₦airaland Forum

anonimi:
How were you obliged to pay?

They promised heaven n earth, even job opportunites but couldnt deliver

femi4:
They promised heaven n earth, even job opportunites but couldnt deliver

Kindly share the details of HOW they promised heaven on earth plus job opportunities but failed to deliver.

Did Canada fail to deliver on their promises as much as Nigerian politicians? How much of your taxes have you recovered from our politicians who failed to do what they promised?

anonimi:
Kindly share the details of HOW they promised heaven on earth plus job opportunities but failed to deliver.

Did Canada fail to deliver on their promises as much as Nigerian politicians? How much of your taxes have you recovered from our politicians who failed to do what they promised?

check the uni website

Racoon:
Britain is also doing the same. So, why are they bent on fleecing immigrants before putting them in economic bondage?

Why Canada? After all these strenuous effort people put to JAPA? Then these [b]white supremacists [/b]will just come wawa the parade for you. What the hell mean.

They owe you nothing,Pakistan,Aghanistan is available if you care

Kobicove:
I can't say I blame them, some immigrants are becoming nuisance in their host countries

[color=RED]esp UK [/color]

9japride:
[color=#006600][/color]

In Europe and Canada, is the bkacks that are r@ping young girls or disturbing the peace with unnecessary protest and forcefully trying to impose their religion on the host countries?
I hate when people leave the major threat and waste their time hating on blacks

Just listen to yourself
Does it make any sense?
When they impose their scam Christianity on Africans it was okay .
Europe and Canada are well known for raping kids pedophile .
People like you will still blame blacks while the white are defending the people of raping kids . When a crime is committed they blame immigrants

If Africa get better sense the world for no dey use us play

Maybe we should repair our own country and not keep running to other countries? I am always surprised when people sell their land and properties to relocate to Canada or UK hope for permanent stay. They just collect your student fees and send you back with paper degree and no capital. Better to build in your own country. If you get work visa that is different but student visa and visitors visa in these times is folly.

Racoon:
Britain is also doing the same. So, why are they bent on fleecing immigrants before putting them in economic bondage?

Why Canada? After all these strenuous effort people put to JAPA? Then these white supremacists will just come wawa the parade for you. What the hell mean.

Smartguyboy:
Just listen to yourself
Does it make any sense?
When they impose their scam Christianity on Africans it was okay .
Europe and Canada are well known for raping kids pedophile .
People like you will still blame blacks while the white are defending the people of raping kids . When a crime is committed they blame immigrants

[color=#006600][/color]

Maybe you didn't understand me, I meant the people r@ping European girls and imposing their religion are not blacks.
The majority of crises happening now in Europe and Canada are caused by people who have light skins.
Though, the Europeans have themselves to be blamed by importing people who don't share any ideology with them.

They did not fleece international students. This statement is the type of "logic" that keeps Nigeria underdeveloped.

Other Africans are staying their country to develop it. WE cannot flee to other nations that have done the right thing.

Cross the border from Seme to Cotonou and you will see the stark difference between a country well managed by its leaders rather than the corrupt criminal morons we have at federal, state and local governments in Nigeria.

All 200 million Nigerians cannot flee the country. Stay and develop the country for future generations.

Arostar2023:
After fleecing international students of their money, you want them to leave , without even a PGWP? It would be dishonest for any Canadian politician to pretend not to know why international students were flocking to Canada, in the first place. Many colleges in Canada were dependent on international students for funds and they sell the opportunities of staying back in Canada after studying to those students.

October1960:
They did not fleece international students. This statement is the type of "logic" that keeps Nigeria underdeveloped.

Other Africans are staying their country to develop it. WE cannot flee to other nations that have done the right thing.

Cross the border from Seme to Cotonou and you will see the stark difference between a country well managed by its leaders rather than the corrupt criminal morons we have at federal, state and local governments in Nigeria.

All 200 million Nigerians cannot flee the country. Stay and develop the country for future generations.

Your logic is faulty to say the least. All nations , all people migrate. I went to a rural area in Canada and guess what I found? A Chinese run shop, more like a kiosk based on Canada standard. There are Indians, Filipinos , Chinese etc migrating to Canada and doing well too in those places. Google and search for the percentage of Nigerian immigrants in Canada compared with Indians or Filipinos. Hold your government accountable for the underdevelopment of Nigeria not poor immigrants that left because of lack of opportunities or insecurity in Nigeria.

Now, back to the subject matter, an average international student pay more than 3X school fees compared to domestic students in Canada. Most colleges were funded by international students’ school fees. And many workers in those schools are getting laid off as a result of the cut in study permits approvals. You can research that , if you want. I know in Nigeria we know nothing about equity and justice…so you may not understand what implied intent means. Mind you, I don’t support or encourage any illegality of any kind. But we have got to look at things holistically.

Smartguyboy:
➜Just listen to yourself Does it make any sense? When they impose their scam Christianity on Africans it was okay .
➜ Europe and Canada are well known for raping kids pedophile . People like you will still blame blacks while the white are defending the people of raping kids . When a crime is committed they blame immigrants

Christianity was not imposed on Africans. That is why traditional religions continued to thrive even as Christianity grew in Africa and remains to this day. 🥱🥱

2. The practice of pedophilia, including the embrace of the religion that literally sanctions it -- Islam -- was present in Africa over a thousand years before the white man even ventured into the land. The religion claims it is OK to rape a child so long as you marry her(you can divorce her right after that, mind you). Of course, the same religionists see no problem raping women who are not of their tribe or religion, claiming it is halal for them to do so. And then the traditional folks refuse to even broach the issue at all, pretending that shaming the girl and her family when it happens makes the problem a non-issue. And pedophilia is still traditionally not frowned upon in much of Africa today, after the white man has mostly left the region. 🥱

At least, the white man criminalized pedophilia in his own land. But to this day, in much of Africa, pedophilia is embraced as part of religion and tradition or as something not to be discussed at all. Maybe you should take stock before you let your hands go typing! 🥱🥱

Racoon:
Britain is also doing the same. So, why are they bent on fleecing immigrants before putting them in economic bondage?

Why Canada? After all these strenuous effort people put to JAPA? Then these white supremacists will just come wawa the parade for you. What the hell mean.

This has nothing to do with white supremacist, none of these countries begged or forced people to come to their countries, we have to wake up to the present reality that the economic realities of these countries are not as buoyant as they used to be and their people are also going to rough patches.

Whether we like it or not, we must fight our governments and fix our own countries.

Smartguyboy:
The answer is simple because white supremacists countries don’t want people from 3rd world countries anymore especially blacks. They only want your hard earned money with their useless education

Then stay in your country.

Kobojunkie:
2. The practice of pedophilia, including the embrace of the religion that literally sanctions it -- Islam -- was present in Africa over a thousand years before the white man even ventured into the land. The religion claims it is OK to rape a child so long as you marry her(you can divorce her right after that, mind you). Of course, the same religionists see no problem raping women who are not of their tribe or religion, claiming it is halal for them to do so. And then the traditional folks refuse to even broach the issue at all, pretending that shaming the girl and her family when it happens makes the problem a non-issue. And pedophilia is still traditionally not frowned upon in much of Africa today, after the white man has mostly left the region. 🥱

At least, the white man criminalized pedophilia in his own land. But to this day, in much of Africa, pedophilia is embraced as part of religion and tradition or as something not to be discussed at all. Maybe you should take stock before you let your hands go typing! 🥱🥱

Child marriage isn’t simply an Islamic doctrine; it has long been debated within Islam, and many Muslim-majority countries now set the legal marriage age at 18. But shielding abuse through shame, silence, or social pressure isn’t unique to one culture. We see similar patterns in Rome, colonial Europe, and modern America, including the well-documented Catholic Church scandals. The broader issue is what happens when powerful institutions become unaccountable not something that can fairly be pinned on one religion or continent.

honesttalk21:
➜Child marriage isn’t simply an Islamic doctrine;
➜ it has long been debated within Islam, and many Muslim-majority countries now set the legal marriage age at 18.
➜ But shielding abuse through shame, silence, or social pressure isn’t unique to one culture.
➜ We see similar patterns in Rome, colonial Europe, and modern America, including the well-documented Catholic Church scandals.
➜ The broader issue is what happens when powerful institutions become unaccountable not something that can fairly be pinned on one religion or continent.

1. Nonsense! The Quran affirms the right of Islamists to marry and eventually divorce underage girls! 😖😖

2. There is no debating what is clearly detailed in Quran At-Talaq vs 4, as given by Allah of Islam to the Islamists. 😒😒

3. You are right! The Quran also makes clear that Islamists are allowed to abuse their women, who are regarded as fields and property for the men to plow as they see fit. Surah An-Nisa vs 34😒😒

4. The reason those are regarded as SCANDALS has to do with the fact that those acts are considered CRIMINAL and punishable by Law. This is unlike what is in Islam, where Sharia applauds the abuse of young girls and women -- it is not a crime to rape a girl or woman or to beat a woman in Islam. 😐😐😐

5. The only "powerful institution" that remains unaccountable to the broad systems of rights and law is that which is the Islamic world, where much of what is accepted as criminal in the rest of the world is glorified as halal to the Allah of Islam to date. 😒😒

Qur’an 65:4 is about ʿiddah, the waiting period after divorce; not a command about whom people should marry. Those who have not menstruated appears alongside menopausal and pregnant women, so the wording is framed around physiological status; non-menstruation can also occur after puberty for reasons such as amenorrhea or illness. That said, classical commentators generally understood the category to include prepubescent girls, and that historical interpretation should be acknowledged honestly. But describing a category within a divorce rule is still different from explicitly commanding people to marry children.

Likewise, the tilth/plow metaphor is in 2:223, not 4:34, so accurate citations matter. If the claim is that Islam explicitly commands rape, permits assault, or praises abuse, that needs to be demonstrated from the texts themselves not simply inferred from the actions of Muslims, governments, or historical societies. I’m not defending abuse in any tradition; I’m applying the same standard of evidence I would apply to any other religious or historical text.

And the claim that this is uniquely Islamic needs historical context. Marital rape remained legally permitted in England until 1991, and it was not criminalized across all U.S. states until 1993. That is within living memory, not some distant medieval relic, so the history of marital abuse and institutional protection cannot honestly be reduced to one religion or culture.

Kobojunkie:
1. Nonsense! The Quran affirms the right of Islamists to marry and eventually divorce underage girls! 😖😖

2. There is no debating what is clearly detailed in Quran At-Talaq vs 4, as given by Allah of Islam to the Islamists. 😒😒

3. You are right! The Quran also makes clear that Islamists are allowed to abuse their women, who are regarded as fields and property for the men to plow as they see fit. Surah An-Nisa vs 34😒😒

4. The reason those are regarded as SCANDALS has to do with the fact that those acts are considered CRIMINAL and punishable by Law. This is unlike what is in Islam, where Sharia applauds the abuse of young girls and women -- it is not a crime to rape a girl or woman or to beat a woman in Islam. 😐😐😐

5. The only "powerful institution" that remains unaccountable to the broad systems of rights and law is that which is the Islamic world, where much of what is accepted as criminal in the rest of the world is glorified as halal to the Allah of Islam to date. 😒😒

honesttalk21:
➜Qur’an 65:4 is about ʿiddah, the waiting period after divorce; not a command about whom people should marry. Those who have not menstruated appears alongside menopausal and pregnant women, so the wording is framed around physiological status; non-menstruation can also occur after puberty for reasons such as amenorrhea or illness. That said, classical commentators generally understood the category to include prepubescent girls, and that historical interpretation should be acknowledged honestly. But describing a category within a divorce rule is still different from explicitly commanding people to marry children.
➜ Likewise, the tilth/plow metaphor is in 2:223, not 4:34, so accurate citations matter. If the claim is that Islam explicitly commands rape, permits assault, or praises abuse, that needs to be demonstrated from the texts themselves not simply inferred from the actions of Muslims, governments, or historical societies. I’m not defending abuse in any tradition; I’m applying the same standard of evidence I would apply to any other religious or historical text.
➜ And the claim that this is uniquely Islamic needs historical context. Marital rape remained legally permitted in England until 1991, and it was not criminalized across all U.S. states until 1993. That is within living memory, not some distant medieval relic, so the history of marital abuse and institutional protection cannot honestly be reduced to one religion or culture.

1. Yes! The Waiting period after the divorce of a woman who has never menstruated, aka a prepubescent girl, is 3-months. That is what is literally specified in the Quran, meaning that marrying them that young does not even guarantee they will remain married until they at least reach adulthood. 😒😒

2. I am sorry, but you should have learnt by now that I don't respond well to Islamic Taqiyah! The Arabic of the same text literally states to beat the woman. So, yes, under Islamic law it is divinely authored for an Islamic man to beat his wives. 😒

3. It is uniquely Islamic in today's world, given that Islam, against the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, codifies pedophilia and abuse of women in marriage as the right belonging to men under the political system that is Islam, which is then raised as a religion that none should question. 😒😒

1. Qur’an 65:4 deals with ʿiddah;the waiting period after divorce, not with who may marry or at what age. Classical tafsir did understand the category to include pre-menarche girls, and that should be acknowledged honestly. But describing a category within a divorce rule is not the same thing as issuing a mandate for child marriage.

2. The traditional reading of daraba in 4:34 does allow a restricted, non-injurious form of physical discipline as a final step after the preceding measures. That uncomfortable point is true with restrictions. But it still isn’t the same as giving men an unrestricted religious right to beat or abuse their wives. Reducing the classical ruling to simply Islam authorizes wife-beating leaves out the restrictions attached to that interpretation.

3. The fields to plow metaphor is in 2:223, not 4:34. And if the claim is that these practices are uniquely Islamic, that requires comparative historical evidence. Marital rape remained legally exempted from rape law in England until R v R in 1991, while the last U.S. state removed its spousal exemption in 1993. Fact check this as I know you can. Those are independent historical facts not claims derived from the Qur’an, Kathir or Bukhari. The argument isn’t other societies did it, so it’s fine; it’s that uniquely Islamic cannot be established simply by shallow quoting Islamic texts.

4. Bukhari also records that a woman’s consent matters in marriage, including a case in which a forced marriage was cancelled. So describing women simply as property is an incomplete characterization. If the claim is that Islam explicitly commands rape, authorizes unrestricted physical abuse, or praises abuse as virtuous, then show the specific verse or text.

Kobojunkie:
1. Yes! The Waiting period after the divorce of a woman who has never menstruated, aka a prepubescent girl, is 3-months. That is what is literally specified in the Quran, meaning that marrying them that young does not even guarantee they will remain married until they at least reach adulthood. 😒😒

2. I am sorry, but you should have learnt by now that I don't respond well to Islamic Taqiyah! The Arabic of the same text literally states to beat the woman. So, yes, under Islamic law it is divinely authored for an Islamic man to beat his wives. 😒

3. It is uniquely Islamic in today's world, given that Islam, against the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, codifies pedophilia and abuse of women in marriage as the right belonging to men under the political system that is Islam, which is then raised as a religion that none should question. 😒😒

honesttalk21:
1. Qur’an 65:4 deals with ʿiddah;the waiting period after divorce, not with who may marry or at what age . Classical tafsir did understand the category to include pre-menarche girls, and that should be acknowledged honestly. But describing a category within a divorce rule is not the same thing as issuing a mandate for child marriage.
2. The traditional reading of daraba in 4:34 does allow a restricted, non-injurious form of physical discipline as a final step after the preceding measures. That uncomfortable point is true with restrictions. [b]But it still isn’t the same as giving men an unrestricted religious right to beat or abuse their wives. Reducing the classical ruling to simply Islam authorizes wife-beating leaves out the restrictions attached to that interpretation.
3. The fields to plow metaphor is in 2:223, not 4:34. And if the claim is that these practices are uniquely Islamic, that requires comparative historical evidence. Marital rape remained legally exempted from rape law in England until R v R in 1991, while the last U.S. state removed its spousal exemption in 1993. Fact check this as I know you can. Those are independent historical facts not claims derived from the Qur’an, Kathir or Bukhari. The argument isn’t other societies did it, so it’s fine; it’s that uniquely Islamic cannot be established simply by shallow quoting Islamic texts.
4. Bukhari also records that a woman’s consent matters in marriage, including a case in which a forced marriage was cancelled. So describing women simply as property is an incomplete characterization. If the claim is that Islam explicitly commands rape, authorizes unrestricted physical abuse, or praises abuse as virtuous, then show the specific verse or text.

1. The waiting period after the divorce of a woman who has never menstruated, aka a prepubescent girl, is 3-months. That is what is literally specified in the Quran, meaning that marrying them that young does not even guarantee they will remain married until they at least reach adulthood.😐😐

2. Traditional reading that has existed for over 1200 years says to strike/beat the women. 😐😐

3. Glad you at least admit that the Quran does, in fact, describe a woman as a field that is for the man to plow as he sees fit. In 2026, despite the world having moved on to criminalize so many barbaric acts of the past. Islam continues to hold the same as acts of virtue. 😐😐

4. You mean where it is stated that a woman's silence(even if from fear) is her consent, or that she can be manipulated into agreeing by the use of false witness? 😐😐

Kobojunkie:
Christianity was not imposed on Africans. That is why traditional religions continued to thrive even as Christianity grew in Africa and remains to this day. 🥱🥱

2. The practice of pedophilia, including the embrace of the religion that literally sanctions it -- Islam -- was present in Africa over a thousand years before the white man even ventured into the land. The religion claims it is OK to rape a child so long as you marry her(you can divorce her right after that, mind you). Of course, the same religionists see no problem raping women who are not of their tribe or religion, claiming it is halal for them to do so. And then the traditional folks refuse to even broach the issue at all, pretending that shaming the girl and her family when it happens makes the problem a non-issue. And pedophilia is still traditionally not frowned upon in much of Africa today, after the white man has mostly left the region. 🥱

At least, the white man criminalized pedophilia in his own land. But to this day, in much of Africa, pedophilia is embraced as part of religion and tradition or as something not to be discussed at all. Maybe you should take stock before you let your hands go typing! 🥱🥱

You are really brainwashed if you believe white men criminalize pedophilia . Can you imagine even with all the information at hand you are still thinking like a slave who have been brainwashed. You haven’t heard of Jeffrey Epstein and his clients list ? Omg


U.S. state laws permitted young ages of consent for marriage (often 12 for females and 14 for males) with parental permission or in cases of pregnancy.

Recent Bans: Starting with Delaware and New Jersey in 2018, a growing wave of states has moved to eliminate exceptions and set an absolute minimum marriage age of 18.

Current Status: While reform efforts have accelerated significantly, child marriage under specific judicial or parental exemptions remains legally permissible in a majority of U.S. states

Western religion—primarily Christianity—was imposed on Africa through a coordinated partnership with colonial governments, where missionary work acted as the spiritual arm of imperialism. Missionaries and state rulers framed indigenous African systems as "primitive" to justify conquest, using education, law, and social pressure to enforce conversion.

Key Methods of Imposition
The "Civilizing Mission": Europeans preached that Christianity and Western culture were identical. They taught that African customs, names, clothing, and spiritual traditions were backward or pagan.

Control of Education: Colonial schools were built and run by churches. Children were forced to adopt European names, language, and values while being punished for practicing traditional African ways.

Political and Legal Pressure: Colonial administrators favored Christian converts for jobs in local administration. Traditional leaders who resisted Christianization or defended local religious laws were often deposed and replaced with cooperative figures.

Denigration of Local Beliefs: Indigenous spiritual systems were legally and socially marginalized. Laws banned traditional practices like rain-making ceremonies, initiation rites, and polygamy, labeling them criminal or uncivilized.



Before you come out to defend white men who want to see you never rise try and do little research about the evil plans they have for blacks
https://www.persee.fr/doc/rbph_0035-0818_1955_num_33_1_1933


https://www.blackagendareport.com/how-western-churches-hijacked-african-christianity-and-how-its-fighting-back

King Leopold II of Belgium is his alleged 1883 address to colonial missionaries heading to the Congo. In it, he supposedly instructed them to prioritize Belgian economic interests and use religion to pacify the local population rather than truly evangelize.

The 1883 Missionary Letter
The Claim: The text instructs missionaries not to teach locals about God (since they supposedly already know Him), but to reinforce docility, make them embrace poverty, and protect capitalist and state interests

Smartguyboy:
➜You are really brainwashed if you believe white men criminalize pedophilia . Can you imagine even with all the information at hand you are still thinking like a slave who have been brainwashed.
➜ Western religion—primarily Christianity—was imposed on Africa through a coordinated partnership with colonial governments, where missionary work acted as the spiritual arm of imperialism. Missionaries and state rulers framed indigenous African systems as "primitive" to justify conquest, using education, law, and social pressure to enforce conversion...

1. So, what you are saying is that despite you going on and on about pedophilia, it is not, in fact, a criminal offense in the West? If your answer is yes, then I should ask the meaning of your rant; if a thing is not a crime or sin, then what are you arguing for or about? Particularly when, again, the same remains quite rampant in present-day Nigeria and the Islamic world. 😐😐

2. The post is meaningless given that, to this very day, there is no record of people being forced at gunpoint to adopt the Western religion. Add to that the fact that traditional religions have never been banned in all of Africa. As a matter of fact, most of those who abandoned traditional religion for the Western religion were not forced into doing so. 😐😐

1. You still haven’t engaged with the actual distinction here. Is it simply an inability to? [/b]The fact that something is named as a category in a divorce rule does not mean the text is telling people to marry into that category.

2. Calling something 1200 years old doesn’t make the restriction disappear. All four major schools of law Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi‘i, and Hanbali agree on the same basic sequence: advise, separate, then a final measure that must not cause injury. [b]They also unanimously prohibit striking the face or causing harm. Al-Tabari, one of the earliest commentators, described the measure as ghayr mubarrih meaning it should not leave a mark. When Ibn ʿAbbas was asked what that meant in practice, he pointed to a siwak twig or something similar. That isn’t me trying to soften the text. It’s how the classical tradition itself qualified it.

3. As you wish in 2:223 is about manner and position, not a blanket license regardless of consent. Ibn ʿAbbas’s own account, recorded by Imam Ahmad and cited in Ibn Kathir’s tafsir, connects the verse to a specific question about sexual position. The question arose from a Jewish superstition that rear-entry sex would result in a cross-eyed child.

You also still haven’t addressed the marital-rape point. England’s marital exemption lasted until 1991, and the last U.S. state abolished it in 1993. Did Islamic law somehow cause those exemptions too? Or is coerced sex within marriage a problem that legal systems across different societies have had to confront and work through?

4. You’re right that this hadith describes a situation in which false witnesses secure a marriage and the marriage isn’t simply declared void. I’m not going to pretend that passage says something it doesn’t. But it is presented in the context of jurists dealing with a difficult edge case, not as the Prophet commanding people to use deception. And to be precise, the silence is consent point is connected in the text to shyness, not fear. More broadly, every legal system has cases where fraud becomes entangled with a later independent choice, leaving courts to debate whether and how the resulting relationship should be undone.
Exploiting the gap between what appears to be true and what is actually true isn’t unique to this text; it’s a recurring problem in law generally.

Kobojunkie:
1. The waiting period after the divorce of a woman who has never menstruated, aka a prepubescent girl, is 3-months. That is what is literally specified in the Quran, meaning that marrying them that young does not even guarantee they will remain married until they at least reach adulthood.😐😐

2. Traditional reading that has existed for over 1200 years says to strike/beat the women. 😐😐

3. Glad you at least admit that the Quran does, in fact, describe a woman as a field that is for the man to plow as he sees fit. In 2026, despite the world having moved on to criminalize so many barbaric acts of the past. Islam continues to hold the same as acts of virtue. 😐😐

4. You mean where it is stated that a woman's silence(even if from fear) is her consent, or that she can be manipulated into agreeing by the use of false witness? 😐😐

honesttalk21:
1. You still haven’t engaged with the actual distinction here. Is it simply an inability to? The fact that something is named as a category in a divorce rule does not mean the text is telling people to marry into that category.
2. Calling something 1200 years old doesn’t make the restriction disappear. All four major schools of law Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi‘i, and Hanbali agree on the same basic sequence: advise, separate, then a final measure that must not cause injury. They also unanimously prohibit striking the face or causing harm. Al-Tabari, one of the earliest commentators, described the measure as ghayr mubarrih meaning it should not leave a mark. When Ibn ʿAbbas was asked what that meant in practice, he pointed to a siwak twig or something similar . That isn’t me trying to soften the text. It’s how the classical tradition itself qualified it.
3. As you wish in 2:223 is about manner and position, not a blanket license regardless of consent. Ibn ʿAbbas’s own account, recorded by Imam Ahmad and cited in Ibn Kathir’s tafsir, connects the verse to a specific question about sexual position. The question arose from a Jewish superstition that rear-entry sex would result in a cross-eyed child.
You also still haven’t addressed the marital-rape point. England’s marital exemption lasted until 1991, and the last U.S. state abolished it in 1993. Did Islamic law somehow cause those exemptions too? Or is coerced sex within marriage a problem that legal systems across different societies have had to confront and work through?
4. You’re right that this hadith describes a situation in which false witnesses secure a marriage and the marriage isn’t simply declared void. I’m not going to pretend that passage says something it doesn’t. But it is presented in the context of jurists dealing with a difficult edge case, not as the Prophet commanding people to use deception. And to be precise, the silence is consent point is connected in the text to shyness, not fear. [b]More broadly, every legal system has cases where fraud becomes entangled with a later independent choice, leaving courts to debate whether and how the resulting relationship should be undone.
Exploiting the gap between what appears to be true and what is actually true isn’t unique to this text; it’s a recurring problem in law generally.

1. No one throws the Quran under the bus as much as an Islamist does when confronted by a Kufar! The Taqiyya is on another level! 😐😐

2. Taqiyya is like a mind virus that amounts to nothing when intelligence enters the room. 🙄🙄

3. In 2026, Islam continues to invoke 7th-century ideals against women and children. Imagine the level of sheer arrogance and foolishness an Islamist would need to exist to pretend he has the right to condemn another non-Islamist for doing exactly what his politico-religion bestows on him as a right by his Islamic Allah? 🙄

4. The hadith literally reveals that the silence of a child bride is considered consent in Islam, same as it was for the inventor of the religion. 🙄

1. Under the bus isn't an answer. You still haven't identified and shown the word in 65:4 that supposedly means prepubescent, as opposed to the word that means has not menstruated. Those are not the same word, and repeating literally specified for doesn't somehow make them identical. Remember I have corrected you before that Islamist refers to a political ideology quite different from Islam or Islamic.

2. Taqiyya stated repeatedly isn't an argument either. If I've misquoted or misrepresented a source, then identify the passage and show exactly where the error is. That's what would actually rebut the point.

3. The 7th-century ideals argument also doesn't hold up against the historical record. The marital-rape exemption you're implying was uniquely Islamic actually traces to Sir Matthew Hale's 17th-century English common-law doctrine. That wasn't Islamic law, and it wasn't a 7th-century rule. England didn't reject the doctrine until R v R in 1991, while North Carolina repealed its own version on July 5, 1993. So the same legal failure existed in a completely separate, non-Islamic legal tradition.

4. And the hadith says virgin, not child bride. That phrase was your insertion, not the wording of the hadith. The reference to silence is tied to shyness in the text (Muslim 1420/1421c), not fear or coercion.

At this point, you've repeated taqiyya, 7th century, and child bride without actually addressing any of the corrections. Repeating the same labels isn't a rebuttal. It's just going in circles.

Kobojunkie:
1. No one throws the Quran under the bus as much as an Islamist does when confronted by a Kufar! The Taqiyya is on another level! 😐😐

2. Taqiyya is like a mind virus that amounts to nothing when intelligence enters the room. 🙄🙄

3. In 2026, Islam continues to invoke 7th-century ideals against women and children. Imagine the level of sheer arrogance and foolishness an Islamist would need to exist to pretend he has the right to condemn another non-Islamist for doing exactly what his politico-religion bestows on him as a right by his Islamic Allah? 🙄

4. The hadith literally reveals that the silence of a child bride is considered consent in Islam, same as it was for the inventor of the religion. 🙄

honesttalk21:
1. Under the bus isn't an answer. You still haven't identified and shown the word in 65:4 that supposedly means prepubescent, as opposed to the word that means [b]has not menstruated.[/b] Those are not the same word, and repeating literally specified for doesn't somehow make them identical. Remember I have corrected you before that Islamist refers to a political ideology quite different from Islam or Islamic.

You mean Ibn Kathir and all the other listed Takir contributors also got it wrong? You mean the inventor of Islam also got it wrong too when he engaged his 6-year-old bride who had not menstruated? 🙄🙄

Ibn Kathir's tafsir including prepubescent girls isn't in question that's conceded. But tafsir interpreting a word isn't the same as the word itself meaning that, or bearing any semblance of it. Those are two different layers. The Aisha claim is a separate, disputed hadith-dating question; argue it from sources, not as a rhetorical shortcut tacked onto this one.

Kobojunkie:
You mean Ibn Kathir and all the other listed Takir contributors also got it wrong? You mean the inventor of Islam also got it wrong too when he engaged his 6-year-old bride who had not menstruated? 🙄🙄

honesttalk21:
Ibn Kathir's tafsir including prepubescent girls isn't in question that's conceded. But tafsir interpreting a word isn't the same as the word itself meaning that, or bearing any semblance of it. Those are two different layers. The Aisha claim is a separate, disputed hadith-dating question; argue it from sources, not as a rhetorical shortcut tacked onto this one.

I tell you, ehn.. Anyway, shey Allah of Islam proclaimed through the inventor of Islam that virtuous are Islamists who deny the very Quran when cornered, so no point in any of this against you. 😂😂😂😂

Still not a response to anything I said. And once again, Islamist refers to a political ideology, not Muslims or Islam generally, which I’ve already clarified. If there’s nothing left to add to the actual point that tafsir interpreting a word isn’t the same as the word itself meaning that, we can leave it there.

Kobojunkie:
I tell you, ehn.. Anyway, shey Allah of Islam proclaimed through the inventor of Islam that virtuous are Islamists who deny the very Quran when cornered, so no point in any of this against you. 😂😂😂😂

Kobojunkie:
1. So, what you are saying is that despite you going on and on about pedophilia, it is not, in fact, a criminal offense in the West? If your answer is yes, then I should ask the meaning of your rant; if a thing is not a crime or sin, then what are you arguing for or about? Particularly when, again, the same remains quite rampant in present-day Nigeria and the Islamic world. 😐😐

2. The post is meaningless given that, to this very day, there is no record of people being forced at gunpoint to adopt the Western religion. Add to that the fact that traditional religions have never been banned in all of Africa. As a matter of fact, most of those who abandoned traditional religion for the Western religion were not forced into doing so. 😐😐

I rest my case 🤡

honesttalk21:
Still not a response to anything I said. And once again, Islamist refers to a political ideology, not Muslims or Islam generally, which I’ve already clarified. If there’s nothing left to add to the actual point that tafsir interpreting a word isn’t the same as the word itself meaning that, we can leave it there.

Anyway... to all those who are not aware, the Quran allows for marriage and divorce of women who have yet to experience their menstruation, and when you consider the acts of the best example for all mankind, the inventor of Islam, as well as the reports from numerous well-respected Islamic commentators(respected among Islamists, of course) for over 1200 years, you will find that all of them agree that it is indeed halal for an Islamist to marry an underage girl and also to divorce her when done with her. 🥱

A book written by the now-dead Khomeini, Tahrir al-Wasilah - a Guide to Islamic jurisprudence- detailing how it is possible to either temporarily marry and use a child for pleasure in Islam. 🥱

A book written by the now-dead Khomeini, Tahrir al-Wasilah - a Guide to Sharia- detailing how it is possible to either temporarily marry and use for pleasure a still-sucking child in Islam.

"Intercourse with a woman is not allowed unless she attains the age of nine years, regardless of whether the marriage is permanent or temporary. There is, however, no objection in other enjoyments like touching lasciviously, hugging and rubbing the thighs, even with a suckling infant."

The specific passage is found on page 229 of Volume 3 (specifically in Tahrir al-Wasilah, Book of Nikah, Problem 12) by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.🥱