Kindly Refer this link:

Article Cultural Differences in Personality and Aggressive Behavior ...

There seems to be no relation between the attached studies and the (incompleted) subject of this thread? In any event, certainly, prevalent violent behavior signals a real problem in any religion, cult, culture, and cannot be ignored. If these supposed "misunderstandings" are so commonplace, creating so much violence, something with the teachings must be the cause? The best "persuasion" is by example. Peace!!

my dear C K Gomathy thank you

There is no doubt that culture is responsible for the bulk of any character's content, as well as for an important aspect of the superficial organization of characters, by emphasizing specific interests or goals. The secret to the problem of the relationship between culture and personality lies in the question: “To what extent can culture be considered responsible for the central organization of personalities? That is, for psychological patterns?

dear C K Gomathy

Aggressive behavior is a behavior that is intended to cause harm or harm, physical or moral, to others or in particular, and to the destruction of the property of oneself or others.

dear C K Gomathy

Deprivation

dear C K Gomathy

In the eyes of religion, aggressive behavior is considered an improper response to the conscience of the patient due to negligence or behavior by the individual that challenges the power of conscience.Therefore, religious disturbance from such disturbances must be prevented by faith, pure faith, faithful action and behavior.

   Religious prevention from psychological and behavioral disorders includes attention to religious education and morality and the building of a value system as a fundamental and solid pillar of normal behavior.

Religious teachings and spiritual and moral values ​​guide the individual to proper behavior and avoid falling into error, guilt, and torment of conscience. "

dear C K Gomathy

In the eyes of religion, aggressive behavior is considered an improper response to the conscience of the patient due to negligence or behavior by the individual that challenges the power of conscience.Therefore, religious disturbance from such disturbances must be prevented by faith, pure faith, faithful action and behavior.

   Religious prevention from psychological and behavioral disorders includes attention to religious education and morality and the building of a value system as a fundamental and solid pillar of normal behavior.

Religious teachings and spiritual and moral values ​​guide the individual to proper behavior and avoid falling into error, guilt, and torment of conscience. "

فاضل عاشور عبد الكريم

Religious teachings and spiritual and moral values ​​guide the individual to proper behavior and avoid falling into error, guilt, and torment of conscience. "

Perhaps, but that does not make "religious teachings" correct. Sometimes the conscience should be tormented, and religious "teaching," or "brainwashing," blocks the proper functioning of human conscience.

For example, parents who murder their children, for some supposed question of "honor," even when the children's "bad" behavior was never proven (not that this should matter - murder is still murder), those parents should have a tormented conscience. The fact that their religious brainwashing makes their conscience clear is a very bad thing.

Or, adults who have sexual relations with children, even pre-pubescent, because their religious "teaching" claims it's okay, they should have a tormented conscience.

There are very many example like that. What about people who persecute and murder consenting adult homosexuals, and feel a clear conscience because of their "religious teachings." That's wrong too. What about husbands who feel justified on flogging their wives? That's truly sick behavior.

We can go on with many other examples. The simple point is, we need to be very wary of "religious teachings." They are too frequently just plain wrong.

dear Albert Manfredi

(But this does not make "religious teachings" true. Sometimes conscience must be tortured, and religious "teaching" or "brainwashing" impedes the proper functioning of human conscience.))

This statement is the result of several aspects, the most important of which are:

There is a difference between religious teachings and those who apply them

For example, Muslims, Christians and Jews have religious teachings are the Koran, the Gospels, the Torah and some holy books.

Secondly, the problem is those who have written and interpreted these teachings and texts

فاضل عاشور عبد الكريم

Secondly, the problem is those who have written and interpreted these teachings and texts

Yes, of course, I agree. But who decides? I can easily quote holy texts that command human beings to commit atrocities, including murder and genocide. I can easily show verses that tell humans to throw homosexuals off from steep cliffs or tall buildings. I can easily quote "holy texts" that command humans to stone apostates to death (people who renounce their faith, because they have seen enough). The words are clearly written, so there is no mistake. Or holy texts permitting pedophilia. Or holy texts that command murder of so-called "non-believers."

There are many examples. Here's one. Some religions say it is acceptable to lie and deceive people, in order to make them convert to the religion. But then, here's the catch. After the gullible person has converted, and discovered the truth, he cannot renounce the religion, for fear of being murdered. Clever trick, eh?

So, we have to be very careful about what we accept as "truth." Truth is elusive. Any holy text that condones atrocities is, should be, highly suspect.

Do we still make animal sacrifices to Poseidon, or to Neptune, to ensure a calm sea? Most people don't do this anymore. Correct? And yet, at one time, people were convinced that they were doing the right thing. Same applies to any religion.

No! No! N0!

Misunderstanding of religion from your side dear.

5000 years ago and in Mecca a Hindu Temple and that is the true.

Ohm is GOD, Allah is God and is the same dear. See under

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_TVfPM_hoM&t=49s

The blackstone from Mecca is from India and is a Siva stone

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Siva+blackstone

Dewan,

Misunderstanding of religion from your side dear.

No misunderstanding. If I were a believer who reads the holy text, and it commands me to commit atrocities, and many others of that faith commit these same atrocities, around the world, then it becomes a problem of that religion.

I listed several examples already. Women are indeed flogged and stoned to death, homosexuals are indeed executed for being the way they are, so-called "blasphemers" are indeed murdered, children are indeed murdered by their parents, and on and on.

These things happen all the time. Some of these atrocities are rarely even in the press, but you can easily find them if you look. It is the responsibility of the "faithful" to convince their fellow faithful, that these are "misunderstandings." Telling me won't accomplish anything at all.

Albert and why killed Muhammad grandson?

Christian devils and how the bible was used killed the Indians, the native American and why in your Bible Jesus, Maria and Josef white? Indians were not beast to be killed and Europe people stole America! Still killed muslims only for their oil. I love Muslims, Christian and we belief in the same GOD! I hate liars!

See under India Symbol used by your people too

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGlU5m2JpXY&t=8s

Dewan,

Albert and why killed Muhammad grandson?

Because they were at war. Because in those years, around 700 AD or earlier, there were no Geneva conventions which applied to war atrocities. Prisoners could be executed. I have no idea what you are trying to prove with this.

Christian devils and how the bible was used killed the Indians, the native American and why in your Bible Jesus, Maria and Josef white?

Which is complete nonsense. Pick up the New Testament, and show me anything to support your claim. I have absolutely no problem picking up other holy texts, including the Old Testament, and explain to you why atrocities are committed for religious reasons. But you cannot do the same thing with the New Testament.

For example, I have no problem showing you why religious fanatics flog or murder their wives, and murder apostates, homosexuals, adulterers, idolaters, and blasphemers. But none of these atrocities can be linked back to the New Testament. They can all be justified with other holy texts, but not with the New Testament.

Obviously, people who call themselves Christian have committed plenty of atrocities. But the New Testament cannot be blamed. Only those individuals, or other aspects of that culture, can be blamed. There is a difference here. This thread is about religion and violence, not just violence.

If a religion has a reputation for violence, and that violence is commanded in their holy texts, then that religion has a problem. If other groups also have a reputation for violence, but their religion cannot credibly be blamed, then the violence grew out of that culture for non-religious reasons.

For example, the Khmer Rouge committed incredible atrocities, in the 1970s, murdering perhaps 1/3 of the population of Cambodia. That cannot be blamed on religion. But religiously-motivated terrorism definitely does exist in the world today, as well as any number of religiously-motivated atrocities which are never classified as "terrorism."

Abert your people wrote the NewTestament! Why in your Bible every body white?The pope was not in Sri Lanka this year and many brown Christians died. If white than he been there. Why your people interested in oil? That is true war only for oil!

Dewan,

Abert your people wrote the NewTestament!

So what? Middle Eastern people, not "my people," wrote the New Testament, and it never commands human beings to commit atrocities. This should be clear. Do some research, even online. Instead, other holy books from that same Middle East, written by the same people, including the Old Testament and your own various holy books, do command human beings to commit atrocities.

Why in your Bible every body white?

Because middle eastern people are classified as white? Jesus and the apostles were middle eastern people.

But you seem to assume that everything has to be about religion. It does not. Religion is more important in some cultures than in others. Atrocities can be committed for religious reasons or for non-religious reasons.

Since this thread is about religious-motivated violence, I can tell you honestly, you cannot show me how the New Testament promotes any atrocities to be committed by humans. On the other hand, I can easily show you where other holy books do promote violence. If a religion promotes violence, it will get a reputation for violence. That is to be expected.

Did God change his mind, Dewan, or are all of these just human inventions, to justify to themselves what they want to do?

As to your comment about oil, you might want to read how dependency on middle eastern oil has dropped considerably. So no, these endless wars are not about oil, and everyone wants to be out of there.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2016/04/20/u-s-dependence-on-foreign-oil-hits-30-year-low/#5bf40fe5ff33

Nice discussion...

Thank you to all researchers while memorizing titles and shrines, but I think that the interventions have taken another step and moved away from the core of the subject.

Greetings

Albert keep dreaming. I love good Christians and good Muslims. We all belief in the same GOD. GOD is love. Read about the Devils

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases

https://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/170/1-000-catholic-churches-in-holland-to-close-by-2025

Dewan, are you joking? Let's read about the devils, indeed.

First let me say, I certainly would never deny that some of the Catholic clergy were involved in pedophilia, but that is not tolerated by the religion (meaning, the New Testament), nor is it tolerated by western society. It caused an outrage. And while the first allegations were all about the clergy in the US, soon afterwards, we started seeing that this is going on all over the world, and in other religions too, not just among Catholic clergy. This made front page news, when these allegations began coming out about Catholic clergy.

Now let's look and see how pervasive this problem really is.

https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islam_and_Pedophilia

https://fortressoffaith.com/islam-and-pedophilia/

https://theweeksreview.blogspot.com/2010/09/open-gay-pedophilia-is-rampant-in.html

"The sad truth is that this practice is not restricted to Afghanistan; it is a common practice in Islamic countries, and the more fundamentalist the country, the more pervasive the pedophilia. "

(You can find many other examples online, if you like. This is not a problem confined to the Catholic clergy. Dewan. Nor is it confined to the clergy of any religion. Come now. Let's have a little perspective before making an example.) Are these stories all over the news? Why not? These stories should be all over the papers, don't you agree?

As to the secularization of Dutch society, I consider that a good thing. Don't you? You imply here that it's bad. Do we pray and offer animal sacrifices to Poseidon or to Neptune, or Zeus or Apollo? Most people do not. Do we hold it against anyone for not offering sacrifices to these gods? I don't, for sure. So why are you criticizing Dutch society?

We all belief in the same GOD. GOD is love.

I've asked this before, and I will ask it again. Does God change his mind? In the Old Testament, God commands certain atrocities. Such as, executing apostates, blasphemers, homosexuals, and idolaters. In the New Testament, God sends down his son, Jesus, to die for our sins, and commands no atrocities from humans anymore. But then in various other newer holy books, the ones you follow, God again commands atrocities to be committed by humans, again against idolaters, blasphemers, homosexuals, apostates, adulterers. It goes further. Now God even permits pedophilia, God permits parents to murder their children for "honor," and on and on. The list of atrocities has become longer than it was in the Old Testament. Yet, the New Testament had put an end to this.

Question: Does God change his mind? If this is the same God, he must have changed his mind. Do you need me to quote the exact verses?

Thank you for the important discussion, although it's not my major, but I got a good info about it.

هذا سؤال كثير مهم

وفي اعتقادي يجب أن تتكاثف الجهود من أجل هذا الهدف السامي وعلاج هذه المعضلة التي تمر بها أمة الإسلام، فلا يتحمل المسؤولية طرف دون آخر، بل الجميع في المسؤولية سواء، الفرد والبيت والمدرسة والجامعة والمسجد

وكلكم راع ومسؤول عن رعيته

Dear Albert Manfredi

Suspicion frequently repeated:

It revolves around the holy verse: (And those who despair of menstruation of your wives, if you have arranged, I have prepared them for three months, and those who have not menstruated). {Divorce: 4}.

The verse says women and then says who did not hug any intended women and not children, but the question how to marry without menstruation ???

Unfortunately, some specialists did not differentiate between three types of meaning of marriage or marriage

The first is the formative marriage. The second is the customary marriage. The third is the legal marriage. ..

The first marriage: formative or medical: And what is meant by formative or medical marriage: is to impose the physical and formative potential of men and women for marriage and marriage, this marriage is from a medical and formative perspective, which may not depend on a specific age !!! And the reason for the great difference between different environments, perhaps that a girl at the age of 30 years, which, according to a particular environment with a weak physical structure resembles the girl despite the old age can not be strengthened with the formation of marriage !!! Perhaps a girl aged 9 or 10 years in a rural or mountainous environment whose physical structure is bigger and bigger so they are ready for marriage from the standpoint !!! .. And medical marriage looks at the physical capacity and inability and according to different environments ....

 Second marriage: is customary marriage: which varies from custom to another and from environment to another, the marriage in this view of the customary pattern and how he sees the marriage in terms of physical structure in addition to class or social and religious status and other sizes seen by custom. .

 And the third: is legitimate marriage: The purpose of this marriage is to put the legal balance in the form of the relationship between the wife and husband, and the husband's rights and duties and so on the wife, including the legitimate measure of the mandate and when the woman can be described as wife legitimately And when not to be so, with a very important note here is that the street always takes the minimum imposition of questions and that is not necessary for anyone unless the rest of the parties formative and customary marriage.

2 - And then if the statement of these three sections, the time can meet as if we assume that the woman was a legal age allows an object to be 10 years, and with a large physical structure custom, and was medically qualified for marriage, then the marriage is natural as It is known to the old people who had at an early age a large physical structure and also in some people now from the people of the countryside or mountains, and custom was helping to do so as well as the side of the formation and medical so that the woman was carrying and reproduce without any forms, and sometimes not There is a difference between the environment and the right side Governance in the first place is not only for the legitimate side as some people do not know, but must be the physical structure of medical terms help to that as well as the custom and the surrounding.

3- As for the Sharee'ah in the first place, he gave the balance in terms of the minimum possible, not the highest, and the highest grew due to two other medical and physical structures, and the second is custom, and it helps to do that or not .... The same is said in the medical side, perhaps the side Medical says no forms in the marriage of a girl in terms of medical and formative, but because the custom or Shara does not see those women qualified as if they were ((crazy or Raana or fools)), marriage is formed in such a situation !!! If the standards in the place are three-dimensional and is not a matter of Sharee'ah in the first place to the point of the minimum legal standards for marriage, but that party must agree with the rest of the medical and customary ..

Dear Albert Manfredi

Menstruation is the last stage of puberty and may reach the girl 15 or 16 and did not report and have problems and the question we ask to anyone who raises this suspicion Is considered the age of 15 and 16 children.

There is a detailed study on the subject of menstruation and the reasons for the delay and how there are females between the ages of 5 - 8 years. Yes, the age of five years and there are those who are late menstruation for 16 No, but more than that to quote what we want from this study:

“This study found that nearly half of African-American girls had puberty development before the age of 8.”

“This study found that nearly half of African American girls had pubertal development before age 8”

There are girls before the age of 8 years and are not strange and almost half of the girls have African descent

“Based on this study, it was suggested that new criteria be established for“ early ”puberty, with the definition being defined as the development of puberty before age 7 in the white population and age 6 in African Americans”

“Based on this study, it was suggested that new norms for“ precocious ”puberty be established, with the proposal that it be defined as pubertal development before age 7 in whites and age 6 in African Americans”

It is important to speak on the word who did not menstruate to continue reading from this study

“The absence of menstruation before the age of 15 is also statistically very uncommon (

“Based on this study, it was suggested that new norms for“ precocious ”puberty be established, with the proposal that it be defined as pubertal development before age 7 in whites and age 6 in African Americans”

Yes, maybe even so, but ultimately, this becomes nonsense. Children of 5-7 years old are simply not ready for marriage, emotionally, or in any other way. And the fact remains, even pre-pubescent pedophilia is tolerated, as the links I posted proved, in many Islamic countries. I'd say most surprisingly, homosexual pedophilia is tolerated openly, even while homosexuality among consenting adults is considered an abomination, and such individuals are thrown off the top of tall buildings. This makes no sense to me. Does this make sense to you?

What is the greater abomination? Pedophilia, for sure. Adults exploiting children. Truly, "the devil's work." Consenting adults, who are no threat to others, should be allowed to live in peace.

This was in response to the quite correct observation that pedophilia has existed among the Catholic clergy too. The difference being, you will not find many Catholics condoning or making excuses for that abominable practice!! You won't find Catholics posting on RG, to say pedophilia should be tolerated, under any circumstance at all.

The subject of this thread is violence practiced in a religion. Pedophilia may also be considered violence, but pedophilia is hardly the only problem we have discussed. What about flogging women, executing apostates, executing non-believers, stoning adulterers, murdering children, murdering blasphemers, condoning lies and deception, and on the list goes. These are all practices that are tolerated in your holy books, and these are practices we have seen carried out, in the news. It is fair, it is to be expected, for a religion to gain a reputation for violence, when its holy books encourage violence.

Dear Albert Manfredi

I am sure that you are above the access because Nchatm and ratios of each other and the reason that we hold the status of researchers, whose weapon is scientific evidence, not fanaticism.

If we record criticism on the manner in which it may deal jurisprudently with this issue - the issue of underage marriage - where the impasse on the literal texts without overlooking the text behind the purposes and the relationship of this text with reality, and does not care about the possibility of historical text, and strange in the matter Some of the theoretical advocates of small marriage are that while they insist on adopting these views, you will not find any of them to accept or accept to marry his daughter at the age of nine - for example - a man forty, as well as being a 50-year-old or a sixty-old, let alone About to have arrived to Arzl old.

   On the other hand, we are surprised by the duality of human rights advocates, or at least some of them dealing with these issues.While they call for the age of 18 to marry a girl or a young man and fight against the phenomenon of underage marriage in Muslim societies, they do not find it hard to practice the girl. Sex through adultery before this age, and they see it as a right, and we have the right to ask them: Why sex with a girl at the age of seventeen - for example - under the title of marriage shameful and condemned, because the marriage of a minor, and the practice of this The girl for sex under the title of adultery is an ugly act, but she is p For "project" and understanding ?! The practice of sex, which is to be banned by law before the age of 18, is so widespread in the West that there is little or no proportion of girls who reach the age of 18 and still maintain their virginity. On the existence of a psychological or social complex of the girl!

Dear Albert Manfredi

Going back to the main question of whether there is anything new to add to the prevailing Islamic and jurisprudential position inherent in the marriage of minors, we try to record some contemplative stances on the traditional attitude of puberty in females, taking care to approach the issue away from the inferential jurisprudence language.

   The first pause is related to the definition of the concept of puberty.

   The first term is the term attainment of marriage, the Almighty said: (and plagued the orphans even if they reach the marriage, if you are rational, so pay them their money ..) Psychologically, it is noted that the verse created a separation between sexual adulthood and adulthood, when it hinted at the possibility of attaining marriage, but not adulthood.

   The second term: is to reach the dream, the Almighty said: (O you who believe to ask permission of those who reigned your faith and those who did not reach the dream of you three times before the dawn prayer and when you put your clothes from noon and after the evening prayer three naked to you ... Let them ask for permission as those who have before them, as well as God shows you his signs and God is wise} (light 58).

    The dream in the sense of reason, but I do about puberty, because - I mean puberty - inherent to the dream, which reflects a mental breakthrough and intellectual and a new phase in human life, it was said: The dream in the sense of vision, it is a metaphor for the dream of the young man when puberty. (See the interpretation of the optimal c 11 p 160).

    Perhaps the first meaning is that the dream is meant to be a level of mental maturity, in order to help the context on it, as the verse guided the need to teach and direct "those who did not reach the dream" to the need for permission, and what is meant here, who reached the age of discrimination and presumption to say it after that : "Three nakedness to you," and then ordered them if they reached the dream to ask permission, because they have become adults and addressed the letter to them, it is known that sexual puberty is not enough alone to direct commissioning and discourse, but must be accompanied by mental puberty.

   From the total of two verses advanced that puberty is achieved by a total of two things: sexual puberty, and mental adulthood.

Second, apart from defining puberty in the legal legal sense of responsibility, there is a question of whether it is enough to marry a girl and enter her as soon as she reaches the age of nine or thirteen, ) Or once they reach the physical and that when entering the menstrual cycle, even for the first time?

    However, opponents of such a marriage argue that this level of puberty is insufficient for girls to enter into married life, because of the health, psychological and social harm that it causes, and build their position on scientific and other field studies. Stresses the risks of marriage at this early age.

Dear Albert Manfredi

It is inevitable to take into account scientific data, warnings and medical advice related to reproductive health, which confirm the seriousness of the psychological and physical risks faced by the female in the event of marriage at an early age, such as the age of nine, ten or second Ten or thirteenth ... These data may serve to form a jurisprudential position that prohibits this harmful relationship to the girl, especially at some levels of serious harm, and the jurist may find it inevitable to conceal the sanctity of sexual intercourse with the girl who is not prepared for it, even if her age has He reached the fifth nest For example, even if the texts are absolutely permissible at this age, cohabitation with them, if proven to be harmful and harmful harm to them is akin to aggression and rape, and the inviolability of this act does not need special evidence, as the general rule of the inviolability of every work performed Even if this act is a right of the husband in principle, the power of the human being to take his rights is restricted by not being at the expense of others and their health or leading to harm to them. What is stated in the Quranic and Hadith texts that confirm the denial of all harm legislation In Islam, and prohibits any harmful practice against oneself or others, I saw that if the adult wife who lived with her husband for some time without having sexual intercourse with her is harmful, but because of an emergency health condition has become harmful to her, forcing her to practice it and this situation becomes Certainly taboo, as well as where we are.

Dear Albert Manfredi

Some may wonder: Do you agree, then, to set a certain age for marriage, because the above requirement that the marriage is not harmful may not solve the problem at its roots, as there may be allegations of damage or non-harm, which imposes a regulatory age limit Specific assessed as the ideal or most suitable roof for a girl's marriage?

Dear Albert Manfredi

  Noting the foregoing of the invalidity of the age of nine as a ceiling age for marriage on the grounds that this age (nine), although it is stated in some texts, which confirmed that it is permissible to enter into the wife if she reaches the age of nine and prohibited it before this age, but this age - apparently - A devotional ceiling should not be exceeded in all cases, as how we worship the street by adopting an age of marriage that has many risks for women, even in some societies or time periods, as confirmed by studies and facts in our time, and this is what made us think that these texts look at a society may have been The girl in it reaches puberty when she is nine years old without being to In this light, the most correct question is not about the legality of entering a 9-year-old girl.This is as long as it is harmful to her.It is not permissible under the rules of Islamic law, but the logical question is about the legality. Raise the ceiling of marriage from the age of nine and determine another age, what is the justification for this determination?

Dear Albert Manfredi

Answer: The setting of a certain age for marriage, although we do not have a legitimate proof of it, but it is one of the issues that may require the interest to set a time limit for regulatory considerations, which may justify the establishment of a time limit for that, which authorizes the establishment of such a ceiling is the legitimate ruler The use of experienced people to form an opinion on the appropriate age for the marriage of a girl, but the limitation of 18 years adopted by the countries of the West and other is not a law of home or sacred, and agreed by most countries of the world, it must be taken into account:

First, the interest of the girl and the suitability of this age for her psychological and physical integrity and reproductive health and the performance of maternity functions in the best and best way. Second: We must take into account the purposes of legitimacy and teachings that emphasize the principle of chastity and the importance of immunization of girls as a prelude to immunize the whole society, as a lofty goal of marriage, these elements must be taken into account before deciding the appropriate age for marriage with the girl.

Dear professors and researchers

Thank you to everyone who contributed to the opinion

The practice of sex, which is to be banned by law before the age of 18, is so widespread in the West that there is little or no proportion of girls who reach the age of 18 and still maintain their virginity.

As far as I know, the "age of consent" is 16, in most parts. But regardless, to go on and on about this, to try to justify why marriage at 5-7 should be okay, is preposterous. It almost sounds like someone wanting to justify rape. Or, maybe it is like trying to justify rape. No matter what studies on menstruation you can dredge up. At 5 years old, children are hardly more than babies. They grow, they form their likes and dislikes, they mature enormously, after 5-7 years old. An age of 16 sounds reasonable. Honestly, who cares what people did in the year 650 AD, ultimately. It could not matter less.

The problem should be obvious. You have old men, trapping mere babies in marriage, even before puberty, and then keeping them locked up behind walls and forcing them to wear tents in public. Not something that modern societies should have to tolerate, in my view. Not sure why this needs to be debated. I would make absolutely sure that the secular laws never allow this, and that secular laws take precedence over any religious laws.

First, the interest of the girl and the suitability of this age for her psychological and physical integrity and reproductive health and the performance of maternity functions in the best and best way.

Absolutely. And 5 years old does not come close.

And we didn't even address the problem of homosexual pedophilia, openly practiced in too many countries. This can only result from overly oppressive rules, which distort people's perspectives. It has to be impossible to rationalize old men taking advantage of pre-pubescent boys, or any boys, for that matter. If anything, we should ask, why aren't they, the old men, thrown off the top of buildings? Since that's the punishment practiced against consenting adult homosexuals? What is the logic which allows such practices to go on?

What about murdering apostates? How can that be justified? Or, making converts using lies and deception? How can that be justified? These are all explicitly stated in holy books, which I can easily quote.

I think that much too often, these laws and these practices are kept hidden, as a way of deceiving people into agreeing to something they will soon regret. But such deception is considered very immoral, in western societies.

You will note that are no "misunderstandings" in any of what we have discussed. There are, instead, very strong disagreements concerning what a society should tolerate.

Following

Catholic Priests Can't Marry. Children are victims of child sex

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases

In the West many have sex before 12 year. I am glad that my Islamic and Hindu brother and sister can marry before 14 year. In Holland 70% not married and they never been a Church. In Holland many Churches closed. If no job you get from the government 1000 euros for each person. If you married only 1200 euros in Holland. If not married 2000 euros in Holland!

Dewan,

Catholic Priests Can't Marry. Children are victims of child sex

Exactly my point! If a religion sets up totally unnatural circumstances for a society, evil practices will emerge. So, you create a society in which women are hidden away as if they were lepers, locked up out of sight or draped in tents when they are out in public, and you will have created conditions for abominations like openly accepted homosexual pedophilia. At least in the case of Catholic priests, this abomination caused an outrage! It wasn't tolerated by society, once this came out.

Religions have to evolve. Society has to evolve. We no longer tolerate human sacrifices to the gods, we no longer tolerate animal sacrifices to the gods, societies should not tolerate the practice of throwing (consenting adult) homosexuals off of steep cliffs, or stoning apostates or "non-believers" to death either. Or for that matter, even hinting that marriage between old men and pre-pubescent girls should be acceptable. Come now.

There are far worse evils than kids experimenting with sex, Dewan. These are far worse evils:

https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islam_and_Pedophilia

"In contemporary law enforcement definitions, the term "pedophile" is generally used to describe those accused or convicted of the sexual abuse of a minor. Pedophilia is considered a taboo and is illegal in most societies, cultures and religions; except in the Islamic world with regards to Islam."

"The Qur'an permits pedophilia. The following Qur'anic verse allows sex with pre-pubescent girls who have not yet menstruated. ..."

"Due to its many endorsements within Islamic scripture, child marriages are permitted by the majority of Muslim scholars and leaders, and in many Islamic countries it is common practice. Girls far below the age of puberty are forcibly married to older persons (sometimes in their 50s and later) for various personal gains by the girls' guardian or with the intention to preserve family honor by helping her avoid pre-marital sex.

"Pedophilic Islamic marriages are most prevalent in Pakistan and Afghanistan, followed by other countries in the Middle East and Bangladesh.[7][8] This practice may also be prevalent to a lesser extent amongst other Muslim communities, and is on the rise among the growing Muslim populations in many non-Muslim countries, such as the United Kingdom[9] and the United States.[10]

"In countries like Yemen, Bangladesh, Iran, and Northern Nigeria, attempts at reforming laws and banning child marriages have been opposed and stopped on the grounds that such a ban would be un-Islamic,[11][12][13][14][15] and in the case of Malaysia, the growing Muslim population has effectively turned back the clock on social progress by passing new laws which allow for the practice of pedophilic marriages specifically between followers of Islam.[16]

"So one has to agree that whatever reasons and justification people may give for the prevalence of child marriages in Muslim-majority nations, without Islam this practice would have long been discarded as immoral and unacceptable in the modern world."

https://theweeksreview.blogspot.com/2010/09/open-gay-pedophilia-is-rampant-in.html

"The sexual repression, and codified persecution of women, within Islamic societies is not only stifling, it is unnatural. When one is surrounded by barbarism and the unreasonable religious restrictions placed on mankind's most basic of needs, one should expect barbaric solutions to satiate those needs."

And let me immediately point out this, since you have brought this up twice already, Dewan: a similar problem exists in the Catholic clergy. Except that it is not tolerated by society.

And again on this point you made before:

In Holland 70% not married and they never been a Church. In Holland many Churches closed.

What is supposed to matter most is to have children brought up in a stable environment. And this happens in Dutch society, even if marriage is often delayed until after the couple has lived together and had children. You do not need to believe in some fantasy, cult, religion, call it whatever you want, to have a stable society. You don't hear of atrocities committed by Dutch people every day in the news, correct? Or rampant pedophilia. So, something these Dutch people are doing seems to be working pretty well.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/520103/average-age-at-marriage-in-the-netherlands-by-gender/

"Between the 1950s and today, the average age to marry in the Netherlands increased significantly for both genders. Whereas in 1950, men were on average 30 years old when they married and women were nearly 27 years old, in 2018 this was 38.2 and 35.2 years respectively. This raise in the average age at marriage however meant a decrease in the number of marriages per person, which decreased by over 0.10 in the last decade alone. The average Dutch male married 0.57 times in 2018, whereas the average female married 0.55 times."  

I believe that the professor has fulfilled his request sufficiently, which is evidence and evidence in addition to what he has shown, which of course is not out of fanaticism.

We must continue with it or without

Dear Suhad Mohammed

Thanks for your contribution