will deny that, but it's what your logic imply.

You're just a waste of time, you can't deny all crimes commited by muslims, but you just keep pointing out crimes commited by christian just to make diversion.

A crime doesn't exist another. You tried to make up this on "what's the biggest evil". Theorically, I don't believe that there is some slaughters less evil than other, the act of slaughter or slavery itself are blasphemy against life. On a more practical way, I hope for my own to be protected, and one of the best protection is called "keep the muslims away".

 

It isn't the stove that this eleven year old child is going to be touching. The man is a pedophile and any culture that supports that is sick.

 

Another little tidbit. Muhammed, the perfect man, married his cousin, and anything Muhammed did is OK.

You can get away with that, for a generation or two, but not 1400 years.

The genetic problems with muslims, most notably in Pakistan, from interbreeding is disastrous.
Most of these are arranged marriages between families.
The woman, young girl, is sold into slavery by her father.

 

I never denied that.

You came up with an excuse.

I did not

Negative. I sources Muslims took 5 million. Christians/Jews took 12.
Let me remind you that you said "the fact that europeans had more slaves".

And you sourced this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade And it says:
Some historians assert that as many as 17 million people were sold into slavery on the coast of the Indian Ocean, the Middle East, and North Africa, and approximately 5 million African slaves were bought by Muslim slave traders and taken from Africa across the Red Sea, Indian Ocean, and Sahara desert between 1500 and 1900.

The others could have been done by the Swahili and the Bantu peoples. The are all mentioned there.
And you seem to never mind it, to produce fake news.

You are again making up fake news.

https://mediadiversified.org/2016/08/25/slave-narratives-from-dutch-colonisation-in-indonesia/
Batavia was built on the ruins of the destroyed Indonesian city, and a wall was erected around the Dutch town, which aimed to work in isolation from the rest of Indonesia, and with the local population largely expelled to outside of the city walls.5 The slave market established in the colonial city has been referred to as a “Batavian institution”.

I don't deny that. I am constantly pointing at that whatever you accuse the Muslims off,.. like conquest and forced conversions.... it's the Christians who did that on a bigger scale. And in the case of slavery... the Christians/Jews did it again on a bigger scale.

 

[QUOTE="



I don't deny that. I am constantly pointing at that whatever you accuse the Muslims off,.. like conquest and forced conversions.... it's the Christians who did that on a bigger scale. And in the case of slavery... the Christians/Jews did it again on a bigger scale.[/QUOTE]

It seems you are just guessing, with your own answer already. Muslims have slavery ingrained into their religion, and the only reason they aren't bigger is because they were stopped by military. The Muslims were also a little more violent than the Christians, rapes, beheadings and such, on a larger scale than others.

Another point is the ancestors of the slaves fared better in America than other places.

 

Many cultures have married girls off as soon as they are able to get pregnant.

It used to be a necessity in order to expand populations.

Were you ok with that?

 

Most have them married to boys a little closer in age.
Only pedophiles do it like Muhammed did.

 

No question about that.

Its creepy.

My only point was that sometimes it was considered important for females to start having children as early as possible and as many as possible.

 

In most cultures, a long time ago, people thought that to be true, however there was a high mortality rate for both the child and the mother.
The females body has not yet developed, (Hips. etc) for childbearing.
That knowledge is available for all in todays world.

 

Of course that is true and that's why it was increased.

They were losing so many of the girls/women who could give birth so every female of age was quickly put into the business of producing offspring.

And yes its different today but my question is this, are you saying that some pedophilia is acceptable depending on the circumstances?

 

Yes it is, morals are a standard set by societies, where what is good for one, is condemned by another.
Islam has a curse, A pedophile murderer, sets the standard for the societies morals.

 

So if morals are set by a society then who are you to criticize them unless you are part of that society?

 

As the world gets smaller, these societies overlap.
And some do not work and play well with others.

 

the utterly violent way of the Christian/Jewish west never worked for others.

 

Well then, societies can't have different moral standards then.

You are saying two different things here.

 

Actually, I think we all have a right to choose to reject or accept the various aspects of foreign culture. That is what we are doing here, not invading and forcing change. What he did seems to have been against th

Nobody asked me then. I'm not ok with it now and I repeat, any culture that embraces pedophilia is sick.

 

Who says that?
We just have to change the way we do things a little bit and accommodate them.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37518289

https://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=6348105

https://sputniknews.com/europe/201709251057665752-sweden-migrants-child-marriage/

https://www.express.co.uk/news/worl...Sweden-hit-huge-number-of-child-brides-ELEVEN