“I consider God’s law and that of his prophet above any other law”
Nigeria’s Senator Ahmad Sani Yerima assures us that he has done nothing wrong. What a relief.
Ahmad Sani Yerima, 49, told the BBC that his fourth wife was not 13, but would not say how old she was.
He denied breaking the law but said he would not respect any law that contradicted his religious beliefs.
Ah good; how noble, how pious, how devout, how holy. If any pesky law contradicts his “religious belief” that he is allowed to fuck a girl who is too young to give her life away and too small through the pelvis to bear a child safely, why then he will bravely and nobly ignore that law in favour of the “religious belief” that lets men of 49 fuck girls of 13.
The Nigerian senate ordered an investigation after complaints from women’s groups but the senator said he did not care what the groups thought.
Mr Sani was the governor of Zamfara state, where he oversaw the introduction of Sharia law – for the first time in a northern state – in 1999.
Well, that’s the kind of guy who doesn’t care what women’s groups think all right.
The senator said he had followed “standard rules for marriage in Islam”.
“I don’t care about the issue of age since I have not violated any rule as far as Islam is concerned,” he said.
“History tells us that Prophet Muhammad did marry a young girl as well. Therefore I have not contravened any law. Even if she is 13, as it is being falsely peddled around.
“If I state the age, they will still use it to smear Islam,” he said.
Thus revealing that the age is still much too low to be marrying a brutal callous goat of 49.
But, much more, also revealing that most of the point of all this “introduction of Sharia” crap is to strip women of rights and enable men to fuck more and younger women as well as getting rid of the older ones they don’t want to fuck any more. Also revealing that this selfish greedy moron thinks that the fact that Mohammed married a child makes it perfectly all right for him to marry a child and that his doing so is a way of standing up for Islam.
The women’s groups want Mr Sani to be taken to court, to face a fine and a jail sentence.
They say he has contravened the Child Rights Act of 2003 which, although not ratified by all Nigeria’s 36 states, is law in the capital where he lives and his marriage is believed to have taken place.
“As a Muslim, as I always say, I consider God’s law and that of his prophet above any other law,” Mr Sani said.
“I will not respect any law that contradicts that and whoever wants to sanction me for that is free to do that.”
That’s exactly why the very idea of “God’s law” is so dangerous.
Seriously, disastrously, revoltingly dangerous. And, after reading Leo Igwe’s article on religion in Africa, it seems very unlikely that this kind of outrageous idiocy is likely to change very soon in the “dark continent,” a continent that might very well have brightened, but is being continually darkened, more and more, by religion. Archbishop Tutu may be a bright religious light shining amidst all that darkness, but does he himself, I wonder, recognise how much support his faith gives to the religious darkness all around him?
“Smearing Islam” is just not on – as too is offending the pope – when it comes to dealing with child abuse. God reigns supreme, and to hell with child abuse victims.
Good lord! He bought the girl! The article said he paid a “dowry” to the child’s parents. That’s not a dowry! A dowry is what a woman brings to a marriage, not what the man pays to buy her! The BBC could at least make that clear! Islam really is a despicable religion! All religions are despicable, it seems to me, but some outrun the others, and Islam outruns a good many.
Abuse of children and justifying it one way or another is a common thread uniting the theologies of Catholicism and Islam. Can full unity be far away?
The usual male propheteering, then. Do not go to jail, pass Go as often as you like. It’s the will of the Merciful and Compassionate and the willy of his Profit.
Yes, he bought her – I wished I’d mentioned that after I posted.
I am trying to figure out how a girl of that tender age was permanently allowed out of Egypt –without questioning from the authorities. It must also be very difficult for her living a country with a strange language and culture; let alone having to contend with being married to a man old enough to be her father. Her family in Egypt — who allegedly colluded in selling her off – should also be held responsible for gross neglect.
I see that some years ago the senator also married a fifteen year old. He must be weary of her already – – seeing that he sought a new child bride. Paedophilia under a different name.
Well, she’s just a girl, so what does it matter what her feelings are? She’s desirable property, she can be bought and sold, and whatever the laws of the country may be, the “traditions” — I mean the assumption of male prerogative — come first in what passes for their minds. Their prophet is a classic case of selfish opportunism. They have the worst possible role-model: a narcissist, a torturer, a murderer, a rapist, a paedophile, a con-artist, a bully. What else can one expect?
I love invisible unaccountable paedophilic misogynist sky despots, don’t you?
@Eric:
Good lord! He bought the girl! The article said he paid a “dowry” to the child’s parents. That’s not a dowry! A dowry is what a woman brings to a marriage, not what the man pays to buy her!
Actually, in Islam the husband is supposed to pay the wife a mahr, usually translated “dowry,” which can range from tens of thousands of dollars in Saudi Arabia or the wealthier Gulf states, down to a symbolic dinar or dollar. However, although it’s supposed to belong to the wife, it is often instead given to her family or father. It’s also part of the khul’ divorce, the one that the wife can at least try to initiate — the husband will grant a divorce if she gives back the mahr, or at least a court will order him to do so. This is one reason why a very common practice is delayed mahr, where the husband only gives half of the agreed sum at marriage, with the other half to be given at death or divorce (when he initiates it), which is supposed to 1) prevent the husband from divorcing her thoughtlessly, as then he has to give up the other half, 2) provide for her in case of death, and 3) if she wants a divorce, she only has to give back the half she got. (Some better-educated wives have clauses written into their marriage contracts stating that they retain the right to divorce, couched as, “If I desire a divorce, he promises to grant me one.”)
There are a lot of things that sicken me about this case, and no doubt there will be some well-meaning twit who will say something like, “It’s their religion, we shouldn’t impose our values on them” and all that garbage, or maybe worse, “It’s only your Western Orientalism that causes you to demonize this kind of behavior.” Ugh…
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/04/yemen-2nd-child-bride-hospitalized-with-genital-injuries.html
OK, let me get this straight. This shit stain says he will not respect any law that contradicts god’s law. So is it actually a law that Muslims must be pedophiles? I thought that just because something was permitted didn’t make it mandatory.
Thank you for that link, Marie-Thérèse. I cannot get my head round this. There must an entire culture of men who cannot see women or children as people. This must be the case or decent men would have put a stop to this long, long ago. Fathers who think that daughters only bring them shame, mothers who collude in marrying off or mutilating their little daughters, even women demonstrating against the Yemeni parliament setting a minimum age for marriage. Not all cultures have been like this. Is it simply the religion, perpetuating by its primitive authoritarianism some disgusting mish-mash of male-animal opportunism? Is it really just brainwashing? I suppose it must be, but I find it hard to understand the sheer extent of this blindness to common humanity.
If I hear anyone else saying that Islam was an improvement on what went before it I shall simply say, I don’t believe it, and in any case that time is long gone, and it is more than time that Mohammedanism went too.
There’s this extraordinary conflict. They have to keep their thoughts pure, so women must become invisible: they provide temptation, like demons. Yet everything about the religion is clearly designed to allow men the greatest opportunity to indulge their lusts. So it has to be within marriage. Big deal. Four wives, temporary marriages, easy divorce, easy access to underage virgins, no such crime as rape within marriage, wife-beating allowed.
Personhood of women abolished — no voice, no thoughts, no brain, no face.
But as they can’t actually abolish women themselves, they’re never free of the conflict.
Criminal insanity?
GD,
It does strain the mind, doesn’t it.
The idea seems to be (if you can call it an idea) that the fact that Mo did it makes it Obviously Perfectly All Right and that is “a religious belief” and so if any human-made law says it is not Perfectly All Right then that law is trying to contradict that “religious belief” and that is impious and infidelish and bad. See?
I suppose the thought is also that a human law that sets the marriage age higher is An Insult To The Prophet; and we can’t have that.
“I consider God’s law and that of his prophet above any other law” from Ophelia Benson http://bit.ly/b8sWtR 1:21 PM Apr 29th via web