1. I dont. I consider both extremely problematic and only part of the problem. The man is a pedophile, the family who has done this to their child is at the least neglectful if not abusive, the culture (whether religious or not) that facilitates it is dysfunctional and that either the legislative systems, the enforcement systems or the judicial systems of the nations involved are a disgrace.
I agree.
2. I dont. I have stated time and again it is the religiously influences cultures, that it is the religious community that it is the way that certain religious interpretations have been implemented. But absolutely there is an extremely valid religious component which does not merely fail to prevent this problem, it actually makes it worse.
How can you hold an inanimate thought responsible for actions of a man?
3. Before I answer this, note I am not a christian. I read the link you posted earlier... which has nothing about the age or development of those in question only that they had not lain with a man. That is VERY different from the example of a child bride (if you so believe her to be) taken by the prophet Muhammad, very very different. Nor does it mention anything about sex with those female 'little ones', it is certainly not implied as overtly as it is in those phrases with regards to the adult female virgins (where it is not in the slightest ambiguous), there are certainly overtones though and were any christian community to do this I would hold that religious philosophy (not the entire religion itself - which you seem to be conflating) to be partially culpable.
Actually one of the quotes talks about the female children and taking them. The Quran does not state the age of Ayesha as far as I can tell, nor does it mention sex with them either. But when you say Islam, you are stating the entire religious community.
Perhaps you are a Quran only Muslim, some are, however that is very very different than suggesting that the Quran is the only source of lore; even if not considered infallible in the same way as the Quran they are most certainly considered a valid source of comprehension about what it means to be a 'good muslim' it is essential in the discussion of morality and ethical codes of behaviour for a very significant portion of the Islamic community.
I am not a Muslim in any traditional sense, if anything I would adhere to Sufism the most. The problem I have is how do you define a religion? If I say I am Buddhist, but I am a serial killer am I a Buddhist? Is religion decided by a certain amount of people acting in a similar manner that claim to be of that religion? If I were to claim that I was a Muslim, and to write an Islamic text saying that Ayesha was 16 when she was married to Mohammed, would that make it a religious text? What is the criteria for a religious text? How many people that claim to be a part of that religion declaring something as true?
Thus comments about how this might have negative implications in terms of potential views about the duty of a child to their parents in accepting their wishes, the acceptance of pedophillia, the rightful place of women as subordinate to men, these are relevant to this discussion even if you disagree with those particular hadith or even the idea of using hadith in the first place.
Are those that deny Hadith's Muslims? Are those that accept them Muslims? If so, where is the line between Islam? If you have a problem with those that accept Hadiths that support child marriage, why not specify, rather than saying Islam supports child marriage?
Sharia is not a religion though you might be reluctant to accept it or might deem it illegitimate, it is one of the many codifications of religious philosophy within the Islamic community (which is far from heterogeneous I know - far from uniform, there are differences and divisions - it still remains a part of the Islamic religious community and the cultural communities so influenced).
Why is Sharia not a religion? Who says it's not? Why do they have the authority to declare what is and what is not a religion? What particular religious communities as it a part of? What religious communities is it not a part of? Where is Sharia more prominent? What are the socioeconomic status where Sharia is more prominent? Does it remain a part of all Islamic religious communities? If Sharia is not part of a particular Islamic community, is the community still Muslim?
And yes, I do blame the religious community for that - though far from equally, some parts (those who practice such vileness) I blame far more heavily, yet those who tolerate it, who do not seek to alleviate the conditions which facilitate or cause such marriages? Yes I blame them too. Not as much as those pedophiles of course, nor their local religious community but that they stood by and allowing some more poor muslim girl (not woman) to be raped by some grubby old man using Islam as their excuse, their justification (not their reason).
If you take out religious of your first statement, I totally agree with you.
And my question is why did they not do something about it?
They are scared for their lives? The fear of personal harm is a strong motivator of people. Would you sacrifice your life for the well-being of another? If the people that promote these ideas have the power to have you killed, would you speak out against it?
If people who are devout carry out heinous acts, one can at least say that their religion is ineffective in preventing those acts.
What religion is not ineffective in preventing henious acts? I would love to see an example.
If the laws of societies dominated by a particular religion pretty much invariably disregard human rights (eg through blasphemy laws, torture etc), even though the underlying cultures differ (eg Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Somalia etc), why shouldn't one ascribe that to the religion?
I think you have it ***-backwards. The underlying cultures disregard human rights and those underlying cultures have been attributed to the religion.
It is what people do that counts. Not what is written in their so-called holy books.
Indeed, so how can you blame the religion?
Yes however when they strike out at their so called oppressors the extremist target innocent civilians, and a great deal of moderate Muslims cheer them on excitedly.
The taxi drivers outside Sydney airport were jumping for joy when 911 happened.
do you consider the USA to be oppressors in your oppinion?
Have you seen the statistics on drone strikes? You know America overthrew the first democratically ellected official in Iran? America gave Suddahm Hussein WMD, which he in turn used to eradicate the Kurds, we knew he had them because we gave them too him. He just chose not to use him the way we told him to, which is partly why he was ousted. Of course America is an oppressor.
