Islam - What's your view on it?

[FoRiZon]

Bill aiming to ban child marriages in Pakistan shot down as "anti-Islamic"

Another case of the famous No True Islam™ at work?

Yes.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Yes.

Same in Saudi Arabia then too?
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/5489/islamic_reformation_fails_as_child_marriage_re_affirmed

A few days ago, efforts to set a minimum age for marriage in Saudi Arabia “received a blow after the Grand Mufti said there was nothing wrong with girls below 15 getting married.”

 

[FoRiZon]

Same in Saudi Arabia then too?
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/5489/islamic_reformation_fails_as_child_marriage_re_affirmed

The "No true Scotsman/Islam" still stands.

That is Saudi's law. Elsewhere is mixed, even those with "Sharia Law". But here is illegal. There are case here but typically they do it hidden.

 

[Imari]

Did you know that until 2013 Vatican City had an age of consent of 12?

Countries can have stupid laws. Some of them may be related to sex.

 

[Spurgy 777]

Did you know that until 2013 Vatican City had an age of consent of 12?

Countries can have stupid laws. Some of them may be related to sex.

Yes, but when Mohammed married a 9 year old, you can hardly argue that child marriages are un-Islamic.

 

[McLaren]

Did you know that until 2013 Vatican City had an age of consent of 12?

Countries can have stupid laws. Some of them may be related to sex.

Yeah, the key word is consent, though.

Back in 2011, for example, Dr. Salih bin Fawzan, a prominent cleric and member of Saudi Arabia’s highest religious council, issued a fatwa asserting that there is no minimum age for marriage and that girls can be married “even if they are in the cradle.”
....
Fawzan concluded his fatwa with a warning: “It behooves those who call for setting a minimum age for marriage to fear Allah and not contradict his Sharia, or try to legislate things Allah did not permit. For laws are Allah’s province; and legislation is his exclusive right, to be shared by none other. And among these are the rules governing marriage.”

Once again, case closed.

Fawzan, of course, is not the first to insist on the legitimacy of pedophilia in Islam. Nor is this just some theoretic, abstract point; the lives of countless young girls are devastated because of this teaching.

Recall, for instance, the 8-year-old girl who died on her “wedding” night as her “husband” raped her; or the 12-year-old who died giving birth to a stillborn; or the 10-year-old who made headlines by hiding from her 80-year-old “husband.”

This is not consent. This is pedophilia protected by law because apparently, if Muhammad had sex with an underage girl, then it's ok for his followers, & trying to place age restrictions means going against him.

Basically, the people in charge & dictating the laws in the name of Islam are bunch of wackos. In cases like this, there's gotta be a line drawn somewhere else sick bastards just use the religion as justification.

 

[Imari]

Yes, but when Mohammed married a 9 year old, you can hardly argue that child marriages are un-Islamic.

No, but you can do what most civilised people do when faced with uncomfortable truths about the past history of their culture, and admit that while those things may have been acceptable at the time they're not acceptable now.

And as we can see, we have some factions of Islam that do this, and others that do not.

People keep trying to pigeonhole Islam, this enormous group, as though they all believe the same thing. They do not, any more than all Christians believe that gays should be stoned to death. Some Christians do think that, and others don't.

Is there really value in lumping progressive Muslims in with fundamentalists? Isn't the whole point to encourage progressive Muslims, not make them feel like they're also being persecuted simply because they happen to share a religion with a bunch of child rapists and psychopaths?

Basically, the people in charge & dictating the laws in the name of Islam are bunch of wackos. In cases like this, there's gotta be a line drawn somewhere else sick bastards just use the religion as justification.

Who is the person or people in charge of Islam? Point them out for me, or describe how I would know who they are.

 

[McLaren]

Who is the person or people in charge of Islam? Point them out for me, or describe how I would know who they are.

I'm referring to these people. I did not say they are in charge of Islam as a whole. I said they dictate their laws in the name of Islam.

However, the ulema -- the “religious scholar,” the learned ones of Islamic law -- responded by totally ignoring the request. Saudi Arabia’s highest religious authority, its Grand Mufti, Sheikh Abdul Aziz, shrugged the whole matter off by saying, “There is currently no intention to discuss the issue.” In other words, case closed.

You can add in this council in Pakistan who also declined the same bill in their country for the same reasons.

Another move to ban child marriages in Pakistan has fallen at the first hurdle. The bill to prohibit underage marriages has been withdrawn after the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) declared it un-Islamic.

 

[Spurgy 777]

No, but you can do what most civilised people do when faced with uncomfortable truths about the past history of their culture, and admit that while those things may have been acceptable at the time they're not acceptable now.

You can't make that argument here though as the person in question was meant to be in direct communication with the being that defines morality. Given that you're left with three conclusions; 1) Allah doesn't condemn child marriage so therefore it must be moral. 2) Allah does condemn child marriage but Mohammed just ignored him, or 3) Allah changes his mind on morality depending on what is or isn't acceptable to humans at any given time, making morality completely subjective and pointless.

And as we can see, we have some factions of Islam that do this, and others that do not.

People keep trying to pigeonhole Islam, this enormous group, as though they all believe the same thing. They do not, any more than all Christians believe that gays should be stoned to death. Some Christians do think that, and others don't.

And it us hardly pigeonholing to say that Mohammed's actions were Islamic, unless you can find me a Muslim who thinks that Mohammed was un-Islamic. It's also important to distinguish between what is Islamic and what a Muslim would do, because as you said most Muslims choose to ignore bits they don't like, just as most Christians do.

 

[Imari]

You can't make that argument here though as the person in question was meant to be in direct communication with the being that defines morality.

Yeah, I can, because that exactly what the western/Christian cultures have done. They have many people who were supposedly in direct communication with the being that defines morality, and some of their behaviour gets ignored because it doesn't fit with modern culture.

Let's take a look at Moses, basically the prime figure for delivering God's word to the people:

And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp; and Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle; and Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord. Now, therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known a man by lying with him; but all the women-children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

I'm sorry, I find Moses commanding that all but the virgin girls be slain, but the virgins can be "kept for themselves" to be at least as :censored:ed as Mohammed consummating a marriage with a 9 year old.

Islam does not have a monopoly on ignoring certain actions of it's fundamental figures. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all products of profoundly different times to the ones we live in.

And it us hardly pigeonholing to say that Mohammed's actions were Islamic, unless you can find me a Muslim who thinks that Mohammed was un-Islamic. It's also important to distinguish between what is Islamic and what a Muslim would do, because as you said most Muslims choose to ignore bits they don't like, just as most Christians do.

I'm not sure it's useful talking about what's Islamic if it's not something that people actually do. If it's Islamic to marry and rape 5 year olds but nobody actually does it, that doesn't seem like a massive problem to me. I want to make sure that 5 year olds aren't raped, not make sure that the letter of law is always in accord with public actions.

It's pigeonholing to imply that all Muslims follow this super strict interpretation of Islam, because they absolutely don't. That they don't is the main source of division within Islam, interpreting exactly how the scripture and other historical evidence should be taken.

Even if you're being super strict though, my understanding of the interpretation is that children can be married at any age, and become sexually active when they are physically able. While some people may find that distressing, I'm unable to actually find anything to object to in that myself.

I'm not a fan of arranged marriages, but they're a thing in a lot of cultures. Being married itself has no real relation to age, it's a bit of paper, so no problem there. Becoming sexually active once you're physically able is again, hardly a problem. While there's obvious room for people to weasel the system in their favour, it's far less arbitrary than the western "everyone over this age can go at it like bunnies", so I figure it's swings and roundabouts.

I'm referring to these people. I did not say they are in charge of Islam as a whole. I said they dictate their laws in the name of Islam.

What does it matter what they dictate their laws in the name of? Just because they say that they're the voice of Islam, doesn't mean that they are.

They're the voice of Islam in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan at best, and even then I suspect that you'll find that they don't speak for everyone. You know, what with the issue having been raised to them by someone in the first place for them to make the statement shrugging it off.

I feel like you're taking these statements of the "leaders" as evidence against Islam, when the truth is that there was also a bunch of Muslims that brought up the point to the leaders and tried to get it reformed. But the old guard has power in those areas, and so change doesn't happen. Such is life, happens in a bunch of places.

It sucks, but there's loads of countries that have medieval and draconian laws. They should be changed,

 

[TenEightyOne]

Yes, but when Mohammed married a 9 year old, you can hardly argue that child marriages are un-Islamic.

This again? It was an English tradition long before that. And long after, in fact.

 

[Dotini]

This again? It was an English tradition long before that. And long after, in fact.

In feudal Europe, arranged marriages involving children amongst nobles was routine. The idea was to secure peace and alliances between rival families. Children were also used as hostages, termed wards, to the same ends.

As time (especially the Enlightenment) passed, women and children gradually acquired rights which even today remain unrecognized in Islam, largely frozen in the 7th century.

The notion of the English feudal child bride married to cement a social alliance is incommensurable with current Islamic practice.

 

[ECGadget]

You know what tires me out? The fact that the exact same points keep being raised over and over and over again, all often without context and all in a accusatory fashion rather than a questioning fashion.

Did Muhammad (pbuh) marry Aisha when she was nine? That is actually debatable for starters. This is history we are talking about after all and there are certain contradictions in some circumstances. It is of the opinion of some that Aisha was married at the age of nine but moved in at twelve or something. But working from her own narrations it seems to show a different story of an age of marriage of between 16 and 19. Nevertheless, the rule in Islam is quite clearly stated. The boy and girl MUST be over the age of puberty (and that of course changes with time), must be mentally sound, must NOT be under any pressure and MUST enter the marriage willingly. On top of that, laws of the land also apply if over. So for example in the UK it is 16 or 18. That's how it works, so back to marrying minors in Islam? Guess what, not allowed.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The notion of the English feudal child bride married to cement a social alliance is incommensurable with current Islamic practice.

And current Christian practice. Don't think that the (fortunately) few places where child marriage is still legal and/or commonly-practised are all Islamic. Some are Christian amongst others.

As @ECGadget alludes to there's a separation between a common first-millenium practice with its specific Islaamic/Christian doctrinal caveats and modern times. The basis of Christianity was, after all, the product of an omnipotent being and a 14-year-old unmarried girl, or so we're told. It'll never catch on, of course.

 

[FoRiZon]

I should note thay, while Muhammad is a prophet, his presence isnt all fully adapted to Islam. He is just a "messenger of god".

Which is why some of his traits isnt get into Islam nor Quran. For example: Muhammad's birthday (maulid), family life, who he married with, etc.

 

[BobK]

I should note thay, while Muhammad is a prophet, his presence isnt all fully adapted to Islam. He is just a "messenger of god".

Which is why some of his traits isnt get into Islam nor Quran. For example: Muhammad's birthday (maulid), family life, who he married with, etc.

By the same token, Jesus Christ's birthday wasn't celebrated for several hundred years; until the Christians decided they needed to hijack another pagan holiday.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Nevertheless, the rule in Islam is quite clearly stated. The boy and girl MUST be over the age of puberty (and that of course changes with time), must be mentally sound, must NOT be under any pressure and MUST enter the marriage willingly. On top of that, laws of the land also apply if over. So for example in the UK it is 16 or 18. That's how it works, so back to marrying minors in Islam? Guess what, not allowed.

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/5489/islamic_reformation_fails_as_child_marriage_re_affirmed

So marriage of a girl at the age of 8 in Saudi Arabia satisfies all your criteria in some cases.

 

[FoRiZon]

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/5489/islamic_reformation_fails_as_child_marriage_re_affirmed

So marriage of a girl at the age of 8 in Saudi Arabia satisfies all your criteria in some cases.

No. Its satisfy Saudi's government.

Despite everything, Saudi's "Sharia law" isnt at all defining Islam. Its interesting considering the supposed "Sharia Law" that shares the same source is actually different from countries to countries. Its basically politics inside of them, so who knows.

 

[Johnnypenso]

No. Its satisfy Saudi's government.

Despite everything, Saudi's "Sharia law" isnt at all defining Islam. Its interesting considering the supposed "Sharia Law" that shares the same source is actually different from countries to countries. Its basically politics inside of them, so who knows.

I said it satisfies all of Gadget's criteria and it does. Are you saying he's wrong?

 

[ECGadget]

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/5489/islamic_reformation_fails_as_child_marriage_re_affirmed

So marriage of a girl at the age of 8 in Saudi Arabia satisfies all your criteria in some cases.

First of all, that is a pretty biased article, extremely biased and not very good on explaining facts at all. However, one point that strikes me is the 'fatwa' about girls being able to be married at any ages. What the actual heck is that about. I call a farce, either by the site/sites or by that Mufti himself, because that is moronic. Now to your question, if all those conditions are met then yes it does (in extremely rare conditions I may add), except for the fact that how many of us would trust an eight year old to make that decision? Besides, 1400 years ago science was not advanced, the whole idea of puberty was still assumed in basic ways, and as we know it can be more complicated than that. In addition just because something satisfies the criteria does not mean it is something to be practised. In fact, it is even mentioned (something I should have said earlier actually) Aisha was a very special case in herself. Regardless of the age she was married at, she was the youngest girl to have ever been married to the Prophet. The scholars all acknowledge that she was a special case. Any other wife the Prophet had had had been well into their 20s, 30s or even 40. Moving on from that, there is also the consideration to take into account the world 1400 years ago. Marriage at 9 was perfectly acceptable AND normal until only a few centuries ago. I find it rather strange how none of the thousands and thousands of people who followed a similar practise (if indeed it was nine) are not called rapists or paedophiles. This was the norm of the time. In fact, was not King John married to a 12 year old a few centuries later?

Lastly, and I do need to make this point clearly: there is NOTHING in Islam that says to get married at stupidly young ages. People like to pick a little detail here and there and make a massive mountain out of it, disregarding all other facts, laws, etc. The enemies of Muhammad himself called him out on dozens of things, but on his marriage of a young girl (teenager or not) was not called into question. And on the flip side, this question of Aishas age is being looked at a lot more now, trying to get a much clearer idea from all the narrations from 1400 years or so ago.

 

[Johnnypenso]

First of all, that is a pretty biased article, extremely biased and not very good on explaining facts at all. However, one point that strikes me is the 'fatwa' about girls being able to be married at any ages. What the actual heck is that about. I call a farce, either by the site/sites or by that Mufti himself, because that is moronic. Now to your question, if all those conditions are met then yes it does (in extremely rare conditions I may add), except for the fact that how many of us would trust an eight year old to make that decision?

It's a male dominated society no? Presumably the father will make the decision as to when his daughter is ready and his word will be trusted. Apparently the clerics are ok with the practice in general so I can't see why they would object if the father says it's ok. It is used to settle debts, join families etc. no?

Besides, 1400 years ago science was not advanced, the whole idea of puberty was still assumed in basic ways, and as we know it can be more complicated than that. In addition just because something satisfies the criteria does not mean it is something to be practised. In fact, it is even mentioned (something I should have said earlier actually) Aisha was a very special case in herself. Regardless of the age she was married at, she was the youngest girl to have ever been married to the Prophet. The scholars all acknowledge that she was a special case. Any other wife the Prophet had had had been well into their 20s, 30s or even 40. Moving on from that, there is also the consideration to take into account the world 1400 years ago. Marriage at 9 was perfectly acceptable AND normal until only a few centuries ago. I find it rather strange how none of the thousands and thousands of people who followed a similar practise (if indeed it was nine) are not called rapists or paedophiles. This was the norm of the time. In fact, was not King John married to a 12 year old a few centuries later?

Not to put to fine a point on it, but I don't care about what happened 1400 years ago or 100 years ago, I'm concerned about today and the practice is still going on today. People did what they did back in the day according to the customs and norms of the time. But apparently in Saudi Arabia it's perfectly normal according to those that wield the real power.

Lastly, and I do need to make this point clearly: there is NOTHING in Islam that says to get married at stupidly young ages. People like to pick a little detail here and there and make a massive mountain out of it, disregarding all other facts, laws, etc. The enemies of Muhammad himself called him out on dozens of things, but on his marriage of a young girl (teenager or not) was not called into question. And on the flip side, this question of Aishas age is being looked at a lot more now, trying to get a much clearer idea from all the narrations from 1400 years or so ago.

Saudi Arabia is not a small country and children marrying grown men is not a little detail here or there. You laid out the criteria for this practice being acceptable under Islam and Saudi Arabia fulfils that criteria. Dismissing what happened 1400 years ago as ancient history is fine, but when the practice is still going on today you have to realize that people are going to question whether that history is really ancient or not and rightfully so.

 

[ECGadget]

@Johnnypenso I am not knocking your intentions, do not get me wrong. Child abuse is massive in the world, and people find any excuses for it and we must stop it as good humans. As for the Fathers word, I see where you are coming from but that is actually not Islamic. The father may say 'the girl can be married' but until that girl does not say it herself that she wants to get married then in Islam that is not binding. But yes, sadly this is a practised thing. As for marriage to join families, well that is fair enough (again given the girl is happy to marry) but to solve debts etc is again against Islam because a women is not an object to just toss around. She is a human being that needs love, care and has her own rights, the biggest one being the right to say 'no' to anything. I don't agree one bit that a girl should be married as soon as she hits the age of puberty. Yes, to set a minimum age law and say 'this is shariah' is debatably incorrect, BUT to say as a state law that there is a minimum age in order to protect potential victims seems 100% right to me. At the end of the day, if guys are marrying young girls because they are 'hot' then they are missing the point of marriage, and importantly the point of marriage in Islam so they are in many ways twisting the teachings for their own horrible benefits.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Not to put to fine a point on it, but I don't care about what happened 1400 years ago or 100 years ago, I'm concerned about today and the practice is still going on today.

Fair enough, it's a shame that more people can't see the difference.

People did what they did back in the day according to the customs and norms of the time. But apparently in Saudi Arabia it's perfectly normal according to those that wield the real power..

Given that this is an Islam thread would I be right in thinking that you're perpetuating the idea that child marriage is only a problem for Islamic countries? What about Orthodox Christian countries (which have the same "rules" as the 1st Millenium qu'uran for marriage) and where those traditions continue to this day?

 

[Johnnypenso]

Given that this is an Islam thread would I be right in thinking that you're perpetuating the idea that child marriage is only a problem for Islamic countries? What about Orthodox Christian countries (which have the same "rules" as the 1st Millenium qu'uran for marriage) and where those traditions continue to this day?

Nope.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Nope.

You quoted the second question, I presume at least that you think it is a problem when it's part of a national Christian Orthodoxy?

 

[Johnnypenso]

You quoted the second question, I presume at least that you think it is a problem when it's part of a national Christian Orthodoxy?

What does the national Christian Orthodoxy have to do with a thread about Islam? I'm sure there's a thread for that somewhere.

 

[TenEightyOne]

What does the national Christian Orthodoxy have to do with a thread about Islam?

It has just as little to do with modern Islam as Saudi child-marriage practices do. You said yourself that

I don't care about what happened 1400 years ago or 100 years ago, I'm concerned about today

which I quite agree with. Where I think you got mixed up was when you said

You laid out the criteria for this practice being acceptable under Islam and Saudi Arabia fulfils that criteria. Dismissing what happened 1400 years ago as ancient history is fine...

The point is that Islam (in many ways a copy of a precursor, Christianity) doesn't legalise child marriage just because some Islamic states of modern times choose themselves to do so or because the Quran is a 1st Millenium story with 1st Millenium societal values. The same is true of Christianity, it doesn't legalise child marriage (despite it being biblically acceptable) just because some Christian states of modern times do.

...but when the practice is still going on today you have to realize that people are going to question whether that history is really ancient or not and rightfully so.

Which in the circumstances is a question about state legislation, not biblical/quranic interpretation.

 

[FoRiZon]

On the other news, critisize Saudi Government there and face in jail.

Thats not in Islam, isnt it? Their politics has nothing to do with Islam.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Did Muhammad (pbuh) marry Aisha when she was nine? That is actually debatable for starters. This is history we are talking about after all and there are certain contradictions in some circumstances.

It's worth noting that over the course of human history, our life expectancy has gotten longer and longer. Because of this, we enter puberty later and later. Look at Romeo and Juliet - modern interpretations cast the character as being maybe sixteen years old, but at its time of publication in the late sixteenth century, they would have been no older than thirteen.

I am a little fuzzy on the exact date, but my understanding is that Islam was founded over a millennia ago. Is it really so difficult to imagine that everyone would have entered puberty "early" (by our standards) given that the average life expectancy would probably have bern about forty years?

 

[McLaren]

On the other news, critisize Saudi Government there and face in jail.

Thats not in Islam, isnt it? Their politics has nothing to do with Islam.

Depends on if it is considered blasphemy or not. The religion doesn't dictate a punishment, but varying leaders apparently do & interpret their own punishments b/c they believe certain passages allow it.

This isn't a Saudi issue, though. Pakistan turned down the same bill for the exact same reasons; the religion allows underage marriage/sex, thus the law should allow it. The problem is these councils won't even listen to other concerned Muslims about this, b/c they seem to believe it goes against what Muhammad did. They just disregard the people & then retort that the issue can no longer be brought up afterwards. Pakistan's council does not even have any actual authority, but its governing body takes what the council says into consideration.

I'm understanding that the religion is all about context and interpreting the intended message, but several countries that follow Islam have too many people at the head of power who interpret the religion how they see fit, and thus, dictate that their citizens adhere to their interpretations. They appear to just take parts of the Qur'an literally. It's at least 1 common ground between them & the US; too many old dudes that need to step down and let a new generation in that's more in line with the masses.