SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Chechnya's leader Ramzan Kadyrov has urged men to stop their wives from using WhatsApp after anger over a police chief's forced marriage to a 17-year-old spread on the messaging service:
"Lock them in, do not let them go out, then they will not post anything," Ramzan Kadyrov was quoted as saying. Mr Kadyrov had earlier backed a police chief's marriage to a 17-year-old, even though he was already married, in apparent violation of Russian laws. His chief of staff has since proposed legalising polygamy in Chechnya.
Mr Kadyrov, an authoritarian leader and close ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, has in recent years outlawed the abduction of brides and underage marriage. He is also thought to be in favour of polygamy. His top aide Magomed Daudov said: "It all has to be in keeping with Sharia: But if a man can support more than one wife, then why not?"
Before Saturday's ceremony, local media reported that police chief Nazhud Guchigov, 47, had prevented Kheda Goylabiyeva from leaving her home and threatened her family with reprisals if they did not hand her over.Mr Kadyrov denounced discussion of the marriage on WhatsApp in comments broadcast on local state-run TV. "Stop. Behave like Chechens," he was reported as saying. "The family honour is the most important thing. Do not write such things. Men, do take your women out of WhatsApp." Last week he took to his Instagram account to criticise Russian media coverage of the marriage as "this fuss ordered by some liberals". "The girl's parents gave their blessing to this marriage," he claimed, arguing that reports to the contrary were filled with lies.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by tftp on Friday May 22 2015, @04:36PM
This little article contains several discussable items:
It's curious, of course, how different their customs are from a typical Christian, Western way of life. But they have their right to peacefully live as they want, don't they? Should the government raid people's bedrooms at night and check that each man has not more than one woman in his bed? If it shouldn't, then why would it be in any way shameful to publicly announce that a certain man takes care of two women? Plenty of men do that :-) they just don't tell the government. Those are interesting questions, IMO.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Friday May 22 2015, @05:50PM
I read the translated article and the journalist didn't say the bride was unwilling. One of the bride's friends said the bride was unwilling. I couldn't find any quote from a family member. In-fact i saw the exact opposite. No journalist has been given access to the father or grandfather. Underage marriage is usually legal but a parent gives the consent.
Apparently stealing women to marry them had been a common crime in Chechnya until recently. I think the reason for all the concern is the groom could have abused his position to pressure the family (and possibly bride) for permission. The town is poor and the family is poor. They can't fight a police chief for anything.
There is a lot of guessing going on but the police chief taking two wives is fact. I would be accepting of this if both he and his current wife both agreed that he could take a second wife. Marriage is a contract and fucking a 17 year old girl who is still in school would probably be breaking that contract. Marrying the 17 year old does not suddenly mean that the first marriage is no longer being violated.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Friday May 22 2015, @06:24PM
The thing is: even if a journalist had talked to a male family member, who would believe him? It is entirely normal for fathers in Islamic culture to marry their daughters off. Whether or not the daughter wants married off is not a factor in the equation. I mean, who asks property what it wants?
Women are essentially slaves in that culture. Read the police chiefs comments, they are pretty explicit.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Friday May 22 2015, @07:05PM
I think it would still matter even in that context. If the girl was property then the father's consent was absolutely required, not optional.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @12:17AM
That's nothing inherent in or unique to Islam, its an "old world" thing (Christian countries were the same, until very recently); many Islamic countries aren't socially 'modern', but Islam isn't exactly to blame for that, abusive, power-hungry, exploitative scumbags are, Islam is just their excuse.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @12:20AM
inb4 "the Quran says...!", because The Holy Bible says the same thing and probably worse. Its nothing specific to Islam.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday May 22 2015, @05:56PM
It's curious, of course, how different their customs are from a typical Christian, Western way of life. But they have their right to peacefully live as they want, don't they?
Whether they're "living in peace" when they kill their own wives for dishonoring them (see above) is rather debatable.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 4, Interesting) by tftp on Friday May 22 2015, @06:12PM
Whether they're "living in peace" when they kill their own wives for dishonoring them (see above) is rather debatable.
Imagine that they are an isolated, alien society ("civilization B") that lives in a glass bubble. They do not cross the border and attack you, and you don't cross the border and attack them. (I said "imagine" :-)
Given this scenario, would civilization A be justified [wikipedia.org] in enforcing its own morals and ways of life onto the civilization B? Does it matter if civilizations A and B are separated by 100 light years or by 100 miles? Does it matter if A and B share some of the genetic code? Would members of A be able to deal with tourists from B?
(Score: 2) by rts008 on Friday May 22 2015, @07:12PM
Forget you imaginary scenario-it does not exist, or apply to this case at all.
If they were truly isolated, then we would not have even heard of this to be having this discussion.
Since they are not isolated, the rest of the world can have an opinion about it. And the rest of the world can impose sanctions, refuse aide and trade, enact border restrictions, etc.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by tftp on Friday May 22 2015, @07:32PM
I don't understand your position. Do you mean that you will start a war with Mars if you learn that Martians, who look exactly like humans, are customarily eating 10% of their children, and you learned about that from a TV report from Mars, where a Martian reporter mentioned it as a matter of fact? If so, be ready for an invasion from Mars because they, obviously, have a symmetrical problem with you.
Would you be happy if those Martians come to Earth and force you to do things that are contrary to your civilization and your way of life?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by rts008 on Friday May 22 2015, @08:20PM
LOL!!
Now we are getting invaded by Martians?
You don't understand my position because I have not stated one for this issue.
And because you don't understand, you throw more FUD out...Martians, indeed.
A rational and/or reasonable person would ask me what me position is, instead of just going off the deep end with Fox News style FUD, well, because MARTIANS!!!OMG!!!
Now that I 'have your measure', I will decline to debate Martians with you, and leave you to your delusions/fantasies and bid you 'Good Day'. Bye.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Sunday May 24 2015, @07:23AM
The question of whether interference is justifiable becomes a lot easier to answer when the issue being discussed is people being killed.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by gnuman on Friday May 22 2015, @07:59PM
Definition of a marriage. The West is actually leading the world in redefinition of the old "one man, one woman" formula. So what is then wrong, in principle, with one older man taking a second wife?
Because there is only so many women to go around. If you want men to be resentful, then go ahead, have your "second wife". Then don't be surprised someone doesn't come and kills you for your wife.
There is approximate 50/50 ratio of men and women. Wise people noticed long ago that one men and one women heterosexual marriages seem to result in a more stable society. You know, less insurrections, less hate and less resentment. Maybe you (or your society) didn't get the memo.
In case of LGBT marriages there is such a reason.
And what reason is that? Gays have nothing to do with polygamy and they were never available to be in "normal" marriage anyway.
(Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Friday May 22 2015, @08:38PM
Because there is only so many women to go around. If you want men to be resentful, then go ahead, have your "second wife". Then don't be surprised someone doesn't come and kills you for your wife.
Actually, in many places in the world there simply aren't enough women available, which leads to an excess of angry males. But unlike your suggestion, this virtually never results in killing the powerful to take their wives.
The excess of men are made into soldiers, and the rage is turned against the enemy. The men are subtly (and not so subtly) trained that power and respect and wives will come from defeating the enemy. And if you die in the effort you still get the women, maybe even more women, all virgins.
An Excess of males is historically true of many civilizations, often, but not always due to polygamy. Sometimes due to post-natal gender selection.
There is a reason ISIS and Bokoharam have a penchant for executing defeated males and making off with large numbers of women. We in the west are incensed by this, but in those parts of the world it is taken as something to be expected.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @12:28AM
That's just how things were in the old world. Women were spoils of war, just like food and gold, prizes to be carried home. Raping and pillaging and bringing home slave women was traditionally one of the benefits of war. Most of the world has grown past this kind of savagery, but there's still some extremist holdouts left that want to take the world back to the stone age.